As awesome as it is, it actually makes the gay marriage debate tougher to fight against a bunch of fundie assholes. Yes, advancement is awesome, but at the same time it ignores the fact that there is a larger debate going on regarding gay marriage. So essentially, this is a token gesture only resulting in the help of social conservatives against gay marriage. Thanks, but this doesn’t help destroy the bigoted hegemony.

Oh, and the HRC should shut the hell up. They’ve done nothing to help.

I find this disturbing.

For the record, I strongly favor gay rights, including gay marriage, repeal of don’t ask/don’t tell, and making sexual orientation a protected class under Title VII. So I agree with the goals of what the President did here.

But the ends don’t justify the means. This isn’t legislation. It isn’t even an executive order. It is a unilateral decree that is supposedly conditioned on a hospital’s receipt of Medicare and Medicaid funds. In other words, because a hospital accepts federal funds, Barack Obama has the right to unilaterally decree their visitation policies?

My question to my liberal friends is what happens when: (1) Obamacare is fully implemented, and every health care provider in the country accepts federal funds in some form; (2) a Neanderthal like Huckabee (or worst) gets elected President; and, (3) the Neanderthal reverses this policy and put in its place some kind of unthinkable anti-gay policy? When that happens, how will you be able to argue that the Neaderthal’s actions are extralegal?

The biggest problem in politics today is that we have completely collapsed the distinction between ends and means. If you agree with the ends, the thinking goes, you should burn down any precedent, procedure, or protection that stands in the way achieving it. Once everything is burned down, we’ll regret that kind of thinking.

I would love for this policy to become the LEGITIMATE law of the land as soon as possible, but this is not legitimate.

Actually wait a second, isn’t this rather a symbolic order from the president? Does it not reflect more the eventual truths of the land as opposed to… whatever else I thought it was? I mean, it even states this implicitly in the memorandum itself.

It’s similar to DADT (Keeping the theme here). The laws state that no openly gay man or woman shall serve, but the Pentagon did change the rules of how it will be tackled. There is no actual change in the law, but rather the approach has changed. So instead of a law of some sort changing, this is a warning of the change of ideology regarding this very series of issues.

I would love for this to be law, but it isn’t even actually a law at all.

Snipzor:

I’m not 100% positive, but I’m pretty sure don’t ask/don’t tell was codified in a federal statute.

But this memorandum is hardly a law, or a decree, or anything. It’s a counter-hegemonic push against social conservative nonsense, as well as a shameless grab for more votes.

Yeah actually a Presidential Memorandum is basically a type of Executive Order! So I see know wrong with this!

Toshiba:

You can’t say it’s “basically like an Executive Order.” The Constitution makes the President the head of the executive branch of government. He can order them to do anything (so long as it is not inconsistent with the Constitution or a federal statute). The Constitution doesn’t give the President the ability to order a hospital in Anytown, USA to change their admissions policies.

The best defense for this is actually Snipzor’s defense, but he’s basically saying it’s a meaningless gesture.

Well all gestures are meaningful in some way. If this had any legal implications (Which it doesn’t), it would be good but it would make the fight for gay marriage much harder. Since this is not a creation of law (Or a rewriting of law), it merely sends the notion that the cultural norms will be challenged, and the hospitals will be more lax on that stupid old ideology. As the pentagon did with DADT.

I just wish they would get rid of DOMA right away, that piece of unconstitutional garbage has no right to exist.

It sounds similar to the passage of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, the feds can simply threaten to reduce federal funds for highways and the states will fall in line. So meaningless it maybe, but if the hospitals, who take Medicaid and Medicare patients want to get paid they will indeed comply with this memo!

Well hold on, what would be so bad about complying with the requests? If you disagree with the methods like Finch does, fine, but what is so wrong about following the symbolic request? Toshiba, you are making it sound as if this is a travesty.

No, no I am in agreement with this memo to HHS, I was just speculating as to how it could be enforce.

Same way the recent implicit changes to DADT are being enforced.

@Anonymous Finch, “This isn’t legislation. It isn’t even an executive order. It is a unilateral decree that is supposedly conditioned on a hospital’s receipt of Medicare and Medicaid funds.”

I totally agree, it is like Obama is throwing a bone to the gay and lesbian community without putting his ass on the line and making a legal commitment.

@Snipzor, “It’s a counter-hegemonic push against social conservative nonsense, as well as a shameless grab for more votes.”

I agree with you as well.

Snipzor:

I agree on DOMA (but remember who signed it; Dems are, at best, fair-weather friends to the gay community (which is better than most Republicans, but still . . .)).

The President is charged with enforcing the law, if Federal govt withholds payments from hospitals, how is that not tangible?

Toshiba2 says:
April 15, 2010 at 10:48 pm
It sounds similar to the passage of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, the feds can simply threaten to reduce federal funds for highways and the states will fall in line.
——————————————————

You know you just made a good arguement for the HCR bill. A lot of people say it’s un-Constitutional, and they say it should be up to the states. Well, just pass a bill like that and I’d bet most states would go along with it.

(but remember who signed it; Dems are, at best, fair-weather friends to the gay community (which is better than most Republicans, but still . . .).

Ack, I know I know. Clinton signed DADT, democrats helped with DOMA. They’ve been spineless through the whole repeal process. Believe me, I know the history all too well. Depresses me.

real john t:

But when the feds threaten to withhold highway funds for things like the drinking laws, it’s done through legislation–not through Presidential fiat. That’s the problem I have with this.

Snipzor may be right; it could be totally symbolic. I’ll be interested in seeing whether they take any enforcement action against hospitals that refuse to comply.

I’d rather just see it done by legislation. If Democrats are willing to force Obamacare through when so much of the public s against it, why not do this the right way. They’ll get more political cover from Republicans than you might think (for example, Cheney and Ted Olson).

I can’t stress this enough, I won’t hold my breath for the democrats to actually pass a real law to stop discrimination against the LGBT community in hospital visitation rights. They’ve been terrible at representing the gay community, despite claiming they represent them.

AnonymousFinch says:
April 15, 2010 at 11:46 pm
real john t:

But when the feds threaten to withhold highway funds
————————————-

You mean that “socialistic” program that the Feds run? Maybe they should do away with that all together.

AnonymousFinch says:
April 15, 2010 at 11:46 pm
real john t:

But when the feds threaten to withhold highway funds for things like the drinking laws, it’s done through legislation–not through Presidential fiat.
——————————————–

Didn’t I write PASS a bill?

In other words, because a hospital accepts federal funds, Barack Obama has the right to unilaterally decree their visitation policies?
————

I believe that’s known as dictating.

In other words, because a hospital accepts federal funds, Barack Obama has the right to unilaterally decree their visitation policies?

So I guess you were against it when Bush decreed that hospitals receiving US funds not be allowed to mention the word abortion.

The Constitution doesn’t give the President the ability to order a hospital in Anytown, USA to change their admissions policies.

Yes but the constitution also provides for equal protection under the law; thus forbidding a hospital in Anytown USA from discrimination in here admissions and visitation policies. So in effect that President is just enforcing laws that are already in place.

JamesA:

“Yes but the constitution also provides for equal protection under the law; thus forbidding a hospital in Anytown USA from discrimination in here admissions and visitation policies. So in effect that President is just enforcing laws that are already in place.”

There are two problems with this statement. First, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause DOES NOT APPLY to private actors. It only applies to governmental entities. (Just like the First Amendment applied to governments, but not to Mediaite.) Second, under current Supreme Court precedent, sexual orientation is not a “suspect class” under the Equal Protection Clause; therefore, it wouldn’t prevent even a government-operated hospital from having such a policy for gays.

“So I guess you were against it when Bush decreed that hospitals receiving US funds not be allowed to mention the word abortion.”

Two problems here, too. First, it wasn’t “hospitals,” but rather recipients of federal family planning funds. Second, it prohibited those recipients from counseling about abortion. They could refer a patient to some other provider for abortion counseling.

And, most importantly, if you look up that issue you’ll see that it went to the Supreme Court and was decided in a case called Rust v. Sullivan. (It was Bush 41, by the way, not Bush 43.) In that case, I agreed with Justice O’Connor decision’s (I think it was a dissent.) She did not reach the Constitutional issue, but rather said that the regulations were beyond the scope of the underlying statute and therefore illegal. In other words, she said essentially the same thing that I am saying here about Obama’s new memorandum: namely, the President can’t act unilaterally to create these sorts of rules.

So, yes, although that was almost 20 years ago, I have been remarkably consistent in my position. That’s called intellectual honesty. I apply the same principles whether or not it’s my guy in the Oval Office. You should try it some time.

First, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause DOES NOT APPLY to private actors.

So you’re saying that if you own a private company or own a rental property, you can discriminate in who you hire or rent that property too? I don’t think so.

Two problems here, too. First, it wasn’t “hospitals,” but rather recipients of federal family planning funds. Second, it prohibited those recipients from counseling about abortion.

The only problem here is your hypocrisy. Recipients of federal family planning funds did include hospitals and many other health care facilities. And Bush decreed that they couldn’t mention abortion.

So, yes, although that was almost 20 years ago, I have been remarkably consistent in my position. That’s called intellectual honesty. I apply the same principles whether or not it’s my guy in the Oval Office. You should try it some time.

Oh please, you’re one of the least intellectually honest persons on this forum. All you do is spin. You’re response above is just more proof of that.

The patient should be able to determine who can visit and gays should be able through a Living Will be able to make heath decisions for their partner.

Communist!!!