...just heard Bill Black on Public broadcasting radio earlier this afternoon. He was on fire. Damn I wish he was AG.
I also listened to Matt Taibbi and was seriously disappointed. Did someone get to him? He sounded thoroughly neutered. Whining about it's almost too hard to unwind TBTF banks.

If the market does what it just might between now and November, the Libertarians just might have a REAL CHANCE for the first time in the history of their party if and only if they do what you're saying.

I'll predict right now that they won't listen to me just as McCain did not.

And I'm already writing the Ticker for November and an entry from last night for it is already in the can.

lets assume for the sake of arguments that the libertarian party really stands for/wants liberty. Economic social whatever.

How many people in this country actually want that? Probably as many as the % vote that the libertarian party gets each cycle.

Most people want the state to **** with their neighbor. Period

The first one to run on a platform of prosecuting bankers will, in the almost zero chance they win, be summarily assassinated. It will be blamed on some health issue that was previously unknown or some kind of mechanical failure. We are too far gone to fix this. It has to fail on its own and it will, catastrophically.

Gay Marriage is not even a Federal issue, it is a State level issue. And many states have seen gay marriage laws voted down at the ballot box.

Enough about the gays, they make up a small minority of the population. People can't even agree one what the official percentages are. It's either 1-7%, or as high as 25%.

really this issue comes up because then the politicians can avoid talking about the economy.

in an election, talking about God, Gays, Guns and abortion is a sure fire way of derailing the conversation to something that's not measurable.

The Libertarians already screwed it up with Governor Johnson. He has already said he won't go there (prosecution). The Republicans and Democrats have shown themselves to be equally inept at budgets and the economy. We also know they are equally indebted to the people that should be prosecuted. One trip to http://www.opensecrets.org/ will tell you that. Who is going to prosecute their biggest campaign contributors? Not going to happen. New blood is needed. Until enough people get tired of the same two corrupt parties, with the same corrupt campaign contributors, getting repaid in special treatment nothing will change.
Keep arguing about Obama or Romney, what will change?

Gay marriage is Obama's political red herring. Better to stuff gay marriage at the water cooler than discuss jobs and the economy.

Karl; 3.5 %

95% of those that would vote Libertarian will write in Ron Paul. Johnson less than .5. Bet?

Before TARP - McCain struck me as a fascist wanting to meddle in affairs, and I seem to recall hearing about his terrible temper - not a quality I want in a leader.

Susan, McCain was a moron they put in to get Obama elected. Recall they had Slick on his ass in 1996 and they run a walking corpse named Dole. The guy probably cost Gerald Ford the office in 1976. Since then he has been running around with Slick, Gore and others and stuffing his pockets.

The best thing to do about Gay Marriage is stop it by getting rid of state and federal marriage licenses. You damn sure don't need a license to be a dog, so why do you need one to shack up?

The truth of the matter is they just line us up to be screwed by a bunch of under employed lawyers. 80% of them are about as useful as grocery sackers. About 10% of Americans can afford to hire one that is worth anything other than a paper clerk and the other 90% are left forking over their life savings to what amount to glorified used car salesmen.

Quote:

You damn sure don't need a license to be a dog, so why do you need one to shack up?

Mannfm11, sometimes it get to be so long since I've heard a voice of sanity that I hardly believe it's real when I hear it.

It does also seem like the main reason every damn thing you can think of is against the law is to provide employment for all those legions of lawyers.

One thing to keep in mind about this, whether the government 'should' be involved in marriage or not, it currently is, and without the right to 'marry' - in the legal sense - gay people are not, for example, allowed to visit a dying partner in the hospital, or make end-of-life decisions for each other, etc. It may be a side show to the rest of us, and a deliberately contrived campaign issue for both parties, but those are major problems for gay people.

Quote:

One thing to keep in mind about this, whether the government 'should' be involved in marriage or not, it currently is, and without the right to 'marry' - in the legal sense - gay people are not, for example, allowed to visit a dying partner in the hospital, or make end-of-life decisions for each other, etc. It may be a side show to the rest of us, and a deliberately contrived campaign issue for both parties, but those are major problems for gay people.

That's a complete and total LIE.

I have people who can do these things and I'm not married.

It's called a power of attorney and it's the right way to handle this.

Special privileges for "certain people" are WRONG, and adding yourself to the list of "special people" does not make it less wrong, it makes it MORE wrong!

Quote:

Special privileges for "certain people" are WRONG, and adding yourself to the list of "special people" does not make it less wrong, it makes it MORE wrong!

I think that's even so correct they put it in the Constitution. *cough* 14th Amendment *cough*

@Gen

I had heard that was a real issue; didn't realize it was bunk. Didn't effect me so never researched further. Thanks for clarifying.

While in theory the powers of attorneys work, I've seen far to many cases where they don't. A brother or a sister would say the power of attorney is bunk. It would get nasty with law suits, injunctions and all. So much for dignity as you die. (I volunteered for a clinic that helped terminal patients with "end of life" issues.)

You either need a marriage (and you rarely have to prove it) or you need

The power of attorney for financial matters
the health care power of attorney (aka durable poa}
A conservator of the body established (to determine what to do with the remains)
A conservator (executor) of the estate (if there is one)

Also, some people are young and they don't want to spend money or deal with end of life issues. Then they get hit by a bus. If they were married, its would all be tied up with a bow. If they were single, its a problem, straight or gay


I support the concept of that the state does not recognize or "do" marriages. its all contract. That way the playing field is even.

Phxkevin wrote..

While in theory the powers of attorneys work, I've seen far to many cases where they don't. A brother or a sister would say the power of attorney is bunk

Perhaps. Perhaps not. But why would a brother or sister have any more standing then the guy that comes in with a PoA ? Hmmmm......

Death has a funny effect on people, especially those being left out who think they belong. (They didn't know their sibling was gay and they wouldn't acknowledge that the sibling was in a relationship.) The nastiest situations were always about money. It seemed to me that its the ones that have the least amount of money that had the biggest fights.

You have to be careful in saying that the problem is SOLVED by a Power of Attorney document. That isn't necessarily true and it depends on the state.

In Ohio, for example, there is what is called a "Durable Power of Attorney for Healthcare" which is different from other forms of Power of Attorney especially those of the "Uniform Power of Attorney Act" (implemented in Ohio in March 2012).

While you can designate any eligible person to have Power of Attorney for Healthcare decisions there are provisions that can interfere with the agent taking actions under the Power of Attorney previously conveyed. And this is even if you have included in the form that the person acting with power of attorney can make decisions to withdraw medical care, deny consent to a procedure or treatment, or withdraw nutrition or hydration in cases of terminal illness at near death or in cases where you have no cortical functions and are effectively a carrot.

If you were to examine ORC 1337.16 Duties of healthcare providers you would find:

Quote:

(D)(1) If the attending physician of a principal and one other physician who examines the principal determine that the principal is in a terminal condition or in a permanently unconscious state, if the attending physician additionally determines that the principal has lost the capacity to make informed health care decisions for the principal and that there is no reasonable possibility that the principal will regain the capacity to make informed health care decisions for the principal, and if the attorney in fact under the principal’s durable power of attorney for health care makes a health care decision pertaining to the use or continuation, or the withholding or withdrawal, of life-sustaining treatment, the attending physician shall do all of the following:

(a) Record the determinations and health care decision in the principal’s medical record;

(b) Make a good faith effort, and use reasonable diligence, to notify the appropriate individual or individuals, in accordance with the following descending order of priority, of the determinations and health care decision:

(i) If any, the guardian of the principal. This division does not permit or require the appointment of a guardian for the principal.

(ii) The principal’s spouse;

(iii) The principal’s adult children who are available within a reasonable period of time for consultation with the principal’s attending physician;

(iv) The principal’s parents;

(v) An adult sibling of the principal or, if there is more than one adult sibling, a majority of the principal’s adult siblings who are available within a reasonable period of time for such consultation.

(c) Record in the principal’s medical record the names of the individual or individuals notified pursuant to division (D)(1)(b) of this section and the manner of notification;

(d) Afford time for the individual or individuals notified pursuant to division (D)(1)(b) of this section to object in the manner described in division (D)(3)(a) of this section.

Well, if this section is about Power of Attorney and the designee authority to make decisions where does that fit in? Ohio lawmakers, for whatever reasons, make reading the state laws a jumping around exercise.

We find that in section (D)(2)(b)

Quote:

(b) The requirements of divisions (D)(1)(b), (c), and (d) of this section and, except as provided in division (D)(3)(b) of this section, the provisions of divisions (D)(3) to (6) of this section shall not apply in connection with the principal if only one individual would have to be notified pursuant to division (D)(1)(b) of this section and that individual is the attorney in fact under the durable power of attorney for health care. However, the attending physician of the principal shall record in the principal’s medical record information indicating that no notice was given pursuant to division (D)(1)(b) of this section because of the provisions of division (D)(2)(b) of this section.

The person with power of attorney is the only individual that needs to be notified, well so it seems.

In (D)(3)(b) you have

Quote:

(b) Within forty-eight hours after the priority individual or any member of a priority class of individuals receives a notice pursuant to division (D)(1) of this section or within forty-eight hours after information pertaining to an unnotified priority individual or unnotified priority class of individuals is recorded in a principal’s medical record pursuant to division (D)(2)(a) or (b) of this section, the individual or a majority of the individuals in the next class of individuals that pertains to the principal in the descending order of priority set forth in divisions (D)(1)(b)(i) to (v) of this section shall advise the attending physician of the principal whether the individual or majority object on a basis specified in division (D)(4)(c) of this section. If an objection as described in that division is communicated to the attending physician, then, within two business days after the communication, the objecting individual or majority shall file a complaint as described in division (D)(4) of this section in the probate court of the county in which the principal is located. If the objecting individual or majority fails to file a complaint, the objections as described in division (D)(4)(c) of this section shall be considered to be void.

Notice the unnotified part. Let's say there is a homosexual person and he/she appoints their partner as power of attorney for healthcare decision that specifically allows that the machines be turned off if they will be a vegetable for the rest of their days. Should the parents of the incapacitated person or that person's siblings find out the person is in the hospital they can then object to the course of treatment, or non-treatment as the case may be. They have access to the probate court to have the court intervene. Under that scenario, the judge is not bound by the executed Power of Attorney document. Plaintiffs can allege that the document was executed under duress. They can allege that they know the wishes of their child and/or sibling ("They would never want the machines turned off!") and the designated power of attorney and the person in the vegetative state only have known each other of a short period of time. Etc.

Worse, the probate court judge may just be a person that finds homosexuality abhorrent. Of course, the judge wouldn't say it, but that doesn't mean that a judge wouldn't decide to take away that power of attorney forcing that person who had been validly designated off to the appellate courts.


Finally, thanks to "nanny state" Republicans you also have this in the same section:

Quote:

(B)(1) Subject to division (B)(2) of this section, an attending physician of a principal or a health care facility in which a principal is confined may refuse to comply or allow compliance with the instructions of an attorney in fact under a durable power of attorney for health care on the basis of a matter of conscience or on another basis. An employee or agent of an attending physician of a principal or of a health care facility in which a principal is confined may refuse to comply with the instructions of an attorney in fact under a durable power of attorney for health care on the basis of a matter of conscience.

Hey, check that out. The hospital, physicians, or ANY employee or agent of the facility can refuse to follow the instructions of the power of attorney due to their "conscience". Note, it doesn't say that it has to have any medical basis at all - it could be religious for example. The physician and/or hospital might find the idea of homosexuals even existing to be a personal affront to their "conscience" and they don't have to follow any instructions despite the valid and properly executed document you have.

Under (B)(2)

Quote:

(2)(a) An attending physician of a principal who, or health care facility in which a principal is confined that, is not willing or not able to comply or allow compliance with the instructions of an attorney in fact under a durable power of attorney for health care to use or continue, or to withhold or withdraw, health care that were given under division (A) of section 1337.13 of the Revised Code, or with any probate court reevaluation order issued pursuant to division (D)(6) of this section, shall not prevent or attempt to prevent, or unreasonably delay or attempt to unreasonably delay, the transfer of the principal to the care of a physician who, or a health care facility that, is willing and able to so comply or allow compliance.

(b) If the instruction of an attorney in fact under a durable power of attorney for health care that is given under division (A) of section 1337.13 of the Revised Code is to use or continue life-sustaining treatment in connection with a principal who is in a terminal condition or in a permanently unconscious state, the attending physician of the principal who, or the health care facility in which the principal is confined that, is not willing or not able to comply or allow compliance with that instruction shall use or continue the life-sustaining treatment or cause it to be used or continued until a transfer as described in division (B)(2)(a) of this section is made.

So what this means is now the person with power of attorney will have to find some other medical facility, some other set of physicians and staff that don't have some sort of "conscience" objection to following the power of attorney instructions.

By the way, you will notice that the "conscience" objection works both ways - whether the decision being made is to continue treatment or the end treatment, it doesn't matter which it is.

Power of Attorney laws concerning healthcare decisions vary from state to state and the "conscience" provisions that Republicans have put into these laws, while really meant to prevent a fetus from dying as well, can be used for other "conscience" reasons as they are not specific lest they run afoul of Roe V. Wade. In fact, in the power of attorney laws in Ohio they even go further.

Quote:

However , even if the attorney in fact has general authority to make health care decisions for you under this document, the attorney in fact never will be authorized to do any of the following:

(1) Refuse or withdraw informed consent to life-sustaining treatment (unless your attending physician and one other physician who examines you determine, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty and in accordance with reasonable medical standards, that either of the following applies:

(a) You are suffering from an irreversible, incurable, and untreatable condition caused by disease, illness, or injury from which (i) there can be no recovery and (ii) your death is likely to occur within a relatively short time if life-sustaining treatment is not administered, and your attending physician additionally determines, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty and in accordance with reasonable medical standards, that there is no reasonable possibility that you will regain the capacity to make informed health care decisions for yourself.

(b) You are in a state of permanent unconsciousness that is characterized by you being irreversibly unaware of yourself and your environment and by a total loss of cerebral cortical functioning, resulting in you having no capacity to experience pain or suffering, and your attending physician additionally determines, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty and in accordance with reasonable medical standards, that there is no reasonable possibility that you will regain the capacity to make informed health care decisions for yourself);

(2) Refuse or withdraw informed consent to health care necessary to provide you with comfort care (except that, if the attorney in fact is not prohibited from doing so under (4) below, the attorney in fact could refuse or withdraw informed consent to the provision of nutrition or hydration to you as described under (4) below). (You should understand that comfort care is defined in Ohio law to mean artificially or technologically administered sustenance (nutrition) or fluids (hydration) when administered to diminish your pain or discomfort, not to postpone your death, and any other medical or nursing procedure, treatment, intervention, or other measure that would be taken to diminish your pain or discomfort, not to postpone your death. Consequently, if your attending physician were to determine that a previously described medical or nursing procedure, treatment, intervention, or other measure will not or no longer will serve to provide comfort to you or alleviate your pain, then, subject to (4) below, your attorney in fact would be authorized to refuse or withdraw informed consent to the procedure, treatment, intervention, or other measure. );

(3) Refuse or withdraw informed consent to health care for you if you are pregnant and if the refusal or withdrawal would terminate the pregnancy (unless the pregnancy or health care would pose a substantial risk to your life, or unless your attending physician and at least one other physician who examines you determine, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty and in accordance with reasonable medical standards, that the fetus would not be born alive);

The first two provision can be explicitly handled in a Power of Attorney document but not the third one.

We have all seen news stories of women in vegetative states that have been raped and ended up pregnant. Guess what happens in Ohio if that situation occurs and there is a power of attorney in place and two physicians think that the rapist's child will make it to term without harming the person carrying the fetus? The state could intervene, but if you have a governor catering to the whims of the "religious" crowd it might end up with the rapist's baby being born. Worse, if the state did intervene, the power of attorney would go away as that would require a guardian to be appointed, which, in turn, could lead to the Schiavo fiasco all over again.

That situation doesn't arise when you are a spouse, parent, sibling, or adult child with the power to make those decisions under the law. It only arises with Power of Attorney situations.

Offering a blanket assertion that Power of Attorney solves the problems associated with healthcare decision by homosexual couples, or even heterosexual couples for that matter is simply wrong. At least with respect to the current state of the laws across this country.

Considering that a number of states have repealed previous implementations of Power of Attorney laws and implemented versions of the "Uniform Power of Attorney Act" you might want to check out whether Florida changed their laws (or are going to change their laws) substantially and whether or not that affects your existing Power of Attorney documents/decisions you have made. Or better yet, as you well know, consult an attorney that deals in this subject as to whether or not existing Power of Attorney documents are valid and/or will be executed as set forth in the document. In most cases prior documents will be valid but it is always wise to make certain so that the person(s) you designate don't find themselves in a mess or more importantly your wishes will be carried out.

"Marriage" doesn't prevent this very same problem from arising.

And again, bad law is not resolved with more bad law.

I never said it did. I only discussed Power of Attorney - and its implications.
I never proposed, let alone argued, bad law would fix bad law. Where did you even get that from?

The problem is that your solution - Power of Attorney - doesn't work out like you think it does in some states. It isn't the first time you have posted that as your solution to the problem as if it was some kind of no-brainer. It isn't. People have looked into it. The very kinds of laws (like the ones in Ohio) make your proposed solution unworkable.

What has made it worse has been all of the "conscience" crap that Republican legislatures have implemented in the states where they've run the legislatures over the past few years. So long as the Republicans continue on that path it won't matter if the next legislature changes Power of Attorney into something that is a proper solution because the next time they get control back they will shove all the crap back in making Power of Attorney unworkable again for persons who for whatever reason (in this case, sexual orientation) offends the religious "conscience" of, well, anyone.

I urge people who have existing Powers of Attorney set up to check with an attorney to determine if their state has made changes recently with the Uniform Power of Attorney Act or will do so in the near future as that may require changes to make sure that their instructions will be carried out and that any changes in the law don't provide broader powers by default than you intended for your designated person to have.