Man No Longer Allowed To Visit Husband At KC Hospital

Source

“I was not recognized as being the husband, I wasn't recognized as being the partner,” Gorley said.
While not legally recognized as a couple in Missouri, Gorley says he and his partner Allen have been in a civil union for nearly five years, and make medical decisions for each other.
He says the nurse refused to verify they also share joint Power of Attorney.
“She didn't even bother to go look it up to check into it,” Gorley said. “He’s been at the psychiatric unit part several times.”

The simple fact of the matter here is, if this had been a woman... the wife (civil union or not) of the patient, this wouldn't be an issue. A nurse would not have refused to check the legal documents, actually more likely wouldn't have needed to check for legal documents to begin with. This is exactly why the 14th Amendment applies to same sex coupled who want to legally joined.

Where is the Liberty in Missouri and other States that refuse to recognize the choice of two adults deciding what type of relationship they want to have?

SOME people seem to think god made gays so christians and the like would have someone to hate.
this is why he created Muslims, Indians, and the more than 30 thousand other kinds of christians
( of course some Muslims and others seem anti gay as well, of course)

of course there is also a movement afoot too get power of attourney over old folks so they can be milked and then starved

Technically there not husbands. There domestic partners. Husbands would imply there married. There not married under the law or even under natural law for the matter. There just domestic partners. I dont agree with there life style but still, its messed up he cant see his partner.

This is the exact scenario that always pops into my head when thinking about the difficulty involved in being in love with someone of your own gender. It absolutely breaks my brain to imagine how anyone could justify keeping lifelong partners apart as one lay sick. Only lethal force could stop me.

I don't care how people justify inequity in this type of partnership, and simultaneously consider themselves humane. If I say anything else my entire post will consist of "snip" interspersed by words like "the" or "and".

This is what alot of people just don't "get". They think it's all about the "ring on the finger" mentality. When 2 people are partners in life and one enters a hospital, or other type facility it is still absolutely LEGAL for family to step into a situation they may have abandoned years ago, and start calling the shots...THIS is the problem, THIS is the issue (not just a ring). Great way to bring this very real topic front and center!!

Agree or disagree. Accept or don't accept.

The right thing to do, the human thing to do, the Christian thing to do, was to let the person see his partner.

In my humble opinion.

reply to post by beezzer


The Freedom and Liberty loving thing to do is to stop restricting adults on the legal and romantic choices they can make in their lives.

reply to post by Kali74


I agree.

Showing respect is not showing support. You can have your own feelings on the subject, that's fine.

But showing respect to any person should be universal.

reply to post by Kali74


Reading more about this, it seems the patient's family asked Gorley to leave and he refused. He was then arrested and escorted out for being "disruptive". Then the hospital got a restraining order against him... and he can't visit his partner at all.

More interesting stuff:

Under a 2010 memorandum, signed by President Obama, any hospitals that receive Medicare or Medicaid funding must allow visitation rights for gay partners, reported the Washington Post.

www.opposingviews.com...

I looks to me as though the hospital sided with someone in the family, who wanted him to get out. And then he became disruptive when he refused. I will be interested in following this story. I hope more and more of these kinds of stories get exposure to show how utterly ridiculous this whole matter is.

Hospital statement:

“We believe involving the family is an important part of the patient care process,” the hospital said in a statement. “And, the patient`s needs are always our first priority. When anyone becomes disruptive to providing the necessary patient care, we involve our security team to help calm the situation and to protect our patients and staff. If the situation continues to escalate, we have no choice but to request police assistance.”

It seems to me that

I don't see this as a gay rights issue. This is a family squabble.

reply to post by intrepid


If I was in the hospital and my family asked my husband to leave, HE would have the legal right to stay. The family's wishes would come second. That's why I think it is a gay rights issue. Isn't that true?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I don't think so. My guess is this is an ongoing problem with this family. The partner was removed because he was disruptive. He probably was dealing with that family.

If the couple truly has a Power of Attorney then they were prescient and dotted their i's and crossed their t's. The patient's family (parent/sibling) seems to have an issue with partner...and he with the family. A shouting match (or some drama) ensued to the point that hospital security had to be called in. Both parties (family and partner) seem consumed more with their own fued than the patients well being. I wonder though IF the patient is aware of the situation, why the family stays and the partner is dismissed?

There is more to this story than the one side (Gay rights only).

I'll never understand homosexuality, but one thing I do understand is love! If two men or two women happen to fall in love and decide to live as a couple, then so be it! It's not up to me, nor does anyone else have the right to tell us who or whom we can fall in love with or live with. If two people of the same sex are living together as a couple, then they should be treated no different than a straight couple living together, under any circumstance!

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

I don't think so. My guess is this is an ongoing problem with this family. The partner was removed because he was disruptive. He probably was dealing with that family.

In a legal marriage the spouse comes first so the squabbles don't matter, the family has no say, they would evict family not spouse.

That is why this is a gay rights issue, he was authority there not the family, as the partner/spouse.

Originally posted by Unity_99
In a legal marriage the spouse comes first so the squabbles don't matter, the family has no say, they would evict family not spouse.

That is why this is a gay rights issue, he was authority there not the family, as the partner/spouse.

Even if he was the one "losing it"?

reply to post by intrepid


He was probably losing it because the parents wanted him to leave and he refused, the hospital if it were a husband/wife situation, without a second thought, would have told the parents to leave. The hospital refused to even verify that the man had power of attorney.

Hey, just because he's gay doesn't mean that he can't be a complete asshat.

reply to post by intrepid


Of course not, sexuality has nothing to do with personality. This type of thing happening is pretty common in States that don't recognize same sex unions. There was another case recently in the news that involved a lesbian couple... they had been on vacation in Florida when one collapsed, the hospital refused to let her partner (civil union and legal proxy) and their children visit her, took two days to look up the proxy and the woman died. This is one of the largest driving forces behind equal marriage.

Even if there is great animosity between the husband and the family here... for the love of God do we really live in a world where it will require a mountain of time, lawyers, and a court to simply state the obvious answer... that the husband and family should just have specific visitation days and times assigned to them so that they don't overlap and create all this unnecessary drama?

My thoughts go to the poor sick person who is, in this case, the only one who should matter. That person, aware of it or not, has every right for all of their loved ones to have access for the sake of mutual comfort and closure.