Gay Non-Rights

Gay Non-Rights
Here's what happens when you don't allow gay marriage and/or rights for people like me, in committed relationships. There are more and more of us, committed but non-married partners, straight and gay. This Newsweek piece is entitled "Reshaping The Gay Marriage Debate," focusing on gay partners, but I don't see how the debate has really changed. J. Michael Kennedy writes for Newsweek (hit reload to get rid of the damn ad) of a woman whose partner died in a flood at their home -- a woman whose partner happens to be a woman:

Charlene Strong was on her way home in a pounding Seattle winter storm when the call came from her partner, Kate Fleming. Sounding stressed, Fleming told her that a rain was flooding down a hillside and into the couple's basement, where Fleming, an audiobook narrator, was at work in her recording studio. What happened over the next half hour cost Fleming her life and changed Strong's forever. As the rain poured down, a flood of water cascaded down the slope in their wooded neighborhood and into the house. The basement began filling with water. Fleming called again a few minutes later to say that she was stuck in the windowless studio, with water rising rapidly. Something, she said, must have fallen and blocked the door.

When a panicked Strong arrived minutes later, she couldn't force open the studio door, which was clamped shut by the force of the water. She tried to slash into the plaster wall with a knife, forgetting that the couple had added an extra layer of sheet rock for soundproofing. As Strong struggled outside the door, Fleming called 911 on her cell phone. But the water was rising so quickly that in a matter of minutes, Strong was submerged and had to grope for the safety of the stairwell.

"I knew she was underwater by then," said Strong. "And nothing would budge." Long minutes passed before rescue workers arrived and cut a hole in the bedroom floor. A fireman jumped into the black water below to retrieve a comatose Fleming.

Frantic efforts produced a pulse. An ambulance raced Fleming to the hospital, with Strong close behind. At the door of the hospital emergency room, a social worker informed her that only family members were allowed inside. When Strong protested that she was Fleming's partner, the social worker said that under Washington state law, same-sex partners did not qualify as family. Only an urgent call to Fleming's sister in Virginia cleared the way to get Strong through the doors. Ninety minutes later, Fleming died, with Strong at her side.

The nightmare didn't end there. The next day the man handling the funeral arrangements insisted on dealing with Fleming's mother, though Strong told him she was Fleming's spouse. "He said, 'You don't have any rights in the state of Washington'." says Strong. "I left the room and started crying."

Together for 10 years, the couple had held a commitment ceremony that was not officially binding but a symbol of their relationship. "Kate was my wife, and I was her wife, and that's the way we always thought of each other," said Strong.

The second night after Fleming's death, an anguished Strong lay awake, replaying the harrowing scenes in her mind—the flood, the hospital, the funeral home. Though still in shock, her rage was mounting. "I could handle someone calling me a homo," she told NEWSWEEK. "But saying you don't count, that's something that had to change."

The first few comments on the site when I read the piece made great points. The first is by a nurse:

Posted By: C. MacLean @ 12/22/2007 12:42:04 PM

Comment: As a nurse who is too familiar with the American sick care system, (don't bother to call it health care) please be assured that all of the legal documents mentioned above are worthless in an emergency - they are only useful in situations were the process of dying drags on.

Ironically, if Charlene had lied and claimed to be Kate's sister, instead of her spouse, she might have been allowed to remain with her. Telling the truth and following the rules when involved in a hospital setting does not, unfortunately, help people stay with their loved ones.

Please do not expect the broken bureacracy that is American medicine to rely on the broken bureacracy that is the American legal system if you wish to be at your loved one's side while they are dying.

Here's another, who shows the argument for what it is -- religion encroaching on secular life:

Posted By: debatenotberate @ 12/22/2007 12:27:51 PM

Comment: The fact that the debate here seems to be centered on religion rather than the role of government in the recognition of defining and categorizing relationships in a modern society quickly reveals that at the religion, and not law, is the center of resistance to civil liberties and fairness in the United States - this is nothing new. Religion was used to defend slavery and segregation, the oppression of women, and such practices as witch burning in this country and in the colonial past.

And the nurse again:

Posted By: C. MacLean @ 12/22/2007 12:24:48 PM

Comment: As a nurse involved in the AIDS epidemic in the late 1980's, I saw dozens of men barred at the hospital door, unable to sit at the side of a dying loved one, because they were not the "legal next of kin." I heard stories of hundreds more. The awful suffering brought by the physical aspects of the disease was nothing compared to the horrendous grief generated when loved ones died alone, and partners were forbidden to say goodbye.

The real tragedy here is that 20+ years later, we are still having the same discussion, with the same bigotry and the same devastating consequences. The real tragedy is that 220+ years later, we are working so hard to un-do the basic tenet of separation of church and state.

The current American reality is that the divorce rate is at 50% - it is heterosexuals that are destroying the institution of marriage, not gays. The American family is much more likely to involve step-parents, step-siblings, and cohabitating couples of various sexual orientation, not to mention grandparents and adoptive parents, than it is to have a biological father, mother and birth children. Evidently, father didn't know best.

For most of recorded history, arranged marriages were the norm, and were designed to do two things: consolidate property and allow for the orderly inheritance of that property. Love and God had nothing to do with marriage, and divorce had everything to do with maintaining power - just ask Henry VIII, the father of modern divorce.

In modern times, the State's interest in marriage has remained unchanged. Organized religion, however, has cleverly deduced that marriage is an excellent way to maintain organized religion - support marriage in a narrow and rigid manner and you guarantee that the religion stays strong. The Church's role in perpetuating an exclusionary thing called "marriage" in reality only perpetuates the power of the Church - do it our way or you can't be part of the Church, (and oh by the way you will also burn in hell) bring you children up our way, and pay us while you're doing it - the Church stays strong, the "family" stays mired in fear, and anyone who tries to do things differently is ostracized and forced to suffer.

There is a reason our country was founded on the idea of separation of church and state - anytime you allow the church a say in how to run the state, the people suffer. There needs to be an orderly and legal way to protect accumulated property and the rights of children - ALL people's property, and ALL people's children - that is the State's job.

Should you wish to declare your love for another in front of God and these witnesses, that is organized religion's job.

Helping a grieving partner attend their loved one's funeral - that should be everyone's job.

I just think we should go by The Constitution instead of The Bible in allocating rights.