We all know how it goes. Boy meets girl. Dinner, movies, moonlit walks. A little while later they move in together. A few years down the track comes the wedding. For better or worse, richer or poorer. A life wholly shared.
It makes sense doesn’t it? Get to know each other, try it out. When the time is right, make a commitment. Unfortunately, this heart-warming sequence will soon be a thing of the past.
Now, Kevin and Co. decide when it’s time for you to tie the knot. Under an amendment to the Family Law Act passed though the Senate on Monday, de facto couples will have the same rights as married couples to seek ‘spousal maintenance’ in the Family Court. This means if you live under the same roof, or have a long term relationship, and break up – it won’t just be the CD collection you’ll be fighting over.
If you move into your boyfriend’s place to save on rent, or date a girl on and off for years, watch out. In the eyes of the law you’re as good as hitched.
The new rite of passage for misty-eyed couples just embarking on the beginning of their relationship won’t be their first holiday overseas, or perhaps buying a fridge together. It will be a trip to the lawyer’s office to sign a co-habitation agreement so you can’t touch each other’s super if it all goes sour.
Tabloid readers thinking of straying might have started thinking twice after picking up their paper today. The Daily Telegraph and the Herald Sun warn that the new law applies even if one partner is already married, or simultaneously engaged in multiple de facto relationships. Philandering husbands face having to pay out half their live savings to jilted mistresses, and family lawyer Paul Hopgood warns that a lot of people are in de facto relationships without even knowing it.
The new legislation also devalues the institution of marriage. 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?
So why do both the government and opposition think they know better than us when it’s time to commit? Liberal Senator George Brandis argued that the bill “enshrines the principle of the equality of treatment of same-sex couples and de facto heterosexual couples”. This sentiment seems perfectly reasonable – why shouldn’t committed homosexual couples have the same rights to share in their partners assets as heterosexual couples?
But the key has to be deciding to make that commitment. Any couple – gay or straight – should be able to make the decision to share their life together, but the government should not be making that decision for them.
Jessica Brown is a Policy Analyst at the Centre for Independent Studies.
Something to bear in mind?
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/
“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.
“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)
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????