Political Crossfire Forums

Bag of Rags · Joined: 03 Aug 2005 Posts: 4484

UrielsFyre wrote:
"You strike me as..." means that this is the impression I get from your postings on the issue. If I am incorrect, refute it and tell me how you really are. If you are unable or unwilling to do so, my first impression of you will stand.

You put a lot of stock in your first impressions, don't you. You do need to understand that I really don't care what your "impression" of me is...

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:
A good friend of mine - an English professor in his 40s - had a "former" friend who decided it was okay to hit on him, and continue to press the issue. Keep in mind that my friend is happily married, has two grown kids, and has never indicated any interest whatsoever in anything homosexual.

Why is it okay for this homosexual to assume he can be "in your face" with my married friend, then smart off at him when his advances were turned away?

Had my friend been a woman, and this man a hetrosexual, the guy would have been in HUGE trouble for sexual harassment. But because he's homosexual, it's assumed that blatant sexual advances are okay.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 8780

Bag of Rags wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
"You strike me as..." means that this is the impression I get from your postings on the issue. If I am incorrect, refute it and tell me how you really are. If you are unable or unwilling to do so, my first impression of you will stand.

You put a lot of stock in your first impressions, don't you. You do need to understand that I really don't care what your "impression" of me is...

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:
A good friend of mine - an English professor in his 40s - had a "former" friend who decided it was okay to hit on him, and continue to press the issue. Keep in mind that my friend is happily married, has two grown kids, and has never indicated any interest whatsoever in anything homosexual.

Why is it okay for this homosexual to assume he can be "in your face" with my married friend, then smart off at him when his advances were turned away?

Had my friend been a woman, and this man a hetrosexual, the guy would have been in HUGE trouble for sexual harassment. But because he's homosexual, it's assumed that blatant sexual advances are okay.
Obviously you care about my impression of you, otherwise you wouldn't have bothered to address the issue. But, if you choose not to correct my impression of you, that's your perogative.

Also, it is illogical to assume that just because one gay man didn't have a sense of propriety, that none of us do. I have never, and will never, make advances toward a man I know to be straight. In fact, I won't even make advances toward a man unless I know for a fact that he is gay.

But, I still don't see your point. So one man was too forward with unwelcome sexual advances? How does that affect the gay marriage debate in the slightest?

Marknbowtie · Joined: 25 Oct 2004 Posts: 3028 Location: NYC

Silkheat wrote: barnes wrote: What ever happened to the ideas of separation of church from state?
As far as I have come to understand, I have been under the impression that in the United States of America we are free to practice our own religions where , how and whenever we'd like; then why does Bush so greatly disagree with the ideas of man and man getting married or woman and woman getting married? As we have all learned through his terms, he is an avid Christian, but does that mean that the whole country should be reprimanded for HIS beliefs and not the majority of the countries? How does gay marriage hurt HIM? it doesn't, so why do the men and women that love eachother, not get the same rights as the rest of the country? They are citizens as well Aren't they? Does he not know the quote, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness? I guess not, maybe he is applying it to himself...

I think it has something to do with Christians once again thinking they're better than evryone else. You see homosexuality is considered a sin in the bible so they think it must be wrong therefore unlawful. They love to point it out to. I personally could give two ***** if gays get married because it will not affect me at all.

We Are Better!!!! What you didn't get the memo? :lol:

Marknbowtie · Joined: 25 Oct 2004 Posts: 3028 Location: NYC

Charon wrote: Very well stated point that. However we must consider that fact that even though President Bush is against gay marriage that cannot not stop the states from legalizing gay marriage.

Americans and their beliefs vary as you go from state to state. What is great about this country is that states are pretty much left to do as they wish. Many southern deeply Christian states like Texas, and Mississippi will probably not legalize gay marriage. However more liberal (California and New York) and "homosexual" states (Mass. and New Jersey) may choose to legalize gay marriage.

The struggle is getting the measure past the state legislatures and state governors. Lets face it a majority of this nation is not gay so the homosexuals in this nation will have to generate support. The national government is capable of influencing and judging state laws but if a state really wants gay marriage they will have gay marriage.

Gay marriage was recently passed in California, however there is belief that Governor Terminator will terminate (veto) the measure. So the real problem is getting state governments (executive, judicial, and legislative branches) to agree. In reality Bush is not going to be the one to blame in this particular issue as it is left up to the states themselves to legalize gay marriage. Bush can say all he wants but thats all it is... talk.

Very well stated but the problem is the Gay's and the Liberals don't want this on a State by State level because they know more than 3/4 of the country will vote against it.

Even the State of New York where I live while it is Democrat it's not about to vote in Gay Marriage.

No, they want this law on a Federal level so that once again they can shove it down the throats of the States and the People no matter what they think.

But of course in most states you have a general vote for judges. Once this is passed as a Federal Law you will see judges campaign on the platform that they won't allow Gay Marriages to take place in the courthouse's of that state no matter what the Federal Law says. You will then see these judges win that election by a landslide. Then what?

Is this the road we wish to take? Are you prepared to have States just totally dismiss Washington and the laws? Because trying to shove laws nobody wants or agree's with will sure as hell bring this to pass.

F'losrix · Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:44 am Post subject:

Since I really don't have time to answer fully the questions presented here, and they're so far shaping up to be the same as always, I'll instead refer interested parties to these past debates on the issue:

Gay Marriage

All Marriage Unconstitutional

Anti Civil Unions Amendment Language

Bush Drops Call for Federal Marriage Amendment

CA Legislature Pass Gay Marriage Bill

Casualties of the gay marriage battle

Connecticut, Civil Unions, Easter & Adinolfi

Connecticut governor signs bill legalizing same sex civil unions

Could Someone Please Explain To Me…(why people dislike the idea of gay marriage)

Do gays & lesbians deserve special rights?

Do Gay Marriage Bans Hurt Universities?

Domestic Partner Benefits – Mich. ACLU Lawsuit

Federal Marriage Amendment would ban civil unions, too

Gay Marriage Harms No One

Gay Marriage Lawsuit in Ithaca, New York

Gay Marriage Philosophy is a Bit Confusing

Gay marriage ‘rights’?

Gay Marriage – Whose Rights are Infringed?

Gay Marriage/Sexual Predators/Fed/States Rights

Gay Marriage, The 1st Amendment and the Procreation Argument

Government & Marriage

Here We Go...(Gay Marriage Debate)

Homosexual Marriage!

Homosexual Marriage, Why Not?

How Gay Marriage Has Ruined Marriage in Scandinavia

If you support homosexual marriage

If you’re against same sex marriage

Illegalizing Gay Marriage...WHY?

Intersex & Marriage Definition

James Dobson Rants About Spongebob (Gay Marriage Debate)

Judge Throws Out Same-Sex Marriage Suit

Kansas Vote YES Tomorrow! (Gay Marriage Debate)

Let’s Get Out of Here

Let’s all be tolerant. Loosen up on the zeal already

Licensing for Marriage

Judicial Activism, Gay Marriage

List of Federal Marriage Rights

Marriage Components – What Matters Most (hijacked)

Marriage – which scenario do you favor?

Maryland anti-gay ballot initiative

Mich’s Prop 2: Same-Sex Partner Benefits Not Renewed

No gay marriage, nothing to do with religion

NY Supreme Court – Marriage OK for Gay Couples!

One gay man’s opinion on marriage

Opposite sex coupling

Opposition to gay marriage at all time high

Pedamarriage – Yes or No? (Gay Marriage Debate)

Polar Opposites: Connecticut & Washington

Preserving the Sanctity of Marriage

Procreative Marriage

Queer Aisle for Straight Guys

Same Sex Marriage Bill Dies in California

Same sex marriage laws in Canada, Spain…who’s next?

Should Same-Sex Couples...(Gay Marriage Debate)

Sixty Percent of Americans say ‘ban gay marriage’

Spain parliament approves gay unions

Support grows for anti-gay marriage amendment

Three thousand marriages overturned

Poll: Toss Civil Unions to Preserve Marriage?

The Tyranny of Marriage

Why Christians shouldn’t oppose gay marriage being legal

Why The Slippery Slope Argument is (In)Valid

(revised list)

Centrist · Joined: 08 Mar 2004 Posts: 3997

Marknbowtie wrote: Charon wrote: Very well stated point that. However we must consider that fact that even though President Bush is against gay marriage that cannot not stop the states from legalizing gay marriage.

Americans and their beliefs vary as you go from state to state. What is great about this country is that states are pretty much left to do as they wish. Many southern deeply Christian states like Texas, and Mississippi will probably not legalize gay marriage. However more liberal (California and New York) and "homosexual" states (Mass. and New Jersey) may choose to legalize gay marriage.

The struggle is getting the measure past the state legislatures and state governors. Lets face it a majority of this nation is not gay so the homosexuals in this nation will have to generate support. The national government is capable of influencing and judging state laws but if a state really wants gay marriage they will have gay marriage.

Gay marriage was recently passed in California, however there is belief that Governor Terminator will terminate (veto) the measure. So the real problem is getting state governments (executive, judicial, and legislative branches) to agree. In reality Bush is not going to be the one to blame in this particular issue as it is left up to the states themselves to legalize gay marriage. Bush can say all he wants but thats all it is... talk.

Very well stated but the problem is the Gay's and the Liberals don't want this on a State by State level because they know more than 3/4 of the country will vote against it.

Even the State of New York where I live while it is Democrat it's not about to vote in Gay Marriage.

No, they want this law on a Federal level so that once again they can shove it down the throats of the States and the People no matter what they think.

But of course in most states you have a general vote for judges. Once this is passed as a Federal Law you will see judges campaign on the platform that they won't allow Gay Marriages to take place in the courthouse's of that state no matter what the Federal Law says. You will then see these judges win that election by a landslide. Then what?

Is this the road we wish to take? Are you prepared to have States just totally dismiss Washington and the laws? Because trying to shove laws nobody wants or agree's with will sure as hell bring this to pass.

Discrimination on a state level is no better than discrimination on a federal level. I'll repeat the question I asked previously in this thread: Can you justify discrimination against homosexuals without also justifying discrimination against blacks? Can you actually make a compelling argument for a secular distinction between race and sexual orientation for the purposes of discriminating against one but not the other?

MetalLives2 · Joined: 09 Aug 2005 Posts: 24

i am all for discimination against gays. as soon as one chooses to be gay they should be outlawed in the states. we should also strip them of their rights. being gay is never a good thing ever. it is a minagery of abomination

armstrong001 · Joined: 11 Mar 2005 Posts: 648 Location: Grand Junction, CO

Centrist wrote: Marknbowtie wrote: Charon wrote: Very well stated point that. However we must consider that fact that even though President Bush is against gay marriage that cannot not stop the states from legalizing gay marriage.

Americans and their beliefs vary as you go from state to state. What is great about this country is that states are pretty much left to do as they wish. Many southern deeply Christian states like Texas, and Mississippi will probably not legalize gay marriage. However more liberal (California and New York) and "homosexual" states (Mass. and New Jersey) may choose to legalize gay marriage.

The struggle is getting the measure past the state legislatures and state governors. Lets face it a majority of this nation is not gay so the homosexuals in this nation will have to generate support. The national government is capable of influencing and judging state laws but if a state really wants gay marriage they will have gay marriage.

Gay marriage was recently passed in California, however there is belief that Governor Terminator will terminate (veto) the measure. So the real problem is getting state governments (executive, judicial, and legislative branches) to agree. In reality Bush is not going to be the one to blame in this particular issue as it is left up to the states themselves to legalize gay marriage. Bush can say all he wants but thats all it is... talk.

Very well stated but the problem is the Gay's and the Liberals don't want this on a State by State level because they know more than 3/4 of the country will vote against it.

Even the State of New York where I live while it is Democrat it's not about to vote in Gay Marriage.

No, they want this law on a Federal level so that once again they can shove it down the throats of the States and the People no matter what they think.

But of course in most states you have a general vote for judges. Once this is passed as a Federal Law you will see judges campaign on the platform that they won't allow Gay Marriages to take place in the courthouse's of that state no matter what the Federal Law says. You will then see these judges win that election by a landslide. Then what?

Is this the road we wish to take? Are you prepared to have States just totally dismiss Washington and the laws? Because trying to shove laws nobody wants or agree's with will sure as hell bring this to pass.

Discrimination on a state level is no better than discrimination on a federal level. I'll repeat the question I asked previously in this thread: Can you justify discrimination against homosexuals without also justifying discrimination against blacks? Can you actually make a compelling argument for a secular distinction between race and sexual orientation for the purposes of discriminating against one but not the other?

Are gays being denied the right to vote? The right to sit in the front of a bus? Are they not already protected from 'hate crimes' the same as blacks? What precisely (other than being able to say that they are legally married) are they being denied?

You cannot compare being denied the 'right' to be married with historical race discrimination. It just isn't the same thing.

Ch33kY · Joined: 21 Sep 2005 Posts: 1281

What I fail to understand is why homosexuals would want to join in on the finest celebration of the status-quo - Marrige.

Marrige is a celebration of a) mans role - works to pay the bills, feed the kids. b) womens role - provide sex, clean, cook, baby making machine.

As a hetrosexual (by defualt) I dismis the idea of marrige. Why the hell would homosexuals want to marry!? - Contract

Marrage enables you to classify as parter/relative to see your partner in hospital, in an emergency. Marrage also comes under the whole tax thing etc.

armstrong001 · Joined: 11 Mar 2005 Posts: 648 Location: Grand Junction, CO

Ch33kY wrote:
Marrage enables you to classify as parter/relative to see your partner in hospital, in an emergency. Marrage also comes under the whole tax thing etc.

You can see your partner in the hospital anyways. YOu could see your boyfriend/girlfriend, friend, co-worker, etc. There is nothing to stop homosexuals from visiting people in the hospital.

As for tax advantages for married couples, I'm in favor of a flat tax, so this wouldn't be an issue.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 8780

armstrong001 wrote: Ch33kY wrote:
Marrage enables you to classify as parter/relative to see your partner in hospital, in an emergency. Marrage also comes under the whole tax thing etc.

You can see your partner in the hospital anyways. YOu could see your boyfriend/girlfriend, friend, co-worker, etc. There is nothing to stop homosexuals from visiting people in the hospital.

As for tax advantages for married couples, I'm in favor of a flat tax, so this wouldn't be an issue.

Unfortunately, people often misunderstand the idea of visiting relatives in the hospital, and why that protection is important to many gay men and women.

True, you can visit anyone you please in the hospital. However, many hospitals still have "visiting hours" wherein only family can stay beyond that time. How often have you heard of a man or woman staying overnight in the hospital at the side of their ailing husband/wife? If you aren't legally considered family, then you can't stay. That is one of the things that many gay people are hoping for.

In addition, there is the right to make medical decisions for an ailing partner. True, medical power of attorney papers can get around that, but not in every instance. Suppose you are on vacation, without your medical power of attorney paperwork. Your same-sex partner is injured and unable to speak for themselves. Beings that you are not legally considered to be family, you are not allowed to make the medical decisions. Regardless of whether or not you know what your partner would want done, you are considered to be "strangers" in the eyes of the law.

Those are just two examples of the things that gay men and women are fighting for.

Ch33kY · Joined: 21 Sep 2005 Posts: 1281

armstrong001 wrote: Ch33kY wrote:
Marrage enables you to classify as parter/relative to see your partner in hospital, in an emergency. Marrage also comes under the whole tax thing etc.

You can see your partner in the hospital anyways. YOu could see your boyfriend/girlfriend, friend, co-worker, etc. There is nothing to stop homosexuals from visiting people in the hospital.

As for tax advantages for married couples, I'm in favor of a flat tax, so this wouldn't be an issue.

I know of a case where someone was in intensive care - he had HIV/AIDS - and was dying. His parter for 5 yeas was not able to see him because he was not married nor relative.

Protostar · Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 11:54 pm Post subject:

Ch33kY wrote: What I fail to understand is why homosexuals would want to join in on the finest celebration of the status-quo - Marrige.

Marrige is a celebration of a) mans role - works to pay the bills, feed the kids. b) womens role - provide sex, clean, cook, baby making machine.

As a hetrosexual (by defualt) I dismis the idea of marrige. Why the hell would homosexuals want to marry!? - Contract

Marrage enables you to classify as parter/relative to see your partner in hospital, in an emergency. Marrage also comes under the whole tax thing etc.

That's what I'm saying. With divorce rates at 50%, who wants to get married? If anything they should be pushing to get the government out of marriage altogether. Homosexuals aren't just the ones slighted by the marriage laws, heterosexual couples who have no intention of getting married are also. I will be one of these in this boat.

Protostar · Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 11:55 pm Post subject:

Ch33ky's sig wrote: America is at war with Terror. America has always been at war with Terror.
America is allied with Communist China, America has always been allied with Communist China.

Awesome sig.

armstrong001 · Joined: 11 Mar 2005 Posts: 648 Location: Grand Junction, CO

UrielsFyre wrote: armstrong001 wrote: Ch33kY wrote:
Marrage enables you to classify as parter/relative to see your partner in hospital, in an emergency. Marrage also comes under the whole tax thing etc.

You can see your partner in the hospital anyways. YOu could see your boyfriend/girlfriend, friend, co-worker, etc. There is nothing to stop homosexuals from visiting people in the hospital.

As for tax advantages for married couples, I'm in favor of a flat tax, so this wouldn't be an issue.

Unfortunately, people often misunderstand the idea of visiting relatives in the hospital, and why that protection is important to many gay men and women.

True, you can visit anyone you please in the hospital. However, many hospitals still have "visiting hours" wherein only family can stay beyond that time. How often have you heard of a man or woman staying overnight in the hospital at the side of their ailing husband/wife? If you aren't legally considered family, then you can't stay. That is one of the things that many gay people are hoping for.

In addition, there is the right to make medical decisions for an ailing partner. True, medical power of attorney papers can get around that, but not in every instance. Suppose you are on vacation, without your medical power of attorney paperwork. Your same-sex partner is injured and unable to speak for themselves. Beings that you are not legally considered to be family, you are not allowed to make the medical decisions. Regardless of whether or not you know what your partner would want done, you are considered to be "strangers" in the eyes of the law.

Those are just two examples of the things that gay men and women are fighting for.

If they are JCAHO accredited (as I believe most are), you have no problems, as they are required to let you in:
Quote: You are family if you are someone’s partner according to national hospital accreditation standards. JCAHO [“JAY-co”] is the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. It evaluates and accredits hospitals nationally – essentially providing a “seal of approval” that indicates high performance standards. JCAHO defines “family” as:

“The person(s) who plays a significant role in the individual’s [patient’s] life. This may include a person(s) not legally related to the individual” (Joint Commission Resources JCR, 2001 Hospital Accreditation Standards, p. 322). http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/resources.html?record=1013

If you still think you may have problems, the ACLU has this suggestion:
Quote: Many hospitals limit visitation solely to "family" members. To ensure that you and your partner are able to visit each other during a hospital stay, both partners should execute a hospital visitation authorization. The document should be readily available as you may be required to show it to hospital personnel before being allowed to visit you partner.
http://www.aclu.org/getequal/rela/protect4.html

I've got no problems here. I don't believe that hospital visitation is a marriage benefit. If they won't let you in, sue them for all they are worth.

On the issue of power of attorney, what can I say? Keep one with you when you're traveling. It seems to me though that this is a strange reason to get married. If you want justice, why not fight for that issue rather than marriage? If these are the big things that homosexuals yearn for, and that's why they want to marry, fight for those things and even I, the homophobic, redneck, soulless cretin I am, would fight with you. But not for marriage.

F'losrix · Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 11:48 pm Post subject:

armstrong001 wrote: If they are JCAHO accredited (as I believe most are), you have no problems, as they are required to let you in:
Quote: You are family if you are someone’s partner according to national hospital accreditation standards. JCAHO [“JAY-co”] is the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. It evaluates and accredits hospitals nationally – essentially providing a “seal of approval” that indicates high performance standards. JCAHO defines “family” as:

“The person(s) who plays a significant role in the individual’s [patient’s] life. This may include a person(s) not legally related to the individual” (Joint Commission Resources JCR, 2001 Hospital Accreditation Standards, p. 322). http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/resources.html?record=1013
Of course, you conveniently ignored the next section of what was on Lambda's page:

Quote: B — WHY WOULDN’T I ALWAYS BE FAMILY – ESPECIALLY IF I HAVE A DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP?
Hospitals don’t always recognize same-gender couples as family because of inadequate staff training or other policy deficiencies.

Domestic partnership registry or even a civil union doesn’t guarantee you will be recognized as family (unless you are in one of a few locations where it is required by law, like CA, VT, and some municipalities).

Domestic partnership certificates should be evidence of your family relationship, but hospital personnel may not understand. This is why you should take some extra precautions ahead of time to make sure your family – and your medical wishes – are respected.
The basic point here is that gay people have to go through a whole bunch of extra crap that heterosexually married couples don't - simply because their marriages are recognized while ours aren't. Meanwhile, even if we do go through the extra expense and hassle to make these arrangements, a bunch of people still choose to ignore them. Telling us to sue after the fact is little consolation. A lot of people simply can't afford to bring a lawsuit when they've been mistreated this way.

What part of this do you people still not get? Don't try to tell me we're being treated fairly or equally when we very clearly are not.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 8780

armstrong001 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: armstrong001 wrote: Ch33kY wrote:
Marrage enables you to classify as parter/relative to see your partner in hospital, in an emergency. Marrage also comes under the whole tax thing etc.

You can see your partner in the hospital anyways. YOu could see your boyfriend/girlfriend, friend, co-worker, etc. There is nothing to stop homosexuals from visiting people in the hospital.

As for tax advantages for married couples, I'm in favor of a flat tax, so this wouldn't be an issue.

Unfortunately, people often misunderstand the idea of visiting relatives in the hospital, and why that protection is important to many gay men and women.

True, you can visit anyone you please in the hospital. However, many hospitals still have "visiting hours" wherein only family can stay beyond that time. How often have you heard of a man or woman staying overnight in the hospital at the side of their ailing husband/wife? If you aren't legally considered family, then you can't stay. That is one of the things that many gay people are hoping for.

In addition, there is the right to make medical decisions for an ailing partner. True, medical power of attorney papers can get around that, but not in every instance. Suppose you are on vacation, without your medical power of attorney paperwork. Your same-sex partner is injured and unable to speak for themselves. Beings that you are not legally considered to be family, you are not allowed to make the medical decisions. Regardless of whether or not you know what your partner would want done, you are considered to be "strangers" in the eyes of the law.

Those are just two examples of the things that gay men and women are fighting for.

If they are JCAHO accredited (as I believe most are), you have no problems, as they are required to let you in:
Quote: You are family if you are someone’s partner according to national hospital accreditation standards. JCAHO [“JAY-co”] is the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. It evaluates and accredits hospitals nationally – essentially providing a “seal of approval” that indicates high performance standards. JCAHO defines “family” as:

“The person(s) who plays a significant role in the individual’s [patient’s] life. This may include a person(s) not legally related to the individual” (Joint Commission Resources JCR, 2001 Hospital Accreditation Standards, p. 322). http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/resources.html?record=1013

If you still think you may have problems, the ACLU has this suggestion:
Quote: Many hospitals limit visitation solely to "family" members. To ensure that you and your partner are able to visit each other during a hospital stay, both partners should execute a hospital visitation authorization. The document should be readily available as you may be required to show it to hospital personnel before being allowed to visit you partner.
http://www.aclu.org/getequal/rela/protect4.html

I've got no problems here. I don't believe that hospital visitation is a marriage benefit. If they won't let you in, sue them for all they are worth.

On the issue of power of attorney, what can I say? Keep one with you when you're traveling. It seems to me though that this is a strange reason to get married. If you want justice, why not fight for that issue rather than marriage? If these are the big things that homosexuals yearn for, and that's why they want to marry, fight for those things and even I, the homophobic, redneck, soulless cretin I am, would fight with you. But not for marriage.

The fight for marriage is not just about the legal protections afforded to married couples. It is also about recognition that our relationships are just as important to us as a heterosexual marriage is to the members involved.

Equality does not end at legal benefits, but at societal recognition.

Maybe I am living with my head in the clouds on this issue, but it is something that is important to me.

Protostar · Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 1:25 am Post subject:

UrielsFyre wrote: armstrong001 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: armstrong001 wrote: Ch33kY wrote:
Marrage enables you to classify as parter/relative to see your partner in hospital, in an emergency. Marrage also comes under the whole tax thing etc.

You can see your partner in the hospital anyways. YOu could see your boyfriend/girlfriend, friend, co-worker, etc. There is nothing to stop homosexuals from visiting people in the hospital.

As for tax advantages for married couples, I'm in favor of a flat tax, so this wouldn't be an issue.

Unfortunately, people often misunderstand the idea of visiting relatives in the hospital, and why that protection is important to many gay men and women.

True, you can visit anyone you please in the hospital. However, many hospitals still have "visiting hours" wherein only family can stay beyond that time. How often have you heard of a man or woman staying overnight in the hospital at the side of their ailing husband/wife? If you aren't legally considered family, then you can't stay. That is one of the things that many gay people are hoping for.

In addition, there is the right to make medical decisions for an ailing partner. True, medical power of attorney papers can get around that, but not in every instance. Suppose you are on vacation, without your medical power of attorney paperwork. Your same-sex partner is injured and unable to speak for themselves. Beings that you are not legally considered to be family, you are not allowed to make the medical decisions. Regardless of whether or not you know what your partner would want done, you are considered to be "strangers" in the eyes of the law.

Those are just two examples of the things that gay men and women are fighting for.

If they are JCAHO accredited (as I believe most are), you have no problems, as they are required to let you in:
Quote: You are family if you are someone’s partner according to national hospital accreditation standards. JCAHO [“JAY-co”] is the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. It evaluates and accredits hospitals nationally – essentially providing a “seal of approval” that indicates high performance standards. JCAHO defines “family” as:

“The person(s) who plays a significant role in the individual’s [patient’s] life. This may include a person(s) not legally related to the individual” (Joint Commission Resources JCR, 2001 Hospital Accreditation Standards, p. 322). http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/resources.html?record=1013

If you still think you may have problems, the ACLU has this suggestion:
Quote: Many hospitals limit visitation solely to "family" members. To ensure that you and your partner are able to visit each other during a hospital stay, both partners should execute a hospital visitation authorization. The document should be readily available as you may be required to show it to hospital personnel before being allowed to visit you partner.
http://www.aclu.org/getequal/rela/protect4.html

I've got no problems here. I don't believe that hospital visitation is a marriage benefit. If they won't let you in, sue them for all they are worth.

On the issue of power of attorney, what can I say? Keep one with you when you're traveling. It seems to me though that this is a strange reason to get married. If you want justice, why not fight for that issue rather than marriage? If these are the big things that homosexuals yearn for, and that's why they want to marry, fight for those things and even I, the homophobic, redneck, soulless cretin I am, would fight with you. But not for marriage.

The fight for marriage is not just about the legal protections afforded to married couples. It is also about recognition that our relationships are just as important to us as a heterosexual marriage is to the members involved.

Equality does not end at legal benefits, but at societal recognition.

Maybe I am living with my head in the clouds on this issue, but it is something that is important to me.

Who cares if society accepts it or not? A lot of people don't accept cohabitating relationships, but that is the type of relationship I intend to be in and to hell with anyone who doesn't accept it. You think I give a rat's ass if people accept me or my preferred relationship? No. The government should get out of marriage altogether and not recognize any relationships.

armstrong001 · Joined: 11 Mar 2005 Posts: 648 Location: Grand Junction, CO

Skeptical Mystic wrote: armstrong001 wrote: If they are JCAHO accredited (as I believe most are), you have no problems, as they are required to let you in:
Quote: You are family if you are someone’s partner according to national hospital accreditation standards. JCAHO [“JAY-co”] is the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. It evaluates and accredits hospitals nationally – essentially providing a “seal of approval” that indicates high performance standards. JCAHO defines “family” as:

“The person(s) who plays a significant role in the individual’s [patient’s] life. This may include a person(s) not legally related to the individual” (Joint Commission Resources JCR, 2001 Hospital Accreditation Standards, p. 322). http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/resources.html?record=1013
Of course, you conveniently ignored the next section of what was on Lambda's page:

Quote: B — WHY WOULDN’T I ALWAYS BE FAMILY – ESPECIALLY IF I HAVE A DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP?
Hospitals don’t always recognize same-gender couples as family because of inadequate staff training or other policy deficiencies.

Domestic partnership registry or even a civil union doesn’t guarantee you will be recognized as family (unless you are in one of a few locations where it is required by law, like CA, VT, and some municipalities).

Domestic partnership certificates should be evidence of your family relationship, but hospital personnel may not understand. This is why you should take some extra precautions ahead of time to make sure your family – and your medical wishes – are respected.
The basic point here is that gay people have to go through a whole bunch of extra crap that heterosexually married couples don't - simply because their marriages are recognized while ours aren't. Meanwhile, even if we do go through the extra expense and hassle to make these arrangements, a bunch of people still choose to ignore them. Telling us to sue after the fact is little consolation. A lot of people simply can't afford to bring a lawsuit when they've been mistreated this way.

What part of this do you people still not get? Don't try to tell me we're being treated fairly or equally when we very clearly are not.

Again, I don't believe that you should be treated differently, in hospitals or otherwise. Like I said, I'm all for changing the system. You shouldn't have to jump through any extra hoops to visit loved ones in the hospital. I'm not arguing that. I am arguing that you shouldn't be getting married for these "benefits". That's not what marriage is for.

So, I'll repeat this again. I am all for you having the same visitation rights as so called family members. But that issue should be separate from marriage.

armstrong001 · Joined: 11 Mar 2005 Posts: 648 Location: Grand Junction, CO

UrielsFyre wrote: armstrong001 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: armstrong001 wrote: Ch33kY wrote:
Marrage enables you to classify as parter/relative to see your partner in hospital, in an emergency. Marrage also comes under the whole tax thing etc.

You can see your partner in the hospital anyways. YOu could see your boyfriend/girlfriend, friend, co-worker, etc. There is nothing to stop homosexuals from visiting people in the hospital.

As for tax advantages for married couples, I'm in favor of a flat tax, so this wouldn't be an issue.

Unfortunately, people often misunderstand the idea of visiting relatives in the hospital, and why that protection is important to many gay men and women.

True, you can visit anyone you please in the hospital. However, many hospitals still have "visiting hours" wherein only family can stay beyond that time. How often have you heard of a man or woman staying overnight in the hospital at the side of their ailing husband/wife? If you aren't legally considered family, then you can't stay. That is one of the things that many gay people are hoping for.

In addition, there is the right to make medical decisions for an ailing partner. True, medical power of attorney papers can get around that, but not in every instance. Suppose you are on vacation, without your medical power of attorney paperwork. Your same-sex partner is injured and unable to speak for themselves. Beings that you are not legally considered to be family, you are not allowed to make the medical decisions. Regardless of whether or not you know what your partner would want done, you are considered to be "strangers" in the eyes of the law.

Those are just two examples of the things that gay men and women are fighting for.

If they are JCAHO accredited (as I believe most are), you have no problems, as they are required to let you in:
Quote: You are family if you are someone’s partner according to national hospital accreditation standards. JCAHO [“JAY-co”] is the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. It evaluates and accredits hospitals nationally – essentially providing a “seal of approval” that indicates high performance standards. JCAHO defines “family” as:

“The person(s) who plays a significant role in the individual’s [patient’s] life. This may include a person(s) not legally related to the individual” (Joint Commission Resources JCR, 2001 Hospital Accreditation Standards, p. 322). http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/resources.html?record=1013

If you still think you may have problems, the ACLU has this suggestion:
Quote: Many hospitals limit visitation solely to "family" members. To ensure that you and your partner are able to visit each other during a hospital stay, both partners should execute a hospital visitation authorization. The document should be readily available as you may be required to show it to hospital personnel before being allowed to visit you partner.
http://www.aclu.org/getequal/rela/protect4.html

I've got no problems here. I don't believe that hospital visitation is a marriage benefit. If they won't let you in, sue them for all they are worth.

On the issue of power of attorney, what can I say? Keep one with you when you're traveling. It seems to me though that this is a strange reason to get married. If you want justice, why not fight for that issue rather than marriage? If these are the big things that homosexuals yearn for, and that's why they want to marry, fight for those things and even I, the homophobic, redneck, soulless cretin I am, would fight with you. But not for marriage.

The fight for marriage is not just about the legal protections afforded to married couples. It is also about recognition that our relationships are just as important to us as a heterosexual marriage is to the members involved.

Equality does not end at legal benefits, but at societal recognition.

Maybe I am living with my head in the clouds on this issue, but it is something that is important to me.

So, this is not about a marriage, then? This is for social recognition? The only people it should be important to is the couple. Why do you want to force others to 'recognize' anything? There are several churches that will allow homosexual marriage. Homosexual couples can have the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple. Go ahead, knock yourselves out. So why, when you can have a religious ceremony (if you choose), and all the legal rights, must you also have a certificate from the state? Who exactly do you still require recognition from?