Look at this nonsense

[Hooligan Harry]

PHILANDERING husbands could be forced by the courts to continue paying mistresses after the affairs end.
The scenario is one of a raft of controversial outcomes set to arise from new laws covering failed de facto relationships that will take effect early next year.

Under reforms to the Family Law Act, de facto partners together for two years will be given the same rights as married couples to seek "spousal maintenance" claims in federal family law courts.

Maintenance, as distinct from child support, may be ordered to be paid by an ex-partner when the other party is "unable to support herself or himself adequately" following separation.

But legal experts warn the amended Act – passed in the Senate on Monday – opens the definition of a de facto couple to wide interpretation.

The legislation prescribes a de facto relationship as an opposite-sex or same-sex couple "living together on a genuine domestic basis".

Yet it also stipulates that a de facto alliance can exist even if one of the partners is legally married to somebody else or in another de facto relationship.

Veteran family lawyer Paul Hopgood said the door was ajar for jilted lovers from extra-marital affairs to seek maintenance orders.

"I get high-profile people from around town saying, `I'm having an (affair) with so and so. I wine and dine her and take her on holidays. I look after her and it's been going on for five years. But I'm safe – she hasn't got the key to my house'.

"You don't have to live in the same house and under the same roof to be a de facto (partner)."



The Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Act aims to end discrimination in the way married and unmarried couples are treated following separation.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24639686-5006301,00.html

Why would any sane man want to commit to any woman these days? This has gone beyond ridiculous

 

[ketostix]

This is an example of legislation from a typical liberal/Democrat (U.S.)/socialist.

 

[jophil28]

This is an example of legislation from a typical liberal/Democrat (U.S.)/socialist.[/QUOT

We have plenty of them down here too.
It seems that loonie leftist thinking has infected our government to the extent that most State Governments down here are implementing a "nanny state" as vigorously as they can inspite of the objections and the contempt that is poured upon the idea by the more rational amongst our citizenry..

 

[squirrels]

This is an example of legislation from a typical liberal/Democrat (U.S.)/socialist.

Look at the news source. This is Aussie BS. Those poor bastards lost their rights as human beings a long time ago. The US hasn't gotten there yet. Obama's not President until January.

At any rate, if you're supporting a woman to the point where she relies on your gifts and overtures to maintain a lifestyle, then you're being used anyway. Consider this a "punishment for being a chump".

 

[puma183]

So let me get this straight, after I date my LTR for 2 years, she can take me to court and claim half my assets? What time does the clock start ticking? After the first kiss, first intercourse, first "I love you"?

So an LTR can sue lifetime alimony on you because she got accustomed to a certain lifestyle during the dating period? Court ordered: 1 free romantic dinner for two per week, every week for the rest of your life. Plus a romantic vacation for two every summer, for hte rest of your life. Of course she will be having those dinners with someone else, not you.

 

[STR8UP]

The word "de facto" scares me.

And people wonder why I am a so called "pessimist".

 

[ketostix]

Look at the news source. This is Aussie BS. Those poor bastards lost their rights as human beings a long time ago. The US hasn't gotten there yet. Obama's not President until January.

Well it'll happen here just a little slower. Because you know, we have a world "community" and if Europe becomes socialist, by god the U.S. has to also!

At any rate, if you're supporting a woman to the point where she relies on your gifts and overtures to maintain a lifestyle, then you're being used anyway. Consider this a "punishment for being a chump".

Actually this legislation also says that if you cheat on your "de facto wife" with a mistress you should pay your de facto (notice it can never be mistress's fault, or your de facto's either). All that is required to be shakin down is A. be male, B. have sex C. have any money. It's just pure sexism and redistribution from one group to another because liberals are sexists and redistributors. But in this case it's not even as "noble" as redistibution, it's reparation.

 

[jophil28]

Well it'll happen here just a little slower. Because you know, we have a world "community" and if Europe becomes socialist, by god the U.S. has to also!



Actually this legislation also says that if you cheat on your "de facto wife" with a mistress you should pay your de facto (notice it can never be mistress's fault, or your de facto's either). All that is required to be shakin down is A. be male, B. have sex C. have any money. It's just pure sexism and redistribution from one group to another because liberals are sexists and redistributors. But in this case it's not even as "noble" as redistibution, it's reparation.

\

A couple of things.

Australia is an HUGE Asian country ( at least geographically ) which is floating around in the south Pacific..You might be confused with Austria which is in the frickin' middle of western Europe.

Secondly. The definition of "de facto" for the purpose of the legislation and the Family Law Act does NOT include the requirement that the relationship be sexual. Think about the implications of THAT for a minute.

 

[ketostix]

So let me get this straight, after I date my LTR for 2 years, she can take me to court and claim half my assets? What time does the clock start ticking? After the first kiss, first intercourse, first "I love you"?

That's like trying to figure out when life begins. It's simple to define really, they will define it in a way that best suits their purposes. It shall be retroactive from the ending point (the ending is key) to the first day you two met. You know that night the guy met his future LTR at a bar and she went home with some other guy? Then over a few weeks he starts seeing her off and on and they have a FB relationship for about 6 months, they take a break for 3 months, and start again and a month later are in a LTR (she cheats a couple times during this LTR period but no one knows about it ). They break up 2 months later but their 2 month LTR will be calculated as a year. That's how you work it!

 

[ketostix]

\

A couple of things.

Australia is an HUGE Asian country ( at least geographically ) which is floating around in the south Pacific..You might be confused with Austria which is in the frickin' middle of western Europe.

I'm very aware Australia is a continent in the South Pacific. I also understand that Australia is very similar to the U.S. in that it started out as primarily an English settlement. My point is they're both countries that are predominately European in populace. And they're all targeted the same as European/western cultures.

Secondly. The definition of "de facto" for the purpose of the legislation and the Family Law Act does NOT include the requirement that the relationship be sexual. Think about the implications of THAT for a minute.

Well I guess it shouldn't be too surprising they would word it ridiculously in their favor. But make no mistake the legislation is about a woman shaking down a man, and that's what I meant by sexually motivated.

 

[jophil28]

I'm very aware Australia is a continent in the South Pacific. I also understand that Australia is very similar to the U.S. in that it started out as primarily an English settlement. My point is they're both countries that are predominately European in populace. And they're all targeted the same as European/western cultures.

>>> Yep. In fact when your original white colonists started getting pissed at the British just before 1776 , the English dithered for a few years about where to send their convicts who were originally shipped to your east coast. Capt James Cook had navigated our East coast in 1776 so they started shipping them down here instead.. The first fleet arrived here in 1788.. The rest is history.
You ought o to visit with us sometime. Where I live is just like MIami FL without the Cubans..

Well I guess it shouldn't be too surprising they would word it ridiculously in their favor. But make no mistake the legislation is about a woman shaking down a man, and that's what I meant by sexually motivated.

Jophil

 

[ketostix]

Yep. In fact when your original white colonists started getting pissed at the British just before 1776 , the English dithered for a few years about where to send their convicts who were originally shipped to your east coast. Capt James Cook had navigated our East coast in 1776 so they started shipping them down here instead.. The first fleet arrived here in 1788..The rest is history.

I knew that the English sent their convicts to Australia, but never really thought about some of them came from the colonies. Sorry you guys got some convicts via America via England, but I'm sure most of those were more patriots of freedom and not really criminals. In the colonies they sent their convicts to Georgia and the south .

You ought to to visit with us sometime. Where I live is just like MIami FL without the Cubans..

Speaking of convincts and FL, Castro released his prisons and mental asylums into FL and the U.S. thanks to Pres. Carter. Australia has always been in my top 5 overseas places to visit. I like the warm weather like we have in the Southern U.S. I always hoped for Australia to be like America was in the 20's or even the 50's with freedom, so it's sad to hear that now it's less free than the U.S. is.

 

[jophil28]

I
I always hoped for Australia to be like America was in the 20's or even the 50's with freedom, so it's sad to hear that now it's less free than the U.S. is.

For the most part, Down Under would lookand feel just like home for " yo'all " .

 

[puma183]

I worked with many Aussies over the years. Smart, energetic, hardworking people.

I guess the dumb ones get to work in their government/legislature. :-/

 

[puma183]

I thought it worked like this: Employers must support ex-employees for life after they quit, because they got accustomed to their salaries.

No?

 

[Papillon]

Well it'll happen here just a little slower. Because you know, we have a world "community" and if Europe becomes socialist, by god the U.S. has to also!



Actually this legislation also says that if you cheat on your "de facto wife" with a mistress you should pay your de facto (notice it can never be mistress's fault, or your de facto's either). All that is required to be shakin down is A. be male, B. have sex C. have any money. It's just pure sexism and redistribution from one group to another because liberals are sexists and redistributors. But in this case it's not even as "noble" as redistibution, it's reparation.

There you have it. Redistribution from males to females. One research showed few years ago that females make around 85% of the purchasing decisions. That means the more money women have the more they will spend. Therefore our masters (a.k.a. governments) would rather take money and power away from men and give them to women. Like it or not, the Western World is slowly moving toward socialism. And women are the best friends of socialism. It was Marx’s theory (may he rot in hell) that as workers were used and abused by employers so women were used and abused by husbands. One of his goals was to have women married to the state and not to the men. Really. No kidding. So what we see is sexual Marxism. And make no mistake, it will get only worse before it gets any better.

 

[ketostix]

There you have it. Redistribution from males to females. One research showed few years ago that females make around 85% of the purchasing decisions. That means the more money women have the more they will spend. Therefore our masters (a.k.a. governments) would rather take money and power away from men and give them to women. Like it or not, the Western World is slowly moving toward socialism. And women are the best friends of socialism. It was Marx’s theory (may he rot in hell) that as workers were used and abused by employers so women were used and abused by husbands. One of his goals was to have women married to the state and not to the men. Really. No kidding. So what we see is sexual Marxism. And make no mistake, it will get only worse before it gets any better.

Absolutely. You know there are very few economic socialist who think government should regulate and control big industry and markets, "protectionist", etc. and who are also liberitarian or "conservative" and believe in strong personal rights and freedoms, but they are very few and I'm not saying their economics are necessarily right either. However, the VAST majority of socialist leaning people are Marxists and group and class proponents. This is the socialism we'll get, and no one should choose to give up all their freedom and rights to the government and it's favored group members in exchange for maybe a financially comfortable government job full of politics.