Jump to content
MURDERcomplexx

Marriage Equality and Other MOGAI/Queer Rights

Recommended Posts

I mean, why is it that someone has to be state-married in order to visit their spouse in an ICU?

Is that really a law in the US? Kinda goes against medical principle...

 

If you could provide proof I would appreciate it, because I will outright now say I don't believe you.

Edited by Kestra15

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, so that's giving non-hetero partners rights to decide medical care as per married couples - which I fully support - but it doesn't seem to mention any law about husband/wife -only visiting in ICU. Yes, immediate family only is mentioned - which is what I expected it to be - but nothing about partner-only visiting.

 

Unless what Artemis means is that currently only legally-recognised immediate-family only visiting is recognised (officially. Unofficially I'm sure hospitals are bending the rules as required. They'd be a poor hospital if they followed the letter of the law). And since in most places gay marriage is not legally recognised or respected then I can see what Artemis is getting at - and the case study shown.

 

Then again, if a nurse or doctor is blind-prejudiced then they are in the wrong profession. Any medic who works solely to the letter of the law is a bad medic in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Okay, so that's giving non-hetero partners rights to decide medical care as per married couples - which I fully support - but it doesn't seem to mention any law about husband/wife -only visiting in ICU. Yes, immediate family only is mentioned - which is what I expected it to be - but nothing about partner-only visiting.

 

Unless what Artemis means is that currently only legally-recognised immediate-family only visiting is recognised (officially. Unofficially I'm sure hospitals are bending the rules as required. They'd be a poor hospital if they followed the letter of the law). And since in most places gay marriage is not legally recognised or respected then I can see what Artemis is getting at - and the case study shown.

 

Then again, if a nurse or doctor is blind-prejudiced then they are in the wrong profession. Any medic who works solely to the letter of the law is a bad medic in my opinion.

I can tell you that none of the times my wife has been in ICU have I been permitted to see her.

 

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/mar...fits-30190.html

 

Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.

 

As well as:

 

Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

 

That's how you get horror stories like this:

 

Sonoma County CA separates elderly gay couple and sells all of their worldly possessions

 

http://www.care2.com/causes/elderly-gay-co...ess-wishes.html

Share this post


Link to post
Unless what Artemis means is that currently only legally-recognised immediate-family only visiting is recognised (officially. Unofficially I'm sure hospitals are bending the rules as required. They'd be a poor hospital if they followed the letter of the law). And since in most places gay marriage is not legally recognised or respected then I can see what Artemis is getting at - and the case study shown.

 

Then again, if a nurse or doctor is blind-prejudiced then they are in the wrong profession. Any medic who works solely to the letter of the law is a bad medic in my opinion.

Yes, that's what I mean. A person cannot, as far as I know, specify another person to fill that role for them without it being through a state-sanctioned marriage or something of that nature and expect for it to be respected. One can assign power of attorney to another but that can be challenged. If someone had a friend that was more of the lines of a battle brother and wished that person to be able to see them in an ICU before anyone else, it would be legal red-tape all over to set up and even then it might not be respected if the person's parents didn't like the man.

 

I am uncertain if common law marriages are as respected as state-sanctioned marriages in this specific matter because no state granted permission so therefore no one can do something easy like present a license to prove it. They aren't recognized as marriage in very many states.

 

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-...w-marriage.aspx shows what's required by common law to marry. It wouldn't take much to change that to allow same sex marriage, and it's not exactly complicated, so to go back to it in the states that previously had it shouldn't be that hard. That would erase all my concern, which has nothing to do with same-sex and everything to do with the fact that for the most part, marriage in the US occurs because the state granted its permission, not because the people who wished to marry exercised any right to do so. One does not need permission to exercise a right.

Share this post


Link to post

Every time I think the American health system is as bad as it can get, you guys manage to show me worse...

 

I hope I never have to work in America at this rate.

Share this post


Link to post

That's a shame, New Jersey. D:

 

As for my "official" opinion on this, equality all the way, otherwise I'd hate myself, right? xd.png

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
No gay marriage for the state of New Jersey as Governor Chris Christie vetoed the bill that would allow it.

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/livi...marriage18.html

Don't they have like, 2 years to override the veto? And Christie is due for reelection in 2013, so I've heard. Good thing too.

Share this post


Link to post

To be completely honest, I dont see where it's anyone's business if two people wish to get married. Don't like it? Well you know what I dont like religious nuts who like to try and control everyone's lives. But no one is stopping THEM from doing the crap they want to do. If two consenting adults wish to wed, I say go for it. That is their business and no one else's.

Share this post


Link to post

This weekend, my family was talking about Christie vetoing the bill. Since my family gets very heated about politics and I had no desire to start fighting, I sat and bit my tongue while they were talking about how it was the right thing to do. One of the arguments that came up confused me and I was wondering if someone here could provide some clarification.

 

My aunt was talking about how this bill would force priests who believe gay marriage to be against their religion to perform religious ceremonies in their churches, and she raged about how this interfered with freedom of religion. But I really wanted to call BS on that. As far as I understand it, this law was about the state recognizing the marriages, not the church. The way I understand it, the state can't force the church to marry ANYONE, straight or not. I'm heterosexual, but the way it stands should I choose to get married, the Catholic church could refuse to perform the ceremony for me because I am not confirmed. So, if the church can refuse to perform ceremonies for heterosexual marriages, which would currently be recognized by the state, I can't imagine this bill being able to force the church to perform any ceremonies they don't want to. Isn't that the point of the separation between church and state?

 

Does anyone here know if I'm correct in calling BS on the forcing places of worship to provide ceremonies that the priest believes conflicts with the teachings of the religion?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

According to the link, the bill which Christie vetoed "The legislation contained a religious opt-out clause, meaning no church clergy would be required to perform gay marriages, and places of worship would not have to allow same-sex weddings at their facilities."

 

So, it looks like that wouldn't have been a concern in New Jersey.

Share this post


Link to post

I think most places are like that. There was a Church in the south somewhere that refused to preform an interracial marriage. -shrug- People need to find the right Churches to get married instead of trying to force their way in.

But yeah, it's a state thing, not a Church thing. Feel free to bring that up next time ;D

Share this post


Link to post
According to the link, the bill which Christie vetoed "The legislation contained a religious opt-out clause, meaning no church clergy would be required to perform gay marriages, and places of worship would not have to allow same-sex weddings at their facilities."

 

So, it looks like that wouldn't have been a concern in New Jersey.

Okay. This just shows it doesn't pay to listen to my family regarding Christie, and my disdain for him is perfectly justified. smile.gif Though, admittedly, I've hated him long before this happened. This is just another reason. At this point, I don't care who runs against him. Anyone will be better than Christie.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't really have an opinion on gay marriage. What I think, is that people should mind their own business and let people who are in love get married if they want to get married, even if its two guys/girls. It shouldn't matter what you think.

Share this post


Link to post

Im all for gay marriage. It"s ok w/ me.Sure its supposed to be a sacred bod btetween a man and a woman or something but who are we to judge them. If 2 gay/lesbos ppl want to get married, they should be allowed to. AS LONG THEY DONT ADOPT KIDS OR SOMETHING, that's just sick.

 

Btw, some of friends are gays and lesbos, but i dont mind. SOMETTIMES i think gay s are actuaually cooler than us laugh.gif THEY Also never hit on me. WAIT, should i be offended? Am i not hot enough for them? ROFLMAO

Share this post


Link to post
AS LONG THEY DONT ADOPT KIDS OR SOMETHING, that's just sick.

Why would it be sick? o_O

Share this post


Link to post
AS LONG THEY DONT ADOPT KIDS OR SOMETHING, that's just sick.

You know what I find sick? Straight couples who won't adopt kids who aren't under a year old, white and healthy -- or who foster children just for the money.

 

What do you find objectionable about a loving gay couple raising a child they truly want and can care for? It's not like "the gay" is a contagious disease, you know. dry.gif (Or that gay people are pedophiles, which is another possible interpretation of your statement.)

Share this post


Link to post
AS LONG THEY DONT ADOPT KIDS OR SOMETHING, that's just sick.

Excuse me? I'm the kid of a gay couple. What's your problem?

Share this post


Link to post

(Or that gay people are pedophiles, which is another possible interpretation of your statement.)

People seriously need to stop thinking gay/lesbian=OMGPEDOPHILEHIDETHECHILDREN!!11!!1

and:

gay/lesbian=EEWWWPERVERTSBETTHEYHAVELOTSOFDIRTY***EWWGROSS

 

Rogue-fox, gay rights is a serious topic, and you may want to be careful when joking about this stuff. This is about the fact a group of human beings being denied certain rights due to differences that shouldn't even dilute the fact, and doesn't, that gay people are people entitled to the same rights as others.

Share this post


Link to post
AS LONG THEY DONT ADOPT KIDS OR SOMETHING, that's just sick.

Why shouldn't I have a kid someday? I'd love to be a parent when I'm old enough, so why should the gender of my hypothetical partner matter?

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.