Obama signs memorandum
-
That's exactly it. If you've lived with someone for 25 years and you're gay, in much of the country that means you have no legal way to make any of the health care decisions for your partner because, according to the state, your relationship doesn't exist.
That's exactly it. If you've lived with someone for 25 years and you're gay, in much of the country that means you have no legal way to make any of the health care decisions for your partner because, according to the state, your relationship doesn't exist.
I'm not a lawyer but I assume a living will and or POA would cover those legalities regardless of sexuality.
You do know that non adopted step children aren't considered the legal heirs aren't you?
WSS
-
I actually have one question. Do these rights apply to unmarried straight couples? Or are these special rights exclusive to gays?
I actually have one question. Do these rights apply to unmarried straight couples? Or are these special rights exclusive to gays?
Well, it's a problem such that gays are really the only ones affected, and as it was, they were denied rights that married straight couples had.
-
OSU you are the biggest phony I have ever seen.
-
OSU you are the biggest phony I have ever seen.
OSU you are the biggest phony I have ever seen.
Be that as it may, this was a pretty meaningless gesture.
As I said before legal means have been in place for a long time.
And Bush supported civil unions, same as most everybody else.
WSS
-
OSU you are the biggest phony I have ever seen.
Be that as it may, this was a pretty meaningless gesture.
As I said before legal means have been in place for a long time.
And Bush supported civil unions, same as most everybody else.
WSS
Be that as it may, this was a pretty meaningless gesture.
As I said before legal means have been in place for a long time.
And Bush supported civil unions, same as most everybody else.
WSS
No, you only feel it's meaningless because it doesn't affect you. CNN did a much better article on it
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/15/hos...tion/index.html
Try telling that to Janice Langbehn, who wasn't allowed to see her partner of 17 years on her deathbed because she wasn't "family."
-
Be that as it may, this was a pretty meaningless gesture.
As I said before legal means have been in place for a long time.
And Bush supported civil unions, same as most everybody else.
WSS
No, you only feel it's meaningless because it doesn't affect you. CNN did a much better article on it
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/15/hos...tion/index.html
Try telling that to Janice Langbehn, who wasn't allowed to see her partner of 17 years on her deathbed because she wasn't "family."
No, you only feel it's meaningless because it doesn't affect you. CNN did a much better article on it
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/15/hos...tion/index.html
Try telling that to Janice Langbehn, who wasn't allowed to see her partner of 17 years on her deathbed because she wasn't "family."
The point I think you miss is the fact that with a POA or living will one has those rights.
(I'm pretty sure that's the case, It's certainly true for the nearly universally supported civil union, but still, thet's paperwork.)
Non married straight couples would need that same legal status.
Non adopted children aren't considered family no matter how long they've lived with a step parent either.
If I've been living with a woman for say ten years I'm not automatically privy to her legal affairs.
WSS
-
Yes, but you would have had the option to marry that woman, thus bypassing all of this. Gays don't get that luxury.
-
Yes, but you would have had the option to marry that woman, thus bypassing all of this. Gays don't get that luxury.
Yes, but you would have had the option to marry that woman, thus bypassing all of this. Gays don't get that luxury.
Either way it is merely paperwork. It isn't like you don't have to meet with a representative and file for a marriage licence. Honestly a majority of this argument is already in place with the same paperwork requirements that are needed to get married in the first place.
-
Yes, but you would have had the option to marry that woman, thus bypassing all of this. Gays don't get that luxury.
Yes, but you would have had the option to marry that woman, thus bypassing all of this. Gays don't get that luxury.
That's true.
But Obama was (and is I assume) opposed to gay marriage.
And this memorandum is meaningless on that front.
There's nothing here to blast him or praise him for.
WSS
-
Yeah, you're correct. It just allows everyone the right to designate who can visit.
Straight from the memorandum:
...ensure that hospitals that participate in Medicare
or Medicaid respect the rights of patients to designate
visitors. It should be made clear that designated visitors,
including individuals designated by legally valid advance
directives (such as durable powers of attorney and health care
proxies), should enjoy visitation privileges that are no more
restrictive than those that immediate family members enjoy.
You should also provide that participating hospitals may not
deny visitation privileges on the basis of race, color, national
origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or
disability. The rulemaking should take into account the need
for hospitals to restrict visitation in medically appropriate
circumstances as well as the clinical decisions that medical
professionals make about a patient's care or treatment.
I disagree with you on this being undeserving of praise, though.
-
and if someone wants to visit, and the patient is incapacitated to reject the visit on that
NON FAMILY PERSON?
Any yahoo who wants to get a will changed can go visit somebody for whatever reason, then.
gay relationships are NOT FAMILY. They are FRIENDS. NOT LEGAL COMPANIONS in terms of being
responsible, etc etc.
Now, if you want to have a legal document that designates who can come visit you unrestricted ahead of time,
in the hospital, regardless of the situation, I'm fine with that.
Wouldn't that simply solve the problem? Or, is the real intention to change society's views on all things warped and radical one bit at a time?
I think the latter.
-
...ensure that hospitals that participate in Medicare
or Medicaid respect the rights of patients to designate
visitors. It should be made clear that designated visitors,
including individuals designated by legally valid advance
directives (such as durable powers of attorney and health care
proxies), should enjoy visitation privileges that are no more
restrictive than those that immediate family members enjoy.
You should also provide that participating hospitals may not
deny visitation privileges on the basis of race, color, national
origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or
disability. The rulemaking should take into account the need
for hospitals to restrict visitation in medically appropriate
circumstances as well as the clinical decisions that medical
professionals make about a patient's care or treatment.
And, yes, I do believe that Obama is saying something about our nation's bigoted stance toward our gay citizens.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login