Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Barber finds the outer edge of wackadoodle, and leaps off

Timothy Kincaid

November 19th, 2010

One of the saddest indignities that gay couples suffer is when hospitals deny them the comfort of love amidst serious illness. Using definitions of “family” that elevate an estranged third-cousin above a decades-long partner, “rules and procedures” can actually result in emotional torture to a sick person who is forced to die alone while administrators lock their spouses and children away from them as though they were nosy interloping strangers.

Fortunately, most people aren’t cruel. And even many of the most stalwart “defenders of the family” will concede that people should be able to be with their partners in the hospital. In fact, when President Obama required that those hospitals that receive Medicare funding revisit their policies to allow patients, not pencil-pushers, to define their family, few complained about “the homosexual agenda.”

I say “few” and not “none” because some folk can be counted on to react negatively, even to the most benign of ideas. Anything whatsoever that might possibly be considered to benefit a gay person will evoke a Pavlovian response. Gay marriage – hate it. Gay military service – fight it. Gay apparel – won’t don it. Gay ol’ Time – not for a minute.

One such pillar of predictability is Matt Barber, the Associate Dean of Liberty University School of Law. Yes, Matt can be counted on to scoop up a big steaming pile of nastiness and throw it at our community. And the issue of having your loved ones in the hospital with you is no exception.

Now Matt, who just isn’t all that bright (no, I’m sorry, it’s not just his opinions – the guy really is stupid) makes the following argument:

* You can have any visitors you like
* So no one is discriminating against gay people
* But allowing gay people to have their partners visit is unfair to Catholic and Baptist hospitals who don’t want to allow gay visitors

Yes, Barber literally makes an argument for denying gay sick people to have their partners visit. He thinks – and I kid you not – that hospitals should have the “liberty of conscience” to emotionally torture their patients.

“Certainly there are Catholic hospitals and Baptist hospitals that recognize homosexual behavior as sinful behavior,” he points, “and they do not want to take part in affirming homosexual sin under the strong arm of the government.”

Some religious hospitals may have to make a decision as to whether to conform to the rules or not accept Medicare patients. Barber says what the Obama administration is doing is casting liberty of conscience aside and forcing acceptance of homosexuality.

It’s no wonder that when I read Matt Barber’s name, I find myself whistling:

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

L. Junius Brutus
November 19th, 2010 | LINK

I think Matt is very smart. He just knows how to make arguments that will be appealing to the basest human beings. What evil is defending is irrelevant. He’d deny us the air we breathe, if he could.

Mihangel apYrs
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

that music is happy, has a baggage of clowns

nothing like the vicious nastiness of this pile of stinking shit

Paul J. Stein
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

Hit the NON-COMPLIANT hospitals where it counts…TAKE THEIR MONEY ! And sanction them out of business. Removal of ANY FEDERAL money AND bankruptcy of the hospital and MANAGING OFFICIALS would be a start

justsearching
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

“http://www.opposingviews.com/i/obama-buys-gays-lies-about-hospital-visitation”

Check out how the far right portrays this story.

“The claim that homosexuals are routinely denied the right to visit their partners in the hospital has only one source–homosexual activists who use it as an argument for redefining marriage.”

In other words, so what if a few fags couldn’t visit some other fags who were dying in a hospital? Get a grip.

And if you really need to ensure you can make decisions for your partner (not spouse) then make sure he/she is alive enough beforehand to authorize your decision-making “through advance directives, such as a health care proxy or power of attorney.” If you weren’t thinking about lawyers and regulations prior to your partner’s loss of consciousness, too bad for you.

Hunter
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

The problem with proxies and powers of attorney is that hospitals have been known to disregard them. The real answer is the simplest one — legal recognition of same-sex partners and legal backing for the rights of those partners: marriage.

Ivan
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

For amusement, if you click on the link in the story you can vote on the following:

What’s your reaction to the Obama administration tying Medicare and Medicaid money to special visitation rights for homosexuals who are hospitalized?

1. Typical liberal approach – change a policy when Congress cannot or will not change a law

2. Another example of forcing acceptance of a sinful and unhealthy lifestyle

3. Puts faith-based hospitals in a real bind

Decisions, decisions……

WildwoodGuy
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

What I find most interesting about his argument is that it appears he contradicts himself within his own argument.

I’ve added parenthetical phrases to make my point.

* You can have any visitors you like (so long as you are not in a Catholic or Baptist hospital)
* So no one is discriminating against gay people (except Catholic and Baptist hospitals)
* But allowing gay people to have their partners visit is unfair to Catholic and Baptist hospitals who don’t want to allow gay visitors

Am I interpreting his argument correctly? Or am I missing something?

Tony P
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

I always have to laugh when I hear the name “Liberty University”.

What part of liberty do they not understand? It is liberty for ALL, not just the elect few.

I get the same reaction to the National Organization FOR Marriage. If you’re holding yourself out for being FOR marriage then why are you making such ridiculous speeches about protecting the children from LGBT people?

Of course I realize they deliberately chose that name to confuse the issue. I think they should change it though. Something like the National Organization for Hate Mongers is so much more descriptive.

Priya Lynn
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

Wildwood guy I noticed the same contradictionin Barber’s arguments – gays can have any visitors they want in the hospital, hospitals should continue to have the right to refuse gay patients gay family visitors.

Steve
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

A couple of years ago, I wound up with a diabetic foot ulcer and the infection became septic. I was in the hospital for 6 days. I consider myself fortunate because not only did the staff go out of their way to make me comfortable, they did the same for my (now X) partner. They even brought in a cot so he could spend nights there with me. Matt Barber and his ilk are the lowest common denominator and seem to me to create issues where there really are none. He should also consider dropping a few pounds.

justsearching
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

It’s hard not to see how there isn’t a contradiction in Barber’s argument.

If it is true that everyone (gays included) can invite anyone they want (designated in written contracts or by giving him/her the power of attorney) to religious hospitals, then it still remains the case that religious hospitals have to endure the presence of gay partners at the bedsides of their patients.

Does that mean Barber is OK with gays being able to visit religious hospitals, as long as the gays have had to go through lots more technical legalities and paperwork to achieve a semblance of similarity to their straight counterparts? Does the strong arm of a personal written contract, rather than the strong arm of universal government decree, all of a sudden make it acceptable for Christian hospitals to “take part in affirming homosexual sin”? Maybe it’s the case that, even in the midst of family grieving and suffering, Barber needs to be reassured that our relationships are second-class.

The man is a classless idiot.

Spartann
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

to justsearching…

Though part of what you posted was not heartening, much of what you said was spot on.

Most heterosexual couples prepare for the inevitable, yet the majority of same gender duos do not. For the life of me I don’t know why gay people don’t think ahead like their parents did. When it comes to same sex partners, the hospital will always recognize proper documentation supporting the decision making of one’s partner. I know this from my own personal experience. In fact, I was able to circumvent the actions of a former spouse’s claim to be the decision maker for my partner. Message to seriously committed gay couples, saying so doesn’t count…. You need to put it in writing. From the yes he can statement, to the health/life insurance, the deed and even the safety deposit boxes.

Ben in Oakland
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

Spartann– that’s just not true. There are three cases that i could probably dig up where the hospital ignored written legal directives.

Spartann
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

to Ben in Oakland…

Hey I’m not saying it’s always gonna be easy…. Nobody gave it to me, I had to fight for it at 1st… I learned early on never to take no for an answer… and if necessary raise holy hell. Ain’t that what the community organizer’s handbook tells us to do ??????

Priya Lynn
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

Spartann said “When it comes to same sex partners, the hospital will always recognize proper documentation supporting the decision making of one’s partner.”.

Not true. A lesbian couple in Florida was about to go on a cruise when one fell ill. The hospital refused to let her partner visit her or make medical decisions for her even though they had power of attorney and all other documentation in line and presented it to the hospital. That’s why this step by Obama was so important.

Priya Lynn
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/06/27/2279

Jonathan Oz
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

Minor sidepoint: the piece of music is called “Entrance of the Gladiators”by Czech composer Julius Fučík.

I only note this because I recall a friend and I recommending that the above titled piece of music be the anthem of the ASUCSD student government after some idiot came up with the notion that said student government needed a to have a flag. Served the same laudable purpose as your use.

Ray
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

Spartann, you just make this shit up as you go along, right?

My husband lived with his previous partner for 32 years and that guy died when he was 75. When he was hospitalized in his final days the hospital would not all my husband to see his partner. They spend around $25,000.00 in legal fees to prepare for that final trip and the hopsital STILL refused to all my husband to see his partner. So, my husband sat in the waiting room for a week trying to get word on his progress and they wouldn’t even tell him Yea nor Ney about anything.

THEN, when his partner died, my husband was standing there with the documents from the Neptune Society in his hand and he tried to inject into the conversation that his partner’s remains were supposed to be picked up by Neptune.

NURSE: I’m sorry Sir, but you’re not family.

My HUSBAND: Then put his body out with the trash on Tuesday if you don’t believe these documents.

My husband got only a few glimpses of his partner in the last week of his life. The hospital DID CALL Neptune because the simply didn’t want a dead body on their hands with NO ONE to step forward and give them instructions on what do do with the remains.

Really, Spartann. You are a lying piece of shit.

L. Junius Brutus
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

The solution is to absolutely destroy the people responsible for something like this. Sue them and the hospital for $100 million. They’ll learn.

Spartann
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

to Ray…

Dude if youre gonna comment like you’re a frickin neanderthal than quit wasting energy here cause you’d be better served scratching your bigoted ass up against a tree…

I’m sorry you had a bad experience….but if you didn’t have all your ducks in a row, and I mean all of them in a row, then the blame is squarely at your feet… and no where else.

Now grow up how bout it.

Priya Lynn
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

You don’t get it Spartann, having all your ducks in a row isn’t enough, hospitals have ignored that in some instances and full marriage is the only currency that counts. Of course that fact interferes with your “the hospitals will always recognize proper documentation” rhetoric so you ignore reality. Why don’t you go to gay patriot where they’ll welcome your anti-gay attitude with open arms.

L. Junius Brutus
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

Spartann: “I’m sorry you had a bad experience….but if you didn’t have all your ducks in a row, and I mean all of them in a row, then the blame is squarely at your feet… and no where else. ”

You are an idiot for saying this. I thought people were overreacting to what you said, because you did have a point. But this is complete nonsense, to blame the person being wronged and not the person who does wrong.

Priya Lynn
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

Also Spartann, Ray’s partner spent 25,000 in legal fees “getting all his ducks in a row” and that wasn’t enough, so take your insinuation that he didn’t do enough and stuff it.

justsearching
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

Another solution would be for religious hospitals to stop treating homosexual patients, period. After all, treating them like equal human beings by giving them medical care might just send the homosexuals the “wrong message” about their lifestyle.

And hasn’t this site endured enough of Spartann’s condescending, insulting remarks? It’s clear his goal is to irritate/incite as many people as possible, and thus far he’s done pretty well at meeting his goal.

craig
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

Spartann:
“Most heterosexual couples prepare for the inevitable”

Do you have any data to support this statement? Or are you perhaps defining “inevitable” to mean anticipated “end of life” as opposed to “the unexpected early death” scenario? (I imagine there is a lot of data to support the former, while very little to support the latter, since it relatively rarely occurs [hence, "unexpected"])

I’ve been married 24 years, have kids 20 and 21, and my wife and I have never gotten around to “prepar(ing) for the inevitable” — and neither have any of the other heterosexual couples my age with whom I’ve discussed this. Perhaps we’re the exceptions, but I doubt it — “heterosexual privilege” provides us with a “security net” that doesn’t carry over to homosexual partners.

Spartann
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

to Priya Lynn….

Though the mystical references to society and its programs to help may warm the hearts of the gullible. Liberals seem to assume that, if you don’t believe in their particular political solutions, then you don’t really care about the people they claim to want to help.

Having said that, what also becomes ominous, is the ease with which some people on the Left go from saying that they don’t like something to saying that the government should forbid it…. When that happens, I’m amazed how the so called “thinking people”, like yourself, respond automatically to words the way Pavlov’s dog was conditioned to respond to certain sounds.

================================

to L Junius Brutus…

There in lies the problem with many Liberal minds… No matter the circumstance, most are all to eager to point fingers and affix the blame to someone other than themselves.
===============================

to craig….

If your’re married as you say for 24 years, I’d venture to guess you were born around 1966….Post baby boom…. That means your analysis is at best weak. Because most married couples today are older than you, and at least brought up in a ‘Leave it to Beaver’ kind of household that stressed taking care of all personal responsibilities 1st. …..

So it seems to me, if you and your associates haven’t taken care of family business yet… then you aren’t exactly a drum beating in the distance that anyone should consider an example of wisdom…. Now are you????

Priya Lynn
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

Shorter Spartann:
“I hate liberals and gays, any maltreatment gays get is there own fault”.

Priya Lynn
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

Hey Spartann, you’re obviously one of the greatest legal minds our generation has ever known. Clearly any gay that only spends $25000 to get their visitation rights hasn’t spent enough. How about you point out what else Ray should have spent his money on? (Damn gays, only spending $25000 for what others get for free and thinking they should have rights for that…”

cls
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

They worry about the strong arm of government (and so do I), but notice the don’t worry when the fist of the strong arm of government is either handing these hospitals cash, or bashing gay people.

The reality is that one can’t be an advocate of limited, small government while holding conservative positions.

If Barber wants to defend freedom of association then he should be pushing to completely and totally defund these hospitals so that not a single cent of coercive taxation goes into their coffers.

Spartann
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

to Priya Lynn….

Wow…. Life must really be a bitch for someone like yourself. Have you sought help for your problem?

I can’t understand why no one ever explained to you how just because someone incurs a cost of $25K, doesn’t mean the moneys were spent properly… All it took me and my partner was a lil over $10K to achieve what was necessary.

Tone
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

Xtians are not about compassion, but control. They hold fast to their doctrinaire belief in fairy tales and put that above the comfort and well-being of their patients. That isn’t health care, it’s malpractice and it ought to be litigated as such.

Soren456
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

Funniest thing I ever heard was “In the Garden” played on a calliope, fast.

“And the joy we share

(TOOOT TOOOT)

as we tarry there

(TOOOOOOOOT)

none other

has ever

known.”

PUM PUM PUM

Posted just for the hell of it.

Candace
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

Spartann said “When it comes to same sex partners, the hospital will always recognize proper documentation supporting the decision making of one’s partner.”.

Priya said: “Not true. A lesbian couple in Florida was about to go on a cruise when one fell ill. The hospital refused to let her partner visit her or make medical decisions for her even though they had power of attorney and all other documentation in line and presented it to the hospital. That’s why this step by Obama was so important.”

That’s correct. When my partner Cathy had major surgery in the SAME HOSPITAL, I wasn’t even allowed to talk to her on the phone when she went to recovery, much less be told if she was dead or alive (although her estranged, gay-hating sister was put right through) And yes, we had all the paperwork and I was listed as her medical surrogate. The hospital administrator told me, “That’s our policy and we’re not changing it until they make us.” Well, you hateful old bastard, they just made you.

Candace
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

btw, guys, obvious troll is obvious. He’s either a troll or another gay equivelant of Jews for Hitler.

Spartann
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

to Candace….

its too bad for your misfortune…but yours is not always outcome… if you had at least bitched at the hospital officials as much as Im sure you do everywhere else you might have found yourself seated next to your partner Cathy’s hospital bed real fast. In other words, be a real See you next Tuesady.

Emily K
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

Candace is right. He goes to GayPatriot and argues over there. His grammar devolved remarkably once people started seeing through his arguments. Then he started the ad hominem about “liberals” despite the fact that nobody brought up an argument about liberalism vs. conservatism.

So, when obvious troll becomes especially obvious, we should ignore.

Hey, maybe “Spartann” is actually “Quo” in disguise. Most of us here know what happened to him.

Timothy Kincaid
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

Spartann

Most heterosexual couples prepare for the inevitable, yet the majority of same gender duos do not.

At this site, unlike many that you frequent, we do not allow unsupported statements. Please provide an impartial source for the claim or retract it.

Timothy Kincaid
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

justsearching

And hasn’t this site endured enough of Spartann’s condescending, insulting remarks? It’s clear his goal is to irritate/incite as many people as possible, and thus far he’s done pretty well at meeting his goal.

Having read a number of Spartann’s comments around the web, I’ve come to the same conclusion.

I encourage our readers to consider alternate viewpoints and engage in healthy debate. However, I strongly discourage engaging with those whose sole purpose is to be outlandish or confrontational solely for their own gratification or ego. It’s pointless.

Richard Rush
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

Ray said:

Spartann, you just make this shit up as you go along, right? . . .
. . . Really, Spartann. You are a lying piece of shit.

Then Spartann replied:

Dude if youre gonna comment like you’re a frickin neanderthal than quit wasting energy here cause you’d be better served scratching your bigoted ass up against a tree…

I’m sorry you had a bad experience….but if you didn’t have all your ducks in a row, and I mean all of them in a row, then the blame is squarely at your feet… and no where else.

Now grow up how bout it.

Spartann, like so many right wingers, you spew your vile crap, and then when someone responds, you gasp audibly at the horror of being offended by a few naughty words. You told a man that it was his own fault if the thousands of dollars he spent was insufficient, and then you have the audacity to be offended when Ray labeled you “a lying piece of shit.”

I’ll bet you were once a schoolyard bully who cried, “that’s not fair” when one of your victims defended himself.

As an aside, it would be interesting to conduct a study to determine the political affiliation of adults who were once schoolyard bullies. Would I be going out on a limb to expect that the vast majority are likely to be Republicans?

Timothy Kincaid
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

Would I be going out on a limb to expect that the vast majority are likely to be Republicans?

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.

Spartann
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

to Emily K…

You’re wrong.. you dont have to mention the word liberal for it to be understood opinions like yours are the result of your own weak-kneed left wing bias.

As for the rest of your comment… might I suggest you try Ginkgo Biloba, maybe it will help to improve your memory.

=================================tto Timothy Kincaid….

Ok, you post a thread above about Barber, in it saying, ” Now Matt, who just isn’t all that bright (no, I’m sorry, it’s not just his opinions – the guy really is stupid)” … Then if that wasn’t enough, in order to create an even more disparaging effect for the reader, your commentary ends with that all too cute bit of innuendo you lifted off YouTube.

And you think I’m out to evoke the ire of the reader? Well if so, I’m only following your lead.

===============================

to Richard Rush….

Woahhhhhh, I can just imagine you believe yourself to have scored a giant, I mean huge, really huge… beat your chest victory here tonight. And that bit about schoolyard bullies; In your mind that was the coup de grâce. Right? Ya know, with all your caterwauling I’m surprised you didn’t find the time to somehow suggest marriage itself is nothing more than act of homophobia perpetrated by conservative heterosexuals.

Time and time again certain members within or around the LGBT community believe themselves free to publicly proclaim the merits of their lifestyle, as they see it, but anyone who publicly proclaims the opposite is subject to serious retribution. Sometimes it seems there is even a glut of these left leaning persons, whose ploys try and make vulnerable an individual for simply speaking his mind….. but sorry Richard, that kinda crap don’t work on me.

But I gotta tell ya, thats really not the worst of it.

The big divide in this country is not between Democrats and Republicans, women and men, not even gays and straights. It’s between talkers and doers….. Which in the end once again proves, being non-judgmental in only one direction is part of the double standard surrounding the “politically correct” social agenda poisoning our discourse.

Priya Lynn
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

What a blowhard.

Timothy Kincaid
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

I invite readers not to respond to trolling.

Emily K
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

I am RSVPing to Timothy’s invite as “attending.” I also encourage people RSVP the same.

Candace
November 20th, 2010 | LINK

Emily, thanks for reminding me that one should not feed trolls.

Boo
November 21st, 2010 | LINK

If you think Matt Barber’s sunk as low as it’s possible to go, unfortunately you’d be wrong:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=230497

JustLie
November 21st, 2010 | LINK

One of the reasons I changed my last name to my partner’s last name is that – frankly – most straight people who work in hospitals are dumb. While I have all the appropriate legal paperwork, I’ve found it easier to tell hospital staff that I’m his brother. They see that we have the same last name and decide we must be related. Their tiny bigoted brains can’t comprehend any other scenario for explaining why we have the same last name.

ZRAinSWVA
November 21st, 2010 | LINK

Justlie…that’s actually a pretty good idea! We hadn’t considered changing our last names when we married, but we may have to reconsider.

And, frankly, one reason we married was so my partner would have an option (e.g., flee to a state that recognizes our marriage) if I were to die first and my parents were to go wacko on him. And, yes, we have all the legal documents one would normally have, but in the state where we live, I’m not confident they would be recognized without additional
legal action being taken.

Ben in Oakland
November 21st, 2010 | LINK

“Most heterosexual couples prepare for the inevitable, yet the majority of same gender duos do not.”

they do that by getting married. It costs $85 in california.

Gay people aren’t allowed to.

“Time and time again certain members within or around the LGBT community believe themselves free to publicly proclaim the merits of their lifestyle, as they see it, but anyone who publicly proclaims the opposite is subject to serious retribution. ”

and this. Lifestyle. Bigots as victims.

Oh honey. the first posting of yours I saw had all the markings of this kind of garbage. I thought “maybe no” becuase of the density of your prose.

Exactly what problems have the catholic church,. matt barber, chuck colson, liberty university, peter la babs, Southern Baptists, the Morg, Naggie Gallagher, Pat robertson,Fred Phelps, Sarah Palin, john McCain, Geroge bush, Karl rove– to name just a few– suffered?

Chris McCoy
November 21st, 2010 | LINK

Timothy Kincaid said:

I encourage our readers to consider alternate viewpoints and engage in healthy debate. However, I strongly discourage engaging with those whose sole purpose is to be outlandish or confrontational solely for their own gratification or ego. It’s pointless.

I’m having trouble locating the Comments Guidelines which spell out what specific behavior is considered unacceptable. It is not linked off the Terms of Use or Privacy Policy pages. Please post a link.

Priya Lynn
November 21st, 2010 | LINK

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/About/NoCrawl/CommentPolicy.htm

Craig
November 21st, 2010 | LINK

@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.

Craig
November 21st, 2010 | LINK

@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.

Amicus
November 21st, 2010 | LINK

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.

Loki
November 21st, 2010 | LINK

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.

R
November 22nd, 2010 | LINK

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.

Paul in Canada
November 22nd, 2010 | LINK

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

Donnchadh
November 23rd, 2010 | LINK

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.)

Timothy Kincaid
November 23rd, 2010 | LINK

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.

Priya Lynn
November 23rd, 2010 | LINK

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.

Ben in Oakland
November 23rd, 2010 | LINK

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

b
November 23rd, 2010 | LINK

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. :)

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.