Comments on: How can we be lovers…we’re only friends

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 06:16:07 +0000

Jo, Trevor, slkx — anyone who is worried that these issues isn’t getting enough (mainstream) coverage, I agree. Anyone who wants to help me try to remedy that, please don’t hesitate to get in touch. I’m hoping to write a colour piece on anyone in a couple who might be affected by these changes, so if it’s you — or someone you know who might be open to talking to me — then please contact me!

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 06:12:12 +0000

Hey, I’m a journalism student writing a story on how these changes could financially affect elderly gay/lesbian people — if you’re affected (or know anyone who is) and are happy to speak out, please give me a buzz on 0438701190 or a quick email on alextaylor33@gmail.com. I would love to hear from you.

Thanks!

By: Sylv

Sylv — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:32:51 +0000

It seems to me that elderly lesbians are the ones who are going to be most disadvantaged by having to declare their relationship. Historically, women have had less access to superannuation than men, having often worked in casual part-time work and having been the victims of the ‘glass ceiling’. Many lesbians (myself included) have brought up children from a former marriage as a single parent,causing disruptions to education and career. Women who became pregnant in the 1950s and ’60s were forced into marriage by the social climate of the time. These are now the pensioners who will have their single pensions cut if their partner is still working or who will have to exist on a joint pension. After being discriminated against all our lives – as women and lesbians – this is a ghastly irony, even if we are happy that gays and lesbian relationships are now being recognised. This is not equality.

By: Sal

Sal — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 11:48:26 +0000

“You can’t have your cake and eat it too”, appears to be the catch cry in regard to this discussion across various websites. I have friends who are deeply distressed about the proposed changes to centrelink as a result of this law reform. I feel for them immensely because they struggle to get by, as it is presently, on such a low income. Their state is one of fragility. So to have the prospect of their payments reduced is very frightening for them. I know of people in difficult relationships who are terrified of being forced into financial dependency with their employed partner, because they will be viewed as a couple by centrelink. The simple answer would be for these people to leave the relationship, but often life is not that simple.
I think we should be more sympathetic to the disadvantaged members of our community. Unfortunately, people are just going to have to deal with it, because the changes are coming. What pissess me off, is that it is the poor and disavantaged who are going to pay the price for our equality under the law.

By: Jo

Jo — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 07:30:05 +0000

Slkx, could you tell the 7.30 report, Lateline, AM, PM and a host of others that they have a media briefing on this which they have duly ignored.
So much for YOUR ABC.
The Senior, free paper that is everywhere and is read by elderly gays, esp those in the closet, are running two articles and want photos anyone willing?
Let’s not start dividing ourselves so that the pensioners, single or couple, are arguing – all pensioners are struggling and suffering, gay or straight, and we really don’t want to turn on each other, what a waste of energy when the fight needs to be taken up to those who think it’s ok to have to live way way below the poverty line.

By: Jo

Jo — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 07:08:26 +0000

Calls for attention in the mainstream media?
I have been pummeling the mainstream media about aged pensioners and the impact of the gay reforms, and over and over get ‘thanks but no thanks’ in reply, or don’t get things published.
If we all think it’s fine to see a pensioner in his 70s seeking urgent treatment for depression over this ‘equality’ then we can sit back and relax.
Otherwise any assumption that it is OK to do this to elderly gays is abhorent, to quote Roxon’s word.
The govt are going to get their cut no doubt about it.
But they MUST provide independent advocacy by trusted organisations to aged pensioners NOW and they must provide resources for education of homophobes in the aged care industry. Where are the messages of reassurance NOW from Centrelink about what will and will not be done to couples -
I have not seen any.
But they know to expect at least 11,000 couples, how?
They need to have their Community Reference Group bombarded, so that they are in no doubt that our community cares about this, and is seriously unimpressed.

By: Trevor

Trevor — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 21:55:37 +0000

slkx,

“The term defacto is shortened from the original – defacto marriage.”

The term de facto is short for many things – de facto marriage, de facto couple, de facto partner, de facto situation, de facto leader, a country’s de facto independence etc etc.

You can quite happily be in a de facto couple. While I get your point, the logic of your argument unravels as soon as you take the word ‘marriage’ out of it.

By: Trevor

Trevor — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 21:45:45 +0000

“A straight couple can get a divorce”??

No, Phil, a married couple can get a divorce. A straight de facto couple already deals with all of the questions about the nature of a relationship that you’re worried about. As do a male and female friend who live in the same house as each other.

As Andrew has said, it happens all the time. And as I don’t recall many stories of people in white coats barging into houses… you really need to think about how these laws ALREADY work for the huge percentage of the heterosexual population, before you jump to conclusions about how they’re going to work for the much smaller additional group of homosexuals now affected.

By: slkx

slkx — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 04:34:44 +0000

To me the big thing is: where is the outcry from gay groups to mainstream papers, like the Australian, from people astonished we can be called defactos when our relationships are not recognised by the Federal Govt (the govt which rules over Centrelink)? The term defacto is shortened from the original – defacto marriage. But we can’t get married so HOW can we be defactos?
Why aren’t gay groups writing letter after letter decrying this simple fact: we are being told we have the responsibilities but none of the rights. If straights are in a defacto marriage, then that is their choice (ie they can choose to get married or not). Gays cannot be married, and are not even recognised by law as couples (remember that ACT civil marriage law that Rudd struck down in a Howard de ja vu moment) so HOW can they then slug us if we don’t legally exist under Australian Federal law! Please, someone write to the media about this! I would love to fire off an irate missive but I can’t because I am IN the flipping mainstream newspaper trade and all editors consider DIY letters-to-editors from in-house writers unprofessional. Free speech – pfft. Come on now – marshall the troops. The double standard is appalling. I’d happily pay if it came with the right to marry, even if only civilly.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 05:25:09 +0000

I’m pretty sure it didn’t involve anyone barging into their houses and after the changes, straight guys living together will be asked to prove they’re not in a gay relationship too.

Pensioners in a relationship who live in separate houses have always been treated as single people by Centrelink.

There’s nothing ideological about this. People who live together in a couple relationship have reduced pensions because individually they pay less than a single person in rent and utilities by sharing their expenses. I live on a pension and I’m single and I don’t get to enjoy those savings- if couples got the same rate as me I would effectively be living on less than them once I’ve paid all my bills- is it fair to penalise people for not being in a relationship like that?

By: Jules

Jules — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:58:51 +0000

They shouldn’t be bring in equality that reduces our income unless they have brought in equality everywhere else. Give us the benefits of equality before they take anything away.

By: Phil Scott

Phil Scott — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:13:36 +0000

It still requires an inspector with a white coat and clipboard to barge into your house and run through his or her checklist. That’s an invasion of privacy in anyone’s terms.
Besides, it’s hardly infallible. Plenty of couples who have regular sex together don’t sleep in the same bed, or the same room, or even (as in my case) the same house. Every pensioner should get the same payment, regardless of whether they are single or in a relationship.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:46:05 +0000

A friend of mine and his female flatmate had to go through this with Centrelink under the old rules to prove that they weren’t in a heterosexual relationship after they moved out of one share house and into another together.

As long as the house you’re living in has separate beds and bedrooms for each of the non-coupled people living there it’s not going to be a big issue to prove.