Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They had covered every angle available to them - PoA, the works. And yet the hospital decided that the patient's brother should somehow be allowed to overrule the patient's partner. This sh.t happens.
It happened to us. My partner had a bleedout on his brain and had to be flown to San Francisco for emergency surgery. The hospital, UCSF, refused to give me any information on him and asked for his nearest relative. His sisters live near there, but they had not talked in well over 20 years. I had to call his sisters to have them go see him. I got mad and faxed a letter with our durable power of attorney to the UCSF Legal office and asked them if they treat all heterosexual couples the same, because if they do not, they are discriminating against us. They changed their tune by the next day and it was all of a sudden, " any thing you want, we will assist you". We have been together 34 years this July and at the time it was right on our 30th that he went into the hospital.
This is a ridiculous argument. This whole charade is NOT, in this day and age, about discrimination against gay businesses voting rights, gay-only restrooms/restaurants/and bus seats and segregated communities and schools. Those laws are ALREADY in place to support you in accordance with the Constitution. This is an argument as to whether we should legally redefine marriage.
This is not a "seperate but equal" argument. If it were, I'd support your plight 110%. But you and other gay marriage advocates do a grave disservice to yourselves when you attempt to parallel your chosen sexual orientation with the black historical experience leading up to civil rights movement of 50 some odd years ago.
Sexual orientation is not a choice. Did you choose to be straight?
Isn't that the rub here, if gays pushed for civil unions, and the appropriate protections, they would have it now in most every state. But since some gay groups are so militant, I think they are seeing an aggressive push back, so that even states that would approve of civil unions are saying 'no', and drawing a line in the sand.
I guess you missed the vote in NC where they made civil unions and domestic partnerships illegal according to their constitution, even though SSM was already illegal.
I think it's funny that when you are starting to lose, you guys are all of a sudden offering civil unions.
Sexual orientation is not a choice. Did you choose to be straight?
So you don't have a choice, regarding who you decide to sleep with? Why are you so out in the open with your sexual choices? Shouldn't you keep that private, in your bedroom.
Pretty much, but many of these folks are not arguing under the guise of 'civil rights' and when they do--the ideas don't match up. What many are pushing is an ideology--similar to a radical religious movement. Hence the need to redefine 'marriage', instead, as you said--push for civil unions of some sort with provisions. But what has always struck a cord with me, is that many of them immediately wave off the slipperly slope argument without a legitimate rebuttle. In many of their minds 'gay marriage' and heterosexual marriage are one in the same--however, after that, the very same parameters that kept them out, can keep other groups out. That alone tells me that this is NOT about some form of recognizing a true universe of "equal rights."
A hetero couple and homo couple can both get married in NY, but only one couple will receive federal benefits. If the couples have a partner in the military one will receive a pay raise and housing while the other does not.
If the federal government wants to inject itself into the personal lives of citizens and dole out benefits then it cannot discriminate. Remove the benefits or treat people equally.
Any civil and just society should allow for protections of civil union couples. But the gay community is not pushing for those, they push for marriage to be redefined to include gays instead.
Then our society is not civil and just, because we do not get protections with civil unions, nor with domestic partnerships. Marriage will not be redefined, what a stupid arguement. You marriage will not change, you will not lose any rights or protections, marriage equality just allows us gay people to join together in marriage, marriage that is a federal civil contract. There is zero redefining. Prove how.
Which do you think would be easier a) remove all federal marital benefits or b) force the government to treat couple equally. Does the federal government even have the power to regulate marriage?
The recent supreme court case was asking that exact same question. Marriage has always been a states' issue and that is fine. However, the federal government is treating people differently based on their sexual orientation.
A gay couple that is together for 30 years will not receive the same treatment as a woman that was married for 15. How is that fair?
It's a state matter, defining the laws for marriage always has been a state matter.
Like i said, if same-sex couples were fighting for civil union protections they'd probably have them by now, I know I would not object. In fact I am in the camp that thinks any civil and just society should be trying to create a legal framework to protect same-sex couples who are raising children together.
If I am unmarried, and want to live together with my old army buddy, and we want to share our property and finances together, we should be allowed to do so under the law. The state does not have to subsidize us, but it should allow us our legal protections.
Exactly, justice is blind in regard to skin color. But even blind, justice can see a fundamental difference between two gay men wanting to be called man and wife, and a man and woman.
Two gay men are husband and husband and two lesbians are wife and wife. Is that so difficult to grasp.
A hetero couple and homo couple can both get married in NY, but only one couple will receive federal benefits. If the couples have a partner in the military one will receive a pay raise and housing while the other does not.
If the federal government wants to inject itself into the personal lives of citizens and dole out benefits then it cannot discriminate. Remove the benefits or treat people equally.
Question...
I know you've been asked this before...
But do you support polygamous or polyandrous marriages? Do you support incest marriages? Do you draw a line after gay marriages? Or is the "equal rights" clause available to anyone of age who desires to be married?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A hetero couple and homo couple can both get married in NY, but only one couple will receive federal benefits. If the couples have a partner in the military one will receive a pay raise and housing while the other does not. 