PogueMoran
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 2,834
- Reaction score
- 331
- Location
- Northeast
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Not necessarily the case. Michael Schiavo always had the right at anytime to stop treatment and pull her feeding tube without her family's approval. Legally they had no case. It was schiavo who petitioned the courts to make a decision originally.
I agree with this.....It is not really a problem though...All one has to do is get a power of attorney....In fact most legal difficulties gays have can be handled this was way.
um.....schiavo's parents had no legal standing.
the gop will have a hard time rewriting this........It won't stick. If this is simply Federal policy then it can be re-written if the GOP come back to power, and you know they'll do it.
I suspect people have been denied in the past over this, but whether or not it still happens is irrelevant to the security this will bring to homosexual couples who might not be taken seriously by the health establishment. I also like what this implies for equal protection at the Federal level.
Thats theory not fact.
You can't just dishonestly throw out Southern states and guess they have denied gays.
why? what's so disgusting about it?His highness has declared it, so let it be so.
While I agree that this isn't a bad thing, the method to make it so is... disgusting.
um.....schiavo's parents had no legal standing.
it's not a lie that gay partners have no legal standing currently unless they have a specific instrmument detailing that right. not so for married couples.I agree. It dispels the lie that gays can't leave their **** behind to their partner or have their partner visit them in the hospital unless they are married.
Power of attorneys, wills, and other legal documentations should be made available to couples... :shrug:
it's not a lie that gay partners have no legal standing currently unless they have a specific instrmument detailing that right. not so for married couples.
Were they denied before in recent times? I know they used to have this issue. I am just asking, because I don't know, and I know thats not the case in many nj hospitals.
Civil rights refers to race or gender not homosexuality.
And no it isn't well founded speculation. Its speculation based on your own bias.
So just because the religious right hates gays, we should just all respond by acting like a 5 year old and doing away with state recognized marriages entirely.
A village cant exactly survive for long if it constantly reorganizes village life to suit the village idiots.
You just pretty much proved my speculation Tex.
To claim right wingers hate homosexuals only displays your ignorance for all to see.
.
because the word marriage is religious in nature.I work in hospitals...this is such a non issue. Ive NEVER seen anyone denied visitation if the guest requested it. Ever.
"Ive decided its high time gay people can wear jeans without asking permission. Front page news baby! We are movin and shakin now!"
Hey...why has Barrack Obama come out in favor of domestic partenrship but opposed to gay marriage?
because the word marriage is religious in nature.
Well it does seem the right wing is willing to discriminate against gays simply for being actively gay. After all who is it that supports the FMA and wants to restrict adoption, foster parenting, etc.
because the word marriage is religious in nature.
How do you have a debate with someone from the left when the first thing that comes out of their mouth is your hust a homophobe or a bigot......You hate gays.........Thay is the type of intelligence we on the right have to deal with...........
How do you have a debate with someone from the left when the first thing that comes out of their mouth is your hust a homophobe or a bigot......You hate gays.........Thay is the type of intelligence we on the right have to deal with...........
It is irrelevant as to whether the practice of denying gay partners visitation is widespread or not. My research shows that it is not, but it DOES happen. What this does is prevent it from happening at all. Without this mandate, this sort of thing might still not be widespread, but it STILL could occur. Now, it cannot. I see that as a good thing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?