It's easy to list the positive elements of the government bill on coexistence, I say. 1) The proposal was finally put down the political problem that the movement had never been able, in four legislatures, to make even land on the beaches of vague committees. 2) This is a proposal by the government, not just a parliamentary initiative (of those there's dozens, much better). The government has recommended that the project is discussed and it should become law. This does not guarantee anything, but they can not tell us that this is a proposal for how much. Trust or mistrust, Prodi and his ministers have committed there. The positive aspects end up here.
enough, these two elements, because it is committed to supporting and trying to pass it? If the yardstick should be the reactions of their opponents (the Catholic hierarchy and their subjects, external and internal to the majority), you would certainly say yes. The project also can be improved, hard to get even worse, just more likely to try to stop it, if the contrary fail to overturn (in particular, to remove the recognition of partnerships between homosexuals).
We come to the legal inconsistencies of the project, some of which were identified by the media and commentators, other, more fundamental, but more hidden, and which would severely disrupt the value of the law. Let's start with the most obvious. The declaration of cohabitation may be made anagrafe from both partners, albeit in a disjointed manner, but also one of the two. In this case, however, he must give proof that he made aware by notice to the other half of the recommended steps that are about to do. The mechanism is absurd, as everyone has acknowledged. How is it conceivable that proceed without the inclusion of the partnership that the partner know and agree? We can imagine the reaction of those who receive the notification: "You could not tell me a voice?". And if the recommendation is, quite legitimately, be withdrawn by the same partner that has sent?
Hypocrisy Unlimited
E 'obvious purpose of such a gimmick: to avoid any step that remotely resembles a ceremony, a joint declaration of will and intent. But there should be a limit to hypocrisy. And then, what if that person is notified by registered mail to the will of the other does not agree on inclusion? Action will begin to argue that lack the conditions for I say, lack the mutual bonds of affection or lack of assistance and material and moral solidarity. But by what shall we do? His right to say they will not be nailed by a prescribing in ordinary terms, then within 10 years. Until then everything is open.
proceed with inconsistencies 'secondary'. In some places the project is worse than the current legal situation. The right partner for the succession in the lease was approved back in 1988 by a Constitutional Court ruling (which therefore has the force of law), which set no time requirements of living together. Today, however, the coexistence of the sequence upstream in the location must be at least three years. What do you say, tomorrow, the Constitutional Court? Similarly, in order to obtain some advantages in terms of workers' rights, it will take 3 (maybe 5) years of cohabitation. But today, some collective agreements (as of journalists, for example) recognize such rights without placing such a barrier.
Everyone has said the absurdity of not wanting to legislate on the survivor's pension partner, the only one consistent law that was asked to consider.
The same applies to the absurdity of asking a co-existence of at least 9 years for the surviving partner can enter the ranks of legitimate, when the same sfanno marriages usually much earlier. Not to mention the competition in the legal succession with the grandchildren: the steps that the partner contributes to the children of the deceased with his siblings or ancestors, but what have grandchildren? The 'recall of blood "must also have a limit.
illness or hospitalization of the partner; decisions in health or in case of death of a partner service held. Here we go on a very delicate situation, which occur at times of particular weakness of the position of partner, just because your partner is weak (sick or dying or dead or in prison) and then it was necessary to strengthen the recognition of the union. None of that. The hypothesis of the partner detainee is not even considered. Luckily today, in fact, almost everywhere, the partners are allowed to interview in prison just on the basis of a self-coexistence. But the opportunity was good to lay down the law for all. Visit and care for the sick: it recognizes the right, but subject to the same hospital. A conditional right to the whim of those in power structures.
health decisions for those who can no longer take it for himself and decisions on the body of the deceased (organ donation, body treatment, funeral celebrations) will be taken by the partner that is anagrafe, provided there is a designation specification writing, handwritten or verbal established by three witnesses. Here we are at ridiculous truck sweeps the partner, and we still find paper, pen and witnesses to the statement, nothing else! Not enough to be living together for twenty days or twenty years?
The vices of the fund.
The recognition of rights is closely related to households and home. But all we can see unions (often because of this the most durable) not involving cohabitation, but also are based on love and support. Even spouses can now set up residence in different places. Because these unions must necessarily be based on cohabitation? We have already
told not to accept the hypocrisy of a joint statement, which sounds too much like wedding. But the defect is nested more covertly. What seems to have no legal significance is the intention of the parties, expressed at least the same, since it is individual rights and obligations, but mutual between two parties. We have already mentioned the absurdity of the notification of intent to partner. In addition, do not provide either an act of will to withdraw from the partnership. The only legislative assumptions provided in the case of marriage of one of the two partners.
who had always advocated a law on "light" that makes the most will of the parties and the public hand saw action only on some issues (pension, the system of inheritance and a little more) in respect of which required a recognition state, is located in front of a set of rules that do not recognize the will and instead are anchored to questionable facts. It has been said that the partner who wishes to object to invoke I say the lack of emotional ties or solidarity, but there is more: anyone who has an interest (the co-owners, or the state itself) may challenge the duration of cohabitation (under nine years, the unmarried happens legitimately). The demonstration of this, moreover, is entrusted to the heavier hand of our legal system, the criminal court in the event of false statements, can impose sentences of one to three years in prison and a fine of up to 10,000 euro. After a trial in which they will be investigated in detail whether or not there was the emotional bond, if assistance was given or not and whether there was moral solidarity! It 'may well ask how many marriages withstand such scrutiny.
I say protect even ways of living together as a couple of people (hetero or homo), the two senior partners, the two friends who support, assist and so on. All situations that are certainly worthy of recognition and a collective support, but we are so confident that it is all in positions comparable to those in pairs (Hetero or homo) intends to establish and carry out a project of living together, maybe that also includes children, and looks to the future? Different situations deserve different disciplines, not a hazy fog that seems created just for not leaving even a glimpse of the new forms of union which, however, are visible to everyone.
0 comments:
Post a Comment