AP: Unwed couples get new rights in Italy

[Eugene]

Thursday, February 8, 2007 · Last updated 9:09 p.m. PT

Unwed couples get new rights in Italy

By FRANCES D'EMILIO
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

ROME -- The Italian Cabinet on Thursday approved proposed legislation granting legal
rights to unmarried couples in both heterosexual and same-sex relationships.

The decision came despite alarm among Christian Democrats in the center-left
government and harsh criticism from the Catholic Church.

Equal Opportunity Minister Barbara Pollastrini said that if Parliament passes the
legislation, unmarried couples who live together can immediately begin to enjoy some
legal protections, such as the same hospital visitation rights as spouses and relatives.

However, Pollastrini said couples would have to live together for at least nine years
before they would be entitled to property rights.

-snip-

Full article: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1103AP_Italy_Unmarried_Couples.html

[Vidar]

1. Bravo Italy.

[youngdem]

2. Wow. That's great

I lived there for a while...Even Rome is strangely secular for a city that is one with Vatican City.

America is being left behind by the rest of the First World.

[Darth_Kitten]

3. I wonder what benefits single people get?

Just sayin'.......you start shacking up with somebody and you get benefits? :shrug:

[BayCityProgressive]

4. cool

the socialist center-left government in Italy and Spain have made many needed social changes. Time to drop the catholic superstitions from government policy.

[Darth_Kitten]

5. Like we can trust the governments in Italy and Spain.......

n/t

[Tyo]

6. Further than we can trust our own n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

12. What IS your point, exactly? -nt

[Darth_Kitten]

13. Many changes of government in Italy.........

what's in one day can be out the next.

Really, no sinister, evil motives on my part.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Darth_Kitten]

9. with over 8500 posts, dear?

calling somebody with 8500 posts a troll?

[Tyo]

10. Yeah, sorry, you're right

I typed before I looked. You just sound like one, sweetie. But maybe I'm missing the sarcasm.

[Tyo]

11. I do apologize again for using the T word

Must work harder to curb my tendency to type before reading.

Now how exactly do you define "shacking up"? I'm curious about this. And what benefits do you begrudge people who are in what is in essence a civil marriage? Curious about this too. It's probably just me, but your posts seem a little cryptic and I would be glad for some elaboration.

[MadMaddie]

8. Must be really cool to live in a progressive country....

not held back because of some 10-15% idiots who are in control of the US.

[happyslug]

14. Lets bring back "Common Law" Marraiges....

Lets remember the reason for the abolishment of "Common Law" marriages during the Council of Trent (In mid-1500s) was do to the problem of what was a valid marriage? If you lived with someone, or even had sex with someone, that was enough to have valid Common Law Marriage in almost all countries prior to the Council of Trent. If you had sex with one person and then moved in with someone else, which person was your lawful Spouse? Do you need a devoice if the relationship breaks up? These were the problems (along with who inherits what from whom) was the reason the catholic church abolished "Common Law" marriage in the Council of Trent (And why most Protestant Countries follow through slowly, for example England did not abolish Common Law Marriage till the early 170ss, and some American States STILL have not abolish Common law Marriage).

My point is there are MORE complications involved with expanding what is a "Marriages" or rights of non-married people. Hopefully these problems will be addressed but maybe the better solution is just to keep things as there are, this has worked for the last 100 years (The Nuclear family as the MAIN form of family is only the product of urbanization, industrialization and the raise of the welfare state since the 1880s in Europe and the 1930s in the USA). Lets go slow on this process, nine years is a long time for people to be together BEFORE THEY EARNED RIGHTS, I would prefer a return to Common Law Marriage and the Common Law Rules that kicks in as soon as the couple lived together (Or had sex together in some forms of Common Law Marriage).

At the same time, I know the problems of Common Law Marriage (for example HOW Richard III became King of England involved the concept of Common Law Marriage in that Richard III brother was ruled to be married to another by the Common Law when he married the mother of the "Princes", thus that second marriage was invalid and the Princes were illegitimate). While Illegitimacy is a minor concern today, similar problems can arise if you expand the "Rights" of people who lived together., and no rights till none years living together? I see this as a bad attempt to reintroduce Common Law Marriage only half thought out.