Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Lack of Political Power in Minnesota and Script 5

Testimony

By Julia Rosen

One of the main arguments by the plaintiffs in Perry v. Schwarzenegger is that LGBTs lack the political power to protect their basic rights. Nowhere is that more evident today than Minnesota. Governor Pawlenty, who many expect will run for president in 2012, just vetoed a bill that would have allowed same-sex partners to decide what should happen with their loved one’s body when they die. Pioneer Press:

Pawlenty had said he would veto the bill, calling it unnecessary because partners can draw up a living will. But advocates argue that married couples do not have to do that and that legal documents often cost money to draft.

The “Final Wishes” bill would have been the second one supported by Project 515 to be passed into law. The group is named after the 515 Minnesota laws it says discriminate against same-sex couples, though the group is not seeking marriage rights for gays and lesbians.

Pawlenty’s actions are absolutely reprehensible. Can you imagine what it would be like for a surviving member of a same-sex couple to have to watch a perhaps distant relative make that decision because they forgot to go to a lawyer to pay them for documents that a marriage automatically provides?

This issue of political power is actually Script No. 5 “Gary Segura: Do gay and lesbians lack political power.” Fight back against Pawlenty. Go reenact Script 5 and spread the message that unless marriage equality is the law of the land, we will continue to have losses just like today in Minnesota.

Tags: , ,

53 Comments

  • 1. K!r!lleXXI  |  May 17, 2010 at 3:25 am

    So, let's have a quick look.

    Minnesota banned same-sex marriages in 1997 by a simple statute, but failed to constitutionally outlaw any recognition of same-sex unions in various attempts in 2000s.

    Still, there is no special recognition of same-sex couples (no civil unions, no domestic partnerships). I wonder how that vetoed bill would have worked? How can you legally prove that the deceased was in a relationship with the survived person? Do you even have to prove it? That is the problem — if there is no paper to prove a simple fact that there was a relationship, you're screwed because you have to prove something in some other sophisticated ways… and for what? so you could bury the love of your life? This is what people have to deal with when they are grieving?

    No legal recognition of certain couples means animus against them, pure and simple hatred for no good and comprehensible reason, only someone's religious views that do not have to coincide with the official policy and personal business of people who do not hold same views. Why is this so hard to understand? Oh, maybe it's not that hard, maybe the real reason is the need to hate someone and get a license for that from God Almighty himself! So, God is the one who has the political power here, not the gays. Ain't that great to live in this beautiful world?

    K

  • 2. K!r!lleXXI  |  May 18, 2010 at 5:45 am

    The aforementioned bill provides the following definition of domestic partners (lines 2.27–3.4):

    (14) “Domestic partners” means two persons who:
    (i) are the same sex;
    (ii) are adults and mentally competent to enter into legally binding contracts;
    (iii) have assumed responsibility for each other's basic common welfare, financial obligations, and well-being;
    (iv) share a common domicile and primary residence with each other on a permanent basis;
    (v) have a committed interdependent relationship with each other, intend to continue that relationship indefinitely, and do not have this type of relationship with any other person;
    (vi) are not married to another person and have not entered into a domestic partnership arrangement with another person that is currently in effect; and
    (vii) are not related by blood or adoption so that a marriage between them would be prohibited under section 517.03, subdivision 1, paragraph (a), clause (2) or (3).

    Let's have a closer look at what two people need in order to prove they qualify under this description:

    are the same sex;
    Usually determining people's gender is very easy, but not always, not to mention some people can disguise it, so the only way to prove something is to show documents — birth certificates or photo IDs of both partners that mention their gender, and they should coincide. Marriage certificate, on the other hand, is one document that, in one way or another, mentions that.

    are adults and mentally competent to enter into legally binding contracts;
    Age can be determined from the same birth certificates or photo IDs that I mentioned above; however, mental competency is not something as obvious and it is not usually documented; I guess, it simply means that if a person was not deemed mentally incompetent, he should be deemed competent, that's a general presumption that, however, could be contested, especially if the person in question passed away — and posthumous expertise may deem the deceased person incompetent… Does it negate the partnership? Not clear! But if two people were married, they don't have to prove anything — a simple marriage contract they entered into once gives them all the rights, including decision-making concerning funeral arrangements.

    have assumed responsibility for each other's basic common welfare, financial obligations, and well-being;
    share a common domicile and primary residence with each other on a permanent basis;
    Again, how can you prove that? Joint bank accounts? Co-ownership of real estate and other property? Co-signed loans, mortgages? Living wills? Health care proxy? Do married people have to prove all that? Do they have to have joint bank accounts, co-own property or even live together? No! Then why do we have to prove that?

    have a committed interdependent relationship with each other, intend to continue that relationship indefinitely, and do not have this type of relationship with any other person;
    What defines a committed interdependent relationship? Who determines that? There is no paper to prove that, other than, maybe, pictures of them kissing on vacations spent together… Does it remind you anything? Oh, that's right — this is how Immigration Services make sure marriage a citizen entered into with a foreign national is real…
    Intention to continue a relationship — again, if there was marriage or any other recognition for same-sex couples, entering into such a union would have been a perfect proof of such intentions.
    Exclusivity — again, proving and fearing that someone will come up with a story that there is cheating going on… Are married couples not allowed to cheat? What about open marriages and open relationships? Why the government won't let people live their lives as they see fit? And what if one of the partners, for example, has co-signed a mortgage on another house with another person of same gender? Is that a violation? I only see limits that do not exist for married couples! Equal treatment under the law, huh?

    are not married to another person and have not entered into a domestic partnership arrangement with another person that is currently in effect;
    Well, that is easy to prove. However, what about same-sex marriages performed out of state? If the state does not recognize same-sex marriages and other forms of unions officially recognized in other jurisdictions, then how can it even enact this provision? You cannot pretend to recognize those unions for the sake of this one law, and then pretend that those unions do not exist for any other legal purposes! Just like it was done in New York and some other jurisdictions, same-sex unions recognized in other jurisdictions have to be officially recognized in the state of Minnesota, under the name of domestic partnerships, perhaps, but still there should be a legal decision, a paper, a law that says specifically this. Otherwise, I can say that this bill, should it be enacted, de facto means the state recognizes such unions; in that case it should recognize the documents that prove people have entered into such a union; thus a simple certificate of that should prove every point from the bill about requirements of recognizing a domestic partnership; thus this bill means a complete recognition of same-sex unions performed out-of-state, but without a specific decision, and only halfway. My head is spinning!

    are not related by blood or adoption so that a marriage between them would be prohibited.
    That's easy, but, then again, isn't that pretty much a talk about marriage? It even says "so that marriage between them" — because it is clear that someday those couples will be deemed married, it is only a matter of time, it is clear to everyone, so all they can do is kick and scream while they still can and while it is allowed to discriminate in the land of free people who are equal under the law… yeah, right… in the perfect world, maybe… And why is it not perfect? Because those very people who want a perfect world are standing in our way towards that perfect world where everyone is free and equal, truly.

    In conclusion, a simple marriage certificate that can be obtained for $25, without even a waiting period in some states (that allow shotgun weddings), upon meeting some simple requirements, is worth more and solves all the problems for opposite-sex couples that same-sex couples have to deal with through lawyers drawing endless amounts of legal documents, and still dreading it won't be enough or those documents will be ignored because of prejudice and animus. Refusing a simple recognition of a couple, without even the word “marriage,” is a real indicator of animus and hatred towards gays and lesbians; a real indicator of the lack of political power they have in the modern American society; a real indicator of how equal treatment under the law simply does not work for those who do not conform to the biblical standards… and so help me God, I can't find any part of the Constitution upholding such an order of things.

    Wow, I did not think I'll write so much! Sorry about that, folks! If Regan can, I can, too! 😛

    Sincerely,
    Kirill from Russia

  • 3. Richard A. Walter (s  |  May 17, 2010 at 3:27 am

    And Governor Pawlenty if refusing to acknowledge the fact that even when you have a living will, a durable power of attorney, a medical power of attorney, and have your will drafted so that your same-sex partner is your heir, that these same documents are usually either ignored, or they are challenged successfully because others convince the court system that the couple are "just roommates" like Sonoma County did with Clay and Harold.

  • 4. Ronnie  |  May 17, 2010 at 3:34 am

    This is my favorite part of Pawnlenty…I mean Pawlenty:

    "Last week, Pawlenty said he would veto the domestic partner funeral rights bill, deeming it unnecessary under current law and calling it an attempt to stir up political controversy." – advocate.com

    Well Mr. Pawnlenty….Did you even stop to think that vetoing this pro-American, pro-Human bill would stir up statewide and/or nationwide Civil Revolt?

    I think you didn't…JMHGO…<3…Ronnie

  • 5. Straight Ally #3008  |  May 17, 2010 at 4:18 am

    This is petty at best, evil at worst. Remember, this guy is going to run for President.

  • 6. Anne  |  May 17, 2010 at 4:35 am

    🙁 I live in MN and having such a gay-friendly state be headed by someone like this is awful. We finally have a law-suit going on to try to get our marriage rights, but who knows how long that will take (For more info: http://www.marrymeminnesota.org/) . We also have HF893 and SF120 that are being ignored by everyone but us activists. It seems like a marriage equality bill is not going to make it through and even if it did, Pawlenty would veto it. (http://marriageequalitymn.org/ for more info).

    I would like the ability to get married. 🙁

  • 7. PamC  |  May 17, 2010 at 7:45 am

    Does the Minnesota legislature have the capacity to overrule a Governor's veto?

  • 8. tim  |  May 17, 2010 at 8:02 am

    It requires 2/3rds of the House and the Senate. They don't have the votes.

  • 9. G Rod  |  May 21, 2010 at 12:16 pm

    @Anne Thank you for pointing out the lawsuit on behalf of three couples and a minor child. The May 11 submission to the Minnesota’s Hennepin County District Court was an interesting read, given that the first SSM law suite was determined there. While some of the arguments made here were the usual, and others were new. Peter Nickitas did not make use of case law from other jurisdictions. Marry Me Minnesota states that there minimally the outcome will be marriages in other jurisdictions will be recognized there. There was not a lot of reference to case law being built up elsewhere. Is LAMBDA or GLAD likely to make a Friend of the Court submission?
    While Ed below rightly takes the view that USA is slow in achieving this right, in reality the USA is a more complex democracy than some nations who have achieved it. Does achievement not only depend on whether the country is a unitary state or a federation and if the latter, the size of the federation and which level of government have the authority over the definition of marriage. Does it not also depend on how is the country's court system(s) organized?
    Again thank you for point this link out.

  • 10. Joe  |  May 17, 2010 at 4:41 am

    Born and raised there, Minnesotans are well known for their tolerance and "live and let live" attitude. Governor Pawlenty is flying in the fact of his constituents, ignoring the overwhelming majority of Minnesotans and a strong bipartisan bill only to appeal to the most homophobic members of his base in an attempt to win over nomination to higher office. And yet, his popularity in Minnesota is dwindling down, and eroding the Minnesota Republican party to ensure that once again control not only the state House and Senate to the Democrats, but the governorship as well for a very long time.

    Then, we can pass all the bills we want!

  • 11. Bolt  |  May 17, 2010 at 5:11 am

    He is pandering to the christianist bigots!

  • 12. Breathturn  |  May 19, 2010 at 11:07 am

    I keep such hope in my heart, Joe, but it is a little more dangerous than that. Except for the Twin Cities, Minnesota tends to be slightly right of center and people like Pawlenty and Emmer know this and sound moderate when courting votes, and voting conservative once they have the votes. This is going to be a tough race for Governor this year unless we get out and vote!

  • 13. Bolt  |  May 17, 2010 at 5:09 am

    If the national congress were to repeal DADT today, would that prove to the federal court system that LGBT's are not politically powerless? How would such a move effect the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case?

  • 14. Matt  |  May 17, 2010 at 4:56 pm

    I'm certainly no lawyer, by any stretch, but I believe such a situation would only have a minimal effect on the Perry case. Judges who already believe that LGBT's are politically powerful may look to that situation as validation of that conclusion, but judges who consider us powerless may look at the amount of time it took to overturn DADT as a validation of THEIR views.

    If a judge already has preconceived notions that the LGBT community is politically powerful, he won't have any problem finding "evidence" of that view, regardless of whether DADT is repealed or not. The only judges we have to be concerned about in regards to that particular argument, are the ones who are currently on the fence, and I think the evidence for our position (for example, the nearly 30 states that have passed constitutional bans against us over the last 8 years) outweighs any evidence that suggests we're no longer politically vulnerable.

  • 15. Bob  |  May 18, 2010 at 2:33 am

    right Matt, and I'm thinking withing a month we'll know the outcome of this trial, which has taken sooo long, I look forward with great anticipation, to hearing final arguements, and at last the judges ruling.
    I hope all the time has allowed for more discussion, and through that process, lawyers for the plaintiffs, may have had an opportunity to gain even more insight into our lives, we've been pretty open with sharing, on this blog, I'm sure they'll have someone checking it, to make sure they've left no stone unturned.
    June 16th is on it's way, we've all done our part to pave the way.

  • 16. sfindependent  |  May 17, 2010 at 6:16 am

    People really need to get a grip. If you currently do not have a legal status other than 'boyfriend' or 'partner,' then the bill was useless to you and a nuisance to the state.

    I would not for a single moment expect my rights to supersede those of a dead girlfriend's family. There is no way this bill would have helped ANYONE until same sex civil unions are legitimized by the state.

    Your agenda would move faster if you focused on what is actually important.

  • 17. Monty  |  May 17, 2010 at 6:39 am

    That point was covered in comment #1 already. However, I think this bill passing would still be a meaningful victory for us, not only because it's one fewer thing to deal with later, but because it would have created yet another inconsistency in the marriage laws.

  • 18. Monty  |  May 17, 2010 at 6:40 am

    Forgot to add my second point: marriage equality on its own can only move so fast, so it makes sense to work on multiple fronts.

  • 19. tim  |  May 17, 2010 at 8:06 am

    Do you live here? That what do you know whats important or not. It looks like you are from California – and you strategy worked so well how again? Oh thats right – it completely and utterly failed by every measure.

    The bill defined domestic partners. And most cities have a domestic partner registration. It was not useless on any level. Our strategy is simple – there are 515 laws on the books that discriminate against same sex couples. We are going after them one by one.

    Please stay away.

  • 20. Straight Grandmother  |  May 18, 2010 at 3:01 pm

    I think your comments are made without having a background in having someone very close to you pass away. Once you experience that you will know that this bill was and IS important. In fact on my kitchen table I have the cremated remains of a dear friend. She wished to have her ashes spread in France, where I live. I'll be taking them back with me to France next week. Her husband made this decision to follow her wishes. But what about GLBT couples. Without a law like this a family member can override the GLBT spouces (domestic partner) decision and not have the ashes spread in France. Yes death is a very BIG Deal and this law would have been very considerate.

  • 21. Ronnie  |  May 17, 2010 at 6:55 am

    http://www.towleroad.com/2010/05/portugals-presid

    PORTUGAL'S PRESIDENT TO SIGN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE INTO LAW

    Portuguese President Anibal Cavaco Silva says he will sign a marriage equality bill, the AP reports:

    "The head of state's decision to permit the enactment of a bill passed by Parliament in January makes Portugal the sixth European country allowing same-sex couples to wed. President Anibal Cavaco Silva said in a nationally televised address he regretted that the country's political parties had failed to reach a compromise during days of heated debate in Parliament four months ago. Vetoing the bill would only send it back to Parliament where lawmakers would overturn his decision, he said, adding that the country needed to focus on overcoming an economic crisis that has increased unemployment and deepened poverty…'Given that fact, I feel I should not contribute to a pointless extension of this debate, which would only serve to deepen the divisions between the Portuguese and divert the attention of politicians away from the grave problems affecting us,' Cavaco Silva said."

    (me) Legalizing Same-Gender Marriage to save the Economy?!….If the Hateros of our American government could see the same thing…..FOOLS!!!….They are FOOLS

    EQUALITY NOW!!!….<3…Ronnie

  • 22. K!r!lleXXI  |  May 17, 2010 at 7:00 am

    Finally Portugal came through with this!
    Parabéns a Portugal!

  • 23. Bolt  |  May 17, 2010 at 9:09 am

    Awesome!

  • 24. Straight Ally #3008  |  May 17, 2010 at 10:48 am

    Canada, Netherlands, Spain, South Africa, Norway, Belgium, Sweden, and Portugal. It's not looking good for us to be number nine (it's de facto legal in Mexico, for example) – but hopefully we won't fall too much farther behind the rest of the world. But hey, we're sure to beat Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Uganda, Syria, Malaysia, and the like.

  • 25. Straight Grandmother  |  May 18, 2010 at 3:13 pm

    Go Portugal!!!

  • 26. Ed  |  May 17, 2010 at 7:42 am

    So….is america (yes i left it lower-case on prupose) the leader of the free world? I think not. While I am overjoyed/pleased/surprised by this outcome, it reminds me that I now live in a shameful country. Land of the free? Fuck You.
    Congrats Portugal!
    Ed

  • 27. Monty  |  May 17, 2010 at 7:46 am

    Land of the free…for those who can afford it and look and act like the majority.

  • 28. Ed  |  May 17, 2010 at 7:51 am

    So I just sent this email to the white house (again, intentionally lower case)

    So Portugal just legalized same sex marriage. As I am in a relationship with another man going on four years, when will I be able to marry him? Oh btw, we live in Indiana, where our relationship is not recognized. Alright, can I just pay lower taxes since I'm not able to enjoy all the benefits of marriage?
    america, land of the free? (Yes I left it uncapitalized on purpose), What a shame it is to be part of this country. FULL EQUALITY NOW!!!!!!!
    Ed

  • 29. Ed  |  May 17, 2010 at 7:58 am

    I also sent this one….

    Oh, did I also mention my co worker married his wife after knowing her for 6 weeks? Yes, thats right, 6 weeks! My relationship of 4 years is not long enough to get married, but 6 weeks is?
    (Shameful american)
    Ed

  • 30. Ronnie  |  May 17, 2010 at 8:00 am

    I'm reprising this song I put together a while back on another thread……

    Oh America…..the land of the free to live how I want you to live…the home of the slave owner and cowardly….let your white hood wave…America….America….You shed your hate on the….This Land is my land….but not your land…if you do not live like me….I oppress you….Coming to America (If you are straight)…..Coming to America (Only if your legal)…..Coming to America (Not you Canada)…..Coming to America (Not those 3rd world latin countries down below)…..Bye Bye Miss Un-American Bi (because you know only straight people are American)…..AANNDD THE HOOOME OOF THEEE….
    HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATEEEE!!!!!

    copyright…..Ronnie Mc….hehehehe….<3

  • 31. Straight Ally #3008  |  May 17, 2010 at 10:35 am

    The situation reminds me a bit of Living Colour's "Which Way to America":

    I look at the T.V.
    Your America's doing well
    I look out the window
    My America's catching hell
    I just want to know which way do I go to get to your America?
    I just want to know which way do I go to get to your America?
    I change the channel
    Your America's doing fine
    I read the headlines
    My America's doing time
    I just want to know which way do I go to get to your America?
    I just want to know which way do I go to get to your America

  • 32. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  May 17, 2010 at 8:05 am

    What exactly is he saying here?

    'President Anibal Cavaco Silva said in a nationally televised address he regretted that the country's political parties had failed to reach a compromise during days of heated debate in Parliament four months ago.'

    What compromise is he speaking of? Was he hoping for something less than marriage equality?

  • 33. K!r!lleXXI  |  May 17, 2010 at 8:09 am

    @Mark M.
    Maybe civil unions could be a compromise… just like it happened in several other countries. When anti-marriage-equality people push their religious agenda too much, there is nothing you can do but compromise and give gays CUs.

  • 34. Ed  |  May 17, 2010 at 8:07 am

    and another……

    DOMA. This is not a policy debate. This policy is not about defense. This policy is not about protection of marriage…This policy is about ME! Thats right, this policy is not just words typed on a piece of paper, this policy affects MY LIFE!!!!!!!!
    REPEAL THIS SHAMEFUL PIECE OF LEGISLATION NOW!!!!!!

    shameful TAX PAYING american,

    Ed

    btw, i had to enter in the term "man trending" in order to post…..how ironic…..

  • 35. biff  |  May 17, 2010 at 10:22 am

    As a former resident of minnesota, i have been increasingly apalled by the sate of political affairs there. Other than the election of Franken,it seems it's been going down hill for years! My step-father was a major attourney in the area, we lived in Lake Calhoun, and I grew up in Wayzata. As major contributors to the arts and ballet, I was always taught that creative people should be respected! And as a gay person myself, I had a responsibilty to the arts there…..I feel bereft at this point that I left so many years ago, and now I wonder should I have stayed?…I think it's hardly likely I could have made a differance, but, still I wonder…

  • 36. Billy  |  May 17, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    Heck no, biffy, I'm glad you came to Indiana (otherwise you wouldn't have met me, huh). Besides, I think the people of Minnesota can deal with their own problems… just keep them away from wood chippers though. That can get messy.

  • 37. truthspew  |  May 17, 2010 at 3:02 pm

    Gov. Don Carcieri of RI (A Repug no less) vetoed the funeral rights bill in RI too. But the legislature overrode the bastard.

  • 38. Ronnie  |  May 18, 2010 at 2:44 am

    From towelroad.com

    "More than 4,000 people showed up at Singapore's Hong Lim Park on Saturday for the 2nd annual Pink Dot celebration of "inclusiveness, diversity and the freedom to love.".."aims to raise awareness and foster deeper understanding of the basic human need to love and be loved, regardless of one’s sexual orientation. This year’s theme is family, and the peaceful event was attended by both straight and gay Singaporeans and permanent residents, some who came w/their family."

    (me)….. : ) ……Ronnie
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKLhpkIrmc4&fe…!

  • 39. Rightthingtodo TX  |  May 18, 2010 at 3:24 am

    off topic but still very Schadenfreude
    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opin

    anyone keeping count?

    rentboy Rekers
    larry craig
    ted haggard

    there's more right?

  • 40. K!r!lleXXI  |  May 18, 2010 at 3:34 am

    @Rightthingtodo TX

    The question is, "How do you know when a rabid, virulent anti-gay activist is, in fact, gay?"
    And the answer is, "Well, duuuh!"
    (Roy Zimmerman)

    K

  • 41. Rightthingtodo TX  |  May 18, 2010 at 6:50 am

    Brilliant…hadn't seen or heard that before.

  • 42. Ronnie  |  May 18, 2010 at 3:43 am

    I read about that this morning on toweroad.com…

    Get this he recorded a video "Praising Abstinence"…wait for it….with Tracy Jackson, THE WOMAN HE HAD THE AFFAIR WITH……Epic FAIL!!!…..<3…Ronnie

  • 43. Straight Ally #3008  |  May 18, 2010 at 8:53 am

    Still waiting to see who is next:

    Brian Brown
    Lou Engle
    Tony Perkins

    (Fred Phelps will die before he gets caught)

  • 44. Richard A. Walter (s  |  May 18, 2010 at 9:42 am

    And the manner of his death is probably what will trip him up. Someone will probably do what they did to Bob Crane.

  • 45. Straight Ally #3008  |  May 19, 2010 at 1:05 am

    …unless he does something like what Gary Aldridge did to himself. Not that I'd wish either fate on anyone, of course, just speaking in terms of maximum irony….

  • 46. Kathleen  |  May 18, 2010 at 7:13 am

    UPDATE: A "Media Coalition" made up of numerous TV and Radio news entities has written a letter to Judge Walker, expressing its interest in "recording, broadcasting and webcasting the closing arguments."

    Letter available here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/31569783/Doc-670

  • 47. Carvel  |  May 20, 2010 at 1:11 pm

    The simple truth of the matter is that if we had political power then none of this would be necessary. If we had political power then it would not be an issue. Jews are a very smal minority, but they are vigilant in bringing attention to actions which defame them. Blacks were treated like second class citizens and they have much larger number than we have. While size is not an indication of power, it certainly means that you are a minority. If the law allows you to be discriminated against then BY LAW YOU DO NOT HAVE POWER. The Roman Catholic Church used to excommunicate people a few hundred years ago and they could be killed without any civil authority getting involved. Branded by the church you had no authority or power.

  • 48. Legislation in Review 5/2&hellip  |  May 21, 2010 at 2:17 pm

    […] 3)The “Final Wishes” Bill in Minnesota The Final Wishes Bill was a piece of legislation in Minnesota that would have allowed same-sex partners to decide what to do with the body of their partner (or spouse!) after death. It passed the House and Senate of the state, only to be Vetoed by Governor Tim Pawlenty. His reasoning? Gay people can already draw up a living will. Never mind the cost of the creating a legal document, or the amount of challenges it could have. A judge could rule a living will invalid, and that’s, um, scary, for every queer couple. It just seems intentionally hard-hearted (and politically minded) to me for the Governor to ignore a problem his constitutents really have. The state’s backing here would give so much legitimacy towards this issue. And really, I have to call it like I see it: It’s spite when someone is so against “the homosexual agenda” that they refuse to acknowledge the feelings of loss and powerlessness a queer person acutely feels at the death of a partner.  It is the same feeling any widower feels with the added insult of being told they don’t have the right to feel that way. It’s a slap in the face. […]

  • 49. Woodworking4home&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    Steve’s Site…

    […] You are able to leave a response, or trackback from your own blog. Read more via the original source: iHealthy: « Squidoo blog Share and […]…

  • 50. ___ __  |  October 29, 2013 at 2:05 am

    I needed to thank you for this fantastic read!!
    I definitely enjoyed every bit of it. I have got you saved as a favorite to check out new
    things you post_

    Review my blog post … ___ __

  • 51. ________ ___  |  December 21, 2013 at 11:57 am

    I like what you guys are up too. Such clever work and reporting!
    Keep up the superb works guys I’ve you guys to our blogroll.

    Here is my web-site; ________ ___

  • 52. __ ________ ___  |  December 28, 2013 at 7:17 am

    It’s the best time to make some plans for the future and it’s
    time to be happy. I have read this post and if
    I could I wish to suggest you few interesting
    things or advice. Maybe you could write next articles referring to this article.
    I want to read more things about it!

    Here is my site; __ ________ ___

  • 53. строение коленного сустава Дона  |  April 17, 2014 at 5:12 pm

    Протезирование тазобедренного сустава дона Хошу себе……

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!