feckingmorons: As a nurse this sort of shiat makes life difficult. We have to see paperwork, but if it is your husband or wife we never even question them.

Just keep the paperwork handy if you are not married.

... and then - when you show the paperwork be told "we're sorry - even though you have a ML/CU/DP certificate, we can't do X because it involves HIPA or some other Federal law, which means that DOMA is now involved and so we can't recognize your paperwork..."

Been there - done that. Took a lawyer and cross-country calls to get hubby clothes from the ER after he died.

But - everyone WAS very sympathetic (really). Legally their hands were tied because with death is involved ALL policies end up being governed by SOME Federal regulation, and therefore, DOMA.

(Yes, even the will.)

SpaceyCat: Would power of attorney cover most of those?

\not the point, I know

No. Eventually you hit something Federal, and therefore, DOMA.

itazurakko: Freep Impact: Also, while I was looking up threads for quotes

My hat is off to you sir. Saves me the trouble of peering under that particular rock myself...

feckingmorons: POA, Durable POA, Medical Surrogate, Advanced directives, Living will... yeah but do you really want your doctor and nurse on the phone with the hospital lawyer or do you want them taking care of your relatives.

And why make one segment of the population have to jump through the same worn hoops again and again, when we've shown (via marriage!) that it's easy to have a "one stop shop" paper that does it all (namely, marriage!).

They don't have to. HIPA is Federal, so DOMA trumps any paperwork you have.

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Get paperwork to avoid long-term problems. Get multiple copies. Have one set in your home, one set with a trusted friend, and maybe one more set somewhere to be safe.

I have all mine in a big red binder in my desk. DNR/DNI forms, Organ/Blood/Tissue/Whatever donor , copy of my insurance stuff, a photocopy of SS card & driver's license, and up to date contact information for several of my close family.

That being said, the judge is a hair-splitting asshat. Marriage is the legal foundation for society and to single out one group for special treatment is moronic. There is nothing wrong (legally) with two consenting adults getting into a legally binding relationship. Insurance/Medical/Financial stuff all works with a two person setup and couple easily adapt within 24 hours if/when homosexual marriage is recognized.

Good luck with that.

I had all of it too. In MA, no less. What basically happens is that all of the paperwork is considered (legally) as a BUSINESS relationship which has no bearing on personal issues. It's a crap shoot as to whether someone will let you use them. In many cases, what ends up happening is that the agency has SOME Federal connection at which point DOMA comes into play, and you're screwed.

The only thing that saved me with the car was that I was named executor in the will, so they got around DOMA by completely IGNORING any of the paperwork except for the will, and used that.

Note that you can't even sign the DC as anything other than "friend of the deceased" because (well, DOMA) same-sex relationships aren't recognized at the federal level. THAT in of itself burns you later, because most agencies use the DC relationship as how they handle any requests (even with the other paperwork and will - they can just ignore it because their policy says to use the DC).

Rubberband Girl: FTFA - The attorney general's office countered that Montana can't extend spousal benefits to gay couples because those benefits are limited to married couples by definition.


Soooooooooooooooo...no other couple, gay or unmarried straights, can make funeral arrangements for their loved one who has just died?

Hypothetical situation...someone dies and the only person in their life is their sweetie. If there is no blood relative to step up and make funeral arrangements and the like, does the state handle this? Or the courts? Or the hospital? Seems kinda cold AND pointless not to let the grieving survivor step up just because they didn't put a ring on it.

You'd be on the DC as a "friend" as as long as NO ONE ELSE steps up to claim the body, you can make arrangements with a funeral director.

Actually - now that you mention it - I didn't have any problem with the funeral home because it was all arranged by minister friends of mine (and his). The will didn't get through probate (giving me the authority to deal with everything else) for six months.

(Actually the funeral home was FANTASTIC and if anyone in the Boston area ever wants a recommendation let me know @ultrafark.)

Huggermugger: omeganuepsilon: The law, and how well the hospital desk nurse / secretary adheres to it, are two totally different things.

So, you could have all of your "ducks in a row", all of the proper paperwork filed and on-hand, but if the desk nurse/secretary/administrator is a vicious anti-gay fundie, that person could simply choose to stonewall you, ignore you, marginalize you.

/similar to those pharmacists who refuse to fill birth-control pill prescriptions


More likely it's an administrator who is REALLY sticking by the rules because they're afraid that someone ELSE will sue them (e.g., irate anti-gay family member) and would PREFER doing the right thing but feels his/her hands are tied.

Whenever I got someone who understood the situation but then said "OK - I just have to check..." I knew I was screwed regardless of the paperwork.

I only ran into one office (my town hall) that was particularly nasty about the relationship.

Wodan11: When are we going to learn that marriage is a religious thing. Separation of church and state, anybody? Marriage should mean absolutely nothing to the government. No tax breaks, no beneficiary, nothing. 99% of people should have both a marriage and a civil union. It's the 1% that we fight over.

But if that 1% wants a civil union without a marriage, no problem (and once we make marriage mean nothing, it shouldn't matter to them, either).

Or, if they get some wacko church to marry them, that's no problem either. The Baptists etc. can't have a problem with the "Church of Modern Enlightenment" (I just made that up) marrying gays because to fight against one church's prerogatives would be undermining their own, as well.

Now - let's go back to REALITY, shall we?

IF you've been paying attention (because clearly you haven't), ALL of the recent pushes for civil unions and/or domestic partnerships have been countered by anti-equality forces because both of those things are "too close to marriage". For them, the whole "the problem is the word" argument is a fabrication.

Feel free to read up on hundreds of articles about the efforts in MD, DE, IL, RI, WA, HI, and WI to educate yourself. Note that while some of these managed to pass anyway, others (MD, WI, and possibly RI to come) were thwarted BECAUSE of the "it's too similar to marriage" issue.

Freep Impact: Another point is that the destruction of traditional aka "Real" marriage and family is one of the stated goals of the homosexual agenda pushers

Wow. I'd heard that gays unintentionally destroyed marriage, before. But apparently now they're doing it on purpose. Millions of gay people want to be with their loved ones only because it will cause people in traditional marriages to explode.

/ This is what people actually believe.

Zamboro: Aigoo: "No. Because dumbass people, that's why!"

Well, no, opposition to gays is completely Biblical. There are multiple admonitions against gay sex in both the Old and New testaments, covering both genders and in different terms each time so that it can't be dismissed through creative translation/reinterpretation.

I applaud you for departing from the scriptural stance as I think we'd both agree it's barbaric, but don't try to have your cake and eat it too; at least admit that it is in fact a departure.

kinda, homosexuality as we know it today(consenting adults in a committed relationship) was basically unknown in Roman/greek culture. Ignoring for the moment Leviticus, Biblical prohibitions of homosexual acts are probably refering to raping young boys

Deucednuisance: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Marriage is the legal foundation for society

I am with you on everything you said, except that.

It's simply historically inaccurate.

There are two intertwined concepts that are the foundation of society, as evidenced in archeological and historical records:

Agriculture, and the concept of property.

And there's a growing body of evidence that humans started growing grains not to make bread, but to make beer.

So, it's more historically accurate to say that "beer is the foundation of society" than to say the same of marriage.

People want it to be so about marriage, because it fits their observation of current society, but that doesn't make it any more true, historically.

(Anyone who says that marriage is the foundation of "society" might want to read up on the Roman notion of "Paterfamilias". Sure it concerns the conduct of people within marriages, but what a marriage is, and how it operates under paterfamilias are a whole `nuther ball of wax than what the current arguments say marriage is.)

While I appreciate any convicting viewpoint (just got done with Googling parts of your counter-argument and being learndificated), perhaps I was unclear on my assertion. I meant marriage, as a structure, was core to the continuation of society.

Social norms assert the traditional nuclear family is ideal for raising children. I personally believe that two parental figures, no matter the gender, is also ideal, in terms of stability and dual income. I also understand that there are numerous single-parent households which are successful and numerous dual-parent households which are considered unhealthy for the raising of children (alcoholism, domestic abuse, extreme poverty, etc), but that is a new can of worms I don't plan to open.

Biologically, the ideal goal in life is to pass on one's genes. Homosexual marriage is biologically unnatural (in terms of reproduction only) and has explicit costs to the individual and society as a whole (two people who cannot create another generation of life). As long as all parties accept these costs, I'd be certainly willing to allow the homosexual community to be married if they so chose. I personally feel that the net benefit of a positive household for children (usually adopted in gay households) is much more important than ensuring rod A fits into slot B.

As for the foundation of society, I do hold to that. The legal system and medical benefits system is geared towards the spouse being the decision-maker for affairs of the estate. If one is dead or incapcitated, the ability to handle one's own estate is greatly reduced. Therefore, a primary partner is key to finalizing any arrangements. The entire legal/financial/medical system's rules for these things are derived from the next-of-kin concept.

I figure the biggest hurdle to legalizing gay marriage is the "icky" factor (Because "teh ghey = buttsecks") for society, not the idea of two adults entering an insurance pool together or making end-of-life decisions for each other. But, progress happens one funeral at a time.

Deucednuisance: wolftek: you couldn't be there because some nurse decided not to let you in because your relationship wasn't 'blessed' by some church.

That's not why, and don't imagine that it is.

Marriage is about contracts, and it's a state matter, hence the need for a license and the fact that civil marriages (like mine) exist. You're kept out of that room because the State hasn't replaced your partner's blood next-of-kin with you, by contract. "Blessedness" is utterly irrelevant.

Churches, for all the noise they make about it, ain't got jack shiate to do with the rights, responsibilities, and privileges attained through marriage. I wish I didn't have to say this in every single farking marriage thread....


Incorrect. During the Bush administration, the policy was that the acts of clergy were seen as legal acts, hence religious wedding ceremonies or anything similar HAD to be accompanied by a marriage license or the clergy member(s) involved would be liable for federal fraud charges.

It was assumed that religious-only ceremonies would lead to fights over DOMA, and so they were barred. Now, most denominations never asked about this, for example, my mom is a pastor and encouraged many couples, especially elderly couples who met in retirement homes and already had grown children and wills and such, to forgo official marriage and simply do the religious ceremony only route. We were told that, for example, the Baptist preacher would be more than happy to do a religious-only ceremony because they didn't have church lawyers watching their every move.

Even hetero couples, then, were (and perhaps still are) banned from having religious only ceremonies. Acts of clergy were (and perhaps still are) considered legal acts, regardless of religious affiliation, and had to be approved by the government prior to the ceremony.

I think this was in response to denominations such as the United Churches of Christ advertising themselves on national television as welcoming gays (this was pulled after a month by the TV network). There was a Disciples of Christ congregation in Indianapolis during this period that was almost entirely gay. To combat this religious unorthodoxy that would legitimize gay relationships, they told the major denominations that religious ceremonies are in fact legal acts and must conform to (unofficial) federal standards.

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: But, progress happens one funeral at a time.

In physics and religion, yes. Here, GSS data suggests progress is also being made by faster means; not only are successive birth cohorts increasingly accepting, but also over time individual US birth cohorts (IE: those born from 1960-1969) are becoming increasingly accepting.

We'll see whether the trend continues.

ursomniac:
IF you've been paying attention (because clearly you haven't), ALL of the recent pushes for civil unions and/or domestic partnerships have been countered by anti-equality forces because both of those things are "too close to marriage". For them, the whole "the problem is the word" argument is a fabrication.

Feel free to read up on hundreds of articles about the efforts in MD, DE, IL, RI, WA, HI, and WI to educate yourself. Note that while some of these managed to pass anyway, others (MD, WI, and possibly RI to come) were thwarted BECAUSE of the "it's too similar to marriage" issue.

It got largely drowned out by the Prop 8 fight in California, but that same election cycle Florida passed a constitutional amendment that specifically banned not just marriage but any sort of civil union or domestic partnership legal arrangements that could be construed as similar in any way to marriage. If it was really just about the word "marriage", there would have been no reason to explicitly ban any sort of legal recognition whatsoever of same-sex relationships, but that's what got put in there and that's what everybody voted for.