I'd love to see people try and oppose this.

CNN = a Moral framewwork

*politics

Adding video to channels (Politics) - requested by NetRunner.

Wish I could upvote this twice. Great outcome from a horrible tragedy and personal suffering which is too great to comprehend.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Good news. Now on to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Woh at the presidential phone call. Very nice.

I never knew this was even the case. As an outsider the US never ceases to amaze me with its stupidities. Sometimes I doubt if it even is a civilized country.

Yeah, it's a stupid rule. Essentially you have to be married to have visitation rights at a hospital.

>> ^cybrbeast:

I never knew this was even the case. As an outsider the US never ceases to amaze me with its stupidities. Sometimes I doubt if it even is a civilized country.


I'm totally with you on this one. Same sex couples DIDN'T have the right to hospital visits? This is like a serious WTF moment for the rest of the civilised world, i think

And i mean serious. It's like i just got told women didn't have the vote in america.

No doubt the right wing will come up with some catchcry to try and rally against this...

Gaymageddon?

At least some of us are trying. I live in a family of Republicans, can't stand any of them because all they worry about is money. I will just continue to go with whoever makes sense to me.

Nothing wrong with this. If the gay movement stuck to sensible steps like this then they'd find people much more amenable to their agenda. Sadly, they tend to tie far too many radical agenda items in with too few good ones, and act all surprised when there is opposition. It is a problem with agenda groups on all sides.

Do you per chance mean something like gay marriage as being radical? Possibly anything that offends christian values? There's something of a subjective gray area to what's sensible and radical, and it's not hard to notice that people who aren't religious generally find more things sensible (are less easily offended).

Do you per chance mean something like gay marriage as being radical?

Disagreements do not generally take place over to concept of seperately defined gay unions, insurance coverage, taxation equality, or hospital visitation. The conflicts occur when vague, fuzzy laws which have the appearance of 'springboard' legislation get proposed. Laws relating to the gay union issue must be phrased so as to provide iron-clad protections for those that practice or advocate traditional marriage - or it is going to run into opposition no matter how many 'good' things get mixed into it.

Apparently it gets worse:

Sonoma County CA separates elderly gay couple and sells all of their worldly possessions

One evening, Harold fell down the front steps of their home and was taken to the hospital. Based on their medical directives alone, Clay should have been consulted in Harold's care from the first moment. Tragically, county and health care workers instead refused to allow Clay to see elderly_man.jpgHarold in the hospital. The county then ultimately went one step further by isolating the couple from each other, placing the men in separate nursing homes.

story continues @ www.bilerico.com/2010/04/sonoma_county_ca_separates_elderly_gay_couple_and.php

>> ^dannym3141:

I'm totally with you on this one. Same sex couples DIDN'T have the right to hospital visits? This is like a serious WTF moment for the rest of the civilised world, i think
And i mean serious. It's like i just got told women didn't have the vote in america.
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> cybrbeast said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/c/cybrbeast-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">I never knew this was even the case. As an outsider the US never ceases to amaze me with its stupidities. Sometimes I doubt if it even is a civilized country.
</div></div></div>

The sift quotation system is completely fucked. I've had nonsense like this happen all too often, and for too long.

I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!

seriously though, somebody needs to fix this or revert to the older situation.

>> ^cybrbeast:

Apparently it gets worse:
<i>Sonoma County CA separates elderly gay couple and sells all of their worldly possessions
One evening, Harold fell down the front steps of their home and was taken to the hospital. Based on their medical directives alone, Clay should have been consulted in Harold's care from the first moment. Tragically, county and health care workers instead refused to allow Clay to see elderly_man.jpgHarold in the hospital. The county then ultimately went one step further by isolating the couple from each other, placing the men in separate nursing homes.
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.bilerico.com/2010/04/sonoma_county_ca_separates_elderly_gay_couple_and.php">Full story..</a>.</i>
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Obama-Orders-Same-Sex-Couples-Hospital-Visitation-Rights#comment-978630'>^dannym3141</a>:<br />
I'm totally with you on this one. Same sex couples DIDN'T have the right to hospital visits? This is like a serious WTF moment for the rest of the civilised world, i think <br> <br> And i mean serious. It's like i just got told women didn't have the vote in america.<br><br><br><div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/video/Obama-Orders-Same-Sex-Couples-Hospital-Visitation-Rights#comment-978561" rel="nofollow"> cybrbeast said</a>:<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.videosift.com/member/cybrbeast"><img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/c/cybrbeast-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"></a><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">I never knew this was even the case. As an outsider the US never ceases to amaze me with its stupidities. Sometimes I doubt if it even is a civilized country.<br></div></div></div></em>

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Nothing wrong with this. If the gay movement stuck to sensible steps like this then they'd find people much more amenable to their agenda. Sadly, they tend to tie far too many radical agenda items in with too few good ones, and act all surprised when there is opposition. It is a problem with agenda groups on all sides.


I downvoted your comments for the following reason:

A "radical" gay rights agenda could only possibly be defined as requesting 'more rights' than others. I have never heard a serious gay rights activist group asking for them to be treated better than others - they only request equal treatment.

Things such as "gay marriage being accepted by the church" isn't radical, it's just asking for equal treatment. It shouldn't necessarily be granted as a right, but it certainly isn't radical.

I imagine you can't give me any evidence of a gay rights group asking that gays be allowed to fuck in the streets, or being given 100 pounds gay allowance every week funded by the government. I think your loquaciousness betrays your homophobia.

Also, that sounds terirble, cybr.

Y'know, i have visited peole in hospitals time and again, who were not related to me. You simply stroll into the hospital like you know where you are going, and walk into the fucking room. Following rules is for fucking idiots, I'm sorry-The fact that this issue ever came to the presidents desk, is mind-bogglin'.

Imagine a woman, being told that she is not related therefore, not allowed to visit a dying friend. She slinks into depression over a road-block, rather than taking imediate action against an absurd restriction/policy/etc.

This woman apparently had no skills to be able to get her way, and make the hospital staff BOW TO HER FUCKING DETERMINATION!. The way to deal with bullshit is civil disobediance. Enough people make noise, somethings gotta give-This is not insensitivity to the womans plight, she simply needed to drop a nut at key moments in the process.

The solution to problems is not more rules. There is only one rule. Love Under Will.

Oh and gay marriage?? Many more homosexuals who have been in monogamous relationships with their partners for years prior to all the activism associated with changing the marriage laws of states, would rather things stay they way they are-You don't need sanctions to live/love together, and the tax breaks are insignificant.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Friday, April 16th, 2010 11:43am PDT - promote requested by cybrbeast.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Nothing wrong with this. If the gay movement stuck to sensible steps like this then they'd find people much more amenable to their agenda. Sadly, they tend to tie far too many radical agenda items in with too few good ones, and act all surprised when there is opposition. It is a problem with agenda groups on all sides.


Now maybe--being kinda gay myself--my perspective is just a bit skewed, but I don't know what you're talking about here. Most of the gay activism in my area is concerned with things like funding for a new health clinic to help deal with LGBT concerns, or putting laws on the books against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation--in half of all states in the US, you can be fired simply for being gay. Heck, until a couple years ago, school administrators could discriminate against LGBT kids in the OKC metro area without any consequences. Fully half of all homeless teenagers in my state are gay, bisexual, or transgendered, and suicide is the leading cause of death among LGBT teenagers. These are the things gay activism is overwhelmingly concerned with in most areas of the US. I hardly think that working to alleviate these problems is radical.

The American public is overwhelmingly in favor of allowing gay and bisexual folk to serve openly in the military. So that's not too radical, either.

About the only "radical" agenda item that's really pushed is gay marriage--which is given a disproportionate amount of press when compared to other LGBT issues. But the reasons for pushing for marriage instead of "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" are quite practical rather than merely ideological. What a "civil union" might be is rather nebulous, and civil union and domestic partnership statutes as enacted thus far in the US often do not approach the breadth of rights accorded to married couples, and are in legal limbo regarding state reciprocity agreements. Accordingly, the only way to guarantee equivalent rights to married couples is for LGBT unions to have the same legal identity.>> ^choggie:

Oh and gay marriage?? Many more homosexuals who have been in monogamous relationships with their partners for years prior to all the activism associated with changing the marriage laws of states, would rather things stay they way they are-You don't need sanctions to live/love together, and the tax breaks are insignificant.


Many more? Really? To the contrary, in my experience. Do you have studies that say otherwise? Or are you perhaps better linked in with the gay community than I--a gay man--am? I must confess my doubts.

How do you get to be kinda gay? Not that i'm interested or anythin.....

Also choggie, i call utter bullshit on that last paragraph. The tax breaks be they insignificant or significant is just another inequality that should be addressed.

In my opinion, church sanctioned 'marriage' is a church deal. So the church gets to choose who's in, who's out, who's 'married', who isn't. It's like complaining that you can't get your son into a girls only club - like the brownies, or whatever. Only there's a HUGE "but" involved.

BUUUTTTTTT - we base so many things ON marriage. You two are married, you get these breaks, these assistances, etc. The system that bases itself around marriage is completely outdated, because many people live together and are as closely in love and related as married people (be they gay or otherwise). So really, it's the "marriage" part that needs to be taken out of the law and redefined in modern terms.

Then you wouldn't have to try and force the church to accept gay marriage (which i honestly don't think you can do unless you decide that the church is a discriminatory organisation and close them down), and you could have non-church marriages (gay and otherwise) which would bring you the same status as church-marriages.

The "church accepting marriage" thing is a separate issue if you ask me. Sort out the equality for couples who aren't officially church married first - cos that applies to gay people and non gay people. Then you can attempt to tackle the argument of forcing a religion to change its core values which they believe is the word of god.

Just the tip.
>> ^dannym3141:

How do you get to be kinda gay? Not that i'm interested or anythin....

Things such as "gay marriage being accepted by the church" isn't radical, it's just asking for equal treatment.

Simple, basic rulings that say gays can visit relatives in hospitals and such are fine. These things deal with secular rights. I've never met a single person opposed to these kinds of issues. But gay 'marriage' as a concept is inherently tied to the marriage ritual, which is a sectarian ordinance that confers secular benefits. That's where the radicalism enters in...

Human society developed in such a way that Churches are where marriages tend to be performed, while secular laws were passed to promote marriage because the nuclear family unit was beneficial to society. So on the one hand if you want marriage you (as often as not) are going to a religious organization. But when you want the societal benefits of marriage, you are talking about secular rules.

So if you tell the gay community they can get 'married', then they are going to go to churches and demand the sectarian ritual to obtain the secular benefits. But many churches are highly opposed to homosexuality as a moral violation. To ask them to perform such a ritual for a gay couple would be highly offensive - the equivalent of marching into a vegan's house and DEMANDING that they personally butcher a cow and chow down on the resulting BBQ.

So when advocates demand gay marriage and DO NOT account for these distinctions, then the legislation moves from sensible to radicalism. Most gay couples just want the secular benefits. Most religions have no problem with that. But when marriage laws are proposed, they MUST contain concrete language protecting the rights of those who oppose the lifestyle on a sectarian level. Without that language, the proposal is radical because it violates 1st Ammendment protections - no matter how many 'sensible' things it may confer. This is what the bruhaha over Prop-8 was all about.

What a "civil union" might be is rather nebulous, and civil union and domestic partnership statutes as enacted thus far in the US often do not approach the breadth of rights accorded to married couples, and are in legal limbo regarding state reciprocity agreements. Accordingly, the only way to guarantee equivalent rights to married couples is for LGBT unions to have the same legal identity.

It is an issue - and one I appreciate. However - see above. You can't just say, "OK - gay marriage is legal" and ignore the fact that there are thousands of churches who will refuse to perform the ritual, and who happen to have 1st Ammendment rights protecting that stance. Civil unions are the best solution here, even though they are not perfect.

Then you can attempt to tackle the argument of forcing a religion to change its core values

The fact that there are people IN AMERICA saying these kinds of things is why religious groups are so sensitive on the subject. "Forcing a religion to change its core values" is the language of a totalitarian regime, not the USA. I know it's hard to tell with Obama in office, but it's still a free country...

^ Only you would see the desire to be treated equally as a radical belief.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

What a "civil union" might be is rather nebulous, and civil union and domestic partnership statutes as enacted thus far in the US often do not approach the breadth of rights accorded to married couples, and are in legal limbo regarding state reciprocity agreements. Accordingly, the only way to guarantee equivalent rights to married couples is for LGBT unions to have the same legal identity.
It is an issue - and one I appreciate. However - see above. You can't just say, "OK - gay marriage is legal" and ignore the fact that there are thousands of churches who will refuse to perform the ritual, and who happen to have 1st Ammendment rights protecting that stance. Civil unions are the best solution here, even though they are not perfect.

Who's talking about forcing churches to perform gay marriages if it's against their values? I'm not aware of any prominent gay rights advocates who oppose people's right to dissent from such actions or conscientiously decline to involve themselves in such ceremonies. Churches can't even be forced to perform interracial marriages, if the members of the church are opposed.

I am aware that some opposed to the legalization of gay marriage have claimed that churches conscientiously opposed to gay marriages would be forced to perform them, but such claims do not have legal justification, and misrepresent the goals of gay rights advocates. We don't want to force people by law to accept us--we just want to be able to live our lives with the same freedoms and privileges everyone else has.

Further, it must be noted that there is no shortage of churches actively supportive of gay marriage. There are plenty of them even right here in Oklahoma, in the middle of the Bible Belt. Surely, if freedom of religion is that important to you, you would want to defend the rights of these churches to affirm same-sex unions as marriage.

>> ^dannym3141:

How do you get to be kinda gay? Not that i'm interested or anythin.....


Short answer: Being born that way.

Long answer: Sexuality's complicated sometimes. I like girls enough that, if I met just the right one, I might be interested in making a go of it. But not enough that, generally speaking, I'm terribly interested in more than appreciating a woman's good looks sometimes. I sort of fall between the cracks between "bisexual" and "gay."

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

the equivalent of marching into a vegan's house and DEMANDING that they personally butcher a cow and chow down on the resulting BBQ.
So when advocates demand gay marriage and DO NOT account for these distinctions, then the legislation moves from sensible to radicalism.

Again i had to downvote your comment for two reasons this time.

1 -- How on earth are you going to sit there and attempt to seriously offer that as a comparison to gay people who campaign to have marriages acknowledged by the church? You're trying to persuade people that it's radicalism by associating it with ritual aniaml sacrifice. I doubt you can even keep a straight face when saying it. It's like going around claiming that winstonfield_pennypacker is a huge fan of adolf hitler's ideals and thinks all jewish people should be slain - see what i did there?

The only vague "vegan" comparison i can make is that you want to be a vegan but your religion requires that you eat pork at 4pm on a sunday in honour of the great almighty vajayjay. So you ask if you can join the local vegan club (.. i'm trying, give me a break) and demand that they let you in even though you eat meat. I mean, fair enough you agree with all their ideals and you don't want to eat meat, but you have no choice in the matter, you're bound by other things.

Your speculations about how gay rights campaigners can slip into radicalism by not defining their demands haven't convinced me at all. At worst it's just matter of forgetfulness or short sightedness. At best it's just a slogan to get the message across quickly - "We demand that you accept gay marriage!" Instead of - "We demand you change the law such that long term gay partners are allowed the same rights and status as straight people!" It's not quite as pithy.

2 -- Plus even if i were (and i weren't) to accept (and i don't) that your speculations prove that gay rights campaigners get radical (they don't) when they demand "gay marriage" in such a loose term, you haven't given any evidence that anyone DID this at all. You've just speculated about "if this happened, it would be radical." So not only would it still not be radical, you haven't even shown that it's happening in such a wide spread manner that you could reasonably say there's radicalism going on.

I'll warn you in advance not to reply with links to gay rights groups with one member each, all demanding that gay people get free visits to the moon, you'll prove yourself to be no better than media outlets who refer to "radical muslim extremist with a hook" for a balanced view of the middle east.

Who's talking about forcing churches to perform gay marriages if it's against their values?

The vast majority of average gay folks aren't. But there is a fringe that looks on the gay movement as more of a societal prybar. As with the comment above, they look on this as a chance to 'change' religion/society/attitudes/people as opposed to obtaining simple secular rights.

But let's be hypothetical and say no-one currently is voicing these radical positions(it's untrue, but let's go with it). Laws have a nasty way of generating unintended consequences - and religious groups are rightfully concerned over the vague language in gay marriage legislation. Ask someone in the 60's whether anti-discrimination laws would be used to put girls in all-male schools, and they'd say "Don't be ridiculous... That isn't the intent!" And yet - that's what happened. Laws get passed, and then the law gets PUSHED in unintended ways. I think religious groups are more than justified in being concerned that these vague gay marriage laws (which contain no specific language to protect them) would be used in future legislation against them - 1st Ammendment or not.

All I'm saying is that if we're going to do this - let's take the time to do it right. Give gay couples their civil unions that extend all the secular benefits of marriage. Craft the law so it has concrete, specific language limiting the law to ONLY extend to secular standing. Let each church make it own rules for 'marriage' as they see fit, with protections that allow churches to refuse gay marriages without being sued for it.

@dannym

Marriage as an institution is damaged anyway,divorce is more popular-Activism should be a force of nature akin to rescuing a country from damage...like earthquake relief-Taxes are bullshit,so the tax break argument is secondary to gay folks simply wanting to be accepted as equals-(no problem with that)-but these folks would do better to use their energy to fight REAL injustice perpetrated on all Americans/Individuals who have to suffer the criminality of the IRS, the non-disclosure of classified documents relative to political assinations and UFOs', and alllll the billions of dollars and hundreds of lives affected by projects funded by the criminalization of drugs and trafficing of the same by elements in the background, of our so-called,democratic government,to fund projects that effect the WHOLE of humanity,not simply a group of flagrant, incensed, outspoken queers.


To sum up, gay marriage is about as important in the grand scheme of things for the country as a whole, as new laws regarding jaywalking, relative to midgets without legs.

Get behind a band-wagon of the real, babies.

The vast majority of average gay folks aren't. But there is a fringe that looks on the gay movement as more of a societal prybar. As with the comment above, they look on this as a chance to 'change' religion/society/attitudes/people as opposed to obtaining simple secular rights.

Again, you reveal substantial ignorance of gay activism and advocacy. Most gay advocacy is directed toward fighting societal attitudes that harm LBGT folk. We don't want people to yell "faggot" or "dyke" at us, seek to have us fired from our workplaces for our orientation or sexual identity, or beat or even kill us for being open about who we are. We don't like being treated like dirt, so we try to change people's minds.

I don't see what's so radical about this.

However, the primary means for achieving these ends are education and persuasion. I'm unaware of any significant group that seeks to achieve that sort of change through the force of law; the notion is reprehensible, and the results would in fact be counter-productive.

But let's be hypothetical and say no-one currently is voicing these radical positions(it's untrue, but let's go with it). Laws have a nasty way of generating unintended consequences - and religious groups are rightfully concerned over the vague language in gay marriage legislation. Ask someone in the 60's whether anti-discrimination laws would be used to put girls in all-male schools, and they'd say "Don't be ridiculous... That isn't the intent!" And yet - that's what happened. Laws get passed, and then the law gets PUSHED in unintended ways. I think religious groups are more than justified in being concerned that these vague gay marriage laws (which contain no specific language to protect them) would be used in future legislation against them - 1st Ammendment or not.

All I'm saying is that if we're going to do this - let's take the time to do it right. Give gay couples their civil unions that extend all the secular benefits of marriage. Craft the law so it has concrete, specific language limiting the law to ONLY extend to secular standing. Let each church make it own rules for 'marriage' as they see fit, with protections that allow churches to refuse gay marriages without being sued for it.

First, I'd like to see an example of all-male schools being forced to accept girls. If it is happening, it must be a state or local issue; single-sex educational institutions, both public and private, are perfectly allowable under Federal law.

Second, I don't see how worries that churches would be forced to perform same-sex marriages are at all well-founded. Churches cannot be forced to accept female or black pastors, and cannot be forced to perform interracial marriages. Yet legal protections for the equality of women and racial minorities are far stronger and more firmly entrenched in the American legal system than protections for LGBT people.

There are simply no plausible legal avenues by which churches might be forced to perform same-sex marriages.