Obama orders end to the practice of denying same-sex partners hospital visits

[ASTalumna06]

Question... is this more of a gay marriage issue than anything else?

Are the "partners" who are being denied access joined by civil union in states where such a thing is allowed? Or have these partners decided, with their significant other, to simply spend their lives together?

If a hospital has a "not family? No visit" policy, then they're just following policy. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it is what it is.


And aside from all of that... Aren't there more important things to worry about? I haven't heard of this being a major problem, but this is what we're focusing on? I feel that in some cases, Obama is reaching for small "victories" to overshadow big mistakes.

[VandalSquirrel]

This should also be a reminder to people, regardless of the individual genders of a couple, or legal marriage status: have legal documents for what you want for your life if you are unable to make your own choices. Even if you're single this is a good idea, and there are often clinics and workshops done by volunteer members of the bar while supervising law students. This can also be beneficial to family and friends as trying to make important decisions during an emotional time can lead to disaster.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by starang21

has guantanamo closed yet?

SSHHHHH!!! Who cares we have health care!

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Question... is this more of a gay marriage issue than anything else?

I feel that in some cases, Obama is reaching for small "victories" to overshadow big mistakes.

YEP, Mr. Obama is just throwing a few crumbs to the gay voters as opposed to feeding them the main course (Equal rights). He'll be moving on and doing the same to the next special interest group.

[DrPhil]

Oh snap.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

SSHHHHH!!! Who cares we have health care!



YEP, Mr. Obama is just throwing a few crumbs to the gay voters as opposed to feeding them the main course (Equal rights). He'll be moving on and doing the same to the next special interest group.

Which groups would those be?

LULZ to you seeing people wanting equality as a special interest group, like GLBTQ people are equivalent to the NRA or MADD.

But I guess that requires one to accept that being GLBTQ is not a choice, like owning a gun or saving the whales.

ETA: It isn't just GLBTQ people, this would go as well for unmarried, partnered heterosexual couples. Unmarried people of opposite genders who are committed to another can now have our partners visit us, YAY!

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

LULZ to you seeing people wanting equality as a special interest group....

Plenty of politicans see them as interest groups.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Plenty of politicans see them as interest groups.

I guess I just find that kind of patronizing as I don't believe the gay as a choice, and most other special interest groups involve a choice, like Greenpeace , PETA, or AAA. I also realize the anything that helps GLBTQ people, helps me as an unmarried hetero. Straight privilege is alive and well, but a lot of people don't realize how in jeopardy their rights are when they aren't legally married, but partnered, in regards to adoption and health care coverage. Recent examples include adoption in Arkansas, and the Catholic Charities health care in DC.

[DrPhil]

Such is life.

There are 4 categories:

1) People who don't give a shit.
2) People who give a shit.
3) People who don't give a shit but will use it as a platform.
4) People who give a shit and will use it as a platform.

I don't really care what category people are in as long as they are honest, which politicians rarely are.

redundant/
A big lesson in life is not to assume that what you eat (read: believe or care about) makes everyone else shit. Also, while we all hold our beliefs based on whatever they are based on and are pretty confident and assertive in them, none of us hold the key to objective truths. Power dynamics and protecting group interests (what social inequalities are based on) are the issue and not information. That's one reason why I see no point in discussing whether sexual orientation is a choice. As with other inequalities, it doesn't really matter whether people are educated and individual opinions are altered.
/redundant

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Such is life.

There are 4 categories:

1) People who don't give a shit.
2) People who give a shit.
3) People who don't give a shit but will use it as a platform.
4) People who give a shit and will use it as a platform.

I don't really care what category people are in as long as they are honest, which politicians rarely are.

redundant/
A big lesson in life is not to assume that what you eat (read: believe or care about) makes everyone else shit. Also, while we all hold our beliefs based on whatever they are based on and are pretty confident and assertive in them, none of us hold the key to objective truths. Power dynamics and protecting group interests (what social inequalities are based on) are the issue and not information. That's one reason why I see no point in discussing whether sexual orientation is a choice. As with other inequalities, it doesn't really matter whether people are educated and individual opinions are altered.
/redundant

I'm not talking about politicians, inasmuch as regular people who don't realize how things affect them, and let their elected officials make choices for them, without realizing the ramifications (positive or negative) of those choices. About sexual orientation being a choice, I only mentioned that since I can't really have a discussion with someone who believes it is one, as they can equate that choice with any other choice one makes to align with a special interest group. Well except AARP, we can't really chose to not get older and fall in that category, but we can choose to be members.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

YEP, Mr. Obama is just throwing a few crumbs to the gay voters as opposed to feeding them the main course (Equal rights).

There isn't that much that Obama can do simply as the president for gay rights, this is one of them. It isn't like he can either completely get rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and he can't do much about Federal recognition of Gay Marriage. Most of the things in the 2008 democratic platform in regard to Gay Rights need congressional majorities that I'm just not sure are there.

Most likely way to get rid of DADT is probably going to be sticking it in the defense appropriation bill and forcing the Republicans to filibuster *that*.

Federal Recognition of Gay Marriage isn't going to happen in this congress.

Also, I'd be surprised if any state passes gay marriage in the next year. The likely candidates (New York, New Jersey) tried recently and failed...

Randy

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by naraht

There isn't that much that Obama can do simply as the president for gay rights, this is one of them. It isn't like he can either completely get rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and he can't do much about Federal recognition of Gay Marriage. Most of the things in the 2008 democratic platform in regard to Gay Rights need congressional majorities that I'm just not sure are there.

Most likely way to get rid of DADT is probably going to be sticking it in the defense appropriation bill and forcing the Republicans to filibuster *that*.

Federal Recognition of Gay Marriage isn't going to happen in this congress.

Also, I'd be surprised if any state passes gay marriage in the next year. The likely candidates (New York, New Jersey) tried recently and failed...

Randy

My thoughts exactly. Unlike many a politician, Obama is actually giving the community a tangible benefit rather than just a never realized campaign promise that needs more than a POTUS to pass. This is actually within in his power to do for them.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Plenty of politicans see them as interest groups.

LOL. Plenty of politicians see everyone as interest groups.

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

While it has, that doesn't make it right nor Constitutional even if it's no longer argued.

Whats the Thomas Paine quote "A long standing tradition of thinking something right, it becomes right." (that's absolutely not verbatim)

No I see your point, and I understand it's one that more people than just you hold. My point is simply that the judiciary in general and the Supreme Court in particular -- the branch of government that has the responsibility and authority to decide whether statutes and executive actions are constitutional or not -- has said that this way of doing things is constitutional. Plenty of people can and will disagree with them, but unless the Supreme Court changes its mind, it's probably not much more than a theoretical argument.

Sorry, I was thinking of the courts. The Congress has alot more audacity. The courts have only overturned two.

I was thinking of the courts, too. The courts have overturned lots of federal regulations over the years.

There would be no reason for the courts to overturn this particular action by the President (which isn't, I've realized on looking at it again, even an executive order -- it's a memorandum to the Secretary of Health and Human Services). It doesn't do anything other than ask the Secretary to begin to the rulemaking process and to make additional recommmendations back to the president. There's nothing to challenge in court there, because no final action is taken. The challenge would appropriately come when regulations are actually promulgated and are being enforced. Then an entity subject to those regulations could sue, alleging that the rules exceed the authority given DHHS by Congress.

Since I'm not sure it's been linked anywhere in this thread, here is the President's memo.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

LOL. Plenty of politicians see everyone as interest groups.

Exactly. Part of the "'I'm oppressed/need a voice/have a special interest, too' checklist."

That's one reason why, when politicians seemingly do "good deeds," I don't celebrate the politicians. I look at the positives and negatives associated with the "good deeds" and acknowledge that they all go on the politician's resume`, of sorts.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Exactly. Part of the "'I'm oppressed/need a voice/have a special interest, too' checklist."

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I was thinking of the courts, too. The courts have overturned lots of federal regulations over the years.

But in reference to executive orders, only two. One during Clinton and one during Truman?Eisenhower?