Mom fights to be buried with soldier son

[DGTess]

Another case of someone wanting something she's not entitled to.

If she has to be buried with her son, why have him interred some place she is ineligible?

Frank and Kerry are good at this ... let's break the rules to make someone "feel" better.

And then we wonder why we're no longer a nation of common-sense laws.

I'm a veteran, a military retiree, and I maintain she didn't earn the right to be buried in the Massachusetts National Cemetery with her son.

[Honeykiss1974]

Originally Posted by DGTess

If she has to be buried with her son, why have him interred some place she is ineligible?

I read this story elsewhere and this was the first thing I wondered too.

[texas*princess]

Originally Posted by DGTess

I'm a veteran, a military retiree, and I maintain she didn't earn the right to be buried in the Massachusetts National Cemetery with her son.

I agree - if she wanted to be buried with him she should have opted to bury him in a place that she could also be buried.

Although, technically the spouses and children of deceased military members didn't 'earn' the right to be there either besides just being married or children of them. I think if there are exceptions for married people, or people with children, there should be some kind of exception for people who didn't marry or have kids. That's not for me to decide, but it just kind of seems wrong that there are exceptions for some people and not everyone.

Just my take on it though.

[honeychile]

Agree with eveyone - it's the classic "The Rules Apply To Everyone But Me" ploy. If she really needs to be buried next to her son - and I don't find that odd under the circumstnaces - she should get two plots in a cemetery with a military section, and have him reinterred there.

Space at the National Cemeteries is too dear to bend the rules for anyone.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by texas*princess

I agree - if she wanted to be buried with him she should have opted to bury him in a place that she could also be buried.

Although, technically the spouses and children of deceased military members didn't 'earn' the right to be there either besides just being married or children of them. I think if there are exceptions for married people, or people with children, there should be some kind of exception for people who didn't marry or have kids. That's not for me to decide, but it just kind of seems wrong that there are exceptions for some people and not everyone.

Just my take on it though.

It's different though. If he was married or had minor children, they would have been provided for by the Army. Burying them in next to him in the national cemetery is an extension of that.

[BabyPiNK_FL]

She gave her only son up for this country. I don't have any kids myself, but I can't imagine that means nothing. While it would have been sensible for her to bury him somewhere she could assure her burial next to him, it seems that she will most likely get her wish anyway according to the waiver custom. What difference is it if they give it now instead of after she's gone on? If it will give her any small comfort at all, I wish they'd just let her know. It seems strange to me too in a way, but it's her child and I have a soft spot for her situation and others in a similar position.

[moe.ron]

Originally Posted by DGTess

Another case of someone wanting something she's not entitled to.

If she has to be buried with her son, why have him interred some place she is ineligible?

Yup