President Calls for Constitutional Amendment Protecting Marriage

Same Sex Marriage Forum

Reference: White House

Remarks by the President
The Roosevelt Room

10:43 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one The Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342 to 67, and the Senate by a vote of 85 to 14. Those congressional votes and the passage of similar defensive marriage laws in 38 states express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.

In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year. In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California family code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California. A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender. And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty.

After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.

On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.

The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America. Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act, by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress.

Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not, itself, be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage. Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city.

For all these reasons, the Defense of Marriage requires a constitutional amendment. An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern. And the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance. The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoring -- honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.

Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities. We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.

In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and goodwill and decency.

Thank you very much.

END 10:48 A.M. EST

"My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress. "

He never said HE would do this. That would be the end of his political career. He won't take responsibility for this act personally.

I say hire Kevin Costner to act as marriage's bodyguard, Mr. Bush.

Kevin Costner? Gabo, we already have too many actors in politics.

gotta agree with that... The best ones haven't even been in a production of any sort before just very very very good actors...

It's obvious this guy has no respect for Homosexuals, how can he talk about kindness and goodwill. It's like smiling at someone while you slash their stomach open and spill their intestines....

Geez...I think our Prez forgot to state this fact: California has the Equal Protection Clause! The US Constitution has the 14th Amendment!


The California Constitution says, "A person may not
be deprived of life, liberty or property without due
process of law or denied equal protection of the laws ."

The United States Constitution, in the 14th Amendment, likewise says that every one of us is entitled to "equal protection of the laws."

Notice the word EQUAL in both???

Certainly that must mean something!

Its hilarious to think that all people are equal under the law...but some exceptions to the rule are made because of "personal" beliefs.

What a joke!

Equal means equal.....there is no other way around it.

No, no, Mystic, equal means equal*







*note: equal may not mean exactly equal, but kind of equal, depending on the Government's mood and who is in charge at any particular time. Further more, equality may be defined, however in practice it, in most cases, will not actually work out that way. However we will be polite while trying to push our very loose version of equality on the public. Please enjoy.

LMAO Gabo! I like how you put the disclaimer in tiny small print!

[QUOTE]mystic said this in post #6 :
The California Constitution says, "A person may not
be deprived of life, liberty or property without due
process of law or denied equal protection of the laws ."

I wonder if "process of law" is defined as a mayor breaking the laws and not implementing his agenda through the court system, which forces the President and all the states to take action because someone decided to violate the laws put in place by the MAJORITY.

But of course, we know if anyone was violated of their rights to due process since it never made it to court to fight this in an honorable way. Instead the mayor hands out licences against the law.

I wonder how the majority of people feel when we vote something into laws but they are violated as if our votes don't count.

Perhaps doing what is right is better than doing what is expected of us, sometimes.

Great posts, Grant. That was a good defination!

In your 1. 2. 3. postings then, it is a violation of our rights to ban Bibles in schools, courts and other public places because it takes our rights away from us as well.

Therefore, how about everyone who wants to make a statement just take Bibles to school, pray before classes, pray before games, take a Bible to court, talk about God wherever and whenever they want... etc.

After all, the rights were taken away and people ought to rebel against the laws because they violate the rights of those who want to refer to God regardless of what building they are in.

No one would be able to argue separation of church and state because if someone feels the law is unfair.. what the heck? Just buck the system like the mayor did and do it anyway.

Freedom of religion? Are you saying we are not equal to have freedom of religion then? It's a matter of rights when it comes to marriage, but not a matter of rights when it comes to religion?

Oh yeah, I forgot.... why should Judge Moore worry? All he has to do now is drag a few of the monuments in the courtroom. And judges all over the United States can do the same. After all, who cares about separation of church of state? If you don't like a law... break it! You won't get in trouble because nothing was done to the mayor, so it must be ok for all of us to do the same.

And that teacher with the Bible... let's see, how many teachers are there in the US that ban together and take Bibles to school and put them in their desks. May as well start with all the things that got voted into existance. If you don't like a rule, just get out there and violate the laws in the name of what you feel is right.

Oh great... will you two just kiss and get married already!

It will be legal at least

No... you and mystic!!

I'm filling out the online application as we speak.

Yeah... that's what I'm saying.

I promise I won't, but then again that's a whole other thread.

*sigh* mystic. You don't understand my point of view on this issue any more than I see where you are coming from. Equal rights to you is allowing same-sex marriages, which is a violation of the rights we believe in. And freedom of religion to us is equal rights which you believe is not a right. So in either case, both parties would end up being forced into something they don't think is right.

It's not going to be solved between our differences because neither side agrees with the other on these issues.... but hey! We tried didn't we?

Schools still allow kids to learn, whether they worship god or not... but marriage is just for straight people apparently...

So I can't see the similarity here either I'm afraid

Mystic all of those were awesome points!

I think it's unnecessary to have a Federal Constitutional amendment about this. I think it should be left up to the states. Within those districts that vote for same sex marriage, it should be available.

People are so adamantly against same sex marriage, but they don't seem to understand that it IS discrimination. Civil Unions just do not have the same rights as marriage. If the States and Federal Government recognized the equality of both; allowing the same benefits to both institutions, I really don't think that this would be such a hot issue. But the FACT is that civil unions are simply not recognized, hence, homosexuals are looked upon in our government as subhuman. That is INDEED discrimination. No if's, and's or but's about it.

September 1986 - The ACLU successfully sues fifth grade public school teacher Kenneth Roberts, forcing him to remove his personal Bible from his classroom desk. Roberts kept the Bible on top of his desk, and he read from it during his class' silent reading time. He never read it to his students or told them they had to read it.

Though I think it was wrong for the ACLU to file this frivilous suit, he was indeed reading it during School hours and not specifically on his breaks. Nor was the bible hiding in his desk, he kept it out in the open.

The report I read was that it was in his desk. However; so it's on his desk? So what?

How many HP books are out in view to them? How many TV commercials do they see about sex? How many horror films are they allowed to watch? The point is, if we are going to talk about freedom for all, then we need to assume that also includes freedom concerning things of God.

Since that's not the way it is in real life, all parties will have to accept the fact there will be people pushing for what they believe is right, and the opposers will be pushing for what they believe is right.

You believe you are right, but there are millions of Americans who will disagree with you. Same goes for me.

This is a fact of life, and we have to take a stand on where we fall with each issue that comes our way. You know where I stand, and I know where you stand. Life is still going to go on

The ACLU is the scourge of the Nation. I agree with Kookaburra. What a despicable bunch of characters. And what a coincidence, they're liberal democrats. 9th jerkit court of appeals (the most overturned bunch of inept idiots on the planet),also Lib/Dems. The Politicians stepping all over the will of the people right now throughout this country by breaking laws and creating an environment for chaos, again Liberals. The ones fighting for the word GOD to be removed from every public building, school, currency, pledge of allegiance,etc al...liberals. Whose idea of art is an upside down Crucifixion in a bottle of urine? You guessed it. Liberals. Who supports, and gives legal representation (for free) to the most vial of defendants? Liberals. Yes they support NAMBLA, a group which dedicates its time to show others how to rape children and get away with it, and represent them for FREE. So go ahead and stand up for the ACLU. It's amazing why they didn't stand up for the rights of that teacher who decided to wear a cross necklace. She was fired. Where were the "champions of the downtrodden"? The same place they will ALWAYS be when it comes to people stepping on religion. No where to be found. But there they are if you happen to bring a bible under your arm and it isn't wrapped up in a brown paper bag as to conceal it. How dare you do that!!Liberalism is a disease and they are the enemy. Period.
Now back to your regularly scheduled topic
Sorry

devil... can you say anarchy?

I think this country is heading for a clash of liberals vs. conservatives. Just one problem though. The ACLU will represent them for free and we'll have to come up with our own funding. I'm sure the mayor won't mind if people hold back on their taxes so we can put the funding where it's needed. After all, why not buck the system? He can.

Ooops... I said ACLU again in another post. I'm sorry.

Also, I'm going to be watching the news when Americans start rebelling against laws because they see nothing is going to get done to the mayor. We could follow suit. Let's say they do win. I can bet a whole lot of opposers are going to break the laws and not support the new law. If they can hire the ACLU to haul people off to court because we don't support their sickening agenda, then there is nothing to stop our side from forming the same type of group and hauling people to court for trying to force us to accept their agenda.

Could be a showdown in America. All you other countries get your popcorn, candy bars and pop ready to watch the show!

Whoa, simmer down devil, how's the blood pressure?

Ok the NAMBLA thing is disgusting, I will give you that.

Sorry mystic, Devil's rant included the reference to it.

Great previous post BTW! Way to drive the points home!

I think you read the Bible just fine Mystic, you just didn't interpret it the way some people do.

Well if everyone has a right to have the same rights as everyone else, then let's get those men in rebelling because they can't have babies!

There are just some things that don't belong in the "equal" category.

I find it interesting that some people think of gays and lesbians as subhuman. How could someone not believe in equality for all mankind? That's just crazy!

I don't think of them as subhuman at all. I'm sorry you feel that way.

Chel, I understand... and you're right. Unfortunately, it happens with comments, looks, etc... in everyday life. People don't realize it, but that is so hateful. At least I've learned, somewhat, how to have a think skin when dealing with such things. Being called 'sickening' is a hard "Pill to swallow" as my mom would say.

Not trying to stir it up...I just wanted to post this article I ran across. Tell me what ya think of it. It is from the family reseach counsil.


by: Mr. Peter Sprigg

What's wrong with letting same-sex couples legally "marry?"

There are two key reasons why the legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities of civil marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples.

The first is that homosexual relationships are not marriage. That is, they simply do not fit the minimum necessary condition for a marriage to exist--namely, the union of a man and a woman.

The second is that homosexual relationships are harmful. Not only do they not provide the same benefits to society as heterosexual marriages, but their consequences are far more negative than positive.

Either argument, standing alone, is sufficient to reject the claim that same-sex unions should be granted the legal status of marriage.

Let's look at the first argument. Isn't marriage whatever the law says it is?

No. Marriage is not a creation of the law. Marriage is a fundamental human institution that predates the law and the Constitution. At its heart, it is an anthropological and sociological reality, not a legal one. Laws relating to marriage merely recognize and regulate an institution that already exists.

But isn't marriage just a way of recognizing people who love each other and want to spend their lives together?

If love and companionship were sufficient to define marriage, then there would be no reason to deny "marriage" to unions of a child and an adult, or an adult child and his or her aging parent, or to roommates who have no sexual relationship, or to groups rather than couples. Love and companionship are usually considered integral to marriage in our culture, but they are not sufficient to define it as an institution.

All right--but if you add a sexual relationship to love and companionship, isn't that what most people would consider "marriage?"

It's getting closer but is still not sufficient to define marriage.

In a ruling handed down June 26, 2003, the U. S. Supreme Court declared in Lawrence v. Texas that sodomy laws (and any other laws restricting private sexual conduct between consenting adults) are unconstitutional. Some observers have suggested that this dec-ision paves the way for same-sex "marriage." But in an ironic way, the Court's rulings that sex need not be (legally) confined to marriage undermine any argument that sex alone is a defining characteristic of marriage. Something more must be required.

So--what IS marriage, then?

Anthropologist Kingsley Davis has said, "The unique trait of what is commonly called marriage is social recognition and approval ... of a couple's engaging in sexual intercourse and bearing and rearing children." Marriage scholar Maggie Gallagher says that "marriage across societies is a public sexual union that creates kinship obligations and sharing of resources between men, women, and the children their sexual union may produce."

Canadian scholar Margaret A. Somerville says, "Through marriage our society marks out the relationship of two people who will together transmit human life to the next generation and nurture and protect that life."

Another Canadian scholar, Paul Nathanson (who is himself a homosexual), has said, "Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival, ... every human societ[y] has had to promote it actively . ... Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm" that limits marriage to unions of men and women. He adds that people "are wrong in assuming that any society can do without it." [emphasis in original]

Are you saying that married couples who don't have children (whether by choice, or because of infertility or age) aren't really married? If we deny marriage to same-sex couples because they can't reproduce, why not deny it to those couples, too?

A couple that doesn't want children when they marry might change their minds. Birth control might fail for a couple that uses it. A couple that appears to be infertile may get a surprise and conceive a child. The marital commitment may deter an older man from conceiving children with a younger woman outside of marriage. Even a very elderly couple is of the structural type (i.e., a man and a woman) that could theoretically produce children (or could have in the past). And the sexual union of all such couples is of the same type as that which reproduces the human race, even if it does not have that effect in particular cases.

Admittedly, society's interest in marriages that do not produce children is less than its interest in marriages that result in the reproduction of the species. However, we still recognize childless marriages because it would be an invasion of a heterosexual couple's privacy to require that they prove their intent or ability to bear children.

There is no reason, though, to extend "marriage" to same-sex couples, which are of a structural type (two men or two women) that is incapable--ever, under any circumstances, regardless of age, health, or intent--of producing babies naturally. In fact, they are incapable of even engaging in the type of sexual act that results in natural reproduction. And it takes no invasion of privacy or drawing of arbitrary upper age boundaries to determine that.

Another way to view the relationship of marriage to reproduction is to turn the question around. Instead of asking whether actual reproduction is essential to marriage, ask this: If marriage never had anything to do with reproduction, would there be any reason for the government to be involved in regulating or rewarding it? Would we even tolerate the government intervening in such an intimate relationship, any more than if government defined the terms of who may be your "best friend?" The answer is undoubtedly "no"--which reinforces the conclusion that reproduction is a central (even if not obligatory) part of the social significance of marriage.

Indeed, the facts that a child cannot reproduce, that close relatives cannot reproduce without risk, and that it only takes one man and one woman to reproduce, are among the reasons why people are barred from marrying a child, a close blood relative, or a person who is already married. Concerns about reproduction are central to those restrictions on one's choice of marriage partner--just as they are central to the restriction against "marrying" a person of the same sex.

But people can also reproduce without getting married. So what is the purpose of marriage?

The mere biological conception and birth of children are not sufficient to ensure the reproduction of a healthy, successful society. Paul Nathanson, the homosexual scholar cited above, says that there are at least five functions that marriage serves--things that every culture must do in order to survive and thrive. They are:

· Foster the bonding between men and women

· Foster the birth and rearing of children

· Foster the bonding between men and children

· Foster some form of healthy masculine identity

· Foster the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults

Maggie Gallagher puts it more simply, saying that "children need mothers and fathers" and "marriage is the most practical way to get them for children."

But why should homosexuals be denied the right to marry like anyone else?

The fundamental "right to marry" is a right that rests with individuals, not with couples. Homosexual individuals already have exactly the same "right" to marry as anyone else. Marriage license applications do not inquire as to a person's "sexual orientation."

Many people who now identify themselves as homosexual have previously been in legal (opposite-sex) marriages. On the other hand, many people who previously had homosexual relationships have now renounced that behavior and married persons of the opposite sex. If we define a "homosexual" as anyone who has ever experienced homosexual attractions, then both of these scenarios represent "homosexual" individuals who have exercised their right to be legally married.

However, while every individual person is free to get married, no person, whether heterosexual or homosexual, has ever had a legal right to marry simply any willing partner. Every person, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is subject to legal restrictions as to whom they may marry. To be specific, every person, regardless of sexual preference, is legally barred from marrying a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. There is no discrimination here, nor does such a policy deny anyone the "equal protection of the laws" (as guaranteed by the Constitution), since these restrictions apply equally to every individual.

Some people may wish to do away with one or more of these longstanding restrictions upon one's choice of marital partner. However, the fact that a tiny but vocal minority of Americans desire to have someone of the same sex as a partner does not mean that they have a "right" to do so, any more than the desires of other tiny (but less vocal) minorities of Americans give them a "right" to choose a child, their own brother or sister, or a group of two or more as their marital partners.

Isn't prohibiting homosexual "marriage" just as discriminatory as prohibiting interracial marriage, like some states used to do?

This analogy is not valid at all. Bridging the divide of the sexes by uniting men and women is both a worthy goal and a part of the fundamental purpose of marriage, common to all human civilizations.

Laws against interracial marriage, on the other hand, served only the purpose of preserving a social system of racial segregation. This was both an unworthy goal and one utterly irrelevant to the fundamental nature of marriage.

Allowing a black woman to marry a white man does not change the definition of marriage, which requires one man and one woman. Allowing two men or two women to marry would change that fundamental definition. Banning the "marriage" of same-sex couples is therefore essential to preserve the nature and purpose of marriage itself.

Hasn't the nature of marriage already changed dramatically in the last few generations? In defending "traditional marriage," aren't you defending something that no longer exists?

It's true that American society's concept of marriage has changed, especially over the last fifty years. But not all change is positive, and our experiences in that regard may be instructive. Consider some of the recent changes to the institution of marriage--and their consequences:

· The divorce revolution has undermined the concept that marriage is a life-long commitment. As a result, there's been an epidemic of broken homes and broken families, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.

· The sexual revolution has undermined the concept that sexual relations should be confined to marriage. As a result, there's been an epidemic of cohabitation, sexually transmitted diseases, abortions, and broken hearts, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.

· The concept that childbearing should be confined to marriage has been undermined. As a result, there's been an epidemic of out-of-wedlock births, single parenthood, and fatherless children, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.

· The pornography revolution, particularly with the advent of the Internet, has undermined the concept that a man's sexual desires should be directed toward his wife. As a result, there's been an epidemic of broken relationships, abused wives, and sex crimes, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.

And now there is social and political pressure to redefine what constitutes marriage itself. What grounds does anyone have for thinking that the consequences of that radical social revolution, unprecedented in human history, would be any more positive than the consequences of the much less sweeping changes already described?

Why does "defending marriage" and "defending the family" require opposing same-sex unions? How does a homosexual union do any harm to someone else's heterosexual marriage?

It may come as a surprise to many people, but homosexual unions often have a more direct impact on heterosexual marriages than one would think. For example, the Boston Globe reported June 29, 2003, that "nearly 40 percent" of the 5,700 homosexual couples who have entered into "civil unions" in Vermont "have had a previous heterosexual marriage."

Of course, it could be argued that many of those marriages may have ended long before a spouse found their current homosexual partner. And some may assume that no opposite-sex spouse would want to remain married to someone with same-sex attractions. Nevertheless, the popular myth that a homosexual orientation is fixed at birth and unchangeable may have blinded us to the fact that many supposed "homosexuals" have, in fact, had perfectly functional heterosexual marriages. And as Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby points out, "In another time or another state, some of those marriages might have worked out. The old stigmas, the universal standards that were so important to family stability, might have given them a fighting chance. Without them, they were left exposed and vulnerable."

But isn't the number of homosexuals too small for same-sex unions to have much impact on other people's marriages?

It's probably true that the percentage of marriages that fail because of the desire of one spouse to pursue a homosexual relationship will always be fairly small.

The most significant impact of legally recognizing same-sex unions would be more indirect. Expanding the definition of what "marriage" is to include relationships of a homosexual nature would inevitably, in the long run, change people's concept of what marriage is, what it requires, and what one should expect from it. These changes in the popular understanding of marriage would, in turn, change people's behavior both before and during marriage.

How would allowing same-sex couples to marry change society's concept of marriage?

For one thing, it would reinforce many of the negative changes described above. As an example, marriage will open wide the door to homosexual adoption, which will simply lead to more children suffering the negative consequences of growing up without both a mother and a father.

Continued

Among homosexual men in particular, casual sex, rather than committed relationships, is the rule and not the exception. And even when they do enter into a more committed relationship, it is usually of relatively short duration. For example, a study of homosexual men in the Netherlands (the first country in the world to legalize "marriage" for same-sex couples), published in the journal AIDS in 2003, found that the average length of "steady partnerships" was not more than 2 < years (Maria Xiridou et al., in AIDS 2003, 17:1029-1038).

In addition, studies have shown that even homosexual men who are in "committed" relationships are not sexually faithful to each other. While infidelity among heterosexuals is much too common, it does not begin to compare to the rates among homosexual men. The 1994 National Health and Social Life Survey, which remains the most comprehensive study of Americans' sexual practices ever undertaken, found that 75 percent of married men and 90 percent of married women had been sexually faithful to their spouse. On the other hand, a major study of homosexual men in "committed" relationships found that only seven out of 156 had been sexually faithful, or 4.5 percent. The Dutch study cited above found that even homosexual men in "steady partnerships" had an average of eight "casual" sex partners per year.

So if same-sex relationships are legally recognized as "marriage," the idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive and faithful relationship will be dealt a serious blow. Adding monogamy and faithfulness to the other pillars of marriage that have already fallen will have overwhelmingly negative consequences for Americans' physical and mental health.

If you want people to be faithful and monogamous, shouldn't you grant same-sex couples the right to marry in order to encourage that?

Some have argued that marriage will change the behavior of homosexuals, but it is far more plausible that the behavior of homosexuals will change people's idea of marriage, further undermining the concepts that marriage is a lifelong commitment and that sex should be confined to marriage.

The entire "gay liberation" movement has been but a part of the larger sexual liberation movement whose fundamental tenet is that anybody should be able to have sex with anybody they want any time they want. To suggest that the crowning achievement of that pro-homosexual movement--obtaining society's ultimate stamp of approval through civil marriage--is suddenly going to result in these "liberated" homosexuals settling down into faithful, monogamous, childrearing is foolishly naive.

Don't homosexuals need marriage rights so that they will be able to visit their partners in the hospital?

The idea that homosexuals are routinely denied the right to visit their partners in the hospital is nonsense. When this issue was raised during debate over the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, the Family Research Council did an informal survey of nine hospitals in four states and the District of Columbia. None of the administrators surveyed could recall a single case in which a visitor was barred because of their homosexuality, and they were incredulous that this would even be considered an issue.

Except when a doctor limits visitation for medical reasons, final authority over who may visit an adult patient rests with that patient. This is and should be the case regardles