| 3 years ago :: Apr 18, 2010 - 4:59PM #21 | |
|
My thoughts are this will apply especially when a person is in ICU or in a coma or unconscious. When a person is awake anyone he or she wants to visit can. ICU visits have been normally restricted to family only. This will change that injustice. I went to see a male friend in the hospital in a regular room. When the oncologist came into the room she told him he had stage four cancer. Then she turned to me, and asked if I was his wife. I replied, "no" and said I would step out of the room. Even in the hallway I could hear what she had to say to my friend. My friend only lived one month after receiving the news and choosing not to have any treatment. I lost two male friends in March two days apart. Both had stage 4 lung cancer as the initial diagnosis.
Beliefnet Community Wide Moderator ~ Peace Love Stardove
Problems? Send a message to Beliefnet_community Nothing but your own thoughts can hamper your progress. |
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 3 years ago :: Apr 18, 2010 - 7:54PM #22 | |
|
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 3 years ago :: Apr 18, 2010 - 11:05PM #23 | |
At least the Grace United Methodist Church pastor has grace.
|
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 3 years ago :: Apr 19, 2010 - 12:19AM #24 | |
|
I am..what most of you would call...a fundamental Christian. I have never understood this 'regulation/exclusion' of the ability for gays to visit thier loved ones! In our hospitals here, just about anyone may visit a patient without showing any 'creds'...just as long as it's during the set hours! Can anyone here inform us as to how-when-and why this rule ever was put into place? Surely it was'nt a religious thing on the part of the hospitals? And I too, applaud the president's order! |
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 3 years ago :: Apr 19, 2010 - 7:43AM #25 | |
|
My brother and his partner have been together for about 30 years...almost as long as I've been alive. From what I understand, they've been treated well in their home state of Hawaii, but I find it really stupid that a presidential order has to be made so that people in their position would be able to visit each other in the hospital and make other health-care proxy decisions. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think hateful or bigoted people are miserable in their own lives and want to make sure everyone else is too. I understand that there are difficulties (like the ones Erey outlines), but it's definitely an overdue step in the right direction!!! Rangerken, I am *so* happy to hear someone say what you did re: not supporting Obama normally but commending him when he does the right thing. But then, I respect you greatly anyway. I don't understand why judging a president's performance on an action-by-action basis regarding things like this is such a foreign concept to so many people nowadays, but it's great to see people here who don't fall into lockstep with that.
More where that came from...
A new-ish forum for women Beliefnet Community Host - Christian Faith and Life, Christian to Christian Debate |
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 3 years ago :: Apr 20, 2010 - 11:37AM #26 | |
Let me attempt to answer your question, Mom. Gay people in America are legal strangers. It came about for many reasons and the so-called "Defense" of Marriage Act in large part reinforces that status. Since we legally aren't "family", the actual (read blood relatives) family can eradicate our relationships before the lw. "Family" wishes take precedence.
I believe this largely came about because of the overlarge influence of traditional fundamentalist religionists and their view of gays. (Don't ever forget the Bible tells them that gay people "shall surely be put to death".)
Unless and until the DOMA is overturned and gays gain full and equal access to society's institution of marriage, this is unlikely to change. And there hasn't even been a lawyer smart enough to come forward and insist that the U.S. Constitution's Full Faith & Credit Clause (the one that says that a contract that is legally binding in one State shoulud be legally binding in ALL States) should apply equally to gay citizens. Nevermind the Equal Protections Clause. Nevermind the "LIBERTY and JUSTICE for ALL" dictum. Nevermind the right to the pursuit of happiness.
Gays in general are excluded for so much of society and its institutions, and I largely blame religious prejudice. Just listen to most of the 'arguments' made (both in the courts AND here): "But it's a SIN!!!" and you'll understand what I am talking about.
Thanx 4 askin'. |
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 3 years ago :: Apr 20, 2010 - 11:47AM #27 | |
|
"Surely it was'nt a religious thing on the part of the hospitals?"
Unfortunately, it very much is (or was until recently). I am a Deacon in my Church, and I cannot tell you the number of times that I would have to, er, 'ask' hospital staff to allow access to a same-sex partner. Sad to say, more often than not, the hospitals in which this occurred (yes it occurred more than once and in more than one hospital) were 'religious' hospitals. [I would have typed 'Catholic', since the vast majority of them were Catholic hospitals, but that would just raise charges of Catholic-bashing, when instead I merely am typing what actually occurred.]
When religions can get away with gay-bashing (like, you know, Hurricane Katrina [etc.] were caused by gays, or America's so-called "embrace" of its gay citizens - thank you 'reverend' Jerry Falsewell), with saying acting on one's innate sexual orientation is "intrinsically disordered", with linking child-molestation with homosexuality - as a RCC Cardinal did just last week - then yes, it very much was/IS a "religious thing".
Sad, innit?
Or haven't you actually heard/read some of the things the 'religious' get away with saying about God's gay and lesbian children? |
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|