<p>um is our collective memory really that short?
Terry Schiavos husband fought( in and out of the courts) with her parents for over a decade over her medical treatment.</p>
<p>I think the rhetoric gets a little out of hand here. Mini gives the impression that gay partners with proper paperwork lose all the time in court on the medical or financial decisionmaking issue. I practice in that area, and I am not familiar with many cases that, say, a golddigging younger (hetero) spouse would not also have lost. (That does not mean, however, that there may not be unreported decisions in which a prejudiced lower-court judge gives the partner a hard time.) In the vast, vast majority of cases, hospitals respect clear paperwork, and there is no judicial involvement ever. And/or the biological family and non-married partner respect each other and cooperate in the way (sometimes uneasy) that in-laws and spouses have always co-operated. </p>
<p>The problem comes up when there is no paperwork, or the hospital doesn’t have it, and the family-partner relationship is bad. That’s when the partner can be cut out, temporarily or permanently, or be forced to “share” decisionmaking with the biological family. And if there is a challenge of some kind, the partner loses – money, time, grief – even if he or she is successful in court.</p>
<p>A spouse, on the other hand, will always be acknowledged and dealt with by hospitals and doctors unless there is 100% clear documentation that that’s not what the patient wanted.</p>
<p>
I assume this was tongue in cheek - but it does bring up an area I have actual experience in.</p>
<p>What people who oppose gay marriage tend to overlook is the fact that marriage is a prepackaged set of rights, duties and obligations between two people which has been refined and honed over the years as a result of our experience with what works best and is fairest for most people. We have established procedures and systems to deal with the problems that arise in everyday life. Mini has referred to medical decisions. My experience comes from the courthouse, in cases where an unmarried couple splits up. If they were married, there’s a system designed to deal with the messy conflict. It’s far from perfect, but for the multitude of issues - emotional, financial, family, etc. - which arise in such a situation, the process has experience and a set of procedures to cope in an organized way.</p>
<p>Unmarried couples - gay and straight, since not all heterosexual couples elect to get married - don’t have the opportunity to use that system. And the result is a mess. I’ve been called in to work on cases of this nature (gay and straight) and believe me, the inability to call on the resources of a system designed to handle all those issues makes everything harder and more expensive and more destructive to everyone involved - including the kids (people keep glossing over the fact that gay people have kids, too.)</p>
<p>Thanks, kluge. I was trying to make the same point yesterday.</p>
<p>In fact, the current system is much better for lawyers. With or without same-sex marriage, gay people will get together and break up at about the same rate. Marriage might reduce the number of break-ups slightly, but I don’t think anyone would predict a big difference. But the current system makes break-ups of a longterm couple with children very difficult and much more expensive than it would be if they were married. Which means more lawyers, more lawyer time, and higher bills . . . and less rent, heat, food, health care and education for the kids.</p>
<p>“Interesting” how they kept Fordham’s testimony under wraps, as if it is a matter of “national security”. ;)</p>
<p>I guess I can bow back in now that we are back on topic. Here is a great source for the facts about the Foley case. Debunks a lot of the myths that are out there: <a href=“http://mediamatters.org/items/200610110009[/url]”>http://mediamatters.org/items/200610110009</a></p>
<p>So many of the worst lies aren’t going challenged by the mainstream media. To me, one of the most blatent is that the Republicans “forced” Foley to resign. It makes me so angry to see some politician claim this as a fact and the media report this claim–without mentioning that even Hastert himself has admitted that the party had nothing to do with it. They were just as surprised by Foley’s resignation as everyone else.</p>
<p>Isnt it funny that almost this exact thing happened with Democrat Gerry Studds, BUT he wasnt forced to resign. Not only didnt he resign, he never apologized, and he was elected to 7 more terms. The democratic party… truly the party of values…</p>
<p>No one forced Foley to resign. He decided to resign on his own.</p>
<p>oh c’mon… you know as well as I do that if he didnt resign the democrats and republicans alike would be on his back forcing him to.</p>
<p>The Republican’s can’t even get Ney to resign when he’s on the way to prison.</p>
<p>Collegedude,</p>
<p>Studds’ death was reported yesterday on CNN. I guess we know what direction he’s going, pedophile that he was…</p>
<p>Which direction?</p>
<p>Times were different in Studds day. Things are better now, at least in that department.</p>
<p>Motherdear:</p>
<p>“Judge not, lest ye be judged.”</p>
<p>“Love thine enemies.”</p>
<p>Your post committing Studds to he** make me cringe. </p>
<p>Nowhere in the Bible do I see Jesus celebrating anyone’s death.</p>