A reader kindly provides a link that includes another link to this story: “Hospital Visitation for Gay Partners Considered.“

The Minnesota legislature is considering a bill that would explicitly permit the romantic partners of gay and lesbian individuals to visit their loved ones in the hospital. Visitation rights were among the set of concerns raised by foes of the Marshall-Newman marriage amendment passed by Virginians in November, and precisely the sort of concern pooh-poohed as a non-issue and a distraction by the pro-amendment side. 

Here’s the money quote from the story:

Conservative groups are fighting the proposal. Their concern is not about visitation, but putting anything into law that acknowledges same sex partnerships.

“What we object to is the creation of these domestic partner statuses, which is really marriage by another name and that’s what we see they are attempting to do”, said Tom Prichard of the Minnesota Family Council.

Last fall in Virginia, the pro-amendment side also said the real issue was marriage, not visitation rights and whatnot. Attorney General Bob McDonnell even offered an adivsory opinion stating that the amendment would not affect such arrangements. Of course, his opinion lacks the force of law and is no more binding than anyone else’s. So perhaps Virginia should emulate Minnesota and consider legislation stipulating what the pro-amendment side said at the time: Gays and lesbians shall have hospital visitation rights, Marshall-Newman notwithstanding.

There will, presumably, be no objections—will there?

Update:: In the Comments, David draws attention to legislation, soon to become law, that addresses this very issue. The measure is HB 2730.

The basis for forbidding incest is primarily a scientific one, not a moral one, at least in my opinion. It is a matter of furthing genetic defects. However, nature is wasteful. She doesn’t forbid incest, she simply discards the results if they are too bad. We put the moral interpretation on this unwise practice, perhaps to reinforce it. It takes a lot of tribal resources to support defectinve individuals.  The thing here is to distinguish what is harmful to the tribe and what is not. Homosexuallity has been a tolerated and accepted trait through the ages as neutral, even venerated in some societies. (To hold down on population explosions that would be hard to sustain?) Religion is mainly the culprit in making it socially unacceptable. Perhaps for the reason that sex without having reproduction as its purpose became frowned on? Nature is not nearly as demanding as we are.

As long as your over 21 then you can marry anyone?????HMMMMM

Brothers wedding their sisters, brother wedding their brothers, rich powerful men with 25 wives, fathers wedding a daughter.

What kind of society do you want to live in Margie?

I guess if your Howard Stern then that may sound normal and healthy.

The problem with liberal ideas????

They dont make sense when you think it all the way through.

Marriage is licensed by the state. Therfore, it should be available to all citizens over 21. Using a moral judgement to deny a segment of the population this benefit, simply on the basis of some peoples opinion that,“ it’s not right” should be unconstitutional. I don’t see how the courts can fail to find that to be true.

Brian

Are you suggesting that any adults who say they love each other should be allowed to marry and recieve same benefits?

That there shouldnt be in state or local restrictions on marriage?

It’s not so simple, although people often look at it simplistically.  I’m gay, so obviously I know what that’s like.  It’s normal for me.  But what’s normal for me may not be normal for you, or even acceptable to you, which is fine.  Your beliefs should really have no effect on me.  I don’t need to be told about the rules of society—believe me, I know.  But what you might call majority rule I would call the tyranny of the majority.  We’ve seen tyranny of the majority before.  That it continues to happen troubles me.  But I am certain that attitudes are changing, despite passage of the Marshall-Newman amendment, and that over time, gays and lesbians will have every right that heterosexual couples have.

Hey David! Society has a right to make any judgement it wants about abnormal behavior. Some societies don’t care. While others, such as the US, do. Society establishes the norms and privileges of citizens, not the individual. We agree to live by a set of agreed upon standards for our society. Anyone living here, abides by societal norms or goes elsewhere. Virginians and others have made their decision on the norm. Very simple.

No, PATRICK, I think you missed my point.  If you happened to be gay, you would have an entirely different opinion on the matter.

I don’t think society needs to “celebrate being gay.“  They can celebrate, or not, they can think whatever they want.  Just don’t impose your morals, or your judgment on MY life.

Hey David! Again, you miss the point. One does not have to be a certain thing to make judgements about it. Homosexuality is abnormal sexual behavior, period. It really is not a debatable issue. What you and others are trying to do is make the abnormal become normal. Impossible.

The moral issue is separate. One person may think it is abnormal but amoral lifestyle. However it does not mean that society should celebrate being gay and encourage homosexuals to adopt and rear kids, let alone get the privileges of hetero marriage.

I would like to suggest that unless you are gay, or REALLY KNOW someone who is, you are unqualified to make moral judgments about gay people.  If you are not gay, then you have no idea what it is like to be gay.  Sure you can say being gay is abnormal, if you mean it the same way you would say a person with red hair is abnormal.  It’s not the norm.  So what?  That doesn’t mean that homosexuality, or homosexual people, are intrinsically disordered or immoral.

Brian

Are you suggesting that any adults who say they love each other should be allowed to marry and recieve same benefits?

That there shouldnt be in state or local restrictions on marriage?

Post Your Comments: