Obama - Credit where credit is due...

SteamWake · 04-16-10, 12:23 PM

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

Quote:

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...041505502.html

Sailor Steve · 04-16-10, 12:24 PM

Agreed.

CaptainHaplo · 04-16-10, 12:34 PM

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 · 04-16-10, 12:42 PM

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 · 04-16-10, 12:46 PM

agreed, i read that article this morning.

CaptainHaplo · 04-16-10, 12:55 PM

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 · 04-16-10, 01:03 PM

Quote:

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 · 04-16-10, 01:07 PM

meh, nevermind.

frau kaleun · 04-16-10, 01:10 PM

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 · 04-16-10, 01:19 PM

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 · 04-16-10, 01:21 PM

true.

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

Aramike · 04-16-10, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

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 · 04-16-10, 02:42 PM

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 · 04-16-10, 05:40 PM

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.

04-16-10, 05:55 PM

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.

04-16-10, 12:24 PM	#2
Sailor Steve Eternal Patrol Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: High in the mountains of Utah Posts: 50,369 Downloads: 745 Uploads: 249	Agreed. __________________ “Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo

04-16-10, 12:34 PM	#3
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

04-16-10, 12:46 PM	#5
GoldenRivet Subsim Aviator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 8,726 Downloads: 146 Uploads: 0	agreed, i read that article this morning. __________________

04-16-10, 12:55 PM	#6
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

04-16-10, 01:07 PM	#8
nikimcbee Fleet Admiral Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Patroling the Slot. Posts: 17,952 Downloads: 90 Uploads: 0	meh, nevermind. __________________

04-16-10, 12:42 PM	#4
frau kaleun Rear Admiral Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Skyri--oh who are we kidding, I'm probably at Lowe's. Again. Posts: 12,706 Downloads: 168 Uploads: 0	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.

04-16-10, 01:10 PM	#9
frau kaleun Rear Admiral Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Skyri--oh who are we kidding, I'm probably at Lowe's. Again. Posts: 12,706 Downloads: 168 Uploads: 0	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%.

04-16-10, 01:19 PM	#10
Aramike Ocean Warrior Best of SUBSIM Chairman Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 3,207 Downloads: 59 Uploads: 0	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.

04-16-10, 01:21 PM	#11
GoldenRivet Subsim Aviator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 8,726 Downloads: 146 Uploads: 0	true. but try as anyone might, all of the wrongs will never be righted... and there will always be injustice in the world. __________________

04-16-10, 02:42 PM	#13
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	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...... __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

04-16-10, 05:40 PM	#14
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	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.

04-16-10, 05:55 PM	#15
Snestorm Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	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. Last edited by Snestorm; 04-16-10 at 06:07 PM.