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

[Prosperity]

The Right thing is a very elusive critter.

No. Not here

[elkabong82]

NO sir he is not....the only one that could do so is a judge ruling the law is unconstitutional.

EVEN in that event there are repercussions for any hospital that denied visiting rights (which is ancillary to the actual results of the law being revoked)

It is simply a BS bleeding heart smoke screen that ignores the facts

I'm dismayed at the number of people afraid to let the legal system work.

The only one pushing the limiting hospital visitation meme is the Libs

I'm dismayed that you think Walker supporting state inaction instead of protecting couples rights once grantd to homosexuals qualifies as alowing the legal system to work. How does inaction qualify as letting the legal system work? The legal system was working, and under that system same-sex couples were given certain marriage rights, like hospital visitis after hours, stays, and inheritor stuff as well. Now, Walker is making it so the state will not act to defend those rights if infringed upon. That is not letting the legal system work, it's taking out one side of the legal system so it can't work, all because Walkers constituency pushing this are bigots and he's either a bigot as well or he is too spineless to stand up to the ignorance of his party and supporters.

[twa]

No. Not here

Yes Here

Is the right thing letting the court rule on law and legal obligations of the state?

[elkabong82]

If it was simply a matter of hospital visits ya might be correct.

I have yet to see any evidence Walker even opposes hospital visits,or that this law being unconstitutional would effect them .......please enlighten me

Only family members can stay after hours or overnight. If the state doesn't recognize gay couples as married, then a hospital doesn't have to recognize them as together either. And if the the majority of the state supports a ban on same sex marriage, then the denial of hospital vistiation for gays will happen, especially now that there won't be any repurcussions since Walker won't defend previously granted rights.

---------- Post added May-23rd-2011 at 01:42 AM ----------

I'll repeat ....he is asking the court for permission not to defend it(and allow other parties to defend it),NOT directing the AG not to defend it

it's not that difficult to grasp.

add

It would be fun to contrast posters opinions on this vs DOMA &Justices actions and Cali's with Prop 8 ...somebody bored??

oh, asking for it instead of directing to do so is so much better. All is good in the world again. Right. Like I said before, the difference you won't stop talking about and defending Walker over is direct action vs. indirect action. Walker shouldn;t be doing either. And, just like I said before, if you really are in favor of small government and civil unions open to all, then why are you defending Walker throughout the thread? Whether he is directing or simply asking for, either way his goal is to ignore federal law and deny rights to people simply because they are gay.

Seriously, how is Walker justified at all in his request to have the state not act on protecting rights they previously granted to same-sex couples? How does not protecting legally guaranteed rights qualify as allowing the legal system to work?

The state ban on same-sex marriage is bigoted and should not be supported. Yet their bigotry in that law has now led to Walker requesting that the state not defend the rights of certain citizens only because of who they are with.

[twa]

Fact not fearmongering....see if it works

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hospital-visitation-rights-gay-lesbian-partners-effect/story?id=12642543

Patients at nearly every hospital in the country will now be allowed to decide who has visitation rights and who can make medical decisions on their behalf -- regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or family makeup -- under new federal regulations that took effect Tuesday.

The rules, which apply to hospitals participating in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, were first proposed by President Obama in an April memorandum and later implemented by the Department of Health and Human Services after a period of public review.

They represent a landmark advance in the rights of same-sex couples and domestic partners who heretofore had no legal authority to be with a hospitalized partner because they were either not a blood relative or spouse.

Hospitals must now inform patients, or an attending friend or family member, of their rights to visitors of their choosing. The policy also prohibits discrimination against visitors based on race, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or disability.

Elk....do you ignore this?

Simply condemning the majority of a states voters as bigots does not change reality or our process of law.

[elkabong82]

The Right thing is a very elusive critter.

because of bigotry and ignorance and people who defend such only because of political affiliation

[twa]

because of bigotry and ignorance and people who defend such only because of political affiliation

I try to overlook ya'lls little flaws

[elkabong82]

Elk....do you ignore this?

I won't answer any more of your questions until you actually take the time to address mine. I have had to ask this very simple thing of you several times in previous discussions. It doesn't seem like you're treating my opinion respectfully when you discuss with me in such a manner.

I didn't ignore it btw, other posters already addressed it, and you ignored or brushed off what they said also without addressing their points. Walker has basically asked the state to ignore/not defend federal and state law which extends rights to same-sex couples, among them hospital vistation rights. But in all of that, all you seem to give a **** about is that you think a left-wing rag is slandering a right wing politician, and you've gone through the thread defending a bigot who you supposedly disagree with on the issue of civil unions and resulting rights granted to couples under that union, and the only reason for such, it seems, is because of his political affiliation.

Answer this, please: Is Walker justiied in asking the state not to defend rights it previously granted to same-sex couples? Is any person justified in asking a state not to defend rights which give equal treatment?

---------- Post added May-23rd-2011 at 01:55 AM ----------

I try to overlook ya'lls little flaws

cute response. wake up man, you've defended a bigot throughout this entire thread. other than his party affiliation, please tell me how Walker is justified in requesting the state not defend certain rights for citizens just because they are gay? If he's not justified then you shouldn't be defending him throughout the thread.

[DRSmith]

What I would prefer is people understand whatever Walker does will not impact hospital visitation rights

I'm not upset at all,I gave up caring about writers playing politics long ago ....I still like to argue though

btw..when I said OP I was referring to the article

add

Is granting rights always the right thing in your mind?

Why not allow SS cousins to have partnerships?......why not drop all restrictions ?

To do otherwise is discriminatory and bigoted

Many people do not care if cousins or evwen brother or sister want to be together so long as they are both of age and consenting adults.

People who would not engage in such relationships do the ick factor still will not and those who do so for religous reasons still will not and besides I figure the offspring of a brother sister relationship will on strengthen the Republican base by growing it

[twa]

Answer this, please: Is Walker justiied in asking the state not to defend rights it previously granted to same-sex couples? Is any person justified in asking a state not to defend rights which give equal treatment?

cute response. wake up man, you've defended a bigot throughout this entire thread. other than his party affiliation, please tell me how Walker is justified in requesting the state not defend certain rights for citizens just because they are gay? If he's not justified then you shouldn't be defending him throughout the thread.

Yes he is justified and bound by the constitution to do so if he believes the AG,However he has not done so

He has instead asked the court's opinion AND made no effort to deny contested rights from what I have seen.

A comparable status to marriage is forbidden by law to SS couples there....Not by Walker ,but by law

add

Do you have a example of him ignoring federal law and denying rights to people simply because they are gay?

I have asked repeatedly,yet strangely there are no examples given other than from other states and predating federal regulation changes

What I have seen is baseless speculation and accusations

[Madison Redskin]

Yes he is justified and bound by the constitution to do so if he believes the AG,However he has not done so

He has instead asked the court's opinion AND made no effort to deny contested rights from what I have seen.

Technically, Walker is asking the state (the court) if it's okay for him not to defend the bill. Again, I think you're splitting hairs.

[twa]

Technically, Walker is asking the state (the court) if it's okay for him not to defend the bill. Again, I think you're splitting hairs.

The law is about splitting hairs when there is alleged conflicting law....a conflict Walker did not make,nor one he can decide

add

He has taken as neutral a position as is possible with his filing

[DRSmith]

This should not even be a case the people suing should be brought to court to answer one question how does this affect your personally?

[twa]

This should not even be a case the people suing should be brought to court to answer one question how does this affect your personally?

Isn't part of the courts job to determine both standing and the merits?

[DRSmith]

Isn't part of the courts job to determine both standing and the merits?

Are we talking real courts or the kind where judges are elected and therefore take stances based on populism rather than actual facts?

[twa]

Are we talking real courts or the kind where judges are elected and therefore take stances based on populism rather than actual facts?

That probably depends on whether you support their rulings :pfft:

[Burgold]

but while the laws are on the books, isn't it the job of the governor and AG to actively defend them? Whether they agree with them or not? Isn't that the biggest part of their job... to defend the laws of the nation and state?

[Bang]

but while the laws are on the books, isn't it the job of the governor and AG to actively defend them? Whether they agree with them or not? Isn't that the biggest part of their job... to defend the laws of the nation and state?

I do believe they're free to pick and choose which existing laws they want to uphold.

It is part of the oath of office.

It says specifically that "I swear to uphold the laws that I personally agree with".

Don't tell me you've never heard them say that with their hand on that book they all take so seriously.

But we shouldn't worry. After all, attorney Generals have never been known to be political and try to shape laws to match their own beliefs, or those of their party affiliations.

This is just how things get done in the good ol' USA, so quit your whining.

~Bang

[DRSmith]

Well there is a problem, if you do not have enough votes to get rid of laws that are bad then you look for another way to do thing

Now if Walker wanted to he could change the law

---------- Post added May-23rd-2011 at 09:48 AM ----------

That probably depends on whether you support their rulings :pfft:

No rulings that are based on basics in law whether you agree with them or not should be fair

Take for instance laws on having guns for protection if one is allowed to protect wealth and self with lethal means then to me abortion is no different both are considered activism but both are based on protection of wealth and self.

Now again one has to ask what standing does one have who is not in same sex relationship have in this matter?

Seems to me the American Taliban is upto their same ol tatics of wanting to impose their cherry picked religous views on others

[twa]

but while the laws are on the books, isn't it the job of the governor and AG to actively defend them? Whether they agree with them or not? Isn't that the biggest part of their job... to defend the laws of the nation and state?

Obviously not as this shows....as well as the Justice dept and DOMA or prop 8....probably more I'm overlooking,but those relate to the same basic topic

[elkabong82]

Yes he is justified and bound by the constitution to do so if he believes the AG,However he has not done so

He has instead asked the court's opinion AND made no effort to deny contested rights from what I have seen.

A comparable status to marriage is forbidden by law to SS couples there....Not by Walker ,but by law

add

Do you have a example of him ignoring federal law and denying rights to people simply because they are gay?

I have asked repeatedly,yet strangely there are no examples given other than from other states and predating federal regulation changes

What I have seen is baseless speculation and accusations

He is justified simply because of his belief? How about something concrete, because that's a ridiculous reason for justification. Is Walker's reasoning sound? I say no, because he's requesting that laws not be enforced solely based on sexuality. This idea of yours that Walker is just asking, and that anyone saying anything will come of his inquistion is only guessing, is foolish. He has a reason for his request, so the logical conclusion is that if he gets the answer he wants he will act on it. Pretending otherwise is just dishonest and dumb at this point.

Yeah, I know their state law bans SS marriage, I've been talking about that with you in here, quit trying to act like I'm over-villainizing Walker. I never said he instituted the ban, so you have no reason to post that 2nd line in the way you did.

And, btw, I've already said as well that the state ban is wrong and should not be supported. You disagree with the ban as well, as you claimed earlier. The law in Wisconsin also allows SS couples certain marriage rights which deal with personal matters for couples, not with marriage itself. Walker wants the state courts to not defend those rights. Why? Because he supports the ban on SS marriage. It's gthe only reason for his request, and it's bigoted and the gov't should have n say in marriage, as you said earlier too.

Walker just put in his request. You're asking for examples when we're saying what can/may happen if Walker gets his way. You're not that obtuse, please stop acting as such.

Baseless speculation? Riiiigghhht, because a state that banned SS marriage whose Governor wants to not protect rights that the other party extended previously to homosexuals yields no base for stating that without a defense of those rights they likely will be infringed upon at some point in that state.

Seriously, please give me a justification for even asking if it's ok to not defend rights which give people more equal treatment. Not whether or not Walker feels he is justified. I want you to tell me personally exactly WHY Walker is justified in asking what he has. "Bound by the constitution" is a cheap excuse, especially because the part he is "bound" by bans SS marriage, which you and I both believe is stupid, and the gov't shouldn't even be involved in. It's a bigoted ban that Walker is supporting, hence Walker too is a bigot.

The sad thing is, you agree that the SS marriage ban is wrong, as you said earlier, yet you're defending Walker for his request because he's doing so for the sake of the SS marriage ban in the state constitution. Again the only reason I can come up with as to why you're defending someone saying he is justified eventhough you disagree with the part of the constitution he is using for justification, is because of party affiliation.

[twa]

He is justified simply because of his belief? How about something concrete, because that's a ridiculous reason for justification. Is Walker's reasoning sound? I

Seriously, please give me a justification for even asking if it's ok to not defend rights which give people more equal treatment. Not whether or not Walker feels he is justified. I want you to tell me personally exactly WHY Walker is justified in asking what he has. "Bound by the constitution" is a cheap excuse, especially because the part he is "bound" by bans SS marriage, which you and I both believe is stupid, and the gov't shouldn't even be involved in. It's a bigoted ban that Walker is supporting, hence Walker too is a bigot.

.....

The sad thing is, you agree that the SS marriage ban is wrong, as you said earlier, yet you're defending Walker for his request because he's doing so for the sake of the SS marriage ban in the state constitution. Again the only reason I can come up with as to why you're defending someone saying he is justified eventhough you disagree with the part of the constitution he is using for justification, is because of party affiliation.

His belief or judgment backed by the states legal counsel ...who elses should he heed?

I am defending the rule of law(and what I consider fearmongering as far as the visitation rights issue)....a process Walker is both bound by and working within

I believe many laws are unjust,but that does not change them.....nor does Walker's opinion change them

If you wish to believe it is from partisanship feel free....it won't change my opinion.