Well if Roger Simon of PJTV Media says so...

Hilarious fail.

the credibility of this study is seriously in doubt...but i never watch Fox News so i don't know what they are "reporting"..the quote by gingrich shows his lack of recent presidential history.

So are you listening to crackpots like him and Newt who divorcred his wife dying of cancer the most credible source in the world LOL bunch of idiots wouldn't know mental illness if it bit the in the ass

To me marriage is and always has been a sacred religious institution. And to attach a bunch of other entitlements and government oversight to it is tantamount to violating the first amendments separation of church and state.

Think about it-- right now culturally marriage is trying to be two very distinct things and its obviously not working. Don't get me wrong-- I don't hate marriage nor am I opposed to marriage--I just think its rather boneheaded and ignorant to attach so much religious ingrained heterosexuality and extremist sexual beliefs to marriage while also attaching tax breaks and inheritance rights and hospital visitations rights and just about every other kind of civil right to to it as well. Because honestly all we have accomplished is 1. to create a giant loophole that allows the government to violate the first amendment separation of church and state and 2. we have created a way for people to become overly enmeshed and overly obsessed about each others sex lives and 3. we have allowed people to hate on each other and threaten each other and even kill each other over nothing more than semantics.

They are allowed in hospitals. But their unions are not recognized in hospitals. Hospitals only allow close relatives to visit patients, and since same sex partnerships are not recognized, many homosexuals are not allowed to visit their partners.

there isnt really a problem, when you walk up to the hospital and say "this is my brother/sister" they aren't likely to ask questions. Its just bullshit. Marriage would be a much better solution but ill take this in the mean time.

Great point.

From the article:

"It should be made clear that designated visitors, including individuals designated by legally valid advance directives (such as durable powers of attorney and health care proxies), should enjoy visitation privileges that are no more restrictive than those that immediate family members enjoy."

But why do gays HAVE to get durable powers of attorney and health care proxies, when straights just have to get married?

If your married and your wife is not your health care proxy you better make her it otherwise you could be in for a painfull death someday
You had better have someone with power of attorney it must be legal its not just because your married
Same whether your gay or strait
all the woman in question had to say was she was her health care proxy and she would have to have been admitted

Your name and your comment do not really merit a response but here I go anyway:

How the hell would I see gay people being denied visitation rights? When was the last time you saw it? Not too often I suppose, unless you are actually gay while having to visit a sick partner in the hospital. I am nowhere near that situation, but apparently it is happening enough to merit a response from the most powerful man in the nation. I am not being "played" as you so maturely put it. So what if he did it to win a demographic group. I am not even in that group. That is what a politician does. It is still a victory for human rights. I will tell you what is truly scary.....your grammar. YOU are the minority.

I think this is very obscene. You have a real problem.

First off you are so clueless you probably think you don't know any gay people....so in your warped version of reality of course you would not notice gay people being denied simple rights that heterosexuals take for granted and/or feel the need to attack those people who live in the real world and understand and see this type of discrimination around them every day.

Second thank you--because you prove the point I made when this article first started trending on Current yesterday--this has nothing whatsoever to do with a secret plot to create some kind of new gay and lesbian civil right. But unfortunately the poster and just about everybody else who is overly obsessed with other people's sex lives turned it into that --but the truth is you and your tea party friends are just too obtuse to realize you are actually the ones being "played" and being treated like sheep by immediately trotting out the tired lines about God didn't create Adam and Steve or Gee now gay people will start having sex in the hospital or whatever stupid ignorant homophobic stereotype your Jr high mentality about sex and sexual expression will allow you to express. Because we all know a hospital gown is extremely fabulous and that gay people-who aren't also closeted/relocated catholic priests or in the military-- instantly attack every person they meet who happens to be the same gender as them regardless of where they are or the applicable social standards.

Finally what this boils down to is President Obama did not set out to expressly create some new gay/lesbian civil right--he simply set out to bring hospital patient visitation policies into the 21st century and acknowledge that our society has changed to the point where the traditional family is no longer made up of only a husband and wife--and that the patient who is in the hospital needs and deserves to be visited by those who love them and care for them and can have a rational up to date conversation with the doctor and nurses about the presenting medical problem---and its the patient who should determine who they want to come visit them--not the hospital or some third party government bureaucrat.

I think he needed the clout that passing the Health Care bill gave him. If that went down to defeat he would have lost a lot of credibility. Now he has more ability to do some more progressive stuff. It's what I had hoped. I'm very glad to see that it is true. Yay!

Excellent point. Maybe passing Health Care gave him the momentum he needed to do this.

You are right Jan, he doesn't believe gays should marry. It's a very disappointing position and completely irrational. If, as Obama says, gay Americans deserve all the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, then they should be able to call their relationships marriages instead of civil unions. I also don't doubt that you view this as a simple political contrivance...you've proven many times your inability to see beyond your own hatred for Obama. Which is equally irrational. Your blind hatred has led you to come on here and shit on something that is a great step forward, if an incomplete one. Simply because you don't like the person who made possible. Sad but not surprising.

But if what you say is true (it's not by the way) and Obama doesn't really give a shit about gay rights and this was just a simple political calculation...it's an inspired one. This morning on all the news shows we're all seeing images of angry, intolerant, tea baggers contrasted by the story of our President eliminating what most rational Americans agree is a terrible injustice. Those are pretty good "optics" for the President.

Well put as usual krag2112.

hi Jan,
Just wait for his second term, you should know if he moved on gay marrige in his first term it would really cost him a couple of million votes of conservative dems and many independents. I hope he gets a second term, most Presidents get the most good work done when they become second termers. Gay rights, will be one I'm Sure. He will also move of other progressive issues when he's got nothing to lose. Just politics that all.
peace

"It's a very disappointing position and completely irrational."

The republicans have spent the last 20 years mining the path to gay marriage.

Wandering down that path because it is "the right thing to do", or "the next logical step" doesn't make it the right *political* step.

Obama was elected to be a politician, not a philosopher.

I think most people would agree that holding the hand of a loved one is a fundamental human right. It also helps recasts most of the religious fundamentalist's view that homosexuality is merely a "sexual fetish", but instead focuses on the fact that these people genuinely love each other.

I don't see it as pandering so much, to be honest, what other choice does the GLBT community have?

However the "gay marriage" wedge issue is a powerful political tool of the GOP. Undermining it in any way is a good political move, in this case, I think it also happens to be a moral one to boot.

Don't get me wrong...I think this is a very smart move for Obama on a lot of levels. And I agree that it also happens to be a moral one too. It's just that it's not the final move. That move is coming (though sadly, I think it will come after Obama) and we're closer to it today than we were yesterday. What I find disappointing and irrational is that there has to be these steps at all. Consenting adults should have the right to marry whomever they choose. It's really as simple as that.

all presidents should be fucking philosophers but instead we get politicians

I agree--politically this was strictly a balancing act--throw the people who want him to repeal don't ask/don't tell and the defense of marriage act a bone and give the secret service a bit of a break by not seriously pissing off the radical fringe Right "tea drinkers" enough to get himself shot.

I am standing up for ALL PEOPLE here and it is absolutely RELEVANT to note the political strategy involved as well as the timing REGARDLESS OF PARTY regarding many of the actions of politicians. So to be totally honest, I don't give a flying fig what you think of my comments or my motivations for them. I'm not some partisan party lemming who has to feel obligated to come here to defend anyone just because they are in the same party I am. I think anyone who clings to that mentality whether a Democrat, Republican, "tea bagger" or whatever other names they wish to call themselves over moral principle is the one who needs a good shot of rationalism. So don't preach to me about my "irrational hate" when you know NOTHING about me. I am getting tired of your redundant attack dog postings about my character just because I don't bow down to your hero and can see the political BS on all sides for what it is.

Hmmmm. Well, if you'd rather not have your comments questioned or challenged then I'd suggest a public forum like this might not be the best place to express your thoughts. Maybe a journal or diary of some kind would offer you the chance to get your feelings out without running the risk of having someone disagree with them.

I welcome your thoughts on my comments, even when I disagree with your conclusions, as I do with many of those in this latest posting. I do give a fig about what you and every other person posting here thinks, even the loons.

At the risk of incurring more of your clearly very rational wrath. I'd suggest that if you examine the previous posts, you'll see one person who is both critical of the President yet still happy that some measure of progress has been made in what many people believe to be a matter of importance (that would be me). And then you'll see another person who can't seem to overcome her, let's call it strong dislike, for the President to celebrate this very important step (that would be you). Then rationally ask yourself who the "partisan lemming" really is.

Best of luck with this self analysis...I know that it's not an easy thing to do. I look forward to your thoughts, no matter what conclusions you come to. Have a great afternoon.

Obama has publicly said he would support the right to marriage (before he ran for president). I think he's just playing politics. And yes it does affect us negatively, but i think the grander arch of justice will move forward more quickly with him in office.

It doesn't matter what he believes. It matters what he does. And in this case he has done the right thing. Also he couldn't change the marriage laws anyway, since marriage is set by the States, not the Fed gov.

"But if what you say is true (it's not by the way) and Obama doesn't really give a shit about gay rights and this was just a simple political calculation...it's an inspired one. This morning on all the news shows we're all seeing images of angry, intolerant, tea baggers contrasted by the story of our President eliminating what most rational Americans agree is a terrible injustice. Those are pretty good "optics" for the President."

While it's a bit of an oversimplification to say that President Obama doesn't give a shit about gay rights--but by the same token it is not completely irrational to say that President Obama at his core is a politician and that politicians regardless of party--are always aware of timing when it comes to making strong position statements like this. Its always about playing the game and working the angle to get the most PR and the most campaign contributions and the most votes lined up.

So to me anyway its actually more of a sad commentary on the state of our society that we ALL got caught up in seeing this policy change as being only about gay and lesbian rights instead of seeing it as a step forward for human rights and a move toward allowing EVERYBODY who might one day be hospitalized more autonomy about what happens to them and who visits them.

i look to members of 'current' again for help...i thought, whatever his personal beliefs, he
would treat this as a 'states rights' issue, and politically he does not want to take on the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, that hateful legislation that Bush pressed for and signed when same-sex marriage started to gain traction. is this innacurate?

LOL!

I am officially following you. Brilliant stuff.

We dont even have to worry about that unsustainable debt, the 10% unemployment, and the blatant constitutional violations.

OFCOURSE someone will always find something wrong with every president, but dont you think Obama knows that?

Maybe he can use that to his advantage.

"We dont even have to worry about that unsustainable debt, the 10% unemployment, and the blatant constitutional violations."

Yeah because nobody worried about that for the 8 long years of the Bush administration so we should suddenly panic now that President Obama was democratically elected by a large number of votes--instead of appointed by the 5 votes on the Supreme Court.

And that doesnt make him accountable?

first off which "he" are we talking about? Because former President George W. was pretty much never held accountable by anyone except maybe late night comedians because those in the media who tried to hold him accountable were basically fired (see Dan Rather's career ending statement--or all the intelligence information that has come out since that Iraq was never a serious threat and did not possess WMD's if you don't believe me for proof) or protesters were forced to be deeply anonymous so they did not get their ass handed to them thanks to most of the provisions in the Patriot Act--and Dick Cheney did whatever he wanted and those who actually worked up the nerve to protest him were either shot at--and forced to apologize to him for causing him embarrassment, or tortured or simply outright killed.

But in contrast it doesn't matter what President Obama says or proposes--it is routinely attacked and "shit on" before it is even official released or people have had a chance to read what he actually proposed. (nor does it matter if what he proposes actually makes sense and is a well thought out/rational idea to actually improve a social policy--because obviously a well thought out social policy is "socialism" and by actually caring about people and wanting them to get better and be able to make their own choices about what medical treatment they receive or who gets to visit them in the hospital--he's acting exactly like Hitler and the Nazi's did by deliberately rounding up the Jewish people (and the gay people and the political dissidents, and just about everybody who wasn't blond haired and blue eyed)--and executing them after playing mind games with them for awhile--because one day you might be de-loused--the next day you might be poisoned by mustard gas.

nobody worried about it till a black guy was president so why start now

and your an idiot maybe we can use that to our advantage

read the article--its not just about creating special rights for gays and lesbians--its about allowing patients who are hospitalized to have more autonomy about who visits them in the hospital and about allowing doctors and nurses to have access to the people who are actually caring for the patient and who know what medications the patient is taking or what the patient's current problem or medical history actually is.

And actually if this new visitation plan is implemented straight people will be allowed to have their boyfriend or girlfriend visit them regardless of marital status as well.

I don't think he/she(?) was trying to say that this is a special right. I think Chinese_democracy was saying that instead of taking the round about way to give homosexuals rgihts that are simular, but still different, than heterosexual rights just give us an equal status.

No, it's not like that.
It's so gays can visit their partners in the hospital when usually only immediate family members are allowed to do so- like if they're in critical condition, dying, etc.

Well then i see no use for this, other than Obama just creating another voting bloc

"The only thing that makes someone gay or lesbian Is the sexual act...sooo.....am i missing something here?"

Beside the fact you are extremely homophobic and/ or willfully ignorant and completely lacking in compassion?

Well i mean you can have brotherly love for another, but when it boils down to it homosexuality is just lust.

Get a clue! The article isn't about homosexuality or who might be having gay sex. The article is actually about the President saying we should implement a visitation policy that allows those people who the patient cares about and spends quality time with and who has current information about their medical history-- to visit them in the hospital. Obviously the person is in the hospital to get well so it is actually counter intuitive for them to have to deal with a bunch of bureaucracy and BS or having to come out or start a family feud over stupid crap because the person is gay, or not married, or married to someone who is a different skin color than themselves or someone whom the rest of the family hates and/or the patient just flat out doesn't like or doesn't have a great relationship with the person/people the hospital considers acceptable or immediate family on paper.

aww irony--brotherly love is okay--but homosexuality is lust--what is that the new Catholic church motto?

And thats why i said i didnt completely understand this, all i read was the headline and 3 paragraphs.

yeah and the Republicans haven't done just that by cozying up to the tea partiers.

And i agree the tea partiers have to be careful about being hijacked by any party.

Yes, you missed the point completely. Visitation rights means that gay partners can visit the other when they are in the hospital. Before, when a gay person was hospitalized, his or her partner would be unable to visit because they were not recognzied as having any legal relation by the state.

It was sometimes the case that some gay persons saw their loved ones die in the hospital without having had the opportunity to say goodbyes.

I hope I cleared that up for ya...

You are ignorant. Really, dude.

I will give you the point that the tea partiers are being used and abused by the Republican party--and I will also give you the point that the headline for this post doesn't actually do it any favors.

But honestly President Obama is at his core still homophobic when it comes to the idea of gay marriage and gay and lesbian equal rights--so to me this policy is more about bringing hospital visitation rights into the 21st century and acknowledging that families and personal relationships no longer resemble the perfect "nuclear family" portrayed by the Nelson's or the Cleavers or the Cunningham's -- and that hospitals, by strictly relying on a legal definition of who is to be considered a love one--are actually doing the patient a greater harm and setting the doctors and the hospital up for lawsuits because they denied a partner or close friend (regardless of if that person is gay or straight) the right to visit which means the patient now has to worry and fret about what to say when the hospital dictated loved ones show up while the truly wanted and appreciated loved ones languish in the hallway with no information and no visitation rights--all of which works against the Hippocratic Oath and disrupts the patient's focus which should be on getting better.

Actually in a rather ironic way--it is the Republicans and the woefully ignorant so-called reporters at FOX news that will spin this into some crazy second generation civil rights moment--which essentially means they are the ones throwing grandma (and/or every patient) under the bus by making the doctors and the nurses the only authority on who can visit the patient and by denying the hospital and doctors access to valuable information that might actually help them treat and discharge their patient in a timely manner and thus save medicaid and the individual tax payer some serious money-- because its so much more "christian" to focus on the sexual aspect of this. (I mean duh! of course when a person is sick and hurt and possibly dying and wearing a "fabulous looking" and extremely sexy hospital gown their first thought is can I have gay sex with my partner in this bed--and post the video on YouTube?)

To me this means now patients will have more rights and more accountability and more of a voice in directing how the hospital treats them--so that they don't get thrown under the bus by bureaucracy and a doctors or nurses personal phobia or fear.

While I agree with much you say here to claim Obama as a homophope is disingenous, if he were to have called for gay marrige before the election he may very well not have won, there are a great number of conservative republicans and independents that would not have voted for him. Should he win a second term(i think he will) you will see a much more progressive President emerge. Remember every thought that comes to mind cannot always be said to get elected. But once re-elected he can act from his heart and do the right thing. Only time will tell. Very good postings however. even when I don't agree, not often,, you make very good cases.

your totally lacking in real thoughts aren't you?

that would explain why you know nothing

I don't necessarily think Obama is a homophobe--instead he is pretty much like every other middle of the road politician who thinks that gay marriage and gay rights are not feasible--because he is not gay and somehow thinks allowing people the choice to marry another over 18 adult they are not related to would mess up his personal marriage--and I think a big chunk of why he made this request is so he can look like he is doing something to improve gay and lesbian rights while not having to actually repeal don't ask don't tell or the defense of marriage act. But the flip side is he also just came through an extremely nasty, long, hard battle with Republicans over health care so he doesn't have the political capital nor the desire to get shot by some crazy tea party/militia/John Birch supporter/birther/extremist Republican who is offended that the President supports equal rights and programs that even slightly resemble some type of social justice.

"...when it boils down to it homosexuality is just lust."

"Wait I don't get this
so they can have gay sex in hospitals now?
The only thing that makes someone gay or lesbian is the sexual act...sooo...am i missing something here?"

...

You should really start thinking about what you say.
Better yet, just stop talking.

See, this, right here, is how we can tell you have no clue what you're talking about. A person can be gay and never have sex in their lives, just like a person can be heterosexual and never have sex.

Proof please. And while you're at it, you could somehow prove that heterosexuality is NOT based on lust. Best of luck.

Wow, you are not just missing something, you are missing everything.

You have absolutely no clue what a sexual orientation even IS, do you?
You are exactly why we need sex education classes in the school system- complete sex ed classes, not watered down by republicans on the school boards.

No, sexual orientation has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with a sex act.
It has to do with who you are attracted to, NOT who you have sex with.

Here is a clue- someone can be a virgin, and remain celibate their entire life, and still be either gay or straight.

A man can get married to a woman, have children with her, and spend his entire life having only had sex with her- and still be gay. If while he's having sex with her he's thinking about Matthew McConaughey, he's gay.

Yeah, you're missing a few things...

I think this is confusing you because you seem to think that homosexuals can't love each other.
How could you know anything about what homosexuals feel? I know you're not gay, so it's absurd for you to claim to have knowledge about the gay experience.

or all of the above.

about a year ago i went to the hospital to visit a friend (gay guy, but we are not 'partners'),
and was asked a series of questions, one of which was 'relationship'? i just said,
"oh, pretty good, thanks...you know, it has its ups and downs" she just looked at me.

Hilarious.

There's so much you don't know about the world.

http://www.365gay.com/news/hospital-sued-after-dying-lesbians-partner-denied-acc...

Just because you've never encountered it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or happen.

quit your racism...

he gets his text books from texas lol

Gay is not a race.
there is only one race, the human race.
all other identifications are from ethnic lines

fuck you

Whats this for? Are you unable to express yourself without vulgarity. You must be eighteen

thank you :D

What YOU see is such a small insignificant percentage of the universe as to be completely irrelevant to any discussion.

Yeah, John's right...today is day for old bigots to complain about having to pay for teachers and firefighters. How dare Obama steal their thunder by giving "the gays" some of the same rights everyone else has. Who does this guy think he is...president?

Oh...wait.

Yes, one of my friends was denied by the hospital's policy of family only even though the family disowned the patient for being gay. They have been together for 17 years now, knows what meds he is on, what his current medical history is, while his family will not even call him. Only his mother showed up for a 10 minute visit while he was in ICU for a week. Tell me where this is right?