Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Newly Married Lesbian Couple Files Suit
AP ^ | May 22, 2004 | AP

Posted on 05/22/2004 8:06:03 AM PDT by Brilliant

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-67 next last
Just one of the millions of instances where gay marriage is going to put an additional economic burden on America, and hence the American family.

The good news though is that if you are a physician in Massachusetts, you can move here to Florida to avoid the higher malpractice costs that will inevitably result.

1 posted on 05/22/2004 8:06:03 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
By the time the biopsy was performed nearly eight months later, Charron's lump had grown and she was diagnosed with advanced cancer that had spread to her liver and sternum. Doctors have given her 10 years to live.

Can this be right?

2 posted on 05/22/2004 8:08:33 AM PDT by Klaus D. Deore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

I'll be very surprised if this suit isn't immediately thrown out. I don't think you can get married and then sue as a spouse for a tortious act that took place BEFORE you were married.

As I said to hubby yesterday, I'm not sure the advance of civilization has been a good thing. I read articles like this and I am convinced the world would be a better place if most people were still out tilling the ground for their sustanence.


3 posted on 05/22/2004 8:09:48 AM PDT by jocon307 (The dems don't get it, the American people do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Klaus D. Deore

Not all cancer is the same.


4 posted on 05/22/2004 8:10:01 AM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jocon307

The article discusses that. You've got to remember, though, that this is Massachusetts we're talking about. I'd be surprised if they throw it out.


5 posted on 05/22/2004 8:11:12 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Could a heterosexual couple file the same type of suit? Would a husband file a suit because it wasn't detected in his new bride? I think that they wouldn't be able to, and it would also be a new low in shallowness of a relationship. Oops...but that's expecting morals to come into play. Homos don't have that.
6 posted on 05/22/2004 8:11:55 AM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Loss of consortium: Deprivation in some degree of the companionship, affection, sexual relations, or cooperation of a spouse due to an accident or injury.

Yes sir, you can still sue for not being able to get any from your significant other.

How this will work with homosexual "marriage" is frightening to contemplate, but I bet the courts will find a solution lickety-split.

7 posted on 05/22/2004 8:12:38 AM PDT by Loyalist (Kasper for Pope: Because things won't get better until they can't get any worse!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jocon307
I'll be very surprised if this suit isn't immediately thrown out.

Nothing that happens with judges and lawyers surprises me anymore.

8 posted on 05/22/2004 8:12:45 AM PDT by Samwise (The new media motto: All the news that fits our agenda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jocon307
You think the same courts that allow homos unions would toss out this case? Not likely.
9 posted on 05/22/2004 8:12:52 AM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Did anyone on this planet besides brain dead liberal politicians think homo marriage was anything but a money grab to circumvent marriage requirements for insurance claims?


10 posted on 05/22/2004 8:22:50 AM PDT by JoeSixPack1 (Freedom Stands Because Heroes Serve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

The worms are out of the can and there is no going back.


11 posted on 05/22/2004 8:23:58 AM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loyalist
I bet the courts will find a solution lickety-split.

"Lickety split" is a lesbian divorce, right?

12 posted on 05/22/2004 8:26:48 AM PDT by JennysCool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Health care will remain unaffordable until lawyers, malpractice litigation, and unlimited plaintiff's awards are eliminated from the system.

The bill for these awards, including the lawyers' take, is paid by all patients.

In an ideal world, it would be nice to compensate everyone for every misfortune. In the real world, we cannot afford to.

Furthermore, the threat of litigation has not altered the incidence of iatrogenic injury.

The cost of medical care will remain beyond the reach of everyone until this problem is resolved.

13 posted on 05/22/2004 8:31:09 AM PDT by Savage Beast (My parents, grandparents, and greatgrandparents were all Democrats. My children are Republicans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loyalist

It seems to me that as it was Massachusetts that allowed for this silliness, that the State of Massachusetts should be the ones to foot the bill!!

THAT might encourage the voters to clean house in that State.


14 posted on 05/22/2004 8:35:07 AM PDT by Gator113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Hahahahah. The people of Mass. let their judicial system do this and now they will have to pay the price of competent people in medicine fleeing that state. The rest of America had better wake up fast. Having "compassion" for the gays "equal" rights is like having compassion for terrorists.


15 posted on 05/22/2004 8:35:22 AM PDT by freeangel (freeangel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

This is the great unreported fact of homosexual marraige. How much extra is this going to cost the average american?

How does the average employer deal with a whole demographic of new people added to the health care rolls, many of which are high risk for disease and physical violence?

It is politically incorrect to report on the higher incidences of disease and violence among homosexuals - people are called a racist if they do it. So people will just wonder what happens to their health care premiums.

The Democrats don't care. This just brings them closer to their dream of forced mass health care from the government.


16 posted on 05/22/2004 8:41:43 AM PDT by I still care
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Ahhhhh...now it begins....more of the degradation of America.

Red

17 posted on 05/22/2004 8:44:52 AM PDT by Conservative4Ever (watch this space for future tag line...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Golly, isn't this going to be a hoot?


18 posted on 05/22/2004 8:48:48 AM PDT by Libertina (Through sun, rain, sleet, snow...Puget Sound FReepers keep the BBQ party on the go! TODAY 2:00 PM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,

By now, you all know that lesbian consort consists of practices A, B, C, D, E and F.

Because of her surgery, petitioner can no longer engage in practices B and C within the sacred shrine of lesbian matrimony. She claims the loss consort is worth one million dollars.

However, petitioner can STILL engage in practices A, D, E and especially practice F. So, at most, the petitioner is entitled do minimal damages.

We ask you to award the petitioner 69 cents.

Your Honor, we rest.


19 posted on 05/22/2004 8:54:24 AM PDT by Tax Government
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I still care
A friend of mine sustained a serious knee injury and was laid up and on crutches for many, many months. He sued "X" which was a business enterprise (the injury occurred on their premises) and they were found negligent. He was awarded monies for medical, pain and suffering AND loss of relations with his wife.

This is a little different as it is a "physical" problem not caused by the Doctors "X".

Not only that; while I certainly sympathize, you'd think that between the two of them, they'd have gone to another doctor. Not only that, the woman could have sued the doctor for negligence IF IT WAS SO and not use this ground at all. I don't think it's going anywhere.

20 posted on 05/22/2004 8:57:36 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-67 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson