Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > A heterosexual couple who is simply cohabiting, frex, can break up and go > their separate ways at any time, whereas if they are legally married, they > must go through the often messy process of obtaining a legal divorce, > dividing up the property, etc. OTOH, because they are not married, frex, > if one becomes ill the other is not considered "family" for visiting and > decision-making purposes. I don't know exactly how the proposed law is > written, but is it possible it would give them all the advantages of being > married without some of the disadvantages, such as long-term commitment?
Here in Australia, defacto couples of any gender have much the same rights. Not the same as married couples, but non-the-less do receive official recognition. There is provision for dividing up property when splitting up and for maintenance of children. In many situations they are also covered for workcover, superannuation benefits, etc. http://www.liv.asn.au/public/general/defacto/ __________________________________________________________________________ The term "domestic partner" has now been introduced into the laws dealing with property disputes, compensation schemes, superannuation schemes, health, criminal law, consumers and business. As a result all de facto couples, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual have the same legal rights and liabilities. The only exceptions to this general rule are that only heterosexual couples can adopt a child, (in special circumstances an order may be made in favour of one person) and only a woman living with a man can have access to IVF procedures. De facto couples do not have the same rights and obligations as couples who are legally married. It is important for anyone living in a defacto relationship to seek legal advice to secure his or her position. ___________________________________________________________________________ Regards, Ray. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
