62 responses

  1. Priya Lynn
    November 21, 2010
  2. Craig
    November 21, 2010

    @Spartann:
    “If your’re married as you say for 24 years, I’d venture to guess you were born around 1966″

    Both your assumptions and your analysis are way off.

    You have yet to address my question re: do you have any data to support your claim.

    I’m open to an *informed* discussion, but not one based upon unsupported claims, false assumptions and subsequent faulty assertions.

  3. Craig
    November 21, 2010

    @JustLie:
    that’s a good strategy. 40 years ago, my grandfather was in a life-threatening situation and sent to the hospital from his job. No one could contact my grandmother, but his sister was aware of the situation, and called the hospital and “authorized” the surgery that saved his life. The hospital told her “we need a family member” and accepted her “OK” when she told them “well, I’m his sister!” even though she was neither present at the hospital nor claimed to have the same last name.

    I suspect that hospitals who deny rights to homosexual partners only do so if they *suspect* the nature of the patient’s relationship and object to it.

  4. Amicus
    November 21, 2010

    A couple of people pointed out the odd logic of the complaint, namely the contradiction that everyone has access, but religious charity hospitals should and could say “no”. Both can’t be true. What’s more, one often doesn’t have a choice of the nearest emergency room, so…

    There is another contradiction.

    If everyone has access now, then the Administration’s new rule will be inert, i.e. there will be no need for enforcement actions, because everyone is getting the access they need, without problem.

    In the same vein, I can’t follow their arguments about marriage.

  5. Loki
    November 21, 2010

    Thinking back on schoolyard bullies, I think it likely that they were not from families that were socioeconomically associated with the Republican Party nor did they pursue the sort of career that would make them most likely to adopt an identification with the Republican Party. So, while it’s possible that most are now Republicans, I would be inclined to assume that they are not.

    Actually that has been the great project of the Republican Party, to convince the socioeconomic class that is most harmed by their ideology to vote for their efforts to role back the twentieth century. In the ninteenth century Kansas was known for extreme left-wing populism, now it is a conservative stronghold. If you wish to learn more a good book is “What’s the Matter With Kansas” by Thomas Frank. Further more the American electorate has self-selected it’s political parties based almost entirely on authoritarianism. Which has a very strong appeal to bullies, as it essentially is bullying. If you wish to read about that, check out ” Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics.” Most likely those bullies are now Republicans.

  6. R
    November 22, 2010

    I’m on the younger end of the spectrum, I’m 28, my wife is 25. She was unexpectedly hospitalized with a kidney stone too large to pass on its own (which in a healthy 25 yr old woman is VERY rare). We make enough to get by, but we don’t have enough to spend 10-25k in legal paperwork. My wife was/is still in school, and I was working a decent job (which I have left to return to school to get my Master’s degree).

    When she was hospitalized, she was hospitalized in a public hospital in a decent sized city with a significant gay population. I was treated as the spouse of a patent. I will forever be grateful for that.

    My wife and I pick where we live based on how gay friendly it is. We’re both city-people, and have no familial obligations to live in the country, so we have the luxury of having options. We also make it a point to not vacation in horribly intolerant areas, but again, we don’t have kids who are begging to go to Disney World or anything yet. This is doable for us, but not for everyone.

  7. Paul in Canada
    November 22, 2010

    Why do I suspect that Spartunn is actually Matt…..

  8. Donnchadh
    November 23, 2010

    Several posters have said that gay marriage will be a panacea to these visitation denials, but if hospitals can ignore your rights as partner with power of attorney, what makes you think they won’t your rights as a spouse? For the same reason, depriving them of funding will not work. If they don’t care for a writ telling them to let loved ones in, they won’t care for one telling them to stop raising and spending money.
    I also have to say that however obnoxious Spartann is, if he reminds you of a school bully, you must have had some very docile bullies at school. If anyone from my school days wanted to bully those reading a blog, they wouldn’t post factually wrong comments. They would hack into the IP and replace BTB with an flash animation of an obscene act with a caption reading “Ceci n’est pas un acte obscène”. (Yes, my schooling was thru French.)

  9. Timothy Kincaid
    November 23, 2010

    Donnchadh,

    For some reason, in the US the word “marriage” matters a great deal.

    In the UK, by contrast, the papers and the people often refer to civil unions and people who enter into them with the same terminology as heterosexual marriage. Recently Metro Magazine ran a competition for the use of their front page and it was won by a man who asked his partner to marry him. The accompanying article (as, it seems almost all articles which address couple recognition in the UK) didn’t make much distinction about civil unions being different.

    But in the US, gay couples in those states that recognize marriage have discovered that the media and the populace respond very very differently to the term “marriage”. Their neighbors and family treat them differently – they know what “marriage” is but they just aren’t too sure about that other thing

    And maybe we are just a society that likes rules (or, more likely, fears legal liability). And all the rules that require one to tick the “married” box are addressed by legal same-sex marriage. It removes the “oh… civil union… ummmm… but are you married? Our policy is to only let spouses in” problems.

    One other contributing problem is the the anti-gay marriage industry. Unlike places in Europe where the discussion was over whether and how to allow recognition, here it has been all about whether or not to ban recognition.

    Anti-marriage amendments serve a dual purpose – banning marriage and also implying societal rejection of gay couples altogether. Votes that ban marriage also serve to leave the administrator thinking, “oh, but the state voted against you” and put all documents in doubt.

  10. Priya Lynn
    November 23, 2010

    Donnchadh, with anything other than marriage there may be doubt as to whether or not the couple should be treated as married and as spouses. That being the case many hospitals will choose to believe gay couples don’t have the same rights as married couples, that they aren’t family. When gay couples are married there is no doubt that they are entitled to the same rights as other married couples. Hospitals are no more likely to deny a gay married couple visitation rights than they are to deny a heterosexual married couple visitation rights.

  11. Ben in Oakland
    November 23, 2010

    And if they did, they would have major lawsuits on their hands.

  12. b
    November 23, 2010

    Mr. Timothy Kincaid, thank you for a good laugh with that last part about what you find yourself whistling every time you hear that person’s name. A little pick-me-up is nice for anyone. :)

  13. Load More Comments…

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

Back to top
mobile desktop