Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 31
Reply To Thread

The problem with "domestic partnership"Follow

#1 Apr 23 2009 at 6:38 AM Rating: Excellent
***
3,829 posts
Nurse denies gay man the right to be by his legally registered domestic partners side in ICU


Quote:
In June 2008, they registered their domestic partnership. "It's very comforting to make a commitment where you know someone wants to be with you for eternity,'' Patrick said Tuesday.

And even more comforting if everyone else knows what a "domestic partnership" means, too. They were told it would convey legal protections under state law roughly equivalent to those of spouses. But gatekeepers actually get to define the term. In a moment of crisis, earth-shaking decisions can depend on what the gatekeepers know.

Or think they know.

Last week, a nurse in Oregon Health & Science University's intensive care unit shut the gate on Patrick. The nurse said he couldn't go into the intensive care unit to be with Luis, even though Luis at that moment was not expected to live.

Patrick took Luis to OHSU, and not only was he admitted to intensive care, Luis had to be placed on a ventilator. On Tuesday, April 14, things became very, very dicey. Luis was out of it. It was just at that moment that a nurse refused to let Patrick back into Luis's room. "We shouldn't have you in the room as his friend," the nurse told Patrick. "Do you know how I reach his next of kin?"

"I'm his registered domestic partner,'' Patrick told her. "Same as husband and wife." But the nurse was insistent that only a family member could fill out the forms and make the decisions that needed to be made for Luis.

<snip>

Nevertheless, the fact that it was OHSU makes what happened even more shocking. If a nurse at one of the most progressive institutions in our state is confused about what a domestic partnership means, what does that say about the likelihood of confusion at other hospitals?

And what does it say about the rough equivalence of domestic partnership and marriage?

We know what one conveys. Among other things, instant access into an ICU.

The other one, at a time when a relationship matters most, and life is most fragile, can crumble into a piece of paper no one really understands. It can lock the door.


So much for the golden solution of civil unions and domestic partnerships as proposed by those who want gay couplings to fall into the "separate yet equal" category.

The fact is "roughly equivalent" isn't even close to being good enough if it leaves any gray area whatsoever in which--either through ignorance or malice--a life partner may not be recognized in an emergent situation. Had Patrick been able to say "I'm Luis's husband" this would not have happened.
#2 Apr 23 2009 at 6:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
Be careful Ambrya...there's a storm brewing.

ETA: Probably less funny if you haven't seen the original, serious ad, haha.

Nexa

Edited, Apr 23rd 2009 11:02am by Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#3 Apr 23 2009 at 7:03 AM Rating: Excellent
That situation is straight out of my nightmares.

Nexa wrote:
ETA: Probably less funny if you haven't seen the original, serious ad, haha.
Oh wow. I didn't know there was a real commercial. That's more hilarious than the parody.

Edited, Apr 23rd 2009 10:05am by NixNot
#4 Apr 23 2009 at 7:06 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Nexa wrote:
Be careful Ambrya...there's a storm brewing.
Hahaha:D







Edited, Apr 23rd 2009 5:08pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#5 Apr 23 2009 at 7:14 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,952 posts
NixNot wrote:
That situation is straight out of my nightmares.

Smiley: cry

No, really. I'm a bit teary thinking of you trapped in a corridor unable to get to Leo. Smiley: cry
#6 Apr 23 2009 at 7:15 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
NixNot wrote:
That situation is straight out of my nightmares.

Smiley: cry

No, really. I'm a bit teary thinking of you trapped in a corridor unable to get to Leo. Smiley: cry
...and here I was picturing him falling out of the sky and landing on the point of the giant ghey-repelling umbrella.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#7 Apr 23 2009 at 7:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
NixNot wrote:
That situation is straight out of my nightmares.

Smiley: cry

No, really. I'm a bit teary thinking of you trapped in a corridor unable to get to Leo. Smiley: cry


And the hospital scenario makes it even worse. Smiley: nod

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#8 Apr 23 2009 at 7:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
NixNot wrote:
That situation is straight out of my nightmares.

Smiley: cry

No, really. I'm a bit teary thinking of you trapped in a corridor unable to get to Leo. Smiley: cry


People ask me all the time if I'm bi, or why I give a ****, and it's because it's half ridiculous and half a human ******* tragedy that anyone should have to go through this because people are clinging to a word.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#9 Apr 23 2009 at 7:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Elinda wrote:
...and here I was picturing him falling out of the sky and landing on the point of the giant ghey-repelling umbrella.
Watch out, we're marching toward you. Well, not so much marching, as dancing. We're dancing toward you. And it's choreographed. And it's good.
#10 Apr 23 2009 at 7:38 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
NixNot wrote:
Elinda wrote:
...and here I was picturing him falling out of the sky and landing on the point of the giant ghey-repelling umbrella.
Watch out, we're marching toward you. Well, not so much marching, as dancing. We're dancing toward you. And it's choreographed. And it's good.
.. it's getting worser and worser.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#11 Apr 23 2009 at 7:47 AM Rating: Good
Nexa wrote:
because people are clinging to a word.


I suppose this is what tweaks me the most about the whole gay marriage thing. I honestly find it difficult to believe (and cope with the fact) that there are people out there who would purposely ruin the lives of others given the chance over the meaning of a stupid silly word.


#12 Apr 23 2009 at 8:15 AM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
NixNot wrote:
Elinda wrote:
...and here I was picturing him falling out of the sky and landing on the point of the giant ghey-repelling umbrella.
Watch out, we're marching toward you. Well, not so much marching, as dancing. We're dancing toward you. And it's choreographed. And it's good.


<3
#13 Apr 23 2009 at 8:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Isn't it stuff like this that went into the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling that said, "Separate is by definition inherantly unequal" ?

Let's scrap marriage, domestic partnership, and civil unions, and use a nice generic term like "social pair" for legal purposes. It's the most scientifically accurate definition of what humans do.
#14 Apr 23 2009 at 8:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
At the risk of blasphemy, I'm not too riled up about this. It sounds like an administrative error. Yes, it could have perhaps been avoided with the word "husband". It also could have been avoided with better training or a nurse who read her policy handbook. The pair involved has every right to be upset but it doesn't strike me as a particularly powerful argument for marriage over some "domestic partnership" version.

Now I'll go completely off the rails and dive right from blasphemy into heresy. I thought the witch hunt against Miss California was uncalled for and kind of disgusting. Besides the ridiculous notion that being against gay marriage makes you less qualified to prance about in an evening gown & tiara, the notion that we have to punish people for having the wrong view on the subject struck me as pathetic.

And, yes, her answer was clumsy but the vehemence was obviously about the meaning of her statement rather than the syntax.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#15 Apr 23 2009 at 8:51 AM Rating: Excellent
I think it was her awkward use of the made-up phrase "dual-marriage" that got her laughed at, not the sentiment behind it. She was trying to sound PC about bigotry, and smart about the subject, and failed on both counts.

If she had said she promotes "traditional" marriage I think the stink would have been half as loud.
#16 Apr 23 2009 at 9:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
catwho the Pest wrote:
I think it was her awkward use of the made-up phrase "dual-marriage" that got her laughed at, not the sentiment behind it.
Judging from comments from Perez Hilton (her judge for the question), it was pretty obviously the sentiment.

Edited, Apr 23rd 2009 12:00pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#17 Apr 23 2009 at 10:16 AM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
Jophiel wrote:

Now I'll go completely off the rails and dive right from blasphemy into heresy. I thought the witch hunt against Miss California was uncalled for and kind of disgusting. Besides the ridiculous notion that being against gay marriage makes you less qualified to prance about in an evening gown & tiara, the notion that we have to punish people for having the wrong view on the subject struck me as pathetic.

And, yes, her answer was clumsy but the vehemence was obviously about the meaning of her statement rather than the syntax.


I completely agree with Jophiel here. The girl got torn apart for not believing in and supporting gay marriage and because a gay man was her judge (Perez Hilton). So she doesn't believe in gay marriage and fumbled over saying it in a good PC way? Who cares. Her darn state voted against it (yes, rally the cries of "But the churches had a huge smear campaign"... it was still voted down). The majority of Americans are apparently against gay marriage. Hell, even the president of the US is against gay marriage (one view of his I completely disagree on).

Perez Hilton, aka Mario Lavandeira, seemed to go off the deep-end and slam the poor girl. He went out of his way to call her a dumb ***** and later said he meant to call her a cnut. I don't think he had any place there, and his reaction was incredibly worse than Miss CA's.

Edit: And for the record, I have no problem with the marriage equality movement in CA (except that they totally failed to stop gay marriage equality from passing >_<). I DO have a problem with Perez Hilton, who is to the gay rights movement what Rush Limbaugh is to the Republican party: an easy media focus and a cancer to their cause.[/i]

Edited, Apr 23rd 2009 2:32pm by LockeColeMA
#18REDACTED, Posted: Apr 23 2009 at 10:17 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#19 Apr 23 2009 at 10:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Where the fuck did Perez Hilton come from anyway? And why won't he go back there?
#20 Apr 23 2009 at 10:21 AM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
catwho the Pest wrote:
I think it was her awkward use of the made-up phrase "dual-marriage" that got her laughed at, not the sentiment behind it. She was trying to sound PC about bigotry, and smart about the subject, and failed on both counts.

If she had said she promotes "traditional" marriage I think the stink would have been half as loud.

Miss CA wrote:
“Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you.”

Quote:
Hilton, the self proclaimed "Queen of all media" who has campaigned for gay equal rights, called the answer “the worst answer in pageant history”.

On a video blog on his website Hilton said, “She lost not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage, she lost because she’s a dumb *****!”


Sounds like the sentiment provoked his feelings. Otherwise why not say "she had a dumb answer" and leave out the sexist name-calling?
#21 Apr 23 2009 at 10:24 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
hangtennow wrote:
Jophed,

Quote:
we have to punish people for having the wrong view on the subject struck me as pathetic.


It's what 99% of the Democrat party is about. Believe their way, think their way, act their way or you're an evil uncaring unsympathetic bigoted a**hole.



Edited, Apr 23rd 2009 2:21pm by hangtennow


As opposed to the Republican party where, if you don't believe their way, think they way, act their way, you're an evil unpatriotic terrorist socialist atheist a**hole.

Look! I can make broad unsubstantiated statements about political parties too! Wheee!
#22 Apr 23 2009 at 10:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
hangtennow wrote:
Believe their way, think their way, act their way or you're an evil uncaring unsympathetic bigoted a**hole.
Stop being an evil, uncaring, unsympathetic, bigoted *******. Smiley: schooled
#23 Apr 23 2009 at 10:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
LockeColeMA wrote:
Who cares. Her darn state voted against it
I care less about how her state voted and more about why I should be worrying about the political views of someone in a beauty pagent. Ten minutes earlier she was being paraded about in a bikini and high heels.

If you want to ensure that no one gives an answer you might disagree with politically, go back to asking their views on puppies & starving children.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Apr 23 2009 at 12:18 PM Rating: Excellent
I believe that puppies and starving children should be able to marry whoever they want to when they're old enough to legally consent to it.
#25 Apr 23 2009 at 12:22 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Ahhh, NixNot, give ol' Leo a good **** reaming and say your goodbyes now just in case.

/snickers

Totem
#26 Apr 23 2009 at 12:25 PM Rating: Decent
NixNot wrote:
I believe that puppies and starving children should be able to marry whoever they want to when they're old enough to legally consent to it.


I believe starving children should eat their puppies and then they wouldn't be starving no more.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 31
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 664 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (664)