the problem with domestic partnership

[Stella_Omega]

I understand all that. Those benefits still don't add up to the costs incurred by a divorce, should the marriage end. There should be some way to claim some of the benefits without having to bundle everything into a package deal contract with exactly one person. Trying to force everyone into monogamous relationships is, obviously, not working.

You seem to have mistaken this topic for some other one.

 

[infinity706]

I don't know. When marriage does become available with any adult person, it probably will destroy the invincible aura it's shrouded in as the primary family unit. Over time, it probably will lose its sacred cow status, just like Medicare, Social Security, or college graduation really being necessary to the American dream. Just because marriages are seen as legally unchallengable now, doesn't mean it won't lead to changing laws and interpretations of laws. Afterall, like you said yourself, any other legal document is challengable. Years ago, it was unthinkable that courts would award primary custody to a father unless the mother was a criminal or something.

Yes, equal protection is coming, but it could very well be at the price of the level of protection that you want. Afterall, those in power mostly support laws that give them some kind of advantage. I'm sure you'd agree that a lot of the social mystique of marriage is the us vs them attitude. If something is easily within everyone's reach, it loses its specialness.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't know. When marriage does become available with any adult person, it probably will destroy the invincible aura it's shrouded in as the primary family unit. Over time, it probably will lose its sacred cow status, just like Medicare, Social Security, or college graduation really being necessary to the American dream. Just because marriages are seen as legally unchallengable now, doesn't mean it won't lead to changing laws and interpretations of laws. Afterall, like you said yourself, any other legal document is challengable. Years ago, it was unthinkable that courts would award primary custody to a father unless the mother was a criminal or something.

Yes, equal protection is coming, but it could very well be at the price of the level of protection that you want. Afterall, those in power mostly support laws that give them some kind of advantage. I'm sure you'd agree that a lot of the social mystique of marriage is the us vs them attitude. If something is easily within everyone's reach, it loses its specialness.

Okay, so far you've said;

My elderly guys will be too gaga to appreciate their financial security so it shouldn't matter to them that someone is trying to take it away. They won't remember the pact they made as younger men so it shouldn't matter to them that someone is trying to dissolve that pact.

And then, let's see, you've said that a "good enough lawyer" can find a loophole in anything, including, presumably, a marriage of fifty years.

and then you've said that monogamy isn't for everyone.

And now you're saying that heteros think that marriage is speshul, and they will try to dissolve its powers if they have to share it with other groups.

I'm not even going to bother debating these points with you except to say that they are really fucking asinine, and if you think they are germaine to the topic you just might be really fucking asinine as well, I wouldn't be surprised.

The fact is that domestic partnerships do not protect domestic partners the way that marriages do.

 

[Spicy Southern Belle]

Yesterday i spent in the company of an elderly gentleman, while his also elderly partner, and their caregiver, went to a funeral. It was delightful-- the man has been everywhere, is very educated. He had an art collection that made my jaw drop, stuff I've never seen except in museums. He had stories about his friendships with artists and political heros.

He is frail, and in the early stages of Alzheimers, and my task was to distract him when he started worrying about his partner's absence. he asked me where they had gone, about every forty minutes-- each time I would tell him as if it were brand new news.

Here's the thing; This couple were early pioneers in domestic partnership. They have been together over fifty years, and signed the papers, in an extremely expensive legal proceeding, about twenty-five years ago. Now, my gentleman's family is looking at ways to deny his partner the (truly valuable) estate, if he dies first. It's very possible that they will succeed, because a domestic partnership contract is not a marriage.

They have convinced my gentleman that this is necessary, and his partner has had to hire a lawyer to investigate for him. He's an old man too, and seems pretty scared. The idea that he might end up penniless after fifty years 'in sickness and health' is eating at his own mental health.

It's disgusting. These two elderly people are being thrown into contention because of family greed, and they can't get one of the strongest protections against interference that the rest of the world can have.

This is so heartbreaking and very wrong. I do hope that things work out for him and his partner. I just don't understand some people.

 

[Louise_Loves]

...it's probably a good idea to distribute what you do have to whoever you want to have it, while you still can. Otherwise, Medicare is going to legally be able to sieze it.

This is the whole point of the situation. These two men spent a significant amount of time and effort setting up a legal document that would do exactly that. But because they are not MARRIED, their legal document is seen as having second-class standing.

Medicare doesn't seize assets. It requires that you spend them on your care. If you hear about Medicare seizing assets, it is a penalty for someone having hid them in order to fraudulently qualify for benefits.

Beyond that - even if Medicare DID require those assets to be spent down, they would be spent in the way that the two people involved wanted them to be spent.

 

[Louise_Loves]

That still doesn't make marriage contracts any more sensible. If the lawmakers really wanted to draw it up, there's no reason any benefit decision couldn't be made as easily as checking an organ donor box on a driver's license form. It already works for life insurance policies where you can name any beneficiary you want.

You don't need a contract if you are married. I got married when I was 19 - signed a little application for a license, said a few words with a priest, and it was done. The moment the priest said we were done, my husband had complete authority to make medical decisions in my stead. It may be possible in some rare and isolated cases to fight the inherent next-of-kinship designation of a marriage, but the vast majority of judges would simply laugh it out of their courtroom.

Life insurance companies can be forced, in some cases, to add a co-beneficiary. Particularly in cases were a child has been adopted and the policy pre-dates the adoption.

A spouse can also force a will into probate if they are entirely left out of it, in most states. As far as I am aware, there is no precedent for doing so with domestic partnerships.

 

[Louise_Loves]

I understand all that. Those benefits still don't add up to the costs incurred by a divorce, should the marriage end. There should be some way to claim some of the benefits without having to bundle everything into a package deal contract with exactly one person. Trying to force everyone into monogamous relationships is, obviously, not working.

My divorce cost me $200. Given the fact that his employer covered 50% of the cost of my insurance from the date of our marriage until the day it was dissolved, I would dispute your statement as being uninformed, at best.

I'm not really interested in "there should be" some alternative. Why should there have to be an alternative? Why should I not be allowed to marry the woman I love? If everything is "just like a real marriage" then why not simply let it be "a real marriage?"

 

[zarngash]

I don't get it though. Wouldn't a will take care of this problem? I thought that's what wills are for, to direct the dispersal of personal assets after death. Any good attorney should be able to make a binding will to hold up in probate court.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't get it though. Wouldn't a will take care of this problem? I thought that's what wills are for, to direct the dispersal of personal assets after death. Any good attorney should be able to make a binding will to hold up in probate court.

The real problem though, is the disruption of these people's domestic harmony. They are too elderly to have much defense against the turmoil. Their partnership deserves more respect than it gets. The notion that a domestic partnership is "just as good as a marriage" is incorrect, and I brought this situation to the forum as an illustration of the falsity.

 

[Louise_Loves]

I don't get it though. Wouldn't a will take care of this problem? I thought that's what wills are for, to direct the dispersal of personal assets after death. Any good attorney should be able to make a binding will to hold up in probate court.

It isn't that simple. Our legal system still holds "marriage" as the defining aspect of familial ties. So anyone who is related by marriage - like a sibling or the child of a previous relationship - can press a legally binding claim on a will against someone who is not related by marriage.

 

[albertaboy]

Advise him to give all his stuff to the partner before he dies or becomes too far gone. Get a lawyer (a good one) to be the witness to the gifts.

Are there issues with continueing benefits in the case of a Same-Sex couple in whatever jurisdiction they are in?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Advise him to give all his stuff to the partner before he dies or becomes too far gone. Get a lawyer (a good one) to be the witness to the gifts.

I'm not in any position to advise them of anything. I was the babysitter for one day.

Are there issues with continueing benefits in the case of a Same-Sex couple in whatever jurisdiction they are in?

Yes, there are. America, donchaknow.

 

[scriptordelecto]

This is so horribly sad. I can't imagine someone trying to tell me or my husband that they had more right to the things we'd worked for than either of us did. Nor could I imagine the fear and anxiety of knowing that the legal system might side with them. As far as we've come, it's only a fraction of the distance we need to go.