Subject: Not necessarily
Author:
Posted on: 2010-04-19 21:19:00 UTC
Civil Unions are simply not as solid legally as marriages are, even after countless court dates, paperwork, attorneys, etc. I'm sure if you put the research in, you could find many, many similar instances of the courts simply ignoring civil unions.
http://www.bilerico.com/2010/04/sonomacountycaseparateselderlygaycouple_and.php
Words cannot describe how I feel at this moment. Perhaps you guys can better word it out. I, on the other hand, will go sit over here *points her Comfort Corner* and wonder how much 'humanity' our species actually has.
...appreciative of all the work my mom and her siblings put into letting my grandfather live at home for as long as possible. He ultimately died at home, so it was definitely worth the months and months spent gently convincing him that he needed various types of help.
It's a tragic story and I sincerely hope that Clay wins his court case. The way the LGBT community is treated in the United States (and around most of the world, for that matter) is deplorable. Everyone - no exceptions - deserves fair and equal treatment under the law.
That being said, I agree with JulyFlame. We are not getting all the facts. The website on which the story is posted has a rather obvious bias. The story itself is loaded with images of pathos designed to tweak the heart-strings of the reader.
I'd like to read interviews with both Clay and representatives of the county to find out their perspectives. I want to read the reasoning behind the judgements against these two men. I want to know as many of the facts as possible. To quote one of my favorite authors, "Data, data, data! I can't make bricks without clay."
Whenever I start developing a dangerous amount of faith in human nature, I read something like this and remember exactly why I hate people so much.
It's often the system that has the problems. I'm sure this could have been prevented if many people had gone above and beyond the call of duty, but the system in place probably made this inevitable.
It's more about trying to get legislation passed that changes the system - but passing laws is by nature dehumanizing. People aren't voting to separate, auction the possessions of and forcibly hold these two men in nursing homes - they are voting for the 'upholding of traditional family values.'
People can and are fooled by marketing.
I blame people for being so easily fooled by marketing.
Clay had BETTER win that lawsuit, is all I have to say. And I hope he can manage to make sure that things like this don't happen again.
... but maybe it'll force the county to be more receptive in future cases.
I honestly don't know what to say apart from that.
...that reading this made me tear up a little. I find it hard to believe, or understand why, the county could simply take everything those two had and sell it. It's inhuman, and it's practically stealing.
I'm tempted to exploit Godwin's Law at this point. Out of respect, I will not. But in all seriousness, as an American, I find myself completely ashamed. Heck, last Friday, my high school held a Day of Silence in protest to the way homosexuals are being treated. I didn't think much of it at the time, and I didn't participate, but reading this made me realize how poignant their message was. On a day-to-day basis, I don't really think about these kinds of issues, because my school is extremely diverse, and with that diversity comes a certain level of liberalness. One of my best friends is openly, and unapologetically homosexual. I literally can't imagine anyone looking down on him for it, because everyone finds it pretty much impossible to dislike him.
*takes off glasses, wipes eyes, and steps down from her soap box*
Anyway... now I'm all depressed again.
Suppose, for a moment, that there's an old dude living alone. No surviving family, no next-of-kin or other person to take power of attorney, etcetera. Now, he's suffering from Alzheimer's, and finally collapses. Fortunately, this happens in a public space - he's rushed to the hospital, where it's determined that he really isn't capable of living on his own. At this point, it's the state's responsibility to step in and take care of things - as stated before, he has nobody else to take power of attorney. As his condition is terminal and irreversible, what is the state to do with his house and possessions? The obvious solution is to sell what he won't be able to use in the assisted living facility he's placed in, and put the proceeds towards making him comfortable there.
I'm not saying that what was done to Mr Henry and Mr Clay was anything even resembling human, let alone ethical, but there are situations in which the take-everything-and-sell-it move is the best response to a situation. Whoever let these two fall through the cracks and into that bucket, though, deserves to have his house yanked out from under him.
I participated, although I'm not gay.
That story... I just can't say how much it pissed me off without resorting to maledictions.
I can't believe people would do something like this. They did everything they could, and still this happened. This is just... I don't even have the words.
Whatever your moral stance on their lifestyle, no one should be treated like they were. Maybe the story left parts out, stories usually do, but really, I see this incident as a commentary on the legal situation of most elderly people, regardless of their lifestyle.
It isn't only homosexual couples who are living together unmarried either. There are heterosexual couples who did not want to re-marry due to loss of income, or attachment to a deceased spouse. There are even instances of couples forced to have their marriages legally dissolved to be able to qualify for needed government assistance. Then there are sibling groups who have lived together for many years, because their spouses are gone. I knew a set of twin sisters who lived together for 30 years after their spouses died. They were the only person the other one had due to the early deaths of their children.
Maybe if these men had been a het married couple, the county would have allowed them into the same nursing home, but I have even seen elderly married couples split up due to differing levels of care needed. And even a married couple would have most likely faced the same forced entry into the nursing home and the loss of possessions.
I'm sure there is an exception to this that someone can point out. I am generalizing--Nursing homes in general are truly appalling places for the residents and the caregivers. Unless there is outside family actively involved-as in random near daily visits-the elderly patient is very unlikely to receive good care. As far as the caregivers go, those in the lowest rungs who are actually giving the full body care that the neediest patients require, are paid minimum wage and assigned so may tasks that it is impossible to do more than just basic assembly line personal care. Until there are rules set up to require that adequate staffing be maintained (and turnover will always be high at minimum wage, think of the work actually being done by these people), the owners will continue to exploit both ends-the patients by taking everything they ever owned and the lowest level workers by under-staffing and under-paying.
This is an awful situation, made worse by the lack of humanity shown to these men, but it should bring the focus not just to elderly gay couples, but to all the elderly who are just a fall away from loss of all their legal rights. It is a situation that defies all ethical bounds, as far as I am concerned, and I'm glad Bronwyn pointed it out. Awareness of a problem is the first step to solving a problem.
Seconded that it's not the fact that they're gay creates the problem; that's just a good hook for the media.
As for care homes: the caregivers often try their best, but they've very little to work with. My mother was working night shifts in a care home for years, and I got the distinct impression they constantly did the best they could while understaffed and underpaid. They built relationships with the residents, were gutted when they died (as they always did: this was a nursing home, not a residential home), and were constantly being told they weren't doing their jobs properly, either by management, or by families who turned up once a month for a cursory visit and were incensed that there wasn't a nurse with their relative 24/7. The attitude of upper management was the worst problem. Low wage? Fine. Hard work? Fine. Getting fired because you're dealing with your two daughters going through a court case and also incidentally developing neurological problems? Not so fine.
We as a community need to give the elderly more respect. Generalising again, but a lot of older people have given a lot to the world and yet we do not acknowledge this.
It is horrible, forcing these men who clearly care a lot for each other to live apart against their will. I feel so sorry for the pair of them and I hope Clay wins his lawsuit. He deserves that much, at least.
I feel so sorry for those poor people. From how that sounds, they have been treated very unfairly and unjustly.
I'm not sure how I feel about this.
For sure, things were done and handled wrong by that county. But at the same time, I'm wondering what the article left out because it feels like there are important details missing.
Civil Unions are simply not as solid legally as marriages are, even after countless court dates, paperwork, attorneys, etc. I'm sure if you put the research in, you could find many, many similar instances of the courts simply ignoring civil unions.
...is this board really the right place for political statements? Not trying to offend, just asking.
but as a Board, we've successfully had serious discussions on religion, politics, ethics etc in the past without it turning into a flame war. Although, such discussions have been way less frequent in the last couple of years.
I apologize.
One moral stance is that it is wrong for homosexual people to marry or even be homosexual.
Another moral stance is that it is good for them to marry and even be as they are.
Etc.
Ethics is somewhat different. Something can be right ethically but wrong morally, and the other way around.
Whatever way you spin it, this isn't about political statements and what the county did was definitely unethical.
...but I don't see this as political, but more legal. Legally, the two gentlemen had gone through all the necessary channels to ensure that this sort of thing didn't happen. The county trampled their rights and ignored their legal authority. I would hate to think that a county government can just stick me in a nursing home and confiscate all of my worldly possessions without even considering the law.
No one should ever be treated like this. I don't care who they are.
On all counts. What happened there is completely outrageous. I can't put it any better than that.
And yes, it is okay to post about this sort of thing on the Board. I refer you to rule seven in the Constitution:
7. Serious discussion is ALSO welcome here. Odd, ne?
~Neshomeh
I'm fully in support of posting serious things, but I believe we have to be tactful. The Board has been, apart from last June, relatively flame war-free, and I for one wouldn't like it if that changed.
When people are treated like nonpersons, be they old or gay or both, I think it's time to forget tact and get *angry*. This news item touches on two important issues: the fact that gay relationships, nay, gay people do not exist in the eyes of the US government, and the fact that the social bureacracy can be all too happy to deprive the elderly of their rights without reason.
I know, but it's not a political statement (or, at least I'm not trying to make it one) but more of a 'how can this have happened?' one.
I'm sorry if it came across as a politics.