It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gov. Walker moves to ban hospitals from allowing same sex partners from visiting each other

page: 2
26
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   
I have two questions:

How will this be enforced? If hospitals simply refuse to say "if you are having sex with him you can't see him," what will happen? If hospitals adopt a "don't ask don't stop" policy what will happen. I have been in every major hospital in my area and "visiting" by anyone has NEVER been a problem, I can't see the issue here.

What is the definition here? So if my friend and I live together, but don't have sex, can we see each other? Is it the sex he is so opposed to, or is it two people being close? Is it simply that two people who have the same sex and have sex, are prohibited? What if we are really, really, really, close - but not in that way?

This kind of thing is simply stupid beyond reason, this is the reasoning of a computer virus, not a thinking evolving being. So if this happens, HOW WILL THIS MAKE LIFE BETTER? Is there some kind of underground social group that meets while on the death bed of same sex partners that is destroying the world? I fail to see how this helps a single thing in life.

Maybe if the learned folks here can enlighten me as to what the crises is that this legislation seeks to remedy.




posted on May, 17 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Don't get me wrong here, because while I don't personally support same-sex marriage (under my own legislation, the "It's Icky" Act) I would not vote against it. If two people love each other, and want to spend the rest of their life together, then they should be allowed to...if the state allows it.

That being said:


In 2006, 60% of state voters signed off on changing the constitution to ban gay marriage and a "legal status identical or substantially similar to marriage" for same-sex couples.


It looks like if they want this changed, they're going to have to get the people to vote differently. It's pretty specific that "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" are covered under that legislation. It sucks, and it's backwoods hicksville, but there it is. Unless I'm reading it wrong, of course.


/TOA



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by crankyoldman
 


What happens is that the sinners spread gaynesses to people...
If you put too many of um in a hospital they spread it, so that
it gets in the blood supplies, You ever been around them types and
feel your gayness growing? There is enough sickness's in the
hospitals



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
Don't get me wrong here, because while I don't personally support same-sex marriage (under my own legislation, the "It's Icky" Act) I would not vote against it. If two people love each other, and want to spend the rest of their life together, then they should be allowed to...if the state allows it.

That being said:


In 2006, 60% of state voters signed off on changing the constitution to ban gay marriage and a "legal status identical or substantially similar to marriage" for same-sex couples.


It looks like if they want this changed, they're going to have to get the people to vote differently. It's pretty specific that "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" are covered under that legislation. It sucks, and it's backwoods hicksville, but there it is. Unless I'm reading it wrong, of course.


/TOA



Guess we massas need to be puttin dem darkies back under the woodpile, too, huh? Can't have dem negroe boys showering with our pure white progeny canst we?

Denying a same-sex couple in federal statute is the same as endorsing one religion over another, some thing that must never come to pass under the flag I served.

No taxation without representation means the IRS can not any longer again require a "marriage filing status" on the 1040's if the Federal government denies civil unions recognition.

Clearly, and thank God, this issue is far outside the scope of the mouth-breathing asses in the Wisconsin govt.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
reply to post by whaaa
 


As always I am NOT a believer in the "No Win Scenario", so one little piece of paper circumvents this freak's notion of what is Godly.

It is called power of attorney.

Every domestic partner couple (straight / gay / lesbian) needs to sign over power of attorney to each other; then this jackass and his bible-nazis can pound sand.


add a medical power of attorney and they can be there anytime not just visitors hours



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger

Guess we massas need to be puttin dem darkies back under the woodpile, too, huh? Can't have dem negroe boys showering with our pure white progeny canst we?


This thread is about a person's right to the access of loved ones, not about some sort of caricature of racism in the deep South, which is about as offensive as saying two people that want to spend their life together can't.


Denying a same-sex couple in federal statute is the same as endorsing one religion over another, some thing that must never come to pass under the flag I served.


Except that one is religion and the other is not religion. The restriction placed on the Federal Government under the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not apply to marriage. Marriage is handled by the states, as it should be. But other than being completely different, they're the same.

Fortunately the country you served is a country of laws. And some of those laws are voted upon by the people. If the people don't say what you want them to say, then try to either change their minds or try to change the way laws are made. I'd go with changing minds. Our system of voting, while not perfect, is pretty darn good.

/TOA



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Yeah... Walker, you're total scum.

Walker seeks to stop defense of state's domestic partner registry

Gov. Scott Walker believes a new law that gives gay couples hospital visitation rights violates the state constitution and has asked a judge to allow the state to stop defending it.

Democrats who controlled the Legislature in 2009 changed the law so that same-sex couples could sign up for domestic partnership registries with county clerks to secure some - but not all - of the rights afforded married couples.

Wisconsin Family Action sued last year in Dane County circuit court, arguing that the registries violated a 2006 amendment to the state constitution that bans gay marriage and any arrangement that is substantially similar.

What about you leave people the FREAKING HELL ALONE??? Especially gays... they don't have it rough enough as it is? Hell THEY ARE HUMAN TOO, leave them the hell ALONE!!
edit on 17-5-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-5-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)


Hey now.. lets be fair.. have you read the states constitution? Does this law really violate it? if so then the Gov is right. isn't that what we elect people for.. to uphold the law? The Gov would be doing his sworn duty to overturn this thing if it does violate the states constitution. I say bravo Gov !
edit on 18-5-2011 by JohnPhoenix because: spelling



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by crankyoldman
I have two questions:

How will this be enforced? If hospitals simply refuse to say "if you are having sex with him you can't see him," what will happen? If hospitals adopt a "don't ask don't stop" policy what will happen. I have been in every major hospital in my area and "visiting" by anyone has NEVER been a problem, I can't see the issue here.


The issue is that no one but family members are allowed to visit in some situations, not that random people can visit but only if they're not in love with the patient. Family is defined as blood relations or spouses, and spouse is defined as legally married. So they enforce it by not allowing anyone who doesn't fall into those categories.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   
This isn't just an issue about gays/straights.

This is an issue for EVERY American. It's a matter of freedom.

It's the new Jim Crow.




posted on May, 18 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Sometimes I am really wondering if we are knee-deep in the biggest psy-op conspiracy EVER. It is as if some people high-up WANT the GOP to devolve into a hating ,racist ,mysogynist, homophobic, war-mongering representation of bloody Satan himself, and keep pushing forward the completely insane wacko's, instead of the traditional Republicans.

What are they hoping to accomplish? That the GOP implodes and that a new, refreshed -call it "old style" GOP will rise from the ashes?

It's not really working. People seem to welcome those megalomanic wacko's and keep voting them in office, while the moderates get consistently dumped. Has the electorate gone mad through years of chem-trails, EM-radiation ,Aspartame ,GM-food ,and whatnot? Looks bloody like it!



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by pajoly
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Regardless, he is a sick, heartless jerk who embodies today's "true Christian." If there is hell, you can be sure it will be paved with the souls of American evangelicals.
edit on 17-5-2011 by pajoly because: spelling



I'm not usually one to bash on religion, everyone has their own beliefs and are entitled to them, but I can't help but fully agree with that statement. And the whole fact that this man is trying to deny someone who could quite possibly be dying, from seeing someone that loves and cares for him like any woman could care for their man, is just sickening.

And I'm not saying that just because I'm gay. This is just plain stupid, and a definite infraction against the Constitution. What the hell happened to "Life, Freedom and the Pursuit of Happiness"



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
Don't get me wrong here, because while I don't personally support same-sex marriage (under my own legislation, the "It's Icky" Act) I would not vote against it. If two people love each other, and want to spend the rest of their life together, then they should be allowed to...if the state allows it.

That being said:


In 2006, 60% of state voters signed off on changing the constitution to ban gay marriage and a "legal status identical or substantially similar to marriage" for same-sex couples.


It looks like if they want this changed, they're going to have to get the people to vote differently. It's pretty specific that "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" are covered under that legislation. It sucks, and it's backwoods hicksville, but there it is. Unless I'm reading it wrong, of course.


/TOA


you act as though the People organized the vote in the first place. where were the teeming masses clamoring for legislation against gays? they weren't there. this issue was forced onto the american people by a very small, very religious minority. the people who turn out to vote do not represent an unbiased cross-section of the true society, but rather the most ardent advocates of each side.

if there was a vote on a law banning ham sandwiches, and i didn't care for them one way or another, i wouldn't vote. if someone DETESTS ham sandwiches to the point that they don't want others eating them, they would support it. the only people who voted against the ban would be avid ham sandwich eaters. so even though the law is wrong and the TRUE majority probably doesn't even care, the ham sandwich is banned.

it doesn't matter whether the law violates the state constitution, the amendment to the Wisconsin state constitution violates common sense American values. All men are created equal. 'nuff said.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by codenameotacon89


What the hell happened to "Life, Freedom and the Pursuit of Happiness"


Didn't you get the memo? George Bush rescinded those trivialities when he instituted the Patriot act.

It's a brave new world, welcome to the monkey house and stfu.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Not allowed as The White House sometime in 09 cleared gay people from being at their lover's bedside and have further authourized that if they are the person's chosen "Power Of Attorney" delegate that they can make medical decisions on behalf of the patient.

Federal trumps State in matters like this!
edit on 18-5-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
*facepalm*
I am so tired of the personal agendas of politicians. Gay, straight, shrubbery-loving. . . .who cares.
If he finds it offensive, then that is his right.
But itis not his right to legislate his own biases onto others.

He took a job as a public servant. Not a dictator, bent on ruling his fiefdom with his own brand of morality. This goes for all others on the other end of the spectrum as well.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
*facepalm*
I am so tired of the personal agendas of politicians. Gay, straight, shrubbery-loving. . . .who cares.
If he finds it offensive, then that is his right.
But itis not his right to legislate his own biases onto others.

He took a job as a public servant. Not a dictator, bent on ruling his fiefdom with his own brand of morality. This goes for all others on the other end of the spectrum as well.



You are claiming that Walker is a dictator yet on an unrelated thread you tried to black out on me for trying to cite Brewer as a Dictator yet you went off one me for it. Double standard. This is where the GOP is headed, lies, deceit, dictatorial policies.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


Apples and oranges, Scooter. I don't remember Brewer imposing her brand of morality on gays.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


Apples and oranges, Scooter. I don't remember Brewer imposing her brand of morality on gays.


It's not apples and oranges, it's institutionalized GOP ideology against everyone that isn't a WASP.

billingsgazette.com...

www.psychologytoday.com...
edit on 18-5-2011 by whaaa because: DD where are you?



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


Apples and oranges, Scooter. I don't remember Brewer imposing her brand of morality on gays.


It's not apples and oranges, it's institutionalized GOP ideology against everyone that isn't a WASP.

billingsgazette.com...
edit on 18-5-2011 by whaaa because: come back DD


So you give me an article that is supposed to show how we all think the same?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Wake up and smell the coffee, Scooter. The only ones that follow talking points and a lock-step that'd make a nazi proud are the progs who don't say "boo" until they get the okay from HuffPoo first!



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Stared & Flaged
This is exactly what I mean .. Walker needs his head ajusted .. he maybe bi polar or just a plain ol conntrol freak .. A good example of what Im talking about .. it's going to get really ugly... in WI

I can realate alot what your saying in my Post

Why Can't We Just Leave Religion Out Of Politics?, page 1
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm sick of it all too ....
edit on 18-5-2011 by NorthStargal52 because: insert wording







 
26
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join