There Will Be Good News Someday

[eumelia]

Something y'all should know about gay rights in my locale. The majority of them, if not all of them, have come to be due to judicial precedence and not actual Knesset (Parliamentary) bills.

All same sex adoptions rights are due to court room precedence. All spouse benefit packages awarded to one's same sex partner, due to court room precedence.

You get the picture.

Our rights exist, not because we are almost equal, but because the court sees fit that we are human enough for civil rights.

Why am I telling you this?

In a bout of unimaginable cruelty, apathy and down right ignorance, a Judge has declared that gay partners aren't couples under the inheritance law.
I can't even pick out quotes that manage to make sense of this story, so I'm putting the entire article under a cut as well as the rest if my post:

Published 06.10.10
Court rules gay partners are not couples under Inheritance Law
Association for Civil Rights in Israel: Ruling pushes legal field back decades, represents discrimination against same-sex couples.
By Yanir Yagna

Since the death of a senior university faculty member three years ago, a legal battle has been raging between his sister and the man claiming to be his common-law partner. Last month Yeshayahu Tischler, a Be'er Sheva Magistrate's Court judge, rejected the man's lawsuit in a controversial ruling that held that the 1965 Inheritance Law applies only to relationships involving a man and a woman.

A month later, the claimant remains furious. "We lived as a couple for 26 years, but he hid it because it was unacceptable to come out of the closet. We lived together for a long time, and I loved him very much. The ruling infuriates me. The judge held from the beginning that a couple can be only a man and a woman," he said.

"It's simply maddening that a judge can write off the entire population of homosexuals and lesbians. He just took 26 years of my life and crossed them out," he said.

The sister of the professor said in court that his will had made no mention of a partner.

Tischler wrote in his ruling, "My opinion is that the expression 'man and woman' [in the Inheritance Law] can mean only one thing: a male and a female."

He also rejected the man's claim that he was in a romantic relationship with the deceased.

"There was indeed a special link between this man and the deceased. At the center of this relationship was the deceased's desire to rehabilitate this man, who was an at-risk youth and had descended into drugs. As part of that effort, the deceased invested vast sums of money in him. The relationship was altruistic and sociological, but not romantic," wrote the judge.

Boaz Kraus, the attorney representing the sister, agreed that the two men's relationship had not been romantic.

"The ruling is entirely clear. Whether what that man is claiming in court is true or not, it is in complete violation of the wishes of the deceased. Everything he said is lies, and damages the memory of the departed," said Kraus.

Marina Gordin and Keren Chen, attorneys for the claimant, said, "Many witnesses were brought to court to testify on behalf of our client and left no doubt about his relationship with the deceased."

The claimant's attorney said the phrase "man and woman" was used in the Inheritance Law to signify any romantic relationship, and to differentiate it from the marital relationship implied by "man and wife." The court, however, chose to interpret the text strictly, reading it as referring to a male and female.

The claimant's attorney vowed to appeal the ruling.

Dan Yakir, a legal consultant for the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, said, "The ruling that inheritance must be determined only based on the model of the heterosexual couple, is trying to push the legal field back decades, and represents discrimination against same-sex couples.

"The fact that many gay couples live in the closet means the court should pay special attention to the complexity inherent in the situation, and not add additional locks to the closet," he said.

I find this whole thing a nightmare. I can't even begin to imagine what this man is going through. To be erased in this manner and to be humiliated in such a way.

When you get right down to it, it's not fair. It's just not fair, period. That due to (well founded) fear and institutional homophobia families are destroyed in this manner.

That the Judge show such wilful ignorance - "altruistic and sociological, but not romantic" - there are no laws that carefully arrange these kinds of families, there is no legal definition of a common-law partner. You just live together and hold a house hold together and have a bank account and pay taxes together. But there is nothing to oblige the state to view you as spouses.
Now, the thing is, if you're a heterosexual couple, well then, there aren't that many problems, as the letter of the law speaks in that language - Hebrew is gendered to a fault, we are so very much kept in line my the rigidity of our tongue - as mentioned in the article. If you're a heterosexual couple, living a common-law partnership, the law is in your favour and the privilege of your status as a family prevails.

No so if you are gay. If you are gay, there is, obviously, nothing you can say to convince the homophobic Judge that the house hold you held with your, now dead, partner, was a house hold. It was, clearly, simply a place in which you lived, without the benefits of the loving-kindness the law is willing to give these unmarried men and women who lose their loved ones.

The arbitrariness and overt discrimination is just outrageous. I can't think of anything else to say about this.

Comments

[dhobikikutti]

I'm so sorry to hear about this. (I was also wondering if you might consider cross-posting/linking to your Israel posts at intra.)

[eumelia]

Yes! Gah, I keep meaning to and I will, even though I keep feeling as though my tone is a bit too personal.

But yes, I will cross post.

[amethystfirefly]

Oh hell. That poor man. :(

I'm so sorry. :(

[eumelia]

It's terrible.

[ironed_orchid]

That's awful.

The horrible thing is, with judges like that, and family who are not willing to consider that living with another man for 26 years might be indicative of something romantic/sexual... I'm not surprised that the deceased felt safer in the closet.

[eumelia]

I agree.

[silveradept]

Augh. Nothing like a court case to remind you on what sort of fragile ground you stand. If there were a process for disbarring a judge based on deliberate ignorance, it should be initiated immediately.

[eumelia]

Well, seeing as he's the one going through the letter of the law, the plaintive doesn't really have a leg to stand on, in that regard. It's all very depressing.

[silveradept]

Very depressing. One still hopes the appeals court finds a reason to remand or overturn. Here in the U.S., saying something like "religion should not be able to influence the law to this degree" would have Constitutional weight behind it, but since you don't have Knesset laws or a constitution to rely on, it would be American ignorance at work.

[lilacsigil]

This is horrible, especially as Australia has passed laws saying the exact opposite - despite st_aurafina's and my families being completely supportive, it's great to have the law behind us rather than just having to trust their good will. Which it doesn't look like the families had in this case.

[eumelia]

Good will is sorely lacking, for sure.

That's great to hear about Australia! Good for you!