Is Western culture being destroyed?

[Coyote]

That is the only reason hospitals prohibit visitors -- in varying degrees.

Of course I would very much want to be with my family when I am sick. Anybody who cares enough about me to visit when I am sick would be welcome -- subject to hospital rules.

You are avoiding a direct answer Numinus.

In those situations a homosexual's partner could be denied access because there is no legally recognized union that makes him immediate family. It's entirely up to the hospital to decide if he is "immediate family". This is not the case with married couples.

Have you ever been critically ill and someone not of your immediate family you want to see was prohibited to see you? I cannot see any reason for this.

One - this is irrelevant.

Two - while I have not been critically ill, another family member of mine was and there were restrictions on visitors.

And a written document executed by you wouldn't be just as legally valid?

Only if the institution chooses to recognize it.

 

[Coyote]

And we are talking of a MANDATED leave with pay that all employers are subject to provide employees.

By all means, be with your adopted child. As an employer, I can understand a woman cannot work within a certain period before and after childbirth. I can understand the need of a husband to be with his wife during and a few days after childbirth.

But what about what is good for (and the rights of) the infant in this matter? Mandated maternity leave is typically granted for much longer than is strictly needed for the mother to recover.

I cannot understand how these are relevant to a gay man or woman adopting. I cannot understand why I should pay for this as well.

Why do you limit your statement to a gay man or woman? Adoption is by far to heterosexual couples. What about the needs of the infant - the need for the famiily to bond with the infant?

That is the consequence of a choice. Nobody compelled anyone to get married against their will.

And because of the responsibilities inherent in her gender, the state is skewed on the side of a mother in any marital dispute. I was first appalled when I learned about this but after being married and having children, I can somehow appreciate the fundamental logic of the law.

Strictly speaking that is true - but not a one of us has the gift of forsight that enables us to accurately read the future and say definitively - aha, bad choice - every time. People change, circumstances change and a parent can't afford to deal in hypotheticals they must deal with reality.

Everyone has a right to get married to the opposite sex. That is the purpose of marriage in the eyes of the state. That is the purpose of all marital and family laws.

The law doesn't have any business legislating love and human bonds.

I am not avoiding anything. I have said this countless times already.

NO.

The woman who concieved the child is the mother. Her right to motherhood does not extend to her lesbian partner. Can you think of any reason why it should?

This doesn't make sense because...it sounds as if there is no reason for marriage at all then.

 

[numinus]

I'm not sure if it's specifically deductions but the rate is lower - I pay less in taxes by filing jointly as a married person.

I can't see how -- unless of course the income of a particular spouse drags the joint return to a lower income bracket.

I cannot see how the government would allow such a thing since the object of the state is to get more revenues -- the only reason to forgo revenues is for some discernable public good.

Which goes back to the original question -- what discernable public good does gay unions promote?

 

[numinus]

You are avoiding a direct answer Numinus.

In those situations a homosexual's partner could be denied access because there is no legally recognized union that makes him immediate family. It's entirely up to the hospital to decide if he is "immediate family". This is not the case with married couples.

I am not aware I was avoiding anything.

Is not a special power of attorney legally recognized?

One - this is irrelevant.

Two - while I have not been critically ill, another family member of mine was and there were restrictions on visitors.

It is entirely relevant. I do not think the hospital can deny the presence of my confessor or priest if I specifically ask for it, no?

Only if the institution chooses to recognize it.

Have you ever heard of a special power of attorney not recognized anywhere?

If you can give another person legal powers to discharge your own personal affairs, you can certainly give another person legal powers to visit you when you are sick.

 

[Coyote]

I can't see how -- unless of course the income of a particular spouse drags the joint return to a lower income bracket.

I cannot see how the government would allow such a thing since the object of the state is to get more revenues -- the only reason to forgo revenues is for some discernable public good.

Which goes back to the original question -- what discernable public good does gay unions promote?

Try filing singly and then try jointly.


As to what public good....there are two ways of looking at it.

What public good?

What public harm?

To me, it's equality of rights as I've said before - compassion.

Historically - state recognition of same sex unions has occurred in other societies, societies that were not ruined as a result. Thus there must have been a discernable "good" in recognizing such unions within those societies or why go to the effort.

 

[Coyote]

I am not aware I was avoiding anything.

Is not a special power of attorney legally recognized?



It is entirely relevant. I do not think the hospital can deny the presence of my confessor or priest if I specifically ask for it, no?

That falls under religious freedom.

Have you ever heard of a special power of attorney not recognized anywhere?

If you can give another person legal powers to discharge your own personal affairs, you can certainly give another person legal powers to visit you when you are sick.

Power of attorney is a very specific thing. I'm not sure how that works in terms of visitation rights into ICU. The fact is though - partners of gay people HAVE been prevented from visiting by immediate family members. So it DOES happen and not everyone has the resources or time for a protracted legal fight. They shouldn't have to. Allow them civil unions that gives them the same rights as heterosexual couples. It is nothing more or less then simple compassion and equality.

 

[numinus]

But what about what is good for (and the rights of) the infant in this matter? Mandated maternity leave is typically granted for much longer than is strictly needed for the mother to recover.

I does not change its purpose -- a way by which a woman recuperates from childbirth without prejudicing her fundamental choice of motherhood.

The lack of income for a woman exercising a natural and necessary part of human life constitutes prejudice to her right to motherhood, no?

Why do you limit your statement to a gay man or woman? Adoption is by far to heterosexual couples. What about the needs of the infant - the need for the famiily to bond with the infant?

And it is equally absurd for a heterosexual couple to ask for maternal and paternal leaves if they adopt a child.

Strictly speaking that is true - but not a one of us has the gift of forsight that enables us to accurately read the future and say definitively - aha, bad choice - every time. People change, circumstances change and a parent can't afford to deal in hypotheticals they must deal with reality.

I can't see why the state needs to involve itself in a quarrel between spouses -- except in matters of disposition of the marital assets and children. In these, a woman's right to motherhood becomes clearly evident -- alimony, child support and custody.

This doesn't make sense because...it sounds as if there is no reason for marriage at all then.

In vitro fertilization was meant to help couples concieve, NOT to promote a lifestyle of anonymous parenthood. But the fact that the technology is there, and that personal freedom is sacrosanct, you carelessly open a veritable pandora's box of ethical questions -- foremost of which is a child's right to be with his natural parents.

Are you really hell-bent on reconstituting the ethical sensibilities of society on the mere whims of a personal choice or sexual preference?

 

[numinus]

Try filing singly and then try jointly.

My wife doesn't work. She has a condition. The only difference in my income tax return is my deductions on my two dependents.

As to what public good....there are two ways of looking at it.

What public good?

What public harm?

If the state is going to forgo revenues, then it better be for a damn good reason -- not merely the lack of any harm.

To me, it's equality of rights as I've said before - compassion.

Equal rights can only come from acknowledging the fundamental difference between people. A rich man would pay more taxes than a poor man -- whether in amount or in percentage. The state cannot assess equal taxes in amount or percentage because it is detrimental to the very existence of the poor.

It is a state of INEQUALITY that is meant to promote SOCIAL JUSTICE.

Historically - state recognition of same sex unions has occurred in other societies, societies that were not ruined as a result. Thus there must have been a discernable "good" in recognizing such unions within those societies or why go to the effort.

In what ethnic tradition is that?

 

[numinus]

That falls under religious freedom.

Not at all. It falls under your personal right to see whomever you wish to see.

Power of attorney is a very specific thing. I'm not sure how that works in terms of visitation rights into ICU. The fact is though - partners of gay people HAVE been prevented from visiting by immediate family members. So it DOES happen and not everyone has the resources or time for a protracted legal fight. They shouldn't have to. Allow them civil unions that gives them the same rights as heterosexual couples. It is nothing more or less then simple compassion and equality.

Power of attorney may be as specific or as broad as you want it to be.

 

[Coyote]

Not at all. It falls under your personal right to see whomever you wish to see.



Power of attorney may be as specific or as broad as you want it to be.

Then why his that right not recognized by hospitals and emergency rooms?

 

[Coyote]

My wife doesn't work. She has a condition. The only difference in my income tax return is my deductions on my two dependents.

I can tell you from experience there is a definitive difference in tax when filing jointly vs. filing singly.

If the state is going to forgo revenues, then it better be for a damn good reason -- not merely the lack of any harm.

I agree, and forgoing revenues for marriage when there are NO children is not a "damn good reason" in my book yet it exists.

Equal rights can only come from acknowledging the fundamental difference between people. A rich man would pay more taxes than a poor man -- whether in amount or in percentage. The state cannot assess equal taxes in amount or percentage because it is detrimental to the very existence of the poor.

It is a state of INEQUALITY that is meant to promote SOCIAL JUSTICE.

I am not sure where you are going here.....?



From Wikipedia on gay marriage and equality:

In the United States, there are at least 1,138 federal laws "in which marital status is a factor."[68] (See Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States for a partial list) A denial of rights or benefits without substantive due process, assert the proponents of same-sex marriage, directly contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which provides for equal protection of all citizens. For instance, a heterosexual U.S. citizen who marries a foreign partner immediately qualifies to bring that person to the United States, while long-term gay and lesbian binational partners who have spent decades together are denied the same rights, forcing foreign gay partners to seek expensive temporary employer or school-sponsored visas or face separation. See Immigration Equality and Human Rights Watch report on this and other forms of discrimination against same-sex couples.

In a 2003 case titled Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court held that the right to private consensual sexual conduct was protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court noted "moral disapproval does not constitute a legitimate governmental interest under the Equal Protection Clause." Both supporters and detractors of same-sex marriage have noted that this ruling paved the way for subsequent decisions invalidating state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia noted as such in his dissenting opinion to Lawrence.

 

[Coyote]

Actually - I take back what I was saying about taxes. Married people actually are penalized in their taxes. I was just looking at filing singly vs. together.

My mistake - sorry.

 

[numinus]

Then why his that right not recognized by hospitals and emergency rooms?

It would be a good idea to bring the special power of attorney -- and ram it down the nurse's throat, or up the rear passage (whichever is suitable), if they still prohibit you from seeing your patient.

 

[numinus]

Actually - I take back what I was saying about taxes. Married people actually are penalized in their taxes. I was just looking at filing singly vs. together.

My mistake - sorry.

I thought as much, since filing jointly would have increased your income bracket -- if you have no dependents.

 

[Coyote]

I thought as much, since filing jointly would have increased your income bracket -- if you have no dependents.

Well...no...it doesn't work that way. Filing jointly - I get more back then if we filed seperately (but still filed as married). Go figure. It doesnt' make much sense.