Saturday, December 19, 2009


My best friend Mark's friends W and A have known each other since they were six--they are now in their mid-40s. They've been a couple for 17 years now.

W is in poor health. The particulars are really neither here nor there. Earlier this week--Monday, I believe, W suffered a massive heart attack. He spent several days in the cardiac ICU, suffering from (at the least) kidney failure. He, at one point in time, had a roughly 50/50 chance of survival.

Mark, having once worked as W's personal assistant, knows his cardiologist. He guessed the right hospital, and was able to call and find out that W was indeed there, and that he was in the ICU.

Everyone is mostly in the dark about W's status. When he was moved from ICU to a telemetry room (I think), I asked Mark if W's prognosis had improved. He didn't know. More importantly, A didn't know. See, W & A are gay. So they cannot marry. So A has no right to information about the man he's devoted himself to for the better part of two decades. (Yes, being given W's medical power of attorney would have made a slight difference there--but really, how many people have the foresight to sign that document, regardless of sexual orientation?)

My boyfriend has said more than once on his blog that the problem with democracy is that it allows 51% of the people to force their views on the other 49%. I've told him he's not quite right to say that. Given voter turnout, there's really no such thing as majority rule.

When the prohibition of homosexual marriage was, God forgive us, encoded in the Texas constitution, the voter turnout was somewhere in the neighborhood of 17% - 21% (I don't recall the exact number, but it was tiny). I'm not even certain how to figure a percentage of a percentage, but it's plainly obvious that a very small minority of Texans was able to strip an entire group of people of their rights.

I would love to see an honest philosophical defense of this. It's not even decent Utilitarianism--there's no greatest good served here. It certainly fails Kant's imperative that you make no moral law to which you except yourself. It's definitely not good Christianity, as Jesus commanded us all to love one another as I have loved you.

Nothing, but nothing, is morally acceptable about preventing a long-in-love couple from marrying one another. I could be married to the Pistolero by the end of the year (I won't be, but I could be), and we've been a couple only three months.

Morality, logic, conservatism...this fiasco fails all three of these tests.


Dave said...

I would love to see an honest philosophical defense of this.

Don't hold your breath; there is none.

TBeck said...

Another problem with America today is that people see nothing wrong with using the power of law to make illegal anything they find unpleasant, regardless of whether or not any injury is done.

Bob S. said...


It can be worse then having a GLBT couple being excluded from caring for one another.

Have you ever seen families torn apart because a parent or loved one didn't have a medical directive or power of attorney?

I have - my own.

I encourage everyone to get your wills done, get a limited power of attorney, get a medical power of attorney, get your medical directives in place - NOW.

All those documents can easily and cheaply be done.

Especially for gay couples, there is no excuse for not having them in place. The hospitals are going to be very lawsuit shy and follow the law to the letter.

Anonymous said...

wow u are a fav site of mine to peruse - this entry says why
thanks and Merry Cristmas and happy, healthy new year to you the girls and pistolero