Subject: RE: Gay couples and adoption ASA22 - 2007-07-19 1:11 PM Additionally, the Shiavo case isn't a red herring as you put it. Everyday in this country, court houses are filled with probate issues and issues relating to end of life concerns. The Schiavo case is an exception only because it was highly publisized. So don't dismiss it so out of hand. I bet you could walk to the Hillsborough courthouse this afternoon, check the civil docket and find 20 probate cases, all involving traditional marriages. Not to mention the ruling wasn't that the wishes of the husband trumped the wishes of the parents the ruling was that the wishes of Terry as expressed to her husband should be followed. I dismiss it because the implication is that Mr. Schiavo had no rights as a spouse and that is simply untrue. He had rights and they were ultimately upheld. Firstly, he had the right to tell the doctors what kind of care to give her, and what to withhold. Secondly, he had the right to represent Terry in court - no small matter. Unfortunately, he had to go through considerable expense and national scorn to have those rights upheld - but he had rights as a spouse. Legal fights are going to happen even when a spouse dies with a will - sometimes people get stupid and are going to drag your butt into court just because they can. None of this is relevant to the simple fact that I can enter into a marriage contract with the man of my choice but Hollis cannot enter into a marriage contract with the woman of her choice. I understand that you are pointing out that there are alternatives available for some legally contractable issues. My point, and the point of others like Hollis and Runningwoof, is that the burden - and you must concede it is a real burden you and I would not have to bear - is unfair. Even if they had vast resources and energy, all the contracts in the world would still not entitle them to be covered under their spouse's insurance plan unless they were a legal spouse. And, they shouldn't have to go through all the hurdles that you and I do not have to go through. To suggest that they could have the same rights if they just sat down with a lawyer is misleading and negligent. |