Dear phanto,

The problem with this suggestion of yours is that it removes any element of certainty.

<<By using the definition of a de facto couple for all couples married or de facto. This would give everyone equal rights in the eyes of the government which should be their intention.>>

I would invite you to read s 4AA of the Family Law Act 1975. It is somewhat vague and leaves much discretion to judges, who may decide that certain elements were not fulfilled even though they may have been. Nor is it of any use in emergency situations.

<<If marriage is a contract between the couple and the government what is in it for the government?>>

Marriage is a contract between the married couple, not the couple and the government. The State merely has jurisdiction over the contract, just as the Judiciary has jurisdiction over other contractual arrangements.

Philips:

“Nor is it of any use in emergency situations.”

So in emergency situations they just let members of a de facto couple die? What if you don’t have your marriage certificate on you when there is an emergency? Do they demand proof? Why should de facto couples be punished in this way? Sounds very inhuman to me. You would have de facto couples marry just so they can receive equal treatment in emergencies?

If marriage is a contract between two people then why does the government need to be involved? They are not involved in every other contract that happens between two people why this one in particular? Why do they need to be the brokers of such contracts?

Dear phanto,

I am not sure how your good self could derive such a question from what I have said.

<<So in emergency situations they just let members of a de facto couple die?>>

No, I’m sure the next of kin would be contacted, which may be an immediate family member. But you would need to clarify what type of situation you are referring to. Not all emergency situations require life-saving decisions from the partner or next-of-kin.

<<What if you don’t have your marriage certificate on you when there is an emergency?>>

Identification may be requested. Usually word of mouth is enough, though. If a de facto partner lied, however, then they could face serious charges later on.

<<Do they demand proof?>>

I think identification is may be requested in certain situations. Until you specify a precise scenario, though, I cannot comment too much; and even then, this is not my area of law. I would recommend you contact someone who specialises in family law, if you are concerned.

<<Why should de facto couples be punished in this way?>>

It is not a punishment. The reason for the discretion is because not all de facto couples have agreed to the rights and responsibilities that come with a marriage.

‘De facto’ is a very broad category of relationship. It ranges from a pair of horny teenagers who have shacked up together coz mum and dad suck and they wanna smoke weed, to a couple committed for life. Marriage is a universal and standardised means of promptly communicating the difference in a way that is immediately recognisable to everyone, which is why it is discriminatory to not allow same-sex couples the right, and why your suggested alternative would not be workable.

<<You would have de facto couples marry just so they can receive equal treatment in emergencies?>>

Yes, I would, and for the reasons stated above.

<<If marriage is a contract between two people then why does the government need to be involved?>>

Because they are the only ones who can legislate for it, as is the case for any statute-governed contract.

Philips:

That is enough ‘whack-a-mole’ for now. It is plainly obvious that you do not believe in justice for couples other than married ones. You do not believe any other couple should be treated by the government with the same advantages simply and for no other reason that they do not possess a government issued marriage certificate.

You want everyone to marry in order to get what they should have a right to. You want justice to be conditional upon the possession of a marriage licence and justice should never be conditional.

However it is not marriage that you are seeking to protect. You argue for the condition of marriage to be protected so that there is an argument in favour of same-sex marriage. Of course your advocacy for SSM is not based on any concern for homosexuals but rather you concern to punish Christians.

Dear phanto,

Thank you for the discussion. I feel we made more ground by maintaining civil in that last round of exchanges than we ever have before.

<<It is plainly obvious that you do not believe in justice for couples other than married ones.>>

As I had stated earlier, if de facto couples want the same rights as married couples, then they need only marry. I do not think this is too much to ask for, given the need to differentiate between the untoward pair of hypothetical teenagers I mentioned and the couple committed for life. Not to mention the ramifications of not correctly differentiating between the two in certain situations.

<<You want everyone to marry in order to get what they should have a right to.>>

But not all should have the right to the same privileges. I refer you back to my hypothetical, untoward pair of teenagers.

<<You want justice to be conditional upon the possession of a marriage licence and justice should never be conditional.>>

Indeed, justice should never be conditional. Which is why I think same-sex couples should have access to the option of marriage.

<<However it is not marriage that you are seeking to protect.>>

Indeed it is. I think the option of marriage is important for the purposes of equity. For if marriage did not exist, poorer couples, who could not afford lawyers, would be at a disadvantage.

<<Of course your advocacy for SSM is not based on any concern for homosexuals but rather you concern to punish Christians.>>

I have not mentioned Christianity at all. Please remember that I had addressed this concern of yours at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7844&page=0#242441. Had this been my motivation, one would think that I would find it irresistible to mention Christianity in my arguments, yet I never seem to.

Remember, too, that I had recently challenged you to remain civil because I suspected that the weaknesses in your position compelled you to rely on the eventual use of ad hominems. Please do not be in a rush to prove me right.

Hi Phanto,

Maybe a marriage is a contract between a man and a woman, overseen and celebrated by the State via its celebrants, and in accordance with the relevant legislation.

AJ, some de facto couples are already married to others, so another marriage would breach bigamy legislation. It's a funny old world.

Joe