[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......