Obama - Credit where credit is due...

[SteamWake]

As most of you know I dont care for Obama's policys in general but this time he got it right :up:

President Obama mandated Thursday that nearly all hospitals extend visitation rights to the partners of gay men and lesbians and respect patients' choices about who may make critical health-care decisions for them, perhaps the most significant step so far in his efforts to expand the rights of gay Americans.

Bet that supprises some of you ;)

and no I'm not gay but have friends and family whom are.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/15/AR2010041505502.html

[Sailor Steve]

Agreed.

[CaptainHaplo]

I disagree - if you want to give someone the authority for such decisions - get a power of attorney. As for the visitation - I don't have an issue. But this should apply to any unmarried couple as far as both authority - get the legal documents in order - and visitation.

Like so much else - this is just something that discriminates againsts straight couples who do not marry - just like the health care bill discriminated by including a tax on white women, and the FDA discriminated in banning all but one brand of "flavored" cigarrettes (Guess which one they kept - give you some hints - its the most popular brand of its type among a certain ethnic group, starts with a K, ends with L - and has OO in the middle...)

Cater to the special little groups to make em all happy again. Doesn't matter that when it comes to health care decisions there was a mechanism in place. Doesn't matter that any member of a couple - regardless of sexuality - should be allowed to see their "other half". As long as the "special" people get their goodies - who cares if everyone else is left in the cold.

[frau kaleun]

Straight couples have the option of marrying and can choose not to. If they choose to marry, it will be recognized everywhere as will all the rights and privileges that come with it.

Gay and lesbian couples do not have the same option unless they live in one of the few states that will recognize such a union, and even then most of the remaining states will not.

So it's not a fair playing field to begin with. It's only discrimination against gay and lesbian couples in this matter that makes a special mandate necessary at all.

Let any couple who wants to enter into a legal union do so, and give them all the rights and privileges that come with it. Require the power-of-attorney stuff from any couple that chooses not to marry even though any couple can. Then there's no discrimination either way and no need for mandate to make up for it.

[GoldenRivet]

agreed, i read that article this morning.

[CaptainHaplo]

If we really wanted to get into it - its not the government's place to regulate marriage anyway in my view. After all - marriage is a civil contract between two people - and before their chosen deity if they so desire. Neither is the concern of the government one bit.

However, - I don't disagree with leveling the playing field. However - a gay or lesbian couple can get married - if they want to go where its legal. Just as a unmarried straight couple can choose NOT to marry. Each is a choice by the individuals involved. If either one chooses not to take the steps necessary to be married in the eyes of the government - they have legal options to insure their wishes are honored. That isn't discriminatory - it applies equally to unmarried couples regardless of sexuality.

I don't have an issue with doing this - I have an issue with doing it only for specificed subgroups based on sexuality choice - while leaving others out in the cold.

This is just like the issues of providing health insurance for gay and lesbian couples. I don't have a problem with it - but if your going to do it - then you need to also offer the same to unmarried heterosexual couples. Otherwise your offering one group - based on their sexuality - on thing - while not offering another group in the same circumstance the same thing. That is the definition of discrimination based on sexual preference.

The fact is there are legitimate reasons some heterosexual couples do not marry - yet they are penalized still... when others are not.

[XabbaRus]

a gay or lesbian couple can get married - if they want to go where its legal

Yes but then it isn't recognised in another state, so even if they go out of state to get married when they come back to their home state it will be to all intents and purposes void.

It shouldn't be necessary for anyone to have to appoint power of attorney so they can designate their partner as critical decision maker. So I can't see how this discriminates against straight couples really.

[nikimcbee]

meh, nevermind.

[frau kaleun]

Straight couples aren't required to "go where it's legal" as it's legal for them to marry in any state in the union. If they fail or refuse to take advantage of an option that is open to them everywhere, then IMO they willingly forfeit the rights and privileges that would have come with it.

The overwhelming majority of gay and lesbian couples have never forfeited those rights and privileges because they never had the option to take advantage of them in the first place, at least not without fulfilling requirements (i.e., moving to another state) that are not imposed on their straight counterparts.

If we want to be "fair" (given the unfairness of the situation regarding the limited options of gay and lesbian couples in this situation) - then make the new mandate apply to all couples who identify as "life partners" regardless of sexual orientation. That I would be behind 100%.

[Aramike]

Haplo, I have to disagree with you here buddy. Some issues aren't about little legal nuances interpretation of Constitutional language. Some things are just about doing what's right.

This isn't about gay marriage, this is about visitation rights, and I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with extending hospital visitation rights to anyone's partner.

Although, you do make a good point this is exclusionary towards heterosexuals. As such, I still agree with Obama here, except with the caveat that this bill should include any long term partners.

For those of you saying this is about "chosing to get married", I don't think that argument applies. What if a couple were engaged and a fiance fell ill. Say that person's family didn't like the other partner and refused visitation.

That would be tragic, regardless of your orientation.

[GoldenRivet]

true.

but try as anyone might, all of the wrongs will never be righted... and there will always be injustice in the world.

[Aramike]

true.

but try as anyone might, all of the wrongs will never be righted... and there will always be injustice in the world.Indeed. But that's not an excuse to bypass the injustices we can feesibly and simply eliminate, and to me this is one of them.

[CaptainHaplo]

Aramike - I am not saying this is a bad thing. Far from it. I am not castigating the president for the action - I am simply pointing out its shortcomings. When you give to one group - based on sexuality - without doing the same for another - your discriminating.

I have NO qualms with them extending "significant other" visitation. I just don't think that such visitation criteria - on who is and isn't allowed - should be based on people's sexuality at all. Is that somehow wrong?

On the issue of who makes serious health care decisions - I do have some objections. The objections are not based on sexuality choices - but go to how one determins WHO is the ultimate authority. A man in the hospital after a bad wreck - the doctors say he will never recover. His "partner" says pull the plug - the blood relatives say do not - or Vice Versa - who makes that decision? This puts the hospitals in a hell of a spot......

Without some legal documentation - which a health decision power of attorney is VERY easy to get - this is just an ugly situation with no winners. Why is it unfair to ask an unmarried couple - regardless of sexuality - to make sure they have certain basic things in place for each other?

Note I didn't say whether that "partner" was a man or a woman. It shouldn't matter. But because gays and lesbians are singled out - it does matter. This is an issue close to home for me - because I have been with the same woman for 7 years, we have a child together, we are married as far as we are concerned - and we don't need the government to say so.

Right now - she is on her way to a concert with her oldest daughter. If something happened to her - without a power of attorney - I would not be able to have any say in her care. Yet according to this - if I was gay - and some tragedy occured - I would have a say? That is eff'd up under any reasonable standard.

At no time in this have I advocated that gays or lesbians not be allowed visits with their partners. Nor have I said they shouldn't have a say in the care of a loved one - but if they want it - what is wrong with saying they need to do the same damned thing I have to? If there were additional hoops to go through because of them being homsexual - maybe I could see it. But the process is exactly the same regardless - so why do I have to do it - but they don't?

Not to mention - as I demonstrated above - without some legal definitions of what will define a "life partner" - how the heck is the hospital going to determine who has the authority to make decisions......

The reality is that this is a feel good bone handed out to a specific group - when about 5 minutes of thought could extend the benefits - and the legal framework to make it work - to EVERY couple - regardless of sexual preference.

So again - what is wrong with that?

Seems to me you guys are all saying well sure it slants the field - but it was slanted before - now its slanted the other way. Slanted - regardless of direction - ain't level. This could have been - but then it wouldn't be such a "victory" for the gay and lesbian "equality" movement now would it.

So folks like myself and my lady still jump through the hoops - as others get a track without them. Nice......

[tater]

I'm with haplo, actually. It needs to apply to any couple, regardless of marriage. If the rationale is that it is discriminatory not to allow same sex SO visitation, etc, then the new rules are also discriminatory.

Creating a simple, cheap, boilerplate "civil union" with durable, reciprocal power of attorney, etc would be far more sensible.

[Snestorm]

Regulation of mariage is not empowered to the federal government by the US Constitution.

All powers not relegated to the federal government by the constitution shall be retained by the states, or the people.

The issue is NOT "gay rights" here, but federal power again, taken without regard to the constitution.

"Gay rights" is the smoke screen.
Federal control is the issue.

This is a matter for the states to decide, whichever side of the issue they choose.

[tater]

^^^ good point.

Also, regarding "doing what is right," since it is a legal thing, every nitpicking detail matters, that's the law in a nutshell.

[August]

Creating a simple, cheap, boilerplate "civil union" with durable, reciprocal power of attorney, etc would be far more sensible.

Isn't that pretty much just a letter signed by both parties and maybe notarized?

[tater]

Isn't that pretty much just a letter signed by both parties and maybe notarized?

No. It;s far more complex. We have friends—straight—who wanted to do something like that and saw a lawyer. He told them (after looking at them like they were nuts) that he could draw up a contract that would do it for a few grand, and they'd still have to figure out how to prove it on short notice if they ever needed to. Or, for $35 they could go to the county clerk and get married. They chose the latter.

[frau kaleun]

No. It;s far more complex. We have friends—straight—who wanted to do something like that and saw a lawyer. He told them (after looking at them like they were nuts) that he could draw up a contract that would do it for a few grand, and they'd still have to figure out how to prove it on short notice if they ever needed to. Or, for $35 they could go to the county clerk and get married. They chose the latter.

And that's where part of the problem lies - that there is an easy and relatively cheap (if you want to keep it that way) method of obtaining the rights and privileges of a legally recognized union, which DOES have ramifications on a federal level (taxes, anyone?), but which some couples do not have access to because it is not an available option unless they want to uproot their lives and move - permanently - to one of the few places in the country where it is.

And even if they do that, once they leave that state, there is no guarantee that their status at home will be legally recognized anywhere else.

The question is, are the rights and privileges that come with being legally married to another person considered something that you are guaranteed access to by virtue of being a (married) US citizen, regardless of the state that initially recognized the union? If so, then IMO it is the federal government's responsilibity to ensure that you are not denied them in whatever state you happen to be in.

Another part of the problem is that the concept of "marriage" is tied up with both civil/legal and religious matters for many people and the two are so entertwined that it's impossible to untangle them.

If you only want your union sanctified before your deity of choice, I see no reason to be "legally" married at all.

If you only want to establish a legal union without regard to any deity's approval or oversight, all you need to do is sign the papers before the appropriate witnesses and civil authorities.

If you want to do both, fine, but I see them as two different things.

But because the former is denied to some couples by the earthly representatives of whatever deity they claim to represent, the latter is also denied to them.

And I don't see why that should be the case.

[XabbaRus]

If you read the article all the way the ruling applies to all groups, not just for homosexuals. So it doesn't favour one group over an other it basically tells hospitals they can't stop partners visiting regardless of orientation.

[August]

Or, for $35 they could go to the county clerk and get married. They chose the latter.

Here in Mass it's the $35 plus whatever the required by law services by a local Justice of the Peace which goes for 1-200 bucks).

I'm kind of torn on the issue.

On one hand I always resent having to get permission from the government, especially on such a personal issue as marriage.

On the other hand some things should be made a big deal of, and marriage is definitely one of them.

[frau kaleun]

If you read the article all the way the ruling applies to all groups, not just for homosexuals. So it doesn't favour one group over an other it basically tells hospitals they can't stop partners visiting regardless of orientation.

If this is indeed the case - fantastic. :yeah:

[frau kaleun]

Here in Mass it's the $35 plus whatever the required by law services by a local Justice of the Peace which goes for 1-200 bucks).

I'm kind of torn on the issue.

On one hand I always resent having to get permission from the government, especially on such a personal issue as marriage.

On the other hand some things should be made a big deal of, and marriage is definitely one of them.

I'm torn on the issue of legal marriage also.

On the one hand I see it as a legal contract between two people, which at the very least provides for the possibility of legal recourse on the part of one person should the terms of the contract be broken by the other. And I can see where that is a good thing, because combining your life with another person's on that level is complicated enough on a purely practical level, and neither party should get screwed over if they've lived up to their end of the deal and the other party hasn't.

OTOH that's a pretty cold way to look at something that according to the popular imagination is supposed to be about love and rainbows and unicorns and whatnot. But I'm a practical person by nature, and I can't NOT look at it that way.

Because of that, I doubt I would ever live with another person as a "life partner" without some kind of legal protection in whatever form seemed appropriate.

OTotherOH, lol, I have to ask myself - why would I want to be the "life partner" (in any sense) of someone if I believed going into it that I might need a legal contract to protect myself from the ramifications of that decision somewhere down the line?

Which reminds me of this, which always cracks me up. :O:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItpmY94o9Sg

[tater]

As a bundled set of legal, contractual stuff, I think it's fine, why not have a tested, standardized version for cheap.

Figures taxachusetts would figure out a way to tax way more.

[CaptainHaplo]

Getting a power of attorney is cheap - all it takes is a document drawn up (do it yourself - or do a legalzoom version) - get it notorized and registered (minimal fees) - and have a copy if you ever need it. In the event of an emergency - keep a certified copy in the glove box. Your covered. All it really has to say is that you (the undersigned) do hereby grant full authority regarding emergency and or lifesaving treatment to so-in-so - use their legal name (not snookumwookums) and they can prove their identity with any photo ID. Problem solved.

[tater]

It was my understanding that there was more to it than that assuming you want every single legal linkage available in marriage. I'm no lawyer though.

I'd vote for a civil union referendum tomorrow, no problem. A real law, not legislated by the courts.

[CaptainHaplo]

Sure - if you want every single link. But this doesnt give every single link - it allows only "health decisions" and visitation. That is easily and cheaply done by anyone. Heck - you could do make such a document naming someone you hardly know - if you wanted and they accepted. The important thing is that there is a simple and easy process - as easy as going to the local county clerk and getting a marriage license in fact - without all the legal hubbub and drama that would go with it for some couples.

[tater]

There are possibly some situations where power of attorney isn't enough---where only "family" are allowed in the room. This might still be an issue, perhaps.

[CaptainHaplo]

For visitation perhaps - but then again - my beef with this wasn't regarding visitation.

[August]

So just how does a hospital determine who constitutes "family"? If somebody just says they're a spouse, or sibling, or parent etc how would the hospital determine otherwise?

[Aramike]

So just how does a hospital determine who constitutes "family"? If somebody just says they're a spouse, or sibling, or parent etc how would the hospital determine otherwise?Perhaps sharing an address?

No system is perfect, but reasonable accomodation can be made.

[Aramike]

Aramike - I am not saying this is a bad thing. Far from it. I am not castigating the president for the action - I am simply pointing out its shortcomings. When you give to one group - based on sexuality - without doing the same for another - your discriminating.
Fair enough, and my apologies. You were consistant on that point, I presented my point as a counter-argument although it ultimately agreed with yours.

To that end, however, I must point out that, while this effort is perhaps discriminatory, it does not mean that it is wrong.

To wit, a greatly exagerated analogy: the world has a fatal disease, and the King of the World has a cure. He decides (for whatever reason) to distribute it only to people with brown hair.

Now, on the basis of discrimination should that cure not be distributed, thusly giving way to the end of the world?

I cannot fault Obama here. This order, while it can be interpretted as discriminatory, was clearly intended to solve a very specific problem. And, while the same benefits SHOULD be extended to all (and perhaps will due to individuals with your logical reasoning skills), that shouldn't diminish the impact of this decree.

[CaptainHaplo]

No apology necessary Aramike - we are all good man! :yeah:

and perhaps will due to individuals with your logical reasoning skills

Aww - now your gonna make me turn all red and stuff. Shucks! :oops:

SNES - you are dead right that government shouldn't be involved. Now as for states rights issues - I don't think that even applies - because a legal framework exists and there should not be any discrimination in that framework applied. While I am a huge states rights person - I also am against going too far with that - because otherwise you could have states doing things like trying to enforce "co-habitation" laws because of a dominant policitical base.

The biggest obstacle to states rights regarding "gay marraige" is contained IN the Constitution - specifically Aticle IV Section 1 - otherwise known as the Full Faith and Credit clause. This clause - though it has not been successfully used - can force one state to recognize something from another state - regardless of the jurisdictional state law.

For the record - I am ok with civil unions that offer the same level of benefits - and responsibilities - to couples who are not married - regardless of sexual preference. I do note the word COUPLE - because that a "couple" is normally defined by the number 2 - and not more. Also note that legally - any 2 people could go through the legal gyrations necessary - through civil contract - to be equal to marriage currently - though because there is not a civil union standard - that would require a lot of work and expense.

Opening up a HUGE can of worms here - issues that should be directly decided by the states - are things like abortion, State funded welfare requirements, educational standards in the state (though control should really be local), etc.

[les green01]

i got to agree with haplo

[Snestorm]

SNES - you are dead right that government shouldn't be involved. Now as for states rights issues - I don't think that even applies - because . . .

As per usual, we share a common view, with perhaps a few minor dents to be hammered out from time to time.

(I don't think I do too badly, for someone trying to stay on top of two constitutions.)

[Aramike]

i got to agree with haplo"Nice contribution, Diane!"

(Sorry, no offense intended but I couldn't resist the Family Guy quote.)