An Auzzie sent this to me recently. Now the government there has officially become a matriarchy (perhaps they were previously though). What else can one say when they enact laws that a man has a financial obligation to both wife and mistress–in those rare instances when a married man has one. At any rate, why do there have to be any economic penalties in relationships that do not produce children? What involving a woman is a man NOT responsible for?
“NEW laws that start today leave cheating husbands open to divorce-style litigation from their mistresses, who can now claim income maintenance, property and even superannuation funds.
The Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures), dubbed the “mistress laws”, were passed by the Senate last November. The main objective is to remove same-sex discrimination from the Family Court system, but they have left the door open for a raft of de facto relationship claims. The laws declare that de facto couples who satisfy basic criteria – such as being in the relationship for at least two years – will be treated in the Family Court in the same way as a married couple. It also applies to same-sex couples.
The laws will change the way property is divided by enabling the court to consider the “future needs” of partners, as it does for married couples.Men or women who have a second relationship outside a marriage are now liable to legal action in the Family Court should the second partner decide he or she deserves income support or a share of assets. This is particularly the case if a child is involved. Currently in NSW there is no general right to such maintenance for those in de facto relationships who feel they have a right to financial support or assets.Major law firms have already been asked for advice on the new laws, from those involved in more than one relationship and long-term de facto couples, who now want to protect their property.”
Cheating husbands now face more than the cost of a divorce: their mistresses will also be able to get maintenance payments when things turn sour. Family Law Act reforms entitling de facto partners of two years or longer to the same rights as married couples stipulate that such a relationship can exist even if one of the partners is already married, the Courier-Mail reports.
Family lawyer Paul Hopgood said living together was not a requirement to qualify under the new rules. “You don’t have to live in the same house and under the same roof to be a de facto,” the Courier-Mail quoted him as saying. “A lot of people are living in de facto relationships and don’t think they are.”
Just ran across this lady. Obviously, her views and ours don’t match completely but we could use some allies. She has a new book coming out soon called Sexless: Why Modern Feminism Isn’t Making Real Women Happy.
Personal is Political Spoof on Plastic Surgery
Great send-up of the rampant racial paranoia plaguing Skip Gates.from AlfonZo Rachel.