Comments on: Boy meets girl (etc) … Senate does the hitching

By: Colin & Robyn

Colin & Robyn — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Something to bear in mind?

By: bev

bev — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I think some people rush into marriage, perhaps getting to know some one takes awhile me myself was not happy about getting married, I did not really feel happy with my partner , but I was to scared to call of the marriage, because I worried what people might think, and my mother wanted grand children where I was not quite sure even though I loved children, so I went ahead. So I would warn anyone not to be afraid to speak out/

By: laurel

laurel — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

“Why would anyone decide to get married when a de facto arrangement automatically gives you the same rights as a couple who have walked down the aisle and signed on the dotted line?”

Erm, to my knowledge, none of the many weddings I’ve been to were entered into in order to obtain further rights at law!?? For most, marriage is a symbolic affair, and no longer a necessary condition to moving in together and committing to each other.

People who are already living together, have purchased fridges etc and who have together entered into a ginormous 30 year mortgage with their partner are in little doubt about their commitment to each other. In fact, because people tend to live together, share funds etc, for a number of years before marrying (and do not tend to put in place any provision for break-up) is even more reason for legislative presumptions and procedures that make break-ups (should they occur) and the nasty splitting of assets perhaps a little easier.

By: steve martin

steve martin — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

“The Daily Telegraph and the Herald Sun warn that the new law applies even if one partner is already married” - I don’t know about Jessica Brown, but I wouldn’t rely on a newspaper to give me legal advice. It seems a general rule that newspapers highlight the more extreme view on just about anything that is controversial. (It sells papers)

By: Jenny

Jenny — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I was stunned to hear of a successful $40k claim by a woman who occasionally lived with her boyfriend over a 6-year period. She met someone else and left the relationship but was reimbursed for her fiscal and other contributions to the relationship. Is Kevin going overboard with the conservative policies because the end result is casual sex, no commitment and relationship avoidance. Not to mention the increased demand for rental housing! PS the new relationship is now sealed with a contract over which the pair fight because neither feels secure????

By: stu

stu — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

what a bizarre piece of thinly-disguised neo-con homophobic nonsense! legal protection of your economic interests in a partnership is hardly the same as being told by the state to get married - or is Jessica revealing her own jaundiced view of the institution?

"Any couple – gay or straight – should be able to make the decision to share their life together" um,err..isn't that exactly what people are doing by moving in together Jessica?? they don't receive a call from the PM or Attorney General. What the govt does is granting people legal rights. it is not taking anything away.

ANd good to know too that the Centre for Independent Studies uses News Ltd tabloids for legal research purposes.