The Schiavo Case and Same-Sex Marriage

[Plaid Adder]

Part of the anger provoked by Congress's decision to intervene in the Schiavo case comes from our sense that we ought to be able to resolve things like this within our own families without Big Brother butting in. And part of it has specifically to do with the fact that the husband's wishes about what happens to his wife are being nullified not just by the parents but by Congress, which wants to overrule a series of judicial decisions that has recognized their validity.

OK, straight folks who don't understand why we want marriage, look at it this way: if my partner had a heart attack tomorrow, and got put on life support even though she was brain dead, I would have no say in the decision about whether to withdraw life support. My interpretation of her wishes, and my own wishes, would be legally irrelevant and no court would recognize them because our relationship has no legal status. With the new medical privacy laws, I would have to ask her family's permission just to get in to see her. Now fortunately her family likes me and they would want me involved, but if it were different, I'd be SOL.

We have drawn up powers of attorney and living wills but we haven't signed them yet. We are registered as domestic partners in the county where Liza works but that's not worth a Republican's curse when it comes to medical care. And that means that if one of us were in Terri Schiavo's condition, the other would have NO legal standing and no right to influence the decision about whether she lived or died. In theory, her parents could decide to withdraw life support over my objections; they could also decide to continue it over my objections. Either way, there would be no court battle, because I would have nothing to fight with.

What's being done by Congress to Michael Schiavo right now under extraordinary circumstances and with a great deal of outcry could be done to most gay people in this country who were in a similar situation without even causing a blip on the radar.

This is why it matters to be married, folks. You need it more in sickness than you do in health, and more in the worse than you do in the better.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[fleabert]

1. here here!

excellent point. I have tried to explain this to my rethug family, but to little avail. I'll hand them this now. Thanks.

[Mabus]

2. My husband and I were talking about that this morning

It is just one of the many hypocrasies of this insanity. Thanks for bringing it up. I had thought about posting something similar myself but it wouldn't have been as well written as what you posted. It is one of the many reasons why I support marriage for everyone. It is only fair.

[The Doctor.]

3. "There is no sanctity with respect to the Schiavo marriage"

"Because we can say he is a bad man for wanting her dead, or a bad man if he wanted her to 'continue to suffer'. We can say he is an Evil man for having a girlfriend - an affair. We can say he is selfish if he dedicated himself ONLY to having HIS WISHES carried out upon his wife while forgoing any other relationships. We can say he killed her cats. We can say he wants money.
Because we can say any of these things, we can determine whose marriage is legitimate and whose is not.
Your 'Sanctity of Marriage' argument is meaningless in the face of our mass message machine.
You see - the faithful are just that, and will follow the faith they are provided with despite your attempts to prove we care nothing for the 'Sanctity of Marriage'.

(Don't bother mentioning Newt or Al D'amato either)"

Great post 'Adder ... I'll make a point of keeping this in mind.

[Skinner]

4. I'm going to kick this.

Because I think it deserves a little more attention.

[TaleWgnDg]

22. You bet it does !!! (more attention, that is) . . . n/t

[salin]

5. The many stories I heard about ten years ago

where a long-term SO was kept away from their dying partner by families is recalled. Tragic for both partners - the one who must stay away and can not try to ease the pain, fear etc.; the one who is dying who is surrounded by those who claim familial love but are barring the person who can give the greatest support/peace in that time. How very, very awful.

Timely post.

[Misunderestimator]

6. "You need it more in sickness than you do in health..."

That is so true. Great post.

[distressedsister]

7. If Terri were gay

Her parents would have been awarded custody and this wouldn't end until they died. Delay and scum like him are hypocrites from hell!

[JI7]

8. actually if Terri Schiavo was gay the Right Wing would never have taken

interest in her. just as they don't care about that black baby Sun who had the plug pulled against mother's wishes.

[sui generis]

14. so what if she were gay and married to Michael Schiavo?

the two aren't necessarily exclusive; boy would that confuse the other side.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

9. kick

[Stepup2]

10. I can speak to this

I am a cancer survivor and my partner of 16 years and I have spent a great deal of money to try to cobble together whatever legal protection we can. Neither one of us can trust our families not to contest or interfere with our desires.

It is a fear we live with. Not to mention the fear of the conscientious objector laws in the state where we live.

I have said it before, I am not hung up in the word marriage. I just want the legal protections afforded by law and to know that my tax money is used to make laws that discriminate against me or my family.

[BR_Parkway]

11. Isn't that the truth, such a simple thing when you get right down to

it, but the wingnuts have to overdo it all. I want to hear a few that I've argued previously with over the whole "sanctity of marriage" defend this one.

It doesn't matter if you're gay, str8 or anywhere else, if Big Brother doesn't like your decisions, they will step in and make them, screw the sanctity.

I'm waiting to see FL do something nutty like annul the marriage based on him having a girlfriend - the case law that they are already putting in place may give standing to legalized euthanizia, can you imagine anyone being able to just declare their marriage over because the other spouse strayed? The wingnuts are going to do more to destroy the "sanctity" than my partner and I could ever dream of doing.

[bcingu]

12. Excellent Point!

And, as usual, well stated. We deserve to live, associate and die with dignity no matter who we are... and Government has no right to define what our dignity should be.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

25. Hi, bcingu,

Your points are very well taken! and, WELCOME TO DU! This is a very interesting place, IMHO!

:toast:

[Technowitch]

13. Well said, Plaid Adder

As you've noted though, you have the Living Will and Durable Power of Attorney paperwork. You know what you have to do: Go get those darned things signed RIGHT NOW!!!

Our situation here is similar to yours, only we have one family we could reasonably trust to do the right thing (my same-sex spouse's) and one that we want to keep out of the picture at all costs (mine). See, my family really *is* one of those which would keep me alive against my will and furthermore deny my WIFE the right to visit me and to make decisions on my behalf.

Fortunately, here in California, we have the Domestic Partnership registry -- which helps some with respect to having these decision-making rights. But that wouldn't stop someone from trying to interfere anyway.

Repeatedly in this forum and elsehwere (including in my own BLOG), I've reiterated the utmost importance for ALL of us -- gay, straight, married and unmarried -- to have this basic legal paperwork drawn up.

-Technowitch

[sui generis]

15. here in Texas medical power of attorney supercedes family

fortunately my SO's family and my family are one big happy family, so even without there would be no issue over visiting rights, but I've also made it clear to everyone what my extreme life care and/or end of life care philosophy is, as well as the executed and witnessed Living Will/MPOA.

At any rate, if I were in the hospital and somebody even attempted to exclude Richard from my side, they had damn well better pull the plug AND donk me in the head with a frying pan and drown me and overdose me and pitch my unconscious wet corpse into oncoming rush hour traffic because if I come out of whatever extremis put me there to begin with there would be one less family member on the planet and I would legally disown the rest for even letting it happen.

It's a good thing we all get along.

[V Lee]

16. Well said!

I hope that the gay community can get through all the noise to make this point to the American people. I think this is a situation that they could personally relate to, and it could go a long way toward fostering understanding of what the issues really are.


>> What’s on Bill’s mind? Political commentary with attitude and more at http://www.BillsBrain.com

[Der Engel der Katzen]

17. excellent

Well done Plaid Adder. I wish everyone who objects to marriage equality would read this with an open mind. But they won't because they can't get past "it's icky and God says it's a sin!"

[EFerrari]

18. On behalf of our precious blips, kick.

[Shredr]

19. Hear, hear!

[UncleSepp]

20. Two battles of the same war on the judicial branch

In the Schiavo case, we see the Federal executive and legislative branches at the direction of the President interfering with the decision of a state court. In the case of a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, we would see the Federal executive and legislative branches again at the instigation of the President attempting to override the decisions of state courts to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.

Both cases at the reveal the intention to reduce the power of the judiciary. Both cases betray the willingness of Congress to act as the President's arms rather than as an independent branch of government. Both cases cloak the attempted assault on the judiciary in loaded religious and emotional terms like "pro-family" and "values" and "right to life".

The "gay marriage issue" isn't about gay marriage, and the "Terry Schiavo case" isn't about withdrawing life support from a woman in a persistent vegetative state. Both appear to be civil rights cases, and from the side of people who want the right to marry or from people who want the right to die, they are. From the top down, neither is a civil rights case. Both cases are about establishing precedents for an authoritarian federal government which issues decrees and passes laws at the behest of a President, laws which are not subject to review, interpretation, and rejection by judges.

[AlienGirl]

23. That's the scariest piece of this

This is how the Empire is emerging from the Old Republic, consolidating its power, and re-shaping the government of this country to support an emergent dictatorship.

Of course they're going to use highly emotional cases to do this; if they can get the people themselves to call for these precedents, so much the better...

Tucker

[TaleWgnDg]

21. Lemme ask this . . .

.
Lemme ask this . . . how can a political party espouse "family values" and, yet, bash "family values" when it comes to a husband and wife? That is, Michael Schiavo and his wife, Mrs. Michael (Terri) Schiavo?

What's this about the "sanctimony of marriage" within those "family values?" Huh? Isn't this what we've heard, over and over and over again from the religion-into-law rightwingers?

This, folks, just doesn't add up. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever!


Stand tall for same-sex marriage.
Grant marriage legal rights to same-sex couples.
Keep religion out of our laws.
And quit the damn double-speak!!


Picketers in front of Massachusetts Statehouse, March 2004

[geekgrrl]

24. it is totally contradictory for them to be demolishing the same marriage..

"rights" that they are keeping committed gay & lesbian couples from.

How hypocritical!!