...before it's too late.

[eclective]

I'm having trouble working out how to say this without sounding preachy, or overbearing, or otherwise turning people off. As such, I hope that you'll trust in me for a little while, and bear with me while I try to make a statement that I think is important

Comments

[arkofeden]

Oh man, I could not possibly agree with you more. Although I am one of those people who would like for everyone to stop using the term "marriage" and trade it for "civil union" or somesuch; "marriage" has a connection to religious ceremony, which could be why it's such a big-deal issue for so many people (and besides, if it's religious, it's up to the religion/church whether its officials are authorized by their divinity to marry certain people to each other--the state can't force their hand on that).

What I do know, though, is that it's possible for people to put sections into their living wills that detail things like which person should make decisions for them in case of incapacitation and who gets notified first in such cases. The default for people who have no such clause would generally be their nuclear family (not sure where it falls to if their family is all dead, say), which would leave same-sex partners out of the loop... But as far as I know, specifically putting your partner's info in your will with directions saying that they should make all decisions and be notified of disasters first would fix some parts of the problem if things do have to continue as they are.

All the more reason for people to make out wills now instead of waiting until they expect to die. :)

--E.G.

[eclective]

Hmm, that's something. Do living wills cover more minor injuries, though, or cases when the person is conscious and able to make decisions but in a serious condition?

[arkofeden]

Unfortunately, I'm only aware of such things coming into effect when a person is incapacitated and unable to make any decisions on their own. I could see how the line between able and unable might be blurry, though, like if a person was conscious but had to go into emergency surgery right away in order to be saved. I'd hope that the staff would look at one's emergency instructions in those cases, since being under anaesthetic would seem pretty incapacitating. :/

In cases where one's fully awake and able to decide things for themselves, I'd imagine that they'd be able to give the staff orders as to exactly what to do (or call their partners from the hospital themselves, etc.). But this might be the kind of question that I'd actually have to ask a lawyer about, since hospitals sometimes operate using non-Earth logic. ^^

--E.G.

[luinied]

Also, even if you prepare legal documents for the cases you anticipate - and always have them on hand - there are always things you won't think of until they happen. For example, Dan Savage (who is sometimes a jerk, yes) writes about not being able to check in on his son's seriously injured dog because his partner was the one to bring the dog to the vet. Whereas marriage gets to be "default allow" in these cases.

On a vaguely related note, it may be worth noting that California is not the only state with such measures up for a vote this election: Florida and Arizona are also being targeted. California's been getting more attention because it did recently permit same-sex marriage (and because it's California, and people are always paying attention to California), but defeating the other amendments is important, too.

[eclective]

California's been getting more attention because it did recently permit same-sex marriage (and because it's California, and people are always paying attention to California), but defeating the other amendments is important, too.

Thanks for this info. I didn't personally know about this at all, but yes, I definitely do consider all measures on this topic equally worthy of consideration.

I'll edit this into the main post, in case people are still reading.