That person needs to find a new field of work.

Residents of Washington state should vote to APPROVE REF. 71.

As for the video, a great reply when he was asked at the polling station whether he believed in LGBT equality. But Americans may be able to help me here: why was he being asked in the first place? I assume this was just over-enthusiastic canvassing - I hope it wasn't anything more sinister than that.

(This is not even considering that the issue of why getting those benefits should be so much harder for one group of people than for another. Of course, it's not the same benefits at all. Also, does this sort of thing happen to committed heterosexual couples who aren't married? Or does the social worker do the right thing rather than the legally justified thing?)

Yes, I suppose had the couple been legally married, the hospital could have still denied her access. That, however, would have required those workers to be explicitly homophobic rather than to merely cower behind the shield of procrustean law.

(Oh, and thank you, Patrick, for reminding me. I just donated to Protect Maine Equality.)

Let's say you're right, and the social worker was just relaying an opinion on the law. Well, that opinion was incorrect. Nowhere in FL law does it say that hospitals are required to ignore durable power of attorney documents for same sex couples.

It may have been the policy of the hospital to ignore them, but that's not a state policy. The state may even allow for it, but it sure as hell doesn't mandate it.

It's not marriage, but it would help to remove a lot of the discrimination-by-default against same-sex couples.

Despite what the "social worker" said (scare quotes because I certainly hope that there's a professional code of ethics with some teeth to it that may be applied here), I find it very hard to believe that Florida law could do so.

Fair enough. Being outside the US and (thankfully) unfamiliar with hospital procedures even here in the UK, I have no idea about the true legal situation. John Chu's comment at #10 was very helpful too. It looks to me now that you are right that the social worker was certainly unjustified and probably malign in not disputing the hospital policy (if such it was).

But I fully agree that even if this were hospital policy or even state law it would be indefensible on multiple grounds, starting with simple humanity.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone with an ill-informed comment.

I'm sorry that I offended some people here with what was an unnecessary and ill-informed comment.

It just ain't right that we could go to the courthouse tomorrow morning, get hitched in a few minutes, and the only fallout would be from our parents, upset that they weren't invited.

John Chu @ 10, I do not know about what would have happened in that particular situation had they been a hetero unmarried couple. I do know that when I ended up in the ER with high fever and dehydration with the Probably Swine Flu, Keith was beside me every minute for 12 hours, and the only time our marital status was questioned was to find out whether he was allowed to sign a paper for me, or whether I had to sign it myself. That was during intake. No one ever questioned his right to go everywhere I went, stay beside me every moment, advocate for me with doctors and nurses.

I talked about this here before, and I can't remember who said that we were passing as married. That's such a good way of putting it.

That conversation was during a discussion of the story of Lisa Pond and Janice Langbehn. And reading that speech just made me cry, and then rage. My God, my God.

I can't imagine being alone in a hospital bed and being told that I couldn't have any visitors at all because none of them were the properly designated spouse. That's just wrong on so many levels.

You didn't say you were sorry, if they were offended, you said you were sorry if you had offended.

Which is a perfectly accpetable way to apologise.

Housesitting, so they could do that seemed the least I could do for the cause.

It's not only with gays that Florida law is barbaric. The court found over a dozen prior rulings on equally barbaric treatment, all of which held that the law was clear and that hospitals have no obligation to treat families with any dignity or respect in Florida. The other barbaric treatments did not involve gays. They were motivated by everything from lazy indifference to class differences.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Law of the land. Does anyone see anything there which singles out any group of people to whom this amendment would not apply?

Unfortunately, the ruling mentioned in Nicola Griffith's blog (Thanks Luke McGuff@7-read it!) explains why Gay Rights groups don't seem to have brought this whole issue up to the Supremes. The very idea that a Federal judge could dismiss the Langbehn lawsuit is beyond belief and is fundamentally evil and inhumane. Unfortunately, given the current composition of the Supreme Court, there's slim hope that these legitimate grievances shall be redressed.

Yes, I am inarticulately outraged that this is even an issue in the 21st century.

The second story is our worst nightmare. In my office I keep copies of our wills and durable powers of attorney, to be faxed if need be. At home, framed, is our marriage license, and one layer back our CA domestic partner registration, and behind that our city domestic partner registration -- a decade of attempts to protect our relationship. Which, if any, will work in an emergency?

Scraps and I had some bad moments during the first month of his hospitalization after the stroke (both after I'd gotten the proxy from his parents, and after we'd done the legal medical proxy; more than I posted here), when various people-in-authority did not want to give me either permission to see him, or information, and we're a het-looking couple. Of course, we're an interracial couple, so we're probably not a real couple, anyway.

Not that I'm angry or bitter.

Much.

Truth? I'm afraid to go to Florida now.

My father is also 86, another WWII vet who was in the Battle of the Bulge. He and his wife raised three children, and I could all but see and hear him mirroring Philip Spooner's sentiments based on his own experiences and sensibilities.

If any of them are around, I'm sure they have something to say too.

To think the people I knew then probably still live ninety miles from where this happened to Lisa Pond and her family gives me (bad) chills. My perception of Florida isn't what it was a half hour ago.

I was pleased to see, in the paper entitled "Patient's Rights and Responsibilities" that it was the stated policy of the (Catholic-run) hospital my HMO uses, that anyone who shares a residence with the patient has visitation rights unless specifically excluded by the patient - and explicitly disclaims any exceptions based on marital status, sexual orientation, consanguinity, or lack thereof. You live with 'em, you get to vist 'em. Period. No exceptions.

Cheered me right up.

Velma, that was an aspect I hadn't thought of, because both Keith and I are white and that gives me the privilege not to consider it. Agh. I do remember, now, you mentioning that at least one person assumed Teresa must be Scraps' partner/wife, because of race.

It just makes me sick to think that someone would decree that a couple doesn't count, forbid them from being together when one is very ill, because of their apparent races, apparent genders, or apparent sexual orientations. Sadly, I'm not shocked or surprised. Just sick.