@kov: i will try to summarize for you and everyone interested. This is probably going to sound difficult for those who live in a common law system, but I will try to make it as plain as possible.
current de facto possibilities for couples in italy:
1. civil marriage;
2. religious marriage;
3. cohabitation.
If you choose (1), the Mayor of your city performs a civil ceremony and you enter into a legally binding agreement with your spouse. You acquire rights and you also acquire obligations.
If you choose (2), a priest performs a religious ceremony and, following an extant accord between the Vatican and the Italian state, you are also automatically married from the civil standpoint, i.e. you enter into the legally binding agreement of (1) without need for a separate ceremony (up to 1984 couples had to marry twice, because the religious rites were not valid for the State).
If you choose (3), you just live with your partner and none is the wiser. You do not have rights and obligations with respect to your partner.
Parents always have the same obligations towards their children independent of whether they are married or not. However, in the case of (1) and (2) there are detailed regulations governing child support payments should there be a split; in 90% of the cases, the mother keeps the kid and the father pays an amount of money to the mother. In case (3), it is slightly more complicated, but I will come back to it later.
Marriage, whether civil or religious, is only between a man and a woman.
Divorce is permitted, and there are two possibilities. If it is ordinary, i.e. two people decide to split because they just don't like each other anymore, the law requires three years of legal separation before the marriage is dissolved (which means that you can't remarry before three years, basically). If it follows episodes of physical or psychological violence against either spouse or children, episodes of drug or alcohol addiction, or other such circumstances then it's faster, although I don't remember if it takes 6 months before a new marriage or 1 year.
The campaign for civil unions that culminated in yesterday's draft law has two groups of proponents:
- heterosexuals who do not want to enter marriage but still want a set of rights as a couple;
- homosexuals who want to publicize (in the legal sense) their partnership and hence have a set of rights as a couple that they are not able to have otherwise. I will come back later to the point of civil unions, regardless of the partners' gender, versus gay marriage.
Proponents of civil unions argue that people who live together and do not want to or cannot marry (for example, because they are gay, or because one of them is waiting for a divorce) are denied some basic rights.
For example, only a legal spouse can visit her partner in hospital besides regular visiting hours (ie sleep at his bedside in case of serious illnesses, etc); of course this is Italy, so no doctor is going to check whether you really are the wife or a cohabiting partner, but it is theoretically possible for him to do so and kick you out if you are not the wife.
There is a whole lot of provisions about inheritance that only apply to the legal spouse: let's say that I have a son with my cohabiting partner, and at some point he (partner, not son) dies in a car crash, without leaving a testament. Our son gets everything and I get nothing. If we don't have kids, my partner's brothers and parents get everything, and I get nothing. If there is a testament and I am indicated as his heir, his direct family still gets a fixed share of the inheritance, and I get the rest.
On the other hand, if we are married, if there is a son then I get 50% and the son gets 50%, if there is no son I get everything. Moreover, wives, husbands, siblings and parents pay a reduced tax on inheritance; cohabiting partners are in the same category as friends and all other people to whom the deceased is not related by blood, and the tax rate is higher.
Real estate leases: I die, my husband automatically becomes the new tenant of our house. My cohabiting partner has to ask and can be refused by the landlord (again, as if evictions didn't take on average five years).
Also, in this country most workers still have a public pension, although we are slowly switching to a private system. So people pay contributions to a pension fund throughout their working life and then they get the money in instalments when they retire. If two pensioners are married and one dies, the other receives a share of his spouse's pension in addition to his own, until the moment of his death (seriously. and we wonder about high debt).
There are also other points, but these will suffice for the time being.
Let us switch to the side of obligations. The main difference between marriage and civil unions, as far as I understand, is that married partners are theoretically obliged to live together, and if one runs away the other can sue her. In the case of civil unions, there would be no cohabitation duty, while some other obligations (i.e. financial assistance in time of need) would be reiterated.
Finally, and importantly, entering a civil union would only require a communication in writing to the municipality, and splitting would only require a communication in writing to the municipality, too.
Basically, a civil union (or DiCo, according to the new catchword on the national media) is a light form of marriage, and this is exactly why the debate was so furious.
Cardinal Ruini, and the whole Italian Episcopal Conference (the association of local Bishops), argued that the whole side concerning rights could be resolved with mere modifications to run-of-the-mill laws. For example (note that these prospective solutions are mine and not Ruini's, he never went into details as far as I understand): just allow everyone to name their heir irrespective of blood ties, provided that children must come first anyway; allow everyone to freely pick who can visit them in hospital; and get rid of the damn double pensions already, doing economy a favor anyway. These are solutions that reflect my own inclination for policies that privilege complete freedom of choice over all the rest, but I am sure that the Bishops thought of something where solidarity features larger.
The reason why the Church hates the draft law: rather than just giving reasonable rights to people, it creates a competitive form of legal union which is easier to dissolve and has fewer obligations than marriage. So people will be inclined to take the easy path, the institution of family will be undermined, and society will become worse.
My opinion: hard to say, really. Several sides to it.
The Cardinal is right - most problems can be solved through modifications to civil law. But the Church knows how to buy time, and I am sure that the preference in favor of blood ties rather than ties of affection (say, my money goes to my brother, not my boyfriend) embedded in current legislation is seen favorably by at least a part of the Bishops. I do not think that the actual changes in civil law proposed by centrists and the Vatican, i.e. the only ones that would survive a debate if the draft law was repealed, would overthrow the principle of biological family uber alles. Eventhough I happen to get along fine with mine, I loathe the idea (one of the few grounds on which I am pretty ideological): I would fight tooth and nail to give choice the edge over circumstance anytime... including the case of civil unions, if it wasn't paradoxical. The paradox comes into play because a heterosexual couple that decides to dodge marriage for a form that basically allows easier exit is not privileging choice over circumstance; it is watering choice down and conceptually switching circumstances that at least are hard fact, such as 'i was born to x and y', with circumstances that are clouds of smoke, such as 'you never know what happens in life'.
Another order of problems exists, however. Even if I safely come to the conclusion that entering DiCo rather than marriage is, as my friend Marco aptly says, "just a refined form of cretinism"... well, who am I to bar other people from being cretins? Why should the State not allow them the opportunity, if they want to? The Church says: because it undermines the family as an institution and it weakens the fabric of society. I am not sure.
This is terribly difficult. The countries with higher fertility in Europe, i.e. the Nordic countries, also have the highest share of births out of wedlock, and the lowest share of married couples over all couples. They all have very liberal civil union legislations. Society didn't disintegrate because of them. Conversely, our own society is imploding, and there are very few children: according to at least one leading demographer, one of the reasons why is exactly that we procreate only after marriage, but we only marry after two or three years of trial cohabitation, and we only start cohabiting after getting a job, and we only get a job after finishing uni at 25... so maybe the opportunity of entering civil unions could help strengthen, not weaken, the fabric of society.
However, however, however... no, this is not a winning argument. I do not know much about Scandinavian cultures, but from what I read one of their strongest points is that they place a lot of stock in responsibility. I do not know why a Dane would want to cohabit rather than marry (although, come to think of it, I can ask), but I do know for sure that Italians want to cohabit rather than marry because they do not want to feel tied to someone in perpetuity. The DiCo has the nicest drop-out option ever and it's cool to know that there is a special, socially recognized form of 'family' for those who do not want, well, to subject themselves to the conformity implied in being a run-of-the-mill 'family'. I don't need a piece of paper to remind me that I love you, but hey, let me have one to tell me that I can have your flat if you die tonight.
Incidentally, this doesn't solve the problem - why should I have the right to decide whether society is better off or worse off with civil unions? I know that democracy entails the fact that my own opinion is lumped with everyone else's and then a majority is counted, but I just don't feel comfortable with expressing strong opinions on these matters.
In a nutshell: probably, it's okay to have the DiCo law if people, as represented by a majority in Parliament, want it. However, I do not think I will enter a civil union if I can help it. It's more or less the same position I have on abortion, eventhough of course abortion is way more scary than civil unions and there are four million strong reasons to be in favor of a ban. I would not really repel the law that permits abortion, but I will not get one if I can help it.
As for gays, I'll come back to it tomorrow or on Sunday, because it's 2am and I suddenly realize that I should be asleep.
current de facto possibilities for couples in italy:
1. civil marriage;
2. religious marriage;
3. cohabitation.
If you choose (1), the Mayor of your city performs a civil ceremony and you enter into a legally binding agreement with your spouse. You acquire rights and you also acquire obligations.
If you choose (2), a priest performs a religious ceremony and, following an extant accord between the Vatican and the Italian state, you are also automatically married from the civil standpoint, i.e. you enter into the legally binding agreement of (1) without need for a separate ceremony (up to 1984 couples had to marry twice, because the religious rites were not valid for the State).
If you choose (3), you just live with your partner and none is the wiser. You do not have rights and obligations with respect to your partner.
Parents always have the same obligations towards their children independent of whether they are married or not. However, in the case of (1) and (2) there are detailed regulations governing child support payments should there be a split; in 90% of the cases, the mother keeps the kid and the father pays an amount of money to the mother. In case (3), it is slightly more complicated, but I will come back to it later.
Marriage, whether civil or religious, is only between a man and a woman.
Divorce is permitted, and there are two possibilities. If it is ordinary, i.e. two people decide to split because they just don't like each other anymore, the law requires three years of legal separation before the marriage is dissolved (which means that you can't remarry before three years, basically). If it follows episodes of physical or psychological violence against either spouse or children, episodes of drug or alcohol addiction, or other such circumstances then it's faster, although I don't remember if it takes 6 months before a new marriage or 1 year.
The campaign for civil unions that culminated in yesterday's draft law has two groups of proponents:
- heterosexuals who do not want to enter marriage but still want a set of rights as a couple;
- homosexuals who want to publicize (in the legal sense) their partnership and hence have a set of rights as a couple that they are not able to have otherwise. I will come back later to the point of civil unions, regardless of the partners' gender, versus gay marriage.
Proponents of civil unions argue that people who live together and do not want to or cannot marry (for example, because they are gay, or because one of them is waiting for a divorce) are denied some basic rights.
For example, only a legal spouse can visit her partner in hospital besides regular visiting hours (ie sleep at his bedside in case of serious illnesses, etc); of course this is Italy, so no doctor is going to check whether you really are the wife or a cohabiting partner, but it is theoretically possible for him to do so and kick you out if you are not the wife.
There is a whole lot of provisions about inheritance that only apply to the legal spouse: let's say that I have a son with my cohabiting partner, and at some point he (partner, not son) dies in a car crash, without leaving a testament. Our son gets everything and I get nothing. If we don't have kids, my partner's brothers and parents get everything, and I get nothing. If there is a testament and I am indicated as his heir, his direct family still gets a fixed share of the inheritance, and I get the rest.
On the other hand, if we are married, if there is a son then I get 50% and the son gets 50%, if there is no son I get everything. Moreover, wives, husbands, siblings and parents pay a reduced tax on inheritance; cohabiting partners are in the same category as friends and all other people to whom the deceased is not related by blood, and the tax rate is higher.
Real estate leases: I die, my husband automatically becomes the new tenant of our house. My cohabiting partner has to ask and can be refused by the landlord (again, as if evictions didn't take on average five years).
Also, in this country most workers still have a public pension, although we are slowly switching to a private system. So people pay contributions to a pension fund throughout their working life and then they get the money in instalments when they retire. If two pensioners are married and one dies, the other receives a share of his spouse's pension in addition to his own, until the moment of his death (seriously. and we wonder about high debt).
There are also other points, but these will suffice for the time being.
Let us switch to the side of obligations. The main difference between marriage and civil unions, as far as I understand, is that married partners are theoretically obliged to live together, and if one runs away the other can sue her. In the case of civil unions, there would be no cohabitation duty, while some other obligations (i.e. financial assistance in time of need) would be reiterated.
Finally, and importantly, entering a civil union would only require a communication in writing to the municipality, and splitting would only require a communication in writing to the municipality, too.
Basically, a civil union (or DiCo, according to the new catchword on the national media) is a light form of marriage, and this is exactly why the debate was so furious.
Cardinal Ruini, and the whole Italian Episcopal Conference (the association of local Bishops), argued that the whole side concerning rights could be resolved with mere modifications to run-of-the-mill laws. For example (note that these prospective solutions are mine and not Ruini's, he never went into details as far as I understand): just allow everyone to name their heir irrespective of blood ties, provided that children must come first anyway; allow everyone to freely pick who can visit them in hospital; and get rid of the damn double pensions already, doing economy a favor anyway. These are solutions that reflect my own inclination for policies that privilege complete freedom of choice over all the rest, but I am sure that the Bishops thought of something where solidarity features larger.
The reason why the Church hates the draft law: rather than just giving reasonable rights to people, it creates a competitive form of legal union which is easier to dissolve and has fewer obligations than marriage. So people will be inclined to take the easy path, the institution of family will be undermined, and society will become worse.
My opinion: hard to say, really. Several sides to it.
The Cardinal is right - most problems can be solved through modifications to civil law. But the Church knows how to buy time, and I am sure that the preference in favor of blood ties rather than ties of affection (say, my money goes to my brother, not my boyfriend) embedded in current legislation is seen favorably by at least a part of the Bishops. I do not think that the actual changes in civil law proposed by centrists and the Vatican, i.e. the only ones that would survive a debate if the draft law was repealed, would overthrow the principle of biological family uber alles. Eventhough I happen to get along fine with mine, I loathe the idea (one of the few grounds on which I am pretty ideological): I would fight tooth and nail to give choice the edge over circumstance anytime... including the case of civil unions, if it wasn't paradoxical. The paradox comes into play because a heterosexual couple that decides to dodge marriage for a form that basically allows easier exit is not privileging choice over circumstance; it is watering choice down and conceptually switching circumstances that at least are hard fact, such as 'i was born to x and y', with circumstances that are clouds of smoke, such as 'you never know what happens in life'.
Another order of problems exists, however. Even if I safely come to the conclusion that entering DiCo rather than marriage is, as my friend Marco aptly says, "just a refined form of cretinism"... well, who am I to bar other people from being cretins? Why should the State not allow them the opportunity, if they want to? The Church says: because it undermines the family as an institution and it weakens the fabric of society. I am not sure.
This is terribly difficult. The countries with higher fertility in Europe, i.e. the Nordic countries, also have the highest share of births out of wedlock, and the lowest share of married couples over all couples. They all have very liberal civil union legislations. Society didn't disintegrate because of them. Conversely, our own society is imploding, and there are very few children: according to at least one leading demographer, one of the reasons why is exactly that we procreate only after marriage, but we only marry after two or three years of trial cohabitation, and we only start cohabiting after getting a job, and we only get a job after finishing uni at 25... so maybe the opportunity of entering civil unions could help strengthen, not weaken, the fabric of society.
However, however, however... no, this is not a winning argument. I do not know much about Scandinavian cultures, but from what I read one of their strongest points is that they place a lot of stock in responsibility. I do not know why a Dane would want to cohabit rather than marry (although, come to think of it, I can ask), but I do know for sure that Italians want to cohabit rather than marry because they do not want to feel tied to someone in perpetuity. The DiCo has the nicest drop-out option ever and it's cool to know that there is a special, socially recognized form of 'family' for those who do not want, well, to subject themselves to the conformity implied in being a run-of-the-mill 'family'. I don't need a piece of paper to remind me that I love you, but hey, let me have one to tell me that I can have your flat if you die tonight.
Incidentally, this doesn't solve the problem - why should I have the right to decide whether society is better off or worse off with civil unions? I know that democracy entails the fact that my own opinion is lumped with everyone else's and then a majority is counted, but I just don't feel comfortable with expressing strong opinions on these matters.
In a nutshell: probably, it's okay to have the DiCo law if people, as represented by a majority in Parliament, want it. However, I do not think I will enter a civil union if I can help it. It's more or less the same position I have on abortion, eventhough of course abortion is way more scary than civil unions and there are four million strong reasons to be in favor of a ban. I would not really repel the law that permits abortion, but I will not get one if I can help it.
As for gays, I'll come back to it tomorrow or on Sunday, because it's 2am and I suddenly realize that I should be asleep.
A stable relationship doesn't need marriage to be true. It could easily be "official" in our heart...
