Thrown out of an FBO...

Jay,

But I try not to blast people for speaking up
in this forum,


Oh? I beg to differ from personal experience. Check what you posted
during the last 24 hours or so. And while we're at it, learn to spell
my name.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Jose wrote:
Actually that can be entirely avoided by simply making your partner
your medical power of attorney.

In some cases yes, in others no. Each hospital or clinic is different.

By the way, the same problem occurs for hetro couple who are not married.

But hetero couples can get married and become a family. That's part of
what it's all about. Marriage is the declaration and committment made
by the couple, in front of the world, that they are now a family. A
couple who has that ability, but chooses not to (the aforementioned
hetero couple) is not a family. I have no problem with that. But a
couple who does =not= have that ability can't choose.

Jose
I disagree. Medical Power of attorney is respected everywhere. Please
cite a case where it has not been. ( Assumption is that your in the US )

John

So do it at the federal level -- problem solved. All you have to do is
convince the government of the US that "shariage" is the same-sex
equivalent of "marriage", with all the same legal rights and
privileges.

If I run a hotel that grants pilots a 20% room discount, r.a.p
participants an additional 10% discount, and married couples a 30%
discount plus a free airplane flight, I am fully within my rights to
charge a non-pilot, non-poster, sharaged couple the full price and deny
them an airplane flight, no matter what the US government says.

And I don't even know if "convincing the the government of the US that
'shariage' is the same-sex equivalent of 'marriage'" means anything.
The government can grant priviliages for itself, but not for me. It
can't force me to give a discount to boaters if I also give a discount
to pilots.

The same could be said for mixed race marriages... maybe they should
have been called "joinages", to distinguish them from normal, healthy,
same race unions which will produce normal, healthy, same race children.
I don't think those that engaged in "joinages" would have found that
they actually had the "same rights and priviliages".

It would have no impact on me at all, any more than changing the word
for "breakfast" to "hotel" would.

Then why are you so worked up over it? Let them use the label, and move on.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I disagree. Medical Power of attorney is respected everywhere. Please cite a case where it has not been. ( Assumption is that your in the US )

I am not gay and have not run into this personally. However I have
friends who are, and have. I'll ask around.

I =have= had the experience where certain powers of attorney which I
held (non-medical) were not respected, because the paperwork got
misplaced (at least that was the excuse). In the power-of-attorney
cases with which I am familiar, it can get sticky, and that's the last
thing you need if faced with a bigoted administrator, a dying loved one,
and other logistical problems.

And in any case, this would only cover medical issues. There are a host
of other areas (such as real estate held between spouses).

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

The same could be said for mixed race marriages... maybe they should
have been called "joinages", to distinguish them from normal, healthy,
same race unions which will produce normal, healthy, same race children.
I don't think those that engaged in "joinages" would have found that
they actually had the "same rights and priviliages".

A specious comparison. Mixed race couples were being judged on their
*appearance*, while same sex couples are being judged by their
*actions*.

It is obvious to anyone (nowadays, anyway) that discriminating against
someone on the basis of their appearance is morally wrong.

It is not obvious to anyone (nowadays, or ever, AFAIK) that
discriminating against someone on the basis of their actions is morally
wrong. That is a very slippery moral slope, indeed, and the two
instances are not on the same philosophical level.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

A specious comparison. Mixed race couples were being judged on their
*appearance*, while same sex couples are being judged by their
*actions*.

Not such a specious comparison. Mixed race couples were not being
judged on their appearance, but rather, on =what= they were. It was
like a man marrying a dog. They were a different =race= goddamit!
Their appearance merely made it hard to hide that fact. And homosexual
couples are not being discrminiated on the basis of their actions, but
rather, on the basis of who they are. Sexual orientation is not a
choice. You didn't choose to like girls, you just did. It's built in
to you just like your race is.

It is obvious to anyone (nowadays, anyway) that discriminating against
someone on the basis of their appearance is morally wrong.

Exactly. "Nowadays, anyway". But back then it was an abomination, a
vile smear on the elegant institution of marriage.

It is not obvious to anyone (nowadays, or ever, AFAIK) that...

That's a pretty sweeping statement. =Anyone=? (it's obvious to me).
=Ever=? (I'd like to see your time machine - I think in the future we
will have accepted gay couples as loving family units just like we
accept mixed race couples the same way). Care to rephrase, or do you
really mean it to be as sweeping as all this?

...discriminating against someone on the basis of their actions...

.... which is not what it's about (see above).

Yes, in general, actions are something we may discriminate based on.
And the =important= actions here are that a loving gay couple is
=loving= That's a Good Thing. It's what we need more of in this world.
They are committed to each other. That is also a Good Thing (and
lacking in many heterosexual married couples). They have proclaimed
this committment for life in front of all. That's a Good Thing (that's
what marriage is about).

I see Good Things. What are the Bad Things you are afraid of?

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
A specious comparison. Mixed race couples were being judged on their
*appearance*, while same sex couples are being judged by their
*actions*.

No, in both cases the couple is judged by the same *combination* of their
actions (namely, the action of being a couple and having sex together) and
their physical characteristics (namely, whether their races or genders match
or not).

--Gary

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:48:09 GMT, Jose
wrote:

Actually that can be entirely avoided by simply making your partner your medical power of attorney.

In some cases yes, in others no. Each hospital or clinic is different.

By the way, the same problem occurs for hetro couple who are not married.

But hetero couples can get married and become a family. That's part of
what it's all about. Marriage is the declaration and committment made
by the couple, in front of the world, that they are now a family. A
couple who has that ability, but chooses not to (the aforementioned
hetero couple) is not a family. I have no problem with that. But a
couple who does =not= have that ability can't choose.

You might want to throw common-law wedlock into the pot as well:
Marriage per se, without any jumping over broom-handles.

Don

On 14 Nov 2006 07:20:26 -0800, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

Why, then, has this become such a problem for homosexuals?

For one thing, gay partners are not allowed certain visitation rights in
hospitals, as they are not family. This kind of irks them.

Then that's a problem that needs to be addressed. Come up with a new
family term to describe their relationship (I kinda like "shariage"),
give them the rights of family members, and move on.

But labels confer rights, or remove them. Thus, labels are important.

Unfortunately, the label they're trying to usurp has already been
taken. Come up with a new one, and move on.
--

There is a Libertarian solution to the problem.

That is to allow civil unions for any consenting adult couple which
provide those legal privileges and responsibilities currently attached
to marriage. Other than that, government has no function relating to
marriage.

Get your civil union registered at the courthouse, get married in
front of your church, family, friends, or bowling league, whatever
community will provide the emotional and social support for your
marriage.

Separation of marriage and state and all that.

Don

There is a Libertarian solution to the problem.

That is to allow civil unions for any consenting adult couple which
provide those legal privileges and responsibilities currently attached
to marriage.

That only works if all the other parties (that is, everyone who deals
differently with married couples) agree, every time.

So long as different words are used, it's still easy to discriminate.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.