media

Have you heard about the gay couple in CA who had all their visitation rights denied and personal belongings auctioned off by the state when one of them went into the hospital?  Here’s a quick summary:

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100420/ARTICLES/100429976/1033

“Greene, 78, said that as Scull lay dying in a hospital bed two years ago, Sonoma County officials denied visitation for the same-sex couple, contending they were mere ‘roommates’ despite signed wills, medical declarations and powers of attorney naming each as the other’s spouse.”

and

“‘They stole my furniture, put me in a retirement home and told me to shut up,’ said Greene, sitting in his cramped studio apartment where he lives alone in Guerneville. ‘They took my cats. They took everything.'”

Any reasonable person would agree that’s horrible.  That kind of treatment is inexcusable toward any human.

Or is it?

Well, what if his visitation rights were denied because Mr. Greene put Mr. Scull in the hospital in the first place?  Yup, that’s right.  It was a domestic violence case.

http://i.imgur.com/TeK9Z.png and here.

“The Sonoma County Public Guardian became involved in this matter as a result of a report from Harold Scull that Clay Greene had physically assaulted him, resulting in Mr. Scull’s hospitalization.  Mr. Greene’s domestic violence against Mr. Scull has been independently verified during the course of litigation, including reports of witnesses who tended to Mr. Scull following the hospitalization.”

So, they didn’t allow him to visit his partner because he put him in the hospital.  I don’t think they would have allowed an abusive husband to visit his wife in the hospital after giving her a beating.  And it sounds like they had Mr. Greene put into a retirement home to care for him because of dementia and they sold off his possessions to pay for it.

Sure, I’m a little nervous about the state having that kind of power, but it seems reasonable in this case.  I mean, they had incontrovertible proof, right?

“While criminal charges were not filed, that does not mean there was no domestic violence.  In order to file criminal charges, there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the highest standard known in the law”

Wait, what?  You had enough proof to commit a man to a retirement home and sell everything he had but not enough to file criminal charges for a beating you had eyewitnesses for?!

This whole thing is such a mess.  The media and the homosexual lobby seem to be trying to position this as a denial of rights, without telling the whole sordid story, which I find despicable.  It reminds me a lot of the ridiculous tactics of the anti-Prop 8 campaign.

But the state is certainly not without fault either.  It’s pretty rough when you can tell a big wrong has been done but don’t know which side got the worst of it.

Brownies
Image by yum9me via Flickr

I’ve always told myself that if I ever get the chance to teach a youth lesson at church, I would start off with an object lesson I heard as an analogy years ago.  Here’s how it goes:

We’re in the gym and there’s a long table set up.  On the table are some of the biggest, moistest, most delicious brownies you’ve ever seen.  They’re still hot and they are smothered in chocolate frosting (okay, I’m drooling now).  I invite a kid to come up and eat a brownie.

When she gets up there, I say, “just so you know, there’s a tiny piece of dog poop in there.  Here you go!”  Inevitably, the kid (and everybody else) will refuse to eat the brownie.  “But,” I say, “it’s just one small part.  You’re not going to throw this brownie away for one small part, are you?”

Of course they will.  As would anybody.  Right? Continue Reading