WP: Battle Over Gay Marriage Plays Out in Indian Country

[DeepModem Mom]

Battle Over Gay Marriage Plays Out in Indian Country
By Lois Romano
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 1, 2005; Page A02


TULSA -- Truth be told, Kathy Reynolds and Dawn McKinley were content living in quiet suburban anonymity, raising a child, accepted by neighbors who did not know their sexual orientation, and hoping to grow old together.

A complex legal battle with cultural overtones was not on their agenda. But their dreams bumped against legal reality when Dawn was barred from Kathy's hospital room because she was not family. It was not long after that the lesbian couple brought the national battle over same-sex marriage to the heart of Indian country as they moved to become the first gay couple to marry under Cherokee law.

More than a year after Massachusetts became the first state to recognize same-sex marriages, the emotional issue is playing out in the Cherokee courts in Oklahoma, confronting historic issues of cultural traditions and Indian sovereignty. A hearing Tuesday will likely determine whether Reynolds and McKinley are married under Cherokee law -- and are therefore legally recognized as a married couple in this conservative state.

Tribal sovereignty statutes mandate that Native American marriages be recognized by states, and a couple -- any couple -- could conceivably circumvent state laws to establish a legal union not approved by the state.

The Navajos have also broached the issue; the tribe's council voted to ban same-sex marriage and then voted again to override tribal President Joe Shirley Jr.'s veto of the ban. Shirley had called the issue "a waste of time."...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/31/AR2005073100885.html

[sui generis]

1. all I can say about the hospital room thing is

if the hospital told me I couldn't have a visitor because they weren't "family" and turned away my unlawfully wedded spouse there would be bloody hell to pay.

Hospitals aren't magical mysterious places. It's a service like anything else, like getting your oil changed. Imagine if only legally "loved ones" could attend you while awaiting your oil change.

Especially and most particularly if I give explicit permission to have someone in my room the hospital had better not even start to think about overriding that.

Joe Shirley was absolutely correct when he said the issue of same sex marriage was a waste of time, but condemming loons as loons has never stopped them from being loons.

I just can't imagine the regular council has achieved anything at all with that vote. It changes nothing. They are powerless to do anything more than inconvenience people, and that's a pretty petty and wasteful way to spend your time when there are very real problems plaguing the Navajo nation.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

2. "hell to pay"? The law is on the bigots' side.

You can make a fuss all you want, but the existing practice, not just in Oklahoma, is that unmarried partners do not have the rights of married partners, period. You can have your estate plan overturned in court if your immediate family challenges it because you gave assets to a gay partner. You can be forced to testify in court against your gay partner whereas hetero partners can not be forced to do so. If your gay partner is from another country, they do not get the same rights to immigrate as hetero partners.

This hospital practice is no different. And it's outrageous. :mad:

[sui generis]

3. I meant what I said

There would be hell to pay.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

4. Can you be more precise? I agree with your anger, but all I'm saying is

that the law has the final word, and that really is ultimately the end of that. If they want to turn your partner away, they can, and may if the hospital administration in question is homophobic. Plenty of those around, I'm sure.

[sui generis]

5. I understand all of these ideas

The hospital practice is a law of discretion. It's not illegal for a hospital to allow non-family members to visit. It's legal for them to "prevent" a family member from visiting.

That's a whole lotta different overtones. I would not give my money to an organization that discriminates against me, including a hospital. For a voluntary check-in, if I say I don't want my blood relatives visiting me in the hospital they had damn well better not let my blood relatives in to visit, and if they do, they had better damn well make sure I am comatose and/or dead and stay that way. This is not an option for them, no matter what they think the law says.

Speaking for both myself and my partner - we're not the kind to throw hissy fits and "fusses". If my partner is in a hospital and drawing his last, there had better not be anyone trying to come between us, for their own continued longevity.

At any rate, I would not live in Oklahoma or own property or other assets in Oklahoma, any more than I would in Afghanistan. If you are serious about protecting your relationship, then don't have it in a place that is a threat to it.

Here in Dallas when you go into the hospital you have the chance to designate your visitors in advance and leave that designation as a standing policy with the hospital system. You also have the opportunity to keep on file a medical POA designating ANYONE you want with that responsibility. There is no "relationship test".

The patient's wishes here supercede anyone else's wishes. Anyway, I don't know what kind of second rate hayseed hospital in the 21st century would think that keeping a patient's support network apart from him or her would be beneficial to the patient. That's not a hospital you want to go to anyway.

[CountAllVotes]

6. It's legal for them to "prevent" a family member from visiting.

You are right on the mark on that statement! I should know! My own brother was dying in the hospital and I COULD NOT EVEN GET THROUGH ON THE GOD DAMN PHONE! As for VISITING :wtf: ... no way if that is what they say!

:grr: :grr: :grr:

:kick: