Lawsuit: Jackson Memorial barred lesbian from seeing dying partner

[Indy]

I'm not even going to bother with a reply to this. When a thread is started based on an article we work with what we are given. The article stated that certain things happened and we discuss based on those events. You showed nothing to contradict that those events were the case and now that you have basically lost the argument we start in with the "what ifs". As far as I'm concerned you've lost this debate, and you've lost it badly.

 

[1069]

The children aren't legally Pond's. Langbehn had to adopt them as a single woman, because it is outrageously difficult- very nearly impossible- for same-sex couples to adopt. So this is what lesbians do when they want to adopt. They lie and pretend they're single women, then simply go on about their business and raise the child together after the adoption is final. But only one actually has legally recognized parental rights, even if they pretend otherwise. The other is not even legally a stepmother. She is nothing in the eyes of the law, although in the eyes of the child, she is their mother.

These children were prevented from being with their mother when she was dying.

But it could've been so much worse. If Pond had been the legal adoptive mother rather than Langbehn, then Langbehn would've lost her children-whom she has no legal claim to- either to some family member of Pond's, or to the State. She would've had no legal right to them whatsoever, not even a right to contact them or know if they are okay in the future.
And the children would've lost both of their mothers on the same day, and their home, and possibly been separated from each other, as well (as many foster and adoptive families are unwilling to take on sibling groups of this size).

Doncha just love the "Pro-Family Movement"? Cute little buggers that they are.

Was the deceased lesbian just rushed into a room and them isolated from the "family"?

Excuse me?
"The deceased lesbian"? :wassat1:

When you die, do you want people to refer to you by your sexual orientation? The deceased heterosexual in Room 209?
The deceased person-who-likes-to-stick-his-dick-in-******s down the hall?
The deceased mother of four, do you mean?
Four who were, coincidentally, prevented from seeing her when she was dying.
I would think that at a time like this, her sexual orientation should hardly be anyone's foremost concern. It's not like there was some danger she'd leap out of bed and start eating ***** in front of everyone. She was dying for Chrissake, while her partner and children sat in the same building, prevented from seeing her... even as they are forced to watch blood relatives like Pond's sister waltz right in to Pond's room without any problem.
Who do you think the "deceased lesbian" would rather have seen on her deathbed- a sister, or her own spouse and children?
Who would you rather see, on yours?

The hospital just made her rich. idiots

If the couple could afford to adopt and raise four children, and still take a Rosie O'Donnell cruise, I'm fairly confident that 75k is chump change to them.
It is worth noting, however, that Pond would've had a difficult time leaving any of her money or property to her children or to Langbehn.
Any blood relative could've contested it, and won.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

First, let me say this is extremely messed off and the hospital is incredibly wrong minded in this imho. That said. This is exactly why marriage as a term should be written out of law and left to religious groups, and civil unions should be the only domain of "coupling" that the government worries about and gives benefits to IF its going to give benefits.

:applaud I've been saying this exact thing for a while. I agree 100%.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Obviously you can't read,



You're the only one screeching here.


I never thought that reading comprehension eluded you, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and chalk this up as an emo outburst.

Moderator's Warning:

Cease these kinds of personal attacks.

 

[GottaHurt]

I'm not even going to bother with a reply to this.

I can understand your need to bail on this, you reached your conclusion based on assumption. You can't dig yourself out of that hole.

When a thread is started based on an article we work with what we are given. The article stated that certain things happened and we discuss based on those events.

You showed nothing to contradict that those events were the case.

These would be the contradictions in the case.

The lesbian lover claimed she was denied visitation:

Langbehn said. She and the children were told virtually nothing about Pond and not allowed to see her — even though Pond's sister arrived from Jacksonville and was sent straight to Pond's room.

Then she later revised her story:

Langbehn said she was allowed in to see her partner only for about five minutes, as a priest gave Pond the last rites.

So your argument that the hospital had violated the law by denying the lesbian lover visitation access to the deceased lesbian, is refuted by the lesbian lovers own admission.

First she claims she was denied visitation, then she admits she was allowed visitation. That's a contradiction.

.... and now that you have basically lost the argument we start in with the "what ifs".

Actually I used a reference to Ted Kennedy's brain surgery to give a parrallel timeline on brain procedures, noting that it's not unreasonable for procedures to last that long.

Yes, I threw a couple "what if's" in there, but my argument wasn't built around them.

.... As far as I'm concerned you've lost this debate, and you've lost it badly.

An easy out for someone who brought no valid argument to the table. You were able to provide a link though, I'm glad I was able to motivate you on that one.

 

[GottaHurt]

Moderator's Warning:

Cease these kinds of personal attacks.

Hey Captain, long time no see!!!

No problem on the personal attacks.

Page 5, post #43. I believe I was the target of the "screeching" comment. I merely replied to the personal attack on me.

 

[FallingPianos]

The children aren't legally Pond's. Langbehn had to adopt them as a single woman, because it is outrageously difficult- very nearly impossible- for same-sex couples to adopt. So this is what lesbians do when they want to adopt. They lie and pretend they're single women, then simply go on about their business and raise the child together after the adoption is final. But only one actually has legally recognized parental rights, even if they pretend otherwise. The other is not even legally a stepmother. She is nothing in the eyes of the law, although in the eyes of the child, she is their mother.

These children were prevented from being with their mother when she was dying.

But it could've been so much worse. If Pond had been the legal adoptive mother rather than Langbehn, then Langbehn would've lost her children-whom she has no legal claim to- either to some family member of Pond's, or to the State. She would've had no legal right to them whatsoever, not even a right to contact them or know if they are okay in the future.
And the children would've lost both of their mothers on the same day, and their home, and possibly been separated from each other, as well (as many foster and adoptive families are unwilling to take on sibling groups of this size).

Doncha just love the "Pro-Family Movement"? Cute little buggers that they are.

according to the complaint filed by lambda legal, the children were jointly adopted. legally, they were Pond's.

Lambda Legal: <em>Langbehn v. Jackson Memorial Hospital Complaint </em>

 

[Indy]

Again gottahurt, you failed to respond with any legal argument. I'm still waiting.

 

[GottaHurt]

Again gottahurt, you failed to respond with any legal argument. I'm still waiting.

Your post is EPIC FAIL!!!

I clearly showed in several of my posts where the laws were not broken.

By the plaintiffs own admission, she shot herself in the foot. Reread the OP's link, you can then see all the statements made by the plaintiff, she discredits her own claims of being denied access.

The best part is the lawsuit itself.

"negligence" and "intentional infliction of emotional distress."

Good luck proving negligence, and the "intention infliction of emotional distress"...rotflmao...

Yea, she's suing because she got her feelings hurt.

 

[Indy]

Your post is EPIC FAIL!!!

I clearly showed in several of my posts where the laws were not broken.

By the plaintiffs own admission, she shot herself in the foot. Reread the OP's link, you can then see all the statements made by the plaintiff, she discredits her own claims of being denied access.

The best part is the lawsuit itself.

"negligence" and "intentional infliction of emotional distress."

Good luck proving negligence, and the "intention infliction of emotional distress"...rotflmao...

Yea, she's suing because she got her feelings hurt.

Once again, you don't supply any legal argument to support your claim. The position that the hospital broke the law in no way hinges on whether she was eventually allowed to see her partner or not. Actually tell you what, I'm going to start using your own debate tactics. Here we go:

You are wrong. The sky is green and because chipmunks like to eat paper sausages the hospital clearly is third down the fair line.

Doesn't make much sense does it? Now you know what its like.

 

[Cardinal]

Your post is EPIC FAIL!!!

I clearly showed in several of my posts where the laws were not broken.

By the plaintiffs own admission, she shot herself in the foot. Reread the OP's link, you can then see all the statements made by the plaintiff, she discredits her own claims of being denied access.

The best part is the lawsuit itself.

"negligence" and "intentional infliction of emotional distress."

Good luck proving negligence, and the "intention infliction of emotional distress"...rotflmao...

Yea, she's suing because she got her feelings hurt.

I really don't see the problem with the lawsuit. The "negligence" is that Janice was refused entry into the hospital room for eighteen hours after Lisa was admitted into the hospital, and for seventeen even after the power of attorney was faxed over. Five minutes is unacceptable. Janice was probably very carefully watched over those whole five minutes, and very demeaningly yanked out at the end of them as well, if the rest of the story is anything to go by.

Intentional infliction? Well, besides the story itself as seen in refusing her entry for eighteen hours (and seventeen hours even after they were legally obliged to), we have their own words "anti-gay city and state" to use against them.

Of course one can never know how lawsuits will go, but going by the evidence at hand it's more than a slam dunk.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Yea, she's suing because she got her feelings hurt.

The infliction of extreme emotional distress is a well established tort and is a very actionable affair.
Pooh-poohing doesn't really make much of an argument, imvho. Of course, ymmv.

 

[GottaHurt]

Once again, you don't supply any legal argument to support your claim. The position that the hospital broke the law in no way hinges on whether she was eventually allowed to see her partner or not.

I didn't need to supply any legal argument, YOU supplied the legal argument. I refuted it with the plaintiffs own statements.

All three below are direct quotes from the OP's supplied link.

1) Hospitals legally do not have to allow visitors.

2) Langbehn said she was allowed in to see her partner.

3) When Pond was declared brain dead about 10 a.m. the next day, her heart, both kidneys and her liver were harvested for donation, according to her wishes, Langbehn said.


1) That's the law, grasp it, embrace it, respect it.

2) Visitation was allowed.

3) Power of Attorney was recognized in order to grant the final wishes of the deceased.

Really, it's pretty simple to see. No laws were broken.

 

[shuamort]

I didn't need to supply any legal argument, YOU supplied the legal argument. I refuted it with the plaintiffs own statements.

All three below are direct quotes from the OP's supplied link.

1) Hospitals legally do not have to allow visitors.

Yes, they do. Please read the 2nd link in my OP. It's been there since the thread started. It's from the GAO which enumerates the list of Federal benefits and guarantees by US Code and law that married couples receive. Included is the right to hospital visitation.

 

[Indy]

I didn't need to supply any legal argument, YOU supplied the legal argument. I refuted it with the plaintiffs own statements.

You have been caught in a lie. Let me refresh your memory:

Originally Posted by GottaHurt View Post
I applaud the hospitals decision to follow the law and not let these special interest people try to circumvent it.

You sir were the first one to bring the law into this. When you were rebuffed and had no other rational argument to go on you then reverted back to emotional outbursts. I have posted the exact Florida law, the exact US law as well as the exact case in which the SCOTUS upheld the law. I have shown how any deviation from what the law states is a violation of the law. I have shown how the Hospital in fact deviated from the letter of the law and therefore BROKE the law. You then somehow think that denying my facts with your backwards logic seems to make you the victor.

The best part was when I was questioned as to whether I would have any understanding of the law and if I was a paralegal or worked in the legal industry. You were AGAIN forced to put your foot in your mouth. How many times must you have egg on your face before you yield? I'm not sure what is required to show you the error of your ways but apparently facts and logic as well as morals don't matter to you. The law doesn't matter to you. Is that not a loosing argument?

 

[GottaHurt]

Yes, they do. Please read the 2nd link in my OP. It's been there since the thread started. It's from the GAO which enumerates the list of Federal benefits and guarantees by US Code and law that married couples receive. Included is the right to hospital visitation.

She was allowed visitation.

 

[GottaHurt]

You have been caught in a lie. Let me refresh your memory:

You sir were the first one to bring the law into this. When you were rebuffed and had no other rational argument to go on you then reverted back to emotional outbursts. I have posted the exact Florida law, the exact US law as well as the exact case in which the SCOTUS upheld the law. I have shown how any deviation from what the law states is a violation of the law. I have shown how the Hospital in fact deviated from the letter of the law and therefore BROKE the law. You then somehow think that denying my facts with your backwards logic seems to make you the victor.

I was caught in no lie, because I never lied.

The lesbian lover was allowed visitation.

The POA was recognized, and the deceased lesbians final wishes were fulfilled.

The only emo outbursts came from you, and obviously, the lesbian lover who lied about being denied visitation.

You keep talking about how you provided a link to the statues, but those statutes didn't help you prove your argument, because your argument was destroyed by the lesbian lovers own statements.

ONCE MORE.

You based your argument on the fact that she was DENIED visition.

She was allowed visitation.

You continued to push a bad position when you stated that the POA was ignored.

The POA was fulfilled.

The best part was when I was questioned as to whether I would have any understanding of the law and if I was a paralegal or worked in the legal industry. You were AGAIN forced to put your foot in your mouth. How many times must you have egg on your face before you yield? I'm not sure what is required to show you the error of your ways but apparently facts and logic as well as morals don't matter to you. The law doesn't matter to you. Is that not a loosing argument?

You posted a link to some ghetto law firm, but never clearly defined your role there.

The fact that you reached your conclusions from assumptions proves you're a poser.

I'm not familiar with losing arguments, you're well versed in them though.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I obviously prejudged your position on this issue based on your positions in other issues. My bad. And I agree with you, you can't really put a price tag on this. However, for the sake of practicality, in other words, sending a message, seeking damages in this case is extremely tricky. There's a very fine line in the public's eye between "sending a message" and the appearance of cynical self enrichment. One can make a difference in the world, the other can very easily make matters worse in an environment where a lot of people already have a very negative view of gays.

On the flip side, civil rights activism is an extremely personal choice, so if she had sought millions, I for one could have understood and respected that decision.

It happens, I am personally, "very conservative" but my core values on man is pure "libertarian"... Though that does not stop some from calling me everything from a fascist to a neocon.

 

[Indy]

I was caught in no lie, because I never lied.

The lesbian lover was allowed visitation.

The POA was recognized, and the deceased lesbians final wishes were fulfilled.

The only emo outbursts came from you, and obviously, the lesbian lover who lied about being denied visitation.

You keep talking about how you provided a link to the statues, but those statutes didn't help you prove your argument, because your argument was destroyed by the lesbian lovers own statements.

ONCE MORE.

You based your argument on the fact that she was DENIED visition.

She was allowed visitation.

You continued to push a bad position when you stated that the POA was ignored.

The POA was fulfilled.



You posted a link to some ghetto law firm, but never clearly defined your role there.

The fact that you reached your conclusions from assumptions proves you're a poser.

I'm not familiar with losing arguments, you're well versed in them though.

:ws Because the trees fall in the ocean during peanut time the tulips are going to be crucial for the fly's harvest. You clearly are still wrong.

(It gets frustrating when somebody posts drivel to counter your arguments doesn't it?)

 

[Coolguy]

I just love the comments that suggest that the amount being sought is only $75,000 and then attach some sort of personal inference from it.
As previously provided by Shuamort, that is the minimum filing requirement, and as the article states, they are seeking damages "in excess of $75,000".
It is a common legal ploy/strategy when filing to do so. They can then later amend to specific amounts, amounts greater, or even leave it up to the decider what should be paid "in excess of" if they should succeed in their claim.


And as for the amount of speculation that has occurred, and the comments made when clearly the posters did not thoroughly read the article up for debate... wow!
I mean, shouldn't those who wish to debate at least read the information provided before they engage?




This is in refference to some of the replies made to GottaHurt.
I often wonder why those who wish to debate resort to "appeals to emotion" or want to decry others for their lack of sensitivity or emotion when 'they' do not belong in debate to begin with. :slapme:
But I find his position in regards to the actions being discussed as... spot on, regardless of his personal views on homosexuality.
Having said that, the Plaintiff's requested a Jury Trial and this is what may hurt the Hospital on one hand, and may hurt the Plaintiff on the other.
The Hospital has a Patients' Bill of Rights & Responsibilities which the jury (humans being what they are) may see as having been violated, even though I don't think they have.
Having a Jury Trial could hurt the Plaintiff's claim if the area the jurors are selected from is indeed an area that is anti-gay.


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

By Shuamort
I was wondering when this tired argument was going to get brought out.

Here are couple fun rebuttals from this parroted fecal matter:
and
My legal theory has been successfully applied in Lawrence v Texas...​

Wow! You call it a tired argument and parroted fecal matter?
The same can be said about the rebuttals you provided, yet as it stands, the argument; that everybody, as a person, has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex (with kinship restrictions) stands and is hardly tired or fecal matter. But I will give you parroted though, but just because something is parroted doesn't automatically make it wrong.
As for your theory... interesting but flawed. You are comparing apples to oranges and it couldn't be used to strike down a right everybody has in favor of creating a new right that everybody could enjoy.

By Shuamort
Yes, they do. Please read the 2nd link in my OP. It's been there since the thread started. It's from the GAO which enumerates the list of Federal benefits and guarantees by US Code and law that married couples receive. Included is the right to hospital visitation.​

Really? Not saying that this isn't true but I couldn't find it in that exact .pdf. Would you be kind enough to point out where?

But then again, it really doesn't matter in this topic because what you provided shows that your argument is flawed as it pertains to this case.
If you noticed, (which I am pretty sure you know) the first 'note' on page (1) informs us of the following:

1 The Defense of Marriage Act defines “marriage” as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife”; it defines “spouse” as referring “only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” The Act requires that these definitions apply “n determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States.” 1 U.S.C. § 7.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

By Indy

Over the past three decades, the United States -- all fifty states and the District of Columbia -- have passed laws to legalize the use of living wills, health care proxies and/or the durable power of attorney. The U.S. federal government has validated state laws on advance directives through the 1991 Patient Self- Determination Act. And the U.S. Supreme Court has handed down an opinion acknowledging the congruence of the Constitution of the United States with state laws on the right to designate future medical treatment.

By Indy
... The POA and MD does not only cover what happens at the end of the day but the PROCESS of reaching that decision as well. Guess what, that covers the 8 or so hours that she was refused admittance as well. How is it not preventing the POA and MD to not discuss medical information with the spouse?​

Ya know, for some reason I fail to find anywhere that says a person who holds a POA has a right to visit.
That is where this argument is. Under Florida's law she wasn't considered a spouse and didn't need to be given any consideration that a spouse or family member receives, she was just a holder of the POA. After the POA was received, and on record, they consulted her when necessary, her job was done.



:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

By FallingPianos
according to the complaint filed by lambda legal, the children were jointly adopted. legally, they were Pond's.​

Kudos on posting the link to the actual brief, but no, that is the claim being made.
Lambda included the MD and the POA as evidence, but if you noticed, they provide no evidence to support these specific claims, (not that it will not be included at a later date if it exists.).


Anyways, in regards to the actions of the Hospital...
They were right in not recognizing the claim of a POA until it was in hand. After it was, her partner (the holder of the POA) was informed and consulted by the doctors treating her.
Yet the Plaintiff, admitting the above, alleges that a (Jane Doe) refused to give information when requested. Hmmm... she already had all the information she was required to be given, that regarding her care and treatment, nothing else had changed.
So these claims are spurious.

The children... hmmmm? I can't imagine that someone in this situation is going to try and fake being someone's child, yet from the information provided, there were no documents given to the hospital to support the claim that they were her adoptive children either. I got a feeling that there is more to this portion of the story and am anxiously awaiting the Hospitals response to the brief.


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

By galenrox
... Regardless of your own personal judgments as to the validity of their relationship, this is a woman with whom she shared her life with for 18 years and raised 3 ****ing kids together, there's no excusing that. ...​

I found this comment funny because someone who is anti-gay could easily have come back and said something to the effect of, 'I agree, there is no excusing her'.

 

[shuamort]

for a person accusing others of aliteracy, youve got your hand in the cookie jar too. DOMA was cited as it demonstrated the right for hospital visitation of married people. But then, I repeat myself.

 

[GottaHurt]

(It gets frustrating when somebody posts drivel to counter your arguments doesn't it?)

Not at all, it's quite humorous to watch you try and squirm your way out of the major blunder you created for yourself.

What is this, the 4th or 5th post of drivel from you?

Once again trying to divert attention away from your flawed argument, an argument on which your conclusion was derived from assumption.

As our friends across the pond would say, you've been sent down.

 

[dragonslayer]

Lawsuit: Jackson Memorial barred lesbian from seeing dying partner


So, for those out there that say that gays and lesbian have the same rights or that they're obtainable outside of marriage, here's a bit of proof that you're wrong.

Hospital visitation is one of the 1,138 benefits afforded to married couples.

How very sad. This incident speaks of horror for the people of that state.

 

[GottaHurt]

DOMA was cited as it demonstrated the right for hospital visitation of married people. But then, I repeat myself.

1) The lesbians in this case aren't married. You can spin it, twist it, turn it and try to squeeze the square peg into the round hole all day long, but in the state of Florida, they're not married.

2) The lesbian lover wasn't denied visitation.

Your horse is dead, it didn't even come close to finishing the race. Bury it already, and move along.

 

[Coolguy]

By Shuamort
for a person accusing others of aliteracy, youve got your hand in the cookie jar too. ​

:rofl
Not at all, nor did I intend to accuse anyone of "aliteracy".
I used a bad choice of words following my initial thought, but since it was a continuation on that thought of "thoroughly reading" it should have been understood as such. And frankly, as far as I am concerned, if someone hasn't "thoroughly" read, it's like not having read the information at all. Which of course is different from "aliteracy" that you claim.

But then again, if those who went unmentioned had thoroughly read what was presented, you wouldn't have needed to post a link clarifying the $75,000 minimum to file. Would you?

Granted, I do assume that folks do comprehend that which they read, so there must have been a reason why others made comments that directly conflicted the information provided.
So tell me... is it comprehension, not thoroughly reading or aliteracy that causes the comments to be made?

By Shuamort
DOMA was cited as it demonstrated the right for hospital visitation of married people. But then, I repeat myself.​

No it doesn't. Nor was DOMA cited.

And repeating yourself doesn't change whether or not your argument is accurate.

I fully understand what you presented and it doesn't pertain to this case. But lets go over it.


You start this topic and say in your commentary;
"So, for those out there that say that gays and lesbian have the same rights or that they're obtainable outside of marriage, here's a bit of proof that you're wrong.".
You also include another comment to which you 'linked' the information and said;
"Hospital visitation is one of the 1,138 benefits afforded to married couples.".
The accuracy of the first is of no concern as to the accuracy of the second at this time, which is where our issue resides.
Yet your first statement (your argument), is why you think this 'BK' story "merits attention". I will address it also.

So...
GottaHurt says; "Hospitals legally do not have to allow visitors.".
You reply with; "Actually, they do. They have to allow spouses. It's one of the rights afforded by the US Government.".

GottaHurt then says the same to another; "Hospitals legally do not have to allow visitors.".
You again reply to this in the same fashion with; "Yes, they do. Please read the 2nd link in my OP. It's been there since the thread started. It's from the GAO which enumerates the list of Federal benefits and guarantees by US Code and law that married couples receive. Included is the right to hospital visitation.".

Which is where I came in and replied as I did, even giving you the chance to prove what you say is accurate, and what you say the link provides, actually provides it. You did neither.

1. You initially said the link was this.
"Hospital visitation is one of the 1,138 benefits afforded to married couples."

a. The statement is factually inaccurate. It certainly isn't about 1,138 benefits afforded to married couples. It includes things that aren't considered benefits.
It is "a report identifying ... federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor." or as explained somewhat differently, "... 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges."
b. Nowhere does the linked information address "Hospital visitation" as one of the "benefits afforded to married couples".
c. None of the codified law titles presented in the linked information specifically address this. Which is why I asked you to provide it. (not saying that none exists if each and every one of the 1,138 US Codes listed were thoroughly researched.)

(note) If US Codes exist that allows for spousal visitation while in the hospital, they would be for specific circumstances covering perhaps Military and VA hospitals and possibly even the treatment of Native Americans, etc...​

​

2. "Actually, they do. They have to allow spouses. It's one of the rights afforded by the US Government.", made in reply to, "Hospitals legally do not have to allow visitors."

a. In context of the 'BK' story; Not at all. GottaHurt's statement is factually accurate and your's is not.
b. In general; There is no 'right' afforded to every spouse in the US, by the US Government that allows this. Your reply as well as GottaHurt's are, 'in general', not accurate. GottaHurt's statement if taken 'in general', meaning 'all hospitals', would be inaccurate because it would depend on State as well as possible rights set up by a specific hospital.
In addition, in places that do afford this 'right' there will always be caveats attached which will always make it conditional.​

3. "Yes, they do. Please read the 2nd link in my OP. It's been there since the thread started. It's from the GAO which enumerates the list of Federal benefits and guarantees by US Code and law that married couples receive. Included is the right to hospital visitation.".

a. Again, a factually inaccurate statement.
It is a list that enumerates which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor.
e.g. If a US Code dealing with taxes causes those married to pay more, that code is listed because it deals with "marital status". That hardly would be considered a benefit now would it?
b. It does not specifically list a "right to hospital visitation".​

4. In context of your argument; "So, for those out there that say that gays and lesbian have the same rights or that they're obtainable outside of marriage, here's a bit of proof that you're wrong.".

I know what you are saying. You consider their State recognized marriage/partnership the same as, or perhaps as another might put it, as marriage, so this story, as well as the information to which you linked proves others wrong because they are not being given the same rights and/or treated the same.
If I held the same opinion I would agree, but there still isn't some right by the US Government that affords spousal visitation. So what you kept repeating is inaccurate.​

Yet I do not agree with your premise, as I am sure you do not agree with mine.
I see that the right that exists is a right to marry someone of the opposite sex (with kinship restrictions), and it applies equally to all citizens. No one is being denied this right as far as I know. Your novel legal theory comparing apples to oranges just doesn't apply because the right to marry someone of the opposite sex was being denied based on race.