« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Killing The Gay Marriage Movement Obama-Style

By: Dave Poff (haystack) (Diary)  |  April 16th, 2010 at 12:41 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I’m not in favor of gay marriage. When you’re done yelling at me, and before you put it to the keyboard, take a deep breath and read this:

President Obama mandated Thursday that hospitals extend visitation rights to the partners of gay men and lesbians and allow same-sex couples to share medical power of attorney, perhaps the most significant step so far in his efforts to expand the rights of gay Americans.

The president directed the Department of Health and Human Services to prohibit discrimination in hospital visitation in a memo that was e-mailed to reporters Thursday night while he was at a fundraiser in Miami.

Administration officials and gay activists, who have been quietly working together on the issue, said the new rule, once in place, will affect any hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid funding, a move that covers the vast majority of the nation’s health-care institutions.

Umm…people? Remember the basis of the complaint amongst Gays and Lesbians, and whatever other non-heterosexuals that are out there, when they were arguing that they should be granted the right to marry? Their defense was that a lack of “married” in their relationship status was forcing them to be denied the very things Obama just gave them by Presidential fiat.

I’ve argued for years that, since the non-heteros out there felt they were being discriminated against because of their sexual proclivities and believed they should be entitled to access to hospitals, dying beds, powers of attorney, rights of survivorship, etc. that perhaps we should just give them those things and leave the sanctity of marriage and its relationship with God (who teaches us these non-hetero behaviors are unnatural, unacceptable, and not allowed) out of it.

They get to access dying partners, engage in their medical processes, and survive them (and get their stuff when they’re dead). In exchange, they leave the whole “husband and wife” and “what God has brought together let no man put asunder” thing alone. Well…Obama has done just that.

Can we put all this “anyone should be able to marry anyone” nonsense behind us now, and get back to guys and girls getting married so they can make babies? And let the “everyone else” crowd just get on with the business of doing whatever it is that they do?

Thank you Mr. President for completely destroying the fundamental argument for Gay marriage…sometimes you make me smile.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • acat

    I have this suspicion that those in the Gay movement who are most loudly campaigning for Gay Marriage aren’t really after that at all.

    What’s wanted isn’t so much the same rights that breeders have, the same access to loved ones in hospital, the same tax breaks, the same messy divorces, deaths, civil weddings, etc.

    What’s wanted is not something that can be legislated – acceptance.

    If this suspicion is correct, then giving in will not help without “thought police”…

    Mew

    (who hopes he is mistaken…)

    • JamesSmith130

      between those who want acceptance and those who want something much more radical, the complete destruction of the institution of marriage.

      • davidinhouston

        I think it’s funny how everyone seems to know exactly what the gay agenda is (or what gay people want), without having spoken with a gay person. The problem is, you don’t really want to know.

        Gay people do not want or need acceptance from mainstream society. That day may never happen. What they simply want is legal equality across the board. THAT is their evil gay agenda. The EXACT same rights that heterosexuals take for granted every single day. Not “special” rights, the same rights. This isn’t possible with legal forms that you pick up at a drug store. This needs to happen at the state and government levels.

        If you let gay couples have civil unions, does that relationship remain valid once you cross state lines? No. Do civil unions give gay couples the same legal protections at the government level? No. Do gay couples get the same federal benefits that heterosexual marriages already receive? No. Does society consider civil unions to be anything close to a civil marriage? No. Separate is never equal. Are gay couples denied health benefits because businesses only acknowledge “marriage” as a valid legal relationship? Yes. Do businesses also deny gay couples health benefits because of DOMA? Yes.

        As for the complete destruction of marriage? The 7 countries and 6 states that have marriage equality are doing just fine. Straight couples are still getting married and having as many babies as they want. Same-sex marriage hasn’t destroyed anything. In fact, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the entire country, and same-sex marriage has been going on there for 6 whole years.

  • maddog

    New Jersey tried the civil union path. Gays had virtually all the same civic rights. It was practically marriage without the word marriage. Never the less, this didn’t stop an activist court from imposing their will and mandating gay marriage. So the “if we just give them civil unions will be enoughto satisfy all parties” belief is wrong.

    James Smith hit the nail on the head. They want acceptance. I recall reading about a New Mexico couple that were owner/operators of their own photography business. They declined to do a job for a gay marriage based on their Christian beliefs. They gays went to sic the state human rights commission on them. The gay couple couldn’t just go find the any of the plethora of wedding photographers willing to do the job? It wasn’t about taking pictures, It was about forcing acceptance, otherwise the gay couple would have taken their business elsewhere. What the gays fail to realize is bully tactics such as this, treatment of Carrie Prejean, post CA proposition reaction, etc back fires.

    • protoclown

      Like a straight couple would be happy to “just take their business elsewhere” if they were denied service by a florist or a wedding planner. Ha.

      • Scope

        be happy to take their cash elsewhere if anyone refused them a service. The gays could easily go elsewhere also, they just want to blow something out of proportion in order to get attention for their cause. It has nothing to do with the photographer.

  • Scope

    Any person can legally name anyone they choose to have their power of attorney. Powers of Attorney give the appointee the right to make medical decisions in case of incapacitation. I never heard of any hospital denying visitation rights to anyone. If the patient doesn’t want particular visitors, they can request that. You can give permission to hospital personnel and doctors to discuss medical info with anyone of your choice.

    Also, in your will you can leave anything you want to anyone. You can name your own Executor or Personal Representative to administer your estate. The only area where your belongings go to your next of kin, or to the state, is if you die intestate. If you don’t have a will, it’s your fault that your belongings don’t go where you want them to.

    The only advantage, that I can see, for the gay movement, is so one can cover their partner on their medical insurance plan. Oh, and also, if the marriage doesn’t work out, one can claim alimony payments from the other.

    • acat

      Gays have persuaded many (most?) big businesses to allow coverage of partners some time ago. Usually, the method involves selecting between “husband”, “wife”, and “domestic partner”, with no particular gender requirements.

      That’s part of why I suspect there’s more to the movement than just the “legal rights” – a competent attorney (Will from “Will and Grace”, for instance…) ought to be able to set up *everything* you’re talking about inside of a day.

      Also, breeder couples who aren’t married yet have exactly the same problems – yet seem to understand that if they want the legal rights, they have to take some sort of “next step”. It’s not just the wedding, it’s filling out stacks of paper afterward – name change if you so desire, putting each other on financial documents, adding one to the others’ insurance plan, adding one to the others’ lease and getting rid of one apartment …

      It’s just a suspicion that “rights” aren’t the goal…

      Mew

    • protoclown

      http://www.nclrights.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issue_caseDocket_Greene_v_County_of_Sonoma_et_al

  • davidinhouston

    “?perhaps we should just give them those things and leave the sanctity of marriage and its relationship with God out of it.”

    You are confusing a religious ceremony (sanctity of marriage and God) with the legally binding act of civil marriage. They are not the same thing. You do not have to be religious to get married in our country. You don’t have to go to a church to get married. Churches are already protected from having to “perform” marriage ceremonies for anyone they don’t wish to: A Christian church can deny a straight Jewish couple a marriage ceremony, for example.

    There are only four qualifications to get legally married. None of which involve religion or God:
    1. Must be of legal age.
    2. Must not be too closely related. (Some states allow first cousins to marry.)
    3. Must not be currently married.
    4. Must be an opposite-sex couple.

    I see no “sanctity” in those four items. In fact, two virtual strangers can meet at the court house and tie-the-knot. The state and the government has no interest in whether these people are in love, plan to have children, or if they believe in God.

  • renny

    anyone can legally grant a power of attorney to any person or friend–it doesn’t have to be a relative. I held power of attorney for someone whose children were out of state.

    Also, anyone can form legal partnerships, business if not domestic, according to the state. The extra burden would be filing tax forms, but a partnership can be formed through existing channels without resort to changing marriage laws or thousands of years of practice and custom.

    • protoclown

      http://www.nclrights.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issue_caseDocket_Greene_v_County_of_Sonoma_et_al

      Exactly why are you referencing “thousands of years of practice and custom”? That would be arranged marriages, dowries, etc.

      • Achance
      • E Pluribus Unum

        But no substance.

        Because certain old customs have gone by the wayside, suddenly no tradition has any merit? Yeah, that’s logical.

      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

        The history of marriage as being focused on marriages not related to love PROVES THE POINT that you people are trying to redefine marriage.

  • bamagay

    acat – you are correct, we gays want acceptance, mostly from our families first and secondarily our neighbors. This does not require thought police. Just pick up a text book to learn how bad it was for “Negros” before the Civil Rights Movement. Thoughts and attitudes have changed without thought police in that case. It is a matter of the law seeing everyone as equal. If the law says it, in most cases it is. It may take several years and there will always be some holdouts, but by and large blacks have gained acceptance as equal though some laws saying such, and non-heteros would like the same.

    maddog – NJ’s courts actually have NOT mandated marriages to date. They still have civil unions. It hasn’t stopped people from wanting marriage because there is still discrimination with civil union. Insurance companies to employers still have been discriminating in NJ because some of them don’t see civil unions as good as marriage. So straights are bringing this upon themselves just as whites of generations past brought desegregation upon themselves by not ensuring that “colored” schools and parks and water fountains were equal to “white” ones. At the heart, separate can never be equal, if it could civil unions would be just fine.

    Scope – true that anyone can name anyone for power of attorney and for inheritance in a will. But if the hospital doesn’t accept the power of medical attorney, then what do you do? Go to court? Unless your partner is dying and you don’t have enough time for a court case to be processed.

    You need proof that it’s an issue? Look to Janice and Lisa’s experience in Florida here:
    http://www.news4jax.com/news/16719238/detail.html
    in part-
    “Hospital workers refused to let Langbehn into Pond’s hospital room – even after a power of attorney was faxed to the hospital”

    • Scope

      your choices and lifestyle, and accept you. One cannot force anyone else to like them, and you cannot force anyone to accept what has long been considered an alternate lifestyle. Many still consider it immoral by traditional christian moral standards.

      I really don’t care at all what you do behind your closed doors, just as I really don’t care what heteros do behind their closed doors. I do believe that traditional marriages are important to maintain the moral fabric of society, and to add to it’s continuing supply of population.

      • Scope

        on how many gays were refused visitation rights with their partners, and, how many hospitals refused to recognize a gay’s medical power of attorney rights?

        I’ve never seen any such stastics, and, the gays make it sound like it is a rampant practice. I doubt it is.

    • http://www.veronicaestrada.com/ Veronica Estrada

      above a soft tyranny via the power grab of this President.

      You’d prefer an Americant society that mimics socialist Europe, with government control over every industry than true freedom and independence to do what you want.

      Just so you would be “liked” by your neighbor.

      I don’t care if you’re gay or not — that’s not my credential for respecting someone.

      But you and anyone else (gay or straight) would make my crap list for not banding with us to help preserve the Constitution.

      • fizzyp

        I think you know very little about Europe. “government control over every industry” is far from the truth.

        Where did you hear this? Did you check the facts yourself?

  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com/ Veronica Estrada

    round-about way of implementing his fasicst style of government.

    He’ll keep using every avenue available to him.

    In my opinion, this is more than Chicago-style thuggy politics.

    Great post, Dave.

  • fizzyp

    Marriage is not a historically religious practice. This is a fallacy.

    When religious people marry, they incorporate their religion into the ceremony. However, marriage is not now, nor ever has been, a religious practice…. See More

    Question: Why is it that US law allows marriage of atheists (or anyone non-Christian for that matter) ?
    Answer 1: because marriage is non-religious.
    Answer 2: because of separation of church and state is a FUNDAMENTAL AMERICAN VALUE.

    If you’re so worried about spoiling the connection between “God” and “marriage”, then why not protest atheist marriage? Why not protest divorce? I argue that sanctity of marriage is not your primary concern.