Laws have gradually recognised same-sex couples as
defactos in Australia but there's some areas where
they are still not equal to married couples.
The following link explains:

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/why-samesex-couples-still-struggle-with-legal-recognition/news-story/730d8202ee2b19f6bd6cb60a331d9088

leoj,

Kindly explain your following statement to me:

"Because you and your partner are also
long term beneficiaries of "married" lurks and perks".

What lurks and perks are those that my husband and I
have been long term beneficiaries of?
Are they the same ones that you and your partner have
been getting? Perhaps we could compare to see who's
been the bigger long-term beneficiary as I imagine
that you and your partner are older.

Josephus, you claim that marriage as an institution in our western society is something that should remain totally unchallenged, a heterosexual union only, at the exclusion of all others. The belief is that heterosexual marriage has been the unquestioned accepted norm for centuries and should remain so. However, heterosexual marriage itself has undergone change, particularly the roll of women in marriage. the move away from a purely subservient placement for the good wife in many instances, to a position of equality. This relatively new standing for women in the modern marriage has come about despite the biblical dogma which places the wife in the position of a subservient chattel of the husband.
Do you go against biblical dogma, and accept women as equal in marriage, or are they merely an appendage pf man, as the bible would have us believe.

Dear Foxy,

Thank you for producing the list of outstanding hiccups in equal treatment of heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Yes, those hiccups need to be fixed - and once the institute of state-based legal marriage is abolished, equal treatment will automatically follow.

Regarding some specific points that were mentioned in the article:

«Superannuation funds are problematic because a trustee determines who gets the money and they don’t have to follow wishes expressed in a will»

This is very wrong and should indeed be fixed. Your superannuation is your own money and only you should decide what is to be done with it after your death.

«“If you look at the case law, you could have a will that leaves everything to your partner, but you can have siblings or other families that refuse to accept it was a defacto-like relationship.”»

Nothing new about greedy family-members who fail to accept your autonomy in regard to your money. Yet a will is a will and should be followed as written.

«But unlike heterosexual couples, gay and lesbian partners don’t have the option to clarify their relationship status via marriage.»

This option should not be available to anyone as the state should not involve itself with personal relationships.

«“Everyone should have the same status»

Exactly, like "citizen" or "permanent resident" - the word "marriage" or even "de-facto" should not be included in anyone's legal status.

«Without recognition of same-sex marriage, partners can be excluded from hospital visiting rights or exercising automatic medical power of attorney for one another.»

This should be fixed, but not through more state involvement.

«“I had to yell out in a busy, crazy emergency room, ‘She is my wife, I know it’s not legal but she is my wife!’”»

This will be solved and nobody will need yell any more once "wife" returns to be a natural description of affairs rather than a legal term.

Foxy,

Why should a single person be forced to contribute to, to subsidise, the love choices of others?

There is no denying that anyone who is able to claim 'married' status, which includes 'relationship' (de facto) is able to claim the array of entitlements that the AHRC has listed and you must agree, having posted the link in this thread.

Why should a single worker be subsidising through his/her taxes and through workplace agreements, to married entitlements that he/she is automatically excluded, barred from, because of his her/single status?

But singles are also being singled out to subsidise in other ways. For example, cheaper health fund for 'marrieds', a category vastly increased by Labor through expanded definitions of 'relationship' by Labor over the years.

Of course it goes without saying that the main beneficiaries have been the middle class. That is where your example of Ms Penny Wong and ors come in, of course. But there are many thousands the same in the public bureaucracies, university staff and of course politicians, to name some.

Now, that really IS discrimination. Why should individuals who just happen to be single, ie not in a State defined 'love relationship' they can take advantage of, be forced to subsidise the love squeezes of others? It is not fair, now is it and that AHRC list of entitlements that Gays should now be entitled to and getting (a beaut pay rise in effect and just for being 'married') makes it very obvious don't you think?

leoj, why are couples discriminated against when it comes to pensions. The single aged pension is $888.30 per f/nite. married couples are payed at the rate of $669.60 each per f/nite.