Reply With Quotelsemmens (31-08-17)
From the FindLaw Australia website at .Originally Posted by oceanboy
How are Same-Sex Couples Recognised in Australian law?
by The FindLaw Team
Australia may not extend marriage and adoption rights to same-sex couples, however, under the numerous State and Federal laws, a couple who is in a same-sex relationship for all intents and purposes have the same rights as those who are in a legally recognised marriage. Whether it is property, parental or estate rights, individuals whom are in a committed, intimate relationship are protected in Australian law.
Victoria’s Statute Law Amendment (Relationships) Act encapsulates the statutory in recognising the equal status of same-sex couples which is reflected in the purpose and object of the Act:
(2) The object of this Act is to recognise the rights and obligations of partners in domestic relationships where there is mutual commitment to an intimate personal relationship and shared life as a couple, irrespective of the gender of each partner.
(3) It is a further object of this Act to prevent discrimination under legislation specified in the Schedules by ensuring that all couples irrespective of gender have the same rights and obligations while at the same time recognising the importance of a commitment to a long term relationship and the security of children.
State and Federal laws are also blind to the gender of a couple, only making reference to two individuals who are in a committed relationship. Although, it should be noted that in the New South Wales Property (Relationships) Act, reference is made to two adults, whilst in the Commonwealth Act, there is no division made between an adult or juvenile coupling.
Both State and Federal laws have categorically recognised the rights of individuals in same-sex relationships. A good example of how same-sex relationships have been recognised in Australia is by looking at the construction of s 4AA(2) of the Commonwealth Family Law Act and s 4(2) of the Property (Relationships) Act in New South Wales which could be interchangeable with one another in the language used. In order for a couple who is in a same-sex relationship to prove they are legal de facto relationship, the following factors must be taken into account:
the length of the relationship
the nature and extent of common residence
the existence of a sexual relationship
the dependence, interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support
the ownership, acquisition, and use of property
the degree of a mutual commitment to a shared life
the care and support of children the performance of household duties
the reputation and public aspects of the relationship.
Same-sex relationships may also be legally registered in the States as evidence that a couple is in a committed relationship, although this is not mandatory. In both State and Federal law, proving a couple is in a de facto relationship is dependent on a number of factors, which may include the opening of joint bank accounts, purchasing property together, photographs, recognising each other as the next of kin, or listing the person as an emergency contact.
lsemmens (31-08-17)
Oh my ....yep OK...These semantics are getting ridiculous so I guess I'll concede. Shorten lost, so there should be no legislation until after the next election, as he stated.
I would say if he wins, but he would have to do an imitation of Barnaby to lose I think, considering the shattering of the government.
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
There is a fine line between "Hobby" and "Madness"
Please find a report from a reputable source. Gillian Triggs and the contemptible body she lead so badly for so long do not qualify in this regard.
Last edited by DB44; 31-08-17 at 06:20 PM.
What I'm advocating is that voting NO out of spite because you are sick and tired of the topic, even if you agree that they should have the right to marry, or don't really care whether they should do or not, is a pointless gesture. That's it, that's what I am saying, no inference to anything else, full stop...... end of story.... finito....
Your question mark appeared to indicate a rhetorical question, implying that it was a statement, indicating that you disagreed with some point you may have read into what I said.
DB44, think that is a bit rough, as her position was politicized because it didn't fit the particular power at that time
I don't think she was any one's idiot, i think she is a professor ?
I would prefer a academic over ANY politician any day, as long as they are not academic fvck wits
There is a fine line between "Hobby" and "Madness"
Gee allover, I always expect you to be better read than this...she's a hypocrite of the first order....none of the statements in this article are in dispute by anyone..academics can be just as disgusting as politicians....I've known many (academics and politicians both), although none as coldly nazi like as this woman sounds. You've taken to defending a real gem mate...DB44, think that is a bit rough, as her position was politicized because it didn't fit the particular power at that time
I don't think she was any one's idiot, i think she is a professor ?
I would prefer a academic over ANY politician any day, as long as they are not academic fvck wits
This is, after all, the woman who did not begin an inquiry into children in detention until well after the end of the Rudd-Gillard years, the era in which people-smugglers were given a virtual green light to lure a record 2000 children into imprisonment and dozens more to their deaths at sea.
No, it was only after the Abbott Government successfully stopped the boats and freed almost all the children – fewer than 200 children are currently waiting for placement in community care – Prof Triggs decided to act.
Then there were her frankly laughable claims last year that John Basikbasik, a violent Indonesian thug who’d entered Australia illegally and later killed his pregnant partner with a child’s bicycle, be freed from detention and – here’s the rub – compensated $350,000 for his time in incarceration.
But it’s Prof Triggs’ description of one of her own children that is causing distress among some in the disability community.
In 2013, Prof Triggs was the subject of a profile piece in a Fairfax newspaper in which she openly spoke about her late daughter, Victoria, who was born in 1984 with the debilitating chromosomal disorder, Edwards syndrome.
“Victoria was as severely retarded as anyone who is still alive can be,” Prof Triggs said. “It sounds terrible, but I’d look at Victoria and think: ‘Well, you’re going to die, so I’m not going to invest too much in you’.”
When Victoria was six months old, Prof Triggs and her then partner handed the baby’s care over to another family until the girl died, many years later, aged 21.
Prof Triggs justified their decision thus: “I simply made the judgment that I would rather put my time into my other children and family, because I also never believed she would live to that age.”
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
Mate. She is certainly no idiot, but I regard her as a politician and an extremist activist one at that rather than an academic. Sadly, that is true of many academics these days. The Human Rights Commission under her watch became a partisan activist organisation, and many of its reports and other findings reflect this. Personally I regard them as worthless. Others of course differ, as is their right.DB44, think that is a bit rough, as her position was politicized because it didn't fit the particular power at that time
I don't think she was any one's idiot, i think she is a professor ?
I would prefer a academic over ANY politician any day, as long as they are not academic fvck wits
You may notice a small NO at the top of the forum.
As every other organisation in this country that has nothing to do with the issue is forcing their views on others, allow me to do the same to youThats equality isnt it ?
If you wish to vote in out poll, do so here
BTW, if you don't agree with gay marriage, watch what you say. $12,000 fines have been approved.
The YES camp are calling for these fines to be made permanent and incorporated in to our already draconian 18C "no free speech" laws.
Those who do dare oppose gay marriage and somehow manage to get heard still risk being sued (this is PRIOR to the above new fines)
The Catholic Archbishop of Hobart has already been ordered by Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Tribunal to show why he should be allowed to keep preaching, and now two more preachers — one a Presbyterian pastor — have been taken to the tribunal by another same-sex marriage activist.
I find it astounding that people are prepared to vote Yes, without knowing what laws (new and old) it will affect.
What utter garbage.
A carefully scripted piece of propaganda by Triggs and Co.. You do realise you could apply most of that to just about anyone dont you ?
Fodder for the gullible. And there are plenty around to eat it.
One guess who would be trying to buy up the surveys, absolutely pathetic
Even funnier is the Yes campaigners who post pics of their vote on social media, showing the bar code and rendering them invalid.
Shhhhhh...don't criticise them, encourage them......
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
he he he , agreed, but others have now told them unfortunately. It would have been funny if they had of mass promoted it.
Why isn't there still going to be a "free" vote in parliament if the national vote comes up No - only if it comes up yes.
As we know the parliament will not be bound by the outcome of the national vote if it is 'Yes" and will be a free vote. Some politicians have already indicated they will vote "yes" or vote "no" irrespective of the national vote. Others have said they will follow the outcome of the national vote and others have said that they will follow the vote in their electorate. So really the outcome of the national vote will inform the last two.
So if the national vote is "yes" there will be a parliamentary vote so if the national vote is "no" why is there no parliamentary vote - parliamentarians are not bound in either case.
Warning. I will answer your question, but then rant!
There is no need for Parliament to vote unless the law is to be changed. If there is a no vote and Parliament respects the result no law change is necessary. Unfortunately it looks like no one will be respecting this result. Unless there is a very high turnout who vote and there is no significant rorting it is little more than an opinion poll. Even if 99% vote and there is no rorting I don't expect the Yes lobby to accept a No. The no voters possibly would reluctantly accept a yes on that sort of turnout. If there is only a 50% turnout no one will accept it. Having said this, it would still be a brave politician who implemented SSM legislation after a no vote, though Shorten may well go to the next election with this as his policy and then claim a mandate.
The sad thing at the moment is that many yes voters should rationally be voting no in any event. This is because none of us can really know what we are voting for as there is no draft Bill. As John Howard pointed out, we have no acceptable assurance on safeguards. Both Turnbull and Shorten have assured us that religious freedom will be protected, but neither has shown us draft provisions or even indicated how far such protections will extend. And quite frankly, if either of these gentleman told me it was raining I would be going outside to check. And, of course, what about protection of Freedom of Speech. Not only does this seem to have been lost so far as any assurances, but the Libs have passed further legislation attacking free speech in the context of this debate. And, of course, what about protections from the Safe Schools morons who will no doubt want to implement the program Australia Wide once Society eliminates all distinctions between same sex and heterosexual couples. One previously highly rated school in the UK failed an inspection after SSM became law there. The reason? It was not doing enough to promote homosexuality amongst its students!
Last edited by DB44; 17-09-17 at 03:24 PM.
I still fail to see what the problem is....
Forget this stupid poll, which no one is going to accept.
Next election, every politician declares openly whether they are YES or NO. Then we see who gets elected.....simple! Unless of course you are afraid of the people, in which case we keep going down this useless road. Then legislation can be drafted and debated in an attempt to minimise whatever unintended consequences (which there WILL be, there always are) might crop up.
Get elected on a "yes" vote then see what happens at the following election if you change to "no". Again, unless you are afraid of the people.
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
I hear Australia Post may be having problems delivering the Plebiscite Survey voting forms ?
some people say they have received it voted & return posted it,
other people in the same household have not received theirs yet .... & are wondering why ? .... if it is lost or stolen ? .... & wondering if they will be believed if they say they have not received theirs yet ?
And possibly nothing anyone can do ? ..... resulting in an inaccurate result whatever the outcome ?
Last edited by OSIRUS; 17-09-17 at 08:40 PM.
Become a Premium Member and support the Austech Forum
Spot on !
and in social media I've seen too many who will vote irrationally, mostly the yes voters.
They are voting with their heart and not their head, as in "love is love". Do they even know what love is ? , there are many different kinds of love.
Marriage is very special, if SSM eventually gets in, I feel it will cheapen marriage to common and ordinary.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks