the problem with domestic partnership

[Stella_Omega]

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.

 

[Safe_Bet]

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.

Wow.

The sad part is that even in California, the fucking "family" has a damn good chance of getting his will over turned, ESPECIALLY seeing as how he has Alzheimer's. I'm surprised the breeders haven't gone for a conservatorship yet.

 

[okatty35]

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.

That is sad. I'm unsure what kind of document you are referring to. Does he have a will that leaves things to the partner? That would be enforceable anyplace. Are you saying they would challenge the validity of the will. Sorry just trying to understand what is at issue in the legal part of your post.

 

[Joe_Bob_Gautama]

You might inquire, if you can, whether your friend has a living trust, which is harder to contest than a will. I would expect someone of your friend's worldliness, means and circumstances to have an attorney who has prepared for all contingencies, but as he and his partner may both now be suffering somewhat diminished capacity, you should assume nothing; it certainly wouldn't hurt to confirm that you have an accurate picture of what is really going on and that everything is in order, and you could be doing them a great favor.

 

[Stella_Omega]

That is sad. I'm unsure what kind of document you are referring to. Does he have a will that leaves things to the partner? That would be enforceable anyplace. Are you saying they would challenge the validity of the will. Sorry just trying to understand what is at issue in the legal part of your post.

The common political argument is that a "domestic partnership contract" is just as good as a marriage, and same sex couples should be content with what they have-- some states allow this crumb of comfort. What I was seeing in this case is that the family is saying that the contract doesn't cover matters of inheritance that a marriage contract would.

I do not know any legal details, I was only the sitter for the one day. I cannot do anything to help these men. I only saw the effect on the peace of mind of these two elderly, fragile, gentlemen-- their caregiver has been with them for four years, and he was pretty upset as well. The two thought they had made their desires clear-- their domestic serenity is now under attack. I can only mention them as an example of how domestic partnership is not a valid substitute for marriage.

 

[infinity706]

To be honest, in this case, I think the family might have a good point. If the guy in question is as bad off as described, soon, he won't even be able to form coherent thoughts and will spend the rest of his life simply existing in a nursing home bed. From a practical standpoint, what good will having money do, anyway? He'll proably never be able to spend it and it'll, likely, all go to the government to cover Medicare expenses.

 

[Stella_Omega]

To be honest, in this case, I think the family might have a good point. If the guy in question is as bad off as described, soon, he won't even be able to form coherent thoughts and will spend the rest of his life simply existing in a nursing home bed. From a practical standpoint, what good will having money do, anyway? He'll proably never be able to spend it and it'll, likely, all go to the government to cover Medicare expenses.

I'm talking about two guys, not one. Two men who have lived together as partners for over half a century. Two men who should have the protection of a marriage contract.

which of those two men are you talking about?

 

[infinity706]

Oh, I read it as the elderly partner's funeral. In that case, by the time the other partner dies, he probably will have advanced enough alsheimers, that all the money will, effectively be meaningless. My point is that bringing up cases where legal power has very little practical meaning doesn't really add to an argument. Having $500,000 is kind of pointless if you can't every count to 5 again.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Oh, I read it as the elderly partner's funeral. In that case, by the time the other partner dies, he probably will have advanced enough alsheimers, that all the money will, effectively be meaningless. My point is that bringing up cases where legal power has very little practical meaning doesn't really add to an argument. Having $500,000 is kind of pointless if you can't every count to 5 again.

Huh. You do make a lot of assumptions.

How do you know which partner will die first, and how soon?

And what makes you so positive that both men will develop Alzheimer's?

And what do you think a "practical meaning" is in the matter of domestic rights and responsibilities?

 

[okatty35]

Oh, I read it as the elderly partner's funeral. In that case, by the time the other partner dies, he probably will have advanced enough alsheimers, that all the money will, effectively be meaningless. My point is that bringing up cases where legal power has very little practical meaning doesn't really add to an argument. Having $500,000 is kind of pointless if you can't every count to 5 again.

Not if you may live for another 10 years and would like to have some decent quality healthcare.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Not if you may live for another 10 years and would like to have some decent quality healthcare.

And remain in the house you've helped create, surrounded by the things you and your partner accumulated together-- regardless of your ability to fight for those things against people who happen to want them now that you are weaker.

Might does not make right, and weakness does not make a person undeserving.

A marriage contract includes literally hundreds of ways to protect our loved ones and our relationships from people who don't think our desires should matter. Domestic partnerships do not include half as many.

 

[Missouribiguy]

Oh, I read it as the elderly partner's funeral. In that case, by the time the other partner dies, he probably will have advanced enough alsheimers, that all the money will, effectively be meaningless. My point is that bringing up cases where legal power has very little practical meaning doesn't really add to an argument. Having $500,000 is kind of pointless if you can't every count to 5 again.

What a insensitive answer. I mean, my God.

Listen, I work at a nursing home, and I deal with people who have Alzheimzer's all the time. And you the way you have degraded them makes me sick to my stomach. Yes, they will eventually forget, but they are still human.

I am really trying to restrain myself from going postal on you.

 

[Louise_Loves]

Oh, I read it as the elderly partner's funeral. In that case, by the time the other partner dies, he probably will have advanced enough alsheimers, that all the money will, effectively be meaningless. My point is that bringing up cases where legal power has very little practical meaning doesn't really add to an argument. Having $500,000 is kind of pointless if you can't every count to 5 again.

Let's apply that logic to YOU, shall we?

You are going to die one day. SO why don't we just take all your stuff, beat the living shit out of you, and call it even? I mean, everything you now own or ever will own is kind of pointless since you are going to leave it all behind anyway.

Or, more to the point, why don't we rape the desires of every hetero couple in the country the same way?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Infinity is probably somewhere along the asbergers spectrum, I've seen oddities in some of his other comments as well. In any case, he's demonstrated my point for me quite well, don't you agree?

Or, more to the point, why don't we rape the desires of every hetero couple in the country the same way?

Well, people do try, quite often. Which is why marriage rights have evolved the protection measures that we now enjoy.

If a family wants to disinherit an opposite sex partner, they have to try to talk or bully or blackmail them into a divorce-- they can't divorce a pair by proxy. It makes it extremely obvious what's going on.

 

[blueberree]

Not to mention, they probably thought they handled it legally

How frightening to have your whole life suddenly up in the air after thinking that it was secure.

I don't know why families cannot simply honor the wishes of their family member and fail to have any empathy. That aside, it shouldn't be left to the fate of empathy or cruelty.

I'm sure that issues of inheritance are in fact part of the agenda of those who do not want couples to have the same protections as hetero couples. They want to give rich families a way to squirm out of having to honor the life of gay family members.

Marriage establishes the couple relationship as the primary family relationship. Domestic partnership leaves it in limbo. If it were the same thing then getting married wouldn't be an issue. Stories like this make me distressed for all the partners out there who are at risk of getting pushed to the curb.

 

[Etoile]

infinity706 may be many things, but I'm not sure autistic (or even Aspergian) is one of them. Or maybe it is, who knows? As long as we're refraining from going postal, let's not make internet diagnoses either, hmm?

And yes, I agree that it is a travesty that either partner should have to contend with an unsupportive family. I am extremely lucky in that my partner's family will make sure I am taken care of if my wife goes before I do. (In fact, I am not even in her will, because (a) I will be a fucking basket case and not able to be executor and (b) they will absolutely positively take care of me, including financially.) I do hope they are able to get appropriate legal documentation drawn up.

 

[infinity706]

I never said anyone shouldn't matter. I don't particularly like how the family is pursuing the situation, either. The point I was trying to get across is that if you have some kind of condition that you know is going to land you in a nursing home for the rest of your life really soon, 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.

I never said anything about not wanting queer people to have the same protections as straight people. I don't really see what it has to do with domestic partnership vs marriage, though. There's loopholes to everything if you have a good enough lawyer.

 

[Stella_Omega]

infinity706 may be many things, but I'm not sure autistic (or even Aspergian) is one of them. Or maybe it is, who knows? As long as we're refraining from going postal, let's not make internet diagnoses either, hmm?

It comforts me to think that he isn't a stinking asshole diva of creepitude on purpose.

But okay. He's a schmuck and that's fine too. he has certainly illustrated my case.

And yes, I agree that it is a travesty that either partner should have to contend with an unsupportive family. I am extremely lucky in that my partner's family will make sure I am taken care of if my wife goes before I do. (In fact, I am not even in her will, because (a) I will be a fucking basket case and not able to be executor and (b) they will absolutely positively take care of me, including financially.) I do hope they are able to get appropriate legal documentation drawn up.

I think that up till recently, these men thought that about the wealthier partner's family as well.

I don't really see what it has to do with domestic partnership vs marriage, though. There's loopholes to everything if you have a good enough lawyer.

if the contract isn't drawn up exceedingly well, it doesn't even take a good enough lawyer to find the loopholes in a domestic partnership contract. As blueberree points out;

Marriage establishes the couple relationship as the primary family relationship. Domestic partnership leaves it in limbo. If it were the same thing then getting married wouldn't be an issue.

 

[infinity706]

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.

 

[Stella_Omega]

That still doesn't make marriage contracts any more sensible.

Marriage contracts are much more tamper proof. There's been a progression of several hundred years in making them so.

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.

Actually, both life insurance and organ donation decisions have been successfully contested by a surviving spouse.

 

[mattguize]

Regardless of the debate, ultimately, its a heart breaking story. I hope theres some conclusion, as no one deserves to suffer needlessly.

 

[masterdrakin]

What a insensitive answer. I mean, my God.

Listen, I work at a nursing home, and I deal with people who have Alzheimzer's all the time. And you the way you have degraded them makes me sick to my stomach. Yes, they will eventually forget, but they are still human.

I am really trying to restrain myself from going postal on you.

Sad to say but that is what the world is coming to this twists cold answer and how the family is acting is just proof the world is going down hill quickly. All the younger generations care about is themselves. What do I get what's mine and I want it even tho I didn't earn it. These make me sick and wish we had the good ole days back the ones where people were honest hard working and caring. Where you could leave your door unlocked and not worry about getting rob rapped or murdered in you sleep or get shot for wearing the wrong color cloths or look at the wrong person. Just how I see it and my two cents.

 

[Stella_Omega]

It isn't the "younger generation" that are attacking these guys, Drakin, it's his brother who must be in his sixties or seventies.

. Where you could leave your door unlocked and not worry about getting rob rapped or murdered in you sleep or get shot for wearing the wrong color cloths or look at the wrong person.

When was this, dear?

 

[Safe_Bet]

Regardless of what the naysays state, these guys are fucked because they are not allowed to be married Also, their straight relatives can fuck them over well before they ever dies or end up in a nursing home. This is possible because domestic partnerships and marriage just are NOT equal.

Effects of same-sex marriage -

Economic impact on same-sex couples: Dr. M. V. Lee Badgett, an economist and associate professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, has studied the impact of same-sex legal marriage on same-sex couples. According to a 1997 General Accounting Office study requested by Rep. Henry Hyde (R), at least 1,049 U.S. Federal laws and regulations include reference to marital status.[79] A later 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office finds 1,138 statutory provisions "in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving 'benefits, rights, and privileges.'"[80] Many of these laws govern property rights, benefits, and taxation. Same-sex couples are ineligible for spousal and survivor Social Security benefits.[80] Badgett's research finds the resulting difference in Social Security income for same-sex couples compared to opposite-sex married couples is US$5,588 per year. The federal ban on same-sex marriage and benefits through the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) extends to federal government employee benefits.[80] According to Badgett's work, same-sex couples face other financial challenges against which legal marriage at least partially shields opposite-sex couples.[81]

* potential loss of couple's home from medical expenses of one partner caring for another gravely ill one[81]
* costs of supporting two households, travel, or emigration out of the U.S. for an American citizen unable to legally marry a non-U.S. citizen[81]
* higher cost of purchasing private insurance for partner and children if company is not one of 18% that offer domestic partner benefits[81]
* higher taxes: unlike a company's contribution to an employee's spouse's health insurance, domestic partner benefits are taxed as additional compensation[80]
* legal costs associated with obtaining domestic partner documents to gain some of the power of attorney, health care decision-making, and inheritance rights granted through legal marriage[81]
* higher health costs associated with lack of insurance and preventative care: 20% of same-sex couples have a member who is uninsured compared to 10% of married opposite-sex couples[81]
* current tax law allows a spouse to inherit an unlimited amount from the deceased without incurring an estate tax but an unmarried partner would have to pay the estate tax on the inheritance from her/his partner[80]
* same-sex couples are not eligible to file jointly or separately as a married couple and thus cannot take the advantages of lower tax rates when the individual income of the partners differs significantly[80]

While state laws grant full marriage rights (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont) or some or all of the benefits under another name (New Jersey, Washington, California, etc.), these state laws do not extend the benefits of marriage on the Federal level, and most states do not currently recognize same-sex marriages, domestic partnerships, or civil unions from other states.

One often overlooked aspect of same-sex marriage are the potential negative effects on same-sex couples. While the legal benefits of marriage are numerous, same-sex couples would face the same financial constraints of legal marriage as opposite-sex married couples. Such potential effects include the marriage penalty in taxation.[80] Similarly, while social service providers usually do not count one partner's assets toward the income means test for welfare and disability assistance for the other partner, a legally married couple's joint assets are normally used in calculating whether a married individual qualifies for assistance.[80]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

Bottom line is that until EVERYONE is covered under the same laws EQUALLY, crap like this will continue to happen.

 

[infinity706]

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.