To what extent has law reform achieved just outcomes for those in same sex relationships?
Same sex marriage has catalyzed
Not a huge deal, but this is the American spelling 
Make sure your microsoft word is switched to English (AUS), which is probably more important for your English essays, but nonetheless numerous law reform
s which collectively does work towards achieving justice for parties involved same sex relationships yet, within the law there are limitations compromising the sense of justice these parties receive.
I like the majority of this thesis - I can see that your judgement says there have been reforms but there is some limitations and some successes. What I'm not so sure about is same sex marriage being the catalyst for these. Perhaps you could argue that the discussion about same sex marriage that has existed for many years might have prompted other reforms, but I tend to think it's not "same sex marriage' that prompted these reforms, seeing as same sex marriage is still not legal in Australia. The law reform occurring in relation to same sex marriages has significantly impacted the parties to these relationships ranging from the individuals to the couple further to their children. Whilst prior the law stripped them being recognized as a marriage, it is through minor law reforms that they are slowly being granted and returned their rights especially in regards to property, matters surrounding children and marriage.
Also hesitant about this wording, saying that they had the rights, they were stripped, and slowly they are being returned. It can be argued, but I tend to think you won't be going into this storyline in the response. But we'll check it out Whilst these aren’t overall effective in ensuring justice these minor changes do demonstrate the laws ability to work towards achieving this goal.
Overall you've done a great job of making an argument clear here, that your judgement is that there are some limitations and some successes but law reform is continuing to aim to achieve just outcomes. Law reform has been highly effective in achieving justice for homosexual individuals in order to reflect the changing social values. Prior to the Crimes (Amendment) Act 1984 (NSW), same sex sexual intercourse between males was illegalized
decriminalised* to which one could be incriminated as displayed in R v Dornan (1950) where a homosexual received a prison sentence
for sodomy..
Lots of good stuff here! As a result this was ineffective as it breached their basic human rights
such as the right to privacy,and led them to be unprotected by the law. However, with the HR Sexual Conducts Act catalyzed by R v Toonen (1994) determining that Australian’s anti-homosexuality laws violated an individual’s human right under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This reform has allowed individuals to feel that justice has occurred with the criminalization of homosexuality federally removed in the Human Rights (Sexual Conducts) Act 1994 (Cth) allowing them to freely pursue same sex relationships without the fear of being criminalized or incarcerated as well as allowing them to free
ly express their sexuality
within the same bounds as heterosexual couples (keep in mind that it's not totally free - you still can't have sex in public, for example. . Hence, the law while attempting to protect the rights of same sex couples still requires further law reform in areas of property, children and marriage.
Not sold on this ending sentence for the reason that suddenly property, children, and marriages are brought into a conversation about sodomy. I'm inclined to leave these out, because your introduction tells me they are yet to come anyway. And instead, I'd summarise the effectiveness of decriminalising sodomy as a way of achieving justice for gay community members. The law gradually but effectively
has been working towards achieving justice for same sex couples by recognizing their relationship when it comes to matter surrounding property and inheritance.
Great - good clarity on this paragraph. I know what to expect! Although I would switch around the beginning, is something really that effective if it is gradual? Or is the slowness a limitation of the effectiveness? You decide. But, I would write "The law is mostly effective in relation to same sex couples and surrounding issues of property and inheritance, although the slow nature of the reforms... The property (relationships) act 1984 allowed for same sex couples to have the same legal standing as heterosexual de factor
de facto* couples in its aim to ensure fairness for all couples.
Furthermore, the justice system has ensured consistency and not being discriminatory exemplified in Howard v Andrews [1999] where the Family Court allowed the man to inherit their deceased male partner of 14 years’ estate ensuring justice wasn’t denied based on their marital status and hence further catalyzed the need for the 1999 amendment of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (Cth) to further ensure accessibility for all same sex couples to their partner’s inheritance. Quite a long sentence, I'd slice it into two by starting a new sentence at "and hence further". In addition this amendment allowed for formal recognition of same sex couples which was previously absent as in Hope and Brown v NIB [1995] where the couple experienced difficulty in gaining recognition from the insurance company, allowing the law to be responsive to voids within the system impeding its ability to achieve justice. Hence the law, despite being slow, has implemented progressive changes working towards achieving justice for same sex couples.
Australian law has slowly attempted to grant children adopted by homosexual couples equal rights of those from heterosexual couples yet it is not highly effective. The Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) allowed same sex children to register as a family under Medicare ensuring that all children experienced fairness and consistency by the legal system. The Miscellaneous Act Amendment (Same Sex relationship) Act 2008 (NSW) also provided equal parenting rights for lesbian couples with both parents carrying the right to be mentioned on the child’s birth certificate and thus protecting the child’s right in
getting accessing* both mother’s inheritance when separating. However, the law fails to ensure equality for same sex male couples where the child conceived through insemination does not have the same legal standing unless ordered by the family court
New sentence here. thus compromising the level of fairness children receive under the law. Yet, the law carries the strength of working towards the best interest of the child fulfilling its international obligation on the Convention on the Rights of the Child, allowing Same Sex couples like other heterosexual couples adopt children under the Adoption Amendment (same sex couples) Act 2010 (NSW) rather than the child be adopted by a homosexual individual. Hence, whilst the law has been gradually been working towards achieving just outcomes for children in same sex relationships, it carries numerous shortfalls which limit its effectiveness in achieving overall justice.
The incorporation of the international document is really important - in allllll legal essays (crime, and options, I mean!), it's really important to be drawing things out to that bigger picture. I also think the accuracy of the legislation you're including is great. However, I'm hesitant about this paragraph because the question asks us to talk about those in same sex relationships. Obviously being the child of such a relationship draws you into the equation of "relationship" to some extent, but I'm inclined to take the angle of looking at children from the adult's perspective. So, talking about the fairness of mums having their name on the birth certificate, rather than the fairness of it for the child to have both parent's recognised. Obviously it works both ways, but given the wording of the question this is how I'm inclined to respond to it to ensure I'm showing complete accuracy in addressing the question. I wouldn't say this paragraph if off-topic, but it does need some re-alligning The law has gradually granted rights despite it being retrospective in its approach towards same sex couples impeding the level of justice these individuals received as they law was discriminating against them.
This sentence has a whole lot of words and it doesn't clearly respond to much of it. I'm unsure of what you mean by "retrospective in its approach" and then the last part "as the law was discriminating against them" I think can be deleted because it's assumed knowledge based on everything we know so far. The 2004 reforms by the Howard government to the Marriage Act 1969 (Cth) by adding that marriage is considered a “union between a man and a woman,” the law explicitly excluded same marriages and thus were considered void under the law. This legal discrimination has severely impeded the notion of justice same sex individuals receive due to the lack of fairness and equality within the law. However, the law has been responsive to the changing societal values in the implementation of the Relationships Register Act 2010 (NSW) which allows same sex couples to register their defacto relationship and formally recognize their same sex relationship. In addition, the postal plebiscite of 2017, regarding the legalization of same sex marriage in Australia, further demonstrates the law accommodating to the changing values of Australian and reflecting these values through legislation. Hence, whilst the law hasn’t matched the changing values in society, it has gradually with the aid of law reform work towards achieving a sense of equality for same sex couples yet full equality is still denied impeding the effectiveness of law reform.
Great!Hence, whilst the law has been accommodating to the changing societal values in relation to same sex couples it also has been responsive to the various implication this changing family structure has brought in relation to children and property. These changes have been implemented to accumulatively work towards achieving justice especially for stakeholders in same sex relationships hence despite having numerous shortfalls the law has been progressive in its approach of achieving justice through law reform.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Topic: Free Legal Essay Marking! (Read 142101 times)