From Preserve Marriage Washington, which is asking Washingtonians to Reject R-74:
In a television ad which began airing on Friday, a mother shares the story of her daughter’s struggle to care for her dying same-sex partner, saying that after her daughter’s domestic partner suffered a seizure, hospital staff refused to telephone her daughter because they were not married. There is only one problem: that is not an accurate depiction of the law, says Preserve Marriage Washington, the statewide grassroots coalition committed to protecting the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
According to the melodramatic ad, “One night in the hospital Cheryl had a seizure, she was asking for Sarah and no one called. Only marriage guarantees that all couples can be there for each other when it really matters.”
Calling this a “pants on fire” misrepresentation, Preserve Marriage Washington Communications Director Chip White said, “This claim is a bold-faced lie.”
... As reported by the Seattle Post Intelligencer, “The Washington Legislature has approved a domestic partnership law that includes hospital visitation and an array of rights for same-sex couples. The ‘everything but marriage’ law won approval from the state’s voters in 2009.” (See http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2011/05/17/gov-walker-no-hospital-visitation-for-gay-couples/.)
“This ad is blatantly false,” said White. “Under Washington law, same-sex couples already have all the same legal rights and benefits as married couples, including the right to be with each other in the hospital. The law redefining marriage provides same-sex couples no additional rights or benefits because they already have full legal equality.”
27 Comments
If you are correct, then the law may cover this but are you denying what happened to this family? If it did happen to this family, why did it happen? Was that a fault of the hospital administration or an insufficient law or....?
Q: How do marriage corruption supporters refer to the gullible, the ignorant and the dishonest?
A: Their base.
This group has proven over and over again that it is nothing but an agent of lies. Lying is just what they do.
Whatever happened to "DumpStarbucks" and "DumpGeneralMills"?
I'm not suggesting that. I just want more info and I'm not disagreeing with the statement of this article. It does raise the question about hospital policy though. Say I am an elderly person with no immediate family to speak of for whatever reason but I have a close friend that I would like to have with me in my hour of need, does WA law cover this? What is the policy? So yes, the law may have allowed for it in this case. I'm just asking the question, what went wrong? Please do not be hostile and let the discussion be respectful. Do not imply what I have not said.
They already have the same rights everyone else. Same-sex friendships are not the same as real marriages. They need to understand the difference.
Sara, when dealing with people on this blog, you just have to realize THEY JUST DON'T CARE. Not about real people anyway. It's all about some b.s. religious principle that if they honor enough they believe their Sky Daddy will swoop them up and plunk them down of a big fluffy cloud.
Sara, any person may designate any other person to have power of attorney to make medical & financial decisions for them if they're incapacitated, to be present in the hospital with them or any other conceivable scenario that may arise. It's neither difficult nor expensive.
In WA, of course, the domestic partner law makes this unnecessary for registered domestic partners, who may be of the same sex or over 62 years of age.
The WA Secretary of State has a handbook available that explains the basics of the law:
http://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/domesticpartnerships/DomesticPartnershipFamilyLawHandbook.aspx
Barb, except for the fact that many hospitals don't always recognize power of attorney forms from same-sex partners. Please don't insult my intelligence by saying they are a legal form, because there are numerous cases where they have not been accepted and/or recognized by hospitals.
And the handbook which you provided a link for had nothing to do with hospital visitations.
@Sara.
Hinting, as you do, that it is best to destroy the word, the understanding and the tradition of marriage, over a question of hospital visitation rights, now that is hostile. Very hostile, sneaky and conniving. Who, or who is not allowed to visit someone in a hospital, and the laws and or procedures that need to be put into place to allow for this, has nothing to do with marriage!
Your “if this is correct” and “this family”, in the context of our day, are as hostile as one can get. But neither of us was born yesterday, so lets not dance that dance. Lets dance to the music of respectful discussion if that's the tune you enjoy: and answer the question, why do you not want the man-woman committed union to be clearly (unambiguously) named? Just one word, among the myriad of words in the dictionary, that would name the opposite-sex union?
If you're really curious about hospital visitation rights maybe you should go to a website that deals with that subject.
And Sara, if you are a young girl growing up, or simply someone lost, confused and caught in the manipulation and lies around the subject of homosexuality, gay-unions and marriage. Then I congratulate you in your attempt to better understand the situation. But be aware, and careful, you've walked into a blazing battlefield that is hot in its desperate final hours. And note as well that during many battles, some of the most vicious and hostile violence is done with the deadly arm of respectful, civilized, intelligent and intellectual discussion. While some others might only have the desperate defense, of vulgar rocks found in their streets, to respond with.
But justice and truth are not found in the weapon used. And if it is these things that you are truly interested in finding, then maybe you should put down your sophisticated weapon a minute, step back, and take another look around you; starting always, within oneself...
And I thought my above removed post was funny, not hostile. But than again, maybe humor can be an arm as well. Anyway, see you back on the battlefield at high-noon. We'll keep it very civilized and correct, though no doubt, no less bloody.
Yet there is an even a better solution Sara – come on over to NOM with us. We could use your clear minded thinking, and go respectfully into all your questions. Only one thing: do you think that the man-woman (opposite sex) union is original enough in its make up to be worthy of a unique word to name it? And that the word 'marriage' (or any one word) is good enough for that purpose; and needed?
"Gay Marriage Activists Lying..."
I just wanted to point out the redundancy in this title.
Barb,
Thank you for the response. That is good information. I actually do not live in WA but it gives me a guideline for researching that information in WA and other states. Just a matter of curiousity that arose when I read this. I am still wondering about the couple in question though. I wonder if the people in the ad are real (i.e.-their story real) or if it was just a scenario posed by actors. I wonder what the details are. Examining them makes a rebuttal more effective if known. Hence, my interest.
Good News- If anyone else thinks I am being hostile, they can let me know. I appreciate those who took the time to answer my actual question and not make assumptions and go off on a misdirected rant directed towards me for simply posing a question that was both on topic and a bit off topic but a reasonable question nonetheless. If you decide to change your tone, perhaps I will respond more directly to what you have asked. I understand you are passionate about this topic and that is fine, just pull it back a little in the interest of respectful dialogue and I will engage more specifically.
This all could have been avoided if the person had formed a heterosexual relationship instead of a homosexual relationship. Just another good reason for people to resist their same-sex attraction. We need more efforts to cure these people of their mental condition.
"They already have the same rights everyone else. Same-sex friendships are not the same as real marriages. They need to understand the difference."
"any person may designate any other person to have power of attorney to make medical & financial decisions for them if they're incapacitated"
Why should same sex partners have to do this? Marriage would allow a presumption of rights instead of the confusion clearly present on the ground.
If people don't have acccess to marriage then clearly hospital staff will presume they are not immediate family. Only equal marriage can bring the clarity needed for such a distressing situation.
Overcame: "This all could have been avoided if the person had formed a heterosexual relationship instead of a homosexual relationship. Just another good reason for people to resist their same-sex attraction. We need more efforts to cure these people of their mental condition."
You've said the same thing in SO many posts. It is tiring and persuades no one.
"You've said the same thing in SO many posts. It is tiring and persuades no one."
That's right; because speaking the tuth in opposition to tyranny never works.
@Paul
Cautelaged (same-sex) couples, like married couples, have visitation rights in Washington. Where me and my family, on the other hand, are not given those same rights of visitation or information about my long time closest friend who does not have family of his own, and finds himself alone and hospitalized. I, and the hospitals, will have to find a solution to that. But I'm not going to claim that I'm cautelaged to him, nor married to him, as an avenue to those rights.
Now, since cautelaged couples today do have the rights of visitation in Washington, what is this curious story about them wanting to be called married. Where's the link? If same-sex couples in other States want the same rights as the cautelaged people in Washington, let them ask for their cautelages to be recognized by that State. But again, what has all that to do with marriage.
__________
Give my child the language to be able to say, “I want to get married”. And in so doing expressing that which he has on his heart and mind. Expressing clearly the most important thing that he is wishing for, which is to be joined to the opposite-sex. A child in Washington is not allowed to clearly express this longing, and animal instinct of his, with the words “I want to get married”. The LGBT have taken that liberty of expression (and clarity of knowing who he is) away from him. And now he is being taught, subliminally, that to even think such a thing as wanting to be joined only to the opposite sex, is prejudiced. He can discuss it around the campfire, as hair color. Do you prefer a blond or brunet? A boy or a girl? “ But in any event,” he will be told, “when you grow up child, and finally fall in love, those little details won't matter.”
The only government interest in marriage is uniting children to their mother and father. Marriage is special in that it has the potential to bring new life into the world. Same-sex couples can only adopt children or manufacture babies with the premeditated intent to deprive them of their rightful parent(s). This is not marriage, it's human trafficking.
Most mature people make arrangements for their incapacitation by establishing wills and power of attorney, especially if they're unmarried. Failure to do so is irresponsible.
Of course this is all moot in the state of WA. Perhaps it's just too much darn trouble for some same-sex couples to register their partnership.
Barb, adoption is a legal, ethical, normal, loving, sensible, responsible, caring, moral act. Whether a same sex couple can adopt or not is not the central argument. Can infertile couples get married? Yes. Why is the state interested in that?
(going around in circles).
Adoption into any home where their is a high probably of sexual confusion, let a lone abuse is not a responsible, caring let alone moral act.
Great point Overcome in post #10. These people chose their behavior and if they would only behave properly then this case would be solved.
@16 Gay people are not sexually confused. And most gay people don't want children.
@17 Being gay is not a "behavior" any more than being straight is, or breathing air is.
Paul McMichael, bringing up infertility is unconvincing. SSMers repeat that stuff but make zero sense. Circles.
Look, there is a wide range of types of relationships that are not marital. Some of these are one-sexed and some are two-sexed. Some are sexualized but most are not sexualized. Most are loving and often duty bound.
Why do you feel society must favor the all-male sexual relationship over the all-male nonsexualized relationship? Likewise for all-female scenarios.
Provisions for designated beneficiaries is accessible and affordable for most types of relationships that populate the nonmarriage category. The original story at the top of this discussion corrects the pro-SSM propaganda. Why do you object, really?
No, Paul, your favoritism for the gay identity group does not suffice.
@PaulMcM -
Many people buy-in to the homosexual mantra that homosexuals were "born that way" and have no choice to modify their behavior. They rarely hear anyone question that mantra, and the homosexual media (read: most major news outlets) perpetuate the lie.
Sorry if you're tired of hearing it, but many new lurkers here would be interested in hearing the perspective that the media shuts out.
The family in this advertisment are personal friends and to accurse them of lying or being melodramitc is just disgraceful. You should be ashamed.
For the SSM campaign to lie is disgraceful and they should be ashamed.
The hospital administration should be held to account for not honouring the wishes of that patient and free citizen. But gay identity is irrelevant. SSMers should be ashamed of themselves on this one.
Gregor, since most of the children of "gay" people are the natural consequence of a prior heterosexual encounter, what makes a person "gay," and why should marriage be neutered such that those who choose to engage in homosexual behavior can receive marriage benefits, but all other same-sex couples are excluded from such.
The immutable characteristics of "gay" are.....