Australian Woman Shares Heartbreaking Status About Same-Sex Marriage After Wife Dies In Car Accident

First topic message reminder :

Marriage equality is still a distant dream for many people around the world, as Lara Ryan truly realised when her wife, Elise, died in a tragic car accident. The pair, from Sydney, had a wedding ceremony and have two children together, but as same-sex marriage is not legally recognised in Australia, they could never be officially married. On Facebook, Lara said the pair had "never been political" and didn't really think too much about their official marital status in the past. But after Elise died when a car drove into her on the pavement, Lara felt the full burden of injustice.

"Having lost my partner in a horrible pedestrian accident this month I had to ask policemen if I was 'allowed' to write spouse on incident reports," she said. "I had to cross out boxes for husband on the death certificate and boxes for father on our new baby's birth certificate (both on the same day)."



Try It


Change your profile picture to show support forAustralian Marriage Equality.





Lara Ryan
on Monday
This is why.
Because having lost my partner in a horrible pedestrian accident this month I had to ask policemen if I was 'allowed' to write Spouse on incident reports.
I had to cross out boxes for husband on the death certificate and boxes for father on our new baby's birth certificate (both on the same day).
I had to yell out in a busy, crazy emergency room "She is my wife, I know it's not legal but she is my wife!"
Because we were never political, we just did our thing, did our life our way and tried to live by example to shift peoples hearts rather than pushing agendas. BUT the amount of freaking paper work I am having to do to secure mine and my children's future welfare is just ridiculous when all it would take is one marriage certificate.
And most of all because I love her, and she has been my every day for ten years, She is the mother of our two girls, she is the future I dreamed of and she is my safe place to land.
Because love is love and we should celebrate it and encourage it always.
The world is harsh enough.
Feel free to share widely - ‪#‎thisiswhy‬#


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/03/02/lara-ryan-facebook-status-on-same-sex-marriage_n_9364322.html

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I just don't see why someone would be going on about their marital status in the middle of the emergency room for no apparent reason. I wouldn't have thought it would be a priority, that's all.

Who said it was for no reason

You are missing out a vital part


She said: “Having lost my partner in a horrible pedestrian accident this month I had to ask policemen if I was ‘allowed’ to write Spouse on incident reports.
“I had to cross out boxes for husband on the death certificate and boxes for father on our new baby’s birth certificate (both on the same day).
“I had to yell out in a busy, crazy emergency room ‘She is my wife, I know it’s not legal but she is my wife!'”

There aren't any details about why she had to yell about that in the emergency room. The forms would have come a bit later. She said she crossed out bits on the form, but there's no detail as to whether that was a problem.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:



Who said it was for no reason

You are missing out a vital part


She said: “Having lost my partner in a horrible pedestrian accident this month I had to ask policemen if I was ‘allowed’ to write Spouse on incident reports.
“I had to cross out boxes for husband on the death certificate and boxes for father on our new baby’s birth certificate (both on the same day).
“I had to yell out in a busy, crazy emergency room ‘She is my wife, I know it’s not legal but she is my wife!'”

There aren't any details about why she had to yell about that in the emergency room. The forms would have come a bit later. She said she crossed out bits on the form, but there's no detail as to whether that was a problem.

Can you prove it did not all happen at the emergency room?

So in reality everything makes perfect sense if it was to answer your question

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There aren't any details about why she had to yell about that in the emergency room. The forms would have come a bit later. She said she crossed out bits on the form, but there's no detail as to whether that was a problem.

Can you prove it did not all happen at the emergency room?

So in reality everything makes perfect sense if it was to answer your question

Well she didn't say who she was yelling at in the emergency room did she?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Can you prove it did not all happen at the emergency room?

So in reality everything makes perfect sense if it was to answer your question

Well she didn't say who she was yelling at in the emergency room did she?

Are you sure?
Were you there rags?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well she didn't say who she was yelling at in the emergency room did she?

Are you sure?
Were you there rags?

Eh? In the article, it doesn't say who she was yelling at. She might have told someone else who she was yelling at, but it's certainly not in the article.

If she was yelling at the policeman, I still don't see what the issue is really. If he let her change the form, what's the problem? Her complaint seems to be about the format of the incident form, the death certificate, and the birth certificate. She was able to fill out the death certificate rather than a blood relative doing it, so clearly that wasn't an issue.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Are you sure?
Were you there rags?

Eh? In the article, it doesn't say who she was yelling at. She might have told someone else who she was yelling at, but it's certainly not in the article.

If she was yelling at the policeman, I still don't see what the issue is really. If he let her change the form, what's the problem? Her complaint seems to be about the format of the incident form and the death certificate. She was able to fill out the death certificate rather than a blood relative doing it, so clearly that wasn't an issue.

You are second guessing again

Its clear to me how it follows in sequence

I suggest you read again


http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/03/02/this-woman-lost-her-wife-in-a-car-crash-but-their-government-wont-admit-they-were-ever-married/?utm_source=ET&utm_medium=ETFB&utm_campaign=portal&utm_content=inf_17_60_2&tse_id=INF_932b9651c72c4ea891705d172eb4801d

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eh? In the article, it doesn't say who she was yelling at. She might have told someone else who she was yelling at, but it's certainly not in the article.

If she was yelling at the policeman, I still don't see what the issue is really. If he let her change the form, what's the problem? Her complaint seems to be about the format of the incident form and the death certificate. She was able to fill out the death certificate rather than a blood relative doing it, so clearly that wasn't an issue.

You are second guessing again

Its clear to me how it follows in sequence

I suggest you read again


http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/03/02/this-woman-lost-her-wife-in-a-car-crash-but-their-government-wont-admit-they-were-ever-married/?utm_source=ET&utm_medium=ETFB&utm_campaign=portal&utm_content=inf_17_60_2&tse_id=INF_932b9651c72c4ea891705d172eb4801d

I can't read that article "again" because you've only just posted it. I will, however, read it for the first time.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:No - marriage is a legal contract Didge, and they had no such contract.

Gibberish

Marriage was not original a legal contract, this came later.
So basically its a country denying their legal standing.
They have a contract between themselves which is what a marriage is

rubbish
"Marriage" as ragg`s says is a legal contract

you can have as many ceremony as you like but unless it is sanctioned by the government or a religious ceremony at most its "common law "

common law marriage" has been used in England and Wales to refer to unmarried, cohabiting heterosexual relationships. However, this is merely a social usage. The term does not confer on cohabiting parties any of the rights or obligations enjoyed by spouses or civil partners


.

korban dallas wrote:

Didge wrote:


Gibberish

Marriage was not original a legal contract, this came later.
So basically its a country denying their legal standing.
They have a contract between themselves which is what a marriage is

rubbish
"Marriage" as ragg`s says is a legal contract

you can have as many ceremony as you like but unless it is sanctioned by the government or a religious ceremony at most its "common law "

common law marriage" has been used in England and Wales to refer to unmarried, cohabiting heterosexual relationships. However, this is merely a social usage. The term does not confer on cohabiting parties any of the rights or obligations enjoyed by spouses or civil partners


.

Bullshit


Its nothing more than a contract between two people which a nation has brought within its legal system

Are you telling me that two people who have married and are homosexual in Australia are not married, based on the bullshit you gave me?

Are you next going to tell me that two people are not engaged?

korban dallas wrote:

Didge wrote:


Gibberish

Marriage was not original a legal contract, this came later.
So basically its a country denying their legal standing.
They have a contract between themselves which is what a marriage is

rubbish
"Marriage" as ragg`s says is a legal contract

you can have as many ceremony as you like but unless it is sanctioned by the government or a religious ceremony at most its "common law "

common law marriage" has been used in England and Wales to refer to unmarried, cohabiting heterosexual relationships. However, this is merely a social usage. The term does not confer on cohabiting parties any of the rights or obligations enjoyed by spouses or civil partners


.

Correct. A lot of people do think that "common law" marriage is a legal thing, but it's not.

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
rubbish
"Marriage" as ragg`s says is a legal contract

you can have as many ceremony as you like but unless it is sanctioned by the government or a religious ceremony at most its "common law "

common law marriage" has been used in England and Wales to refer to unmarried, cohabiting heterosexual relationships. However, this is merely a social usage. The term does not confer on cohabiting parties any of the rights or obligations enjoyed by spouses or civil partners


.

Correct. A lot of people do think that "common law" marriage is a legal thing, but it's not.

Again you are both wrong as to what point is being made

Hence a verbal contract between two people does not need anything written in law to have legal rights

What is happening here is denying two people their rightful status, where they made a binding contract to commit which is all that a marriage is

They are being denied this status legally through prejudice

This is the glaring error you are both making

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Correct. A lot of people do think that "common law" marriage is a legal thing, but it's not.

Again you are both wrong as to what point is being made

Hence a verbal contract between two people does not need anything written in law to have legal rights

What is happening here is denying two people their rightful status, where they made a binding contract to commit which is all that a marriage is

They are being denied this status legally through prejudice

This is the glaring error you are both making

We're not wrong. Are you suggesting that "common law" partners have the same legal rights as legally married people? I've already explained to you a couple of ways they do not.

The issue does appear to be what options there are on some forms rather than anything else.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:



Again you are both wrong as to what point is being made

Hence a verbal contract between two people does not need anything written in law to have legal rights

What is happening here is denying two people their rightful status, where they made a binding contract to commit which is all that a marriage is

They are being denied this status legally through prejudice

This is the glaring error you are both making

We're not wrong. Are you suggesting that "common law" partners have the same legal rights as legally married people? I've already explained to you a couple of ways they do not.

You are both utterly wrong

Never claimed common law partners hjave the same legal rights but have more rights than couples who do not live together and yet there is no written contract is there.
Its verbal
Again a marriage between two people is no more than two people committing.
The legal system has incorporated this into law to protect the rights of each partner
Here though is blatant prejudice as they are being denied this protection within the law
Hence they are very much married as they made a verbal and no doubt written commitment

Mrs Ryan is planning to scatter her wife’s ashes on the beach where they married, at Seal Rocks, New South Wales.

I presume that the deceased lady does not have living relatives who might object to that? I don't know what the law is regarding who is entitled to the ashes.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

We're not wrong. Are you suggesting that "common law" partners have the same legal rights as legally married people? I've already explained to you a couple of ways they do not.

You are both utterly wrong

Never claimed common law partners hjave the same legal rights but have more rights than couples who do not live together and yet there is no written contract is there.
Its verbal
Again a marriage between two people is no more than two people committing.
The legal system has incorporated this into law to protect the rights of each partner
Here though is blatant prejudice as they are being denied this protection within the law
Hence they are very much married as they made a verbal and no doubt written commitment

What rights do cohabiting couples who live together have as opposed to couples who do not live together?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Mrs Ryan is planning to scatter her wife’s ashes on the beach where they married, at Seal Rocks, New South Wales.

I presume that the deceased lady does not have living relatives who might object to that? I don't know what the law is regarding who is entitled to the ashes.

Its her wife, she should have the right first and foremost making that commitment to marriage

I would love to know how either yourself and Korben then must class anyone in the past that had no legal system even though they were married?

Are you saying before marriage was incorporated into law to protect each partner, that people were not then married?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


You are both utterly wrong

Never claimed common law partners hjave the same legal rights but have more rights than couples who do not live together and yet there is no written contract is there.
Its verbal
Again a marriage between two people is no more than two people committing.
The legal system has incorporated this into law to protect the rights of each partner
Here though is blatant prejudice as they are being denied this protection within the law
Hence they are very much married as they made a verbal and no doubt written commitment

What rights do cohabiting couples who live together have as opposed to couples who do not live together?

I gave you the link, read it

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What rights do cohabiting couples who live together have as opposed to couples who do not live together?

I gave you the link, read it

You didn't give me a link on that issue.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


I gave you the link, read it

You didn't give me a link on that issue.

I did Rags

look back it states those living against married

Why state living together, if its not different from couples not "living" together?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I presume that the deceased lady does not have living relatives who might object to that? I don't know what the law is regarding who is entitled to the ashes.

Its her wife, she should have the right first and foremost making that commitment to marriage

I would love to know how either yourself and Korben then must class anyone in the past that had no legal system even though they were married?

Are you saying before marriage was incorporated into law to protect each partner, that people were not then married?

They're not legally married though.

Some people get terribly upset about ashes, and people do fall out over them. I wouldn't, but others do. If a legal relative wanted the ashes themselves, I'm just wondering what the law is.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You didn't give me a link on that issue.

I did Rags

look back it states those living against married

Why state living together, if its not different from couples not "living" together?

That's not what I asked you. I asked what rights cohabiting couples have that couple who are not cohabiting or married do not.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


I did Rags

look back it states those living against married

Why state living together, if its not different from couples not "living" together?

That's not what I asked you. I asked what rights cohabiting couples have that couple who are not cohabiting or married do not.

Again read the link

See what rights couples living together have

Then you will see what couples not living together do not have

Its basic maths Rags

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Its her wife, she should have the right first and foremost making that commitment to marriage

I would love to know how either yourself and Korben then must class anyone in the past that had no legal system even though they were married?

Are you saying before marriage was incorporated into law to protect each partner, that people were not then married?

They're not legally married though.

Some people get terribly upset about ashes, and people do fall out over them. I wouldn't, but others do. If a legal relative wanted the ashes themselves, I'm just wondering what the law is.

So you are saying before a legal system, many people who committed to marriage were not married then?

Are you sure you want to state that and deny people a verbal love agreement they made

That then means you are denying people who are engaged

Does that have to be legal for people to be engaged?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They're not legally married though.

Some people get terribly upset about ashes, and people do fall out over them. I wouldn't, but others do. If a legal relative wanted the ashes themselves, I'm just wondering what the law is.

So you are saying before a legal system, many people who committed to marriage were not married then?

Are you sure you want to state that and deny people a verbal love agreement they made

That then means you are denying people who are engaged

Does that have to be legal for people to be engaged?

I'm talking specifically about the ashes of a deceased person and the law. I'm just looking into it actually. I think it differs from country to country.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


So you are saying before a legal system, many people who committed to marriage were not married then?

Are you sure you want to state that and deny people a verbal love agreement they made

That then means you are denying people who are engaged

Does that have to be legal for people to be engaged?

I'm talking specifically about the ashes of a deceased person and the law. I'm just looking into it actually. I think it differs from country to country.

I could not give again a stuff about a legal system that is prejudiced that discriminates against a widower

Two consenting adults who have made a commitment, no law has any right to deny

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm talking specifically about the ashes of a deceased person and the law. I'm just looking into it actually. I think it differs from country to country.

I could not give again a stuff about a legal system that is prejudiced that discriminates against a widower

Two consenting adults who have made a commitment, no law has any right to deny

Well if you're not interested in the issue of ashes, don't reply to my posts about them.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


I could not give again a stuff about a legal system that is prejudiced that discriminates against a widower

Two consenting adults who have made a commitment, no law has any right to deny

Well if you're not interested in the issue of ashes, don't reply to my posts about them.

Well its very simple to work out Rags

She should have the right as its easy to see why

If the parents gave their blessing to the marriage, then they are not going top stand in the way of her wishes are they?

If they were against the marriage, and thus disowned their daughter, then what right do they have to then decide?

It's quite interesting. Nobody can "own" ashes because you can't own another person. In England a funeral director gives them to the person who paid for the funeral apparently, but that doesn't mean the person owns them as such. I'm not sure there is actually a law to cover it.

It seems that in Australia they are given to the person who applied for the permit for cremation, but again, that's not the same as owning them.

She wants them to be scattered where they married which seems very fitting

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well if you're not interested in the issue of ashes, don't reply to my posts about them.

Well its very simple to work out Rags

She should have the right as its easy to see why

If the parents gave their blessing to the marriage, then they are not going top stand in the way of her wishes are they?

If they were against the marriage, and thus disowned their daughter, then what right do they have to then decide?

They didn't need permission for the ceremony from their parents though.

I don't know the personal situation, it just interested me generally. I do hear of disputes concerning ashes.

Didge wrote:She wants them to be scattered where they married which seems very fitting

What if one of the relatives wanted them buried in a family grave or something though?

Seems the family were very much behind them and they all considered them married

It also gives the reason why she was frustrated in hospital

That is what counts to me over any prejudiced system:



The same-sex couple, who had been together for a decade, considered themselves married. So did the 100 family members and close friends who attended their "wedding" ceremony that, under Australian law, was not legally recognised.


So three weeks ago, when Lara found herself in the sudden and unimaginable situation of filling in a death certificate for the love of her life, her pain was intensified when she and the funeral director had to cross out the box for "husband" on Elise's death certificate.
"If marriage was available, I would have chosen to be married," Lara said.
"My parents have a beautiful marriage, my partner's parents had a beautiful marriage. They were very proud of their families, and we would have done the same thing ourselves if we had had the option. She was not my de facto. She was my wife."
Lara and Elise's world came crashing down on the morning of February 8, just three weeks after Elise had given birth to their second daughter, Skylar.
That Monday morning, Elise had walked Ivy across the road to drop her off at daycare near their home, while Lara stayed behind with Skylar.
As Elise was walking across a pedestrian crossing to return home, she was struck by a car and knocked to the ground, Lara said.
Lara thought it was odd when Elise had not returned home nearly an hour after she'd left.
"I went out the front door to go looking for her, and I saw all the police tape. I went to the childcare centre and just said 'Is Elise still inside?' And I knew by the look that the teachers gave me," Lara said.
Lara rushed to Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, where Elise had been taken, unsure about the extent of her injuries.
The shock of the accident was compounded by the initial confusion she encountered surrounding their relationship.
"I had a baby in my arms and I was at the entrance to the emergency room, going, 'You've got to let me in, you've got to let me in, I know it's my wife.' "
After explaining her relationship several times, Lara was allowed in to see Elise before she died. Once the initial confusion had been cleared up, Lara said the hospital staff and police were "just amazing".
"We were able to help at least nine lives with the organs that she donated, but that was all given to me as a decision to make, even with all of her [Elise's] family being there with me," Lara said.
"They [the hospital staff] did not discriminate, they spoke directly to me, they have let me make decisions. I think if this had happened 10 years ago it could have been a very different story and we've come a really, really long way."
But she said it was the start of a painful journey.
She says she has spent the weeks since Elise's death ringing lawyers, government agencies and their insurance company, explaining the nature of thier relationship.
"For anyone - whether you're gay, straight, a son, a daughter, a sister, a partner - it's a very trying thing to tell the same story over and over again and go through forms and red tape and not fitting into particular boxes," Lara said.
"I just remember crying to my mum and saying 'If I had a proper marriage certificate, this would not be so hard. It would just be accepted.'
"If I had a husband, I would just say 'My husband has passed away,' and people would get that.
"But every person I've spoken to today, I've had to explain the back story, that she was my partner, de facto, and that hurts, because I don't see her as my de facto, I don't see her as a partner. I see her as my wife. We were married in our eyes."
In her frustration and grief, Lara sat down and wrote a simple Facebook post explaining what had happened. Her post wasn't to get sympathy, but to explain the realities of how Australia's marriage laws were affecting real people.
"Because love is love and we should celebrate it and encourage it always. The world is harsh enough," she wrote.
Her post on Monday has since been shared nearly 45,000 times and rising.
Lara and Elise didn't consider themselves political, and Lara now says Elise would be "rolling her eyes up there".
"But I think a big thing for me is that, if marriage in the truest sense was an option for us, we definitely would have taken that up, and we never had that option," Lara said.
"We made [a] family. We didn't need that bit of paper. We and everyone who knew us and loved us knew that we were a family.
"But it would have been a lovely thing. If that was legally binding, it secures us as a family, it secures my children's future, and in situations such as this it would have made things easier.
"In the distress and grief and black hole that I'm in, I wouldn't have had to tell the back story to this to every single person that I spoke to. It's not an easy process for anyone, wherever you're at in life, but I think it would have been a lot different."
A NSW Police spokesman said inquiries were continuing into the cause of the crash. No charges have been laid.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-womans-plea-for-marriage-equality-after-female-partners-death-in-crash-20160301-gn7xq8.html#ixzz41vsMqNOH 
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

Didge wrote:Seems the family were very much behind them and they all considered them married

It also gives the reason why she was frustrated in hospital

That is what counts to me over any prejudiced system:



The same-sex couple, who had been together for a decade, considered themselves married. So did the 100 family members and close friends who attended their "wedding" ceremony that, under Australian law, was not legally recognised.


So three weeks ago, when Lara found herself in the sudden and unimaginable situation of filling in a death certificate for the love of her life, her pain was intensified when she and the funeral director had to cross out the box for "husband" on Elise's death certificate.
"If marriage was available, I would have chosen to be married," Lara said.
"My parents have a beautiful marriage, my partner's parents had a beautiful marriage. They were very proud of their families, and we would have done the same thing ourselves if we had had the option. She was not my de facto. She was my wife."
Lara and Elise's world came crashing down on the morning of February 8, just three weeks after Elise had given birth to their second daughter, Skylar.
That Monday morning, Elise had walked Ivy across the road to drop her off at daycare near their home, while Lara stayed behind with Skylar.
As Elise was walking across a pedestrian crossing to return home, she was struck by a car and knocked to the ground, Lara said.
Lara thought it was odd when Elise had not returned home nearly an hour after she'd left.
"I went out the front door to go looking for her, and I saw all the police tape. I went to the childcare centre and just said 'Is Elise still inside?' And I knew by the look that the teachers gave me," Lara said.
Lara rushed to Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, where Elise had been taken, unsure about the extent of her injuries.
The shock of the accident was compounded by the initial confusion she encountered surrounding their relationship.
"I had a baby in my arms and I was at the entrance to the emergency room, going, 'You've got to let me in, you've got to let me in, I know it's my wife.' "
After explaining her relationship several times, Lara was allowed in to see Elise before she died. Once the initial confusion had been cleared up, Lara said the hospital staff and police were "just amazing".
"We were able to help at least nine lives with the organs that she donated, but that was all given to me as a decision to make, even with all of her [Elise's] family being there with me," Lara said.
"They [the hospital staff] did not discriminate, they spoke directly to me, they have let me make decisions. I think if this had happened 10 years ago it could have been a very different story and we've come a really, really long way."
But she said it was the start of a painful journey.
She says she has spent the weeks since Elise's death ringing lawyers, government agencies and their insurance company, explaining the nature of thier relationship.
"For anyone - whether you're gay, straight, a son, a daughter, a sister, a partner - it's a very trying thing to tell the same story over and over again and go through forms and red tape and not fitting into particular boxes," Lara said.
"I just remember crying to my mum and saying 'If I had a proper marriage certificate, this would not be so hard. It would just be accepted.'
"If I had a husband, I would just say 'My husband has passed away,' and people would get that.
"But every person I've spoken to today, I've had to explain the back story, that she was my partner, de facto, and that hurts, because I don't see her as my de facto, I don't see her as a partner. I see her as my wife. We were married in our eyes."
In her frustration and grief, Lara sat down and wrote a simple Facebook post explaining what had happened. Her post wasn't to get sympathy, but to explain the realities of how Australia's marriage laws were affecting real people.
"Because love is love and we should celebrate it and encourage it always. The world is harsh enough," she wrote.
Her post on Monday has since been shared nearly 45,000 times and rising.
Lara and Elise didn't consider themselves political, and Lara now says Elise would be "rolling her eyes up there".
"But I think a big thing for me is that, if marriage in the truest sense was an option for us, we definitely would have taken that up, and we never had that option," Lara said.
"We made [a] family. We didn't need that bit of paper. We and everyone who knew us and loved us knew that we were a family.
"But it would have been a lovely thing. If that was legally binding, it secures us as a family, it secures my children's future, and in situations such as this it would have made things easier.
"In the distress and grief and black hole that I'm in, I wouldn't have had to tell the back story to this to every single person that I spoke to. It's not an easy process for anyone, wherever you're at in life, but I think it would have been a lot different."
A NSW Police spokesman said inquiries were continuing into the cause of the crash. No charges have been laid.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-womans-plea-for-marriage-equality-after-female-partners-death-in-crash-20160301-gn7xq8.html#ixzz41vsMqNOH 
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

and there it is in a nutshell "considered them married" i would agree

But unfortunately "considered" is not legally binding and confers no legal right
morally and humanely, and compassionately does though

korban dallas wrote:

Didge wrote:Seems the family were very much behind them and they all considered them married

It also gives the reason why she was frustrated in hospital

That is what counts to me over any prejudiced system:



The same-sex couple, who had been together for a decade, considered themselves married. So did the 100 family members and close friends who attended their "wedding" ceremony that, under Australian law, was not legally recognised.


So three weeks ago, when Lara found herself in the sudden and unimaginable situation of filling in a death certificate for the love of her life, her pain was intensified when she and the funeral director had to cross out the box for "husband" on Elise's death certificate.
"If marriage was available, I would have chosen to be married," Lara said.
"My parents have a beautiful marriage, my partner's parents had a beautiful marriage. They were very proud of their families, and we would have done the same thing ourselves if we had had the option. She was not my de facto. She was my wife."
Lara and Elise's world came crashing down on the morning of February 8, just three weeks after Elise had given birth to their second daughter, Skylar.
That Monday morning, Elise had walked Ivy across the road to drop her off at daycare near their home, while Lara stayed behind with Skylar.
As Elise was walking across a pedestrian crossing to return home, she was struck by a car and knocked to the ground, Lara said.
Lara thought it was odd when Elise had not returned home nearly an hour after she'd left.
"I went out the front door to go looking for her, and I saw all the police tape. I went to the childcare centre and just said 'Is Elise still inside?' And I knew by the look that the teachers gave me," Lara said.
Lara rushed to Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, where Elise had been taken, unsure about the extent of her injuries.
The shock of the accident was compounded by the initial confusion she encountered surrounding their relationship.
"I had a baby in my arms and I was at the entrance to the emergency room, going, 'You've got to let me in, you've got to let me in, I know it's my wife.' "
After explaining her relationship several times, Lara was allowed in to see Elise before she died. Once the initial confusion had been cleared up, Lara said the hospital staff and police were "just amazing".
"We were able to help at least nine lives with the organs that she donated, but that was all given to me as a decision to make, even with all of her [Elise's] family being there with me," Lara said.
"They [the hospital staff] did not discriminate, they spoke directly to me, they have let me make decisions. I think if this had happened 10 years ago it could have been a very different story and we've come a really, really long way."
But she said it was the start of a painful journey.
She says she has spent the weeks since Elise's death ringing lawyers, government agencies and their insurance company, explaining the nature of thier relationship.
"For anyone - whether you're gay, straight, a son, a daughter, a sister, a partner - it's a very trying thing to tell the same story over and over again and go through forms and red tape and not fitting into particular boxes," Lara said.
"I just remember crying to my mum and saying 'If I had a proper marriage certificate, this would not be so hard. It would just be accepted.'
"If I had a husband, I would just say 'My husband has passed away,' and people would get that.
"But every person I've spoken to today, I've had to explain the back story, that she was my partner, de facto, and that hurts, because I don't see her as my de facto, I don't see her as a partner. I see her as my wife. We were married in our eyes."
In her frustration and grief, Lara sat down and wrote a simple Facebook post explaining what had happened. Her post wasn't to get sympathy, but to explain the realities of how Australia's marriage laws were affecting real people.
"Because love is love and we should celebrate it and encourage it always. The world is harsh enough," she wrote.
Her post on Monday has since been shared nearly 45,000 times and rising.
Lara and Elise didn't consider themselves political, and Lara now says Elise would be "rolling her eyes up there".
"But I think a big thing for me is that, if marriage in the truest sense was an option for us, we definitely would have taken that up, and we never had that option," Lara said.
"We made [a] family. We didn't need that bit of paper. We and everyone who knew us and loved us knew that we were a family.
"But it would have been a lovely thing. If that was legally binding, it secures us as a family, it secures my children's future, and in situations such as this it would have made things easier.
"In the distress and grief and black hole that I'm in, I wouldn't have had to tell the back story to this to every single person that I spoke to. It's not an easy process for anyone, wherever you're at in life, but I think it would have been a lot different."
A NSW Police spokesman said inquiries were continuing into the cause of the crash. No charges have been laid.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-womans-plea-for-marriage-equality-after-female-partners-death-in-crash-20160301-gn7xq8.html#ixzz41vsMqNOH 
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

and there it is in a nutshell "considered them married" i would agree

But unfortunately "considered" is not legally binding and confers no legal right
morally and humanely, and compassionately does though

But only due to a prejudice

It matters not what the legal system states as what matters is what the people and the married couple thought

Didge wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
and there it is in a nutshell "considered them married" i would agree

But unfortunately "considered" is not legally binding and confers no legal right
morally and humanely, and compassionately does though

But only due to a prejudice

It matters not what the legal system states as what matters is what the people and the married couple thought

Nope it really does matter that`s why its codified in law Thats the point

i know you don`t want to admit your wrong, but marriage is a legal contract, you can have as many verbal agreements you like in law they mean very little in the eyes of the law
as judge rinder would say "get it on paper"  

korban dallas wrote:

Didge wrote:


But only due to a prejudice

It matters not what the legal system states as what matters is what the people and the married couple thought

Nope it really does matter that`s why its codified in law Thats the point

i know you don`t want to admit your wrong, but marriage is a legal contract, you can have as many verbal agreements you like in law they mean very little in the eyes of the law
as judge rinder would say "get it on paper"  

Wrong on what exactly?

So to you what you are claiming is that before the legal system of Australia any aboriginal married couple were not  married?

Marriage is only recently in a matter of centuries a legal contract. It is a contract that has been cooperated into the legal system, based solely to protect the rights of each person, if they divorce, one dies etc

A law is nothing more than something invented and then agreed by a majority of people

Two people who commit to each other is a contract, that is marriage

I don't really see what the issue is tbh. It's about what is put on a form and what someone wants to call their partner. She can call her her wife if she wants to, but it doesn't make it a legal marriage. In what way does the fact they weren't legally married actually affect her?

On the one hand, some people they say they don't need a piece of paper to be together, but if they can't have that piece of paper, they complain about it.

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't really see what the issue is tbh. It's about what is put on a form and what someone wants to call their partner. She can call her her wife if she wants to, but it doesn't make it a legal marriage. In what way does the fact they weren't legally married actually affect her?

Again failure to grasp the legality here, which was introduced to protect each party through many eventualities

Again marriage is a commitment between to two people where here its is prejudice denying this married couple what they already agreed and committed to

Again you both fail to grasp and think that marriage was something based on legality from the start, it never was, it was a commitment between two people

Raggamuffin wrote:On the one hand, some people they say they don't need a piece of paper to be together, but if they can't have that piece of paper, they complain about it.

And rightly due to inequality within the law

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't really see what the issue is tbh. It's about what is put on a form and what someone wants to call their partner. She can call her her wife if she wants to, but it doesn't make it a legal marriage. In what way does the fact they weren't legally married actually affect her?

Again failure to grasp the legality here, which was introduced to protect each party through many eventualities

Again marriage is a commitment between to two people where here its is prejudice denying this married couple what they already agreed and committed to

Again you both fail to grasp and think that marriage was something based on legality from the start, it never was, it was a commitment between two people

It's you who's failing to grasp the legality. Marriage is a commitment, yes, a legal commitment. This couple were not legally married. They had a ceremony, but they were not legally married. Why can't you grasp that?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Again failure to grasp the legality here, which was introduced to protect each party through many eventualities

Again marriage is a commitment between to two people where here its is prejudice denying this married couple what they already agreed and committed to

Again you both fail to grasp and think that marriage was something based on legality from the start, it never was, it was a commitment between two people

It's you who's failing to grasp the legality. Marriage is a commitment, yes, a legal commitment. This couple were not legally married. They had a ceremony, but they were not legally married. Why can't you grasp that?

No again its been Incorporated into the legal system again to protect the rights of each partner due to previous times in history where mainly women were harshly left after divorce or widowed. Again what it has legal status ist to protect the rights of each person
So again its you that fail to grasp the reason for the legality and fail to understand a marriage is nothing more than two people committing
Legality only came in due again to prejudice to mainly women when divorced and widowed

Didge wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
Nope it really does matter that`s why its codified in law Thats the point

i know you don`t want to admit your wrong, but marriage is a legal contract, you can have as many verbal agreements you like in law they mean very little in the eyes of the law
as judge rinder would say "get it on paper"  

Wrong on what exactly?

So to you what you are claiming is that before the legal system of Australia any aboriginal married couple were not  married?

Oh grow up i never said that at all  but your good at putting words in others mouth please stop




Marriage is only recently in a matter of centuries a legal contract. It is a contract that has been cooperated into the legal system, based solely to protect the rights of each person, if they divorce, one dies etc


A law is nothing more than something invented and then agreed by a majority of people

Two people who commit to each other is a contract, that is marriage

A contract is a voluntary arrangement between two or more parties that is enforceable at law as a binding legal agreement.


your wrong
get over it

bye

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's you who's failing to grasp the legality. Marriage is a commitment, yes, a legal commitment. This couple were not legally married. They had a ceremony, but they were not legally married. Why can't you grasp that?

No again its been Incorporated into the legal system again to protect the rights of each partner due to previous times in history where mainly women were harshly left after divorce or widowed. Again what it has legal status ist to protect the rights of each person
So again its you that fail to grasp the reason for the legality and fail to understand a marriage is nothing more than two people committing
Legality only came in due again to prejudice to mainly women when divorced and widowed

It doesn't matter when legality came into it. That's the situation now. People don't need to be married to make a commitment emotionally, so marriage is a legal commitment - a legal contract which unmarried couples don't have.

korban dallas wrote:

Didge wrote:


Wrong on what exactly?

So to you what you are claiming is that before the legal system of Australia any aboriginal married couple were not  married?

Oh grow up i never said that at all  but your good at putting words in others mouth please stop




Marriage is only recently in a matter of centuries a legal contract. It is a contract that has been cooperated into the legal system, based solely to protect the rights of each person, if they divorce, one dies etc


A law is nothing more than something invented and then agreed by a majority of people

Two people who commit to each other is a contract, that is marriage

A contract is a voluntary arrangement between two or more parties that is enforceable at law as a binding legal agreement.


your wrong
get over it

bye

Answer the question as its you been utterly immature

So to you what you are claiming is that before the legal system of Australia any aboriginal married couple were not  married?


Marriage is only recently in a matter of centuries a legal contract. It is a contract that has been cooperated into the legal system, based solely to protect the rights of each person, if they divorce, one dies etc


A law is nothing more than something invented and then agreed by a majority of people



Laws are forever changing, they are not set in stone, hence the absurdity of people who think they are smart but as seen not very smart

Try again

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Again failure to grasp the legality here, which was introduced to protect each party through many eventualities

Again marriage is a commitment between to two people where here its is prejudice denying this married couple what they already agreed and committed to

Again you both fail to grasp and think that marriage was something based on legality from the start, it never was, it was a commitment between two people

It's you who's failing to grasp the legality. Marriage is a commitment, yes, a legal commitment. This couple were not legally married. They had a ceremony, but they were not legally married. Why can't you grasp that?

Not rocket science is it !!!

I'm still waiting for you to address this point you made Didge.

Never claimed common law partners hjave the same legal rights but have more rights than couples who do not live together and yet there is no written contract is there.

What rights do cohabiting couples have that non-cohabiting, non-married couples don't have?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


No again its been Incorporated into the legal system again to protect the rights of each partner due to previous times in history where mainly women were harshly left after divorce or widowed. Again what it has legal status ist to protect the rights of each person
So again its you that fail to grasp the reason for the legality and fail to understand a marriage is nothing more than two people committing
Legality only came in due again to prejudice to mainly women when divorced and widowed

It doesn't matter when legality came into it. That's the situation now. People don't need to be married to make a commitment emotionally, so marriage is a legal commitment - a legal contract which unmarried couples don't have.

It does as laws are for ever changing

The point you and the norther geek cannot grasp

Again incorrect as if it was a legal commitment then all married people in the past would cease to have the right to be classed husband and wife

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm still waiting for you to address this point you made Didge.

Never claimed common law partners hjave the same legal rights but have more rights than couples who do not live together and yet there is no written contract is there.

What rights do cohabiting couples have that non-cohabiting, non-married couples don't have?

Told you this already, read back

Look at the rights of those who live together then subtract what they have to those who do not live together

Simple maths