Can we discriminate against mistresses?

A mistress has won a payout of $100,000 from her former lover under the new Family Law Act here in Victoria. Under the new law, a mistress can claim maintenance or a payout if she can prove she has been in a long-term relationship.

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.

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."]

And from the mistress:

The woman, who has not been named for legal reasons, said not only did she deserve the money, but others should follow her lead.

"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."

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.

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?