Gay couple visitation. Who complains first?

[Tekania]

Don't know about first, but here's a complaint from the Family Research Council:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... c=fb&cc=fp

J.P. Duffy, vice president for communications at the Family Research Council, said Obama is pandering to a radical special interest group.

"There are many other ways to deal with this issue, whether through a health care proxy or power of attorney, through private contractual arrangements. We have no problem with those situations," Duffy said, "but the fact here is that this is undermining the definition of marriage."

Compassion undermines the definition of marriage?

You've never been introduced to the FRC I see.

[JuNii]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/15/hospital.gay.visitation/index.html?hpt=C1

Barack Obama is ordering the Dept of Health and Human Services to require that all hospitals that receive federal money must allow broader visitation rules that would allow patients to choose who can visit.

So the question I'm wondering is this: Which public talking head is going to attack this first?

huh? you mean this ISN'T being done? here, the patients can say who can visit (family, Friends, etc) them in the Hospital...

*Imgaines*

It isn't being done everywhere. For example, in the article it describes a couple in Miami who were kept apart by hospital regulations until after the loved one died and the sister arrived to be given information to relay to the spouse.

Which is totally weird to me. because "Spouse" would fall under family.

Mainlanders... *shakes head*

[JuNii]

Don't know about first, but here's a complaint from the Family Research Council:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... c=fb&cc=fp

J.P. Duffy, vice president for communications at the Family Research Council, said Obama is pandering to a radical special interest group.

"There are many other ways to deal with this issue, whether through a health care proxy or power of attorney, through private contractual arrangements. We have no problem with those situations," Duffy said, "but the fact here is that this is undermining the definition of marriage."

Compassion undermines the definition of marriage?

Of course LG... I mean, who gets married due to LOVE these days. they only get Married to get the tax breaks!

[Noravea]

Although I'm a Republican, I admit I like this, but only cause I'm Gay.

[Tmutarakhan]

Which is totally weird to me. because "Spouse" would fall under family.

Not if it's one of them-there heathenish same-sex marriages.

[Maurepas]

The fact that they couldn't already do it has always been kind of disturbing to me...

[JuNii]

Which is totally weird to me. because "Spouse" would fall under family.

Not if it's one of them-there heathenish same-sex marriages.

if it's legal, then it don't matter if it's Heathenish.

[Dempublicents1]

Don't know about first, but here's a complaint from the Family Research Council:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... c=fb&cc=fp

J.P. Duffy, vice president for communications at the Family Research Council, said Obama is pandering to a radical special interest group.

"There are many other ways to deal with this issue, whether through a health care proxy or power of attorney, through private contractual arrangements. We have no problem with those situations," Duffy said, "but the fact here is that this is undermining the definition of marriage."

You know, if the definition of marriage is "NO GAYZ ALLOWED", then I can live with it being undermined.

Well, me too. But I'm struggling with figuring out how the hell this would do any such thing, even if that were the definition.

[Maurepas]

Don't know about first, but here's a complaint from the Family Research Council:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... c=fb&cc=fp

J.P. Duffy, vice president for communications at the Family Research Council, said Obama is pandering to a radical special interest group.

"There are many other ways to deal with this issue, whether through a health care proxy or power of attorney, through private contractual arrangements. We have no problem with those situations," Duffy said, "but the fact here is that this is undermining the definition of marriage."

You know, if the definition of marriage is "NO GAYZ ALLOWED", then I can live with it being undermined.

Well, me too. But I'm struggling with figuring out how the hell this would do any such thing, even if that were the definition.

Anything that even hints at equality on the issue undermines their bigotry,

[Dempublicents1]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/15/hospital.gay.visitation/index.html?hpt=C1

Barack Obama is ordering the Dept of Health and Human Services to require that all hospitals that receive federal money must allow broader visitation rules that would allow patients to choose who can visit.

So the question I'm wondering is this: Which public talking head is going to attack this first?

huh? you mean this ISN'T being done? here, the patients can say who can visit (family, Friends, etc) them in the Hospital...

*Imgaines*

It isn't being done everywhere. For example, in the article it describes a couple in Miami who were kept apart by hospital regulations until after the loved one died and the sister arrived to be given information to relay to the spouse.

Which is totally weird to me. because "Spouse" would fall under family.

Mainlanders... *shakes head*

Not in Florida if the spouse happens to have the same genitalia as the patient.

[The Lone Alliance]

Whenever I went to hospital, people just walked to the ward desk and asked to see me.

In England.

Sure, you live in a decadent socialist European country with evil socialized medicine. How long did you have to wait to get you heart transplant, hmm?

Socialists don't have hearts, silly.

No that quote about Socialism clearly states that Socialists have hearts... Just no brains.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/15/hospital.gay.visitation/index.html?hpt=C1

Barack Obama is ordering the Dept of Health and Human Services to require that all hospitals that receive federal money must allow broader visitation rules that would allow patients to choose who can visit.

So the question I'm wondering is this: Which public talking head is going to attack this first?

huh? you mean this ISN'T being done? here, the patients can say who can visit (family, Friends, etc) them in the Hospital...

*Imgaines*

It isn't being done everywhere. For example, in the article it describes a couple in Miami who were kept apart by hospital regulations until after the loved one died and the sister arrived to be given information to relay to the spouse.

Which is totally weird to me. because "Spouse" would fall under family.

Mainlanders... *shakes head*

Not if they're teh gheys.

[United Dependencies]

ME! No not really. I dunno probably which ever conservative hears it first.

[Muravyets]

Don't know about first, but here's a complaint from the Family Research Council:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... c=fb&cc=fp

J.P. Duffy, vice president for communications at the Family Research Council, said Obama is pandering to a radical special interest group.

"There are many other ways to deal with this issue, whether through a health care proxy or power of attorney, through private contractual arrangements. We have no problem with those situations," Duffy said, "but the fact here is that this is undermining the definition of marriage."

Compassion undermines the definition of marriage?

Sounds like the set up for a comedy routine.

[Gauthier]

Don't know about first, but here's a complaint from the Family Research Council:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... c=fb&cc=fp

J.P. Duffy, vice president for communications at the Family Research Council, said Obama is pandering to a radical special interest group.

"There are many other ways to deal with this issue, whether through a health care proxy or power of attorney, through private contractual arrangements. We have no problem with those situations," Duffy said, "but the fact here is that this is undermining the definition of marriage."

Compassion undermines the definition of marriage?

Sounds like the set up for a comedy routine.

Think of the damage that would be inflicted on children if episodes of Cops showed gay domestic disputes!

[The Black Forrest]

Don't know about first, but here's a complaint from the Family Research Council:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... c=fb&cc=fp

J.P. Duffy, vice president for communications at the Family Research Council, said Obama is pandering to a radical special interest group.

"There are many other ways to deal with this issue, whether through a health care proxy or power of attorney, through private contractual arrangements. We have no problem with those situations," Duffy said, "but the fact here is that this is undermining the definition of marriage."

You know, if the definition of marriage is "NO GAYZ ALLOWED", then I can live with it being undermined.

Well, me too. But I'm struggling with figuring out how the hell this would do any such thing, even if that were the definition.

Anything that even hints at equality on the issue undermines their bigotry,

No no no no! They are trying to protect people! Hospitals are full of sick people. The gay cooties could take hold easier when the immune systems are weak!

[Gauthier]

No no no no! They are trying to protect people! Hospitals are full of sick people. The gay cooties could take hold easier when the immune systems are weak!

Why do you think AIDS was first discovered amongst gays?

[Assassinistan]

Compassion has no place in the sacred Christian sacrament of marriage. "Compassion? Fuck that shit, man" - Jesus

[The Corparation]

No no no no! They are trying to protect people! Hospitals are full of sick people. The gay cooties could take hold easier when the immune systems are weak!

Why do you think AIDS was first discovered amongst gays?

Source?

[Herolandia]

No no no no! They are trying to protect people! Hospitals are full of sick people. The gay cooties could take hold easier when the immune systems are weak!

Why do you think AIDS was first discovered amongst gays?

Source?

The fuck aids wasnt discovered in gays first, a man had sex with a monkey...thats what happend.

On the story - I can visit whoever I like when go to see them in hospital - Yet ANOTHER reason I am glad to be English

[WWII History Geeks]

Me. I don't like it, rules are rules.

[Ifreann]

No no no no! They are trying to protect people! Hospitals are full of sick people. The gay cooties could take hold easier when the immune systems are weak!

Why do you think AIDS was first discovered amongst gays?

The Jew controlled government created it in an attempt to save us from the gay menace.

[Cennazluga]

The criticism should come from the left. Obama could have ordered this on his first day on the job. Why is he only now forthcoming with this "direction"?

Yes he could have and should have. Especially since he was supposedly inspired by the case of Janice Langbehn and her late Partner Lisa Pond from 2007. 3 years ago, one before he was President!

Also this directive is no more than an polite admonishment for the healthcare community. And I quote:

"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."

I sincerely hope this isn't some cynical consolation prize in the place of ENDA*, which should have been an easy pass as well.

But no we've got the wingnuts badgering Congress warning that ENDA would protect people with stump fetishes who want to molest veteran amputees.

"What are those 'isms' and 'philias'? You can be aroused by stumps of amputees. And we brought that up during the hate crimes thing because what if you have an employee working at the VA and someone has just come back from Iraq and they have this orientation. You can't fire them. What about the family that's upset that they've been aroused by their family member? It's disgusting. And it's tragic for the victim. Um, men that want to rub their bodies up and down women. That's on the list, that might become a protected class. Fecal matter. Their involvement with fecal matter. Or urine. Transvestism. The list goes on, I'm not naming all of them. Children. Animals. And so we really need to draw a line in the sand."

OMFG I can't believe how insanely frustrating it is to have to admit to being a citizen of this crazy country. Thanks, but no thanks Obama. So much for being the "fierce advocate" you once aspired to be.

*Employment Non-Discrimination Act

[Gauthier]

The criticism should come from the left. Obama could have ordered this on his first day on the job. Why is he only now forthcoming with this "direction"?

Yes he could have and should have. Especially since he was supposedly inspired by the case of Janice Langbehn and her late Partner Lisa Pond from 2007. 3 years ago, one before he was President!

Also this directive is no more than an polite admonishment for the healthcare community. And I quote:

"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."

I sincerely hope this isn't some cynical consolation prize in the place of ENDA*, which should have been an easy pass as well.

But no we've got the wingnuts badgering Congress warning that ENDA would protect people with stump fetishes who want to molest veteran amputees.

"What are those 'isms' and 'philias'? You can be aroused by stumps of amputees. And we brought that up during the hate crimes thing because what if you have an employee working at the VA and someone has just come back from Iraq and they have this orientation. You can't fire them. What about the family that's upset that they've been aroused by their family member? It's disgusting. And it's tragic for the victim. Um, men that want to rub their bodies up and down women. That's on the list, that might become a protected class. Fecal matter. Their involvement with fecal matter. Or urine. Transvestism. The list goes on, I'm not naming all of them. Children. Animals. And so we really need to draw a line in the sand."

OMFG I can't believe how insanely frustrating it is to have to admit to being a citizen of this crazy country. Thanks, but no thanks Obama. So much for being the "fierce advocate" you once aspired to be.

*Employment Non-Discrimination Act

And again the same exact kind of bitching directed at Obama over health care reform overlooks the source of the problem: Congress. Much as Obama would like to, he can't make the bills, he can only sign them into law or veto them. Blame the spineless Democrats in the House and Senate who've constantly bent over and taken it from the Republicans for the lack of progress you're whining about. God knows we'd have an uproar if the President could suddenly decide to create laws, and the Republicans start screaming "Imperial Presidency" nevermind they ignored the same from the previous administration.

[Assassinistan]

No no no no! They are trying to protect people! Hospitals are full of sick people. The gay cooties could take hold easier when the immune systems are weak!

Why do you think AIDS was first discovered amongst gays?

Source?

The fuck aids wasnt discovered in gays first, a man had sex with a monkey...thats what happend.

On the story - I can visit whoever I like when go to see them in hospital - Yet ANOTHER reason I am glad to be English

Actually, I read in National Geographic that Africans are getting aids from eating wild monkey meat, which is less awesome than it sounds.
And all the sex tourists who go to Africa are bringing it all back home to the West.

Also, this video is on-topic and funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NI-jHJdky_g