Pages

Monday, May 17, 2010

Pawlenty: Gays Shouldn’t Have The Power To Decide What To Do With The Body Of A Deceased Partner

Talk about bigoted narrow minded view point.  This is a governor who wants to be President.  I do not think so. I believe a President should be open minded and be able to see  both sides of the question, not look at it from a discrimination view point.

If you’re straight and you husband or wife dies, you have the power to decide what to do with your loved one’s body and how to carry out their wishes. However, if you are a gay man or woman in Minnesota — a state that doesn’t recognize marriage equality — you won’t have that option, thanks to Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R). Explaining his veto of the bill, Pawlenty simply said there “is no actual need” to give same-sex couples equal end-of-life rights. From his official statement on Saturday:
The bill addresses the categories of individuals who under the law shall be given priority for purposes of determining the disposition of the remains of a deceased person. Currently a person can, by executing a will, designate who shall be empowered to control final disposition of his or her remains. The bill therefore addresses a nonexistent problem.
Marriage — defined as between a man and a woman — should remain elevated in our society a special level, as it traditionally has been. I oppose efforts to treat domestic relationships as the equivalent of traditional marriage. Accordingly, I am opposed to this bill.
Ann Kaner-Roth, executive director of LGBT advocacy group Project 515, responded   “We are very disappointed in Governor Pawlenty’s refusal to ensure an equal opportunity for committed same-sex couples to take care of their families in the darkest and most personal of times. Most Minnesotans expect government to treat residents equally. Unfortunately, Governor Pawlenty’s veto runs counter to Minnesota values and affirms the discrimination that currently exists in at least 515 state laws.

“The Governor’s facts are wrong.  Same-sex couples can’t sue for wrongful death, and current law does not provide the same level of protection for a same-sex partner trying to carry out their deceased partner’s final wishes.  His comment that the proposed legislation is unnecessary shows he is out of step with the experiences of real Minnesotans. Many families have faced exactly the kind of discrimination this legislation sought to prevent even though they had put in place all of the legal and other preparations available to them under current law. Without statutory change, families will continue to face discrimination.

Additionally, a person in a heterosexual marriage is not required to have a living will in order for his or her spouse to carry out end-of-life wishes, so it’s unclear why one should be necessary for same-sex partners. The bill would also have given “surviving partners the right to sue those responsible should their partner be killed.”
As a new Center for American Progress report on the needs of LGBT elders finds, Minnesota is considered a “legal stranger” state, where “same-sex partners (or members of families of choice) in these states effectively have no chance to be designated as surrogate medical decision makers for their incapacitated partners/loved ones.” LGBT elders therefore generally need an advanced health care directive (AHD), which includes a living will and a health care power of attorney:
In practice, to protect themselves, LGBT elders must remember to carry their AHDs with them at all times — if an individual is rushed to the hospital without these documents, a loved one can still legally be denied access (see sidebar on page 40). Finally, problems may arise when an elder travels out of state, as one state may not always recognize the health care directive of another state.
Additionally, obtaining an AHD can be difficult, since many elders are unaware or do not have the means to secure one, and “medical providers and long-term care facilities often ignore or challenge the AHDs of LGBT people.” (HT: Joe Sudbay at AMERICAblog)

Governor Pawlenty’s full veto message can be found here

No comments:

Post a Comment