Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Some Christian Leaders OK with Gay Hospital Visitation Rights
Christian Post ^ | 04/17/2010 | Jennifer Riley

Posted on 04/18/2010 11:45:31 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Some Christian leaders have expressed support for President Obama’s order to extend hospital visitation and health care decision rights of same-sex couples.

The leaders agree with the president that patients, whatever their sexual orientation, need their love ones by their sides and have a right to choose who they want to make medical decisions on their behalf.

Focus on the Family Senior Vice President Tom Minnery said in a statement Friday that the Christian pro-family group supports the principle in Obama’s Presidential Memorandum regarding hospital visitation.

Likewise, several evangelical leaders voiced support for ensuring gays and lesbians access to their loved ones during times of emergency and distress.

“To have access to loved ones in all conditions of life is something evangelicals see as compassionate and just,” said Richard Cizik, president of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good.

Pastor Joel Hunter of Northland, A Church Distributed in Orlando, said the directive brings “much-needed humanity” to the way patients are treated.

“As a pastor, I have witnessed the deep and heart-felt needs people experience, particularly in times of grave illness,” said Hunter. “In these moments, every person deserves the strength and support that being surrounded by loved ones brings.”

In a Presidential Memorandum, President Obama on Thursday directed the Department of Health and Human Services to work to ensure the rights of patients to designate visitors and decision makers. The memorandum highlighted that current hospital visitation policies have “uniquely affected” gay and lesbian Americans who are often barred from their partner.

Hospital policies generally allow only visitors related by blood or marriage to visit a seriously injured or ill patient.

While Christian groups say they do not have a problem with extending visitation rights to same-sex couples, some question President Obama’s agenda.

FOTF said it wonders why patient-sensitive hospital policies required a Presidential Memorandum. The conservative pro-family group is concerned that the directive, though innocuous itself, is part of a larger effort to undermine marriage and the Defense of Marriage Act.

“Although it seems the White House released this Presidential Memorandum to, at least in part, promote a political agenda, the fact remains the document demonstrates that marriage does not have to be redefined in order for people to see their loved ones in the hospital,” said Minnery.

Family Research Council also said that while it does not object to the visitation rights it believes the directive is part of the president’s broader effort to appease his gay constituency and undermine the institution of marriage.

Besides gays and lesbians, the new rule would also apply to widows and widowers as well as members of religious orders.

The new policy will affect hospitals that receive Medicare or Medicaid funding, which is nearly all the medical institutions in the country.


TOPICS: Current Events; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: gay; homnosexualagenda; homosexual; homosexualagenda; visitation

1 posted on 04/18/2010 11:45:31 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I think the patient or next of kin or whatever should decide on who can visit. Its none of the governments business.

If I want my best fishing buddy to visit that should be okay too. If they want their best fisting.... lol


2 posted on 04/18/2010 11:47:26 AM PDT by GeronL (Entitlement Zombies will become real zombies when the money runs out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Yes, as soon as the Gay Lover enters the hospital and says “I’m here to visit my life partner, etc.” The hospital should get their name and address and send them the hospital bills.


3 posted on 04/18/2010 11:50:27 AM PDT by Gaffer ("Profling: The only profile I need is a chalk outline around their dead ass!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Am i to understand that this gives greater freedom to homosexuals than heterosexuals as regards who may visit?


4 posted on 04/18/2010 11:50:48 AM PDT by daniel1212 ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out " (Acts 3:19))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
think the patient or next of kin or whatever should decide on who can visit. Its none of the governments business.

Christian Hospitals have rights to.

Your concept of non-governmental interference, if you are to be fair, has to apply to them as well.

If a Christian Hospital decides that from a Christian, biblical perspective, that a non-blood related "friend" who is homosexual, should not be considered next-of-kin from a spousal perspective, then they should have that right as well.
5 posted on 04/18/2010 11:52:43 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

>>Yes, as soon as the Gay Lover enters the hospital and says “I’m here to visit my life partner, etc.” The hospital should get their name and address and send them the hospital bills
**

The patient probably did.


6 posted on 04/18/2010 11:55:18 AM PDT by max americana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; little jeremiah
The leaders agree with the president that patients, whatever their sexual orientation, need their love ones by their sides and have a right to choose who they want to make medical decisions on their behalf.

They had that right before. It's called a power of attorney. All Bam did was make aberrant behavior more mainstream.

7 posted on 04/18/2010 11:56:10 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

Need to ping this one out, too.

You hit the nail on the head. 0kaka and mrs 0kaka said that they would be the best friends sexual perverts ever had when he got elected. And by gum, so they are!


8 posted on 04/18/2010 11:57:35 AM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

“I think the patient or next of kin or whatever should decide on who can visit. Its none of the governments business.”

Couldn’t agree more!!


9 posted on 04/18/2010 11:58:33 AM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

You bet!


10 posted on 04/18/2010 12:01:32 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

You have a point. Personally I don’t think it’s my business regarding who does what to whom and it’s certainly not the government’s business but a Christian organization should have their rights respected. Visiting restrictions are more severe in critical care units.
What if’s:
The hospital accepts government funding and virtually all hospitals do.
The patient is taken to the hospital in an emergency situation and had no say where he/she is being treated. Should the hospital still have the right to tell them their significant other can or can’t visit? What if they’re dying and want to say goodbye to their partner?


11 posted on 04/18/2010 12:04:30 PM PDT by BiggieLittle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

Believe me, there will be documentation to cover these situations. An Advanced Healthcare Directive will be signed and in that patient’s chart in order for their “partner” to make health care decisions. As a nurse, all I really care about is whether those forms have been signed, not who their designee is. We Christians know that homosexuality is wrong, but as a human, why would I deny a person to have visiting hours with whomever they consider their “loved one”. Studies show that clients who have support tend to have better outcomes. And I want a good outcome for my patient.


12 posted on 04/18/2010 12:04:50 PM PDT by brwnsuga (Black and Free!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Yes I agree. They have rights. But if a patient wants his friends to visit, possibly for the last time, it might be a good idea just not to ask what kind of friends they are.


13 posted on 04/18/2010 12:06:41 PM PDT by GeronL (Entitlement Zombies will become real zombies when the money runs out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: brwnsuga

I have no problem with them being allowed and have a right to visit. However, if they are claiming the equivalent to a relative or spouse status, they should get the same treatment ala billing as the rest do when they go to collections.


14 posted on 04/18/2010 12:06:47 PM PDT by Gaffer ("Profling: The only profile I need is a chalk outline around their dead ass!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

How can it apply to widows and widowers?


15 posted on 04/18/2010 12:06:51 PM PDT by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I went with my husband and several other family members to visit my day old great nephew. I asked my sister in law whether we had too many visiters in the room (6) and she works in that hospital and she just laughed and said, not if we don’t tell anyone. Well my niece’s nurse was in and out several times and she didn’t care.


16 posted on 04/18/2010 12:06:52 PM PDT by Mercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

‘I think the patient or next of kin or whatever should decide on who can visit. Its none of the governments business.”

The hospital should also have a say since they have liability but otherwise I agree with you.


17 posted on 04/18/2010 12:11:38 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

OK, I get where your coming from now.


18 posted on 04/18/2010 12:13:03 PM PDT by GeronL (Cargo Cult Liberalism isn't going to work.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

How about a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy? You just say who you wish to have in the room and not why or have to give details. Why does the gov’t even need to stick their noses in it?


19 posted on 04/18/2010 12:19:02 PM PDT by ReneeLynn (Socialism is SO yesterday. Fascism, it*s the new black. Mmm Mmm Mmm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

People have always been able to decide who can visit them and who cannot. Also, if it’s a case of a “partner” (I hate that term; it makes all business partners look like gays!), then they should write medical directives or name the other as their medical executors.

If the sick or injured person were straight, nobody of the opposite sex could just walk in off the street and ask to visit or even make decisions for that person, regardless of the personal relationship claimed. The same is true of gays, and there was no discrimination being practiced here.


20 posted on 04/18/2010 12:24:11 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“The conservative pro-family group is concerned that the directive, though innocuous itself, is part of a larger effort to undermine marriage and the Defense of Marriage Act.”

It seems to me to undercut one of the current rationales being used to push gay marriage. That is, if gays can obtain this new-found “right” outside of marriage, then the case for having society recognize gay marriage to accord them this right is no longer necessary. I concur with another poster that in theory, before this policy change, gays could use a power of attorney that I presume would have accorded a partner all these rights. But absent having done so, there apparently were gay partners who ended up getting excluded due to blood/marriage requirements that I think likely were imposed by hospitals just to keep the visiting situation manageable [what hospital would want to risk letting in a self-declared friend who turned out to be a mortal enemy?] Heterosexuals have no need of executing powers of attorney for their spouses or other family members. So I think this is a reasonable attempt to “level the playing field” in that regard. It certainly would be cumbersome if the government or hospitals required us all to execute legal agreements with all spouse/blood relatives as a condition of their visiting.

That said, one hopes this policy applies to the far larger number of cohabiting heterosexual couples (whose behavior arguably is equally “sinful” in the eyes of the Bible) rather than being an exclusive prerogative a gay partners. As another poster suggested, the easiest solution is for the patient to designate the list of acceptable visitors, subject to constraints on “reasonable” numbers. Even within families or marriage relationships, there may be individuals whose presence would be detrimental to patient recovery. Who better than the patient would know this?


21 posted on 04/18/2010 1:32:51 PM PDT by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Besides gays and lesbians, the new rule would also apply to widows and widowers as well as members of religious orders.

Why would it not also include unmarried heterosexual couples?

22 posted on 04/18/2010 3:39:15 PM PDT by Between the Lines (AreYouWhoYouSayYouAre?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BiggieLittle
The hospital accepts government funding and virtually all hospitals do. The patient is taken to the hospital in an emergency situation and had no say where he/she is being treated. Should the hospital still have the right to tell them their significant other can or can’t visit? What if they’re dying and want to say goodbye to their partner?

Absolutely.

We are a Christian nation, no matter what some may say.

It is the foundation of our culture and our government.

Furthermore, the government "money" you're talking about, is our tax dollars, not the governments money.

And I don't believe it is so much hospitals accepting government funding as being forced to because of various overbearing legislation.

ANd finally, I have no problem with homos visiting people in the hospital, just the attempt to legitimize deviant behavior as acceptable by forcing hospitals to recognize deviants as a significant other.

It's none of the Government's business, period!
23 posted on 04/18/2010 4:02:06 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

It’s so obvious. Assign your special loved one with power of attorney rights and/or get a medical directive/living will. With Obama’s actions, all he’s done is given a patient’s special someone who’s been in their life for 2weeks equal access.


24 posted on 04/18/2010 7:43:34 PM PDT by TNdandelion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

No.


25 posted on 04/18/2010 8:16:48 PM PDT by Theo (May Rome decrease and Christ increase.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

Thanks - I meant to ping this out but today was a strange day for me and I’ll ping it tomorrow.

Just feeling nervous lately... DH is in Poland which doesn’t help.


26 posted on 04/18/2010 11:55:50 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

some Christian leaders ok with anything...they are apostate


27 posted on 04/18/2010 11:58:00 PM PDT by wardaddy (Will adobe ever fix shockwave to work consistently?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; Travis McGee
btw...I have been in ICU pods twice for my own life in the balance surgeries and several times for others...not just family...anyone can be allowed in if you specify in a living will or if family lets them in or usually if you just walk up at visit time

what this does is allow the fag partner to push him or herself on the family

who in the case of dying homosexuals are often the ones stuck with the chore...fops running buddies fade quick

besides...gay relationships are very very very fickle and hardly monogamous

a monogamous male homosexual relartiuonship is like the unicorn even though they like to pretend they are like married straights...

before anyone here gets stoked up...I have cared for dying AIDs patient no one else wanted...not the bathhouse gang let me assure you

being homosexual is ridden with pitfalls beyond the peccadilloes more often than not

28 posted on 04/19/2010 12:04:19 AM PDT by wardaddy (Will adobe ever fix shockwave to work consistently?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

you’re a chick!

i always thought you were a libertarian-unusual religious male

too funny


29 posted on 04/19/2010 12:07:05 AM PDT by wardaddy (Will adobe ever fix shockwave to work consistently?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

I had to change my screen name years ago due to - well, people finding me here and creating a ruckus. So I changed my name to one that didn’t sound like a “she”. Ruckus is all over, so it doesn’t matter any more.

;-)


30 posted on 04/19/2010 12:16:08 AM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

lol...I like yer posts...just never figured...wow


31 posted on 04/19/2010 12:37:24 AM PDT by wardaddy (Will adobe ever fix shockwave to work consistently?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

Thank you, I like yours too.

Let’s just say I am not in some ways a typical female... I am married to a wonderful man! But stuff like fashion, shopping, clothes, watching TV, movies, reading about such things - have bored me my whole life. Totally. We are hermits in the woods. I was always a loner, preferred to be away in nature than in crowds, groups, parties, etc.

I’ve only had a TV for two years as an adult. The only movie I’ve watched in more than 10 yrs is LOTR. I’m a lifelong vegtarian... I don’t “identify” with the body made of earthly elements anyway, so age, sex, nationality - they’re like clothes, something that gets worn out, and eventually you change and get a new set.

:-)


32 posted on 04/19/2010 12:51:46 AM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: 185JHP; AFA-Michigan; Abathar; Agitate; Albion Wilde; AliVeritas; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

People can already draw up Power of Attorney papers. This is just an excuse to normalize homosexuality, push it down everyones' throats even more, and 0bama wants to curry favor with the tiny percentage of homoesxuals and their pals (more pals)*. He said he and the missus would be the best friends sexual perverts have ever had in the White House. So now he's paying them back for his support.

*There are at most 2% of the population who identify as homosexual (fluid number, as more are recruited and others leave the "gay" life; but they have become a major pet cause of leftsts, so there are actually more leftists who support the homosexual agenda than there are acutal homoseuxals.

33 posted on 04/20/2010 2:32:34 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The leaders agree with the president that patients, whatever their sexual orientation, need their love ones by their sides and have a right to choose who they want to make medical decisions on their behalf.

If one's "sexual orientation" is bestiality (hey, if "civil rights pioneer" Frank Kameny doesn't think anything is wrong with it...), then does that mean a Shetland Pony can be lead into a hospital for "visitation rights"? (Nurse, please pull the curtain, we'd like to be alone for a few minutes).

Based on the amount of disease, drug abuse, alcoholism, etc. etc. etc. that is attributed to the homosexual lifestyle, it's likely that the "loved one" visiting is partially responsible for putting said patient into the hospital.

34 posted on 04/20/2010 3:08:45 PM PDT by aSeattleConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

And here’s the crux of the issue: “letting” rather than “forcing” compliance. I believe legally executed contracts and wills should hold sway, but default recognition at homosexuals’ whim is what is being sought here. So you have a “married” sodomite couple from mAssachusetts now demanding that their “marriage” be recognized in a normal state for purposes of being treated as a spouse in a hospital setting. It’s a wedge that the sodomites will capitalize on for all it’s worth.


35 posted on 04/21/2010 5:42:46 AM PDT by fwdude (It is not the liberals who will destroy this country, but the "moderates.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
some Christian leaders ok with anything...they are apostate

When you're a "Christian" all bound up in the heathen philosophy of psychology, what do you expect?

36 posted on 04/21/2010 5:44:47 AM PDT by fwdude (It is not the liberals who will destroy this country, but the "moderates.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Hospital policies generally allow only visitors related by blood or marriage to visit a seriously injured or ill patient.

First of all, this is nonsense. Secondly, anyone can designate a durable medical power of attorney to anyone they wish. It takes a few minutes. In other words, this is a solution to a problem that simply doesn't exist.

37 posted on 04/21/2010 5:46:23 AM PDT by Sloth (Civil disobedience? I'm afraid only the uncivil kind is going to cut it this time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

I don’t like big groups either.It’s more pleasant to have a small group of close friends around,instead of some huge gathering where most of the people are strangers.I’m not too crazy about small talk,either.Like you I’m bored with fashion.I don’t know how anyone can wear those ugly clothes you’ll see models modeling on the catwalk.My mother likes to watch those programs where models and the people who make the clothing are featured.Most of them are gay men!


38 posted on 04/21/2010 12:01:47 PM PDT by POWERSBOOTHEFAN (Blessed Be The Name Of The Lord,For His Name Alone Is Exaulted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

from what I see the immediate family can still exclude any non-blood family.

Only a legal document changes that straight or abnormal


39 posted on 04/21/2010 12:07:05 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: POWERSBOOTHEFAN

Most? More like 99%!

It’s a crazy world and I want no part of it.

I like to be around trees and wild animals much more than I want to be around most people.

:-)


40 posted on 04/21/2010 12:23:06 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

At times I’d rather be around my cat than around other people!At least he won’t criticize me and give me a hard time.I find my cat to be very comforting,and he’ll stay with me when I’m not feeling well.


41 posted on 04/21/2010 12:44:33 PM PDT by POWERSBOOTHEFAN (Blessed Be The Name Of The Lord,For His Name Alone Is Exaulted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
think the patient or next of kin or whatever should decide on who can visit. Its none of the governments business. If I want my best fishing buddy to visit that should be okay too.

The problem is how does the hospital know you want him in if you are too sick or injured to tell them. OTOH, do you want your best fishing buddy deciding whether or not to put you under the knife?

42 posted on 04/21/2010 12:50:12 PM PDT by ColdWater ("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

I think visitation and being able to make medical decisions should be separated a bit.


43 posted on 04/21/2010 1:52:15 PM PDT by GeronL (http://libertyfic.proboards.com << Get your science fiction and fiction test marketed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson