Pilot's Political Orientation

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Newps wrote:

Therefore the feds will need to solve this
problem, one way or the other.

You'll have to be more clear for me, I'm afraid, as I'm not seeing "the
problem" with the Constitution. If states choose to act as you describe,
failing to recognize either drivers licenses or marriage licenses, they're
in violation. Enforce as necessary.

That would be unfortunate if made necessary, as enforcement always is.
But
I'm still not clear on "the problem" you're seeing.

- Andrew

It's not about gay marriage. No doubt they are against gay marriage,
they should be.

Why?

"Newps" wrote in message
...

It's not about gay marriage. No doubt they are against gay
marriage, they should be. The main issue is the US Constitution.
I got married in Minnesota. The Constitution says that all states
must recognize my marriage and all things that naturally occur as
a result of that marriage, such as hospital visitation, benefits, etc.
If California passes a law making gay marriage legal then all 49
other states would have to recognize it.


Well, then, if a state bans "same-sex marriage", then the other 49 states
will have to recognize it and this silly argument is over.

What does marriage have to do with hospital visitation anyway?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
ink.net:


"Newps" wrote in message
...

It's not about gay marriage. No doubt they are against gay
marriage, they should be. The main issue is the US Constitution.
I got married in Minnesota. The Constitution says that all states
must recognize my marriage and all things that naturally occur as
a result of that marriage, such as hospital visitation, benefits,
etc. If California passes a law making gay marriage legal then all 49
other states would have to recognize it.


Well, then, if a state bans "same-sex marriage", then the other 49
states will have to recognize it and this silly argument is over.

What does marriage have to do with hospital visitation anyway?



if someone is in a "civil union" or just are a "gay couple" then they
are not "family" and can be kept out of your hospital room if you are
critical. Of course, if the "couple" had done some planning, that will
be the person with the medical power of attorney...

I'm not one for gay marriages whatsoever... but this an issue that may
be addressed, should be addressed by the "couple" themselves (gay or
married for that matter, as the doctors do not have to listen to the
wishes of a spouse without a POA in most states as well). The other
issue is children... health insurance, etc. but I have way too many
conflicting feelings to comment on those.

--
ET


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

"ET" wrote in message
...

if someone is in a "civil union" or just are a "gay couple" then they
are not "family" and can be kept out of your hospital room if you are
critical.


Not happy with a hospital's visitation policy? Take it up with the damn
hospital!

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"ET" wrote in message
...

if someone is in a "civil union" or just are a "gay couple" then they
are not "family" and can be kept out of your hospital room if you are
critical.


Not happy with a hospital's visitation policy? Take it up with the damn
hospital!



Great solution Steven... that is logical, simple and to the point. But then
how can you push forward a political agenda when you do something that is
logical, simple and to the point?

What does marriage have to do with hospital visitation anyway?

There are many cases in which only "family" is permitted to visit, or to make
decisions on behalf of the patient. When you marry somebody you become part of
their family. I'll let you figure out the ramifications.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

There are many cases in which only "family" is permitted to visit,


So the solution is to change marriage? Wouldn't a better solution be
changing the visitation policy?



or to make decisions on behalf of the patient.


Wouldn't a power of attorney cover that situation?

There are many cases in which only "family" is permitted to visit,

So the solution is to change marriage? Wouldn't a better solution be
changing the visitation policy?


It's a single-point-of-contact solution. There are many hospitals that you or
your loved one might end up in, and changing all their policies is not an easy
task. It is porably not even possible to get taken seriously. What hospital
in (say) Montana is going to listen to somebody from Georgia who wants them to
change their policy just because one day they might break their leg while
chasing a cow?

There are many benefits that are conferred on "family", of which hospital
visitation is only one example. Some of these benefits are confered by law,
some by custom, and some by policy. It's a hodgepodge, but worked in the days
when everyone was pretty much the same.

Now that people live their lives in more diverse ways, the old rules don't
quite cover it all. When the mind and the customs expand, sometimes the rules
and words ought to also.


or to make decisions on behalf of the patient.

Wouldn't a power of attorney cover that situation?


Yes, in that particular case, maybe, if the hospital chooses to accept such a
document, and the document is drawn up within the guidelines of the hospital,
and you happen to have the papers handy, and the business office is open and
willing to process the papers. Sometimes (personal experience) you have only
hours to have things settled to get permission to visit or talk to the doctor
or be locked out the front door while your loved one dies, and all it takes is
one social worker who got up on the wrong side of the bed to really mess you
up.

For an (imperfect) aviation correlary, consider the case of instrument approach
procedure design in Lower Grasslandia. DHs are set up by law to be 250 feet
above the highest "Official Obstacle" for that airport. Official Obstacles are
defined as buildings, towers, gantries, and other structures located within
1000 feet of the touchdown zone of any runway.

This works for many years, because grass does not grow higher than buildings.
But after one particular international flight, shrubs and trees started growing
near some airports. There was talk about banishing trees, but some people
liked them and planted them near their houses, despite their being viewed as
perverted. But still, instrument approaches had to be designed and modified.
Eventually each approach had a hodgepodge of exceptions, none of them at all
consistant with each other (and some not even consistant with safe operating
practices).

The simple solution is to amend the definition of "Official Obstacle" to
include trees, shrubs, despite the fact that they were "natural occurances" and
not manmade "obstacles". It expands the IDEA of an "obstacle" in ways that
Lower Grasslandia had not even considered, and there was an uproar, which runs
to this day.

Ultimately, people started putting parachutes into their airplanes in case they
ran into an unofficial obstacle-like protrusion, but that didn't really work
very well and it spawned endless debates on their equivalent of Usenet, which
used up all the ones and zeros and brought forth the collapse of their
civilization. That is why you can no longer find Lower Grasslandia on any
atlas.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)