Hospital Visitation Rights: A step closer to full equality

When I was in my 20's and 30's I never thought much about hospital visitation rights, mainly because I was single for most of that time. There was a time, however, in my mid 20's, when I was in a relationship and we lived on Capital Hill in DC.

One night I was mugged as I walked the ten or so blocks from Union Station to the apartment I shared with my then partner Harold. The event left me with a busted lip, a concussion and an overnight stay at Capital Hill Hospital. All they got was my paycheck, which my employers canceled and reissued.

That brief hospital encounter went amazingly well, given what other gay couples have reported. Harold was able to visit me without any problems and was included in conversations about my care and treatment.

I remember that we had been surprised by the way the hospital staff treated us like just another couple. We had heard so many horror stories from friends whose partners were hospitalized for HIV/AIDS treatment. I had the feeling at the time that the staff and doctor seemed like they just didn't know what to do and rather than make a scene, they just went with it. In the absence of any clear policy, they made a snap decision. Fortunately for us, it was the right one. But that hasn't been the case for the majority of gay and lesbian couples in this situation.

The treatment of same-sex couples by health care providers varies widely from state to state, city to city and hospital to hospital. In many cases, hospital visitation and decision making rights may vary from one hospital employee to another.

All of that changed this week when new federal regulations went into effect that allow patients to designate who will have visitation rights and who will make allowed to make medical decisions for them. President Obama issued the order to the Department of Health and Human Services last year after hearing about two lesbian couples that were denied visitation rights and the ill partners died alone.

The new policy went into effect on Tuesday and applies to every hospital receiving Medicaid and Medicare funding, which is nearly all U.S. hospitals.

Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force told the Washington Post, "Of all the things same-sex couples have to worry about, of all the discrimination and pressures we face, not being able to see our partner or spouse shouldn't be one of them. This new policy will have a positive impact on same-sex couples and our families throughout the nation."

To be clear, you must be awake and able to make your wishes known to hospital staff. If you are incapacitated or unconscious, that can leave you in a very messy gray area. Legal experts urge all same-sex couples, whether you are married in your home state or not, to have an Advance Medical Directive, a Medical Power of Attorney and a Living Will drawn up by a lawyer that specify, in no uncertain terms, who has the right to make medical decisions for you and who will be allowed to visit you in the hospital if you are unable to make those decisions for yourself.
 

Related articles

• Hospital visits to extend to same-sex couples (abclocal.go.com)
• New hospital visitation rights regulations provide equality (dailykos.com)
• Hospitals can't limit gay-partner visitation (dispatch.com)
• Exec. Order Gives Visitation Rights to Gay Partners [Dispatches from the Culture Wars] (scienceblogs.com)
• Feds Order Hospitals to Allow Gay Partner Visits (abcnews.go.com)

This Queer Little Planet: Eight UK Couples Sue for Marriage and Civil Partnership Equality

British LGBT Rights Activist, Peter Tatchell

Today marks the 5th anniversary of legal civil partnerships in Great Britain and eight couples, four gay and four straight, are celebrating the historic occasion by launching a lawsuit calling for reform of British marriage and civil partnership laws. As it currently stands, only gay and lesbian Brits can have a civil partnership and only straight couples can get married.

Confused? British LGBT rights activist Peter Tatchell explains via press release, "Now it is time to go one step further by overturning the ban on gay civil marriages (ie. marriages in register offices). Some same-sex couples do not want marriage. They are happy with civil partnerships. We respect their feelings. But other lesbian and gay couples would like to get married. It is the universally recognised system of love and commitment."

Tatchell adds, "We sympathise with heterosexual couples who don't like the patriarchal history of marriage and the idea of being called husband and wife. They would rather have a civil partnership instead. The law should give them that option."

Tatchell, the coordinator of the Equal Love campaign, explained how this all came about:

"Over the last two months, four same-sex couples were refused marriage licenses at register offices in Greenwich, Northampton and Petersfield. During the same period, four heterosexual couples were turned away when they applied for civil partnerships in Islington, Camden, Bristol and Aldershot," added Mr Tatchell.

"All eight couples received letters of refusal from their register offices. We are using these rejection letters to challenge the exclusion of gay couples from civil marriage and the denial of civil partnerships to straight couples. Since there is no difference in the rights and responsibilities involved in gay civil marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships, there is no justification for having two mutually exclusive and discriminatory systems."

Tatchell held a press conference this morning where he said, “Since there is no difference in the rights and responsibilities involved in gay marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships, there is no point or justification in having two mutually exclusive and discriminatory systems. Outlawing black marriages would provoke uproar. The prohibition on gay marriages should provoke similar outrage.

You might wonder what all the fuss is about if the two systems offer identical benefits to the Brits. Consider this. Last year veteran British pop star Sir Elton John and his civil partner David Furnish were denied the ability to adopt an HIV positive baby in the Ukraine because the Ukrainian government only allows adoption by married couples. The Ukraine does not recognized the couple's civil partnership. 

Marriage is marriage. For straight couples, a marriage performed anywhere in the world is recognized everywhere in the world. We still have a long way to go.

UPDATE: Just as I was finishing up with this post, news broke via The Independent, that the lawsuit has been delayed due to a clerical error:

To lodge the application, all couples need paperwork proving they have applied for a marriage or civil service licence and been rejected.

Because Camden Council mistook heterosexual couple Stephanie Munro and Andrew O'Neil as a gay couple, the "Equal Love" campaign to test gay marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships has been stalled until at least next month, co-ordinator Peter Tatchell said.

Related articles

• British couples launch bid to overturn European 'apartheid' law banning gay marriages, civil partnerships (dailymail.co.uk)
• Tatchell bids to overturn gay marriage ban at European Court of Human Rights (telegraph.co.uk)
• Couples launch legal bid over civil marriages (independent.co.uk)
• Legal bid to allow gay marriages (bbc.co.uk)

Chile to Consider Same-sex Marriage

Marriage Equality continues to spread though Latin American on the heels of Argentina's historic legalization of same-sex marriage.

Reuters reports:
The head of Chile's Socialist party, Fulvio Rossi, told reporters on Sunday that he planned to sponsor a bill to legalize gay marriage in the country, as occurred last month in neighboring Argentina.

"This is a project that I will present ... and I am also calling on the Church to be more welcoming, and I say that as part of the Church," the senator said, responding to remarks from Chilean Cardinal Francisco Javier Errazuriz who described the same-sex weddings in Argentina as "an aberration."

A gay couple from Chile was among the first to marry in Argentina, in the wine-making Mendoza region, when the country become the first in Latin America to allow same-sex nuptials.

Sebastian Pinera, Chile's first conservative president in two decades, has vowed to give more rights to same-sex couples, but opposes gay marriage.

There has also been talk in recent weeks that Peru, Paraguay, and Uruguay may also join Argentina on the Marriage Equality band wagon. Mexico City also recognizes same-sex marriage, although the Mexican federal government does not.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Chilean Cardinal Estévez: Homosexuality a 'Defect' Like 'Lacking an Eye, a Hand, a Foot' (towleroad.com)
• First Argentine Couple Weds Under New Gay Marriage Law (huffingtonpost.com)
• Chile senator to sponsor gay marriage bill (reuters.com)

Sonoma County, Ca. Separates Elderly Gay Couple in their Final Days Together

Blogger Kate Kendall of The Bilerico Project posted an incredibly sad and heart-wrenching article this weekend that is burning its way across FaceBook and Twitter in the wake of President Obama's directive granting hospital visitation rights to same-sex couples.

The story tells of an elderly couple, Clay and Harold, who had been together for twenty years. The tragic story unfolded when Harold fell on the front steps of the rented home the couple had shared for many years. Harold was whisked off to the hospital, where Clay was denied visitation rights and his medical power of attorney was ignored.

Yes, Harold, 88 and Clay, 77 had done everything they were supposed to do to protect themselves legally, but a court ruled that they were only room mates and Harold was made a ward of the state. The entire contents of the couple's home were auctioned off to pay for Harold's care. Clay was removed from his home by the state and involuntarily confined to a nursing home. The couple were kept apart and denied visitation. Harold died just three months after his fall. Clay is currently filing a lawsuit against the county and has won his release from the nursing home.

This tragic story not only underscores the significance of the president's actions last week, but drives home the fact a marriage certificate clearly defines a couple's relationship and legal rights. The fight continues.

Read the full story at The Bilerico Project. 

Related articles by Zemanta

• An inequality horror - Sonoma County CA separates elderly gay couple, sells all their possessions (pinkbananaworld.com)
• Sunday Late Night: Harold & Clay (firedoglake.com)
• Could Obama's Hospital Visitation Rules Have Prevented Clay + Harold's Horror Story? (pinkbananaworld.com)
• Sonoma County CA separates elderly gay couple and sells their home (bilerico.com)

Obama Orders Hospital Visitation Rights for Gay & Lesbian Couples

President Obama sent a memo to the Department of Health and Human Services directing the agency to come up with a plan that will allow hospital visitation rights to same sex couples. CNN reports:

The president's memo Thursday notes that "There are few moments in our lives that call for great compassion and companionship that when a loved one is admitted to the hospital ... Yet every day, all across America, patients are denied the kindnesses and caring of a loved one at their sides ..."

Gay and lesbian Americans are "uniquely affected" by the relatives-only policy at hospitals, Obama said, adding that they "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."

The president listed widowers without children and members of certain religious orders among those who suffer under the policy.

The new policy applies to all hospitals receiving federal funding for Medicaid and Medicare. The memo also requires hospitals to recognize medical powers of attorney that grant a non-married, same-sex spouse the right to make medical decisions on behalf of their medically incapacitated partner. 

The Washington Post reports:

The decision injects the president squarely into the debate over gay marriage by attempting to end the common practice by many hospitals of insisting that only family members by blood or marriage be allowed to visit patients.

Gay activists have argued for years that recognizing gay marriages would ease the emotional pain associated with not being able to visit their partners during a health crisis.

By contrast, opponents of gay marriage have said the visitation issue is a red herring, and have argued that advocates want to provide special rights for gays and lesbians that others do not have.

The memorandum from Obama to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, made public late Thursday night, orders new rules that would ensure hospitals "respect the rights of patients to designate visitors."

I really don't know how to react to this news. I'm grateful that if anything happens to me or my partner, the other of us will be able to have visitation rights and can make decisions. But I'm angry that this is still a  piece-meal doling out of equal rights. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a huge step forward, but it's not marriage.

Married couples never have to face these heart breaking scenarios. They are never denied access to to their spouses in the hospital. They will never know what it feels like to be told by a clerical employee at a hospital admissions desk that they can't be with their sick or injured partner because their relationship doesn't count. They don't have to call or write their representatives and beg them for the right to have legal recognition of a loving life-long relationship that is lived honestly, openly and unashamedly, only to be denied year after year and decade after decade by president after president.

And I am angry that my governor, Bob McDonnell and his hate-mongering henchman, Ken Cuccinelli are most likely preparing a statement, at this very moment, that says these new rules don't apply here in Virginia because of the despicable Marshall-Newman Marriage Amendment that cemented anti-gay bigotry into our state constitution. A constitutional amendment that was nothing more than a political tactic used by the hate-filled Republican Party of Virginia as an under-handed "get out the vote" scheme.

The problem with throwing scraps of meat to starving dogs is that they will happily swallow every bit of it whole and never turn it down. But a scrap is still a scrap. It doesn't fill the void in an empty belly, but it helps you forget for a few minutes that you're starving.

So thank you Mr. President and fuck you very much.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obama orders same-sex hospital visits (msnbc.msn.com)
• Obama Orders Hospitals To Allow Same-Sex Visitation Rights (alan.com)
• Obama: Allow hospital visitation for gays, lesbians (cnn.com)
• Obama bars discrimination against same-sex couples in hospital visitation rights (dailykos.com)

Va. Gov. Kain Grants Domestic Partner Benefits to LGBT State Workers

Image via Wikipedia

With just weeks left to his term, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine has decided to extend insurance benefits to same-sex partners of state employees. According to an editorial in Monday's Roanoke Times:

Outgoing Gov. Tim Kaine has directed the state's human resources managers to begin implementing a system to cover qualified adults who live in the same home as an insured state worker, married or not. That could include a parent, an adult child, a roommate or a same-sex partner.

It is that last category that will no doubt cause the headaches and hand-wringing in weeks and perhaps months to come.

Kaine will leave office in just a few weeks, and his successor, governor-elect Bob McDonnell, is no friend to gays.

McDonnell, during his partial term as attorney general, consistently argued against gay rights in the commonwealth, including Kaine's previous executive order that the state not discriminate against gays in hiring.

The Roanoke Times goes on to say that extending the rights of LGBT state workers "smacks of political gamesmanship". In making this bold move, Kain, like Obama, is "throwing a bone" to the commonwealth's liberals, while leaving incoming governot-elect Bob McDonnell in an awkward position with his conservative base. It remains to be seen how McDonnell will react. Will he take away the health insurance coverage based on the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage?

The Virginia Marriage Amendment also bans any contractual arrangements which attempt to grant any of the same rights as marriage. I'll keep you posted.

The Economic Argument for Same-sex Marriage

In its online edition today, The New York Times published the results of an in-depth study of the real costs of being a gay couple.

In  the "Your Money" column, the Times illustrates "best case" and "worst case" scenarios showing that the lifetime cost of being in a committed same-sex relationship could cost from $41,196 (best case) to $467,5622 (worst case) more than heterosexual married couples with the same income and lifestyle.

The study took into account such factors as Social Security Survivor Benefits, Estate Taxes, Having a Child, Pension Income, Spousal IRA's, Tax Preparation, Financial Planning and Income Taxes.

"Our goal was to create a hypothetical gay couple whose situation would be similar to a heterosexual couple’s. So we gave the couple two children and assumed that one partner would stay home for five years to take care of them. We also considered the taxes in the three states that have the highest estimated gay populations — New York, California and Florida. We gave our couple an income of $140,000, which is about the average income in those three states for unmarried same-sex partners who are college-educated, 30 to 40 years old and raising children under the age of 18.

Here is what we came up with. In our worst case, the couple’s lifetime cost of being gay was $467,562. But the number fell to $41,196 in the best case for a couple with significantly better health insurance, plus lower taxes and other costs.

These numbers will vary, depending on a couple’s income and circumstance. Gay couples earning, say, $80,000, could have health insurance costs similar to our hypothetical higher-earning couple, but they might well owe more in income taxes than their heterosexual counterparts. For wealthy couples with a lot of assets, on the other hand, the cost of being gay could easily spiral into the millions."

The Times concludes that all of these added expenses, except having children, would be eliminated if same-sex marriage were legal in all 50 states and federally recognized.

Read the full article here.