Oh my god...he did it.

It's pretty cool :3
I'm glad for all the people that this helps. It was always kinda stupid to be honest, how it was handled.

My only irritation isnt with the issue itself but that people keep saying its more "special rights" for glbtq people when IMO its just allowing them the rights they should have had as humans who're all equally as human and deserving as the rest of us. less

Let me add that I think that it's good that he's finally doing something "positive," but instead of doing this, he should have made it that homosexual marriage is allowed, because quite honestly, two people who are together (heterosexual couple) do not get visitation rights. Just because a homosexual couple is together does NOT mean that they are wanting to get married at any point. And if they ARE wanting to, they should be allowed to.

It aggravates me how people can go around the subject, give people the rights that they should ALREADY have, when they can do it the easy way and just give them the rights that they deserve.

Yeah, it's good for those individuals who were having problems with it. I agree with that. But at the same time...it just aggravates me how people are "alright" with this, when what we've been fighting for is EQUAL rights, not SEPARATE, DIFFERENT rights. Now, homosexual individuals have DIFFERENT rights from heterosexuals. This ISN'T what they were fighting for, so it ISN'T a victory. And Obama, of all people, a person of multiracial descent, should know EXACTLY what that means. less

I can see where you're coming from on this.

From my perspective, marriage is a legally binding contract that goes as far back as The Code. Those who take the biggest gripe with non-straight weddings have some deluded (in my opinion) thought that marriage is some predestined, divinely imparted gift blessed upon those who apply penis to vagina.

What I think the Pres is trying to do is take the separate but equal approach until it become even more ridiculous so that it can only become a non-issue. In the mean time, though, at least one more road block is out of the way and discrimination has been reduced even a small amount. less

I think you guys are overlooking one of the first sentences in the article. "President Barack Obama is ordering that nearly all hospitals allow patients to say who has visitation rights and who can help make medical decisions." This isn't the government deciding that someone can visit their same-sex partner; it would be the patient's decision of who can visit them, whether it be their same- or opposite-sex partner, best friend, neighbor, mentor, anyone.

From what I know about Obama's decision (just from reading this article), I think it's a great move toward equality. Not separate equality, but true equality. It's not "Ok, straight people can do this, but gay people have to do it this way." It's "Everyone has a right to decide who is at their bedside in a moment of need." less

I understand what you mean. I calmed down a bit, so I understand that it's (hopefully) a good step in the right direction. There should not have to be, in the year 2010, any "steps," though. It should just be equality, period. I suppose that I expect too much of people, or perhaps just expected too much of this president.

So all that I can think of now is how Martin Luther King Jr. fought for equal rights, and that one small school down in the South would not allow a little girl to enroll because her skin was darker than the rest of the students'. And how there were separate bathrooms for people because of their skin color, and how states' reasoning behind that was that they were "separate, but equal."

Edit: Are you trying to say that the president is, perhaps, trying to open people's eyes to how ridiculous it is? less

I really see Sir's point. We need to get over all this crap and just make equal rights for everyone. Either everyone gets to get married or none of us do and we make up some other title for the system.



Example: The university I'm working for next year allows my spouse to live with me in my apartment for free. If I have a same sex partner, they get to live with me for free no matter our 'standing' since clearly we can't be married. Since my partner is a man, and we are not married, we can't live together.



Screwed up much?



I'm all for equal rights, but I really do mean equal for everyone. Not something special for some and not others, and oh those others get a bunch of stuff the first group didn't get. less