Why it matters: DP couple STILL faces discrimination

From The Las Vegas Review Journal:

 On the wall of their Henderson home, Brittney Leon and Terri-Ann Simonelli proudly display their certificate of domestic partnership. 

Under a 2009 state law, the document gives them all the rights of married couples.
Or so they thought. 

When Leon, 26, checked into Spring Valley Hospital on July 20 with complications in her pregnancy, she assumed that her partner Simonelli, 41, could make any necessary medical decisions if she suffered unforeseen problems. 

But that's not what happened, they said. An admissions officer told them the hospital policy required gay partners to secure power of attorney before making any medical decisions for each other..... 

A woman who identified herself as public relations representative at Spring Valley Hospital told a Review-Journal reporter in a phone interview that the hospital policy requires gay couples have power of attorney in order to make medical decisions for each other . 

When asked if she was aware of Nevada's domestic partnership law, she accused the reporter of bias and hung up the telephone. ....

I love that: accuse a reporter of bias for POINTING OUT THE LAW.

Despite laws that supposedly make this illegal, it keeps happening.  Not just in NV but in other states too, even in CA, legal domestic partners who are SUPPOSED to have "the same rights" are denied those rights.   The remedy is clear.  M-A-R-R-I-A-G-E.

Why it matters: Visiting your loved ones in the hospital

One of the many reasons to advocate for marriage equality is the numerous examples of legal partners being denied hospital access, despite having domestic partnerships or registered powers of attorney.

Cases like this one, in Florida, where a woman died apart from her partner who was denied access

Or this one, in Washington, where a woman was told "get out, you don't belong here!" as her partner died.

So we have to be happy at some level that the President has issued a memorandum that everyone should have the right to have a loved one with them, regardless of status.

Yet every day, all across America, patients are denied the kindnesses and caring of a loved one at their sides -- whether in a sudden medical emergency or a prolonged hospital stay. Often, a widow or widower with no children is denied the support and comfort of a good friend. Members of religious orders are sometimes unable to choose someone other than an immediate family member to visit them and make medical decisions on their behalf. Also uniquely affected are gay and lesbian Americans who are often barred from the bedsides of the partners with whom they may have spent decades of their lives -- unable to be there for the person they love, and unable to act as a legal surrogate if their partner is incapacitated.

And then mandates access. That's nice, isn't it?

Note sarcasm.

Of course, it's not limited to Teh Gay, so it may be a little more palatable to some. But if you think this means marriage equality somehow no longer matters? As Andrew Sullivan says,

I fear it's a way to tell gays they cannot marry. The Democrats will say: see, you can already have hospital visitation rights. Now please stop alienating people with all this civil rights talk. And the Human Rights Campaign can last a thousand years mediating these morsels of compassion from the executive branch. I favor the right to designate anyone in advance as your next of kin in hospital. But for gays, I favor merely the same rights as straights. Which means to say: no more and no less than civil marriage.

Update This WaPo article is very congratulatory. But wouldn't it have been more effective for them to say, "this is why we have to repeal DOMA?"

Kerry Eleveld in the Advocate writes,

But as I look at the list of advancements President Obama has made for LGBT Americans, I can’t escape noticing that nearly all of them fall under the heading “Too politically palatable to have a downside.”

It’s an ever-growing list of small, incremental steps toward equality that are most certainly positive but still fall far short of the campaign promises that Sen. Barack Obama ran on.....

The problem with these advances is that almost every one of them could essentially be swept away by the next administration. Just look at what kind of havoc Virginia governor Bob McDonnell has wreaked in Virginia in terms of rolling back discrimination protections for LGBT people. ...

President Obama has two glaring opportunities to create lasting change this year: the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal. Passing either one of them would mark the single biggest advancement for LGBT equality in this nation's history, but that window of opportunity narrows with every passing day.

I unequivocally applaud the president's action, but I also never witnessed a campaign rally where Obama told a roaring crowd of supporters, “And as president, I will confer certain benefits on same-sex couples!”

I am a gay, married Californian whose marriage evaporates when I leave this state. When is our fierce advocate going to give me equal protection?

Why it matters: Get out, you don't belong here

Sharon ....and JoAnn.....had been life-partners for 17 years, when JoAnn’s chronic illness worsened and she was hospitalized at the University of Washington Medical Center. On September 3, 2005, JoAnn was moved to the ICU and came under the care of a contract nurse, Karen Hulley, for the night. And on that night, their lives changed forever. Despite the fact that the University and JoAnn’s doctor permitted Sharon to be by her beside constantly, Nurse Hulley, repeatedly refused Sharon access to JoAnn’s room and bedside, continually evicting her from the room. By the time Sharon regained access to her partner the next morning, JoAnn’s condition had deteriorated, and she was heavily drugged. She died within a matter of hours.

Go to the Insider Exclusive page to watch the video.

Pam's House Blend comments that powers of attorney and health care proxies aren't enough:

Sharon and JoAnn had copies of their power of attorney and health care proxy with them, and copies were attached to JoAnn's chart. And they had the cooperation and backing of JoAnn's doctor. But after hours, after the doctor had gone home and the night nurse was in charge, all respect for the law and contracts went out the window. Whenever Sharon tried to be in the room with JoAnn to comfort her as she lay dying, the nurse screamed at her "You don't belong here!", and kicked her out. So much for powers of attorney and health care proxy being a meaningful substitute for a civil marriage.

No Health Care for GLBT families?

So much for including all Americans. From the Washington Blade:

[T]he bill, H.R. 3962, uses the terms “family” and “dependent,” and advocates say the new Health Choices Commissioner — a position established in the legislation to oversee the insurance exchange — could interpret this language to mean someone’s opposite-sex spouse, but not a same-sex spouse.

For example, the section describing the retiree reinsurance program — for which employer-based programs could submit claims to the government — says claims could be made on “employment based health benefits provided to a retiree or to the spouse, surviving spouse, or dependent of a retiree.”

Brian Moulton, the Human Rights Campaign’s chief legislative counsel, said the term “dependent” and “family” in the bill are “fairly open-ended” and “leave a lot of discretion to the new commissioner to define them.”

“Certainly, there is some use of the term ‘spouse’ in the bill in some of the provisions, and certainly DOMA would control that definition of spouse,” he said. “I think there are some areas where there’s a potential there won’t be access to some of the benefits.”

You see, my marriage doesn't count. And neither do Domestic Partnerships, right now. But thanks to DOMA, it's even possible that my legal marriage would be explicitly excluded, even if DPs are allowed. How's THAT for a cruel irony?

Meanwhile, Dick Durbin and others are doing a chicken little with respect to GLBT rights. THey are running hard from our community, and are shutting the door on a repeal to Don't Ask Don't Tell aka DADT.

You see, apparently a couple of Republican governors getting elected outweighs two new Dems in the House. NOw, remember, most people (even straight conservatives) support a repeal of DADT. Domestic Partnerships won in Washington State, and anti-discrimination protections in Kalamazoo. There were several gay people elected in contests around the country. But the beltway bias is that we are poison and even the Democratic National Committee wouldn't support us. Back under the bus, boys and girls.

As David Mixner writes,

How can we have any dignity, honor or pride in ourselves if we validate this continued process of ballot box terrorism? How can we stand tall next to each other if we explain away another's cowardliness? How can we allow people to dehumanize our relationships and our very integrity if we give people passes to sit out the battle for our very freedom? No longer are political timelines a reason for delay, no longer are incremental approaches acceptable and no longer can the political process expect us to be patient and wait our turn. Our turn came long ago and there will be no more waiting.

I'm still waiting for "fierce advocacy". ::crickets:: Meanwhile, my wallet will be open only for causes and candidates who share ALL my values.

Do same-sex marriage bans promote HIV infection?

Interesting study suggests yes:

An Emory University study claims to have found a link between same-sex marriage bans and HIV rates.

By applying economic theories to calculate how social attitudes and policies affect HIV transmission, Hugo Mialon and Andrew Francis estimate that a constitutional ban on gay marriage raises a state's HIV rate by four cases per 100,000 people....

“Tolerance for homosexuals causes low-risk men to enter the pool of homosexual partners, as well as causes sexually active men to substitute away from underground, anonymous, and risky behaviors, both of which lower the HIV rate,” the study reads. “Social acceptance of gays may consequently induce gay men to interact in open and socially mediated venues associated with less risky sexual behaviors.”...

Mialon said, “Intolerance is deadly.”

But let's remember that that National Review disagrees:

One still sometimes hears people make the allegedly “conservative” case for same-sex marriage that it will reduce promiscuity and encourage commitment among homosexuals. This prospect seems improbable, and in any case these do not strike us as important governmental goals.

Sure. Because conservatives think better dead than wed.

ElsieElsie's story

Writing at DailyKos, ElsieElsie says,

I cannot provide my husband health insurance if he loses his job. His medication is very expensive, and without it, he faces a debilitating disease. We can't afford it without his income or his insurance.

Conversely, he CAN provide me health insurance if I lose my job, but, because the federal government does not recognize our marriage, I must pay taxes on the thousands of dollars his company provides me in benefits in that case -- not a trivial amount of money.

This is but one of millions of examples why, though our civil rights aren't important to you, they are for millions of people and their families intimately connected with the issues [some] deem so much more urgent.

Without full equality, should politicians resolve these burning issues, we get left behind.

Do you have a story about being a gay married Californian? Put it in the comments and I will post it.

California couple denied hospital rights in Fresno

This is quite frightening. Because, you know, the right wing tells us we don't need marriage as long as we have civil unions, and besides, anything we care about can be covered legally.

But not, it appears, in Fresno, where despite documentation, a woman was not allowed access to her partner. Another example of "we don't do that here."

"They refused to take my medical cards from her. They refused Teresa's offer to have my advance directive and power of attorney faxed over from UCSF."

Orbin said she asked the nurses several times if Rowe could join her, but each time they refused. "They just kept looking at my Marriage Equality shirt and giving me dirty looks," she said.

Orbin and Rowe were not reunited until a doctor intervened a few hours later.

"When the doctor arrived, I asked him if Teresa could join me," Orbin said. "He asked me why she wasn't already with me, and I told him the nursing staff told me I was in a no visitor zone. The doctor gave me an odd look and said, 'I will take care of that'. He left the room, and a few minutes later Teresa came in" ..... the nursing staff suddenly had a change of heart while the doctor was present and allowed Rowe to stay with her until she was discharged.

The couple said they have never experienced such blatant discrimination. They are both so upset over the incident that they have contacted the ACLU for legal advice.

Even getting insurance is a trial

Under our current system, health insurance is linked to employment. If you are straight and married, your family will be covered by your employer. Gay, not so much. From the NY Times:

Even if the relationship is formalized with the state in a marriage or union, that does not always obligate the employer to cover a same-sex spouse. For one thing, self-insured employers are not regulated by the states.

And other benefit-providing employers that choose not to offer such coverage can sometimes use the Defense of Marriage Act — a law that forbids the federal government to recognize same-sex marriage — to trump state laws......

If you’re part of a same-sex couple and you’re fortunate enough to work for an employer that will provide coverage for your partner, the process can still be cumbersome and costly.

Yes, as in it is viewed as a taxable benefit (a costly one!) among other things.

Go check out the article for useful tips.

And remember, the Republican Party considers the denial of insurance to gay couples to be a good reason to deny them marriage. Otherwise, you know, it would be too expensive for small business. Of course exactly the same argument applies to straight marriage (or is it "opposite" marriage now?) You cannot make up this stuff!