Enter "heterosexual privilege."

That's analogous to saying that "white privilege" is what allows whites to critique Obama because they have the privilege to be more concerned with "other stuff" while Blacks are busy rejoicing that he's in office and perceptually furthering Black socio-political advancement.

Nah, the real point is that people don't critique when they agree but will shit fire when they don't agree. And they'll also act like it's a DUH moment when they don't agree as though what they eat should make everyone else shit. Then they'll pretend as though EVERYONE should suddenly know and acknowledge what the issue is with this President.

Thus, the cycle of political thinking. And let the record show that I never said I disagree with the practice of allowing same-sex partners to have hospital visits and hospitals getting out of the dark ages regarding that. But, agreeing or disagreeing with that is a SURFACE-level construct.

Bush is not fundamentally that much different from Obama, unfortunately.

Well that's good. I don't like executive orders period.

I understand, but my problem is the means, not the end.

The problem stands that the government is even involved in the institution of marriage. Why does the government even have a role in it?

This right here...in the preparation for my wedding this year, we have had to sit down with our parents and discuss all of these things to make sure we have these in order. I have had to make changes to forms at work and the whole 9.

Regardless whether you agree or disagree with same sex marriage, they should still be afforded the same privileges and comforts as anyone else when sick and in the hospital.

I am happy to see that the president is taking this step by treating people equally and fairly.

Hey EW...well check it...when you get married, doesn't the government take taxes for married coupled??

I agree.

There is a potential leap in here.

Along those lines, I foresee a "why is the President/gov't involved" response if and when the President is perceived to have crossed the line between directing freedom and...something else.

I just don't see it that way. Working in the health field as long as I have, sometimes the best medicines that we have to heal someone is family support. Something that the gov't can't tax or make someone pay for.

The bolded is a different topic than the one I'm responding to.

The government can't tax or make someone pay for (yet) but it can obviously be involved in other ways. And while we're at it, let's not forget that notions of "family" vary beyond heterosexual and homosexual.

Absolutely.

But why should it matter to the governments taxation scheme that you're married or not?

You should get no benefits (or removal of benefits) because you are legally attached to someone for the rest of your life. Seems rather dumb (and not because I'll end up single for the rest of my life).

Yeah, what does the federal government have to do with equal protection? A brief history lesson: this kind of federal rule is the reason there are no longer black hospitals and white hospitals receiving public money in this country. There were, of course, before the federal government intervened.

If you look back, most of the liberals who were upset with W over his domestic executive orders were upset about their CONTENT, not the existence of executive orders. Changing the policies of a domestic agency following a change of administration is a snoozefest -- it happens all the time, with and without explicit action from the president. Most of the time, the president just puts in an agency chief who knows what the president's policy choices are, and they are put into action. Doing it by executive order is basically a way to accomplish the same goal in a way that gets more press. Whoop de do, the president wants to make sure he gets press coverage.

I assume, of course, that everyone who thinks that the policies under which the federal government funds hospital treatment aren't the business of the federal government was screaming bloody murder when CONGRESS CALLED ITSELF BACK INTO SESSION to overrule a medical decision made by Terri Schiavo's next of kin. Right?
________
SIDE EFFECTS FROM PAXIL

Let's not forget about this case which is partially why Obama made this decision in the first place.

I feel the same way, and from the Canadian standpoint, discriminating against someone based on the sexual orientation would be deemed a violation of their human rights in Canada. The addition of sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination has been part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms since 1996.

Why? Who do you think issues marriage licenses? Who do you think hands out divorce decrees? When you get married in a church, it means NOTHING except that you are married in the eyes of the church until you turn the signed paperwork in to the state. The government has everything to do with marriage. The federal government or the supreme court only gets involved in the matter of marriage when the states screw up. I agree that taxation based on marriage is stupid, but that's the decision of your elected officials and my elected officials. What Obama did has nothing to do, however, with marriage. It has to do with making sure that hospitals don't decide for patients who gets to visit when they are ill. If you only get to see two people, fine...limit to two, but if you haven't been speaking to your parents for five years, why would they have precedence over your partner for visitation? In medicine, we haven't been able to make decisions for patients in over 20 years. It's time this archaic practice is gone as well.

Can't we just legalize gay marriage in all 50 states already? DUH.

Perhaps, but DHHS is an executive agency, so there's no question he has the authority to request or order them to take specific action that is otherwise within their statutory authority. I mean, this is just criticizing the boss for being the boss.
How do these orders supercede Constitutionality or infringe on the balance of powers? He's the head (constitutionally) of the executive branch issuing executive orders related to how the executive branch will function. There's absolutely no "comdemnation" of other branches of government. The courts always have the authority to declare an executive order invalid if the president exceeded his authority in issuing it. Congress has the power to supercede the order by statute.

But what are the orders about? Looking through the lists you posted, there's an awful lot of fairly routine stuff in there.

Somebody's sipping on the haterade.