MaamJay
Posts: 2101
Joined: 9/2/2005
Status: offline
|
Pardon me for bringing some logic to this post. So you're saying that in Australia, two people who live apart but are engaged in a power exchange relationship signified by one partner wearing the collar of the other have a de facto marriage?
My, how things must differ down under.
John
Yes well, we're not all as backward as USA! If you had READ My earlier post, I quoted ALL the factors that are taken into account by the court when determining whether a de facto relationship exists between 2 people of SAME or DIFFERENT gender. YES, living together is ONE factor ... you're the one who introduced the "living apart" thing ... being collared doesn't mean you live apart?? But it is not the ONLY factor, all are considered together. Where people occupy 2 domiciles for various reasons (health, employment) but who retain their mutual commitment, public relationship etc (go back and read the other factors) they are still considered to be a couple legally and consequently their assets are split upon separation in exactly the same way as if they had been married.
From Googling "cases de facto couples living apart Australia" you will find any number of helpful documents, some of which I quote from below:
"In assessing a relationship, a number of factors other than periods of physical cohabitation are taken into account".
"A separation should not generally be accepted if the couple are living apart solely because of ill health or employment".
"In deciding whether a couple have separated, factors used to determine whether a marriage–like relationship exists are relevant".
"Wherever a written law of the State Government refers to a de facto relationship, it means a relationship (other than a legal marriage) between 2 people who live together in a marriage-like relationship. Where a written law refers to a “de facto partner” it means a person who lives or has lived in a de facto relationship with the other person. The definition applies to all couples. It makes no difference what sex or gender the people are. This includes gay, lesbian, transgender and intersex people. The definition still applies if one or both of the people is married to someone else, or in another de facto relationship. In 2003, a review of Western Australian laws gave people in de facto relationships an equal standing with married people in most cases.
The rights and responsibilities you may have as a de facto partner are defined under the various pieces of State legislation – for example, a de facto partner may be able to challenge a will, or object to a post mortem as senior next of kin". (Same for all other states except South Australia).
This has been introduced by the various states to get around our PM's ban on gay marriages (strange how Howard is Bush's best buddy!). OK, so the literal-minded will see that there is no mention of a collar. Hardly likely as the lifestyle isn't yet THAT public! But as, in the case of dispute, the lawyers and authorities would look for ANY evidence of mutual commitment, and public evidence of a relationship, it would be damned hard to argue that a collar, as physical/emotional evidence of a power exchange relationship, wasn't credible evidence of that level of commitment!
It's interesting to see that the law here can even cope with the notion that I could be in 2 de facto relationships simultaneously ... eg if Master, Myself and My sub (assuming she works out when she visits in a week) were to all be together for more than 2 years. And I'm still in these de facto relationships even though I am still legally married to My ex-hubby ... but I'm not about to let that linger on that long! It's only because I don't particularly want to have My lifestyle choice splashed around that I am waiting for the 12 months obvious physical separation before filing for divorce. However, we will also have to show that ALL those other factors no longer apply ie we're no longer are financially intertwined, have mutual commitment to a relationship, no public relationship etc etc. I could have made a good case for being separated under the main roof for more than 12 months with Master living under the same roof and being sexually active with me (and sharing my room), where My hubby and his shoes had his own room downstairs, especially when I stopped being sexual with him! But then Our cleaning lady and good friend would have been called to give evidence of the separate rooms etc and I wouldn't want to put her in that situation either. She was accepting enough as it was! And as We'd not yet sold the house, the finances weren't then sorted.
It is I who bring the FACTS as they pertain to where I live (which I made clear in My post) ... however illogical they may seem to some northern minds.
Maam Jay aka violet[A]
_____________________________
Life is a song ... and I love singing it! (By me!)
|
RE: Collaring for Subs Only? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread