Missing the Point

I’m going to be all over the place in this post, so I hope that you’ll bear with me.

Moreover, I figure that this one might cost me some friends. Still, I have to talk about this.

A few weeks ago I heard this story, and wondered whether I wanted to write anything about it. I regret that I haven’t yet, but I suppose the saying has some truth to it, Better late than never.

I was prompted to write it, after all, by two different things: one was hearing an incident mentioned on the radio quiz show “Wait, Wait Don’t Tell Me.” Apparently, Onenewsnow.com is one of those groups that dogmatically refuses to allow the term “gay” to be used in reference to homosexuality. This kind of thing usually just gets me to roll my eyes, but this story turns humorous and pitiful at the same time.

In Onenewsnow’s version of the AP story about Olympic athlete Tyson Gay, well, … there’s a screen capture here. Enjoy.

Of course, this problem could be avoided by having human beings do the editing, instead of having machines do it. It could also be avoided by being less worked up about the trivial use of terminology. In general, I favor the use of “homosexual” over “gay,” for the simple reason that “gay” has many other meanings. However, I never stop anyone to correct them when they refer to gay rights, gay marriage, or anything else. That isn’t the focus of the conversation, and doesn’t contribute anything.

I can imagine the staff of Onenewsnow around Christmas time, singing “Deck the Halls” …

Now we don our homosexual apparel …

Huh?

Anyway …

John Shore, always worth the time to read, had a great post on a different gay marriage-related issue, which finally drove me to write this one. The comments are very interesting, and enlightening. I’d encourage you to take a few minutes to think about his question. Whatever you decide the answer is, it’s probably not as easy a question as it seems at first.

So now, I’m getting to my original point. To cite the very-short UPI version of the story:

MIAMI, June 26 (UPI) — A Washington woman said she filed a federal lawsuit accusing a Miami hospital of “anti-gay animus” after workers refused to let her see her dying partner.Janice Langbehn and her partner Lisa Marie Pond, both aged 39, intended to enjoy a vacation cruise with three of their four children, marking the women’s 18 years as a couple in February 2007, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported Thursday.

The trip abruptly ended when Pond had a massive stroke as the ship was preparing to leave port, the newspaper said.

She was taken to Miami’s Jackson Memorial Hospital, where Langbehn said workers would not let her see her ailing partner.

A social worker allegedly said the couple was in an “anti-gay city and state.”

Pond died about 18 hours after she arrived at Jackson’s Ryder Trauma Center.

Langbehn said she was permitted to see Pond for no more than about five minutes.

The suit, lodged in U.S. District Court in Miami, seeks at least $75,000 and accuses physicians Alois Zauner and Carlos Alberto Cruz and social worker Garnett Frederick of negligence and “intentional infliction of emotional distress.”

Before we get too carried away, I am a little suspicious of the “anti-gay city and state” line. I haven’t heard the confirmed from the hospital’s side, so I don’t want that taken as fact. What is a fact is that a woman died, more or less alone, because the hospital refused to let her family — whether I like it or not, that’s who was there — come in to see her, except during the last rites. (Another angle I’d like explained … how did that happen? Did the priest give the lesbian permission? One would think that the priest would be the person with the strongest anti-homosexual bent.)

Anyway … this is not what opposing gay marriage is supposed to be about. This didn’t help protect traditional definitions of marriage. What it did was cause more pain, and more grief. No one involved in the incident walked away with a new, stronger love for the traditional, one man/one woman marriage, and no one reading it is going to repent of their ways.

What it will do is make those who oppose gay marriage look vicious, spiteful, and heartless. I don’t think that we are, but on hearing of this story the first time, I cried about it. Not only for the loss of life, but also the fact that the death had to happen under such painful circumstances. That the hospital sought to increase, rather than to moderate, the pain of the incident troubles me. This wasn’t love. It wasn’t compassion. It appears to be nothing more than not liking homosexuals, and not viewing them as real people.

So, here I am, 800 words into a post and not sure what my final point is … again. I’m not backing gay marriage or civil unions, or any such thing. However, I’m also not in favor of heartless treatment of homosexual people. There has to be a balance, here. It’s often said — and I’ve said it — that denying the label of marriage to homosexuals has nothing to do with punishing people for their lifestyle, it’s about protecting the traditional institution of marriage.

In this story, the couple was punished. Lesbian or otherwise, it wasn’t the way that people should have been treated.