Altered Lives

Newsweek Web Exclusive

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: marksgershenson @ 12/22/2007 2:53:10 PM

    I am deeply touched by this article because my brother-in-law too is gay and been with his partner for 20 years. I could not imagine the tragedy like this happening to any couple straight or gay. My prayer goes to Charlene during this holiday season. My prayer is that all of the states pass a law similar to the other eight states that has done so. The issue that Charlene and many other gay couples have gone through is unecessary, and outright cruel. It is time for this country to accept that gay couples are here, and will always be here, and that the right wing extremists be put in their place once anf for all.

  • Posted By: michaelinnorfolk @ 12/22/2007 2:36:16 PM

    As a gay man who is also an attorney, yes, it is true that Strong's problems might have been avoided through proper legal documentation - assuming she could have reached the documents with her home being partially destroyed by flood waters. Yet other Americans need not take this time and expense because the law automatically gives the certain CIVIL law rights. Those posting comments complaining about the story invariably base their views on THEIR personal religious beliefs, forgetting that the Founding Fathers did not want any one set of beliefs to prevent the exercise of different religious beliefs by other citizens. I personally believe that God has no problem with same sex relationships. Do I not have the right to exercise my religious views too? Not according to dewcooper.

    As a Virginian, I am very well versed in the writings of Jefferson, Madison, Marshall, and other early leaders of the nation. They clearly did NOT want the intermixing of religion and government policy advocated today???s Christianists. That???s historic fact regardless of how many times leaders of the Christian Right spout the ???Christian Nation??? myth. I f you do not believe me, read Thomas Jefferson???s draft of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom ??? one of the things he wanted to be remembered for on his tomb ??? and it is VERY clear that dewcooper???s view would be condemned by Jefferson.

    As citizens who pay taxes, own businesses, take part in making our communities good places to live, we gays merely want equal treatment under the CIVIL laws. Religious denominations and individuals are free to practice their particular religious beliefs. However, they do not get to impose them on the rest of us citizens. This inability (or refusal) on the part of the Christianists to understand that religious freedom flows both ways is the principal obstacle to gay equality in this country. Other nations like Canada, Spain, and now even Uruguay have figured this out. Why can???t the USA?

  • Posted By: michaelinnorfolk @ 12/22/2007 2:35:43 PM

    As a gay man who is also an attorney, yes, it is true that Strong's problems might have been avoided through proper legal documentation - assuming she could have reached the documents with her home being partially destroyed by flood waters. Yet other Americans need not take this time and expense because the law automatically gives the certain CIVIL law rights. Those posting comments complaining about the story invariably base their views on THEIR personal religious beliefs, forgetting that the Founding Fathers did not want any one set of beliefs to prevent the exercise of different religious beliefs by other citizens. I personally believe that God has no problem with same sex relationships. Do I not have the right to exercise my religious views too? Not according to dewcooper.

    As a Virginian, I am very well versed in the writings of Jefferson, Madison, Marshall, and other early leaders of the nation. They clearly did NOT want the intermixing of religion and government policy advocated today???s Christianists. That???s historic fact regardless of how many times leaders of the Christian Right spout the ???Christian Nation??? myth. I f you do not believe me, read Thomas Jefferson???s draft of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom ??? one of the things he wanted to be remembered for on his tomb ??? and it is VERY clear that dewcooper???s view would be condemned by Jefferson.

    As citizens who pay taxes, own businesses, take part in making our communities good places to live, we gays merely want equal treatment under the CIVIL laws. Religious denominations and individuals are free to practice their particular religious beliefs. However, they do not get to impose them on the rest of us citizens. This inability (or refusal) on the part of the Christianists to understand that religious freedom flows both ways is the principal obstacle to gay equality in this country. Other nations like Canada, Spain, and now even Uruguay have figured this out. Why can???t the USA?

  • Posted By: debatenotberate @ 12/22/2007 2:20:53 PM

    I am saddened, but not surprised, by the fact that the United States is the most religious country in the developed world while at the same time it has very low levels of education, quality of life, and social justice in comparison to other developed countries. With so many people driven by superstition and the "easy" answers provided in the Bible rather than by hard work, knowledge and understanding we can only hope that good people will stand up and expose American fundamentalist Christianity for what it is - a mechanism used by (largely) old white men to control the ignorant, the superstitious and the innocent. A pox on these men - they do not the work of God, but the work of Sin. Wait - maybe that is what you mean, the world is driven by Sin and that Sin is the work of religious men?

    One more point to ponder. The term "Taking God's name in vain" does not mean cursing or other blasphemy - it means using God's name as your own or believing you can use God's name to defend your own beliefs - it is a terrible sin and if anything it is something that will surely bring the wrath of God upon those who practice it.

    I pray you can try to find the light of God in your heart and dismiss the darkness that men have planted there in the name of God. Salvation and truth will only be yours if you can accept the goodness and light of God and reject the evil and darkness of men who falsely justify their actions, belief and everlasting sin in God's name.

    Get an education - it will bring you light and maybe even an understanding of the true nature of the world and God and men. The Bible and Aesops Fables both contain wisdom, men just don't use Aesops Fables to browbeat other men.

  • Posted By: C. MacLean @ 12/22/2007 12:24:48 PM

    As a nurse involved in the AIDS epidemic in the late 1980's, I saw dozens of men barred at the hospital door, unable to sit at the side of a dying loved one, because they were not the "legal next of kin." I heard stories of hundreds more. The awful suffering brought by the physical aspects of the disease was nothing compared to the horrendous grief generated when loved ones died alone, and partners were forbidden to say goodbye.

    The real tragedy here is that 20+ years later, we are still having the same discussion, with the same bigotry and the same devastating consequences. The real tragedy is that 220+ years later, we are working so hard to un-do the basic tenet of separation of church and state.

    The current American reality is that the divorce rate is at 50% - it is heterosexuals that are destroying the institution of marriage, not gays. The American family is much more likely to involve step-parents, step-siblings, and cohabitating couples of various sexual orientation, not to mention grandparents and adoptive parents, than it is to have a biological father, mother and birth children. Evidently, father didn't know best.

    For most of recorded history, arranged marriages were the norm, and were designed to do two things: consolidate property and allow for the orderly inheritance of that property. Love and God had nothing to do with marriage, and divorce had everything to do with maintaining power - just ask Henry VIII, the father of modern divorce.

    In modern times, the State's interest in marriage has remained unchanged. Organized religion, however, has cleverly deduced that marriage is an excellent way to maintain organized religion - support marriage in a narrow and rigid manner and you guarantee that the religion stays strong. The Church's role in perpetuating an exclusionary thing called "marriage" in reality only perpetuates the power of the Church - do it our way or you can't be part of the Church, (and oh by the way you will also burn in hell) bring you children up our way, and pay us while you're doing it - the Church stays strong, the "family" stays mired in fear, and anyone who tries to do things differently is ostracized and forced to suffer.

    There is a reason our country was founded on the idea of separation of church and state - anytime you allow the church a say in how to run the state, the people suffer. There needs to be an orderly and legal way to protect accumulated property and the rights of children - ALL people's property, and ALL people's children - that is the State's job.

    Should you wish to declare your love for another in front of God and these witnesses, that is organized religion's job.

    Helping a grieving partner attend their loved one's funeral - that should be everyone's job.

    • Posted By: dewcooper @ 12/22/2007 1:21:16 PM

      Our country was not founded on the idea of the seperation of church and state. In fact the very first ammendment written was to gaurantee that the government did not interfere in the practice and expression of religion. The Pilgrims journeyed to this country so that they could practice, not avoid religion. And it was the founding fathers who ackowledged in writing that our rights came not from man, but from our CREATOR. In other words, they stated that without God, there would be no state.

      • Posted By: GoodDeedDoer @ 12/22/2007 1:59:25 PM

        You need to get your history right. This country was not founded by Pilgrims. Yes, the first New England settlers were religious-driven. However, you are completely ignoring those Europeans who came here not for religious freedom but for financial gain, specifically those of the Roanoke and Chesapeake Bay colonies.

        Secondly, the Founding Fathers DID NOT use God or Christian beliefs as the basis for our laws. No where is God mentioned in the US Constitution. Yes, the Creator is mentioned in our Declaration of Independence, but this document is not a legal document and has absolutely no relevance in our system of governance and laws.

        In fact, the words of our Constitution emphasize that it is not God or a king who is making our laws. It is US:

        "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

        WE THE PEOPLE, not "under God" or "with the permission of our Creator." It is our human law.

        Lastly, why would anyone wish to take something as wonderful and beautiful as God and try to submerge him in the filth of political rhetoric? I'm osrry, but I have better respect for my God.

      • Posted By: lalawhipper @ 12/22/2007 1:34:53 PM

        Exactly - people should be free to practice the religion they choose, or NONE AT ALL if that is what they choose. No law that governs all people should be founded in religious tenets that not all citizens believe in. "But the Bible says 'Thou shalt not steal!'" True, but that is not what makes stealing wrong. Stealing is wrong because if I work and earn money and purchase something, I am the owner and you have no right to take it from me. That is why stealing is against the law. Meanwhile, there is no compelling *legal* argument for why homosexual couples shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexual couples. There are only religious beliefs, which have no place as law.

  • Posted By: aquaman773 @ 12/22/2007 8:16:49 AM

    evaneezerscooge: I strongly recommend you begin framing your thinking in terms of the real physical world around you, rather than in terms of the fantasy life you are obviously now living. It is quite pitiable that you devote so much mental energy to an archaic mythology system, completely disconnected from reality; and even more pitiable that you don't even understand your own belief system. This "Jesus" that is the basis of Christianity would certainly have a vastly more compassionate view of this tragic event, and would be working to comfort the survivor and change laws so this never happens again, rather than trying to vilify and attack her. Perhaps you should actually read your bible. You obviously have a very limited understanding of it.

    • Posted By: glynn.newell @ 12/22/2007 8:44:34 AM

      Homosexuality is a sin, just like theft, murder, lieing, fornication, adultry, and hatred to name a few. You need to actually read A bible. You speak from ignorance about the bible. Homosexuals can receive forgiveness, just like theives, murderers, liars, fornicators, adulturers and people that hate. One merely has to accept the Jesus that you refer to. Acceptance means living the same kind of life that He did. You will have to read that "bible" that you referred to in order to find out what that is. Acceptance means acknowledgement of sin and repentance of it. Jesus would simply tell the homosexual to repent and go his/her way and sin no more. Jesus is not a fantasy. You would do well to devote a great deal of mental energy to something that is reality ... not an "archaic mythology system". It is "pitiable" that you don't know anything about the "belief system" that your criticize.

      • Posted By: 207Maine @ 12/22/2007 1:38:12 PM

        Ms./Mr. Newell: I respect your right to believe whatever you wish to believe. Your beliefs, as bigoted and narrow-minded as I believe them to be, have no place in any law that I must obey. Nor do your beliefs rise to a level where they should be codified by any legislature on any level - state or federal.
        My partner of 27 years and I have spent thousands of dollars in legal fees trying to avoid a situation where an "immediate family member" can challenge the legitimacy of our relationship and/or our wishes. In our case, the only LEGITIMATE immediate family member is each other. All others take a back seat. Yet it only takes one police officer, hospital worker or another family member to derail our wishes. This is unconscionable and should be illegal. It is people like you that cost people like me no end of worry and anguish, not to mention money.
        So if you question why you???re not welcome with open arms by the gay community, look no further than the details in the Fleming/Strong story for your answer. Add to that the fact that your words and beliefs contribute mightily to gay-bashing and suicide, and you have a clear, sharp picture of why your attempts to legislate your morality into law is so vehemently opposed by members of our community, and others who have a sense of fairness and true Christian love.

      • Posted By: aquaman773 @ 12/22/2007 9:03:05 AM

        Thank you for the reply, Glynn. Although I disagree with you, I appreciate your input.

    • Posted By: dewcooper @ 12/22/2007 10:49:01 AM

      Yes, Christ would have been compassionate for her loss, but He would have also been critical of her sin. Before Christ gave any blessing to the sinner, He first instructed them to go and sin no more. Christ seperates the sin from the sinner, but the sinner must also seperate themself from the sin. Christ was our sacrifice so that our sin could be removed, allowing us to come into the presence of God. No action or good will that we do can accomplish this feat.

  • Posted By: peacebwithu @ 12/22/2007 1:32:54 PM

    It is people like dewcooper whom God has much work to do. You have much to learn above unconditional love and unfortunately of God's love. God will forgive those who interpret his love as you have described below and I can only hope that you will be enlightened before you leave this earth so you can see the beauty and awe of what God really wants from us.

  • Posted By: Doug Abrams @ 12/22/2007 11:49:41 AM

    All of Charlenes problems which she confronted on that day could have been avoided by simple one page legal documents. One would be a Health Care Power of Attorney, a Living Will and an ordinary Will. Had she taken a few hours to legaly give her the rights that were denied at her darkets hours, we would not even know her name.

    • Posted By: C. MacLean @ 12/22/2007 12:42:04 PM

      As a nurse who is too familiar with the American sick care system, (don't bother to call it health care) please be assured that all of the legal documents mentioned above are worthless in an emergency - they are only useful in situations were the process of dying drags on.

      Ironically, if Charlene had lied and claimed to be Kate's sister, instead of her spouse, she might have been allowed to remain with her. Telling the truth and following the rules when involved in a hospital setting does not, unfortunately, help people stay with their loved ones.

      Please do not expect the broken bureacracy that is American medicine to rely on the broken bureacracy that is the American legal system if you wish to be at your loved one's side while they are dying.

    • Posted By: Woolf @ 12/22/2007 12:15:20 PM

      That's unbelievable naive, Doug Abrams, as many gay and lesbian people could tell you. For one thing, these documents aren't always procurable at the moment of a sudden tragedy, and even when they are, hospitals and police officers frequently refuse to honor them.

      Here's a radical idea: Instead of making same-sex couples file sheaves of legal documents whose significance won't necessarily even be understood by the members of the public with whom they come into contact, why don't we just let them get a marriage license?

      Nice of you to take this opportunity to place the blame on the grieving widow, though, instead of on the prejudiced system that turned her loss into a tragedy of unimaginable proportions.

  • Posted By: jwls327 @ 12/22/2007 12:16:36 PM

    Love is about love and companionship. Why is it that the moral judge's minds go to sex. It is about providing
    loving environments and stable financial and health care etc. LOVE, PEACE,CARING. Everybody deserves
    the same caring relationships regardless of the opinions of the (m) asses.

  • Posted By: jwls327 @ 12/22/2007 12:16:21 PM

    Love is about love and companionship. Why is it that the moral judge's minds go to sex. It is about providing
    loving environments and stable financial and health care etc. LOVE, PEACE,CARING. Everybody deserves
    the same caring relationships regardless of the opinions of the (m) asses.

  • Posted By: presbyteros @ 12/22/2007 9:46:38 AM

    The story is eswpecially tragic because is could have been prevented. But allowing same sex "marriage" is not the only solution, just the presently politically preferred. That couple should have been aware of Washington state's laws and make provisions for hospital visitation, medical decisions and funeral arrangements. All that can be done legally without changing the concept of marriage. Most of us have to make those arrangements legally to be sure the people we want will be allowed to make decisions when the time comes. Dismantling marriage, so essential to the social structure, is not the answer.

    • Posted By: Jack Black @ 12/22/2007 11:18:49 AM

      "essential to the social structure" that would be: straight people can marry any number of times: commit adultery or simple bore of their spouse-- all while keeping the legal rights to marriage for themselves despite their sins and failure to uphold the vows of marriage; and divorce doesn't include God, instead an attorney to screw their spouse out of their share of the money. Straights dismantle marriage, not gays.
      Why do you insist homosexuals should have to shell out thousands of dollars to create legal documents

  • Posted By: JamesFisher @ 12/22/2007 11:00:42 AM

    The amount of nonsense spewed forth supposedly in the name of Christ is one of the great detriments to our society. The fact that gay and lesbian individuals are forced to endure what Ms. Strong has endured because of the twisted bigotries and ignorance of those who hide behind Christ's name is a shame on our country. It is good to see that some legislators are prepared to protect and defend the rights of people like Ms. Strong. And bravo to her for working through her loss to make the country better for others who might face what she faced.

  • Posted By: ptdiver @ 12/22/2007 10:56:56 AM

    Let me add. I live in Utah where I have seen couples who are completely estranged from their biological families due to their sexual choices. How is it somehow better that people who know nothing of the person other than having given birth have rights that a loving partner of many years does not?

  • Posted By: Lefty2k3 @ 12/22/2007 10:53:20 AM

    Illegalimmigrant.....every ethnic group and culture has brough its ups and downs

    In general, we only hear about the bads from the various groups; gang violence, drug trades, sex slaveries

    There are member from every group who have done wonders from this country, we just never get to here about them. Just because the bad news is always louder does not mean there isn't good news to be found.

  • Posted By: evilkitty @ 12/22/2007 10:52:41 AM

    I approve of any law that promotes responsibility and family values. Hand in hand with same sex marriage, comes accepting responsibility for the spouse, legally and morally. Responsibility for their kids. Acknowledging before the law that the relationship exists. they should be taxed, benefitted, treated as any other couple.

    The arguements that it's against the teachings of the bible or god... is right wing church attempting to run the state.

    What is in the best interest of society is a liberal blend of laws that support positive family values, acceptance of differences in race, religion, and sexual preference, and promotes responsibility to family, laws, and those larger accepted societal norms. That way, most of the religious right and left are allowed to live their lives without being ostracised, and the rest of us putter along happily, learning that 'any family is a good family' and being taught to step up to take care of eachother.

    I don't care '... if Christ was alive today.' What I would like to see is that Christ, Allah, the Great Spirit, stay in the church and the home. Let government make the laws that allows your family - however it's comprised - ENJOY the rights to observe your religion, to care for your family.

    This story saddens be extremely, but I do take comfort that Kate's loss brought about a positive change, and that her partner had the courage to stand up and fight for herself, and for a cause that's really just common sense.

  • Posted By: jakislin @ 12/22/2007 10:50:42 AM

    As a Christian gay man, I would urge that we don't respond to hatred with hatred, and remember the vast majority of Christians do try to live as Christ taught, with love and acceptance toward everyone.
    The thing that has always puzzled me in this debate is why heterosexuals would object to gay civil unions or marriage. I don't see how this affects them one way or the other. The only reason I have been able to come up with is that they see legalizing gay relationships as legitimizing something they might not understand or object to, but that doesn't seem like a good reason for them to stand in the way?
    jk

  • Posted By: Lefty2k3 @ 12/22/2007 10:48:20 AM

    DontFall4it, I'm pretty sure this founding fathers could care less about homosexuality, they were too busy just trying to survive in a new environment.
    Glen.Newell. It can't be a sin if both parties are okay with it. In murder, rape, theft, and adultery, person A does something to person B that person B would not want. In homosexuality, both person A and person understand what is happening and accept it. Person C (THAT'S YOU!!) is indirectly invovlved at best and doesn't matter.
    Besides, most homosexuals I know just keep to themselves. They aren't trying to "force it" on anyone. One of my college roomates was gay, he once told me "If I could stop being gay, just "turn it off", I would." He didn't choose this path.
    With the way some people act about it, who would legitimatly CHOOSE it? NO ONE! Why punish him for it?

  • Posted By: jonjon1223 @ 12/22/2007 10:34:07 AM

    I believe if Christ were alive today, he would be at the forefront of showing love and acceptance towards gay people. Isn't that how he was projected in the Bible? Anyone who's even remotely religious would know that! As far as the Bible is concerned, you Bible thumpers can cram it up your ass! The Bible is nothing more than a cultural narrative from a society that existed long ago. Society has evolved and changed into what it is today and the stories in the Bible are outdated. If you want to follow the Bible then women are subserviant humans who serve no other purpose than to give birth, divorce is a sin, lying is a sin, war is unacceptable, etc.....everyone, everywhere would be horrible sinners. Give me a break! God is about love, acceptance, peace, understanding, and all that is good. Take one letter "o" out of the word good and you have God. He is with us all the time showing us the good things and helping up through the bad. So stop using the Bible to mask your hate and stupidity, people!

    As far as this couple is concerned, I think the whole thing is a tragedy and they have my support. Love knows no bounds and it's obvious that they truly, deeply loved each other and they were happy. Regardless of whether or not someone is legally a spouse, under the circumstances, NOBODY should ever have been treated as they have during a time like this.

    • Posted By: Gillis @ 12/22/2007 10:47:08 AM

      jonjon1223,
      Don't talk about something that obviously you know nothing about.
      The Bible Is as much true today than It was 2,000 years ago.
      You cram your knowledge of the Bible you know where.

  • Posted By: Illegalimmigrantnyc @ 12/22/2007 10:40:28 AM

    I can???t imagine how devastating this experience must have been for Charlene Strong.
    I extend my condolences for her and her loved ones in these most difficult times.

    The comment placed by tiredoftheinsanity is offensive and selfish in the highest degree but yet it reflects accurately the hate and intolerance towards Christians by the homosexual community.

    Are there so called Christians that betray their core principles in favor of bigotry? Yes, but homosexuals often betray their favorite mantra. . . T-O-L-E-R-A-N-C-E.

    Christians and true free-tinkers know that tolerance and freedom mean something different for the homosexual community. Paradoxically these terms have the opposite significance to them.

    To homosexuals tolerance means to tolerate or agree with what they do only. Any other philosophy that challenges their ways is simply intolerable.

    Mind openness means to realize and assimilate exclusively their view of society
    Anything that challenges this view is considered bigotry and homophobe.

    I live in New York City and I can openly say that homosexuals are extremely closed minded and prejudiced when it comes to other world views.

    Fortunately Christians are also protected by the constitution.

    Tiredoftheinsanity claims to have read the Bible. Obviously he or she has completely overlooked the part where it says you shall love your neighbor as yourself. In fact the teachings of Jesus are inextricable. Social justice and democracy are the product of a nation based on the principles of the bible, even the atheists acknowledge this (Richard Dawkins).

    The bible also says, by their fruits you shall know them. So, what are the fruits of the homosexual community? What have they contributed with as a community other than sex shops and gay bars?

    God gave us the moral law, the golden rule, christmas and most important, the Christ who embodies all the beauty of creation and beyond.

    Homosexuals and atheists will arguee against this because they love the comfort of what they do but their conciences are penatrated by Jesus???s teachings.

    Sorry I say things as they are.

    I am not a homophobic, in fact homosexuals are one of my favorite groups to engage. bring it on!!

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse