A few personal reflections of law school from 1999 to 2002

A few personal reflections of law school from 1999 to 2002
By Renee Aste
Lowell Massachusetts

My first year at Massachusetts School of Law was like any other, my electives the two following years did divulge into concerns relevant to personal relationships. Back in Fall of 2001, I took family law. Initially it presented itself as who can and can’t marry, consent of age, sanguinity, bigamy, and annulments. The great majority of the semester dealt with divorce, restraining orders, and learning how to calculate child support. It was indeed depressing.

Of that class I do remember watching a tape of the opening statements for the issue of civil unions in Vermont. It wasn’t connected to a lesson, but shown in class since it was a current issue of the time. I wasn’t impressed by either side, particularly the side in opposition of civil unions. The whole thing honestly was confusing, nothing concrete, and nothing established. How can you say it is going to harm public policy on marriage, if they are not asking for marriage directly?

What did impress me was a fellow student the semester prior in elder law. The class covered how nursing care was paid for, when can the government can ‘go after the house’, situations when the patient or assumption could not consent, and differing standards of health care proxies. We each had to do a small talk of a particular issue; one of my classmates, a middle aged gentleman did his on the concerns of homosexual couples.

More in the fold

My classmate did happen to be openly gay. I’m very grateful and proud that in Massachusetts that he was able to freely express his concerns in discussion with his classmates without fear. We didn’t judge his orientation, but just his facts. This was before the Goodridge case and he was sharing differing legal scenarios where the respect for the relationship between two adults was being ignored. Imagine shutting out a person’s trusted partner from the last moments of life or even being barred from the funeral. Being elder law, the issue wasn’t heterosexual behavior and minor children because many of us will be older and unmarried. Especially women, as men tend to die younger.

Yet why shouldn’t we limit this valid idea to just homosexual domestic partnerships, but equally to singles adults who could benefit equally? And sadly why do we have to completely invalidate the obligations men and women have to ensure the wellbeing of their children for this to happen?

Sanguine bonds are presumed to be of trust to our well being. Prior to our birth and as legal minors, intellectually and financially we are unable to survive on our own without someone caring for us. People tend to seek out relatives in times of a recession, natural disaster, or for someone to help us move. As we age roles reverse. We find ourselves as primary caregivers and decision makers of older relatives who need our help. We should give back to parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, even siblings and cousins who may fall ill or encounter hard times. We do this with little to no intervention from the government, and in return ideally the society promotes and protects such a resourceful concept called family though our laws.

When gay marriage supporters talk about adult relationships irrelevant to needs of children, they present something that does exist in our society and could be addressed. These relationships just are not inclusive to homosexual pairings though. Our most trusted person may be a neighbor or family friend to ensure our well-being. We may have a fallen out with relatives or simply they disagree in how we choose our adult lives. It may be an ethical disagreement on the end of life care or maybe you think your family are idiots and you want nothing to do with them.

Whatever the reason maybe, that if not married and an adult, we should have the ability to designate with consent and undesignated with notice. Designation doesn’t have to be mutual either; as I once read ‘Even best friends can not attend each others funerals’. Due to mutual obligation and cooperation in the best interests of potential offspring, married couples would not be free to designate, they would be stuck with one another.

I try to appreciate my experience at Massachusetts School of Law and being a member of the Massachusetts Bar. Yes, I indeed hold the title of Esquire professionally. I get frustrated though, when I’m required to look at the evidence, to search out and find for relevant facts, and instead I see around me lawyers and others create legal fiction or deny reality. I’m not in a courtroom, but a citizen speaking out that public policy. We should be able recognize differing behavior and relationships in their own right, then follow through on in tangible terms of how we can help protect people in distinct circumstances.