Gay Man That was Kept From Seeing his Dying Partner Was Abusing Him

Img Ur ^ | 4/22/2010 | Img Ur

[Dallas59]

Original story:

Clay and his partner of 20 years, Harold, lived in California. Clay and Harold made diligent efforts to protect their legal rights, and had their legal paperwork in place—wills, powers of attorney, and medical directives, all naming each other. Harold was 88 years old and in frail medical condition, but still living at home with Clay, 77, who was in good health. One evening, Harold fell down the front steps of their home and was taken to the hospital. Based on their medical directives alone, Clay should have been consulted in Harold’s care from the first moment. Tragically, county and health care workers instead refused to allow Clay to see Harold in the hospital. The county then ultimately went one step further by isolating the couple from each other, placing the men in separate nursing homes. Ignoring Clay’s significant role in Harold’s life, the county continued to treat Harold like he had no family and went to court seeking the power to make financial decisions on his behalf. Outrageously, the county represented to the judge that Clay was merely Harold’s “roommate.” The court denied their efforts, but did grant the county limited access to one of Harold’s bank accounts to pay for his care.

What happened next is even more chilling: without authority, without determining the value of Clay and Harold’s possessions accumulated over the course of their 20 years together or making any effort to determine which items belonged to whom, the county took everything Harold and Clay owned and auctioned off all of their belongings. Adding further insult to grave injury, the county removed Clay from his home and confined him to a nursing home against his will. The county workers then terminated Clay and Harold's lease and surrendered the home they had shared for many years to the landlord.

Three months after he was hospitalized, Harold died in the nursing home. Because of the county’s actions, Clay missed the final months he should have had with his partner of 20 years. Compounding this tragedy, Clay has literally nothing left of the home he had shared with Harold or the life he was living up until the day that Harold fell, because he has been unable to recover any of his property.

[Carley]

Hope this gets bumped to the top.

A lesson in knee jerk reactions and jumping to false conclusions.

[Maelstorm]

I thought there was more to this story.

[Caipirabob]

Gay Man That was Kept From Seeing his Dying Partner Was Abusing Him

Technically speaking, isn't that the definition of the homosexual act?

[massmike]

save for later

[netmilsmom]

They had no younger friends or relatives to help them?

[exDemMom]

Sonoma County... I grew up there.

[poobear]

Horrible! If they can do this to this “couple” they can do the same to anyone. They literally soaked these two for every dime they had.

Don't think that clause in the health bill that gives the government access to you checking won't produce the same despicable actions!

[Explodo]

Uhhh...The Guy in the Hospital had been beaten to a pulp by the guy they kept away from him. If they had let the abuser anywhere near the guy in the hospital, they would have been seriously negligent, criminaly so in this case.

[seemoAR]

Nothing new in the way our Gooberment will steal from people. People going into nursing homes and on Social Security will have their property seized. The old people lose everything except something like $2,000. The Government will even try try to grab money and property the Seniors have given their family in the last 5 years.

Guess who gets in free.

[sportutegrl]

I thought only women could be domestic violence victims. After all, isn't it called the VAWA. (The Violence against Women Act)? (yes, it's sarc)

[dfwgator]

I thought there was more to this story.

There always is.

[dfwgator]

What was he doing, scratching his eyes out?

[poobear]

Guess I missed that part of the article. The title stated so, but the story didn’t really elaborate. Maybe I just read post one of the tragedy and not the article.

[Maelstorm]

The good thing is Obama in his effort to please the activists have deflated them considerably. His allowing people to designate in writing who can see them in hospitals takes one of the key arguments away from the activists.

I think maybe we should consider other ways to diffuse the gay activist cause. It doesn’t have to convey special rights but instead convey general rules that make the entrenchment of gay activism in law irrelevant but expand the rights for everyone involved. The gay activists are not all that enthused that they got what they wanted in getting visitation access in this fashion.

[fwdude]

When I first heard this story spun by libtard sodomites, I knew intuitively that it didn’t contain anything approaching the truth. I knew that either it was a complete fabrication, something that leftists have no qualms about engaging in, or a violent twisting of the facts of an event that the sodomite perverts could use as their political tool. I only hope that more truth regarding this “love” that these two men shared will come to light.

[fwdude]

The good thing is Obama in his effort to please the activists have deflated them considerably. His allowing people to designate in writing who can see them in hospitals takes one of the key arguments away from the activists.

Then you misunderstand homosexual activists and their modus operandi.

If you give an activist homosexual an inch, he will take a mile every time - count on it. This is how you have the outrageous, powerful push for same-sex marriage emanating from a decision like Lawrence v. Texas which merely, ostensibly, decriminalized sodomy nationwide. Shortly after this decision, Massachusetts' activist supreme court, heavily relying on this case, became the first state to judicially "legislate" same-sex marriage into quasi-law (it STILL hasn't been made law by a legislative body.) How, then, can you perceive this hospital mandate as having an appeasing effect? If anything, it will embolden them to push for other mandated "rights" against the wishes of private citizens and state laws.