Gay Partner Can't Sue Hospital for Malpractice, N.Y. Appeals Court Rules
East News • October 13, 2005
A New York Appeals Court has ruled that the same sex partner of a man who died after surgery related to injuries suffered in a car accident does not have standing to sue the hospital for ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: They wonder why.....
Posted On: October 14, 2005, 2:27 pm CDT
Posted By: Gender Blind
Comment:
Mud, thank you for making my point, although I don't think that was your intent.
How can you say that separation of church and state is not one of the major principles underlying our structure of government? Have you not paid attention as the debates rage over the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn, etc.?
I agree that equality doesn't mean everyone is equal, or is guaranteed an equal outcome in life. What it should mean is equal protection under the law, providing everyone with the ability to choose their course of action in life, with the condition that it does not infringe on the same right of another. Of course, this is predicated upon a concept of personal responsibility that this nation is increasingly leaving behind.
I'm not trying to debate the ideal social structure. I have no problems with laws that protect the growth of healthy future generations (like preventing inter-family marriage), but why should the opinion of the majority dictate or limit the personal lifestyle choices of the minority when those choices do not infringe on the rights of others? That said, I was under the impression that a caring, loving, supportive family, regardless of its make-up, was the best and most successful environment for civilization to develop under.
You can apply this argument to a myriad of issues. How about legalization of certain recreational drugs? Why are alcohol and tobacco legal while marijuana isn't? Same basic intoxicating effects, just a different medium to achieve them. Because of the perception of the majority, plain and simple.
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: They wonder why.....
How can you say that separation of church and state is not one of the major principles underlying our structure of government? Have you not paid attention as the debates rage over the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn, etc.?
I agree that equality doesn't mean everyone is equal, or is guaranteed an equal outcome in life. What it should mean is equal protection under the law, providing everyone with the ability to choose their course of action in life, with the condition that it does not infringe on the same right of another. Of course, this is predicated upon a concept of personal responsibility that this nation is increasingly leaving behind.
I'm not trying to debate the ideal social structure. I have no problems with laws that protect the growth of healthy future generations (like preventing inter-family marriage), but why should the opinion of the majority dictate or limit the personal lifestyle choices of the minority when those choices do not infringe on the rights of others? That said, I was under the impression that a caring, loving, supportive family, regardless of its make-up, was the best and most successful environment for civilization to develop under.
You can apply this argument to a myriad of issues. How about legalization of certain recreational drugs? Why are alcohol and tobacco legal while marijuana isn't? Same basic intoxicating effects, just a different medium to achieve them. Because of the perception of the majority, plain and simple.