Riddle Me This

Okay. Just imagine the scene. A woman lies in her bed in a persistent vegetative state. She has no higher cortical function, is unable to think, to feel, to react. Dozens of doctors have examined her and agreed... there is no possibility of recovery. As she is unable to chew and swallow, the only thing keeping her alive is a feeding tube inserted in her stomach.

Her love and partner of six years cannot bear to let her go, feels that there is still some consciousness there, believes strongly that any chance, however slim, for recovery of brain function should be given by leaving the tube in place.

Her parents feel differently. They feel it's time to let go, that their daughter would not want to continue "living" in such a way. They ask the doctors to remove the feeding tube, make her as comfortable as possible and put her fate truly in god's hands.

After a lengthy court battle and the direct intervention of Congress and the President... oh wait just a second. There is no court battle. There is no uproar, no outcry, no "our society, our laws and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life". The feeding tube is removed, and in two weeks, the woman breathes her last.

The difference between my hypothetical roles-reversed case and that the one we just can't get away from today? In my story, the parents are legal next-of-kin and have the right to determine treatment... the loving partner is a woman, their 6-year "marriage" one in name only, not legally recognized by the courts or medical establishment.

My story wouldn't even register a small blip on the national radar, unless it was to highlight how fucking unfair our marriage laws are. It's pretty straightforward - when no living will has been prepared, one's legal next-of-kin determines treatment unless there are weird extenuating circumstances (like say it was the next-of-kin who caused the condition and who just the week before taken out a huge life insurance policy). And when you marry someone, unless you make other legal arrangements your spouse becomes that person, for better or for worse.

So what about that much-touted "sanctity of marriage" bullshit? When Congress moves to remove one of the most basic rights conferred by that little piece of paper, what does it say about their TRUE motivation behind denying gay and lesbian couples legal recognition of their unions? They don't give a damn about "protecting marriage," whatever the hell meaning that could possibly have anyway, coming from a body that includes these shining examples.

No, what they care about is legally imposing their tiny and warped definition of "family" on the rest of us. And now that they've decided it's okay to create legislation that targets the rights of ONE citizen of this country (mind-boggling as that is), who's to say that the next bill they pass won't be aimed at me? Or at you?

The stomach-turning hypocrisy of the Schiavo case is almost too much to bear. I woke up this morning feeling more than ever that we're all living in the most dystopian novel ever written, one that has jumped the shark so many times that she shark has finally just given the fuck up and gone home.