The Story

It's all because their home state gave them 'special' rights.

__________________

Is it time for this story to make the rounds again already? How may times do people have to agree that this is a sad state of affairs. But then again, how many times do the two sides have to argue whether it can be solved with a simple procedure change at medical facilities. Or civil unions for gay folk or just same gendered folk who want to lie together?

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

It will very likely always be time for this to make the rounds, until the system is fixed.

__________________
some days you're the dog, some days you're the hydrant

http://www.marchforbabies.com/chuck725 ... helping babies born prematurely and with birth defects

The SIMPLE change necessary is for the "victims" to draw up legal documents ahead of time that give them the rights that they think that they can't get. Medical surrogacy is a simple legal paper much like the "permission slip for emergency medical care" that Boy Scout troops get before they go camping. Any "right" that is bestowed by marriage can also be "bestowed" by legal papers. Including visitation at a hospital. A "civil union" is not necessary for two people or a group of people to be able to act as a "family". To wit: THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST IT.

__________________
"Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively and without self delusion---In the long run these are the only people that count."Robert Heinlein

What really bores me about people like you is that you can't be bothered by the facts of the matter.
In this case, they DID HAVE SUCH LEGAL PAPER-WORK.
The hospital just chose to ignore it...

From the article: Even after a friend in Olympia faxed the legal documents that showed that Pond had authorized Langbehn to make medical decisions for her, Langbehn said she wasn’t invited to be with her partner or told anything about her condition.


This is just plain false.
Can I make a legal document that compels an insurance company to insure my partner at the "married" rate?
Can I make a legal document that compels a hospital to bypass their classification of "family"?

We can go through the list of over 1,000 rights and privileges associated with marriage. The vast majority CANNOT be guaranteed by extra legal documents, costing $$$$ which straight married couples do not have to pay.


A "civil union" is necessary, as this story proves if you could just be bothered to get the facts of the case.
These two DID HAVE the paper-work to ensure that the one could make medical decisions for the other.
The hospital ignored it. All because the hospital staff thought it was an "anti-gay state".
They were bolstered to their actions because of the anti-gay "marriage" amendment, many of which typically go far beyond just preventing "gay marriage" into the realm of preventing gay legal recognition.

This entirely preventable family tragedy (or as FX prefers to think of it, "a story"), and others like it, will keep occuring, and we will keep telling the world about them, until you people actually take notice, and then take REAL action to make them stop.

Paying lip service about "the sad state of affairs" changes nothing.

Adept's comments prove he didn't even read the story, but instead has chosen to continue to ignore reality and rely on the half-truths that he has become comfortable with.

Half-truths and lip service do not solve this problem.

And they certainly do not comfort the survivors.

Umm...did you bother to, I dunno, read the article before you made such spurious comments? These two did have the legal papers you mention and were still denied their RIGHT to medical surrogacy. At this point, it isn't even a gay rights issue but rather a legal issue for which the hospital must now make amends. To wit: read the article before you decide to start flapping your jaws.

So if the hospital chose to ignore the legal documents.......

So my company supplied(Cigna through Disney)insurance company refuses to allow me to cover my grandson that lives with me and has been my dependent since age 3 but if I had a "partner" they would cover both the partner AND any children of my partner even though none of them had a "legal tie" to me.


You may believe that life is unfair. I happen to know that it IS absolutely unfair and anyone that says differently is far from reality.

__________________
"Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively and without self delusion---In the long run these are the only people that count."Robert Heinlein

Apples and oranges.
The hospital ignored legal documents, with legal requirements.
Is there ANY law that requires your company insurance do as you request?

Furthermore, the tactic of your approach is back-peddling.
First you proclaim that gays need to create "legal documents" to accomplish "equality", which is actually impossible if you knew everything that "marriage" gives a person.
THEN, when it is shown that your first reply was false, you suddenly try to shift to an unrelated scenario where you yourself cannot get insurance coverage.

When YOU cannot visit YOUR WIFE in the hospital, or make medical decisions for her, or can't cover her with your insurance, THEN and ONLY THEN is it comparable.


Remind me to quote this for the next time you complain about Christians being discriminated against.
Or "Families" being "attacked".
< end sarcasm >

That reply has got to be the LAMEST reply attempt out there.

Indeed, foundit. I wish more people on these forums would admit when they are wrong, and admit when they don't know something.

In my opinion, it's not supposed to be a game of who knows the most, or who can make the cleverest semantic argument. We are all here to exchange our views and hopefully LEARN something.