Posted on 02/09/2006 12:55:09 PM PST by Terriergal
A fresh focus on domestic partners
Focus on the Family is supporting legislation to provide expanded legal benefits for heads of untraditional households including gay couples.
We were pleasantly surprised last week when Focus on the Family expressed its support for state legislation that would provide expanded legal benefits for same-sex couples and other non-traditional households.
In the chaos of domestic-partner, civil-union and gay-marriage measures, there will be plenty of time to take sides in 2006 as state lawmakers and voters consider whether to expand the standing of same-sex couples to anything that resembles heterosexual marriage.
Focus on the Family, the Colorado Springs-based organization of conservative Christians, has endorsed a measure by Sen. Shawn Mitchell,
R-Broomfield, that would expand legal benefits to non-married heads of households, no matter the orientation of the couple. The position seemed a contrast to the group's vigorous efforts to "preserve traditional values and the institution of the family."
The legislation itself is a direct challenge to a civil unions proposal by Rep. Tom Plant, D-Nederland, that will ask voters to grant same-sex partners a menu of rights now only extended to married couples, such as inheriting property, making medical decisions on behalf of a partner and child support arrangements.
Jim Pfaff, state policy analyst for Focus, said Mitchell's
bill is a "common-sense alternative" to the domestic partnership legislation. "A domestic partnership bill based on sexual orientation is giving extra benefits to a class that has a high standard of living at the expense of other adults who are at or near the poverty level, and we believe that's discriminatory," he said.
Mitchell's bill extends a range of benefits to unmarried people who sign what he calls a "reciprocal beneficiary agreement." He says relatives, friends, roommates and same-sex couples would all be eligible.
His bill covers such a broad potpourri of relations that we wonder if it will seem reasonable
to most lawmakers or voters, but such a measure opens a new front in the debate on what rights to extend in the nation's ever-increasing number of non-traditional households - living arrangements that Donna Reed would be hard-put to recognize. While benefits would include dependent health care coverage, property-sharing rights, funeral decisions and organ donations, Mitchell intentionally excluded issues related to parental or guardianship rights over a child or child-support issues. "This doesn't try to recreate the family structure," he said.
Pfaff said that while Mitchell's Senate Bill 166 includes same-sex
couples, "it is not premised on sexual orientation." If it were, the group would not support it, he said.
It's a subtle way to show some tolerance in the debate over same-sex rights, and Focus also surprised some observers this week on a matter of popular culture when it endorsed the film "End of the Spear," despite the casting of a gay actor in the lead role. The movie depicts the real-life slaying of missionaries in Ecuador. Some other Christian groups bashed it because of the casting, but Focus' media critic Bob Waliszewski said his website assesses the content of entertainment offerings "rather than
the skeletons in the closet of every actor, producer, cameraman. We just don't go there." What matters, he said, is that "it's a wonderful story. It's well done."
I am really shocked by this. Does Dr. Dobson know about this?
How do you decide who is 'head of household'???
The best way to collapse a system is to keep piling it on till it flattens under it's own weight..
Remember though ..while you are lookin' out for #1.. don't step in #2
I started to listen to a show on it yesterday and got interrupted. I think he does know though. Here is the link to the radio program (not focus on the family but another Christian show)
listen here:
http://www.vcyamerica.org/crosstalk/event_popup.cfm?programid=1288
WWWWWhhhhaaaaattttt!!!!
uhhh.... ok....?
I think we should take th word for it rather than invite examples of why.
I have the same reaction. Then again, Dobson never claimed to be a theologian, he's far too interested in the 'relationship' side of things and sounds like he's getting dragged off course by that as well as most of the evangelical church nowadays.
Why do I have doubts about this? I somehow think there is more to this story than is being told.
yeah... I'm with you. But then, we shouldn't have to decide either of them as head of household. Maybe the kids (shudder) will be heads of household. It'd make just as much sense.
Family research Institute's reaction to FOF's support of bill
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/Default.aspx?tabid=92
These folk who think they can redefine what God created (marriage) are only kidding themselves. They can only end up with the pagan leadership that Christ admonished His followers was not of His kingdom. If we love the Lord, we will follow His commands. He created male and female and He created marriage between one of each of these. Period. within that institution, He has established the hierarchy (Ephesians 5) and we cannot shy away from it.
Well, we of course don't enforce cohabitation or other anti-promiscuity laws that are on the books.
However this law will make it impossible for people to deny companies paying for the support of someone's current domestic partner under insurance policies and other legal contracts.
What the...!?!?!
er... impossible for companies to deny
hey I was wondering if you were still around!
Of course, but they're trying to make the rest of have to legally pay for their unhealthy choices... and then of course (as if it wasn't already happening) be able to adopt kids without any hassle whatsoever.
Actually, that article on the the Evangelical Climate Initiative says that although Rick Warren joined the campaign, Dobson refused to.
Where is the statement of the refutation?
Hi, TerrierG! I'm here but not too much - had to give my pinglists to others for a while. Planning a "rant" in a while....
(Just got a lot of other things on my plate right now.)
“but there are some questions that ought to be answered... in 1989, she [Miers] answered a poll done by a gay rights organization and asked if she believed in gay rights... well, you know what, I do... I don’t believe that homosexuals should be denied a job... I don’t believe that they should not be able to buy a house... I don’t believe that they should not have the same rights everybody else does... I just don’t believe that there should be special rights given to homosexuals that are not given to anybody else…”
I agree with Dr. Dobson. Homosexuals already have equal rights and should not be given special rights. Those who do not believe that homosexuals should not have the right to buy a house, or hold a job, or have free speech, or the right to bear arms are those who would deny anyone who offends them the rights that God has granted each individual.
This legislation would give "non-homosexuals" the same rights that "homosexuals" would be getting as proposed by another legislator in Colorado. This proposal would allow non-homosexual domestic partners to have the same rights as homosexual domestic partners.
To say that this is somehow endorsing homosexual rights is twisting and obscuring the truth into a shallow lie. This is forcing the issue of equality back upon the homosexual community by saying, "No! You cannot have special rights. You can have equal rights with everyone else."
..But it is a parachurch organization!
BTW I found online an apology to the gay community issued by the co-founder, of FOF, Gil Alexander-Moegerle (why on earth is his name hyphenated???)
http://www.exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/2005/03/1997_focus_on_t.html
(that's a site, as far as I can tell, to try and debunk the idea that gays can change)
Maybe he had more influence than he thought, before he left. Or maybe a ton of lukewarm CINO's have infiltrated the ranks and deceived anyone left that actually had an idea what the Bible says about these things.
The article you sited said Dobson did NOT sign it.
Me too.. except that doesn't seem to be what this bill does. I can't cover my 'friend' on my insurance, etc... only my 'domestic partner/spouse.' I also don't think that heterosexual couples not married should be able to have each other on their insurance policies.
oh whoops - thanks for catching that.
Besides it's drawbacks, I can see some benefits from a bill such as this one.
Just asked to have that pulled.
such as?
yeah sorry... i got too excited about that. I asked the mods to pull that post.
Ok, the Colorado legislature is going to pass a "domestic partners" bill. Take that as a given, as that is the what the political climate is heading towards right now.
Now, accepting this as fact (although I would vote against it personally), there are now two proposals before the legislature. The first proposal specifically give "domestic partner" rights to only homosexuals. The second proposal gives the "domestic partner" rights to all non-married domestic partners.
Given the first fact, that one of these proposals is going to pass, I would choose the second proposal. Not to give rights to homosexuals, but to prevent homosexuals from getting special rights.
This is being twisted to say that it is giving special rights to homosexuals.
It'll do nicely for the fervent Christian-bashers on this forum, though.
You had to sign a form that excluded members who follow the Papacy.
Really, I would very much like to see the evidence of that.
"such as?"
I've often wondered why I had to be related to someone by marriage to buy insurance for them. I always thought it should be Employee +1, Employee +2, etc. as far as the rates go. Why do they care who is covered?
Just a thought.
Another good example, thanks.
"Well, we of course don't enforce cohabitation or other anti-promiscuity laws that are on the books.
"
What laws are those? Can you give me examples?
Whoever has the biggest head, wins?
BTW, not totally sure I trust this source. The Denver Post has long had an axe to grind re FoF.
Where has Dobson refuted this? Link, please.
Why does focus on the family have to support either version?
I'm a Christian myself, and ashamed for the majority of lukewarm CINOS that everyone calls Christian.
The freedom to turn reality on its head and demand by judicial fiat and or legislative subterfuge that society recognize homosexual activity as normal or somehow beneficial to society will remain clamped down for eternity...
Because the nuclear family is what benefits society, therefore society has a duty to encourage it.
And from a Christian standpoint, (which doesn't apply to government necessarily) it is the only sanctioned family unit, separable only by death.
The point is not that Colorado is going to pass the bill, the point is that FOF, ostensibly a Christian family organization, is endorsing it.
Especially in the ethics of the paper that printed this distortion of facts...
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.