I sold my home 16 years ago and have been living with my partner in his house ever since. He is 76 and I am 77. We have a loving, stable relationship, but I am increasingly anxious about my future. He has refused to register as domestic partners, which means that if he is hospitalized, I may not have the legal right to advocate for him. He also will not discuss his plans for the future. When I ask what I should do if he dies, he jokes, “Call the coroner.”
The house is paid for and is in his name alone. I have no idea how the bills or taxes are handled, or what arrangements — if any — he has made for me to remain in what he always calls “our” home. I love his family and would ultimately be happy for the house to pass to them after I die. What I need is the security of knowing that I will not be forced to leave the home we have shared for so many years. I hesitate to involve my own family, because I fear they would judge him harshly. I have even considered contacting his family to ask what they know, but that feels like a breach of trust.
Am I wrong to press this issue at this stage of our lives? What is the ethical way to balance respect for his privacy and autonomy with my need for basic security and clarity about the future? — Name Withheld
From the Ethicist:
You fear being guilty of a “breach of trust.” Isn’t that a fair description of what your partner’s stonewalling amounts to? After 16 years together, your need for security is entirely legitimate; his cavalier refusal to offer reassurance is not. There are all sorts of ways of providing both of you a measure of protection via a life tenancy, medical authorizations and the like. (The details will depend on your jurisdiction, so you might want to consult an elder-law attorney.) But his disinclination to talk about the future — to address the eventuality that one of you will go first, and it could be him — cannot outweigh your need to know whether you’ll have a roof over your head.
Let him know that the uncertainty is causing you real anxiety. If he still refuses to engage, suggest a lawyer, mediator or broadened family conversation. A loving partner should not leave you guessing about whether you have an ownership stake in your shared existence or are merely renting it, subject to eviction when his lease on life expires.
Readers Respond
The previous question was from a reader who wondered whether he was right to take away his partner’s gun after she fired it in their home. He wrote:
My partner recently purchased a handgun for self-defense amid concerns about the federal government’s actions in our community. The firearm has brought her significant peace of mind, and she has been practicing regularly to become more comfortable with it. I was unaware that her practice involved chambering a live round until recently, when while practicing at home with a live round in the chamber, she felt an overwhelming compulsion to pull the trigger that she could not resist. The gun discharged, putting a hole in our wall. … I have since taken possession of the handgun, because I am profoundly uncomfortable with the situation. … Am I wrong to have taken temporary control of the firearm? What is the right balance between supporting her autonomy and ensuring the safety of our household? — Name Withheld
In his response, the Ethicist noted:
Someone who feels an irresistible compulsion to fire a live round has shown diminished autonomy, and should not be in charge of a lethal weapon. Nor do I see this as a problem more training would solve. … Alongside your partner’s worrisome compulsion, it would appear, is a perplexing belief system. How, exactly, does she believe that owning a handgun will help her or others in your community fend off the government’s actions? … States with higher household gun ownership have higher rates of fatal law-enforcement shootings, especially of people who were armed with guns. … At the very least, the question of whether there should be a gun in a home should be subject to deliberation and consent, not something one party imposes on the other. … The disquiet you feel is justified. Why should her sense of security be maintained at the expense of yours?
(Reread the full question and answer here.)
⬥
For all the reasons the Ethicist points out, sell the gun to a licensed firearms dealer, or hand it over to the police. Just get it out of the house. I grew up in a house full of guns and I am still a gun owner, and I’m telling you this: It’s not a toy, and it’s not a security blanket. — Marc
⬥
The Ethicist is wrong. The letter writer has stolen the personal property of someone else and withheld it without her consent. She is legally entitled to possess a firearm and no partner is permitted to steal her property. The letter writer has the option to move out or report the reckless discharge of the firearm to law enforcement. He does not have the right to steal, withhold her property, or violate her Second Amendment rights. The letter writer has as much right to restrict his partner’s firearm access as he does to restrict her free speech and free exercise of religion rights. If the gun bothers him, he can move out or deal with it, or report the reckless discharge to law enforcement. It is not an option to steal and withhold personal property. — Sarah
⬥
I would add that deviant behavior with a gun, as evidenced in this situation, has the unfortunate capacity of escalating as this owner becomes “more comfortable.” Today she points at the wall and shoots; tomorrow it could be pointing at her partner to scare her or to make a point. As a former law enforcement officer, I’d suggest the gun has to go. If she won’t give it up, consider whether the relationship can endure. — Peggy
⬥
No disagreement about whether or not owning a gun makes one more secure. However, in a relationship, if you have one person taking something the other owns “for their own” — or your own — “good,” you are going down a slippery slope. — Joe
⬥ In Vermont, around 50 percent of citizens own guns, yet since 1977 we have had only 48 officer-involved shootings. I don’t think the issue here is the gun but the person using it. I understand why it might make her feel safer, but given the hole in the wall, maybe a Taser would be a better choice. Outside of that, the couple could make an agreement that the gun owner only uses, loads and shoots the gun at a range. Living in a state where so many people own guns, I have seen firsthand how learning respect for these weapons can affect how and when they are used. — Nikoa
⬥
I completely agree with the Ethicist. And I will even go a bit further — an overwhelming compulsion to pull the trigger is probably one of the most dangerous impulses your partner could have. This seems like a setup for suicide-by-cop. This person should never get anywhere near a gun again, ever. And as for feeling secure or not, your partner needs a lot of help to feel secure and it has nothing to do with arming oneself. Please help her work on feeling secure some other way, and be very, very aware of her actions, as she may feel a compulsion to get another gun to replace the one you took away. — Diane
The post My Partner Won’t Tell Me Who Will Get ‘Our’ House If He Dies. Can I Press Him? appeared first on New York Times.
