He attacked the brother, and refused to leave when asked. What else do you need?
Because **you **said that wasn’t *why *he was arrested.
So according to you, he was arrested because he attacked the brother (but not according to the daughter, who said he simply told the brother to leave) and because he refused to leave. I say there was an altercation, and he refused to leave the bedside of his spouse, for whom he had legal power of attorney to make medical decisions. Either way, I think we agree that he was arrested – at least in part-- because he refused to leave the bedside of his partner.
Perhaps we **are **talking past each other.
He was arrested for refusing to leave. Full stop.
Okay, then.
Okay, then, we are talking past each other. Over and out.
D’Anconia, this thread is about why same-sex marriage can be important, and the case cited represents a case of a couple who were not married (I presume that this is because they were not able to be legally married) and who therefore suffered adverse consequences in a health-care setting. Specifically he was arrested from events arising from the condition of not being married.
Do you deny that this is an instance where this same-sex couple being married would have made a material difference to the outcome?
Are you only objecting to the way the case was introduced to us (i.e. “arrested for refusing to leave the side of his dying partner”)?
If Miller had said “Here’s one from 2013 where the guy was arrested for disorderly conduct and trespassing when he refused to leave the side of his dying partner,” would that have been satisfactory to you?
If you and **raventhief **have indeed been talking past each other, what the hell was your point?
That would have been more accurate, wouldn’t it?
You could have turned this question around OP.
Why do social conservatives often want to deny gay couples the name “marriage.”
Many are on the record as being in favor of civil unions for property and tax purposes, but there seems to be something about granting the same “word” to their particular relationships that bothers them.
The answer is the same.
This is in part about having societies blessing of gay relationships. I think the equal protection arguments around marriage are usually BS, you can make an argument with race, but societies have been deciding what types/ages/numbers qualify as a proper legal marriage for ages. This is kind of arbitrary, and there is no way around that fact. The key here for the social conservatives, and yes, the gay activists, is that recognizing gay committed relationships as a standard marriage implies that such relationships are of the same status and worth as committed straight relationships.
But GOD SAID man must not lie with another man/slit your sons throat and obey me/slaughter the infidel/drink the blood of mine enemies.*
This does not sit well with the type that argues like the above, they do as they are told like a good moral slave, kill for me, die for me, worship for me, this is wrong, this is right, this is honored and special (straight couplings), that is an abomination (homosexual coupling).
By calling committed gay relationships marriage, society writ large is essentially giving its blessing to gay relationships and giving a big fuck you to the traditional conception of gays and their status and worth as people in relationships. And so it’s obvious why the gays love gay marriage being accepted, and the social conservatives are so sanguine.
And I would like to point out that Miller introduced the cite specifically in response to the question if same-sex partners were still denied the ability to be with their loved ones in a healthcare setting.
Self-servingly tailor the narrative to support your own agenda much? That incident is being discussed in this thread because YOU expressed skepticism that the failure of civil union laws to confer full spousal rights is still an important issue “IRL.”
Let’s review:
Absent the inadequacy of the protections provided by the civil union laws, the brother has no standing to order the partner from the bedside, no altercation ensues, and this incident isn’t even a thing. You’re looking solely at the charge sheet and implying that the charges listed form their own proximate cause of the events.
On preview, I see I’ve been ninja’d on this very point. The hell with it. I’m writing on a tablet, which is challenging enough, and I’m not going to let the fact that real life intervened before I finished make me throw the effort down the tubes.
Un-fucking-believable.
No one was offering civil unions that covered all the same legal protections of marriage. Some states went so far as to ban civil unions from conferring the same protections. This throws is squarely into the realm of the equal protection clause.
It isn’t key, but it is on the list. Why should one man get to introduce his spouse, but another man only be allowed to introduce his “partner?” The “separate but equal” issue galls and carks, and was a large moral element of the debate. It wasn’t key, but it wasn’t negligible.
It certainly does give the blessing you observe…but it does not in any way give the “fuck you” to anyone else. It does not diminish the value of anyone else’s marriage at all, except perhaps in their own eyes…and what responsibility is that of anyone else?
Say I buy a nice Cadillac. And then the big fat slob down the street, the ugly guy whose house is a mess and whose kids are always screaming, buys a Cadillac too. Does that demean my possession? Do I have a case against him in civil court for alienation of a presumption of being cool?
As has been pointed out many times, really dorky celebrity marriages, like the one that lasted a few hours before divorce, do a fuck of a lot more “harm” to the dignity of the institution of marriage than gay marriage ever could. Society has given its legal blessing to such farcical marriages, but not its cultural blessing.
No one is compelled to “accept” someone else’s marriage in the cultural fashion. There are lots of Catholics who do not consider many people truly married, because they were married before to other partners. The Catholics can say, “They may be married in the eyes of the law, but not in the eyes of the church.”
You get to say the same thing about gays who are married. “Bob and Bill say they’re married, but we know they aren’t really.” You can say anything you want: freedom of speech! (You can say cats are really dogs, too.) Your “blessing” is not compulsory, only the legitimacy under the law.
because equality
Welcome to the SDMB, drrmarie. I hope you enjoy your time here, and make us your go-to site for goofing off on the Internet. 
Also, I hope you have enjoyed reading this thread. It’s got some fascinating arguments, don’t you think?
That could be confusing if they don’t have a back yard. Let me offer a proposal for correct terminology that covers all cases:
marriage: A legally recognized union of two people in a committed relationship
breeder: A legally recognized union of a man and a woman for breeding purposes
unlicensed breeder: A union of a man and a woman that is not legally recognized
Breeder of Merit: A licensed breeder who has earned event titles on at least 4 children in accredited showings and is recognized for outstanding contributions to the sport of breeding
Hope that clears that up.
^kudos
I suppose when genetic engineering becomes widespread, we’ll have a “Breed of Frankenstein” category.
Nah, that’s when you have mother-daughter surgery-Barbie pairs.
And many who consider that the first marriage is the one that didn’t count, either because it wasn’t registered with the Church or because it was and actually got annuled, or because it was civil-only and so stupid it would have been annulable if registered with the Church.
If the guy had been legally married to his partner, he could not have been ejected (at least, not as easily merely on the brother’s say-so), and thus any criminal charges or other consequences that arose from his response (or lack of response, or resistance) to being ejected would not have arisen.
D’Anconia, I’m not sure if you actually need this spelled out or if you’re neither willing to let it stand unchallenged nor attempt to explicitly refute it.
Not if one accurately assesses his motives.