Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Woman denied hospital visitation rights

As her partner of 17 years slipped into a coma, Janice Langbehn pleaded with doctors and anyone who would listen to let her into the woman's hospital room.Eight anguishing hours passed before Langbehn would be allowed into Jackson Memorial Hospital's Ryder Trauma Center. By then, she could only say her final farewell as a priest performed the last rites on 39-year-old Lisa Marie Pond.Jackson staffers advised Langbehn that she could not see Pond earlier because the hospital's visitation policy in cases of emergency was limited to immediate family and spouses -- not partners. In Florida, same-sex marriages or partnerships are not recognized. On Friday, two years after her partner's death, Langbehn and her attorneys were in federal court, claiming emotional distress and negligence in a suit they filed last June.Jackson attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the case on grounds that the hospital has no obligation to allow patients' visitors.Following a hearing lasting more than an hour Friday, U.S. District Judge Adalberto Jordan said he would try to decide soon whether the case could proceed to trial. He gave no specific date.The suit is winding its way through federal court only months after voters approved the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The statewide amendment garnered more than 62 percent of voters -- surpassing the 60 percent threshold required for ratification.Supporters of Florida's Amendment 2 -- mostly conservatives and Christian groups -- argued it was needed to protect families and the traditional institution of marriage by promoting homes with a mom and a dad.Opponents argued that gay and straight, unmarried Floridians risked losing domestic partner benefits, such as health insurance, hospital visitation rights and the ability to make end-of-life decisions.At Friday's hearing, Langbehn's lawyers argued the case should be tried because Langbehn had the proper documentation to make medical decisions on behalf of her partner, and was not consulted about Pond's condition for hours despite seeking answers every 20 minutes.''This is not just about same-sex couples,'' said attorney Donald Hayden, who is also representing the Langbehn family. ``This is about protecting the legal access that a parent has to see a child, or an essential loved ones right to be aware of what is going on with their loved one.''Attorneys for Jackson argued that hospital staff did not purposely try to harm the family or cause emotional stress.''There's just not enough there to say that these doctors intentionally tried to cause distress,'' attorney Andrew Boese told the judge.Pond's medical problems began in February 2007 when she, Langbehn and their three adopted children were aboard a cruise ship docked in Miami. The Washington state couple and their children were on vacation.Pond suddenly collapsed from a heart attack and was rushed to the trauma center.Though Langbehn had documents declaring her Pond's legal guardian and giving her the medical ''power of attorney,'' Jackson officials refused to recognize her or the kids as family.Langbehn, who still lives in Washington, was not available for comment Friday, but in a 2007 interview with The Miami Herald she said, ``Any family should have the right to hold their loved one's hand in the last moments of life, and we were denied that.''Langbehn's supporters are livid about the hospital's actions.''We are here to ensure that families get the respect they deserve at Jackson Memorial Hospital and to prevent Janice's tragedy from happening to anyone else,'' said Beth Littrell, an attorney for Lambda Legal, a national group that fights for the civil rights of gays. ``This family deserves to have its day in court.''

Saturday, May 16, 2009

Sexist wedding traditions


Summer is almost here, which means...it's wedding season!!! "Here comes the bride, all dressed in white..." Weddings are full of traditions, most of which an American audience is familiar with. Even some of the most empowered women follow outdated and even sexist traditions in their weddings. Let's take a look at some, listed in no particular order. (And to anyone who may read this who is LGBT, I apologize-I realize that this particular posting is mainly geared towards heterosexual couples.)
1) The focus on the bride!! Why is the bride the sole focus of attention?Sure, she's about to make some vows and take a big life step. So is the groom! He's about to make those same vows and take that same leap. Why is he ignored?
2) The engagement ring. Why do only women wear it? Why shouldn't men? Oh, right. Because women who are "taken" must always show that they are.
3) The hand-off. When the minister says, "Who gives this woman to be married?" her father or other significant male in her life replies that he does. The mother doesn't give the bride away, only the father. Does the bride not make this choice to be married of her own free will? Why, then, is she being "given away" at all? The "giving away" symbolizes a transfer of ownership.
4) Guests standing as the bride walks down the aisle. I know, I know...standing is a sign of respect. Respect for what? Respect for the bride because now she's got a man to take care of her for the rest of her life? A woman should be respected for her accomplishments, not her landing of a man.
5)The bride taking the groom's last name. Again, an outdated symbol of a transfer of ownership.

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Washington-Decline to Sign Petitious for Referendum 71!

I remember clearly the day that the Washington legislature voted to upgrade the rights granted to couples in domestic partnerships. I also remember saying that equality opponents were never going to sit stilll. Never had I wanted so badly to be wrong, but sadly, I was right. On Monday, Larry Stickney, president of the Washington Values Association, filed Referendum 71. This referendum, if it gets on the ballot, will give voters the ability to strip couples in domestic partnerships of the few rights they so recently gained. Now people are out trying to collect signatures to get this referendum on the ballot. They have to have over 120,500 signatures by July 25 to have this on the November 3 ballot.All I have to say to the people who support this referendum is:Why? How does this issue affect you, your marriage, or your life in any way? All this referendum will do if it passes is strip people-fellow human beings-of their rights. Certain couples are already being denied, at last count, 1,138 federal rights (Source: http://lataxlawyer.net/ab205.html) Why would you want to strip them of the very few rights that they did gain when our new domestic partnership laws went into effect? This isn't an issue about religion. You don't have to personally accept LGBT people -heck, you don't even have to talk to them. Your churches can continue to refuse to bless same-sex unions. All you have to do is acknowlege that in those same sex unions are two PEOPLE.DECLINE TO SIGN!!!