What this very clearly shows is that the term "family" has been radically redefined to mean anyone in a relationship with another person. Where a family was once defined in terms of a married couple and offspring, it can now mean not only a de facto couple, or a same sex couple, but even a man, his wife and his mistress.
From the Herald Sun report:
The new federal laws for maintenance and division of assets for de facto couples, mistresses and same-sex couples came into effect on March 1 and any disputes are heard by the Family Court or the Federal Magistrates' Court.And from the mistress:
The laws give some mistresses, as well as de facto and same-sex couples, the same rights as married couples. [So this is what it has come to: "The laws give some mistresses ... the same rights as married couples."]
The woman, who has not been named for legal reasons, said not only did she deserve the money, but others should follow her lead.Yes, according to the new law being a wife is valid, being a same sex partner is valid and being a mistress is valid. They are all equally valid, as all that matters is being in a proven relationship.
"I gave him the best years of my life," she said ...
"So this is also about giving our relationship a validity. It is a recognition that I have added something of value to his life."
It's difficult to see how the line can be drawn anywhere. If a mistress is considered to be in a valid family relationship, then how can the law continue to exclude or discriminate against second wives? If all you need is a relationship over time, and a man is in a relationship with a second wife, then why won't that eventually be recognised by the state as valid also?