It is almost hard to imagine, but throughout the United States, people are denied the right to visit their loved ones in the hospital. How is this possible? In many hospitals, "family only" visitation rules prevent gay men and women from visiting their ailing partners. In some instances, a lack of legal connection such as marriage can separate couples, after decades of partnership during a time when they may need each other most.
Last week, President Barack Obama issued an order to change those hospital rules. According to CNN, his decision was inspired, at least in part, by the story of a Florida woman who was unable to visit her partner of 17 years after her partner suffered a fatal brain aneurism. Announcing the order, Obama noted the importance of compassion and companionship when loved ones are in the hospital.
"Yet every day, all across America, patients are denied the kindnesses and caring of a loved one at their sides," he said.
Many hospitals currently have family only visiting rules, but the President's memorandum issued would allow patients to choose who may visit them and who may speak for them if they become incapacitated. According to the order issued to the Department of Health and Human Services, such a rule change will be required of any hospital that receives Medicaid or Medicare funding which happens to be the vast majority. The President noted that this change would not only affect gay men and women, but also members of some religious orders or the elderly without spouses or children.
Responses to the decision have been mixed. Gay rights activists and even some religious groups have lauded the measure, saying that it extends human rights and basic equalities to gay people in a committed relationship. Even conservative opponents of gay rights recognized that denying the sick access to their loved ones is an affront to human rights. Instead, they focused their criticisms on the President, suggesting that he was, as The New York Times put it, "pandering to his political base and undermining the traditional definition of marriage." Perhaps this focus of criticism on Obama's motives is due to the fact that most people even typical critics of the President understand that denying a person access to the bedside of a loved one is a disgrace to human rights.
Yet the suggestion that Obama's decision constitutes "pandering" to his liberal base is still callous. This Memo affects the lives of real people during a very emotional time. It is cynical to believe that the President would ensure the deserved rights of Americans simply as a political ploy. Furthermore, it is laughable that an effort to allow Americans a greater hand in choosing who may speak for them when they are incapacitated would undermine the traditional view of marriage. In fact, isn't mutual support and strength a necessary part of marriage? Recognizing the support and strength of stable relationships and their necessity in a hospital situation is not the same as systematically attempting to destroy marriage. Besides, one would think Obama's conservative opponents would be more receptive to changes that emphasize a citizens' individual choice and independent discretion.
Thursday's announcement can seem like a drop in the bucket when it comes to equal rights for gay couples in America; as the director of the gay rights organization Human Rights Campaign, David Smith said until full marriage equality is achieved, "much more inequalities exist." It is still, however, one more step to equality and full rights for gay men and women in America and the President should be applauded for his effort. This order brought attention to the ways in which gay men and women suffer because of their inability to marry; it showcases one of the rights gay couples are refused that straight couples can take for granted.
Ideally, this decision will show opponents of gay rights that there are real people and actual lives affected by marriage inequality in this country and give those critics cause to think about the other rights gay people are denied. More simply though, it will help people in their time of need and that is the order's most important function. I believe and hope that this order brings us one step closer to marriage equality and full rights for gay Americans.
