A Step Towards Dignity

April 16, 2010 at 8:00 am 174 comments

by Brian Leubitz

Yesterday, President Obama announced a step in the right direction:

President Barack Obama ordered hospitals to grant visitation rights to gay and lesbians, including for non-family visitors.
Obama’s memorandum to the Department of Health and Human Services banned discrimination in visits to any hospital receiving federal funding for Medicare and Medicaid social insurance programs for the elderly and the poor. …

It enables patients to confer medical power of attorney to their gay partners, authorizing them to act and make decisions about the patient.
The memo issued new rules to ensure that hospitals “respect the rights of patients to designate visitors.”

“Every day, all across America, patients are denied the kindnesses and caring of a loved one at their sides — whether in a sudden medical emergency or a prolonged hospital stay,” Obama wrote in his memo to Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

“Uniquely affected are gay and lesbian Americans who are often barred from the bedsides of the partners with whom they may have spent decades of their lives — unable to be there for the person they love, and unable to act as a legal surrogate if their partner is incapacitated.” (AFP)

Now, under California law, hospitals honor both the 18,000 marriages from 2008 as well as registered domestic partnerships. So, it won’t make a huge difference here. But, this is a step, a very small step, in the right direction.

That being said, this is just one of the over 1,000 rights and responsibilities granted by federal law to married couples. We need full marriage equality and the repeal of DOMA. This decision will make a very real difference in the lives of many gays and lesbians, but it is just one step.

President Obama must continue to work to follow-up on his campaign promises to pass ENDA and repeal DOMA.

Entry filed under: Uncategorized.

EQCA and ACLU Lose Technicality Skirmish Elderly Gay Couple Victimized by the State

174 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Ronnie  |  April 16, 2010 at 8:07 am

    Scraps….that’s all….It’s a memo…It won’t be fully enforced in the majority of the states…..He needs to make it a law….EQUALITY NOW!!!!!!…….<3…Ronnie

    Reply
    • 2. John  |  April 16, 2010 at 8:08 am

      Agreed!!!

      Reply
      • 3. John  |  April 16, 2010 at 8:09 am

        Dang it, forgot to subscribe.

        Reply
  • 4. John  |  April 16, 2010 at 8:07 am

    How long before NOM, FotF, AFA, etc. complain, I wonder?

    Reply
    • 5. Ronnie  |  April 16, 2010 at 8:16 am

      They will spout out the usual bull….my religion says blah blah blah….

      1. You accept federal tax money….I pay taxes I own your @$$

      2. I’m not christian…so your religious beliefs don’t apply to me. (I love using that line…they never seem to have a response to that)…..<3…Ronnie

      Reply
      • 6. Monty  |  April 16, 2010 at 10:40 am

        I like the straightforward “your god has no place in my government.”

        Reply
  • 7. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  April 16, 2010 at 8:32 am

    Yes, they supposedly honor the marriages, but as many here have posted, Brian, they have had to waste valuable time running back to their homes, or even contacting someone by fax if they are away from home, in order to provide documents to prove their status, and this is what needs to stop. They don’t ask heterosexual couples from proof of their relationships, so why should we still have to prove the status of ours. This is where the heart of the discrimination comes in. This is what we need to fight against. And we need to stop accepting the little crumbs they want to throw us. We want FULL EQUALITY, and we want it NOW!!!

    Reply
    • 8. Andrea  |  April 16, 2010 at 10:57 am

      they have had to waste valuable time running back to their homes, or even contacting someone by fax if they are away from home, in order to provide documents to prove their status,

      And worse, meanwhile the hospital is busily tracking down long-estranged, overtly-hostile relatives.

      Reply
  • 9. David Kimble  |  April 16, 2010 at 8:40 am

    The flag of bigotry and hatred has long flown over America and has tainted the minds of many. The patterns of disgusting intolerance must not be allowed to stand. The Churches have fueled this mentality with their involvement in political campaigns (Mormon Church – ring any bells). We must continue to work for full equality and as Ronnie has repeatedly been a voice for our community, when he enlightens our minds with the truth and shines a light in the dark corners of hatred. Hatred can only exist, when love is absent. <3 David

    Reply
  • 10. John  |  April 16, 2010 at 8:53 am

    Test . . . my comments do not seem to be printing.

    Reply
  • 11. John  |  April 16, 2010 at 8:56 am

    Retry:

    We keep copies of our Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care, Living Will, and Power of Attorney documents in our cars at all times, just in case. There’s still no guarantee hospitals will honor them, of course, as has been seen in more than one case, and courts have sided with the hospitals, incredibly.

    Reply
    • 12. PamC  |  April 16, 2010 at 9:50 am

      John, we do the same, along with a copy of our marriage license. I’d like to know the “full force and effect” of Obama’s memo–would it override prior court decisions against visitations?

      Reply
  • 13. Ronnie  |  April 16, 2010 at 9:09 am

    I thought this was funny….and fits in with this memo thing and how we just need to force them to allow us visitations rights ect ect ect……and Portia’s in it…..lol….If I was female and a lesbian and she wasn’t MARRIED to Ellen…wait?!….what was I talking about?…Oh yeah…. “Medical Moment 12-8” from “Better of Ted”……<3….Ronnie:

    Reply
    • 14. Ronnie  |  April 16, 2010 at 9:10 am

      geeze with the typos….”Better Off Ted”….<3…Ronnie

      Reply
    • 15. David Kimble  |  April 16, 2010 at 9:22 am

      LMAO! Thanks, Ronnie, that was precious! <3 David

      Reply
      • 16. Ronnie  |  April 16, 2010 at 9:39 am

        you’re welcome….<3…Ronnie

        Reply
  • 17. K!r!lleXXI  |  April 16, 2010 at 9:50 am

    So, basically, Obama said: “Hey, these people come to you with legal papers that allow them to stay with their loved ones on a par with families! And you should respect those legal decisions made by your patients!” Which means hospital staff does not really follow the current law, they go against the law… and after that we are the felons because we’re gay? Unbelievable! This is shameful when the President must ask hospitals to follow the law!

    K

    Reply
    • 18. K!r!lleXXI  |  April 16, 2010 at 12:20 pm

      Damn! Subscription didn’t work!

      Reply
  • 22. Straight Grandmother  |  April 16, 2010 at 10:24 am

    This next statement is literally, true. “Well Barak it is the least you could do.”

    Reply
    • 23. Monty  |  April 16, 2010 at 10:38 am

      It’s certainly not the most trivial thing he could have done, but it’s like he was trying to do something to seem more gay-friendly without annoying the religious nuts (who will undoubtedly categorically oppose everything he does anyway).

      Reply
      • 24. Joel  |  April 16, 2010 at 1:41 pm

        I’m sure that the hospitals that are administered by the Catholic church and other Christian denominations will have their knickers ALL in a twist. This is basically causing a similar situation that gave the Catholics in Mass. ammunition to close their adoption facilities. Will we be seeing Catholic hospitals now closing their doors because they refuse to comply with the law?

        Reply
      • 25. Ronnie  |  April 16, 2010 at 1:45 pm

        My mother works for a Catholic Hospital and I have her checking on it…..but big f-ing deal if they don’t want to follow it…then they’ll loose federal funding…..what is it that the reich keeps yelling out?…..”No free rides”.???….<3…Ronnie

        Reply
      • 26. Ronnie  |  April 16, 2010 at 1:47 pm

        geexe again with the typos..I’m all thumbs today….and I’m typing on two diff screens…hehhee

        then they’ll lose federal funding…ok I’m good…<3…Ronnie

        Reply
      • 27. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  April 16, 2010 at 3:16 pm

        @Joel. Yes, we will. And in some areas of the country, this means that many people will be left completely without accessible, quality health care. All becasue the radicals who are hiding behind a religious denomination care more about protecting and hiding pedohilic priests than actually living up to the directives of the one they claim to be in service to. Boy will they be in for a surprise when they meet Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef!

        Reply
  • 28. Ronnie  |  April 16, 2010 at 11:23 am

    You see the more disgusting hate filled campaigns the Hateros throw out there the more they loose…..why don’t they get that?….Like is said they are so stupid that they make a grain of sand look smart……

    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/04/16/Council_Candidate_Wins_Despite_Antigay_Campaign/

    Posted on Advocate.com April 16, 2010
    Council Candidate Wins Despite Antigay Campaign
    By Advocate.com Editors

    An antigay campaign that claimed gay Rancho Mirage, Calif., city council candidate Scott Hines would “infect” the city’s government failed with Hines narrowly winning the April 15 election by 11 votes.

    (me) realy?…..infect how?….with the truth?…..OH NOOO!!!!……AHHHHHHH!!!!!…….

    “I am very saddened for many of my friends in this valley who live with HIV and that someone would make light of (their condition), or say if you are friends with a gay person, you infect others,” Hines told the Palm Springs newspaper Daily Sun. The paper also reported that Hines’ closest challenger is considering calling for a recount, which he will have to pay for.

    (me) you mean like the recount they tried in Gainesville, Florida which now has an openly Gay Mayor who first won by 35 votes and grew to 42 before they started the recount?

    Why is it that Hateros always want a recount when the outcome is not what they wanted?….We(not me) people voted that they should be in office…..isn’t what they are always shouting?….oh but wait “We the people” only applies to the haterosexual religious and non religious reich…..my bad…..<3….Ronnie

    Reply
    • 29. Monty  |  April 16, 2010 at 11:24 am

      Didn’t you hear the news? Gay is contagious. There’s a whole section about it in the agenda.

      Reply
      • 30. John  |  April 16, 2010 at 11:27 am

        I caught it when I accidentally brushed against a gay boy in 8th grade!

        Reply
      • 31. Monty  |  April 16, 2010 at 11:29 am

        I think I must be immune. I’ve certainly been exposed to it enough.

        Reply
      • 32. Ronnie  |  April 16, 2010 at 11:35 am

        My great uncle, uncle, and aunt must’ve given it to me as well as my older bi sister, older gay cousin, my other bi aunt, and I must have given it to my 3 bi younger cousins

        And then theres my father’s father….which my mother just decided to tell me last night…I mean WTF is that about?…..<3….Ronnie

        Reply
      • 33. Monty  |  April 16, 2010 at 11:38 am

        Well, I played water polo and swam throughout most of high school. If spending several hours a day with a dozen well-built guys in Speedos, including at least one who was gay and one who was bi, doesn’t do it, I don’t know what will.

        Reply
      • 34. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  April 16, 2010 at 11:44 am

        Actually, I have never gotten my copy of the agenda. I guess I don’t fit in well enough with the stereotypes to deserve one. You see, I can actually do minor home repairs and maintenance, certain auto maintenance, and even know how to use a hammer and a chain saw without hurting myself or others. I also enjoy country music. So I guess I’m not gay enough to get a copy. I also don’t have my copy of “The Queer Handbook.”

        Reply
      • 35. Billy  |  April 16, 2010 at 11:53 am

        Does anyone have a spare copy of the agenda? I didn’t keep up on my dues and lost membership. They even revoked my gay card!

        Reply
      • 36. John  |  April 16, 2010 at 11:56 am

        I think copies are available from Focus on the Family and the American Family Association.

        Reply
      • 37. Ronnie  |  April 16, 2010 at 12:05 pm

        Maybe Haggie G’s “husband” has them where ever she has him hidden?……<3…Ronnie

        Reply
      • 38. Andrea  |  April 16, 2010 at 12:33 pm

        “Gay Agenda” is code for “Democratic Agenda.”

        Reply
      • 39. PamC  |  April 16, 2010 at 1:31 pm

        An oldie but a goodie:

        http://www.markfiore.com/animation/agenda.html

        Reply
      • 40. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  April 16, 2010 at 1:37 pm

        Ronnie, haven’t you heard the news? MagPie’s husband is none other than everybody’s favorite Fashion Plate, Joe Solmonese!

        Reply
      • 41. Ronnie  |  April 16, 2010 at 1:42 pm

        What?!!!!……she’s cheating on me?…..that B%$ch!!!!!!……<3…Ronnie

        Reply
      • 42. jc  |  April 18, 2010 at 3:22 pm

        for billy, here’s your copy…just don’t let it get leaked out! ;)

        The Homosexual Agenda
        >
        >
        >I know that many of you have heard Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell and others
        >speak of the “Homosexual Agenda,” but no one has ever seen a copy of it.
        >
        >Well, I have finally obtained a copy directly from the Head Homosexual.
        >
        >It follows below:
        >
        > 6:00 am Gym
        > 8:00 am Breakfast (oatmeal and egg whites)
        > 9:00 am Hair appointment
        > 10:00 am Shopping
        > 12:00 PM Brunch
        >
        > 2:00 PM
        > 1) Assume complete control of the U.S. Federal, State and Local
        > Governments as well as all other national governments,
        > 2) Recruit all straight youngsters to our debauched lifestyle,
        > 3) Destroy all healthy heterosexual marriages,
        > 4) Replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents of
        >Colombian
        > and Jamaican drug cartels,
        > 5) Establish planetary chain of “homo breeding gulags” where
        >over-medicated
        > imprisoned straight women are turned into artificially impregnated
        >baby
        > factories to produce prepubescent love slaves for our devotedly
        > pederastic gay leadership,
        > 6) bulldoze all houses of worship, and
        > 7) Secure total control of the INTERNET and all mass media for the
        > exclusive use of child pornographers.
        >
        > 2:30 PM Get forty winks of beauty rest to prevent facial wrinkles
        >from
        > stress of world conquest
        > 4:00 PM Cocktails
        > 6:00 PM Light Dinner (soup, salad, with Chardonnay)
        > 8:00 PM Theater
        > 11:00 PM Bed (du jour)?
        >

        Reply
      • 43. Ronnie  |  April 18, 2010 at 3:31 pm

        But what about sex?….oh wait…after bed from 11pm to 6am…..that’s not enough time?!!!!…..no no no no…this just won’t do…..<3…Ronnie

        Reply
      • 44. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  April 18, 2010 at 3:44 pm

        @jc. I love it! Oh, the pointed sarcasm I heard as I read this! You should be on Caroline’s Comedy Club! You would give Lewis Black a run for his money!

        Reply
      • 45. jc  |  April 18, 2010 at 3:58 pm

        glad you two enjoyed that…i can’t take credit for it, i’m not sure of it’s origin, a friend of mine sent it to me about 11 years ago and i just held on to it…

        Reply
  • 46. Ronnie  |  April 16, 2010 at 12:18 pm

    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/04/16/NOM_Launches_Attack_on_NH_Governor/

    Posted on Advocate.com April 16, 2010
    NOM Launches Attack on NH Governor
    By Michelle Garcia

    The National Organization for Marriage is paying for video ads blasting New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch for increasing business taxes, and increasing spending. And, of course, supporting same-sex marriage.

    (me) Do these idiots never learn?….I swear these people are full on nazis…..

    Lynch had previously said he would not sign a gay marriage bill if it reached his desk, but when the marriage measure was approved in both houses of the legislature in 2009, Lynch signed the bill into law.

    (me) so wait….a politician “lies” to you (I put it in quotes because I don’t believe anything they say) and you are surprised and attack him?…..but when we do it whining, complaining, acting out, and are trying to push the “gay agenda”?……fu<king hypocrites…..

    While the gubernatorial seat for New Hampshire has no term limits, Lynch won his third two-year term in 2008 with 70% of the vote. He is up for election again in November.

    (me) your chances are very slim NOM…move on LOSERS!!!!……….<3…Ronnie

    Reply
    • 47. Straight Ally #3008  |  April 16, 2010 at 6:15 pm

      Ronnie,

      On the topic of governors, Maine’s Gov. Baldacci – who signed the marriage equality bill before Question 1 passed – helped organize a fundraiser for Preble Street’s Homeless Voices for Justice program (the Catholic Church withdrew its grant for Preble Street over its support for marriage equality). Gov. Baldacci helped cook and serve the spaghetti – now that’s someone who understands charity and justice.

      http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid35031947001?bctid=78125582001

      Reply
      • 48. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  April 16, 2010 at 6:18 pm

        My, that is very refreshing. Someone who actualy understands the conceptxs of Yeshua ben Yosef and actually puts them into practice! we need him on the SCOTUS!

        Reply
      • 49. G. Rod  |  April 17, 2010 at 6:41 am

        We’re Just Ordinary People
        Thanks Ronnie for mentioning the fundraiser for Portland Maine’s Preble Street’s Homeless Voices for Justice program.
        Another example of taking affirmative action is a Chicago couple’s response to Mike Huckabee’s comparison of gay marriage to drug abuse etc. Adoptive parents Smith and McDonagh were incensed when he said “Children are not puppies…. ” Dan Smith & Steve McDonagh invited Huckabee over for dinner next time he’s in town in the hope of opening Mike’s mind, releasing an open letter to the former governor. No response yet from Huck reports Smith &McDinagh on their blog, but lots from others: http://natespop.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/huckabee-update/ Creative, eye-catching initiative by two restaurateurs! They welcome comments.

        Reply
      • 50. Ronnie  |  April 17, 2010 at 7:02 am

        You’re welcome, G. Rod….but it was Straight Ally #3008 who mentioned the fundraiser….I don’t want to take credit for another trackers work….but yes it is awesome what he did for that shelter….and what this couple asked of Huckleberry….most likely he will not take them up on their offer….because it may lead him to view us on a human level…

        I agree, “children are not puppies”…..but interesting twist on words….what is it we animal loving humans say about our puppies and kittens?……oh yeah….that they are like our children…The fool doesn’t realize that when he said that about adoptive children he was insulting all adopted children and adoptive parents…..but I guess heterosexual couples don’t adopt kids the same way we do….pft….AS IF!!!…….Get a life Huckelberry…..”Oh my darling….oh my darling…..Hatero….I’ve lost my mind….and its gone forever…oh my darling Hatero”….hehehehe……<3….Ronnie

        Reply
  • 51. toth  |  April 16, 2010 at 12:54 pm

    Now, I may just be paranoid, but I do have to wonder if this is a first step by Obama to give LGBT folk the rights of marriage but not marriage itself. You know, give them the rights of marriage so that they can’t say “We have fewer rights than straight people”? Obama has, after all, said that he thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman. It’s a sad thought, but I thought something worth considering.

    Or maybe I’m just paranoid.

    Reply
    • 52. John  |  April 16, 2010 at 12:56 pm

      It’s gonna take a loooooooong time if he plans to grant us rights one at a time.

      Reply
    • 53. Ronnie  |  April 16, 2010 at 12:58 pm

      But he also said what he thinks has nothing to do with the law…..

      And if that is what he thinks about giving us these scraps he is sadly mistaken…..

      It’s full Marriage including the word….and we will NOT stop until we get it……<3….Ronnie

      Reply
    • 54. Carvel  |  April 16, 2010 at 11:04 pm

      What I just simply do not understand is why a Black man believes that separate but equal is right, fair and permissible inour society. The handwriting is on the wall and sooner or later this inequality and unfair legislation will fall by the wayside and the tide will turn. We must be ever vigilant in pursuing our civil rights.

      Obama can think anything he wants. I am free to think anything I want to also. However, in our society while you have freedom of your thoughts and beliefs, you are not free to express those thoughts at the expense of the freedom of the person you are expressing them against. You have freedom of expression, but then you suffer the penalty if you advocate violation of law or the civil or human rights of others.

      The problem we have is that for thousands of years we had no civil rights or human rights to be gay and free. We were abused, killed and run out of town. Now we are just dismissed as not being protected by law. How quickly the Black forget what it was like to be hated and legislated against. It is a shame as they should be helping us and not trying to distance themselves from us. Take care.

      Reply
      • 55. K!r!lleXXI  |  April 17, 2010 at 2:43 am

        @Carvel
        You think when we finally get our rights, some of us won’t become just like those Blacks you’re referring to? You think we all will be supporting transvestites and transgender people (most likely, they won’t get their rights and protections before gays, they’ll have to fight longer)? The same will happen with gays — some of us will quickly forget what it was like to be different and unprotected by law, some of us will be even against those rights and freedoms for T people… hell, they already are! I’ve heard opinions that we should drop this group from LGBT abbreviation and fight for our own rights, apart from Ts. It always happens. I’m not defending them, just explaining that being a part of some discriminated group does not make every member of that group more educated and more compassionate… unfortunately… alas!

        K

        Reply
    • 56. Cindy s  |  April 17, 2010 at 7:52 am

      Exactly right.

      He has undermined the case of same sex marriage with one unenforceable speech.

      If they appear to have the same rights, then what in the world are they all riled up about? I was married during the 2008 summer of love in a same sex marriage, and I have protections….in California and the states that allow grant the privilidge. Otherwise, I am screwed!

      The Federal Government has to step in and do what is right…until that there will be no equality!

      Reply
  • 57. Kathleen  |  April 16, 2010 at 1:36 pm

    I find it kind of odd that some news agencies are using the headline “Obama extends health care rights to gay partners.” While it’s technically accurate, when I first saw that headline, I thought it had something to do with the recently passed health care reform. I wonder how many right wingers are going to see to become even more enraged by the headline?

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100416/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_hospital_patients

    Reply
  • 58. Kathleen  |  April 16, 2010 at 1:43 pm

    As to the question of how much legal weight this memo will carry..

    The Memo itself may not carry legal weight, but what it is doing is directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to: “Initiate appropriate rulemaking, pursuant to your authority under 42 U.S.C. 1395x and other relevant provisions of law, to ensure…” That is — the Dept of Health and Human Services will be codifying these requirements.

    Read the full Memo here:
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-hospital-visitation

    Reply
    • 59. Joe  |  April 16, 2010 at 2:01 pm

      It has the weight of restricting their Medicare funding. That’s a pretty big weight.

      Reply
      • 60. Kathleen  |  April 16, 2010 at 2:14 pm

        Precisely.

        I’ve just heard a lot of speculation that a “Memo” from the President doesn’t carry the weight of law, and that’s probably technically true. But it’s not the Memo that will have clout; it’s the Medicare and Medicaid regs that will. The HHS Dept writes the regs for Medicare and Medicaid and this memo directs the HHS Dept to modify its regs to include this provisions. These provisions will, in turn, become conditions for receiving federal funding.

        Reply
  • 61. Chuck S  |  April 16, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    Is visitation really an issue??? As an ICU/ER/Trauma nurse for over 15 years having worked in numerous hospitals around the midwest…including several religious-affiliation hospitals, I have never seen any discrimination by staff or administration to gay/lesbian couples whether it be in the ICU, ER or other units.

    Reply
    • 62. Joe  |  April 16, 2010 at 2:01 pm

      Overwhelmingly yes. There’s a scores of stories every month of cases were people were not allowed visitation by their partners, even when they clearly and showed documentation like DP, powers of attorney, written directives, everything. Can you imagine spending your last moments on this earth dying alone because your partner was denied visitation? It happens all too often.

      It was a case right in our backyard in Sonoma County.

      http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/04/case-of-gay-senior-abuse.html

      Reply
      • 63. draNgNon  |  April 17, 2010 at 8:52 pm

        that story has freaked me out!

        Reply
    • 64. K!r!lleXXI  |  April 16, 2010 at 2:03 pm

      That is great, Chuck.
      However some people were denied hospital visitations, even though they were legally married, even though they had all the papers, even though they were in the state that recognized their marriage as marriage, or CU, or DP, even though they had additional legal papers of medical proxies… they still couldn’t see their spouses… there are people who couldn’t say goodbye to their dying spouses because hospital bureaucrats (shortly just “rats”) wouldn’t allow them to do that last thing… Now, this is why we need this to be enforced!

      Reply
    • 65. fiona64  |  April 16, 2010 at 2:04 pm

      Janice Langbehn, the person in this article? Pres. Obama called her last night to tell her about the order. Despite having a copy of her DPA with her on vacation, she was kept away from her dying partner by hospital staff.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/health/19well.html

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
    • 66. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  April 16, 2010 at 3:22 pm

      @Chuck. Yes, it really is, especially in the “Bible belt,” which in cludes the state where I live. If I get sick, or if my husband gets sick, we know of only one hospital we can go to that will let us have full visitation and the right to exercise each other’s medial wishes. And that hospital is two and a half hours away from home.

      Reply
      • 67. K!r!lleXXI  |  April 16, 2010 at 3:24 pm

        @Richard
        Is that hospital you’re talking about in Raleigh?
        Which hospital is that?

        Reply
      • 68. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  April 16, 2010 at 3:34 pm

        Duke University in Durham. Rex Memorial and Wake Med would rather lose their Medicare and Medicaid funding than to allow us to see each other.

        Reply
    • 69. PRIVATE-SORRY-JUST TOO PERSONAL  |  April 17, 2010 at 2:21 pm

      Most hospitals rely on the patient’s last wishes and his ability to control his visitors. The majority of the problems do not arise when one of a gay couple are in the hospital and the one in the hospital is not conscious. It also arises when the patient’s family being the next of kin has instructed the hospital NOT TO ALL ALLOW the same sex partner access to their sick relative.

      When the county or the state takes over as in the case of a charrity or state patient, then the states wants to get all of the property of the sick person and gain control of it so that they can auction it off to pay for the care of the sick person. They will grab everything they can because they feel they have a right to that property. If the parties were legally married then the spouse is entitled to certain expemtions from seizure. Frankly, the state just takes all it can get.

      When my lover of 15 years was dying in the hospital, it was a VA hospital too, he had signed a medical power of attorney over to me in the hospital and I could call and talk to him or visit him whenever I wanted to. I got to see and talk to the doctor too. I was there the afternoon before he died in the early morning the next day. He was unconscious. My best friend of perhaps more than 30 years who I was best man at his wedding drove me the 70 miles to see him. He stayed with me as i cried at his bedside and then drove me home. You see this was just over 8 years ago when we could not get married anywhere.

      However, after his death his sister got to decide how the funeral was and all other details. His sister loved him and us together and was a frequent guest in our home. She asked me about everything i wanted to do. I was lucky. I still cry thinking about it. The service gave him HIV because he was in an accident and they gave him tainted blood before they knew how to test for HIV. It was sad.

      The problem is not usually visitation, but inlaws, relatives and other people who override the wishes of the patient. It is also when the patient is unconscious and can not make his own decisions.

      Reply
      • 70. K!r!lleXXI  |  April 17, 2010 at 2:37 pm

        My sincere condolences, dear anonymous friend!

        Reply
  • 71. Joe  |  April 16, 2010 at 1:58 pm

    Now we can literally be until death do us part.

    Reply
  • 72. Kathleen  |  April 16, 2010 at 2:06 pm

    Most of this is just rehash of what we’ve heard before, but since we’re all so desperate for news, thought I’d post this.

    Olson speaking at recent meeting of Outlaw, the Georgetown Law Center student group that focuses on glbt legal issues
    http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/04/ted-olson-prop-8-challenge-could-have-global-impact.html

    Reply
    • 73. Bob  |  April 16, 2010 at 2:40 pm

      Kathleen, when Olson says people think it’s too soon, “we should be pushing the issue state by state” does that mean a win at Supreme Court, would affect all states, and end the need to fight by infividual state? Cause that would be soooooo good.

      Reply
      • 74. Kathleen  |  April 16, 2010 at 3:40 pm

        does that mean a win at Supreme Court would affect all states

        Most likely — yes.

        If the Supreme Court holds that any law which denies the right of ss couples to marry violates the US Constitution, then any state or federal law which tries to limit marriage to os couples would become unenforceable. That doesn’t mean all the restrictive laws would immediately disappear, it just means that if anyone were to challenge them, they would would be struck down as unconstitutional based on this ruling.

        I’ve seen some opining in various legal circles about the possibility of Walker crafting a more narrow ruling, which would affect just those states which give domestic partnership or civil union and not marriage.

        For a good overview of about the possibile consequences of various rulings, see here:
        http://hunterforjustice.typepad.com/hunter_of_justice/2010/03/matt-coles-explains-it-all-to-you.html

        I would add to Mark Coles’ analysis a fifth possibility–that of the “Super Big Win” in which we get the Big Win, accompanied by a determination that glbt people are a “suspect class” and any law discriminating against us would have to pass strict scrutiny.

        Reply
  • 75. John  |  April 16, 2010 at 2:39 pm

    Hmmm . . . I just read the full text of the memo and two things jumped out at me:

    The last line of section 1:

    The rulemaking should take into account the need for hospitals to restrict visitation in medically appropriate circumstances as well as the clinical decisions that medical professionals make about a patient’s care or treatment.

    I would think this would render the first part just about meaningless. Essentially, it seems to say LGBT partners must not be denied visitation or decision making rights, unless the hospital decides to deny them. “Medically appropriate circumstances” and “decisions that medical professionals make” are so vague as to have little meaning.

    And the penultimate paragraph:

    This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    So Obama is making a “request that [they] take the following steps” in paragraph five, yet this paragraph strips any legal weight the request may have. In other words, it appears that the Secretary of Health and Human Services can say “No!” and that’s that.

    Reply
    • 76. Kathleen  |  April 16, 2010 at 3:05 pm

      John,

      I read those sections to mean something else.

      As to the first (“take into account the need for hospitals to restrict”):

      Note that the general visitationrequirement is that “designated visitors … should enjoy visitation privileges that are no more restrictive than those that immediate family members enjoy.”

      I think what this this passage “need for hospitals to restrict visitation in medically appropriate circumstances” (etc.) is referring to is that there may situations in which medical personnel decide that all visitation must be restricted (e.g., requiring people to leave treatment rooms during certain medical procedures). These requirements won’t take away that decision-making from medical personnel, but it will have to apply only to those situations where they would have restricted all visitors, including next-of-kin.

      And as to the second, (does not create a right in law or equity), note that it is protecting “the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.”

      I read this to mean an individual can’t sue the US Government or any of its employees because a hospital violates the regs. It might mean that a person can’t sue any individual (don’t know, would have to see how similar phrases have been interpreted in past and how the ultimate regs read). However, it doesn’t seem to preclude an individual bringing a legal action against a hospital. It also doesn’t preclude the government taking action against the hospital for violating regs–most importantly the possibility of losing federal funding.

      We’ll have to see how the final regs are written and what kind of enforcement provisions and exclusions are in the final version.

      Reply
  • 77. Bob  |  April 16, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    Meanwhile, the homophobes are already hailing this as a reason NOT to legalize same-sex marriage. Please spam the fuck out of this page:

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/NO-GAY-MARRIAGE/364884651344?ref=mf&v=wall

    Reply
    • 78. Ronnie  |  April 16, 2010 at 3:11 pm

      They delete every thing I post….fu<king bigot nazis….<3…Ronnie

      Reply
      • 79. Ray in MA  |  April 16, 2010 at 3:16 pm

        maybe you’ve exceed a limit.

        Reply
      • 80. Ray in MA  |  April 16, 2010 at 3:37 pm

        I thought you meant they were deleting here!

        I saw a lot of your posts on that FB page…

        Reply
      • 81. Ronnie  |  April 16, 2010 at 3:42 pm

        I did the gay straight black white one first and they deleted…so i reposted….

        and the what do we want one second and they deleted it…so i reposted….and now they seem to be staying….for now…..<3….Ronnie

        Reply
    • 82. Ray in MA  |  April 16, 2010 at 3:15 pm

      PLEASE,

      Would everyone here go to the Facebook page noted above and click on the link near the bottom of the page:

      “Report Page”

      The drop down selection should be obvious:

      “Racial/Hate Speech”

      Reply
      • 83. Bob  |  April 16, 2010 at 3:19 pm

        Yep, they’re deleting whatever they disagree with.

        Reply
    • 84. Bob  |  April 16, 2010 at 3:19 pm

      another Bob I see, can you find a way to distinguish your post, from mine, thanks,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Bob

      Reply
      • 85. Bob  |  April 16, 2010 at 3:20 pm

        or you could find a way to distinguish your posts from mine

        Reply
    • 86. Carvel  |  April 16, 2010 at 11:33 pm

      They will not let you see the page unless you log in. You can look up the page and facebook will not let you see it unless you log in.

      Reply
      • 87. Kathleen  |  April 16, 2010 at 11:39 pm

        Yes. You have to be logged in to facebook to see a facebook page.

        Reply
  • 88. Angel  |  April 16, 2010 at 3:40 pm

    I have a feeling we won’t hear many complaints on this, since straight people benefit as well. Most replies to this that I’ve seen from hetero people were in praise, but only because they got something out of it too.

    Reply
    • 89. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  April 16, 2010 at 5:54 pm

      Unfortunately Andel, as referenced above, there is already a page on FB about it, and they are saying that now that we have the visitation rights, we should forget about marriage. There is a link above, and I agree with the poster who said to go and report the page for racist/hate speech.

      Reply
      • 90. Sheryl  |  April 17, 2010 at 1:06 am

        So, all that marriage means is hospital visitation??? Wonder if the hateros would like to give up the rest of the benefits that marriage affords them. Nah, don’t think so.

        Reply
  • 91. Bob  |  April 16, 2010 at 3:42 pm

    civilty would suggest that since you are using same name, and posting after me, perhaps, you would be the one to make that distinction.

    Reply
    • 92. Bob  |  April 16, 2010 at 5:00 pm

      On the other hand, I’m reasonably certain that I started posting in these forums first, always using the name Bob, and I’ve never seen any other Bobs before.

      Reply
  • 93. Ronnie  |  April 16, 2010 at 4:01 pm

    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/04/16/Arkansas_Judge_Overturns_Adoption_Ban/

    Posted on Advocate.com April 16, 2010
    Arkansas Judge Overturns Adoption Ban
    By Advocate.com Editors

    A circuit court judge in Arkansas’s Pulaski County has overturned the statewide ban on unmarried couples living together — including same-sex couples — from adopting or fostering children, the Associated Press reports.

    The law, which was approved by voters in 2008, was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a number of families.

    In his two-page ruling issued Friday afternoon, circuit court judge Chris Piazza said people in “non-marital relationships” are forced to choose between becoming a parent and maintaining a relationship with their partner. He added that the ban cast “an unreasonably broad net” and did not serve the state’s interest.

    (me) HA HA…..the Hateros lose again….<3…Ronnie

    Reply
    • 94. Ronnie  |  April 16, 2010 at 4:06 pm

      They just updated the story so here’s some more:

      “As of now, gay and unmarried couples are able to apply to adopt or foster children [in Arkansas],” Christine Sun, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs and member of the ACLU’s LGBT project, says. “We’re encouraging the plaintiffs to begin that process.”

      In his two-page ruling issued Friday afternoon, Circuit Court Judge Chris Piazza said people in “non-marital relationships” are forced to choose between becoming a parent and maintaining a relationship with their partner—single people can still foster and adopt children in Arkansas. Piazza added that the ban cast “an unreasonably broad net” and did not serve the state’s interest. “It infringes upon the fundamental right to privacy guaranteed to all citizens of Arkansas,” he wrote.

      (me) It is always in the wording…. “It infringes upon the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to privacy guaranteed to ALL citizens of Arkansas,”…wording is key when it comes to law….I know that much….<3…Ronnie

      Reply
      • 95. K!r!lleXXI  |  April 16, 2010 at 4:41 pm

        Great news for Arkansas!
        Now we need the same thing in North Carolina! :)

        Reply
  • 96. K!r!lleXXI  |  April 16, 2010 at 4:14 pm

    My response to their lies:

    10. HOMOSEXUALITY IS !NOT! A DISORDER!
    Every respected scientist knows that! And only ignorant bigots write the opposite without a proof!

    9. HOMOSEXUALITY IS !NOT! DISHONEST!
    However, homophobic people make gays and lesbians hide this significant part of their lives they were born with — in order to stay alive and be accepted in the society, rather than be stigmatized for life.

    8. HOMOSEXUALITY !IS! HEALTHY!
    Homosexual people, just like everybody else, are people raised in the same society by the same people, so they have same moral principles corrected by their own life experiences. We all have different moral standards, ALL! But we DO have them. Weather you like to admit it or not. As for putting things in certain places… male prostate is situated near rectum, so rectal stimulation leads to prostate stimulation, which leads to additional sexual pleasure. And this is how “God” intended it to be!

    7. HOMOSEXUALITY !IS! PRODUCTIVE IN OTHER WAYS!
    One of the theories why nature came up with homosexuality for over 1600 species is that we don’t need so many breeders, but we need to take care of our young — the one that was left without parents (because they were abusive alcoholics or just died in accidents). And here homos come to the rescue! Adoption is the word you’re looking for!

    6. HOMOSEXUALITY IS !NOT! TIED TO ANY PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDERS!
    That, again, was proven by scientists after 5 decades of research. However, stigmatization and denying gays and lesbians their rights leads to depression and higher suicide rates, especially among teenagers (30% of all teenage suicides!).

    5. HOMOSEXUALITY DOES !NOT! DEVALUE SOCIAL BELIEFS!
    Outer appearance and inner maturity are well celebrated mostly by heterosexuals, these narcissistic tendencies have nothing to do with sexual orientation. As for social skills, many gays and lesbians work with people — teachers, day care workers, social workers, doctors and nurses, caterers, cooks, waiters — it all requires social skills!

    4. HOMOSEXUALITY !IS! TOLERANT!
    Gays and lesbians know from their own experience how hard it is to live in hateful environment, so they are mostly tolerant. However, when some people simply try to take away rights that belong to everyone, imposing their own religious views that see homosexuality as a sin, gays do not have to tolerate such behavior, for gays do not take away heterosexuals’ right to marry each other, they simply want to marry people of their own choice which is forbidden for no good reason.

    3. HOMOSEXUALITY !IS! MORAL!
    Gays and lesbians do not attack anyone else, they simply want to have SAME RIGHTS others enjoy, and for THEMSELVES. There is no need to attack anyone who does not attack you, otherwise you have a right to defend yourself from an enemy.

    2. HOMOSEXUALITY IS !NOT! HATEFUL!
    Many gays and lesbians are religious, they believe in God that created them as they are — gay. And they are not trying to attack anyone’s right to believe, they are trying to defend their own right to believe in their own God — the one that created them gay — and they are entitled to those beliefs according to the First Amendment of Constitution of the USA. Religious freedom means freedom to choose your religion, whatever that is, not a false freedom to choose Catholicism or be an enemy of the stater otherwise!

    1. HOMOSEXUALITY IS !NOT! DANGEROUS!
    Freedom of one person ends where freedom of another begins! We all have our freedoms, gays and lesbians are entitled to their freedoms and to their rights just like everyone else! And when those rights are taken away, when people are attacked and killed, gays cannot sit around quietly, they are forced by intolerant society to fight for their freedoms, just like slaves had to fight for their own freedoms, just like women had to fight for suffrage, just like African Americans had to fight for equality and end of “separate but equal” dogma, just like people of different races had to fight for their inter-racial marriages! When your rights are denied and taken away, you have to fight at the ballot box and in the courts, trusting people and judges to restore justice!

    ***As a final note: Please, remember, that HOMOSEXUALITY is a clinical term invented in those times when scientists did not know what it is and if it is a mental inclination or not. Now they know it is not. Now there is no need to use this clinical term, as there is no need to focus on sexual issue, because now scientists know this issue is about as much sexual as any other issue of any human being on the surface of this planet Earth!

    K

    Reply
    • 97. Ronnie  |  April 16, 2010 at 4:42 pm

      Yeah i saw that and the anti-American nazi responds with:

      “Oh sorry I agree it is a unhealthy behavior thank you for bringing my attention to that fact. Don’t be so angry we don’t hate gays sweetie”

      That sentence makes no sense what so ever….

      I’m not becoming a fan of that trash bag of a page just so that I can comment on its stupid little advertisements…I’ll just post on DB….

      Whoever runs that trash has no education what so ever….they got one wall post on there that says that Italy banned marriage equality….fu<king idiots….isn't wasn't banned they just didn't pass the law that makes it legal at the highest court….seriously that uneducated trash bag of a page needs to check its sources…. my 7yo cousin even knows that…ugggg….the Hateros are such…..losers…….<3…Ronnie

      Reply
      • 98. Kathleen  |  April 16, 2010 at 4:52 pm

        I’m with you on this Ronnie. That page represents the uneducated, misinformed far right. Their argument boils down to “My God says I’m right. Period. And if that’s not enough to convince you, here’s some pseud-science My Church has told me about.”

        Virtually every statement made there is full of internal contradictions and logical fallacies, but it’s futile to point this out; they wouldn’t understand.

        Nothing I have to say will change their minds and it just upsets me to read so much of that drivel condensed in one place. So I’ll just take a pass.

        Reply
      • 99. Ronnie  |  April 16, 2010 at 5:17 pm

        Get this….. the nazi closed his/her comments on the DB…..COWARD!!!!!!……<3…Ronnie

        Reply
      • 100. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  April 16, 2010 at 6:01 pm

        Ronnie, for those of us here from the Baby Boomer Generation who are unaware of it, (Starting withMOI!) what is DB?
        And BTW, just go to the report page tab and report them for hate speech.

        Reply
      • 101. Ronnie  |  April 16, 2010 at 6:10 pm

        lol…Discussion Board…..I did report it…<3…Ronnie

        Reply
      • 102. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  April 16, 2010 at 6:14 pm

        Thanks. I reported both of them!

        Reply
    • 103. K!r!lleXXI  |  April 16, 2010 at 5:52 pm

      So, I’ve tried to talk to those people, for an hour… I was answering their questions honestly and fully, without being disrespectful. They ended up demanding for me to leave them be so they could hate gays by themselves, among each other, openly in the interweb, but away from real people who simply would not understand them.

      They are so funny, they have all the same words bigots have. They read what I write, but they do not listen. They find some words to twist and they all say I don’t know what I’m talking about and that it is Satan who owns my soul. Oh well… at least someone needs it after I’m done with this body… :)

      I know, it’s pointless to argue with them, it’s just that I was in a very good mood after patching things up with my boyfriend, so I was ready for some shit flying in my direction… Well, it only shows how many of those lost souls! It’s gonna be tough to make them understand. What can I do? — I “chose” to be gay, I’ll have to deal with consequences! Hehehe… Would any sane person choose this? No! Why would I choose it? ‘Cause I’m insane! Heh! Their logic is beautiful… one problem… it’s all a lie!

      Mamma Mia!

      K

      Reply
      • 104. Bob  |  April 16, 2010 at 7:51 pm

        Okay, whoever Bob is that’s posted these dumb sites to facebook, he’s trolling, sounds like a touble maker, why would any of us want to go and argue on those sites. just saying, another one at 92,

        Reply
      • 105. Bob  |  April 16, 2010 at 7:52 pm

        sorry that’s 93

        Reply
      • 106. Felyx  |  April 19, 2010 at 7:22 am

        This is why I love you. You are truly dedicated and knowledgeable and a true voice for all gay people. Felyx

        Reply
      • 107. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  April 19, 2010 at 7:48 am

        So glad to see that you have not dropped off the face of the earth, Felyx! Hope all is well with you.

        Reply
  • 108. Kathleen  |  April 16, 2010 at 4:59 pm

    UPDATE

    The D-Is in the case have responded to Walker’s order to show cause why the evidentiary record should not be closed. As expected, they say they can’t submit additional evidence because the No on 8 orgs have not complied with the discovery order, and ask that the Court hold ACLU/EQCA in contempt.

    Reply
    • 109. Andrea  |  April 16, 2010 at 6:45 pm

      Thanks for keeping us informed, Kathleen. Any idea what happens next, and on what kind of time frame?

      Reply
    • 110. Kathleen  |  April 16, 2010 at 7:30 pm

      Not really. Once again, this highlights my general weakness in the area of procedure. This might require a hearing, or it may be something Walker can do just based on written submissions.

      The D-Is response states “on June 10 at 10:00 a.m., or as soon as feasible before that date, … will move the Court to hold No on Proposition 8, Campaign … in contempt of this Court’s orders of March 5 and March 22, 2010.” I suspect the June 10 date reflects the first date Walker’s published calendar shows an availability:
      http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/CAND/Calendar.nsf/ExtraInfoLinkDocs/VRW

      Walker has shown a strong interest in moving this along, so maybe even if it does require a hearing, he’ll find a way to schedule it sooner than June.

      It’s worth noting that D-Is response outlines a back and forth exchange between Proponents and ACLU/EQCA, in which the No on 8 orgs offered a compromise position under which they would be willing to comply with an amended order without further delay. Proponents countered that they would accept the amendment of the order only if the Court reciprocated by amending the order against Yes on 8 in the same fashion. No on 8 came back with “If you are able to secure agreement from the plaintiffs and, then, from the Court to proceed as you propose, we can determine how to implement that agreement. Short of that, it appears that you are unwilling to accept our suggested ‘compromise’ position and we will proceed accordingly.”

      Reply
      • 111. Andrea  |  April 17, 2010 at 9:24 am

        Thanks for that amazing detailed follow-up, Kathleen. Family dropped in unexpectedly so I got dragged away last night before I could reply.

        I think I get it… it looks like everyone agreed to the compromise, except the Court didn’t have jurisdiction to agree. So, ACLU and EQCA have to be held in contempt to get a new hearing in which the Court can agree to the compromise and then they can all move forward. At least, I think that’s it…

        Reply
      • 112. Kathleen  |  April 17, 2010 at 11:58 am

        Andrea, I don’t know if I’d necessarily characterize it as both sides agreeing to the compromise.

        ACLU/EQCA offered, and Proponents said they’d be willing to accept it only if they (Proponents) could modify the one against them in like fashion. This doesn’t strike me as a particularly genuine offer on the part of Proponents, given that it’s the Plaintiffs who want the documents, not the ACLU/EQCA (nonparties), and I can’t imagine Plaintiffs voluntarily restricting the scope of their discovery. All the same, ACLU/EQCA responded, saying if that’s okay with the Plaintiffs and the Court, they’re fine with it.

        I’ve only skimmed the documents, so am not thoroughly familiar with details, but at a glance, that seems to be the end of the back and forth exchange. The Proponents’ next move was to send one last letter demanding production and then responding to Walker’s Order to Show Cause.

        Reply
      • 113. draNgNon  |  April 17, 2010 at 8:59 pm

        there is an interesting analysis of the “compromise” here.

        http://prop8legalcommentary.blogspot.com/2010/04/prop-8-proponents-in-perry-case-seek.html

        Reply
    • 114. Carvel  |  April 16, 2010 at 11:38 pm

      What i don’t understand is why the ACLU/EQCA are involved. I don’t think that they are parties to this litigation. I read the memo on why and how the discovery issues were expanded and I think that the ACLU and other non parties have some merit to their positions.

      Reply
      • 115. Kathleen  |  April 16, 2010 at 11:45 pm

        You’re correct that ACLU/EQCA are not parties in the case. They got dragged into it when the Proponents (D-Is) requested third party discovery from them because they were involved in the “No on 8” campaign. And I agree that they have legitimate First Amendment arguments.

        Reply
      • 116. Kathleen  |  April 16, 2010 at 11:57 pm

        Carvel, there is a site where you can access most of the court filings, except the most recent. The site seems to be down right now, but you can try it later:
        http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-candce/case_no-3:2009cv02292/case_id-215270/

        Reply
      • 117. Kathleen  |  April 17, 2010 at 12:06 am

        Weirdly, the Justia site (link above) skips from Doc #623 to Doc #631. I have most of the important docs from 624-630; but I don’t have anywhere to publish them on the web for downloading.

        Reply
      • 118. K!r!lleXXI  |  April 17, 2010 at 2:52 am

        Hi Kathleen,
        Aren’t you allowed to publish PDF documents on http://www.scribd.com for example?
        I don’t know how it works there and if you are allowed to publish documents procured for payment from other websites (that is my understanding that you get them for money), but you can look up those legal policies on both sites (mostly on the website where you get those documents — if they allow to publish them elsewhere for free, otherwise it may be illegal and it would be better if you share them only with those who ask you to email them).

        K

        Reply
      • 119. Kathleen  |  April 17, 2010 at 2:59 am

        Hi Kirille, I’ll look into that. Though I pay for the documents, it’s from the Court’s service; I think they’re considered public documents (unlike those obtained through a subscription service like Westlaw), but I’ll check.

        I didn’t realize I could upload to Scribd. I’ll check into that, too.

        I have no problem with giving them to people through email, it’s just so awkward trying to exchange email addresses without posting them on a public forum. I’m sure not everyone here is on Facebook.

        How’s the air quality there? Getting worse?

        Reply
      • 120. K!r!lleXXI  |  April 17, 2010 at 3:05 am

        @Kathleen
        Yeah, it’s weird having to exchange emails. I thought you’re sending them via email only because it’s not allowed to upload them publicly. But if it is, in fact, public record, it shouldn’t be a problem. You’ll find it’s much easier to upload them to one of those PDF hosting services and just share links to those documents.
        Wow, it’s 3 am in California! When do you sleep?
        Air today in Russia is better (I guess, the cloud left already, well, the first wave at least).

        K

        Reply
      • 121. Kathleen  |  April 17, 2010 at 3:10 am

        I go through these bouts of insomnia, where my schedule gets all turned around. I fall asleep around 5 am and sleep till noon. It sucks.

        Reply
      • 122. K!r!lleXXI  |  April 17, 2010 at 3:12 am

        I fall asleep around 5 am and sleep till noon. It sucks.

        Wow, I do the same! :(

        Reply
      • 123. Andrea  |  April 17, 2010 at 10:59 am

        Weirdly, the Justia site (link above) skips from Doc #623 to Doc #631. I have most of the important docs from 624-630

        Interesting… I’d love to take a gander at those. What’s in them?

        Reply
      • 124. Kathleen  |  April 17, 2010 at 12:44 pm

        @Andrea, I went through the list of missing documents. Now I understand why they’re not listed. They’re primarily procedural documents to do with the discovery appeal, e.g., Motion to Stay the Discovery Order (pending appeal), Walker’s Order granting the stay, transmission of Docket to 9th Circuit for the appeal.

        The only exceptions are
        #626 – Transcript of the hearing on March 16. (not avilable online until 6/22/10). Though these transcripts are filed with the court, they’re not available online for three months. I think they’re available in person as soon as they’re filed, but someone has to go to the court to get them.

        #629 – copy of an order form, indicating an attorney involved in the 9th Circuit appeal ordered transcripts for the hearings of before Judge Walker on 2/25/10 and 3/16/10.

        630 – Order by Walker, accepting amicus briefs of numerous organizations. This document is just the 2 page Order; it doesn’t contain any of the briefs. I didn’t report this earlier, because it’s primarily housekeeping. These are briefs that were filed previously, but had never been formally accepted by the Court. Walker accepted the briefs, noting that they were already referenced in responses from the parties; he’d rec’d no objections to accepting them; and he would decide later how much weight to attach to any of them.

        Reply
    • 126. Carvel  |  April 17, 2010 at 2:35 pm

      There is no place to report the page or any little icon at the bottom concerning reporting the page as a hate page.

      Reply
      • 127. K!r!lleXXI  |  April 17, 2010 at 2:38 pm

        Carvel, it’s not at the bottom of the page, it’s at the bottom of the left column of the “wall” page, right above “Share” button.

        Reply
  • 128. Sagesse  |  April 16, 2010 at 5:18 pm

    Tammy Baldwin had put language ‘to protect LGBT rights’ in an early House HCR bill, but the language did not survive. Does anyone recall what those provisions were? Perhaps Obama is reinstating what was lost in the process of negotiating Health Care Reform?

    Reply
  • 129. K!r!lleXXI  |  April 16, 2010 at 6:04 pm

    Forgot completely to offtop today…

    I live in Russia, not really far from Moscow, and a couple of hours ago I felt this nasty smell — a huge ash cloud from Iceland volcano goes through Europe, it finally got to me! :( No walks this weekend outside for me. :( Let’s hope summer won’t be too cold because of ash in the air!

    K (off to sleep it off, hehe)

    Reply
    • 130. Kathleen  |  April 16, 2010 at 6:35 pm

      I remember what that’s like from the days of the Mount St. Helens eruption. I lived in Santa Barbara, CA, at the time and the volcanic ash was horrible!

      Reply
  • 131. chris  |  April 17, 2010 at 6:42 am

    I guess homophobic doctors everywhere will be forced to choose between their “faith” and their “job.” Take that, Maggie!

    Reply
    • 132. Carvel  |  April 18, 2010 at 7:04 pm

      Doctors take an oath to help people and to do no harm. Doctors can not refuse to treat people who need medical care. Elective procedures is another matter. However, if the hospital serves the public and takes federal funds, then they probably have problems.

      Reply
  • 133. Joel  |  April 17, 2010 at 8:44 am

    What good is being able to visit my husband in hospital, if I can’t get to the hospital in the first place? I’m talking about FMLA, of course, and the ability of a married person to absent himself from work to care for an ailing spouse without fear of losing his job for attendance violations.

    Reply
  • 134. Jason  |  April 17, 2010 at 12:42 pm

    I was doing my taxes this year and in California, RDPs have to file as such. In order to do this, my tax software has me make a bogus “married” federal return to facilitate the state “Domestic Partner” status return. I got a real federal slap in the face when I saw the results:

    Federal refund for single (which is what all same sex married couples have to file) = $257.00

    Federal refund for married status = $2,227.00

    You can still see the red hand print on my face.

    Reply
    • 135. Carvel  |  April 17, 2010 at 2:48 pm

      I think that I would have filed married and then defied them to challange it. By the time they did, the Supreme Court would have spoken on the issue. After all, the Supreme Court in the 1992 case of Romer v. Evans struck down a Colorado State Constitutional Amendment. The state’s voters in 1992 passed an amendment to the state constitution that nullified local anti-discrimination protections for homosexuals and prohibited passage of any such anti-discrimination laws in the future. This sounds like DOMA before DOMA was ever thought about. The Supreme Court in a 6-3 vots held that the Colorado amendment violated the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection of law. The court stated, “A state cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws,…” Justice Kennedy wrote, “…the amendment imposes a special disability upon …” homosexuals who are then, “forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without restraint.”

      I really don’t think that people who are validly married under a state law can not be given the same treatment under federal law. How can you sat that the states can control marriage and then say that the federal governemnt can write the laws for the states and invalidate the laws of the state. I understand stating that the federal government can extend rights to citizens tht the state wants to take away from them. I can not understand that rights that the citizens of a state have are declared unvalid because you are same sex married. the federal government can not really do that and we need a challange to that law.

      Reply
  • 136. David Kimble  |  April 17, 2010 at 3:44 pm

    Reading the comments here is enlightening. It is amazing the cooperation shown to everyone! Woohoo!
    Reading about the discovery issues leads me to believe these items are merely delaying tactics by the Prop8 side. Something they are very good at doing. I doubt seriously the documents they have requested from the ACLU and EQCA will yeild little usable evidence they seek. With that said, I am still intrigued by their moxey! (Oh I forgot they have God on their side – chuckles). <3 David

    Reply
  • 137. Kathleen  |  April 17, 2010 at 4:22 pm

    Michael Ginsborg has a post on yesterday’s filings at his blog. There are also links to the relevant documents.
    http://prop8legalcommentary.blogspot.com/2010/04/prop-8-proponents-in-perry-case-seek.html

    Reply
  • 138. Kathleen  |  April 17, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    UPDATE:
    Walker issued an ORDER giving the everyone until April 22 to resolve the outstanding discovery issues.

    From the order: “the court finds it appropriate to allow the parties and nonparties until April 22, 2010 to confer and negotiate in order to reach a stipulation that will resolve remaining discovery issues. In the event the parties and nonparties are unable to reach a resolution of these issues, they are DIRECTED to inform the court in writing, either jointly or separately, not later than 5 PM PDT on April 22,
    2010.”

    Reply
    • 139. Andrea  |  April 19, 2010 at 11:39 am

      If EQCA is willing to back down, then the original assertion of “irrelevance” was disingenuous. If they won’t back down, this “negotiation” will have been disingenuous.

      Decisions, decisions!

      Reply
    • 140. Kathleen  |  April 19, 2010 at 1:00 pm

      I don’t know that agreeing to a compromise means the original claims of irrelevance and privilege were disingenuous — but rather, an indication that they’re willing to turn over the documents (while continuing to claim they should not be compelled to) in order to move along the proceedings. The compromise ACLU/EQCA offered was a modification of the order that would be in line with what the 9th Circuit discussed in their 4/12 decision — a suggestion that there may be some appealable error in the order.

      Reply
  • 141. Ronnie  |  April 17, 2010 at 7:44 pm

    Ok so I just took a peak in at NOM’s blog…..because I’m bored and you know because I felt like torturing myself…..

    apparently there’s something going on with DOMA

    but get this little snippet…..

    “Even under the most generous interpretation, it’s a clear violation of federal law. The Defense of Marriage Act states that for all purposes of federal law (including laws, rules, regulations and interpretations), “the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

    (me) ummm……no?!

    1. Marriage Equality is legal in D.C. and other states….soooo…whether you like it or not they are spouses.

    2. Main Entry: 1spouse
    Pronunciation: \ˈspau̇s also ˈspau̇z\
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French espus (masculine) & espuse (feminine), from Latin sponsus betrothed man, groom & sponsa betrothed woman, bride, both from sponsus, past participle of spondēre to promise, betroth; akin to Greek spendein to pour a libation, Hittite šipant-
    Date: 13th century
    : married person : husband, wife
    — spou·sal \ˈspau̇-zəl, -səl\ adjective

    (me) Notice it does NOT say anything about husband of a woman or wife of a man…..WORDING….wording is key when it comes to law…..the “well that’s what we meant” defense doesn’t hold up….sorry but it doesn’t FOOLS!!!

    3. Dear NOM you do know that telling people that they can not use or say the word “spouse” as well as using and passing unconstitutional laws forcing people to not use or say the word “spouse” is a violation of freedom of speech?……but I guess you Hateros are allowed to violate that law but we can’t….hypocrite nazis……<3….Ronnie

    Reply
    • 142. Ronnie  |  April 17, 2010 at 7:56 pm

      oh and that definition is from Webster’s Dictionary…..<3…Ronnie

      Reply
    • 143. Carvel  |  April 19, 2010 at 8:45 pm

      Just because same sex marriage is legal in DC and in some states, does not mean that marriage equity is legal in DC. Actually it means that the state recognizes it, but nothing covered by federal law recognizes it. So if you work for the federal government in DC and are in a SSM, then your employer will not recognize your marriage.

      Still, if you are in an SSM in DC, live in DC and work for say the District police department, they may recognize your marriage, but your employer’s health insurance company may not and the retirement system may not. If they are federally insured, then many banks and other organizations may not recognize your marriage.

      What makes their position (the anti marriage equality people – and I use the term people liberally) so silly is that If you have a SSM in DC, work for the federal government, any state and local tax laws will recognize your marriage, but your federal returns will not recognize your marriage.

      The way they want this to work, will just not work. They don’t care, they just want to fight the war on each and every front. They just don’t get it. Suppose we said that the Jews created marriage as a religious institution and therefore anyone who is not a Jew could not be really married. They certainly would not like that. These people claim they own the term marriage and they do not. These people are just absurd.

      Reply
      • 144. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  April 20, 2010 at 3:25 am

        Carvel, in a way, you are right. Jews may not have necessarily invented marriage, but I found out from my husband, who is a Lubavitcher rabbi by profession (retired), that the Jews have a legally binding contract in marriage, called a ketubah, that lays out the specifics of how a man is to treat his spouse, and if any of these are violated, the spouse can take the man to court, and it will be recognized. And it is very specific as to what constitutes the actions to validate the words love, honor, and cherish.

        Reply
  • 145. Kathleen  |  April 17, 2010 at 8:07 pm

    Ronnie, this might be what has NOM’s knickers in a twist.

    New challenge to federal DOMA filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco
    http://prop8legalcommentary.blogspot.com/search/label/Dragovich%20v.%20U.S.%20Dept.%20Treasury

    Reply
    • 146. Ronnie  |  April 17, 2010 at 8:16 pm

      NOM needs to get a life other then the sad pathetic miserables one they have….<3….Ronnie

      Reply
  • 147. Ronnie  |  April 18, 2010 at 8:06 am

    Good morning, afternoon, evening trackers

    I wanted to share some funny stuff with you….It certainly brightened my day…..I went back to the FB page to send a message to some of those Hateros…This one in particular….I called a her Nazi after I saw the things she posted on the page’s wall….here is her reply:

    “i feel sorry for you, I an not a notzi, i am a god fearing woman, I pray for you in the name of jesus. I love you god bless you. 8-)”

    1. She can’t spell Nazi…even if it is right in front of her face…..dumb @ss
    2. Clearly she does not fear god (don’t God fearing people capitalize his/her name) because she passes judgement onto other people…Matthew 7:1
    3. The named jesus is supposed to be capitalized…no respect for your one and only savior.
    4. Yeah I love you too b!tch, like a coffee stain on a brand new white D&G button down shirt….OMG cringe….I’ll just dye it….problem solved….by the way you didn’t capitalize the “g” in god bless…face in palms.
    5. She deleted her FB right after she sent the message….COWARD!!!…..<3…Ronnie

    Reply
    • 148. Ray in MA  |  April 18, 2010 at 12:35 pm

      Actually, #5, Ronzo, she probably ‘blocked’ you, and so it will appear that she disappeared into thin air (or floated up to heaven! LOL)

      Reply
      • 149. Kathleen  |  April 18, 2010 at 12:51 pm

        Am I allowed to hope that their belief in the Rapture is enough to make it so, and that it will come soon so all these nutters will be whisked away in the very near future? The world will be such a better place without them.

        Reply
      • 150. Ronnie  |  April 18, 2010 at 1:05 pm

        No Because I was still able to see her reply and all of her comments on the wall are gone and the message on FB says that it doesn’t exist…when I used an old FB i had under a different email, when FB first started…..she’s a coward…..<3…Ronnie

        Reply
      • 151. Ronnie  |  April 18, 2010 at 1:23 pm

        Kathleen…the rapture cannot happen any sooner….in my honest Gay opinion…Then the country and the world truly will be free and all human created equal….<3…Ronnie

        Reply
    • 152. Ray in MA  |  April 18, 2010 at 1:27 pm

      I had an ‘interlude’ on FB similar to yours and then ‘puff’ she was no where to be seen!

      Kathleen…LOL ‘wisked away’ soundz too easy tho! we’d be better off for sure…

      Reply
  • 153. Billy  |  April 18, 2010 at 1:25 pm

    OT

    Hey everyone, sorry I have been semi-absent the last few days, but my Mom passed away Friday night at the hospital after a painful battle with diabetes/heart disease. She finally refused all treatment and was just on oxygen the last few hours. I stayed until it got too painful to watch, but my dad was there the entire time. Just wanted to say thanks to everyone who kept me in mind during this tough time.

    Reply
    • 154. Bob  |  April 18, 2010 at 1:44 pm

      Sorry to hear that Billy, I’ve been wondering,, about your absence. thanks for letting us know, sending love

      Reply
    • 155. Ronnie  |  April 18, 2010 at 1:45 pm

      I’m so sorry, Billy….. My mom has a mild case of diabetes she’s very healthy though, but I worry you know?…..So I dedicate this song to you and your mother……<3…Ronnie:

      Reply
      • 156. Ronnie  |  April 18, 2010 at 1:46 pm

        The song is “Remember the Magic” by Brian McKnight….<3…Ronnie

        Reply
    • 157. Kathleen  |  April 18, 2010 at 1:47 pm

      My sincere condolences, Billy. I’ve been worried that I haven’t seen you here.

      It’s so hard to lose a parent. My thoughts are with you.

      Reply
    • 158. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  April 18, 2010 at 3:03 pm

      And you will remain in our thoughts and prayers, not only you but your entire family. As Kathleen says, it is hard to lose a parent, especially when you are close to them.

      Reply
      • 159. Carvel  |  April 20, 2010 at 8:26 am

        To Richard A. – Thank you for your thoughts on the Jews originating religious marriage. I am certain that marriage predated the Jews. However, they were believed to be the first major religion that believed in a one all powerful God as opposed to a collection of gods. therefore, it could be argued that they invented religious marriage. You know that the Christians believe that they invented marriage and that it therefore must conform to their religion. I could not respond to your response earlier as there was no reply button. So I found another post that you made. I tried to be careful and said that the Jew may have created religious marriage, because being Pagan is not a recognized religion I think, but more a classification as being not a Christian, Muslum or a Jew. I am not even sure that is correct. So the Jews might be the first surviving religion to have created RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE as opposed to just civil marriage. I really don’t know and would not know how you could even find out. Better yet, how could the Christians prove they invented and therefore had the right to define marriage. Besides, if marriage is a religious concept, then why in the world is it in secular or civil law. Not even Civil law, but law governing civil as opposed to religious laws and institutions.

        However, what gets me is that the Christian right believes that they invented marriage and that we are hijacking the term and redefinning it when it was the Christians who forced the Roman Empire to stop celebrating same sex marriages. They had SSM called marriages before the birth of Jesus Christ.

        I am not trying to ridicule the Christians or anyone, but trying to defuse their rhetoric against us. They are the ones who tried to redefine marriage just under 2,000 years ago and the Roman Emperor accepted it to use it as a weapon against his enemies. They use their own misunderstandings as a weapon against us and when shown the light of logic and the light of day of their faulty reasoning, just refuse to see it.

        I find it amusing that Sabrina the Teenage Witch comes on the same channel here just before the 700 club. Seems to me that they would not want to be on the same network as witches. Witches are specifically mentioned in the Bible as something we sould not let suffer to live among us. It seems that they do not go after divorced people either. I might be the first to stand up and be counted and to throw the first stone against them. No, I am not perfect, but i am tired of them judging us.

        I awoke to the 700 club broadcasting against ENDA because it would not allow schools to fire sexual devients. (I had been watching Sabrina when I dozed off.) It might force Christian businesses to retain people that practiced devient sexual practices if they had 15 or more employees. Why not, the Catholic church seems to think that pedophiles can make good priests and gives them access to little children and protects them from the secular law.

        The world seems to have gone mad where they inflame everyone against us and then hide behind their cloak of religious freedom and their right to hate me and preach against me and my kind.

        It was once thought that the Bible advocated slavery and many churches advocated the continuation of slavery in America. (To the credit of some intelligent people many good churches did not too.) If we exempt churches from antidiscrimination statutes when employing over 15 persons) does this mean that churches can fire Blacks and Latinos just because they do not like them. I think not. They claim you can not get rid of sexual devient teachers in the churches or in public schools. You have always had methods in the system of getting rid of teachers that were BAD teachers. You just can’t use sexual orientation or SSM as a reason to fire an otherwise good teacher.

        We would not allow a religious school to teach that Blacks are cursed by God and allow them to get away with firing all Black teachers. They are crying wolf just too many times. We need to protect the children from sexual preditators. Most sexual molestations of little girls are by heterosexual men. Most sexual molestations against little boys are not by openly gay men. They should check the studies. Oh, I forgot, science teaches against creation therefore science is all wrong in everything. According to them the Sun still revolves around the Earth I suppose. Devine design just doesn’ seem to account to the biodiversity and the other things that just happen to be going on in the real world. Oh, I forgot it is all Satin’s work. When will these people just leave us alone. I am sorry for my ranting and raving.

        On a lighter note I gather from your name that you will be married soon. You need to tell us about it.

        Reply
    • 160. Billy  |  April 18, 2010 at 4:04 pm

      Thanks everyone.

      If anyone knows a poster named biff here, he’s my boyfriend. He really helped me out a lot by staying there with me at the hospital. My Mom always called him her second son.

      Reply
      • 161. Kathleen  |  April 18, 2010 at 4:10 pm

        I’m glad you’ve had someone with you through this terribly sad and difficult time.

        Reply
    • 162. David Kimble  |  April 18, 2010 at 6:43 pm

      I wanted to add my name to your condolence list, Billy! I am so sorry to hear you lost your mother. Mother’s are special people in our lives. I hope you will have the support you need to help you through this difficult time.
      <3 David

      Reply
    • 163. Carvel  |  April 18, 2010 at 7:12 pm

      Regardless of your religion and your belief in God, we all wish the best for you and to your mother. This is a difficult time for you. However, regardless of the heterosexual hate that is preached in the name of God tells you God said, I just do not believe that if there is a God, which is of course a personal decision, that God is as hateful and vindictivee as they say he/she is. The God that i believe in is loving and caring and your mother is in his hands now. We all share your pain at your loss, but know that you are the living tribute to her love and care of good things.

      Reply
    • 164. fiona64  |  April 19, 2010 at 9:33 am

      Oh, Billy. My sincere condolences on your loss. My thoughts are with you and your family.

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
    • 165. Straight Grandmother  |  April 19, 2010 at 2:57 pm

      Billy I am very sory to hear about your mom’s passing. My thoughts are with you at this time.

      Reply
  • 166. Ronnie  |  April 18, 2010 at 3:38 pm

    So I just joined this new FB group…its ok…and you can always ignore and block people….but I came up with this new little ditty that we can use to overpower (I mean enlighten and educated) the Hateros…..

    “According to the “Breeders Informational Book of Living Examples….aka…the B.I.B.L.E.”…..”God” made all life on Earth….and like all plants, animals, earth, and everything this wonderful planet has to offer, humans evolve into several different beauties…its called diversity and that is what makes our home so beautiful…therefore it is safe to say that he/she/it made Adam & Steve as well as Adamina & Eve and Adam & Eve”…..copyright ~ Ronnie Mc

    interesting note: Adamina is Hebrew for “daughter of the Earth….

    I love it….I love Hype….<3…Ronnie

    Reply
  • 167. Ronnie  |  April 18, 2010 at 7:09 pm

    Ok so I posted this on this FB page called “Freedom Fighters for Equality”…to one of its fans…although to be honest I don’t know why somebody would become a fan of something or someone just to harass them or say negative things…kind’ve an oxyMORON yeah?….Being a fan means you like something/someone….unless you’re a stalker…then you’re just crazy or a clown…..anyway here is what I wrote.

    “(person’s name here) it doesn’t really matter what your religious beliefs, political beliefs. personal opinions are. What does matter is that if another person’s life does not affect your life in a negative, physical, or is life threatening in any way you or anybody else have NO right to control what other people do, say, wear, live, marry, work, worship ect ect ect.

    America is supposed to be the land of the free not the land of the free to be like me. Passing laws that say you cannot do this (only if “this” is not life threatening) is a violation of the constitution and all that America stands for. All people are created equal and are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It says WE the people not Me the people or We the straight people. Wording is key when it comes to law. The lack of wording is why Equality WILL happen on every level of what this rights movement is fighting for.

    Keep your O.P. all you want it doesn’t change what is about to come. Just contemplate this, when this is written into the history books, and mark my words it will, do you want to be on the side of the oppressors in the company of the Red Coats, Nazis, Triple K, The white people who nearly wiped out the Native Americans, those who hanged innocent people in Salem, the Confederates, the slave owners, those who opposed interracial marriage and women’s rights? Or do you want to be on the side of those who fought for all that makes humanity beautiful; Love, Empathy, Compassion, Equality, Freedom, Truth, and Life?

    Same arguments, different subjects. You do have a choice but know this; those who have ever chosen to be on the side of oppression, no matter how big or small, have and will always look like the villain.”…..<3…Ronnie

    Reply
    • 168. PamC  |  April 18, 2010 at 8:35 pm

      Very eloquent, Ronnie! Well said. And true!

      Reply
      • 169. Ronnie  |  April 19, 2010 at 10:26 am

        Thank you PamC…I try….<3…Ronnie

        Reply
  • 170. Pam  |  April 19, 2010 at 7:22 am

    I know this is a small token, but Pres. Obama is keeping the issues out there. He is on our side people.

    I know it’s tax law, but there is another issue that continues to concern me as a long term couple. Having recently experienced a death in the family, we have suddenly become aware of inheritance issues. We have worked hard as a couple to save for retirement…and we’re almost there. When one of us dies, the state (and soon the federal gov’t) can take a huge chunk of it! As a gay couple the responsibility is on us to prove who made what money (we keep it all joint). We as a gay couple have to write checks to the state and fed gov’t when one dies.

    I hope the next memo from Pres. Obama is to the IRS to recognize our relationships.

    Reply
    • 171. Carvel  |  April 19, 2010 at 12:48 pm

      Obama is not on our side. He could end most of this with one stroke from his pen. He wants us to fight the good fight and win and then he can take the credit for it. That is not courage, that is being a coward in office. Unless he gets off his ass and does something i will vote republican just to prove I don’t like to be lied to. Better that you hate me than to take our money and lie to us. He has the power to end all this and he will not do it. Obama can not issues a memo to the IRS to recognize our relationships because Bill Clinton (also supposed to be our guy) signed DOMA into law and by law they can not recognize our relationship.

      Reply
  • 172. Ronnie  |  April 19, 2010 at 10:26 am

    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/04/19/Smooth_Prom_for_Derrick_Martin_and_Boyfriend/

    Posted on Advocate.com April 19, 2010
    No Prom Drama for Derrick Martin and Boyfriend
    By Julie Bolcer

    Bleckley County High School senior Derrick Martin and his boyfriend, Richard Goodman, celebrated prom Saturday with no complications as they made history in the small town of Cochran, Ga.

    Security was tight for the prom at the high school Saturday, reports The Macon Telegraph.

    “When Martin, 18, and his boyfriend Richard Goodman, also 18, stepped onto a makeshift ‘red carpet’ and their names were announced, a few parents whispered but many in the crowd gave him a loud cheer. No one yelled out in protest.”

    According to the Telegraph, Goodman intends to take Martin to his prom at Tift County High on May 8.

    (me) You see the hateros put up all that fuss and nothing….all talk…no substance…..This is awesome and I’m happy for them…..Congratulations Derrick and Richard….you did good……and they get too have two proms…..SWEET!!!!…..check out their pre-prom photo….they are wearing black tux’s with white ties….and they look good together….I love it…I love hype….<3…Ronnie

    Reply
  • 173. Pam  |  April 20, 2010 at 5:42 am

    Just saw a Cincinnati news article (video available) on how local hospitals will need to change policy regarding same-sex couple visiting rights. It seems Pres. Obama’s expectation isn’t that they simply follow the law and honor established POAs. He also expects same sex couples to be recognized and treated as married couples in the hospital for the purpose of visiting and making decisions. Here is the link to the article: http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story/Obama-Seeks-Same-Sex-Hospital-Rights/hcdDbNYJr0asUGBhqQBp4w.cspx

    We recently had a serious illness and death in our small circle of friends. This friend had designated her ex-partner as her POA over her family. (She was not in a relationship). I just want to say, in Cincinnati of all places, we have had nothing but positive experiences. Yes, the POA is on the chart, but our experience has been that the doctor walks in the room and asks who is in charge and doesn’t bat an eye at discussing life/death decisions with the person who steps forward. That’s also been my experience with my partner of 22 years and another close friend of ours who had no close family. She chose my partner (a friend since college) to be her POA, and the hospitals, nursing home, and Hospice were all wonderful. NEVER a hesitation. I don’t know what the policies are on paper here, but they are certainly doing what is right with no prompting.

    That’s not to say it would be a different story should a difficult family member step in and start making noise. That has never happened to us, thank goodness, so I don’t know how that would pan out.

    BTW, Scott Knox is our attorney and advised us when I changed my last name to my partner’s to celebrate 20 years together. In Ohio, we couldn’t assume the process would go smoothly since a neighboring county had denied a lesbian couple this option indicating they would be committing fraud by trying to pass themselves off as being married. Scott Knox took their case to the Ohio Supreme Court and won! Our process did go smoothly and we were even congratulated by the magistrate. The world is not all bad. The tide is turning, folks. Try not to be so cynical. I know it has been a long battle, but it saddens me to see good news received with such bitterness and anger.

    Love,
    Pam

    Reply
    • 174. Papa Foma  |  April 20, 2010 at 6:59 am

      @Pam

      Even in my small town in Yancey NC….where the hillbillies live the tide is turning. The medical community has not only not even question my relationships with those I choose to be with but every question has been answered positively or with loving indifference…meaning to say, ‘Well of course we accept it! Who’s business is it but your own.’ Love PF

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

Get to know your fellow Prop 8 Trial Trackers on Facebook.

Please send tips to prop8trial@couragecampaign.org

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

Sign-up for updates on the Prop 8 trial, including breaking-news alerts.

Categories

TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,297 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...