Heterosexualness In Danger
The Examiner had two stories recently that hit on topics near and dear to us here at TTF.
The first is nearest and dearest, because it features a character we got to know at the 2005 CRC Hate Fest. I'm talking about Maryland Delegate Don Dwyer, whose rhetoric was so over-the-top that the CRC leadership had to issue a statement distancing themselves from him. Here's his money quote from that event:
Our old friend Don is very upset that the state Attorney General has issued an opinion that tends to undermine the spreading of hate and fear.
The Examiner let him write a column on the subject...
He goes on... I'm skipping through.
The column concludes:
Dwyer's statements here are one hundred percent predictable. He is making a name for himself as a spreader of hate and fear of the homosexual agenda, and this is just the kind of thing he always says.
Let me say, The Examiner is a doubly doubtable source of information. For one thing, the newspaper itself is not very good. I remember when they reported on some action by our Montgomery County, Maryland, school superintendent, and showed a picture of the superintendent and school board from Montgomery County, Virginia. The paper is rabidly and often humorously conservative, biasing news stories in surprising and innovative ways. The second factor is that they have blogs online that are apparently unmonitored and unregulated, and when you read on their Internet site it is not always clear what is a news story and what is a blog or opinion piece. While some of The Examiner's blogged stories are very interesting, you can't trust the quality of anything you read on their site.
So here is The Examiner telling us about a bill that has been introduced to ban same-sex marriages.
Quick, call the authorities! Don't let them take my heterosexualness away from me!
Apparently these guys think that most straight people are strongly tempted to become involved romantically with someone of their own sex, and only refrain from doing that because there are laws saying that people with matching plumbing cannot marry. That is the only way that marriage between same-sex couples could threaten, never mind endanger, heterosexualness. Which is, by the way, a word I am coming to love.
The first is nearest and dearest, because it features a character we got to know at the 2005 CRC Hate Fest. I'm talking about Maryland Delegate Don Dwyer, whose rhetoric was so over-the-top that the CRC leadership had to issue a statement distancing themselves from him. Here's his money quote from that event:
I’ve been accused of spreading hate and fear among the churches throughout the State of Maryland. Guilty as charged. I am spreading hate and fear. I am spreading the hate of the homosexual activist and I’m spreading my fear of what’s going to happen to this great state and our great nation if people of this world do not take a stand.
Our old friend Don is very upset that the state Attorney General has issued an opinion that tends to undermine the spreading of hate and fear.
The Examiner let him write a column on the subject...
Just six years after then-Maryland Attorney General Joe Curran issued his official opinion on the recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriage, the state’s current top legal officer, Doug Gansler, has overturned it.
In doing so, Gansler not only bypassed the long standing practice of referring to standing opinions from previous attorney generals, he also usurped the power of the Maryland General Assembly. The immediate effect of this opinion is far-reaching. It nullifies Maryland’s current law that states “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid in this state.” Del. Don Dwyer: Maryland's attorney general should be impeached
He goes on... I'm skipping through.
Irrefutable evidence exists proving Gansler violated his oath of office by offering partial and prejudiced testimony in his official capacity. He is not constitutionally authorized to offer partial and prejudice testimony under the cloak of his elected office.
He has unabashedly supported not only the recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages, but now also overtly advocates for Maryland to start performing them. In his testimony in the Maryland Senate in 2008, he fully outlined what he thinks is his job as attorney general:
“The role of the Attorney General is not just to enforce the law, but to seek justice in every case.” He went on to say “It would be hard for me to have this job knowing that there is something so wrong in our society and just ignore it and be able to come down and at least testify on behalf of this bill.”
Gansler’s action on the same-sex marriage issue is in direct conflict with the intent of the Oath of Office to which he swore his allegiance. It is also a grave injustice to the citizens of Maryland.
The column concludes:
I am preparing articles of impeachment based on the offenses outlined here. One can only hope that this process will not be circumvented for political expediency.
Dwyer's statements here are one hundred percent predictable. He is making a name for himself as a spreader of hate and fear of the homosexual agenda, and this is just the kind of thing he always says.
Let me say, The Examiner is a doubly doubtable source of information. For one thing, the newspaper itself is not very good. I remember when they reported on some action by our Montgomery County, Maryland, school superintendent, and showed a picture of the superintendent and school board from Montgomery County, Virginia. The paper is rabidly and often humorously conservative, biasing news stories in surprising and innovative ways. The second factor is that they have blogs online that are apparently unmonitored and unregulated, and when you read on their Internet site it is not always clear what is a news story and what is a blog or opinion piece. While some of The Examiner's blogged stories are very interesting, you can't trust the quality of anything you read on their site.
So here is The Examiner telling us about a bill that has been introduced to ban same-sex marriages.
ANNAPOLIS - Maryland lawmakers used racism and religion to argue over whether to allow same-sex marriage in the state in a House hearing Thursday.
"Heterosexualness is in danger," said Del. Emmett C. Burns Jr., D-Baltimore County. "I never thought I would live to see this day."
Burns held up a copy of Thursday's Washington Post and pointed to a picture of two men kissing.
Del. Benjamin S. Barnes, D-Anne Arundel, sponsor of a bill that would legalize gay marriage in Maryland, asked Burns: "Does it make you angry to see two men kissing?"
"It's disgusting," Burns replied.
Several gay couples in the packed hearing room gasped; others shook their heads.
Del. Don H. Dwyer Jr., R-Anne Arundel, meanwhile, nodded his head. Lawmakers battle over gay marriage
Quick, call the authorities! Don't let them take my heterosexualness away from me!
Apparently these guys think that most straight people are strongly tempted to become involved romantically with someone of their own sex, and only refrain from doing that because there are laws saying that people with matching plumbing cannot marry. That is the only way that marriage between same-sex couples could threaten, never mind endanger, heterosexualness. Which is, by the way, a word I am coming to love.
posted by JimK at 1:16 PM
30 Comments:
"Here's his money quote from that event"
you guys have repeated this same quote so many times, one must assume you're taking it out of context
otherwise, there would be a ton more where that came from
he wants everyone to hate activists
so what?
"That is the only way that marriage between same-sex couples could threaten, never mind endanger, heterosexualness"
how about if there is a word that used to refer to their committed relationships and the government changes the definition of that word so that there is no longer a word refers to their committed relationships
isn't that harm to the concept of heterosexuality?
you guys have repeated this same quote so many times, one must assume you're taking it out of context
Anyone can read the entire transcript of Don Dwyer's 2005 keynote speech for CRC here. It's been published in Vigilance's Reference Section since 2005. That quote isn't out of context, it's what he said. And for those who'd care to hear the context and delivery, here's a recording of Dwyer's 2005 keynote speech for CRC, which has also been posted in the Resources Section of Vigilance since 2005. You can hear for yourself why the CRC felt they had to apologize for using him as their keynote speaker here in Montgomery County.
Just for the record, according to Google this quote has not been used in any post here since 2005. The term "hate and fear" was quoted once, and the Dwyer quote has been cited a couple of times by commenters, mostly back in 2005.
JimK
five years ago and you keep bringing it up
I think you're trying to imply that he is encouraging hatred of homosexuals but he is actually referring to the generic activist for homosexual preferential treatment
that kind of inflammatory language is unseemly but it's not hard to find liberals saying they "hate" Bush or Cheney
big deal
time to move on, TTF
I would highly suggest that you refer to the "examiner" as the "Washington Examiner" to avoid any legal matters on your part
looks like Dems may be smearing one of their own as gay in order to stop him from voting against Obamacare:
"Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) says the House ethics committee is investigating him for inappropriate comments he made to a male staffer on New Year's Eve — and that he's the victim of a power play by Democratic leaders who want him out of Congress because he's a "no" vote on health care reform.
"Mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill," Massa, who on Friday announced his intention to resign, said. "And this administration and this House leadership have said, quote-unquote, they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill. And now they've gotten rid of me, and it will pass. You connect the dots."
Massa said he first heard that the ethics committee was questioning his staff in early February but had no idea why.
He said he now understands the basis of the committee's investigation — and dismissed it as a matter of "political correctness" gone awry.
"I have to come find out that on New Year's Eve, I went to a staff party — it was actually a wedding for a staff member of mine," Massa said. "There were 250 people there. I was with my wife, and in fact we had a great time. She got the stomach flu, I went down to sing "Auld Lang Syne." And with cameras on me — I'm talking three of them — filming me, I danced with the bride, and I danced with the bridesmaid. Absolutely nothing occurred.
"I said goodnight to the bridesmaid. I sat at down at the table where my whole staff was, all of them, by the way, bachelors. One of them looked at me and — as they would do after, I don't know, 15 gin and tonics and goodness only knows how many bottles of champagne — a staff member made an intonation to me that maybe I should be chasing after the bridesmaid. His points were clear, and his words were far more colorful than that.
"And I grabbed the staff member sitting next to me and I said, 'What I really ought to be doing is frakking you,' and then tossled the guy's hair and left, went to my room, because I knew the party was getting to a point where I shouldn't be there."
"Was that inappropriate of me? Absolutely.""
this is revealing on so many levels
After "You connect the dots."...come these three and a half omitted paragraphs
"A spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) rejected Massa’s charge out of hand.
"That's completely false,” said Katie Grant. “There is zero merit to that accusation."
Massa insisted that he did not know the basis of a House ethics committee investigation into his conduct until after he announced his retirement last Wednesday, and he took Hoyer to task for going public with information related to the probe before it is completed."
In the monologue — an audio recording of which has been posted by Rochester's WHAM-TV — Massa said he first heard that the ethics committee was questioning his staff in early February..."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34051.html#ixzz0hdzTLLTm
And then there's this one
"Republican state Sen. Roy Ashburn said Monday he is gay, ending days of speculation that began after his arrest last week for investigation of driving under the influence.
Ashburn, who consistently voted against gay rights measures during his 14 years in statewide office, came out in an interview with KERN radio in Bakersfield, the area he represents.
Ashburn said he felt compelled to address rumors that he had visited a gay nightclub near the Capitol before his DUI arrest.
“I am gay … those are the words that have been so difficult for me for so long,” Ashburn told conservative talk show host Inga Barks.
The 55-year-old father of four said he had tried to keep his personal life separate from his professional life until his March 3 arrest."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/08/california-state-senator-announces-hes-gay-dui-arrest/?test=latestnews
"And then there's this one
"Republican state Sen. Roy Ashburn said Monday he is gay, ending days of speculation that began after his arrest last week for investigation of driving under the influence.
Ashburn, who consistently voted against gay rights measures during his 14 years in statewide office, came out in an interview with KERN radio in Bakersfield, the area he represents.
Ashburn said he felt compelled to address rumors that he had visited a gay nightclub near the Capitol before his DUI arrest.
“I am gay … those are the words that have been so difficult for me for so long,” Ashburn told conservative talk show host Inga Barks.
The 55-year-old father of four said he had tried to keep his personal life separate from his professional life until his March 3 arrest.""
Again, so what?
A homosexual comes out.
Big deal.
Parts of the Massa where Hoyer denies involvement are pointless.
What did you expect him to say?
We don't need to post entire articles with every fact that is meaningless.
"I was set up for this from the very, very beginning," Massa said. "You think that somehow they didn't come after me to get rid of me because my vote is the deciding vote in the health care bill? Then, ladies and gentlemen, you live today in a world that is so innocent as to not understand what's going on in Washington, D.C."
Massa assailed Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, as the "son of the devil's spawn."
"He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote," Massa said. "He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive."
The colorful congressman recalled an incident in which he said Emanuel accosted him over a vote in the House gym shower, when Massa was "naked as a jaybird" and Emanuel stood "not even with a towel wrapped around his tush."
them Dems
gay all the way
Anyone trying to claim a fiscal equivalence between the Bush era and the Obama era needs to review the latest report from the Congressional Budget Office.
In its recent budget report, the White House forecast budget deficits totaling $8.5 trillion over the next decade. To keep that in perspective, the total public debt held by the end of 2009 — that is, by the end of George W. Bush’s last budget — was $7.4 trillion.
CBO, however, says even that mind-boggling projection is too low. In fact, the nonpartisan budget crunchers estimate, the cumulative deficit from 2010-2020 will be $9.9 trillion. That’s a difference of $1.4 trillion.
How much is $1.4 trillion? It’s more than the combined deficits of Bush’s first four years in office. And remember, we’re only talking about the “extra” amount of total deficits in the decade to come, above what Obama is admitting to.
But as bad as a $1.4 trillion underestimate is, here are the numbers to really worry about:
•$9.9 trillion: The cumulative budget deficits from 2010-2020 given Obama’s plans, according to CBO. In other words, we will average a $1 trillion deficit over the next 10 years, after never breaching $1 trillion a single time before Bush’s final budget.
•$3.9 trillion: The additional budget deficits from 2010-2020 given Obama’s plans, compared to just leaving the budget on auto-pilot, according to CBO.
•91 percent: The public debt as a share of the total economy by 2020 given Obama’s plans, according to CBO. The current figure is 52 percent.
•81 percent: The amount by which the White House has overestimated next year’s economic growth, according to CBO (4.4 percent GDP growth in 2011 forecast by White House, versus 2.3 percent per CBO). Even if the White House is correct and the economy is about to come roaring back, it is foolish to count on such spectacular growth.
•24.2 percent: The average proportion of GDP that the federal government will spend from 2010-2020 given Obama’s plans, according to CBO. The 40-year historical average is 20.6 percent. So, we are talking about a federal government in 2020 that is one-sixth larger than it historically has been.
And all of this assumes that there will be no national emergencies over the next 10 years: No terrorist attacks or natural disasters that require extra spending. And it assumes that we will have a decade of uninterrupted economic growth; history suggests that’s unlikely.
We are talking about an expansion of government, the deficit and debt that is an order of magnitude greater than anything we’ve seen before. If you’re one of those people asking why fiscal conservatives are suddenly concerned about the deficit now, and weren’t holding tea parties back when Bush was still in office, this is why.
I wonder what the record is for Anon´s conversations with HIMSELF?
when TTFers don't reply, Drick, that's a kind of response, and part of the conversation
what they're saying is that Anon is brilliant and they can't argue with the points he has presented
they don't want to come out and say it so they just don't say anything
we basically just shut 'em up
TTF is a sort of demonstration project for the idiocy of liberalism
OMG "Aonymous"....your conceit is immeasurable. You are ignored, not because of your self-perceived "brilliance" but because you are like a disease-ridden alien from some foreign planet - totally out of touch with the reality of life on this planet.
You should be on your knees, pleading with your God for forgiveness for your Sin of Pride (quality or state of being proud – inordinate self esteem: “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18).
Your God forgives anything, even repeatedly, so do not be afraid.
Aristotle
Ari, my man, what's your deal?
Of course, I'm not brilliant.
This reminds of last week when David pompously informed us that Duke didn't indeed suck.
I'm one of the least intelligent commenters here.
I just win all the arguments because I'm on the right side.
Just told 'em the truth.
That oughta shut 'em up!
You betcha!
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
between you and me, I don't think anyone takes Obama seriously:
"With Democrats scrambling to line up support and determine what to include in a final healthcare package, the March 18 target set by White House spokesman Robert Gibbs last week appears unlikely -- to the surprise of no one in Congress, where healthcare deadlines have been missed repeatedly.
"No one has mentioned the 18th other than the President," Steny Hoyer, the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, told reporters.
Congress has struggled to pass healthcare reform, one of Obama's top legislative priorities, and has missed a series of White House-imposed deadlines for approving the bill and sending it to the president for his signature.
If the deadline slips much further, beyond a two-week congressional break for Easter, the challenges of passing a bill would increase as the November congressional elections grow closer.
"Deadlines are both a blessing and a curse," said Richard Durbin, the No. 2 Senate Democrat. "They are a blessing because they get you focused on making a decision but they are a curse if you can't make them, and this has happened over and over again."
The House and Senate passed separate healthcare reform bills last year, but efforts to merge them into a final product collapsed in January when Democrats lost their crucial 60th vote in a special Senate election in Massachusetts.
Democrats now hope to approve the final legislation in a two-step process. House Democrats would approve the Senate's version of the bill and the two chambers would pass a separate measure making changes to the Senate bill sought by Obama and House Democrats.
The second bill would be passed using a process called reconciliation requiring only a simple majority in the 100-member Senate, bypassing the need for 60 votes to overcome Republican procedural hurdles.
Senate and House leaders are still putting the second bill together and awaiting cost estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, a process that could slip into next week.
Republicans warned House Democrats not to count on the Senate to pass the second bill.
"House Democrats will have to decide whether they want to trust the Senate to fix their political problems," Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell said."
Senate Democrats?
oh yeah, I'd trust 'em with my life!
Aristotle quoted: “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18).
This is a big problem amongst homosexuals - Gay Pride.
it's a good point
interesting how incensed homosexuals get if some homosexual doesn't support special rights for homosexuals
the whole is a hedonistic, self-centered, exhibitionist, narcisstic, et al
standing up for their right to flaunt
Can't wean yourself from the tired old shibboleth "special rights for homosexuals" "Anonymouse"?
You are about as creative as a garden slug. (and I apologize to all garden slugs by comparing
you to them)
And...on top of that...you are full of crap (except for the part where you characterize yourself as: "the whole is a hedonistic, self-centered, exhibitionist, narcisstic, et al". You do identify yourself as a self-righteous heterosexual, don't you?
You are one fine example of a good Christian...Jesus would be proud of you!
"Can't wean yourself from the tired old shibboleth "special rights for homosexuals" "Anonymouse"?
You are about as creative as a garden slug."
facts are facts, my friend
"creative" facts are lies
homosexuals already enjoy all the rights that normal people do
any beyond is special
most of us don't think they deserve special status
"What the Wh..."
Please elucidate about those times that you have been denied employment, or refused a living space, or turned back at a hospital when attempting to visit a partner, or ejected from the armed forces (you are a veteran, aren't you?), or received death threats in the form of graffiti painted on the side of your home, etc. etc., because of your "heterosexual" orientation. ("homosexuals already enjoy all the rights that normal people do...most of us don't think they deserve special status")
What "special status" is sought by GLBT people? Are you referring to seeking protection from the insults and slanders and hateful snickering of the type you indulge in incessantly as well as the same legal protections that you seem to think are God-given only to people like you?
You obsession with homosexuality is suspiciously a cover-up for your doubts about your own sexuality, and so - by projecting your fear of owning up to what you might be - you scapegoat people who remind you of who you are.
You are a sick puppy who is in desperate need of professional help! Living in fear of the loss of privilege that your (assumed) heterosexuality bestows on you is a figment of your own imagination. Besides, Narcissistic Personality Disorder can be treated.
We feel very sorry for you and take pity on you.
"denied employment,"
has happened to all kinds of people for all kinds of reasons that may not seem fair
why special protection for deviance?
"or refused a living space,"
ditto
"or turned back at a hospital when attempting to visit a partner,"
get serious
this really doesn't happen
"or ejected from the armed forces"
you serve when you contribute
homosexuals don't fit in this role
"received death threats in the form of graffiti painted on the side of your home"
there are laws against this happening to anyone
we don't need to pile on to give extra protection for deviance
"insults and slanders and hateful snickering"
has probably happened to everyone
if we protect against free speech, we're really in trouble
"You obsession with homosexuality is suspiciously a cover-up for your doubts about your own sexuality, and so - by projecting your fear of owning up to what you might be - you scapegoat people who remind you of who you are."
oh yeah, what else could it be?
why else would anyone resist giving special protection based on deviance?
"You are a sick puppy who is in desperate need of professional help!"
right...anyone who thinks homosexuals don't deserve special rights should get his head examined
"Living in fear of the loss of privilege that your (assumed) heterosexuality bestows on you is a figment of your own imagination."
thought you said I was secretly gay
now, you say I fear loss of privileges for straights
does that make sense?
"We feel very sorry for you and take pity on you."
I can tell from your empathetic and kind remarks.
Brilliant, abssolutely brilliant response, "Anonymous".
Once again you have displayed your lamentable ignorance and bigotry.
You continue to use this site to advance ideas and behaviors that are despicable and which others who read the responses here find tragically misguided.
Perhaps if you ever said anything that wasn't filled with hatred and
lies we might find it possible to respond with "empathetic and kind remarks". Kinda difficult when your motives for posting on this site are so questionable.
Do you consider yourself to be a Christian?
(you have displayed your lamentable ignorance and bigotry)
really?
give us some examples
(use this site to advance ideas and behaviors that are despicable and which others who read the responses here find tragically misguided)
really?
give us some examples
(if you ever said anything that wasn't filled with hatred and
lies)
really?
give us some examples
(your motives for posting on this site are so questionable)
really?
give us some examples
(we might find it possible to respond with empathetic and kind remarks)
really?
give us some examples
Reread just about all of your idiotic blog entries...you are your own example, "Be specific"!
I guess that's as good a way as any for you to admit that you can't back up what you say
It's not so hard "Anonymous"
Here's all you need to know:
"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
you're not answering
although glad to hear you support the Bible and the Constitution
we had wondered
here's the stupid things you've said that you've provided no support for:
(you have displayed your lamentable ignorance and bigotry)
really?
give us some examples
(use this site to advance ideas and behaviors that are despicable and which others who read the responses here find tragically misguided)
really?
give us some examples
(if you ever said anything that wasn't filled with hatred and
lies)
really?
give us some examples
(your motives for posting on this site are so questionable)
really?
give us some examples
(we might find it possible to respond with empathetic and kind remarks)
really?
give us some examples
(you have displayed your lamentable ignorance and bigotry)
...give us some examples
If you insist. Here's an ignorant thing you said:
how about if there is a word that used to refer to their committed relationships and the government changes the definition of that word so that there is no longer a word refers to their committed relationships
Allowing committed same sex couples to be married just like committed opposite sex couples can does not change the definition of that word. Any straight people who need a separate word for "marriage" now that it pertains to committed same sex couples as well as committed opposite sex couples are probably going to add to that shameful divorce rate in this country. Most successful marriages are based on commitment to each other that comes from within, not from vocabulary.
Here's another ignorant thing you said, and this one's bigoted too:
five years ago and you keep bringing it up
Hypocrisy is ignorant. What makes you think you can dig up old tidbits like Studds that happened long before TTF was created, but TTF supporters can't bring up the CRC's keynote speaker? Your bigotry against LGBT people, that's what.
looks like Dems may be smearing one of their own
It only looks like that to believers of the right wing smear machine. Unlike Craig and Foley, Massa resigned almost immediately after his improprieties were made public. And interestingly, Massa got Glenn Beck to issue the most truthful sign off he's ever used:
"I have wasted an hour of your time and I apologize for that."
Parts of the Massa [is that like "the google?"] where Hoyer denies involvement are pointless.
Interesting view you've got there. You BELIEVE the parts of the Massa story that seem to say what you want to hear but think the parts of the story you disagree with are POINTLESS. Spoken like only a truly ignorant bigot could.
interesting how incensed homosexuals get if some homosexual doesn't support special rights for homosexuals
the whole is a hedonistic, self-centered, exhibitionist, narcisstic, et al
Is Monica Goodling doing jail time yet for her "hedonistic, self-centered" actions as White House Liaison to DOJ?
"In every case I tried to act in good faith and for the purpose of ensuring that the department was staffed by well-qualified individuals who were supportive of the attorney general's views, priorities and goals.
Nevertheless, I do acknowledge that I may have gone too far in asking political questions of applicants for career positions, and I may have taken inappropriate political considerations into account on some occasions. And I regret those mistakes."
Or is going back to 2007 too much for you too?
Another ignorant bigoted statement:
homosexuals already enjoy all the rights that normal people do
Gays do not have the same right to be protected from discrimination as religious folks do in Virginia. You can hold any faith any and be protected from discrimination in Virginia. But you cannot be of any sexual orientation other than heterosexual and have that exact same right to be protected in Virginia.
More ignorance and bigotry:
"or turned back at a hospital when attempting to visit a partner,"
get serious
this really doesn't happen
Maybe they don't cover it on FAUX News, but it really happens:
Hospital Visitation Denied Again
Even with all of the legal paperwork in hand (and even though a straight couple would not have to show any sort of proof), Janice still wasn’t allowed to make any medical conditions, or even to sit alongside her partner as she lay dying. It took a Catholic priest to finally intervene as he administered last rites.
Post a Comment
<< Home