Trey at Daddy, Papa and Me comments on whether or not hospitals really refuse to allow visitation by same-sex partners who are legally barred from marriage:
And hospital rights? i have a first hand account of that.
Go to Trey’s site to read his story.
One of the primary functions of marriage is to be able to legally make a family that courtrooms, police, hospitals and other public institutions are obliged to acknowlege. Right now, heterosexuals are able to point to their life partner and say “this person, this person here – s/he’s now my closest family in the world, for all legal purposes” and (99.99% of the time) make it stick. Lesbians and gays don’t have that right. And real-life experience shows that the ability to write up a personalized contract is no match for the ability to form a legal family.
Of course, the “non-homophobic” spokespeople of the anti-SSM movement – a handful of well-meaning intellectuals who are useful tools of the anti-SSM movement, but don’t actually have any influence within it – may object that domestic partnership laws could serve the same purpose.
That’s an ironic argument, because recent ballot measures and other developments have made it clear that the leaders of the anti-SSM movement not only want to ban gay marriage, they want to ban domestic partnerships, civil unions, and any other attempt to “create or recognize a legal status” for same-sex couples (to quote Ohio’s ballot measure). “Legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for… one man and one woman.” They’re using opposition to same-sex marriage to camouflage their real goal, which is denying lesbians and gay families any rights at all.
I am definitely for gay “partners” having hospital visitation rights as well as rights to whatever is left to them in a will. But nobody is asking conservatives these questions (at least around me). Instead, I’m questioned (by a bunch of self-righteous straight people) about gay marriage.
Jen, who is questioning you about gay marriage here? Your response seems to be something of a non sequitor on this thread.
in all fairness, heterosexual wills are often contested (and often successfully so) as well. it’s just plain very difficult, in this culture, for the dead to impose their wishes on the living. but if homosexuals’ wills are significantly more often contested (successfully) than heterosexual individuals’, simply because they can not at present marry, then yes, that would be a serious problem. has anybody done any statistics on that in particular?
the real unfairness here, as i see it, is that heterosexual partners usually don’t need to write formal wills, since surviving spouses automatically inherit, and such inheritances are quite difficult to contest. this naturally needs to be equalized, and gay marriage would be one excellent way to do so — but possibly not the only way. (i think it’s the only way to equalize all the various injustices homosexual relationships suffer, provided we want to address them all at once, though. i also think we might as well address them all at once, rather than piecemeal. but that might be just me.)
Amp, no one here is questioning me about gay marriage. I’m just saying that it may look like conservatives are against any sort of equality for gays, but that is not really the case for many of us. I’m pointing out that even if people are against gay marriage (in other threads), they may not be for other types of inequality. I guess I’m also leaving the floor open for you to tell me (and other conserves) how you think we can help. Sorry if this seems off-topic.
Nomen, I think it’s very rare that heterosexual will provisions which leave property to the surviving husband or wife are contested, simply because most lawyers probably advise clients that it’s very hard to successfully contest money or property left to a surviving spouse. (As you say, it’s difficult to contest money being left to a husband or wife even if there’s no will at all).
I don’t have any statistics, but it just seems logical that wills of homosexuals, leaving property to a legally unrecognized partner, would be eaiser to contest than heterosexual wills leaving property to a legal spouse. Anecdotally, that certainly seems to be the case.
And, as you say, there’s also a really huge difference in what happens when someone dies without a will.
Jen: I’m pointing out that even if people are against gay marriage (in other threads), they may not be for other types of inequality. I guess I’m also leaving the floor open for you to tell me (and other conserves) how you think we can help. Sorry if this seems off-topic.
No, I’m sorry if I seemed grumpy.
If you’re against same-sex marriage but for other types of same-sex rights, then I guess I’d ask you first to reconsider your opposition to same-sex marriage. Spiritually and religiously, I think it’s fine for you not to recognize SSM, but to advocate against legal recognition is a form of discrimination.
However, if you’re not willing to rethink your opposition to SSM, then I’d ask you to be against proposed anti-SSM laws or amendments which use opposition to SSM as a pretext for banning undefined other marriage-like rights (which could include questions of hospital visitation, inheritance, etc).
As far as I know (but I may be wrong), Oregon is the only state where the proposed anti-SSM amendment limits itself to banning SSM. Here’s the entire text of the proposed constitutional amendment in Oregon: “It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.”
Anything more than that is unecessary, if the only goal is to ban SSM.
Most of the proposed bans are more like Ohio’s, which reads “Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.” The first sentence is all that’s necessary to ban gay marriage; the second sentence is all about banning legal rights aside from marriage.
If you support banning SSM but you’re against forbidding other benefits and rights, then you should argue against and vote against bans that are more like Ohio’s than Oregon’s. In my opinion.
Pingback: Why A Power Of Attorny Is No Substitute For Marriage When A Loved One Is In The Hospital | Alas, a Blog
This thread was sent to me so I read and was puzzled. I’m wondering why this topic was chosen as the inequality to address. With Obama’s executive order, we won this one. Are there recent examples of continued abuse by hospitals? The examples are all pre-executive order. The examples are the reason he issued the order. Should the executive order be enshrined in law? Sure. Should local LGBT groups be vigilant to make sure all local hospitals policies have been updated to reflect current law? Absolutely. Most hospitals already did comply. Now there are those other 1,040 or so others to address.
Hey David, if you check the date, this thread was posted in October 2004, which, sad to say, predates any executive orders of President Obama.
—Myca