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.
“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?
Why would it not also include unmarried heterosexual couples?
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.
No.
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.
some Christian leaders ok with anything...they are apostate
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
you’re a chick!
i always thought you were a libertarian-unusual religious male
too funny
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.
;-)
lol...I like yer posts...just never figured...wow
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.
:-)
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.
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.
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.
When you're a "Christian" all bound up in the heathen philosophy of psychology, what do you expect?
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.
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!
from what I see the immediate family can still exclude any non-blood family.
Only a legal document changes that straight or abnormal
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.
:-)
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.