Seattle Post Intelligencer: Gov. Walker: No Hospital Visitation for Gay Couples

[Destino]

Not particularly... Wis cannot even do that much w/o a judges blessing

So it's your position that not mounting a defense is a trivial issue of little importance? If I'm understanding that correct then I'll disagree with you. I think that announcing it is an invitation to challenge it and that refusing to defend it is a statement that he hopes it gets over turned. This IMO is obvious and the fact that we are debating the obvious is a waste of time.

Let's get to the meat of it. Why do anything that could deny homosexual care, comfort, and the ability to pass their possessions on to their closest companion in the event of sudden unexpected death? I know the company line on healthcare benefits so I won't even bother getting into that.

[Bang]

Let's get to the meat of it. Why do anything that could deny homosexual care, comfort, and the ability to pass their possessions on to their closest companion in the event of sudden unexpected death? I know the company line on healthcare benefits so I won't even bother getting into that.

Because they're homos, that's why.

Treating them like human beings will piss off God.

And if we do that, the Earth might be turned into a festering ****hole of war and greed and corruption!

I mean, damn, how much clearer does it need to be?

(Translation: They stick it in each other's butts! ICK! And them lezzy women are bigger than me!)

~Bang

[Destino]

More like he has been targeted by them ,he is now the devil incarnate

You're both wrong. Everything he's doing is elevating him within the GOP. Homosexuals don't receive tremendous sympathy from voters that count to the GOP. They can still get moderates by rabidly opposing just about anything that benefits homosexuals and they greatly improve their standing with the GOP faithful by doing so. Everything Walker has done IMO is to set up a Presidential run.

[twa]

Asking the court to be relieved of the responsibility to defend a law in a suit( judged to be in conflict with the constitution by the AG) is the proper thing to do.

The meat of the matter is following the law in matters of conflict....which is what Walker is doing

In the event the judge considers a inadequate defense of the law is possible,the judge can either appoint counsel or direct the state to defend it.

add

Bang ....does not granting equality to all in all things equal hate or homophobia?

Rant on brother ,while you condemn everyone from Obama on down

[Kosher Ham]

It should not matter at all that this man is a GOP member.

It simply doesn't make sense.

[Bang]

Bang ....does not granting equality to all in all things equal hate or homophobia?

Rant on brother ,while you condemn everyone from Obama on down

Hi!

Your never ending defense of anything the GOP does never impresses me.

I daresay that if it was you or someone you even knew who was affected by any of this stuff you might feel differently.

Visits in the hospital.

Oh the horror!

~Bang

[elkabong82]

Asking the court to be relieved of the responsibility to defend a law in a suit( judged to be in conflict with the constitution by the AG) is the proper thing to do.

The Wisconsin constitution bans same-sex marriage. Walker agrees with the Wisconsin Family group that allowing same-sex couple to register so they can have some marriage rights, such as hospital visitation rights and inheritor rights violates the state ban on same-sex marriage.

So how many judges and prosecutors exactly do you think are going to support any same-sex couples in these matters when there is absolutely zero protection from the state?

Do you believe government should dictate who can and cannot get married? A truly small government ideally would not be involved in such matters. There shouldn't be a ban on same-sex marriage, and the supposed "morality" of banning it has led to people being denied equal rights with hospital visitation, inheritor, and other rights that are granted every married couple.

A law should be logical, should it not? Where is the logic in denying same-sex couples marriage? Walker is supporting an unjust ban.

And this more than just people defending the "sanctity of marriage," because the group went after the few marriage rights granted eventhough marriage itself is banned. They don't want any recognition of gay couples as being together, they don't want people in love to be able to marry only because they are the same sex. And Walker agrees with their bigoted views. He's not doing it to support the state constitution, he's doing it to support his anti-gay constituency and party. And yes, until Republicans stop supporting bans on same-sex marriage, they are the anti-gay party. It's sad too, because it's outright bigotry. The "morality" defense trotted out by anti-gay folk reminds me of the "morality" defenses I read when studying the Civil Rights movement, such as it being immoral for a white person and a black person to be with each other, or for a black man to whistle at a white woman, or for black people to share the same public space as white people.

Bigotry is bigotry, and it offends me. Walker supports bigots, so he is a bigot as well. IMO.

[twa]

Hi..... any evidence of them being denied visits as a result of his actions?

Walker has not done so by action or inaction.(despite the POS article that appears to alleges that)

The FACTS are a current law is being challenged by a group(that does not include Walker) and the only one that can invalidate law is the court

Nice on not effecting anyone I know:blahblah:

Need a link to Thinkprogress or some other crap to enable more righteous indignation?

add

Elka....I believe the govt should deal only in civil unions(with marriage having too many religious inferences and left to them) and they should be simple matters of contract law open to all....naturally the reality that exists is very different

If you want to knock him for not supporting SSM feel free

accusing him of denying visitation is another matter ,one unsupported by fact as far as I see.

[DRSmith]

Oh come on. Lets not get CRAZY now.. I mean who doesn't love a good bear hug in an airport mens room?

Hands up if you've NEVER fathered a secret child with your housekeeper? Don't be shy.

It's not like NO ONE ELSE ever uses taxpayer dollars to leave the country and bang their Argentinian mistress.

Now those are good core heterosexual American values! (and YES, even the airport trysts,,I have been assured that the anti-gay Republican lawmakers who use these travel facilities SWEAR to me they imagine the small little hairless twink boys who are on the other side of the partition is their WIFE, so knock it off with all the accusations. Everyone knows that as long as you keep your eyes closed and think of women you're not gay, and if you think of your wife then you're certainly not cheating.)

at the pinheads who still believe these people.

~Bang

I think there should be a law, if you have had sex before marriage, remarried without benefit of death or adultery you do not get to vote on anything to do with gays or abortion claiming to protect America as Christian nation.

Ley he or she who is whithout sin cast the first vote to block others from exercising the free will God has given

[Madison Redskin]

Asking the court to be relieved of the responsibility to defend a law in a suit( judged to be in conflict with the constitution by the AG) is the proper thing to do.

The meat of the matter is following the law in matters of conflict....which is what Walker is doing

I wonder why Governor Doyle didn't think the law was unconstitutional, but Governor Walker and his ® AG do? Hmmmm.... Maybe it has something to do with the fact they think homosexuals are aren't entitled to the same rights and privileges as the rest of us.

PS - Mildly interesting story. After I left my old job, I called a buddy and asked him who took my old office. Governor Doyle did, at least until a partner leaves and he snags their office.

[Prosperity]

Hi..... any evidence of them being denied visits as a result of his actions?

Walker has not done so by action or inaction.(despite the POS article that appears to alleges that)

The FACTS are a current law is being challenged by a group(that does not include Walker) and the only one that can invalidate law is the court

Nice on not effecting anyone I know:blahblah:

Need a link to Thinkprogress or some other crap to enable more righteous indignation?

add

Elka....I believe the govt should deal only in civil unions(with marriage having too many religious inferences and left to them) and they should be simple matters of contract law open to all....naturally the reality that exists is very different

If you want to knock him for not supporting SSM feel free

accusing him of denying visitation is another matter ,one unsupported by fact as far as I see.

challenging the law is sufficient for the evil label, any facilitation of the challenge, through defense or non-defense or whatever you want to call it, is also evil.

There is right and wrong, it's clear which side of the fence this falls on.

[Burgold]

Honestly, it's callous decisions like this which make me think gay marriage should be legal. Who could deny a dying person their last moments with the person they love? Who would deny someone a chance to say good-bye? I'd say it's inhuman, but it's all too human. Generally, I think that marriage is a religious issue and should up to churches and out of government hands altogether, but if government wants to intercede in such negative fashions then perhaps we do need laws protecting the rights of individuals to have compassion for each other. This group should be ashamed of itself. I can understand someone saying marriage is an institution between God, a man and a woman. I can't understand this lack of compassion and empathy, esp. from people who probably consider themselves spiritual and Godly people.

I mean think about these people are really saying. That in their weakest, most neediest hour, that they need to be alone? Is that really conservative, or small government, or democratic?

[twa]

I wonder why Governor Doyle didn't think the law was unconstitutional, but Governor Walker and his ® AG do? Hmmmm.... Maybe it has something to do with the fact they think homosexuals are aren't entitled to the same rights and privileges as the rest of us.

A opinion obviously shared by the courts and the majority of voters or there would be no controversy eh?

The writer's attempt to link it simply to visiting rights is simple fearmongering to ensnare the feebleminded....but obviously effective :violin:

Bur....I see you have bought in;)

[Burgold]

Bur....I see you have bought in;)

It's the nature of the defense that I'm reading that make me suspiscious. Thou protest too much, you know

Honestly, a dying person should not be denied comfort in the form of a person that cares for them (unless that person is imprisoned). It really should be as simple as that.

[Madison Redskin]

A opinion obviously shared by the courts and the majority of voters or there would be no controversy eh?

Yup, just like a lot of Americans supported Jim Crow.

The writer's attempt to link it simply to visiting rights is simple fearmongering to ensnare the feebleminded....but obviously effective :violin:

Bur....I see you have bought in;)

So you would have been happier if the author said, "Governor Walker Drops Defense of Bill Granting Same-Sex Couples Various Rights"? I lived in Wisconsin when the bill was passed and I am well aware of what it means. I didn't feel misled. Perhaps others would feel misled by the article if they didn't bother to read it.

[twa]

It's the nature of the defense that I'm reading that make me suspiscious. Thou protest too much, you know

Honestly, a dying person should not be denied comfort in the form of a person that cares for them (unless that person is imprisoned). It really should be as simple as that.

Not mounting a defense since I see no reason to,simply mocking

I will ask again.....any evidence that the repeal of this law(by a judge mind you) would result in loss of visiting rights?

I even provided a link showing the federal penalty for such a denial

Madison....yes I would prefer more truth in media.....see if you can find a real news source that practices the blatant deception in this story.(and even more so in the thread title)

[Madison Redskin]

Madison....yes I would prefer more truth in media.....see if you can find a real news source that practices the blatant deception in this story.(and even more so in the thread title)

The thread title is the title of the article.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker to Prevent Same-Sex Hospital Visitation Rights

Wisconsin Gov Scott Walker Says Gay Hospital Visitation Rights VIolates State Constitution

Regardless of whether you think the article's title is misleading, the bottom line is that Gov. Walker believes a bill granting rights to same-sex couples shouldn't be defended but his predecessors did. I wonder why.

[twa]

Regardless of whether you think the article's title is misleading, the bottom line is that Gov. Walker believes a bill granting rights to same-sex couples shouldn't be defended but his predecessors did. I wonder why.

Which predecessors?...certainly not the AG that determined it was unconstitutional two yrs ago,and has not changed his mind

You mean the former governor that put it in a budget bill?

Is the thread title(article title) misleading at best?....Yes or No

[elkabong82]

Elka....I believe the govt should deal only in civil unions(with marriage having too many religious inferences and left to them) and they should be simple matters of contract law open to all....naturally the reality that exists is very different

.

We share the same viewpoint

[Koolblue13]

If my Dad was in the hospital and his boyfriend wasn't allowed to be with him, it would crush him. That's not what you need when you are fighting for your life. You need the people who are closest to you, to be at your side.

It's that simple. Either you have compassion in your heart or a blind hatred.

[Kosher Ham]

KB13, I would say..."ignorant hatred".

[Henry]

I see twa has his obnoxious dial turned to 11, but he has a point. Walker is not actively opposing gay rights. He's not spending extra money to keep gays from visiting each other in the hospital. And that's what the article is implying.

However, Walker is passively resisting this law, and I do agree that that seems rather heartless, even if it is consistant with his political philosophy.

[Burgold]

I agree, Henry. Turning a blind eye can sometimes be as bad as acting against.

[twa]

Which is more obnoxious....falsely asserting Walker is attempting to deny hospital visiting rights to gays....or my mocking?

[Burgold]

Which is more obnoxious....falsely asserting Walker is attempting to deny hospital visiting rights to gays....or my mocking?

Your mocking... clearly