when it takes the FHOG from the government.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/23/1985822.htm
more at
The RiotAct
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/23/1985822.htm
more at
The RiotAct
when is a homosexual defacto relationship recognised ?
- Thread starter TheCamel
- Start date
But not when receiving alimony
www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflife/07/23/alimony.partnerships.ap/index.html
www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflife/07/23/alimony.partnerships.ap/index.html
I remember seeing a post in the following:
http://www.somersoft.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34281
Applicant’s spouse - A person is the spouse of an applicant if, on the commencement date of the eligible transaction to which the application relates, the person is legally married to the applicant or -
(a) The person with whom the applicant lives on a genuine domestic basis, although not legally married; and
(b) On the commencement date of the eligible transaction to which the application relates the person has lived on that basis with the applicant for at least two years.
I'd imagine that it would be no different to a hectrosexual couple. However, from the above, you could almost claim two friends living together is a defacto relationship. Although, I don't quite understand what they mean by "genuine domestic basis".
http://www.somersoft.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34281
Applicant’s spouse - A person is the spouse of an applicant if, on the commencement date of the eligible transaction to which the application relates, the person is legally married to the applicant or -
(a) The person with whom the applicant lives on a genuine domestic basis, although not legally married; and
(b) On the commencement date of the eligible transaction to which the application relates the person has lived on that basis with the applicant for at least two years.
I'd imagine that it would be no different to a hectrosexual couple. However, from the above, you could almost claim two friends living together is a defacto relationship. Although, I don't quite understand what they mean by "genuine domestic basis".
soooo - the government recognises the relationship when they save or recieve money from those in the relationship, but not if they have to give it.
makes sense - if you're the government
even tho i am as straight as they come, and have no openly gay friends in my small circle, i am looking forward to the day we are civilised enough as a people not to let the church dictate to the governement what is the basis of a recognised relationship.
makes sense - if you're the government
even tho i am as straight as they come, and have no openly gay friends in my small circle, i am looking forward to the day we are civilised enough as a people not to let the church dictate to the governement what is the basis of a recognised relationship.
Lizzie,
"Methinks thou dost protest too much"
Just joshing ya! Must be catching it off Geoff.
Yes it defintly should be overturned. Although I firmly firmly support the governments position here I dont think that they should be hypocritical. IF they dont recognise then they shouldnt recognise this sort of relationship period.
And also the gay person shouldnt try to rort the system. They cant fight for the right to be recognised in a legal relationship and then at the same time try to get the grant whilst in a relationship and claiming it is not... Cant have your cake and eat it too
And also the gay person shouldnt try to rort the system. They cant fight for the right to be recognised in a legal relationship and then at the same time try to get the grant whilst in a relationship and claiming it is not... Cant have your cake and eat it too
Thought I would throw in my 2c as a card carrying member of "the gays"
Hopefully this will now set a precedent and force another government agency to update their policies and include a little equality. Funny how they notice when it hits them in the pocket.
What I wouldn't give to be able to sign a piece of paper and have my relationship legally recognised by any government agency I come in contact with...... *sigh*
Some do, some don't and it's the not knowing that messes me around. Immigration does.... the tax office doesn't
Superannuation does (finally now)..... Centrelink doesn't
On the census I put relationship of Mrs A to Mrs B - Wife
Let their big computer figure it out.
R
Hopefully this will now set a precedent and force another government agency to update their policies and include a little equality. Funny how they notice when it hits them in the pocket.
What I wouldn't give to be able to sign a piece of paper and have my relationship legally recognised by any government agency I come in contact with...... *sigh*
Some do, some don't and it's the not knowing that messes me around. Immigration does.... the tax office doesn't
Superannuation does (finally now)..... Centrelink doesn't
On the census I put relationship of Mrs A to Mrs B - Wife
Let their big computer figure it out.
R
From Wikipedia (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_one's_cake_and_eat_it_too):
To wish to have one's cake and eat it too or simply have one's cake and eat it (sometimes eat one's cake and have it too) is to want more than one can handle or deserve, or to try to have two incompatible things. This is a popular English idiomatic proverb, or figure of speech.
The phrase's earliest recording is from 1546 as "wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?" (John Heywood's 'A dialogue Conteinyng the Nomber in Effect of All the Prouerbes in the Englishe Tongue') alluding to the impossibility of eating your cake and still having it afterwards; the modern version (where the clauses are reversed) is a corruption which was first signalled in 1812.
Comedian George Carlin once critiqued this idiom by saying, "When people say, 'Oh you just want to have your cake and eat it too.' What good is a cake you can't eat? What should I eat, someone else's cake instead?" Of course, in the original correct form (eat your cake and have it too), Carlin's critique does not apply.
Have Your Cake and Eat It Too is a book by Susan G. Purdy. Bob Dylan changed the phrase in his song "Lay Lady Lay" in the line: "You can have your cake and eat it, too." It is also in a song by the Jersey Boys.
To wish to have one's cake and eat it too or simply have one's cake and eat it (sometimes eat one's cake and have it too) is to want more than one can handle or deserve, or to try to have two incompatible things. This is a popular English idiomatic proverb, or figure of speech.
The phrase's earliest recording is from 1546 as "wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?" (John Heywood's 'A dialogue Conteinyng the Nomber in Effect of All the Prouerbes in the Englishe Tongue') alluding to the impossibility of eating your cake and still having it afterwards; the modern version (where the clauses are reversed) is a corruption which was first signalled in 1812.
Comedian George Carlin once critiqued this idiom by saying, "When people say, 'Oh you just want to have your cake and eat it too.' What good is a cake you can't eat? What should I eat, someone else's cake instead?" Of course, in the original correct form (eat your cake and have it too), Carlin's critique does not apply.
Have Your Cake and Eat It Too is a book by Susan G. Purdy. Bob Dylan changed the phrase in his song "Lay Lady Lay" in the line: "You can have your cake and eat it, too." It is also in a song by the Jersey Boys.
Last edited:
