Altered Lives

I am not gay, but I am human. It is none of my business, nor that of anyone else, what people do in the privacy of their own lives as long as it harms no one else. This includes their sexual orientation. People who care for one another should have the same rights. By making their union "legal" everyone must have the same rights as well as responsibilities. I am so sorry for the hateful and puny minds that believe it is some sort of threat to them personally. I am also sorry for the sad circumstance that brought Charlene to her activist role, but it is one of those instances where good comes out of tragedy. You go, Charlene. You may sign me: An Activist For Human Lib.

I am not gay, but I am human. It is none of my business, nor that of anyone else, what people do in the privacy of their own lives as long as it harms no one else. This includes their sexual orientation. People who care for one another should have the same rights. By making their union "legal" everyone must have the same rights as well as responsibilities. I am so sorry for the hateful and puny minds that believe it is some sort of threat to them personally. I am also sorry for the sad circumstance that brought Charlene to her activist role, but it is one of those instances where good comes out of tragedy. You go, Charlene. You may sign me: An Activist For Human Lib.

Bentonsta...she was in a studio within her basement which was blocked, is what the story says. She had said on the phone that she was stuck in the studio because the door was blocked or something. That was her own story on the phone in panic. I doubt her own panicked phone calls would be lies. As for the main basement door, I think your analysis of it is spot on due to the sheer pressure of the water. Bottom line here is that she (Strong) had no access to her life partner in a critical situation due to horrible laws that need to be changed. Whatever your really trying to say is mute because it basically calls this womans tragic ending a lie or conspiracy. Your a dick!

I just have a question. How could she not get out of the basement? The report said that Strong couldn't get in because the force of the water was holding the door shut which means the door had to have opened into the basement. But earlier on it also said that Fleming couldn't open the door because something was blocking it. How can this be if the door opened into where she was? How can it block the inside of the door but not be able to be moved by Fleming? Or on the flip side, if it was on the outside and the door opened into the house, not into the basement; why couldn???t Strong simply open the door allowing the water to flood out of the basement and save her partner? Sounds fishy to me???.

I just have a question. How could she not get out of the basement? The report said that Strong couldn't get in because the force of the water was holding the door shut which means the door had to have opened into the basement. But earlier on it also said that Fleming couldn't open the door because something was blocking it. How can this be if the door opened into where she was? How can it block the inside of the door but not be able to be moved by Fleming? Or on the flip side, if it was on the outside and the door opened into the house, not into the basement; why couldn???t Strong simply open the door allowing the water to flood out of the basement and save her partner? Sounds fishy to me???.

No offence to America, but I am a straight Canadian and I am so very thankful and proud that our country and our society has put this cruel and insane issue behind us. It is just plain wrong not to allow two people who love each other to not have the same rights as the rest!

So interesting, I found some great info on gaymarraiges at gaysonlydate.com

Having lived through similar, yet strikingly different, circumstances, I'm somewhat conflicted on my feelings about what happened to Ms. Strong. Certainly, as a gay man who enjoyed a wonderful, if not legally sanctioned, marriage for 18 ?? years till death did us part, I believe that any two adults who love each other and wish to share their lives should have the option of doing so in a manner that our society and government recognize. However, in the meantime, I also feel that those of us who are deprived of these rights, must take steps to insure that we can do right by our partners/spouses in such circumstances.

I met and ???married??? my husband in 1978 when he was 17 and I was 18. When he became ill in 1996, we had already made sure we would have no troubles in exercising the same rights as legally married spouses by having executed wills naming each other as executors and health proxy statements naming each other as our health proxy. With the health proxy, I legally became the equivalent of his ???Next-to-kin??? and as his executor, I was legally entitled to make all funeral arrangements when he passed away in 1997.

Of course, we also had the advantage of living in Manhattan. When in 1986 I was injured and rushed to the emergency room at St. Vincent???s Hospital ??? a catholic hospital ??? there was no hesitation by the staff to allow my husband to join me in the emergency room when he arrived 30 minutes later.

Sadly, there will always be those who are afraid of what they do not understand. And for many Americans, affection, love, and commitment between two members of the same gender is something they still do not understand. Caring for my husband during the final year of his life as he fought the disease that eventually took him when he was just 36 was one of the most painful, yet moving, experiences of my life. Ten years later I realize how much I grew as a person from this and how much it meant to him to have me by his side. I will always be grateful that the doctors, nurses, administrators, nuns, and priests who worked at St. Vincent???s treated us with the same respect and dignity as any legally married couple, recognizing that we shared the love and commitment that are the foundation of every good marriage. Thanks to them, our last year together, though overshadowed by his physical suffering, was not in any way marred by the sort of unnecessary additional emotional suffering that Charlene Strong went through.

Until such a day as we live in a more tolerant, understanding, and accepting society in which we are not judged by who we love, but how much and how deeply we love, I would urge all unmarried couples to seek out the legal protections that are available to them. Though we may agree that they should not be necessary, the reality is that they are and to not avail ourselves of them is as wrong as are the statues and laws that deny us of them automatically through marriage.

Having lived through similar, yet strikingly different, circumstances, I'm somewhat conflicted on my feelings about what happened to Ms. Strong. Certainly, as a gay man, I believe that any two adults who love each other and wish to unite and share their lives should have the option of doing so in a manner that our society, government, and laws recognize. However, until such time as that is true, I also feel that those of us who are deprived of thes rights, must take steps to insure that we can do right by our partneres. whowhdepric

This issue is both simple and complex. At the root of it is the question of societal norms and who establishes them. Regrettably both sides of this one leave me uncomfortable.

I do not believe that the social and religious covenant that has been marriage should be modified to suit the interest of a minority. If marriage is to be "in flux" then any aspect of it is debatable, from polygamy to pedophilia, and based on current values the changes could reflect on existing unions. In addition, the institution as it exists now is already clearly broken and a drain on our legal system.

I also do not believe that morality based on scripture can be justified by mere religious dogma, and anyone who bases an argument of rejection on solely religious rhetoric has no rational leg to stand on.

Perhaps a legal cooperation framework could be established built on the lessons learned from failed heterosexual marriages that might suit the participants as well as society as a whole? In truth, if it were simple and logical, the framework might ultimately supplant marriage in the coming decades, and return marriage to the Church from whence it came.

Ms. Fleming's experience is nothing more than a continuous effort on the part of society to punish people for being gay. If society can't stop you from having a life together- then society will make sure that your relationship is considered unworthy of our sympathy and compassion in death. It isn't a moral issue - but unfortunately there are those with a geat deal of political power and influence that have made it so. Whatever happened to the moral highground of accepting people for who they are - and not hating and discriminating against others simply because you disagree with their perspective or life choices? If a gay couple does not infringe upon my freedoms and rights simply by being gay - then who am I to pass judgement? Do people really believe that by embracing a gay couple that have committed to each other that we will erode straight society? That somehow, over time, we will become a society of gays? It is a ridiculous notion at best and a paranoid one at worst.

Since the world begin marriage was meant to be between a man and a woman. Nobody ever argue about that till the last few years. Christians get married before God by a priest, rabbi or a minister. Others get married before a justice of the peace. So what's the problem?
Gay people cannot get married before God in a Christian Church, so let them get united by a justice of the peacepeace.