If you wonder why LGBTs need ALL rights of marriage...

[Sapphocrat]

John Crisci and Michael Tartaglia, his partner of 33 years, thought they had done everything right. They had wills and other paperwork drawn up giving each other the right to make medical and financial decisions for each other, and specifying which relatives should inherit their assets when they die.

They packed the papers for long trips Crisci didn't have the documents with him when Tartaglia collapsed at a gym on the morning on his 70th birthday nearly two years ago. An EMT suggested he run home to get the paperwork rather than risk getting into a dispute with hospital officials over medical decisions.

Crisci knew he was too late when a doctor and chaplain were waiting to talk to him at the hospital. To him, the story shows why same-sex couples should be able to register as domestic partners and get many of the same rights as married couples under Colorado law.

"You don't lose that extra 30 or 40 minutes which may be the last time you can hold on to each other," Crisci said.

<snip>

While married couples are already entitled to some basic protections under the law, Crisci said gay men and women who draw up the documents can find themselves in court if estranged family members challenge a will after a partner's death.

<snip>

More:
http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20061105/NEWS/111050064

[Heidi]

1. Gay rights = human rights.

Thank you for this article, Sapphocrat. Recommending. :thumbsup:

[MrScorpio]

2. Absolutely

It's about our basic humanity.

Republican Gay bashers refuse to understand this

[theHandpuppet]

15. And these rights are not a political football

... to be supported only in times of conveneince. There are some Dems who could also take a lesson, as well.

[Pacifist Patriot]

18. Indeed

[TwentyFive]

26. Straights for Marriage Equality

No couple should have to endure 'back of the bus' treatment from our own government. In fact, I bet gay couples would rather ride the back of the bus than have to endure all the legal hoops they must jump through.

[DeSwiss]

3. K & R

[Nicole]

4. K & R

:kick:

[ruiner4u]

5. wait!

Your not saying that extended family members who once shunned a gay guy are trying to collect on his estate? C'mon!!...

[NMMNG]

7. Not in the Crisci case,

But it has happened in many other cases. Even when the family has broken all ties with the gay person, they feel no shame in trying to take their money for themselves, as they feel it shouldn't go to the gay partner. Such is the depth of their hatred for gays.

[motocicleta]

13. What are you saying?

[Mabus]

31. It happened with my great-uncle

Most everything was in his partner's name, including the house. When his partner of close to 50 years died my uncle was kicked out of the house and lost most of his stuff. He was in the process of moving from his apartment to my parent's house (they used to have a small cottage on the back part of the lot that my dad used as his studio) when my uncle died. I never knew him. He died when I was an infant but I grew up hearing the stories of how my uncle got screwed and his partner's relatives got greedy.

btw, my uncle's homosexuality was never openly discussed until about twenty years ago. His partner was always referred to as "the roommate" or "his roommate" but they had been together since college.

edited for spelling

[Sapphocrat]

45. God, how sad.

And all too frequent. :(

[Bluebear]

6. Proudly k/r

[WildEyedLiberal]

8. Tragic

That should never happen to any couple. What bullshit. What the hell is so controversial about someone choosing whom to bequeath their estate to?

K&R

[elocs]

9. There is a referendum in Wisconsin to change the state Constitution

to ban gay marriage: http://milwaukee.about.com/od/electionsandpolitics/i/civilunionsban.htm:

'"Shall section 13 of article XIII of the constitution be created to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state?”

Although commonly considered a gay marriage issue, the amendment could not only impact gay couples, but heterosexual couples who are in domestic partnerships. As it stands right now, same sex couples cannot marry in Wisconsin; state law already defines marriage as between one man and one woman. The constitutional ban would make it impossible for courts to decide otherwise.'

Wisconsin used to be a progressive state even though it is a blue state. We have at times overlooked the importance of local and state races and the impact they can have on our lives.

[Sapphocrat]

46. Yep.

The bizarre thing is, it will probably pass in Wisconsin, but there are rumblings that a similar ban isn't guaranteed passage in -- wait for it -- South Dakota, of all places.

[foreigncorrespondent]

10. K&R (N/T)

[FernBell]

11. bump

[cboy4]

12. What are you trying to do Sapph, lose us the election?!!

:eyes:

K&R :kick:

[Divine Discontent]

35. exactly cboy4!

good to see you. ;)

K&R :kick:


www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- antibush prodem stickers/shirts

[cboy4]

55. What up dude?!

:)

[Sapphocrat]

47. LOL! n/t

[xchrom]

14. k&r

[BadgerKid]

16. k&r

Equal rights for all.

[soothsayer]

17. at least us lesbians can say 'that's my sister' (diff last name okay,

since one or both of us could be married). Maybe gay men have to change their names to match so they can at least say they are brothers?

[TwentyFive]

30. Why should couples have to lie - so others can be comfortable in their bigotry?

I think it's insulting and degrading to have to lie and call the one you love a sister or brother. And, what if they're different races? Reminds me of jews forced to lie to the Nazis - you sit there waiting/hoping they believe you?

[soothsayer]

38. true, but I'm just sayin', gotta' figure out how to work around that

kind of stuff if you want to be with your dying loved one, until the laws/attitudes change and all that

[TwentyFive]

42. It's good practical advice.

I worked in places where two guys use the 'cousins' excuse. I get kind of antsy when other people's dignity is on the line.

[Sapphocrat]

48. I've done it.

Or rather, my Mom and my sisters and I agreed beforehand that to get 1) my sister's boyfriend, and 2) my then-partner in to see my dad in intensive care, we'd simply add two more "siblings" to the family.

Not the same thing as being kept from one's own partner, but it all begs the question: What the fark difference does it make whether somebody's related to the patient by blood? I have LOTS of blood relatives I wouldn't want in my home, let alone my hospital room.

[Coexist]

19. kick,

[bulletsandspikes]

20. I want one person to tell me

WHAT MAKES THEM ANY DIFFERENT? NOTHING!

This song is by Strike Anywhere

"Allies"

For the days to come watch out
They're taking everything we die for
like the freedom from this world's disorder
what did they murder you for?
born in gray eyes up but heads bowed
our comrades' songs heard at Stonewall loud
for every day we'll fight our way through
or we'll drown in all our past mistakes
Searching not waiting
For our reaction
Don't let them tell you
What you cannot be

all the silent nights you thought
the space between you and the mirror
telling all the things you couldn't tell us
so afraid the world won't listen
and the ministers fill up the skies
praying on our fears and lies
still Love is the last thing we've got left to lose
our we'll drown in all our past mistakes

Searching not waiting
For our reaction
Don't let them tell you
What you cannot be

Searching no longer
For our reaction
Don't let them tell you
Who you cannot love

For all this
You wanted
Don't fall
Names of the fallen
In the wall
Live on
So arm in arm
We'll fight them down
With all our pride

Don't let them tell you
Who you cannot love

[ninkasi]

21. It just seems so very simple to me

By now, it seems so obvious to me that consenting adults should have the same rights as others, and that the sex of the people entering into marriage shouldn't be an issue. There is no valid reason to allow groups of spiteful, arrogant people to dictate how other people should live. If they don't approve of same-sex marriage, then they are free to marry a person of the opposite sex.

The arguments conservatives make, while they use various code words, all boil down to opposing gay marriage because of their religious convictions Since religion is not supposed to be used as far as making laws are concerned, they don't have any valid reasons to prevent gay marriage. They are free to oppose it personally, but only for themselves, not others.

In practice, if not in law, same sex couples are entering into relationships which are identical to marriage. It is law which prevents gays from automatically having the same rights as others. Government, under pressure from right wing religious groups, are preventing same sex couples from enjoying the same range of equal rights as straight couples. We have heard politicians making speeches, where they use such phrases as "I feel that", or "I believe", and then go on to explain why they won't grant equal rights under law to gays.

After all of the words are spoken, or written, and we strip away the excess phrases, it always boils down to using the law to deny equal rights to same sex couples based on religious beliefs. The ironic thing to me, at least, is that the law doesn't prevent gay couples from living in a relationship which is identical to marriage, except for the rights given to married couples. If the anti-gay folks are claiming that their objections are based on certain moral values they are most certainly talking about sex, and whether it's considered marriage or not, gay couples will have sex, marriage or not.

When any of us loses a spouse, or partner, if denied the title spouse, the pain is overwhelming. Imagine how truly shattering it would be, after building a life with that person, to have others prevent you from being at your beloved's side if they die, or be able to arrange funeral services, even if they have made their wishes known. I have three grown children. Two are married, one is engaged. If I were able to step in and overturn my daughter-in-law, or son-in-law's wishes, and keep them from being at their side in case of critical illness, I would be betraying my role as a mother who loves her children.

Along with all of the many, many valid reasons for making same sex marriage legal, the most compelling to me is that it seems sadistic to cause such unnecessary grief and pain to people in their times of need. Why should we, as a nation, practice such wanton cruelty? A society which values all of it's citizens, and encourages stable, healthy relationships, is one which will be strong, and healthy itself. It's long past time to stop denying equal rights to all of our brothers and sisters.

[Divine Discontent]

36. thank you ninkasi!

wish I could put you on tv saying that...

[LilyLibber]

44. Well said, ninkasi!

Thank you for this, and thanks to the OP. Civil rights are everyone's fight.

[Sapphocrat]

50. Terrific post, thank you, ninkasi.

Since the Religious Reich has failed to explain how same-sex marriage will destroy "traditional" marriage, they're falling back completely on the persecuted-Christians garbage:

The war on faith

The question often comes up as to why Christian Conservatives care about issues such as gay marriage or the display of the Ten Commandments. A libertarian argument is made that gay marriages will not stop churches from performing their normal ceremonies, nor will removing a Ten Commandments display stop a church from hosting the Commandments on their own property.

The arguments can be persuasive if you don't consider history or the state of our world today. Does there exist a country on Earth where there's a complete secularization of society and complete freedom for the church? In much of the West, Christian doctrines and practices are strictly limited. A Swedish pastor spent years in court being charged with a hate crime for preaching a sermon against homosexuality. In Canada, a respected commentator on government radio suggested all ministers be licensed by the state and forbidden to teach the exclusivity of one religion over another or to speak of Hell. In Australia, Christian ministers have been prosecuted for speaking out against Islam. Right here in America, in Long Island, billboards that quoted scriptures on homosexuality were removed with pressure from the city.

This blows the theory that the church can enjoy full freedom in a completely secularized society. Indeed, it can be said that where secularization increases, the liberty of the church decreases. Despite constantly lecturing, "You can't regulate morality," few liberals actually believe that. Through the public school system, children are presented with a liberal morality. Many support employment discrimination laws that would make it impossible for a Christian bookstore to refuse to hire a homosexual or transsexual due to moral concerns. When confronted with the objection, I've had liberals tell me that such laws are acceptable because they see nothing wrong with homosexuality. So thus they want to legislate their own view of morality!

<snip>

They have declared war on the influence of faith and morality in the public square. Their ultimate aim is the creation of another completely secular state which treats religious people and ideas with contempt. On the other side, Christian Conservatives seek to restore the ingenuous balance that existed in this country and kept us free from culture wars for nearly 200 years.

More, if you can stomach it:
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/graham/061106

"Free from culture wars for nearly 200 years"? :rofl:

And this dork needs a whack on the side of the head with a history book. Last I heard, super-Catholic Spain (for one) hasn't outlawed religious freedom since OK'ing same-sex marriage.

P.S. What self-respecting LGBT would want to work in a right-wing Christian bookstore?

[NMMNG]

57. Where "full freedom of religion"

means "freedom to discriminate against and harass/harm other on the basis of one's religious beliefs", I guess these people have a point when they say their religious rights are being curtailed.

Fortunately "full freedom of religion" doesn't mean "freedom to discriminate against and harass/harm other on the basis of one's religious beliefs" anywhere except in their twisted, hateful minds.

[LeftCoast]

22. Marriage rights are so important

Thanks for posting this!

K & R

[Erechtheides]

23. Ugh.

Any objection to full marriage rights can only be based on the assumption that we just don't love the way straights do, that gay relationships are only about sex.
Once you give us credit for the normal gamut of human emotions, you can't read something like this and not see how wrong the status quo is.

[Solly Mack]

24. recommended

[spooky3]

25. this would apply to any single person--not necessarily LGBT, right?

It's another example of how the law is simply not protecting the rights of single individuals.

[kiahzero]

28. By definition, a single person wouldn't need to be able to visit their partner (n/t)

[mondo joe]

29. How would a single person have a spouse that can't be with them

in the hospital?

[spooky3]

34. the point is that they ought to be able to contract with a friend

who is not a family member to make certain decisions.

The Virginia constitutional amendment that is on the ballot tomorrow has these problems, according to the Dem. county committees.

[kiahzero]

39. Oh, yeah, the Virginia amendment is a mess.

There was a talk here about it and how it was a poorly written piece of crap... then again, that's par for the course for the Virginia legislature.

[bulletsandspikes]

41. And I will vote against the piece of shit

[kiahzero]

43. I'm not sure I even want to talk to people who are voting for it.

Anyone who votes for it has clearly let their bigotry overcome their reason, and I don't generally care to associate with such people.

[mondo joe]

40. A single person may or may not have a friend to whom they have

granted special status.

A married person by definition does. And in some cases, because the state erfuses to recognize the marriage, they are denied.

It doesn't really affect the unmarried because sincesuch a designation is optional, someoe would always have to prove tey have that status, whereas married couples would never have to.

[Divine Discontent]

37. you sound right to me!

so I'm doubly f'd!


www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- antibush prodem stickers/shirts

[Cameron27]

27. Civil rights

are not negotiable.

[Raffi Ella]

32. Amen.

I stand with gay and lesbian citizens in the fight for equal rights under the law.It's not just your fight,it's OUR fight,America's Fight.

In the years to come I hope all Americans look back on this despicable practice of government condoned bigotry and discrimination as they do when it was condoned by the Government to make blacks ride the back of the bus.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

33. K&R!!!

:kick:

[underpants]

49. I know it doesn't do you any good now but..

In 20 years or so this will not be an issue anymore civil unions will be the norm. Why do I say that? Well the exact same crowd that is fighting this was the crowd that fought the civil rights movement when they failed there they tried to make "mixed marriages" a horrible taboo well that failed too (slowly it is more accepted now but not complete, obviously) and so will this.

We have been right about all of this before and we still are. For now hopefully the winds will shift soon and in the opposite direction as they are now.

[Sapphocrat]

51. I expect you're right, up.

I just hope I live to see it.

[Erechtheides]

52. ...I forgot to add

my very first k&r!

:kick:

[Tigress DEM]

59. LOOK at YOU! Kicking up a storm! Welcome to DU! nt

[ninkasi]

53. To all of you who are being denied equal rights...

I got a beautiful letter today that I wish I could share with you, along with some pictures. The letter is from a man who is like a son to me. He and my daughter were friends from the time they were fourteen or fifteen years old. His partner I've known for several years now, and my family and I dearly love them. They were able to fulfill a dream last year, and adopted a little boy from the Ukraine.

This letter is just catching us all up to date of their past year with their new son. They recently took a long vacation, and the letter is full of all of the fun they had. I got caught up on how much progress, and happiness their child has made. He believes he is living a life that is more wonderful than the most beautiful dream ever. His face shines with happiness, and his eyes sparkle. Nobody, but nobody, reading this letter could ever doubt the goodness of these men, or their contributions to society.

So, for any lurking freepers...my three friends live in a beautiful home, take wonderful vacations, and live lives full of happiness, love, and share the warmth of friendship with a lot of people. Think of that, please, as you sit, unloved and bitter. People like you who prevent this couple, and so many others from being able to marry, are the losers, in the end. While my friends live a life of love, you lead a life of hate, and don't even realize that your unhappiness in life is caused by the poison you infect yourselves with.

To all of my wonderful GLBT friends, I hope you all can have lives that are happy and filled with love. I think it's criminal that people are able to pressure politicians into violating your human rights. I hope, with all of you, that the day will come when all of us have equal rights. In the meantime, I hope that each and every one of you know the truth, that the ones who oppose you are the losers in the end.

[Maven]

54. K/R

Booyahhhh

[readmoreoften]

56. Fucking disgusting! This shit is my worst nightmare. /nt

[Tigress DEM]

58. ?? If it's called civil union and still protects all those rights, is that enough?

When I think of this issue, I go with the "literal" meaning of the word "marriage" and say we fight to say, "let them keep that word" and make them accept that giving people the right (for example) to say who is there at their bedside when they die is up to each individual, especially when they take the time to draw it up ahead of time.

If they are going to so narrowly define marriage, then let them keep that word in all it's narrowness and tell them that's all they get. They don't get to tell others how they live --- or die.