Religious Liberty and the Left’s End Game

Loading

Andrew Walker:

When Ed Schultz orders the microphone to be turned off because he’s getting schooled about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), we know not to expect the Left to answer for its many sins when talking about religious liberty.

And given the liberal misinformation regime, don’t assume the Left to be held accountable for the principles that that lead to its protest against religious liberty. But the moment we’re in requires us to think critically about the perilous state of our constitutional rights and the Left’s hostility toward them.

Policies come to us with principles attached to them, and when debating public policy we should consider the principles not only of legislation that has passed but also of legislation that has been rejected. No one to my knowledge is discussing where the principles implied in the Left’s rejection of the RFRA lead. Responsible statecraft entails an examination of a principle’s logical conclusion. In the case of liberalism, the conclusions to which its principles lead help us see just how deeply opposed those principles are to the constitutional order we’ve inherited.

When the Left rejects the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, it invites compelled speech. When photographers are forced under threat of fines to shoot weddings or religious services that they believe are immoral, the assumption is that we are sometimes legally bound to participate in certain kinds of speech, and the state becomes the arbiter of what that speech is in specific instances.

When the Left rejects the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, it welcomes the erosion of free association. When the state can deem codes of conduct or membership statements to be irrational prejudice, it diminishes the ability of citizens to associate or to organize for a cause.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
86 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The Left’s ”compelled speech,” might have a slight case for it IF there were only the one shop or bakery or photographer in a large area.
But that isn’t the case.
The Left realized some time back (when ”racist” was all we heard) that they can no longer win arguments via argumentation techniques.
So, they simply want to shut down debate.
Now apply that to ”homophobia” (a completely made up concept) and we see these protests instead of debates and court suits.
George Orwell foresaw that weak ideologies would have to control language.
He created ”Newspeak,” as an extreme example.
Is deciding whose wedding you want to be seen at ”ungood?” or ”double-plus good?”
If you are limited in your ability to express thought you always lose.

The contradictory essence of the left on this is plain to see.

If two people afflicted with homosexual tendencies want to celebrate their union, against the historical and religious definition of marriage, they are not satisfied unless they can force people possessing religious beliefs that do not acknowledge such couplings as marriage to violate their religious principles. The disjointed position boiling down to “Religious people have no right to impose their beliefs on me by refusing to participate against their conscience in my gay union ceremony, but I have the right to force my beliefs on them via state coercion…and anyone who disagrees is a stupid bigot!”

The leftist is unwilling to admit that a baker, photographer or a pizza shop owner is, in abiding by religious principles on marriage by declining to participate in the gay union ceremony, doing NOTHING that prevents the homosexually afflicted couple from having their ceremony. The mere fact that anyone has the right to disagree with the homosexually afflicted couple’s opinion cannot be tolerated, and such thoughtcrime must be punished by the state.

This inherent hypocrisy from the left is easily seen in the examples of the homosexually afflicted hair dresser from New Mexico who publicly stated he would refuse to cut his state’s Governor’s hair because of her position on gay marriage, as well as the internet documented video of the repeated refusals of gay-friendly bakeries to sell wedding cakes with religious-themed marriage messages. This entire fiasco is not about tolerance at all. It is about forcing people not just to accept gay marriage, but to participate and celebrate against their beliefs in something clearly defined by those religious beliefs as sinful.

Those who are old enough to remember the proclamations from the left that a federal marriage amendment was unnecessary, because there would NEVER be an effort to force people to violate their religious beliefs on gay marriage, are now wondering how much longer it will be before churches are forced by the state to perform gay weddings against their religious beliefs under threat of losing tax exempt status, all under the inverted interpretation of “civil rights”.

Christ said there would come a time when His followers would be reviled for believing in Him and His teachings. Who would have thought that such would occur in a nation founded on Christian principles?

The “free exercise clause” is part of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. The Constitution is the “Supreme law of the land” Since when does a state law (such as “recognizing gay marriage”) trump a Constitutionally recognized (religious “free exercise”) right?

#2:

I seem to recall that you are a doctor, right?
Good, because there’s a question that’s been bugging me, and maybe you know the answer.
Here it is:

Is there a LAW that compels a doctor (or an anesthesiologist, or a nurse or any other supportive hospital staff) to attend to a gay patient to the best of his or her professional ability?

I very much want to, but I’m squeamish about defending Religious Freedom Restoration Acts without knowing that there is a limit to how completely a gay person can lawfully be denied services up to and including those that life depends on.

Thanks in advance for any clarification that you can provide.

@George Wells:

Is there a LAW that compels a doctor (or an anesthesiologist, or a nurse or any other supportive hospital staff) to attend to a gay patient to the best of his or her professional ability?

what a strange question. George, if you are in the hospital dying and you need a doctor and there are 2 doctors available, and one of them does not wish to care for a gay person ( I think we’re still of the impression that ‘gays’ have ‘gay’ tattooed on their forehead so that we always know we’re dealing with a ‘gay’. ) anyhow, you’re going to insist on the doctor that does not want to, to be forced to care for you? What a bizarre situation that would be.
I think I’d just go with the other Dr, if I were the gay guy.

Why wouldn’t you just let the Hippocratic Oath take care of that?

#5:

I asked the question to Pete, who I believe is a doctor and who might possibly be in a position to give me an honest answer to the specific question I asked.

You aren’t.

The “Hippocratic Oath” is not a law.
It “takes care” of nothing.
I am asking about the law.
I’m not asking about obligations or medical ethics or religious freedoms.
I’m just asking about the law.
A doctor would be thoroughly familiar with such a law, having to comply with the requirements of his or her malpractice insurance.

To understand an issue completely, sometimes you have to narrow your focus and start with the simplest of concepts.
Either there is such a law, or there isn’t.

@Redteam:

Why wouldn’t you just let the Hippocratic Oath take care of that?

Because, as it is George’s tactic, he was trying to set Pete up. Too bad Pete is so much smarter than George.

#7:
“Pete is so much smarter than George.”

Undoubtedly true.
That’s why I asked Pete a question I don’t know the answer to.
I’d have asked you if I thought that you knew the answer, but apparently you don’t.

I’ve learned a few things from Pete, and I respect his knowledge, even though I find his reference to gays as being “persons afflicted with homosexuality” to be unnecessarily hostile. But I’ve learned nothing from you or Redteam. You’re both a waste of time.

@George Wells:

But I’ve learned nothing from you or Redteam. You’re both a waste of time.

That’s your problem. Is that due to the failure of your brain to retain facts? Just on this thread alone, you’ve learned from me that you don’t know a damn thing about the constitution or about maritime law.
Since Pete is an MD, why not ask him if the same Meds that work for Bipolar might work for homosexuality.. It’s seems they are akin to each other on brain mis-wiring and it might just cure you.

@Redteam:

George is continually trying to set up a false meme of “gay segregation” so that he can claim that gays are refused service simply for being gay. He desperately wants to claim that religious opposition to gay marriage is somehow equitable to the 400 year history of racial discrimination towards blacks (prior to the Republican supported civil rights movement of the 1960’s It isn’t even close. Such a comparison is dishonest, unseemly and, above all, disrespectful to the history of black oppression). George is at a loss here because as he really doesn’t have any evidence of gay segregation or enslavement of gays, George has to try to invent evidence to advance his disingenuous meme. The simple truth is that there isn’t a widespread “we don’t do business with gays” environment. Nor can George explain how this hypothetical, magical religious-right GAYDAR detection system works. He has been asked numerous times but can not, (or will not) answer questions of this psychic phenomenon theorem advanced by George, whereby religious business persons have been somehow endowed with the ability to tell homosexuals from heterosexuals. The only thing business owners (who believe that gay marriage is against their beliefs) are refusing to do is to participate in gay wedding ceremonies.

@Ditto #10:

Thank you for your very uninformed theory about “Gaydar”.

When you are accompanied into a hospital by someone caring for you, you are almost immediately asked “Who is this person?”
The question is posed for legal reasons: The hospital has very strict rules governing who can accompany you into various parts of the facility and at which times, and the hospital is compelled by law to honor medical directives communicated by spouses or by individuals specified on Medical Powers-of-Attorney that the hospital must already have on file.
If a gay person accompanies his spouse to the hospital but chooses NOT to reveal his marital status, his right to give spousal directive will be forfeit. If he DOES reveal his marital status, he gains his rights but exposes his homosexuality. There is no avoiding this revelation without forfeiting spousal rights.
The argument can also be made that if anyone should know the truth about a person’s sexual orientation, it would be his doctor and any attending staff in a medical facility, as sexual orientation has public health ramifications that medical personnel have a right to be made aware of.

It isn’t a matter of “Gaydar”, and it isn’t a matter of having “GAY” tattooed on one’s forehead, as Redteam likes to suggest. It IS a matter of securing for one’s self the best medical treatment available. To avoid being treated by someone who has “religious objections” to gay people, sexual orientation is the FIRST thing that a gay person should discuss with any doctor treating him.

@George Wells:

When you are accompanied into a hospital by someone caring for you, you are almost immediately asked “Who is this person?”
The question is posed for legal reasons: The hospital has very strict rules governing who can accompany you into various parts of the facility and at which times, and the hospital is compelled by law to honor medical directives communicated by spouses or by individuals specified on Medical Powers-of-Attorney that the hospital must already have on file.
If a gay person accompanies his spouse to the hospital but chooses NOT to reveal his marital status, his right to give spousal directive will be forfeit. If he DOES reveal his married status, he gains his rights but reveals his homosexuality. There is no avoiding this revelation without forfeiting spousal rights.
The argument can also be made that if anyone should know the truth about a person’s sexual orientation, it would be his doctor and any attending staff in a medical facility, as sexual orientation has public health ramifications that medical personnel have a right to be made aware of.

As ususal, for purposes of conflating an issue relating to homosexuality, you are comparing apples and oranges.

A person enters a hospital under two conditions:

Condition #1) A person enters a hospital for a) a pre-scheduled procedure or an ER visit. Under both conditions the person is conscious, cogent and able to fill out forms and answer questions themselves. They are asked if they have a “living will” or medical directives. Anyone accompanying them to the hospital would not be questioned. If they are put into an exam room, they could ask that the person accompanying them be allowed to go with them. Hospitals generally offer that courtesy. There would be no need to question any one accompanying the patient.

Condition #2) the person entering the hospital is unconscious, at which point the ER team’s main objective would be to stabilize the patient, while another staff member would ask questions of the accompanying person. The accompanying person could possible be a EMT, a police officer, a fire fighter or other emergency services provider who would have no information about the patient except perhaps vital signs and cause of distress (auto accident, fall from ladder, et al) and information taken from the patient’s I.D. (age, weight, height, gender, residence).

You’re trying to create a “what if” scenario that really rarely exists. But that is what you do, isn’t it, George? To create hypotheticals that are rare, if not completely non-existing, in order to say “See, we queers are in jeopardy.”

@George Wells:

It IS a matter of securing for one’s self the best medical treatment available.

So you do that by ‘ identifying yourself as gay or finding out if the doctor is gay? ‘ By identifying yourself as gay: does that get you ‘better’ care or ‘worse’ care? If both parties are ‘gay’, does that get better care than if both are not ‘gay’?

sexual orientation is the FIRST thing that a gay person should discuss with any doctor treating him.

yeah, sure, the fact that your heart has stopped beating is not as relevant as whether you’re gay or not, or the little fact that you’re losing a lot of blood from a cut is not as relevant as whether you’re gay or not. Get that ‘gayness’ on the table as the first order of business. I suppose that’s the “I’m here and I’m queer” message so that they understand they will get a lawsuit if they don’t ‘wink’ for you.

Buuutttttt!!!! then there’s this:

it would be his doctor and any attending staff in a medical facility, as sexual orientation has public health ramifications that medical personnel have a right to be made aware of.

Public health ramifications of treating gays? Really? Gee, I never heard of that, is that maybe a good reason for a doctor to refuse to work on gays? or something? So they are a special high risk for a doctor but the doctor doesn’t have the right to not work on them. George, you might set the gay agenda back a while if you go around saying gays are a threat to the health of doctors (and other medical personnel. You might abandon this thread and pretend you didn’t say that.

#12:

“You’re trying to create a “what if” scenario that really rarely exists. But that is what you do, isn’t it, George?”

No. It happened to me. I was taken to the hospital semi-conscious by Paul. While attempting to be admitted in the emergency room, I vomited repeatedly from the pain of multiple kidney stones, and was unable to adequately communicate. MY HUSBAND was not allowed to convey my pertinent information and was not allowed to communicate my wishes to the hospital staff, who proceeded to conduct unnecessary and expensive tests AFTER the diagnosis and AFTER I was rendered completely unconscious by the administration of morphine and oxycodone. NEITHER was he allowed to accompany me during any part of my treatment.
Thankfully, overturning the Virginia Ban on same-sex marriage ended this discriminatory practice, but it still exists in 13 other states, yours being one of them.

@retire05:

Condition #1) A person enters a hospital for a) a pre-scheduled procedure or an ER visit. Under both conditions the person is conscious, cogent and able to fill out forms and answer questions themselves.

05 I’ve been in hospitals a few times over the years and contrary to George’s contention:”” it would be his doctor and any attending staff in a medical facility, as sexual orientation has public health ramifications that medical personnel have a right to be made aware of. “” even though he says it is ‘most important’ because of ‘public health ramifications’ I have never been asked if I am gay, my wife is almost always with me, they usually don’t ask her about our ‘relationship’ and they have never asked her if she is ‘gay’. “They” must not feel as if it’s as important as George seems to think it is. Maybe he should just go with having Gay tattooed on his forehead and they wouldn’t have to continually ask him if he’s gay. He must exude ‘gay’ pheromones, or something.

@George Wells:

MY HUSBAND was not allowed to convey my pertinent information and was not allowed to communicate my wishes to the hospital staff, who proceeded to conduct unnecessary and expensive tests AFTER the diagnosis. NEITHER was he allowed to accompany me during any part of my treatment.

total BS, complete and total BS. I recently went to a hospital where my wife’s sister was there, dying. While in the room with both her sons and their wives, my wife and I they came in with ‘paperwork’ to be done. They asked, Ok, who’s doing the paperwork? While she stood there and filled in the paper, several of us answered the questions she asked. She never did ask our ‘relationship’. Oh, uh, excuse me. She didn’t have ‘gay’ tattooed on her forehead so I guess they weren’t concerned about ‘special health ramifications’. George, your doo doo is getting deeper. Oh, and that was in Georgia where same sex marriage is not legal.

#13:

“Public health ramifications of treating gays? Really? Gee, I never heard of that, is that maybe a good reason for a doctor to refuse to work on gays? or something? So they are a special high risk for a doctor but the doctor doesn’t have the right to not work on them. George, you might set the gay agenda back a while if you go around saying gays are a threat to the health of doctors (and other medical personnel. You might abandon this thread and pretend you didn’t say that.”

I told you already that I don’t have an agenda.
Health workers have a right to know if someone is HIV-positive, if they have hepatitis, etc, for the purpose of taking appropriate precautions against blood exposure-facilitated contagion. Gay people have a higher incidence of infection from these pathogens than the normal population, and not all of them are aware of their infections. It is therefore appropriate for gay people to identify themselves in healthcare situations so that providers can take appropriate precautions. Because this does not always occur, providers usually assume the worse, and that’s why you see them all wearing latex or neoprene gloves so often. But it is only courteous to be truthful to your provider from the start, and more often than not it’s also helpful to establish that you are unabashedly honest with the person in whose care you place your life.

@George Wells: Reading problems George? I didn’t say ‘your’ agenda.

I told you already that I don’t have an agenda.

I said the ‘gay agenda’.

But it is only courteous to be truthful to your provider from the start,

what a novel idea. you expect a doctor to diagnose you and you suggest you tell them the truth.
Believe it or not, every time I go in the hospital, they wear gloves and ‘take precautions’. They ‘assume’, I believe that people that are sick, may be contagious. You think?

#18:

“what a novel idea. you expect a doctor to diagnose you and you suggest you tell them the truth.”

And the purpose of withholding health-related information from your physician would be what? To make his job HARDER? To see if he can correctly diagnose your problem WITHOUT all the facts?
What IS your problem, anyway?

@George Wells:

You question to Pete was:

Is there a LAW that compels a doctor (or an anesthesiologist, or a nurse or any other supportive hospital staff) to attend to a gay patient to the best of his or her professional ability?

We all can take note that the attendance of a gay lover with the patient was never a part of your question. In your answer to me, regarding your assumption (not mine,) endowing the hospital staff with GAYDAR in your above question, toss out further BS in a failed attempt to retroactively change your question to Pete to have been something other than what you asked of him. That’s absurdly dishonest, as we can all scroll up and read your actual question. And yes, as Redteam: and retire05: do, I too call BS on your claim that your gay lover “was not allowed to convey my pertinent information and was not allowed to communicate my wishes to the hospital staff.” You have a load of horse crap packed in that sentence. As for the “communication of your wishes” hospital staff legally does not assume anyone accompanying a patient has the power to “communicate the wishes” of a patient. However they do have these things called “living wills” and “medical power of attorney” that do cover such matters regardless of sexual orientation.

To avoid being treated by someone who has “religious objections” to gay people, sexual orientation is the FIRST thing that a gay person should discuss with any doctor treating him.

That is just one more of the totally stupid hypotheticals you have thrown out here. You theorize that “gayness” is something detectable by the hospital staff, make a paranoiac assumption that medical staff may have a “gay hater” on staff, then you turn around and absurdly try to tell everyone that the most important and “FIRST” thing to blurt out to the hospital staff is the patient’s sexual orientation, as if that has any bearing whatsoever on the patient’s medical condition. There is no special physical medical aberration inherently associated specifically and only with being gay. That includes medical conditions such as HIV which, (if you have it) I assure you the medical staff will listen to being told by anyone accompanying a patient be the patient gay or not gay.

With every post, every misrepresentation of truth, and every lie, you are displaying to FA’s readers how disingenuous and specious your arguments are.

@Ditto:

I too call BS on your claim that your gay lover “was not allowed to convey my pertinent information and was not allowed to communicate my wishes to the hospital staff.”

Of course you do, as any rational thinking person would. If you were conscious, you would not only be able to “convey” pertinent information about yourself, you would also be able to communicate your wishes to hospital staff. Upon entering the hospital, you are given forms to fill out, checking off boxes that apply to your health status, including any STDs you might have. This is a requirement for ALL patients, straight or gay.

Even after surgery, when a patient is in the Recovery Room, no friend or family member is allowed for a certain length of time and consequently hospital staff is NOT communicating with friends/family members during that time frame.

If you are unconscious, you are still treated for what ever medical stress is presented at the time due to vital signs, injuries, etc. How would an EMT worker, or ambulance attendant know if a person was gay? GAYDAR? George claimed to possess gaydar, perhaps he would like to let us all know how it works. Does some bell go off in a gay’s head letting them know that the other person is really gay but has not come out of the closet?

As to the rubber glove wearing: that is a federal law that protects medical/hospital staff from not only contracting communicable diseases but from transferring them to other patients. Medical staff don’t want to contract diseases, be it measles or HIV/AIDS from other patients or transfer those diseases to other patients. I guess George thinks that the medical field is still sterilizing instruments in boiling water.

@Redteam:George, try to keep up: You said:

But it is only courteous to be truthful to your provider from the start,

To which I replied:

“what a novel idea. you expect a doctor to diagnose you and you suggest you tell them the truth.”

And then you said:

And the purpose of withholding health-related information from your physician would be what?

So the average person could see that it was YOU, the guy with the ‘self admitted scrambled brain’ problem that said that a patient should be truthful to the doctor, to which I simply responded what a novel idea, to be truthful to someone that is trying to diagnose you.
So it was you that must think that most people try to hide symptoms from their doctor while just hoping that the doctor will be smart enough to diagnose an illness without knowing what the symptoms are.

So then you ask,

“What IS your problem, anyway?

My problem is, I guess, expecting Scrambled Brain Syndrome (SBS) persons to be able to carry on a conversation and keep up with the train of thought. And you wonder why I suggest you have ‘gay’ tattooed on your forehead. Or, maybe I should just say: Here’s your Sign….

@George Wells:

Sorry for the delay in answering, as I haven’t been to this thread in a while.

There is no law that I know of that allows a physician to refuse to treat a patient along the lines of what you are asking, with the caveat that the physician would be providing medical care within his or her scope of practice. Conversely, I know of no law that requires a physician to provide care that violates his or her personal beliefs.

Medical ethics principles exist such that a physician who does not want to engage on actions that violate his or her religious beliefs should refer a patient to another physician for any medical issue that the physician cannot perform due to personal beliefs.

As an example, before I became a neonatologist, I was a pediatrician. When I had patients ask for birth control pills, I would step out and find a colleague to write the birth control script. I did not proselytize or make any religious commentary of any kind. There was no “make another appointment”, no additional charge to the patient, and it allowed them to have their needs met without me having to violate my religious principles.

In 20 years of practicing medicine, neither I nor any physician that I know of has refused to provide medical care for a patient because said patient was homosexual. The only instances where I have declined to do somethig medical – to include refusing to refer a patient to another physician – involved refusing to have anything to do with female genital mutilation of an infant girl, and that happened only once.

I hope that answers your question.

@George Wells:

The Hippocratic Oath is not a law, and regretfully some medical schools are no longer having medical students take the Oath. I, and the vast majority of older physicians, take the Oath extremely seriously. It is humbling, and the basis for all credible systems of medical ethics. Without the principles espoused in the Oath, there is a very real danger of another Mengele, or another Tuskeegee experiment, performed in a thoroughly unethical manner in the name of “advancing medical science”.

@George Wells:

George, you are absolutely correct that there are health ramifications to homosexuality. Whether you believe me or not, I can honestly say that I have never – nor have I worked with any physicians (even in the military during the DADT era) – who treated a homosexual patient any differently than a heterosexual patient. Yes, we have to abide by privacy regulations, but if a patient says that someone else can be given protected medical information, I abide by their wishes, regardless of the type of relationship that person has with the patient. Providing legitimate medical care for a patient is not the time to engage in political micturition contests, and when a patient needs medical care, unless it directly impacts the patient’s condition, I don’t give a damn with whom they are sleeping. If you are having experiences with physicians refusing to abide by a patient’s medical information dispursal wishes, you need to find another physician.

@Pete: The Hippocratic Oath is not a law, and regretfully some medical schools are no longer having medical students take the Oath. I, and the vast majority of older physicians, take the Oath extremely seriously. It is humbling, and the basis for all credible systems of medical ethics.

No wonder there are doctors willing to do as Debbie Wasserman-Schultz desires: crush skulls of 7 pound babies just because they are not ”out” yet and mommie wants it.
I had no idea newer doctors aren’t required to take the oath.
So far, I have never had a doctor who didn’t take it and keep it.
I guess from here on out I will have to ask and insist.

@Ditto #20:

The legal spouse of a patient does not require a medical power of attorney to direct treatment for his or her unconscious spouse. Pete can confirm that, if he would be so kind. But prior to the Bostic case in Virginia, my marriage was not recognized by the state, and its constitutional amendment forbade such a spousal right. Paul wasn’t even allowed accompanying rights, much less given a say in my treatment, BECAUSE HE WASN’T RECOGNIZED AS MY SPOUSE. What obsession compels you to deny this legal fact?

#23 and 24:

Thank you for your very kind answer to my question. Please refer to my “‘Memories Pizza’ Truthers” post #52 for the information I located in an attempt to answer the question. It sounds like it basically agrees with your explanation, but if there is a significant misstatement of the truth contained, please illuminate.
Thanks again.

@George Wells: All that had to be before Obama’s April 15, 2010 memo.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-hospital-visitation
Keeping an old chip on your shoulder this long makes you seem almost as petty and vindictive as Obama, himself when he goes off on ”the Crusades.”

@George Wells:

Paul wasn’t even allowed accompanying rights, much less given a say in my treatment, BECAUSE HE WASN’T RECOGNIZED AS MY SPOUSE. What obsession compels you to deny this legal fact?

And how simple was that problem taken care of by a simple living will and power of attorney? It wasn’t, but it is much easier for you to whine how your bed buddy was discriminated against because of the lack of recognition of your [faux] marriage.

#25:

Thank you again for your answer and for your service to your fellow Man.

“If you are having experiences with physicians refusing to abide by a patient’s medical information dispursal wishes, you need to find another physician.”

No, I’m not having that problem. When I make an initial contact with a new physician, I first ask if he or she has any objection what-so-ever to homosexuality or to treating a homosexual to the best of his ability. I have never received an affirmative answer. I HAVE been told that patients are not usually so “open” with their personal “information,” to which I respond “Why not?”

What I HAVE had trouble with was a refusal (by the staff of an emergency room that treated me) to accept my husband as my legal spouse for the purposes of communicating my medical wishes while I was unconscious. The Virginia Constitution’s Anti-Gay-Marriage Amendment forbade them from recognizing his spousal right in this capacity. Thankfully that situation has been corrected by the courts.

@George Wells:

The legal spouse of a patient does not require a medical power of attorney to direct treatment for his or her unconscious spouse.

Oh for God’s sake George, grow a brain. “the legal spouse’ does not, yada yada. So how the hell does the medical team know ‘it’s’ the legal spouse? Neither I nor my wife carry a copy of our marriage license or certificate around with us. Are you trying to say you do have that certificate in your wallet and your wife, or husband does also? BS, total BS.

Paul wasn’t even allowed accompanying rights, much less given a say in my treatment,

What the hell were you in? a Queer hospital? My wife ‘ALWAYS’ accompanies me and they have NEVER asked her one time if she is my ‘LEGAL SPOUSE’ or if she has our marriage license with her? Or if I do.
My wife accompanyed me to my doctors office for a regular visit recently. She said that she wanted to make sure I was telling the doctor all of my symptoms. Can you believe it, not once did the nurse showing us into the exam room ask who she was, the doctor did not ask who she was. She did say who she was but they did not ask her to produce a ‘valid marriage license’ or ‘marriage certificate’ proving that she is actually married to me. Maybe you should quit going to gay establishments where they have all those strange rules about proving who you are. The more you say about that issue only digs the hole deeper.

#30:
“And how simple was that problem taken care of by a simple living will and power of attorney? It wasn’t.”

I HAD a living will and a medical power of attorney. We took them with us. The hospital was forbidden to honor them per the Virginia Constitutional Amendment that was later overturned. The only reason that we didn’t later take the hospital and the State to court over the issue was that we are NOT the litigation-happy “gay activists” that you seem to think we are.

Now, we have a copy of our marriage certificate on file in the Sentara Group’s database, and it covers us.

@Pete: I’m disappointed to hear that some schools don’t require the Oath. It’s kinda like liberals abandoning the Constitution. As you well know Obama doesn’t seem to even recognize that there is such a thing. Much as Mengele probably didn’t think the Oath was anything.

@Pete:

If you are having experiences with physicians refusing to abide by a patient’s medical information dispursal wishes, you need to find another physician.

That fits what i’ve told George more than once. I’ve NEVER had a doctor that didn’t do all he could to help me and to act in my best wishes and they damn sure have never refused to let anyone accompany me, not have they asked my wife for a copy of our marriage license. As I’ve told George, I think he’s making it up to suit his gay agenda. (which he denies having)

@Nanny G: Nanny G, did you notice this paragraph at the end of that Memorandum you linked to above, it says this:

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

And this sentence was at the beginning of the Memorandum:

By this memorandum, I request that you take the following steps:

So that whole Memorandum was a ‘feel good for the libs’ moment. It doesn’t mean crap, doesn’t do one damn thing, creates no ‘rights’ makes no laws,
Who thinks they are fooling who. I guess George thinks that was a ‘great moment in history’ for the gays. Chuckle.

@George Wells:

I HAD a living will and a medical power of attorney. We took them with us. The hospital was forbidden to honor them per the Virginia Constitutional Amendment that was later overturned.

I don’t believe that for one second, I believe it to be a flat out lie.

Now, we have a copy of our marriage certificate on file in the Sentara Group’s database, and it covers us.

You are clealy dealing with people that just ‘have it in for you’ George. They must be gay haters because they are clearly just picking on you because you’re gay. Is that copy ‘certified’? How do they know the Certifier was legally entitled to ‘certify’ your certificate, maybe one of the certifiers was gay and therefore it would be illegal.
None of my health ensurers have ever requested a copy of my marriage certificate, if they did, I would use a different insurance company.

Did your Wiband cut you off or something? Is it ‘that time of month’ or something?

George, I just pulled this up:

You may authorize another person, such as a spouse, child, or friend, to be your “agent” or “proxy” to make decisions for you if you become incapable of making informed healthcare decisions for yourself.

that’s an Advance Directive form for the state of Virginia. kinda makes hash out of your claim that it has to be a ‘legal spouse’ doesn’t it? it says, spouse,child, friend. Doesn’t say ‘legal spouse’, or ‘legal child’ or ‘legal friend’ does it? So you wasted your time if you only ‘got married’ so he could make a medical decision for you. Does he know that’s the only reason you got married?

George, while I’m at it, let me direct you to this site:
http://www.vdh.virginia.gov/OLC/documents/2008/pdfs/2005%20advanced%20directive%20form.pdf

There you will find the Official Virginia Directives for Health Care decisions and Living Wills. It is the form for 2005. I would like for you to note that it does not require ANY of the things you’ve claimed. The person named doesn’t have to be related to you, can be any person desired, a child or a friend. They do not have to show any relationship to you on the form. They do not have to show any proof of ID of any kind. Nothing has to be certified.
This is just more proof that you lie to suit your agenda. Truth be damned, push gay agenda. Lie whenever necessary.

#39:
The 2005 form you refer to was not applicable to gay people after Nov, 7, 2006.

“The Marshall-Newman Amendment, also referred to as the Virginia Marriage Amendment is an amendment to the Constitution of Virginia that defines marriage as solely between one man and one woman and bans recognition of any legal status “approximat[ing] the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage”.[1] The amendment was ratified by 57% of the voters on November 7, 2006.

#37:

“None of my health ensurers have ever requested a copy of my marriage certificate, if they did, I would use a different insurance company.’

Who said anything about “insurers”?

@George Wells: caught again george,

and bans recognition of any legal status “approximat[ing] the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage

you will note that the 2005 form did not require any ‘legal status’ approximating anything. So that amendment would only refer to a legal situation that required a ‘legal status’. The Advance directive did not require ANY legal status.
Lie again, Try again.

#42:

Your present course of argument would seem to suggest that gays have gained nothing in the court victories that they have achieved.
If that is the case, why are YOU and the rest of the GOP trying so hard to reverse those court decisions?
According to you, they mean nothing, so why all the fuss?

“TRY AGAIN”

No.
The case has been decided.
The issue is settled.
You can make pretend that it doesn’t exist if you want.
I have what I want.

@George Wells:

Your present course of argument would seem to suggest that gays have gained nothing in the court victories that they have achieved.

I don’t seem to suggest anything. I am saying that the law in Virginia did not require ANY legal status for the person you designated on your health care decisions and living will forms and therefore your statements that you were denied rights is a flat out lie. I’m not suggesting that, I’m stating that.

If that is the case, why are YOU and the rest of the GOP trying so hard to reverse those court decisions?

Which court decision do you claim that I am trying to reverse? I’m not in Virginia so I’m certainly not doing anything in any court there. In fact, I’ll make the statement that I have not done one single thing to reverse any court decision for anything.

You can make pretend that it doesn’t exist if you want.

So some con guy convinced you that he got you some right that you didn’t have and you swallowed that hook line and sinker. If someone is in a world of make believe, it’s not me. You were fool enough to let people deny you a right that they didn’t have a right to deny to anyone and just because you woke up and someone told you something had changed, it’s you that choose to believe it, not me. Apparently SBS affects more than sexuality.

@Redteam:

“The Marshall-Newman Amendment, also referred to as the Virginia Marriage Amendment is an amendment to the Constitution of Virginia that defines marriage as solely between one man and one woman and bans recognition of any legal status “approximat[ing] the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage”.[1] The amendment was ratified by 57% of the voters on November 7, 2006.

Ah, there you have it. The big, scary clause that the gay activist movement latched on to and dishonestly misrepresented. Even before the Marshall-Newman Amendment, people had the right to name anyone they wanted as the agent of the medical power of attorney. So George could have named anyone; his mother, his brother, his next door neighbor, his financial advisor. But that is not the way George would present it because it doesn’t comport with his “We gays are so persecuted and denied our civil rights” meme.

I was hospitalized three years ago on an emergency basis. I could hardly walk from the pain but I had been previously scheduled for surgery so I had already filled out all the forms required by the hospital. Not once did they ask “Who is that with you?” They did ask if I had a medical power of attorney and WHO was my agent and if I had a copy of it with me.

So you can take George’s claims with a grain of salt, a large, unhealthy dose of salt.

@George Wells:

I have what I want.

Really George? you have capitulation to force. Do you have acceptance? No, you’re condoned, not ‘accepted’. There is a difference.

@retire05:

I was hospitalized three years ago on an emergency basis.

It sounds as if your medical experiences are similar to mine. All that BS George made up about his ‘Lover’ being denied yada, yada is a stack of BS. George must be a fiction writer, no wait, he can’t even make up believable lies, uh, fiction stories. I feel that George knows he has lost this line of crap and will be abandoning this thread, hoping to convince someone on the next one.

#47:
“Ah, there you have it. The big, scary clause that the gay activist movement latched on to and dishonestly misrepresented.”

Ok, BRILLIANT one, tell me exactly what “bans recognition of any legal status “approximat[ing] the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage” means if it DOESN’T mean that contracts meant to duplicate rights that automatically convey with marriage are void?
I’m not making this up. You can see the wording of the amendment. What DOES it ban if it doesn’t ban contractual arrangements that convey marriage-like rights? The lawyers here could figure this out, and so could the people. Only lying bigots feign disbelief that this amendment intended to strip gays of contractual rights.

#47:

What year were you institutionalized?
Can you remember?

#46:

I have what I want.
I don’t care if you accept it or condone it or curse it.
You don’t matter.
Neither does it matter to me how I got it.
It’s not going away.