Yes, but wills and even medical directives won't allow a gay partner  
to make medical decisions for a terminally-ill patient if the partner  
doesn't have legal status as a partner.  Most hospitals only allow  
medical information and access to the family of the patient but not  
to non-spouses or friends.  I personally witnessed the pain and  
anguish a friend of mine went through when he tried to see his dying  
lover in the hospital but they denied him access because the family  
had specifically requested he be banned from being by his lover's  
bedside; he consulted a lawyer but was told he had no legal standing  
and there was nothing that could be done.  He was devastated even  
more when he wasn't allowed to be part of the funeral and wasn't  
allowed to come to the shiva.  This was before living wills became  
available as a rule so they had not thought about either one of them  
needing any such directives.

I know our law student, Joy, would probably be more helpful in this,  
but I think civil unions at least here in the US would give gay  
couples basic rights and legal status not covered by wills and other  
contracts.  They certainly would give gay couples a legality that is  
needed.

As for marriages, that is another level that I think is best left to  
the churches and synagogues, not the government.  I thought  
conservatives were all for government staying out of people's lives  
but the Bush Administration certainly has proved me wrong.

Kat

On 24 Apr 2006, at 23:42, ken barber wrote:

maybe the 20 or so that i know are just more agressive
about what they want. i think they can inherit assets,
they just have to be sure to have a will, which i
suggest is best for all couples. in many cases
companies give gay couples rights that a non married
man and woman are not afforded.

--- Kathleen Salkin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Here's my problem - we are all human, right?  We
> disabled want the
> right to live our adult lives as we please, get
> married, have
> children, etc., etc.  Gay people are humans, too.
> So how can we
> advocate for rights for disabled adults and not gay
> adults?
>
> I honestly don't see what the problem is in allowing
> gays the right
> to inherit assets and be included in benefits the
> same as straight
> couples.  I'm not against legal gay marriages either
> but all the gays
> I know would be happy just to be allowed to have the
> legal right to
> jointly own assets and be treated as someone
> significant in their
> partner's life and inherit their partner's estate
> under the full
> protection of the law.
>
> I just think that there are more people who actually
> support gays in
> this than in legal marriages, and if the marriage
> bit wasn't such a
> hot topic, it'd all be very civilised.  I feel
> people are letting
> their fear overwhelm compassion.
>
> Kat
>
>
> On 24 Apr 2006, at 22:41, ken barber wrote:
>
> the gay people i know want to be recognized as
> married
> by church and state. if they got a civil union,
> they'd
> take it as an incremental victory, but, would still
> want to press for marrage recognised by both church
> and state. some, but, not all of them would even sue
> a
> church for withholding fellowship becouse the
> particular church just don't believe that it is
> right.
> i could name a few who would not, but, more of them
> would. i'll give you all this, the ones i know may
> not
> be a scientific sample, but, then again maybe they
> are.
>
> --- Kendall David Corbett <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>> becouse that is not what the homosexuals want.
> you
>>> know it, i know it, and everyone else knows it.
>>
>> Ken,
>>
>> Maybe I'm dense, but would you be so kind as to
>> explain "what the
>> homosexuals want"?
>>
>> The gay and lesbian couples I know, including my
>> sister and her partner,
>> and my best friend from grade school and his
>> partner, want to be able to
>> own property together and not have to go through
>> probate to maintain
>> ownership of the property if one of them dies, or
> to
>> incur additional
>> legal expenses that others don't have to incur to
>> prevent that.  They
>> also want to be able to make health care decisions
>> for their life
>> partner should one of them be involved in an
>> accident, or should they
>> have a terminal illness.  They want to be able to
>> name their partner as
>> the beneficiary of their life insurance policy
>> without going through
>> extraordinary legal measures.
>>
>> Using phraseology like "what the homosexuals want"
>> sets up another
>> artificial "us vs. them" dichotomy, much like
> people
>> in the disability
>> community have been fighting for years.  I find
> the
>> similarities between
>> the disability rights movement and the gay rights
>> movements to be
>> striking; Mike Jefferies has been talking about
> the
>> difficulties he has
>> in conducting a relationship, and many of us said
> we
>> had experienced
>> similar difficulties, if not to the same degree.
> So
>> if people with
>> disabilities don't want to be "Those People," why
>> should we make another
>> group "those people?"
>>
>>
>> All the gay and lesbian people I know (and for
>> living in Wyoming, I know
>> a lot) want to be able to do their jobs and to
> have
>> "quiet enjoyment" of
>> their lives without undue interference by the
>> government and in some
>> cases, their families.
>> Kendall
>>
>> An unreasonable man (but my wife says that's
>> redundant!)
>>
>> The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
> the
>> unreasonable one
>> persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
>> Therefore, all
>> progress depends on the unreasonable man.
>>
>> -George Bernard Shaw 1856-1950
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Linda Walker [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 1:22 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [C-PALSY] Polygamists may go the way
> of
>> Al Capone
>>
>> Exactly. The same rights the disabled community
>> wants ought to be
>> afforded other minorities as well.
>>
>> At 05:01 AM 4/23/2006, you wrote:
>>> Hi Kat,
>>>
>>>   The really silly thing here is the ignorance of
>> what's actaully =
>>> happening in real world. Gay couple live
> together,
>> the acquire
>> children, =
>>> have houses, get sick get old and die. Not making
>> the relationship =
>>> doesn't change reality. Nor make anyone become
>> ungay, it simply robs =
>>> people of dignity and rights. I support gay
>> marraige have you seen the
>> =
>>> length of some of the relationships of the people
>> who want to get =
>>> married? They have logged some serious years. And
>> it would seem about =
>>> making a commitment whether or not its a publicly
>> approved thing.=20
>>>
>>> The same thing happens with ployamory, which by
> the
>> way is alive and =
>>> well and operating in your community. You would
> be
>> amazed how many =
>>> people operate under the radar living quietly as
>> they chose. You cannot
>> =
>>> legislate how people will live, they will do it
>> their way, regardless.
>> =
>>> In the end its not about marriage, or multiple
>> partners its about the =
>>> threat of someone being different and you ability
>> to force them to be =
>>> like you.=20
>>>
>>> Frankly, with the divorce rate as it is(50% of
> 1st
>> marriages, 50% of
>> 2nd =
>>> marriages and 16% of 3rd marraiges) - why aren't
>> people more concerned
>> =
>>> with the folks who walk out on the commitments -
>> single mom and kids -
>> =
>>> there is group that suffers( and are on
> welfare!!).
>> The whole marriage
>> =
>>> thing needs to be examined - obviously something
>
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

-----------------------

To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:

http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy

-----------------------

To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:

http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy