The Price of Partnership

As homosexuals in parts of Europe press for their right to marry, some heterosexuals are asserting their right not to. After British soldier Brad Tinnion was killed in action in Sierra Leone a year ago, his partner of nine years, Anna Homsi, tried to claim a war widow’s pension. Since the two had never married, the Ministry of Defense said no. Like its counterparts in other European countries, including France and Germany, Britain’s MoD has no provision for partners who have not established the legal link of marriage. (The couple’s daughter, Georgia, born three months after Tinnion died, receives benefits automatically.)

Last month, after the case stirred fierce public debate over the rights of unmarried partners, the MoD announced it would discuss a settlement with Homsi. She would not get the war widow’s pension, says an MoD spokesman, but rather an “ex gratia payment recognizing that in her case there are exceptional circumstances.” Homsi’s solicitor, Tom Reah, says that his client is still waiting to hear what the MoD might offer but notes there are larger issues at stake. “Anna Homsi is concerned about herself, obviously,” he says. “But she also wants to make sure that anyone in her position is looked after properly.”

At this point, there is no guarantee that will happen. But the MoD is reviewing the entire issue of unmarried parents. The military doesn’t want the Homsi case to set a precedent. Still, the official review is a sign, and not the only one, that Britain is re-evaluating how its rules fit a changing society. In July, Members of Parliament voted to extend pension benefits to unmarried partners of MPs. The policy has not been extended to other government employees yet, but Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris, who sponsored the argument, is pushing for more change. “The public sector needs to keep up with the lifestyles and financial independence of modern couples,” he says. “I’m campaigning to make these policies non-discriminatory.”

Not everyone agrees that the Homsi case is a valid example of bias. “Discrimination mainly applies to circumstances where people have no choice,” wrote Sunday Telegraph columnist Mary Kenny. “Brad and Anna did have a choice, and they chose not to marry.” If the policy is to change, where should the government draw the new blurry line to replace marriage? Says Reah: “If you can prove that you are a long-term established partner, you should be treated the same as a married person.” But how does one prove partnership? What constitutes long-term? “Marriage is a contract and a public commitment to share,” says James Jones, the Anglican Bishop of Liverpool, who has written extensively on the importance of marriage. “Partnership is a private arrangement which deliberately lacks that public commitment and those legal obligations.” That’s true today. But if Homsi and Harris have their way, partnership will soon come with recognized benefits – and take on public characteristics that make it look a lot like marriage.

(From ‘Time’)

Problem Solving.

Analyze the facts and arguments given in the article very carefully and prepare a short speech as if you were arguing the case in court. First act as if you were Tom Reah, Homsi’s solicitor, and then as if you were the MoD lawyer (let you name be Jeff Trendon). Remember that you must be prepared to perform both roles. It is your closing speech in which you must sum up the arguments in favour and against your case. While preparing the speech think over the following points.

1) Can you possibly win? If not, it might be better to press for a compromise. If so, what compromise can you reach?

2) Think what you cannot possibly allow to happen.

3) Think over the arguments given against your case and counter them. Arrange them in the way that would make your side of the story call for justice.

4) Think how you could present your speech in the form of questions and answers.

NB. If you find it necessary you can also use the material of other articles given in this Unit.

 

Vocabulary 2