The introduction of DICO (Rights and obligations of persons permanently living together), covered in a bill suffered a lot, is sparking lively debate. As often happens when important issues are touched, they immediately created two opposing camps: those in favor and the implacable opponents. Those who are opposed to unmarried couples, consider this new law as an actual attack on the family and marriage. Now, if the reasons for this aversion are understandable when they are supported by religious people, they immediately become garbled when people have to advocate so-called secular. Yes, because if we exclude the religious value that can take on marriage as a sacrament, what remains is a mere civil contract, though suffering some major limitations. These limitations fall with say, though - it must be accepted - with this bill in some ways the situation worsens. Meanwhile Immediately clean the area by false attack on family issues: legislative institutions similar to DICO are long in many European countries. Nevertheless, families still exist in France, Germany, Spain and any country where unmarried couples are recognized by law. Sure, I might say that in France for example - according to demographic report compiled in 2004 by 'INSEE - from since 2000 the number of marriages has fallen (PACS entered into force by Law No 99-944 of 15 November 1999). But this means only one thing: in France, cohabitation has increased compared to marriages. It 's interesting to note, moreover, as only a ten PACS has been dissolved. Considering therefore that the issue of civil unions is covered by long majority of democratic European countries, considering that nothing is immutable but rather is likely to change (amazing to say, marriage is a 'discovery' of the Church recently and dates back to 1215, thanks to the Fourth Lateran Council), whereas the institution of marriage denies absolutely the protection of certain rights (such as unions between same sex), whereas the need to protect important rights (assistance in case of illness, grant a residence permit, housing assignments, survivors' pensions and so on), a bill such as that which is being discussed, it is necessary. Once purified the mind from the false issue of the attack on the family, but should critically analyze the bill under discussion, in order to highlight the flaws and inconsistencies that lie within. Here are some points that puzzle me:
- declaration of cohabitation separated. It can also be made by one partner, that should take care to notify the other partner made by registered letter. Which is absurd in my opinion. What happens if the letter is withdrawn - quite legitimately - by the same partner that delivers?
- 9 years of living together are necessary to allow the succession. Absurd. Weddings on average melt much earlier. These 9 years are the result of a compromise created by the clash between the Catholic wing (which called for 15 years) and the secular front (which called for 5). This as proof of how strong the interference of the Church in Italy in matters which do not compete.
- takeover of the partner in the lease after at least 3 years. A Constitutional Court ruling in 1988 already recognized the opportunity to take over the lease without any obligation of time. This point is therefore in sharp contrast with what is established in that case. Same problem for you to enjoy the benefits on workers' rights: three years for viewing, when some collective agreements (such as journalists for example) already recognize such rights without limit of time of cohabitation.
In short, there is to discuss this law, but not to decide whether or not it is right to protect unmarried couples, as it is right to decide whether or not what is being proposed by the same law that is being proposed. Otherwise we risk - if things remain as proposed - To do a 'PACS' back instead of forward.
0 comments:
Post a Comment