Apologies to BK. You were right about gay marriages.

[dannubis]

I am shocked... I agree with the religeous dutch owner of this site...

Sloww: that is called separation of church and state... religion can be a guidance in secular life, it should not be an authority.

[MikeH]

I agree with Robert in principle, but in reality I have no problem with churches and other religious institutions being sanctioned among the "fancy places" that one can get married if that's what people want to do.

[Robert]

1) That's your opinion.
2) Why do you come stomping into the thread with complaints and then feed it?

For the record, it's not the gay marriage debate or the gay debate itself that's the problem. The problem is that people can't discuss these issues without getting personal and hunting each other through all threads.

I have no problem with churches and other religious institutions being sanctioned among the "fancy places" that one can get married if that's what people want to do.

People can marry in a church or in a fancy place, as long as it's under the responsibility of the government, and it's a civil servant who leads the ceremony. Not a priest or a pastor.
Not under the responsibility of someone else then a civil servant.

And the civil servant should just do what the law expects him to do, or look for another job. (we had the same debate overhere in Holland when we got gay marriages. Some civil servants did not want to marry gays. I think that they then just should look for another job. (of course cut them some slack, give them time to find the job. No reason to push them in weeks).

I agree with the religeous dutch owner of this site...

I'm not religious.
I think that religion is a human thing that seperates us from God.
Christianity is not a religion, though many christians and churches experience it as a religion, and start to believe that rituals and morals are the most important things, and that they should put them on others as well.

Having said that, a moral debate is always fun

[Dinner]

Nikolai: that's why churches should never perform acts that should be performed by the government.

"ONLY GOD CAN JOIN MAN AND WOMAN!!! [/protestant zealot]

[MOBIUS]

Religious zealot in general...

After all, if you can't get the people you've brainwashed breeding, how can you increase your cult?

[Asher]

You need to learn to distinguish between depriving someone of "rights" and depriving them of "benefits conferred onto them because they are members of a class the state wants to protect or encourage for moral and cultural reasons."

Are they hospital visitation rights or hospital visitation benefits?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I agree with Robert in principle, but in reality I have no problem with churches and other religious institutions being sanctioned among the "fancy places" that one can get married if that's what people want to do.

Truth, and usually, at least AFAIK in the US, you get your marriage certificate from the state and the pastor/priest/etc just signs off that he performed the marriage ceremony, but the state makes it official.

[Robert]

That's already way too much, imho.

[MikeH]

Truth, and usually, at least AFAIK in the US, you get your marriage certificate from the state and the pastor/priest/etc just signs off that he performed the marriage ceremony, but the state makes it official.

Same situation in the UK.

[Elok]

Are they hospital visitation rights or hospital visitation benefits?

I know many people who have "friends with hospital-visitation benefits."

[Wiglaf]

Are they hospital visitation rights or hospital visitation benefits?

Benefits, obviously. This is why the president at will can tell DHHS to allow them or forbid them for gays. He can't do that for freedom of speech. They are no more a "right" than your "right" to fly first class.

[SlowwHand]

Truth, and usually, at least AFAIK in the US, you get your marriage certificate from the state and the pastor/priest/etc just signs off that he performed the marriage ceremony, but the state makes it official.

That's already way too much, imho.

WHAT is too much to you? Signing off that they did the ceremony? A JP does it if a JP performs the ceremony. Get real.

[Asher]

Benefits, obviously. This is why the president at will can tell DHHS to allow them or forbid them for gays. He can't do that for freedom of speech. They are no more a "right" than your "right" to fly first class.

It's interesting how your government refers to them as rights:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/15/AR2010041505502.html

Obama extends hospital visitation rights to same-sex partners of gays

President Obama mandated Thursday that nearly all hospitals extend visitation rights to the partners of gay men and lesbians and respect patients' choices about who may make critical health-care decisions for them, perhaps the most significant step so far in his efforts to expand the rights of gay Americans.

The president directed the Department of Health and Human Services to prohibit discrimination in hospital visitation in a memo that was e-mailed to reporters Thursday night while he was at a fundraiser in Miami.

Administration officials and gay activists, who have been quietly working together on the issue, said the new rule will affect any hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid funding, a move that covers the vast majority of the nation's health-care institutions. Obama's order will start a rule-making process at HHS that could take several months, officials said.

Hospitals often bar visitors who are not related to an incapacitated patient by blood or marriage, and gay rights activists say many do not respect same-sex couples' efforts to designate a partner to make medical decisions for them if they are seriously ill or injured.

"Discrimination touches every facet of the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, including at times of crisis and illness, when we need our loved ones with us more than ever," Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement praising the president's decision.

Obama's mandate is the latest attempt by his administration to advance the agenda of a constituency that strongly supported his presidential campaign.

In his first 15 months in office, he has hailed the passage of hate crime legislation and held the first Gay Pride Day celebration at the White House. Last month, Obama's top military and defense officials testified before Congress in favor of repealing of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays in the armed forces.

But the moves have been too slow for some gay rights activists, who have urged the president to be more vocal and active in championing their causes. John Aravosis, a prominent gay blogger, wrote last October that Obama's "track record on keeping his gay promises has been fairly abominable."

Other gay rights activists have defended the administration, while at the same time pushing Congress to act on broader issues such as passage of an employment non-discrimination act and an end to the ban on gays serving openly in the military.

"We see this as part of our ongoing effort to encourage the administration to take action where it has the authority to act," said David Smith, a Human Rights Campaign spokesman. "We've been working and pressing the administration on our legislative agenda. That work continues."

Gay activists have argued for years that recognizing same-sex marriage would ease the stress associated with not being able to visit hospitalized partners.

But opponents of same-sex marriage have called the visitation issue a red herring, arguing that advocates want to provide special rights for gays that other Americans do not have. A spokesman for one group said the president's move was part of a broader effort to appease gays and to undermine the institution of marriage.

"In its current political context, President Obama's memorandum clearly constitutes pandering to a radical special interest group," said Peter S. Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council. He said that his organization does not object to gays giving their partners power of attorney but that it questions Obama's motives.

"The memorandum undermines the definition of marriage," he said.

Obama's memo to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius orders the development of new rules to ensure that hospitals "respect the rights of patients to designate visitors" and to choose the people who will make medical decisions on their behalf.

The action has the potential to increase conflicts between family members, same-sex partners and hospital staff over end-of-life decisions.

A spokesman for the American Hospital Association did not return calls and e-mails. Efforts to reach a spokesman for the Catholic Health Association of the United States were unsuccessful.

In the memo, Obama said hospitals should not be able to deny visitation privileges on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

"Every day, all across America, patients are denied the kindnesses and caring of a loved one at their sides whether in a sudden medical emergency or a prolonged hospital stay," he wrote.

Affected, he said, are "gay and lesbian Americans who are often barred from the bedsides of the partners with whom they may have spent decades of their lives -- unable to be there for the person they love, and unable to act as a legal surrogate if their partner is incapacitated."

Officials said Obama had been moved by the story of a lesbian couple in Florida, Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond, who were kept apart when Pond collapsed of a cerebral aneurysm in February 2007, dying hours later at a hospital without her partner and children by her side.

Obama called Langbehn on Thursday evening from Air Force One as he flew to Miami, White House officials said. In an interview, Langbehn praised the president for his actions.

"I kept saying it's not a gay right to hold someone's hand when they die, its a human right," she said, noting that she and Pond had been partners for almost 18 years. "Now to have the president call up and say he agrees with me, it's pretty amazing, and very humbling."

The new rules will not apply only to gays. They also will affect widows and widowers who have been unable to receive visits from a friend or companion. And they would allow members of some religious orders to designate someone other than a family member to make medical decisions.

But it is clear that the document focuses on gays. A number of areas remain in which federal law requires proof of marriage, including receiving Social Security benefits and in taxes.

"The General Accounting Office has identified 1,138 instances in federal law where marriage is important," said one gay rights activist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity before the White House formally announced the directive. "We've knocked off one of them."

I dare say it, Wiggy, but CHECK YOUR FACTS.

[Wiglaf]

Obama has also said every poor ****** has the right to health care. What difference does that make?

The simple fact he enabled it by telling DHHS what to do proves it's not a fundamental right. It's a benefit conferred on a class.

[Asher]

CHECK YOUR FACTS MISTER.