Obama extends hospital visitation rights to same-sex partners of gays

[latitudex1]

Posted: 4/15/10 at 11:03pm

Wow, that's a long title. Anyways, big news, almost surprised this hadn't yet.

"President Obama mandated Thursday that hospitals extend visitation rights to the partners of gay men and lesbians and allow same-sex couples to share medical power of attorney, perhaps the most significant step so far in his efforts to expand the rights of gay Americans.

The president directed the Department of Health and Human Services to prohibit discrimination in hospital visitation in a memo that was e-mailed to reporters Thursday night while he was at a fundraiser in Miami."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/15/AR2010041505502.html

The new law also applies to widowers and it allows "...members of some religious orders to designate someone other than a family member to make medical decisions." Every hospital that accepts Medicare and Medicade will be affected by this law.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 4/15/10 at 11:40pm

Oh boy a bone... wait no, a table scrap. Maybe I will return to the blanket and stop barking. Sorry not impressed, way too little.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 4/15/10 at 11:47pm

Just before I read your comment, SNAFU, I saw Michelangelo Signorile post on Facebook - A "fierce advocate" would have given hospital visitation for dying gay partners in 2/09. Not in 2010 while kicking off fundraising campaign.

I'm ambivalent, as generally am with everything this president does.

[Piper3500]

Posted: 4/16/10 at 12:05am

baby steps?

with this... has to start small.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/16/10 at 12:14am

I'm sure Michelangelo is right--he usually is in these cases. Nevertheless, thanks, Mr. President.

Now, about those marriage rights. I want them NOW.

TIA.

[Biff AKA Levi]

Posted: 4/16/10 at 12:42am

Before we start bickering, let's thank Mr President for a very small step forward.

Now we just have to wait for those hospital admins to start bitching about it, like the pharmacists who bitch about giving out contraceptives.

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 4/16/10 at 8:41am

I'm just waiting for the Catholic Hospitals to pitch a fit about this too.

[Piper3500]

Posted: 4/16/10 at 8:49am

^ you won't have to wait for some of the hypocritical priests to chime in along with congregations of the holier than thou.

[madbrian]

Posted: 4/16/10 at 9:02am

Meanwhile, I've heard nothing lately about the Olson/Boies case (Perry v. Schwarzenegger) that's in US District court. The case was argued a couple of months ago, but the judge delayed closing arguments, and I haven't heard anything since. I did a quick google search, and found no recent info.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 4/16/10 at 9:06am

This is very good news indeed. Long overdue. Evidently our Fierce Advocate can actually back up his promises with action, when he decides to.

Which only makes his ongoing refusal to back up other promises even more readily apparent.

Still. Baby steps! He's got so much on his plate. He's really busy. Patience, everybody. If we can get to Mars in Obama's lifetime, imagine how long it'll take for Marriage Equality!

[romantico]

Posted: 4/16/10 at 9:10am

Did this happen under Bush's administration?
Would this have happened under John McCain's administration?
If a Republican gets elected in 2012, will they do any better?
Yes or No?
Just asking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7ogA5zzi5c

Updated On: 4/16/10 at 09:10 AM

[Roscoe]

Posted: 4/16/10 at 9:20am

Well of course it didn't happen under Bush. And of course it wouldn't have happened under McCain (Cindi and Meghan's mediating gay-friendly influence notwithstanding).

And nobody would have expected it to. And I think it should be very apparent that people have expected a hell of a lot more than this from current President Obama. Only, of course, because he told us that we could expect it from him.

A crumb, however tasty, is not the meal that Obama promised.

[shameless]

Posted: 4/16/10 at 9:22am

madbrian, the last I saw, he delayed scheduling closing arguments because the defendants want the plaintiffs to now turn in their internal campaign memos and emails. A desperate move and stall tactic, in my opinion. But there is some new news.

http://firedoglake.com/2010/04/13/prop-8-no-2010-re-vote-judge-walker-wants-to-close-evidence-record/

[romantico]

Posted: 4/16/10 at 9:29am

I understand,but you bitch when he doesn't do something and when he does do something positive you still complain.You want everything right now,and I can understand that. Hell, I want it as well but I think you are not being realistic.DADT will be repealed. Not as soon as we like,but it will happen. You admit none of this happened under the last administration and would not have happened if Obama's opponent had been elected yet you still are not satisfied with the progress,even though it is slow progress,that is being done. It's irrational thinking and I don't see how you think you are helping the gay community. We just see it differently.

Go back and read some of my posts from a year ago. Read them from 6 months ago.I was angry at Obama and not cutting him any slack. I realize that even thought things are not going as quickly as I would like,progress is being made. You can be ungrateful and bitch and moan and complain or you can appreciate what is being done and see that gays and lesbians will have more rights under this administration then they did under the previous ones.

I never know what you want Roscoe.You are not happy with Obama but you admit McCain and Bush are worse.If another Democrat were in office do you think it would be better? Another Republican? I understand your frustration,but damn nothing will get done if all gay people have your attitude.

Updated On: 4/16/10 at 09:29 AM

[SNAFU]

Posted: 4/16/10 at 9:56am

about my first post. For me personally, I already allowed those privileges in 93' when my partner was dying. Granted I lived in NYC but it was a Catholic Hospital (Saint Vincents) and they viewed me as next of kin/head of household. Not quite married spouse but enough to allow me to say with him overnight when the end drew near. Enough to allow me to help make medical decisions for him when he couldn't for himself.
I realize not everywhere is NYC during the AIDs crisis of the 1980's early 90's and there are some areas of this country and certain religious based hospitals that have a problem with this but I sill find this a rather safe, gesture, more for image enhancement as a "Fierce Advocate" and support gathering ploy then a real solid stride forward.
"What can we do to silence the people demanding we live up to out promises, with causing the fewest waves and perhaps meeting the least resistance?"

[Roscoe]

Posted: 4/16/10 at 10:04am

Agreed, we disagree on this issue, romantico. I don't see it as ungrateful to expect a President, or any elected official, to keep their promises in a timely manner.

Again -- this is a great step that Obama has taken. It rights a good many wrongs. There's no denying it. I don't believe I or anyone else has denied it.

But there's also no denying that there's been little if any action on the repeal of DOMA that our Fierce Advocate promised. And DADT is still being rigorously defended by our President's administration, even going so far as to quote Colin Powell in support of the very policy he now claims to be against.

I mean, it isn't like I'm pointing out that by granting hospital visitation rights to gays, President Obama has removed one of the principal arguments for the necessity of marriage equality, or anything.

Updated On: 4/16/10 at 10:04 AM

[uncageg]

Posted: 4/16/10 at 10:33am

Well put romantico.

I attended his acceptance speech in Denver and this was the one thing I wanted to see if he would do for the gay community. Thank you Mr. President.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 4/16/10 at 10:45am

I'm not sure if the link will work, since it's coming from a facebook posting, but I'm attempting.

Why I'm still not grateful to the President
by Bill Barrett

Today, President Obama issued a memorandum mandating hospital visitation rights for same-sex partners in hospitals that receive Medicare or Medicaid funding. He finally did something substantive to benefit gay couples. So why am I so ungrateful?

This is pretty long. Sorry about that, but I'll have to leave it to somebody else to register a more concise protest.

First, we must never forget that, despite all the blather from radical religious fundamentalists, Barack Obama has been and still is firmly opposed to full equality under the law for lesbian and gay Americans. He has reiterated his opposition to marriage equality over and over, and despite his liberal admirers' desperate attempts to convince that it's all said with a wink and nudge, there's every reason to believe he means it. I repeat: the President stands by his firm opposition to full equality under the law for lesbian and gay Americans.

Second, there's the matter of his promises to the LGBT community. While candidate Obama made clear his distaste for full equality, he did make certain very clear promises to our people.

The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). Barack Obama promised that it would be one of the top priorities of his Justice Department. UAFA would give same-sex couples the same immigration rights as opposite-sex couples. Fifteen months into his administration, Obama has done nothing to encourage the passage of UAFA.

The Employment Non-Discrimation Act (ENDA). ENDA, which would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, has been one of the top priorities for the LGBT community for more than fifteen years. It took years of fighting within our community to clarify the fact that we support an inclusive ENDA -- that is, a bill that will protect our transgender brothers and sisters as well as our lesbian and gay brothers and sisters. A number of self-appointed spokespeople for our community have learned the hard way how strongly we feel about ENDA and about making ENDA inclusive. President Obama has repeatedly claimed to support ENDA, but the Congress controlled by his party has done nothing about it. Good legislation doesn't just happen. When any president truly supports any bill, he works to craft a consensus in Congress. Very few bills of any real substance get passed without the active involvement of the White House. As in the case of UAFA, the Obama White House has done nothing to help get ENDA passed.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). One of the most noxious anti-gay laws on the books, DOMA means that same-sex marriages are not recognized by the federal government and need not be recognized across state lines. Thanks to DOMA, the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution does not apply to lesbian and gay married couples. To bring this down to a personal level, this means that although my husband and I were legally married in Connecticut, our marriage is not recognized by the federal government or by 42 of the 50 states. It's not recognized by the state in which we live, and God help us if one of should happen to fall ill while traveling in an anti-gay state like Florida.

Candidate Obama promised in no uncertain terms to work for the repeal of DOMA. It's hard to square that promise with his stated opposition to marriage equality, but nevertheless, he made the promise clearly and often. President Obama has done two things about DOMA. First, after he became President, he removed the promise from his website. Second, he has sanctioned the defense of DOMA -- sometimes in the most offensive possible terms -- by his Justice Department. His spokesmen have given the lame excuse that the administration is obliged to defend existing law even if the President opposes it. That's a lie, plain and simple. The Justice Department is under no constitutional or statutory obligation to defend DOMA -- and President Obama, as a constitutional scholar, undoubtedly knows that.

The Obama administration has made it clear to LGBT activists that they should not expect any action on DOMA during his first term.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) is the policy put in place by President Clinton that allows lesbian and gay Americans to serve in the military as long as they stay in the closet. Noxious as it is, it actually represented an improvement over the witch hunts before 1993, but it was not satisfactory in 1993, and it is not satisfactory now. In the decade and a half since Clinton sold us out, public opinion has shifted. A majority of Americans favor allowing lesbian and gay Americans to serve openly in the military. It would cost the President precious little in political terms to keep his promise to work for the repeal of DADT. However, he's made absolutely no move to do so. As with DOMA, his Justice Department supports DADT despite being under no obligation to do so. The President made a big show of ordering a superfluous and completely unnecessary study about the possibility of allowing lesbian and gay members of the military to serve openly. In practice, this study does two things. First, it creates a forum for those who are opposed to lesbians and gay men in the military, while denying that same forum to our brothers and sisters in uniform -- because they are still, of course, subject to discharge if they come out of the closet before the law is changed. Second, it makes any real progress impossible for at least a year, because of course the study isn't done yet.

President Obama promised the repeal of DADT in the first year of his administration. He did nothing in his first year but defend it. In his second year, his administration has continued to defend DADT, and the President has made it absolutely certain that it won't be repealed this year, either. And of course there are no promises for next year, either -- not that the President's promises mean much anyway.

President Obama has broken every important promise he made to our people. He has made a mockery of his promise to be "a fierce advocate" for equality.

But he's not as bad as Bush, right? He's done some things for the LGBT community, right?

Here's what he's done:

He extended partial benefits to the same-sex partners of some federal employees. This doesn't include members of the military, of course, and it doesn't include anybody who doesn't work for the federal government.

He presented the Presidential Medal of Freedom to a lesbian tennis player (Billie Jean King) and a gay activist who had been dead for more than thirty years (Harvey Milk). I'm not saying Billie Jean King and Harvey Milk don't deserve the honor; they do. But honoring a couple of deserving members of our community as individuals does nothing to advance the cause of equality. I'm sure it means a lot to Billie Jean King and to Harvey Milk's family, but to the queer on the street it's nothing but a cheap and easy gesture. It doesn't protect our jobs, our marriages, our families, or even our right to serve our country. It's just a feeble attempt at appearing gay-positive -- but not too gay-positive. There's a reason the President chose an athlete and a dead activist. If he'd chosen a living activist -- not a sycophant like Joe Solmonese, but a real activist like Larry Kramer -- he'd have been embarrassed by that activist's refusal of the empty honor.

He attended a Human Rights Campaign dinner. Note that the HRC does not lobby for our community with the administration so much as it lobbies for the administration and the Democratic party within our community. Most of the people at the HRC dinner weren't credible gay activists; these are Democratic Party loyalists who support gay rights on the side.

He invited some same-sex couples to the White House Easter egg roll.

He signed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act. This is actually kind of a big deal, since it makes it possible for the federal government to investigate hate crimes against our people and to help fund prosecutions of those crimes. Of course, the actual implementation of the law rests with Obama's Justice Department, which has been consistently and unabashedly hostile to our people, but it least it raises a possibility, and it might lead to more hate crimes against our people at least being reported.

And now: hospital visitation.

Okay, that's good. This is the first thing he's done that can actually benefit the queers in the street. It means that even in the thirty-one states in which there is absolutely no legal recognition of same-sex couples, our people can have this most basic and most obvious of rights under most circumstances. Of course, there is not and cannot reasonably be any obligation for hospital personnel to make a determination that the right exists, so you'd better hope that when you're admitted to the hospital you're conscious and coherent. If you're unable to designate your spouse or partner on your own, you'd better have an advance directive, and you'd better have it on you. Still, for most of us under most circumstances, this is a step forward. It's a good thing. It may save our people, or at least a great many of us, from the kind of senseless cruelty that was inflicted on the Langbehn-Pond family by Jackson Memorial Hospital.

But it's not enough. If the President had honored his promise to work for the repeal of DOMA, this memorandum -- which could be reversed at the stroke of pen by Obama's successor (or, given his track record, by Obama himself) -- would be completely unnecessary. Even a partial repeal of DOMA, to allow the federal government to recognize our marriages while not requiring the states to do so, would make this memorandum redundant.

Besides being a poor substitute for equality, the memorandum costs the President absolutely nothing. An overwhelming majority of Americans have enough basic human decency to favor hospital visitation rights for our people. The only people who oppose this minimal level of decency toward us are the blindest, most hate-filled of religious fanatics. They are literally the same people who are fiercely opposed to doing anything about queer kids (and kids who are perceived to be queer, whether they are or not) being bullied in school. These people are -- not to mince any words about it -- monsters of iniquity and animosity. And they don't just hate us. They hate the President like barbed wire pie. Nothing he does can make them hate him any more than they already do.

So this memorandum costs the President nothing. It extends to our people only the very most basic recognition. It can be reversed at any time by the stroke of a pen. And we are expected to be grateful to receive this in lieu of what the President promised.

If you don't understand why I'm still pissed off, let me put it this way: I want you to imagine that you are a natural-born citizen and lifelong resident of the United States, and that you have been voting and paying taxes for more than thirty years. Imagine that every rapist, child molester and mass murderer in America has legal rights in this country that you don't have. Imagine that the President clearly intends to keep it that way. Do you think he's your friend?

Why I'm still not grateful to the President Updated On: 4/16/10 at 10:45 AM

[Plum]

Posted: 4/16/10 at 11:04am

SNAFU - if you think that resistance to gay visitation rights today only happens in hicksville or in Catholic hospitals, you're just plain wrong, and I have friends who can attest to that.

And now I'm going to acknowledge a key caveat - I don't think that Obama is a "fierce" advocate of LGBT rights, but I do think he is an advocate. So I don't know if this is actually a long-term strategy on his part, but...

If you study the history of the African-American civil rights movement, you'll see that it's precisely beginning with "safe" gestures that eventually gets you the big prize.

"Brown v. Board of Education" didn't just spring out of the Supreme Court's collective conscience like Athena from the head of Zeus. It was the culmination of a long-term litigation strategy by the NAACP that started with "safe" cases: First they asked the courts to desegregate law schools, because all judges have been to law school and could empathize with the plaintiffs. Then they moved on to other professional schools, then public colleges, building positive precedent throughout the country. It planted that germ in people's minds, the idea that black and white people could and should be schooled together. So when they finally did litigate "Brown", the Court was ready, and the NAACP got the result it wanted.

Justice Ginsburg, in her time with the ACLU, made massive inroads in women's rights by choosing seemingly small-time cases about things like government benefits for military dependents and the drinking age for near beer to get precedent. What matters, again, is planting the seed.

Which isn't something that you want to hear when you're being oppressed and discriminated against right the h.ell now, I know, and sometimes I hate the "be patient" argument for how dismissive it can sound, and how dismissive it can end up being in the hands of someone who really doesn't care. You're right and the law as it stands is wrong, and that sucks. And it's annoying as hell to keep smiling and just try to push nicely for what you can get. But eventually, gradually, when done intelligently, it works.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 4/16/10 at 11:14am

I am well aware there are places (many states, 31 or so?) where the hospital visitation rights are a problem. I mentioned that. Yes. I will agree small safe gestures are a way to start. Small safe gestures along with the response from the Gay community of, "Thank-you but that isn't enough Mr President, what about all the other stuff?"
Accepting a scrap tossed off and retreating with a "See? he really DOES love us!" will get us nowhere. Keeping the fires hot and pressing forward will keep the issues closer to a front burner.

Updated On: 4/16/10 at 11:14 AM

[nealb1]

Posted: 4/16/10 at 11:23am

I think it's great what Obama did regarding hospital visitation rights to same sex partners.

Like everything else in life - give it time regarding Obama's reversal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. Rome wasn't built in one day.

Updated On: 4/16/10 at 11:23 AM

[Plum]

Posted: 4/16/10 at 11:30am

"Keeping the fires" hot means moving on to the next fight as soon as you've one your previous one. It doesn't mean (or doesn't have to mean) dismissing your last victory as a "table scrap".

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 4/16/10 at 11:31am

I don't think Rome was promised to be built in a day. Neither were the repeals of DADT and DOMA promised to happen in a day. But it's been hundreds of days.

[nealb1]

Posted: 4/16/10 at 11:39am

Like I put in my post - everything in life takes time.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 4/16/10 at 11:42am

Well, more than a year is a considerable amount of time in my book.