The use of domestic partnerships not merely for gay relationships but for others, primarily the old.
Mrs. Epstein and Mrs. Krauss were widows of two decades duration. Things were hard and they decided to rent one apartment instead of two, and share what little they had.
Though both were mothers and grandmothers, their children
had their own lives, and outside of a few calls and a rare
visit, the two old ladies were very much each other’s
company.
When Mrs. Epstein died, her children arrived and took
everything that had belonged to their mother, leaving
Mrs. Krauss to sleep on the sofa, because her bed had
belonged to Mrs. Epstein.
If anything screams for a domestic partnership, this
relationship does.
Although advocated by gays as “civil union” or “gay
marriage”, the idea of two people being able to arrange
their affairs so that property automatically belongs to the
other, as if a marriage, is a concept that cannot be allowed
to be hijacked.
Although such unions can easily be used as a form of gay
marriage, that is only one form. What is more pressing
is to be able to protect someone, like Mrs. Krauss, from
the legal rights of others.
Could one imagine if Mrs. Epstein owned the house and her
children virtually tossed Mrs. Krauss into the street?
Right now, they have the legal right to do so. The legal
right to clean out their mother’s bank account, making no
provision for Mrs. Krauss.
Many of our old people survive by forming units with their
friends so that together three or four of them can afford
to live in a decent fashion, not possible for them singly.
Domestic Partnerships, recognition of living arrangements
for the benefit of those who are part of that arrangement
must be spotlighted.
To consider this a “legalization” of Gay Marriage blinds
us to the necessity of such partnerships.
Surely, if an old mother was living with her children, there
would be no need of such legalities. Unfortunately, our life
styles have changed, and not for the better.
Superannuated parents are the first to be jettisoned in this
modern money driven world, so that where an old widow or
widower could have expected her or his children to look
after her or him when they could no longer look after her
or himself, today, junking them in an old age home, or some
other warehouse seems to be the latest trend.
As many are fairly spry deep into their eighties, they are
not ready for “assisted” living, but need family members or
friends to prevent loneliness.
In the example I cited, would it not have been more just
for Mrs. Epstein to have been able to register a domestic
partnership with Mrs. Krauss, and that at the death of
either, the survivor was protected?
Vai tas būtu līgums kurš ir pretējs morālei, reliģija vai labiem tikumiem ?
Nav komentāru:
Ierakstīt komentāru