Hospital Visitation

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Aaaaaaaaaaand…yet another thread dissolved into a brochure on libertarianism and its philosophical justification.

“It’s awesome.”

Can we stick to the actual subject? This law - whether good, bad or indifferent - is in place by a referendum of Wisconsin voters, and no one is going to strike it down because it doesn’t pass the Ron Paul seal-of-approval.[/quote]

That is not quite the issue.

The issue is whether a rather strange law must be interpreted so extensively that it amounts to petty gruelty.

42

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
This is why Government should never legislate morality. [/quote]

But that is what government does. From prostitution to public intoxication, larceny, murder, DWI, and on and on. Really most laws are morality based. And I’m very happy about that. [/quote]

The Government is there to protect and uphold Personal liberty not morality. Things such as prostitution,drug laws, laws on marriage, public intox(as long as you are not harming anyone/thing) are not the responsibility of the governments. In fact each one of these that I listed clash with the governments role.

What is moral to you and moral to me are two different things how can a government possibly legislate morality.[/quote]

I think it’s immoral to kill someone, or to take their property. So I guess government is involved in morality.[/quote]

It sure is, in the for m of killing more people and taking more property than any other organisation.

[/quote]

And thank God they are there to kill the bad guys and take their stuff. I honestly think you suffer from US envy.[/quote]

But the kill much more good guys than bad guys and they take much more stuff from them too, for the very simple reason that there are more semi decent folk than real asswipes.

Just to satisfy my curiosity, could you quantify how much killing and property taking of “bad guys” offsets how much of this for the not so bad guys?

Preferably in percentages or ratios, like, maiming one bad guy offsets how many incarcerated non violent criminals?

43

[quote]orion wrote:

That is not quite the issue.

The issue is whether a rather strange law must be interpreted so extensively that it amounts to petty gruelty. [/quote]

We, that was my point - and the issue is not “hey, my Ron Paul decoder ring tells me we shouldn’t legislate morality, so this law makes no sense.”

The law (and morality) has been legislated in this case, and whether or not it passes muster under the Wisconsin constitution has nothing to do with whether Ron Paul (praise be unto him) thinks the government has a high wall of separation between church and state.

44

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Aaaaaaaaaaand…yet another thread dissolved into a brochure on libertarianism and its philosophical justification.

“It’s awesome.”

Can we stick to the actual subject? This law - whether good, bad or indifferent - is in place by a referendum of Wisconsin voters, and no one is going to strike it down because it doesn’t pass the Ron Paul seal-of-approval.[/quote]

This really boils down to what is in the Domestic Registry law which was passed in 2009.

Is the domestic registry “substantially similar” to marriage? I don’t know enough about the domestic registry, but I would say unless being on the registry alters your taxation status, or gives shared property rights, it is not substantially similar. To say that rights to hospital visitation alone make a domestic arrangement too marriagey is a ridiculous stretch and smacks of Senator Cornyn’s famous box-turtle stance. Obviously this is an attempt by Governor Walker to keep those pesky gays from getting a pinky toe in the marriage door.

As you said, the issue has nothing to do with legislating morality, and it has everything to do with whether Governor Walker is right that the registry is too similar to marriage.

45

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Does it violate the Wisconsin constitution? Set aside the teeth-gnashing and righteous indignation for a second - if the law violates the state constitution as it is written (presumably because it affords an “arrangement” similar to marriage), then there’s a legitimate problem here. Whether the governor should (or should not) uphold the law raises additional questions (of executive discretion on executing laws that executive considers unconstitutional).

But the question(s) appear to be a valid.

FWIW, I don’t like laws like these, and when I was living in a state that had a similar cosntitutional amendment up for referendum (not in that state now), I voted it against it precisely because it went this far (too far, in my view).

That said, this issue in Wisconsin is a fair one.

But, ironically, it’s clear that left-wing “rationalists” - who herald themselves as champions of “reason” - are nothing but blubbering emotionalists on this issue: the issue swept under the rug is the detached constitutional technicalities of the law, and the argument is a sobbing “how could he!”. It’s about “feelings”, and the governor should set aside the will of the people and not be “cruel”.

Not surprising. They aren’t as “rational” as they put on. As if a governor - any governor - should govern like that. [/quote]

I am sorry I am on my 3rd beer :slight_smile: did you say something or did you say nothing :slight_smile:

46

I hate to steal somebody else’s SCHTICK , but EYE ROLL :slight_smile:

47

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I hate to steal somebody else’s SCHTICK , but EYE ROLL :)[/quote]

He really should get a gif for that.

48

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Via Doug Mataconis, who describes Walker’s actions as despicably cruel we get this news out of Wisconsin:

[quote]Madison - Gov. Scott Walker believes a new law that gives gay couples hospital visitation rights violates the state constitution and has asked a judge to allow the state to stop defending it.

Democrats who controlled the Legislature in 2009 changed the law so that same-sex couples could sign up for domestic partnership registries with county clerks to secure some but not all of the rights afforded married couples.

Wisconsin Family Action sued last year in Dane County circuit court, arguing that the registries violated a 2006 amendment to the state constitution that bans gay marriage and any arrangement that is substantially similar.

Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen refused to defend the lawsuit, saying he agreed the new law violated the state constitution. Then-Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, hired Madison attorney Lester Pines to defend the state.

Walker, a Republican, replaced Doyle in January and fired Pines in March. On Friday, Walker filed a motion to stop defending the case.[/quote]

Doug asks, “Is the GOP hatred for gays so pervasive that they could really be this cold and heartless” To which I can only answer: yes, apparently it is, at least when we’re talking about the GOP in Scott Walker’s Wisconsin.

Walker is literally going out of his way to prevent two people in a loving, committed relationship from visiting one another at the hospital. In other words, at what is quite likely a couple’s darkest hour, Scott Walker wants to impose legal restrictions barring two people from being with one another. Imagine that your wife or your husband was in the hospital and you were legally prohibited from visiting them. Is this the role we want our government to play in our lives?

And Republicans pretend they are the party of limited government. What terrific frauds. What a ludicrous illusion they have cast about themselves. Somehow the media and the American electorate keeps falling for the same trick. Liberty for me but not for thee. Low taxes and a government bent on preventing even this small shred of basic, human decency.[/quote]

Seriously, what the fuck? How do you even justify this bullshit?[/quote]

If its against the state constitution, then its against the state constitution. They shouldn’t be granted visitation rights. Its pretty cut and dry. They can visit during normal visiting hours.

49

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
This is why Government should never legislate morality. [/quote]

But that is what government does. From prostitution to public intoxication, larceny, murder, DWI, and on and on. Really most laws are morality based. And I’m very happy about that. [/quote]

The Government is there to protect and uphold Personal liberty not morality. Things such as prostitution,drug laws, laws on marriage, public intox(as long as you are not harming anyone/thing) are not the responsibility of the governments. In fact each one of these that I listed clash with the governments role.

What is moral to you and moral to me are two different things how can a government possibly legislate morality.[/quote]

While I agree for the most part, marriage is a little different because government benefits and things like visitation rights are involved. So marriage has to have a clear definition, otherwise, who’s to say what it is. I for one think that marriage between a man and woman should be the only valid form of marriage the government recognizes. However if to hairy, stanky men want to live together and call themselves “man and wife” or whatever, then let them. What they do in the privacy of their own home is their business at that point.

50

So the governor of a cash-strapped state stops spending money on lawyers to defend a law that is clearly in violation of the state’s constitution?

Seems like he is doing his job.

Fix the law or amend the constitution.

We are in danger of losing our republic. Walker is doing the right thing to preserve the rule of law.

It is up to the people of Wisconsin to do the right thing to open visitation rights to all regardless of sexuality or relationship. Friends should be able to visit friends. You shouldn’t have to sleep together to have visitation rights.

51

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
This is why Government should never legislate morality. [/quote]

But that is what government does. From prostitution to public intoxication, larceny, murder, DWI, and on and on. Really most laws are morality based. And I’m very happy about that. [/quote]

I am not. The law is to protect your liberty, but also to keep your liberty from encroaching on others. Murder is obvious. Prostitution, not so much. If my neighbor rather pay for lay, than hook up in a relationship, I could give a damn less. If my neighbors want to be gay as hell, I could give a shit less. If someone wants to be drunk, as long as they don’t pass out in my yard I don’t care.
Now DUI, is a case of encroaching on somebody else’s right to liberty and therefore should be restricted. I understand there are some grey areas here, but most things are black and white. I pretty much disagree with all blue laws.
We need freedom from behaviour control…[/quote]

I agree with this. Prostitution is something I will not get into on here, as my views are completely radical compared to others on here, but definitely agree with the rest. The blue laws are ridiculous. In Alabama, you cannot have sorority houses because ten women living in the same house is considered a whorehouse. Really? Can’t they strike that from the books?

52

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
We hold these truths to be self evident… endowed by their creator… firm reliance on divine providence. Everybody knew what that meant and the vast majority agreed on what was moral and what was not. Hence limited government. That’s how we got started and that’s how we ascended. We began our decline when your tremendous wisdom launched it’s assault upon this nation in earnest in the 60’s. Congratulations, you’ve been very successful. We are now teetering on the brink of social destruction and bankruptcy. [/quote]

Would you agree that we were a LOT smaller back then to? European immigrants were largely Christian, with highly similar cultural backgrounds, making a common moral and social agreement possible.

We’re 280 million now with a lot of social and cultural enclaves. Do you feel it is appropriate to marginalize groups other than Christian, via legislation? I don’t personally feel comfortable with government having that kind of power. [/quote](Emphasis mine.) No, I don’t think it’s appropriate. it was the very voluntary nature of private morality that made this country possible. This post of yours was very insightful BTW. You are correct. We are no longer united and are for that reason utterly ill equipped for the freedom we once enjoyed. There simply cannot be limited government where nobody agrees on what’s right and wrong. Christianity provided that and we soared. Do I even have to finish?
[/quote]

So…should we return to a purely Christian country (Protestant, of course)? Possibly make a run for a theocracy? Are you saying the addition of other religions has ruined this country?

53

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Aaaaaaaaaaand…yet another thread dissolved into a brochure on libertarianism and its philosophical justification.

“It’s awesome.”

Can we stick to the actual subject? This law - whether good, bad or indifferent - is in place by a referendum of Wisconsin voters, and no one is going to strike it down because it doesn’t pass the Ron Paul seal-of-approval.[/quote]

This really boils down to what is in the Domestic Registry law which was passed in 2009.

Is the domestic registry “substantially similar” to marriage? I don’t know enough about the domestic registry, but I would say unless being on the registry alters your taxation status, or gives shared property rights, it is not substantially similar. To say that rights to hospital visitation alone make a domestic arrangement too marriagey is a ridiculous stretch and smacks of Senator Cornyn’s famous box-turtle stance. Obviously this is an attempt by Governor Walker to keep those pesky gays from getting a pinky toe in the marriage door.

As you said, the issue has nothing to do with legislating morality, and it has everything to do with whether Governor Walker is right that the registry is too similar to marriage.[/quote]

I agree. I wasn’t aware being on a list was similar to being married…

I’m pretty sure Wisconsin is regretting changing colors from Blue to Red, right about now…Between this and the teacher thing…

54

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Emergency and Hospitalization registry. There. [/quote]

I guess you could go the old route of getting power of attorney assigned to them, but that would be tedious to change every couple of months.

55

[quote]John S. wrote:
liberty not morality.[/quote]

Liberty is freedom, and you have the freedom to do what you ought. <— morality.

56

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
We hold these truths to be self evident… endowed by their creator… firm reliance on divine providence. Everybody knew what that meant and the vast majority agreed on what was moral and what was not. Hence limited government. That’s how we got started and that’s how we ascended. We began our decline when your tremendous wisdom launched it’s assault upon this nation in earnest in the 60’s. Congratulations, you’ve been very successful. We are now teetering on the brink of social destruction and bankruptcy. [/quote]

Would you agree that we were a LOT smaller back then to? European immigrants were largely Christian, with highly similar cultural backgrounds, making a common moral and social agreement possible.

We’re 280 million now with a lot of social and cultural enclaves. Do you feel it is appropriate to marginalize groups other than Christian, via legislation? I don’t personally feel comfortable with government having that kind of power. [/quote]

America is mostly Christian.

57

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
In Alabama, you cannot have sorority houses because ten women living in the same house is considered a whorehouse.
[/quote]

I am calling bullshit on this, Poor Clares the owners or EWTN have a convent in Alabama. There has to be more to this than that.

58

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
In Alabama, you cannot have sorority houses because ten women living in the same house is considered a whorehouse.
[/quote]

I am calling bullshit on this, Poor Clares the owners or EWTN have a convent in Alabama. There has to be more to this than that.[/quote]

A convent is a religious house, pretty sure religious groups are exempt.

However, I did research it and cannot find a concrete law. It appears to be an urban legend, though a friend of mine who was a law student told this many years ago and I did take it to be truth for the obvious reason that a law student was telling me and would know, right?

59

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
In Alabama, you cannot have sorority houses because ten women living in the same house is considered a whorehouse.
[/quote]

I am calling bullshit on this, Poor Clares the owners or EWTN have a convent in Alabama. There has to be more to this than that.[/quote]

A convent is a religious house, pretty sure religious groups are exempt.

However, I did research it and cannot find a concrete law. It appears to be an urban legend, though a friend of mine who was a law student told this many years ago and I did take it to be truth for the obvious reason that a law student was telling me and would know, right? [/quote]

I getcha, no worries. Although, I wouldn’t put it past good old 'bama to have such laws. Arizona has some ridiculous laws. There is a town up in N. Arizona that it’s still against the law for men to wear shorts.

60

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
In Alabama, you cannot have sorority houses because ten women living in the same house is considered a whorehouse.
[/quote]

I am calling bullshit on this, Poor Clares the owners or EWTN have a convent in Alabama. There has to be more to this than that.[/quote]

A convent is a religious house, pretty sure religious groups are exempt.

However, I did research it and cannot find a concrete law. It appears to be an urban legend, though a friend of mine who was a law student told this many years ago and I did take it to be truth for the obvious reason that a law student was telling me and would know, right? [/quote]

I getcha, no worries. Although, I wouldn’t put it past good old 'bama to have such laws. Arizona has some ridiculous laws. There is a town up in N. Arizona that it’s still against the law for men to wear shorts.[/quote]

America should enact a reverse version of the Muslim requirement to cover women up from head to toe. Cover men up completely and let women walk around naked.

/randomthought