In Colorado, there is a bill before the legislature to create a Domestic Partner registry allowing couples to become domestic partners and have some of the rights and benefits accorded married couples.
In an effort to pull support from the Domestic Partners bill, Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, introduced Senate Bill 166, which would offer far fewer rights and benefits but would be open to any two people who wanted to declare themselves as reciprocal beneficiaries.
Mitchell’s bill, which has been assigned to the Business, Labor and Technology Committee, would allow a wide range of partners – including same-sex couples, adults who are related by blood or adoption, and friends – to sign a form declaring themselves reciprocal beneficiaries.
Once the form is filed with a county clerk the partners would have property-sharing rights, decision-making powers over funerals and organ donations and could be covered under one person’s health care policy. Partners could cancel the form at any point.
Focus on the Family has signed on to Bill 166. If passed, it would allow gay couples no more rights than random strangers while also diffusing gay couples’ claims of cruelty that results from restricting them from equality. FOTF is able to say, “see, you aren’t harmed at all”.
Though Mitchell has actively legislated consistently in opposition to any rights by gay couples, he denies that his bill is intended to distract from the domestic partner registry. FOTF, however, is not so coy:
“We see homosexuals as a group [that] can be found to have the highest standard of living, or amongst the higher standard of living, of any group of people in the United States,” the Focus spokesman says.
“And the legislature in Colorado was looking to give them even more benefits on top of that — whereas you’ve got people in other segments of society who, frankly, have true needs that are being ignored, and they may be at or near poverty levels.”In 1997, Focus on the Family supported similar legislation in Hawaii that had been introduced as part of a move to protect traditional marriage.
However, anti-gay movement is also the “you must get married movement” so they didn’t want to allow any potential heterosexual couples from taking advantage of burial rights or other rights without marriage
Mitchell said it doesn’t matter how long these partners have known each other. The bill does not, however, apply to couples who are eligible to marry.
And this has caused anti-gay bogus statistician, Paul Cameron, to object. It would be possible for unmarried gay couples to get rights that unmarried straight couples could not get. And since Cameron opposes all rights and benefits to any gay couple anywhere, he is accusing FOTF of selling out.
Cameron contends the measure’s exclusion of cohabiting heterosexuals “violates” Dobson’s stated principle. “Needy cohabiting homosexuals would be eligible for benefits” under the bill, says Cameron — but “needy cohabiting heterosexuals would remain needy.”
Cameron maintains the Colorado ministry’s support for the bill “undermines” the efforts of pro-family groups that have been battling against special rights for homosexuals. “Dobson’s statement gives aid and comfort to the homosexual movement,” he charges.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I suspect that taking the Reciprocal Benefits road will eventually prove troublesome for anti-gay activists.
Over time I believe that society will recognize that many more of the benefits that straight couples share should not be restricted from gay couples and will amend the reciprocal benefits to include such benefits. The anti-gay activists will find themselves with same-sex friends eventually having the same rights and benefits as heterosexual married persons. And while allowing gay couples to marry does not diminish the special status of marriage, allowing poker buddies the same rights as marriage does make marriage less special.
At some point they will have to decide whether they want to honor and strengthen marriage or if they want to thwart gay people.
The reciprocal-benefits-for-anyone road also serves another purpose: it ensures that even with such an agreement the relationship itself has only the same legal strength as that between strangers.It converts an apparent equal legal status for both gay couples (who cannot marry) and straight couples (who have married) into the exact opposite. It leaves legal recognition in limbo, and opens the status of the partner to legal challenge. Just like a power of attorney etc. In other words, such reciprocal benefits agreements will be little worth the paper it’s written on if push came to shove. Unlike the registration of a civil marrage.The introduction of reciprocal benefit legislation is a last ditch attempt by anti-gay groups facing the possibility of deliberate — and therefore legally stronger — recognition of gay relationships. The Vatican has advocated this pathway when faced with this situation in Europe.
PS I should add: when faced with the alternative of civil unions or marriage, the basis of support for reciprocal benefits legislation is that it is literally declaring that the relationship itself is irrelevant.Hence, it leaves the legal status of gay relationships exactly where they are now: nowhere.There are many legitimate reasons why people who simply share households or caring for family members etc need these responsibilities to be recognised and protected (particularly if State-based funding for support services is being withdrawn and people are being thrown back onto the goodwill/resources of friends and family). Job protection for people with such responsibilities is a good example.
At some point they will have to decide whether they want to honor and strengthen marriage or if they want to thwart gay people.
Well-put. I don’t know what else to say. I’m just tearing up because some people apply so much creativity and time and effort and taxpayer/donor money to keeping other people down. Maybe that’s not the most cerebral comment, but it is really getting to me that they are affecting real people’s real lives–and if they honestly think we’re all so privileged, they need to visit my tiny little townhouse–and they know it, and do this anyway. I come here to learn (y’all are so quick!) and to understand, and tonight I am glad I don’t entirely understand.
I’m enjoying this very much! The rats have begun their cannibalizing. Fighting amongst themselves. Too many hands in the fundraising pot – not a lot of funds in the pot.
Posted by: Jayelle at February 15, 2006 08:53 PM
Javelle I’ve been feeling the same way yesterday and today. Its so upsetting and almost impossible to believe that some people are willing to go to such lengths to steal our happiness when that can’t possibly add much to their’s. Is it solely due to anti-gay hatred being a good fund raiser or are these people that incredibly callous that they figure all of our happiness is a fair trade for the trivial pleasure it must bring them to know they’ve denied us something major? No fairminded person takes so much to gain so little.
Further to what you said Javelle I’d like to add I live in a trailer and my income in the last several years has averaged roughly six thousand U.S. ($6,000). The Christmas before last I spent the week living on nothing but peanut butter and milk. Privileged indeed…
…and Alan Chamber’s 65,000+ per year looks damn rich compared to my 6,000.
“Dog in the manger” really defines their M.O., doesn’t it.
When the citizens of Germany were suffering yet another round of inflation and job loss…the Jews were a similarly convenient target.
‘See, the Jews have money. See the Jews are prospering at YOUR expense. See the Jews are the cause for trouble in your mind.’
And if FOTF doesn’t like the comparison, then they can stop BEHAVING like the Nazis did at their inception!
I think members of FOTF need to go to a Holocaust archive somewhere.
Are they really this damn ignorant of what has been spoken before?
Are they so unfamiliar with what Nazis and segregationists supported?
Why DON’T they hear the echoes of those eras in their own words?!
This is appallingly inexcusable.
It really is….and I thank God that I grew up in a home and with people and a place at hand to teach me to listen.
To take heed and understand….what is carried on this ill wind.
Thoughtful comments, guys. I have to say that in Colorado we are really enjoying the religious right melting down over this. Shawn Mitchell handed us a big old gift with his reciprocal benefits proposal. People on the right side of this issue see it for what it is–a do-nothing bill intended to distract from domestic partnerships. But all it has done is confuse voters, and that’s a good thing. A confused voter is much easier to educate than one who is ideologically entrenched.
All of this talk about unmarried straight couples reveals the fact that this marriage ban is being pushed by a bunch of national groups who have not educated themselves on Colorado law. Colorado is one of only seven states that still has unrestricted common law marriage. There is no such thing as an unmarried straight couple if the couple just calls themselves married. They don’t even have to live together. They just say the word and they are married and have all the benefits and protections of marriage. Gays and lesbians have no such rights.
Full disclosure: I am now working on the campaign to pass the domestic partnership referendum and defeat the marriage ban. So wish us luck!
Jayelle- I am beginning to feel the same way. I just hope we can band together as a group, find a way to reframe the debate in truth rather than stereotypes, and persuade voters. We have such an uphill battle ahead of us, and it seems like the more headway we make, the more vicious and callous the anti-gay folks become. I just hope we can prevail even still.
Interesting comments on Dobson’s FOTF radio program today. His indignance is almost amusing. He claims that this whole disagreement is just the result of other Christian leaders being jealous of his prominence and influence in the world. He claims Paul Cameron is riding his coattails in the debate, and that angers him. He and his cohost also get absolutely INCENSED that others are publishing distorted articles without calling FOTF to get their perspective. Having read more than a few distorted articles about gay issues in FOTF publications (many that haven’t been corrected even after feedback has been received), I found this a little precious. Comes ’round to bite you eventually Doc, huh?
I presume Exodus will now be getting another directive from Colorado…”Remove all mention of Paul Cameron from your site. You will still have to use his claims, but don’t mention him by name.”As has been noted here at XGW before, many times; one of the places that direct people to many “resources” by Paul Cameron and the Family Research Instsitute (sic) is the Exodus Youth site. You are but one or two deliberate links away from the very worst of Cameron’s worst.And going in for a check-up… I notice Exodus Youth continue to place a link to a Love in Action/Refuge promo on their opening page.And LIAR continues to refer to itself as an “outpatient program” involving “theraputic groups” and “individual counseling”.
I noticed that about EY myself.
Oh, the reason I came back here is Dobson’s whining about the need for “civility” on his own site.
https://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0039559.cfm
Dobson supports a bill that would “appear” to give us equal partnership rights? Something doesn’t smell right here… Am I the only one waiting for the other shoe to drop?
Dan,
This bill, in the short term, is better than nothing – at least in the lives of specific individuals, though potentially a setback in the movement toward equality.
However, don’t be confused by the rhetoric. It does not give rights to partners. In fact, it’s designed to avoid giving rights to partners.
It says only two individuals (whether or not in any relationship whatsoever) can have some reciprocal benefits. This bill disrespects partnerships and says they are of no greater value to the state than two poker buddies who want to share heath benefits.
The anti-gays are so worried that gay couples would get some recognition as couples that they’ll take steps to diminish the specialness of committed married heterosexual couples – just so that they don’t have to acknowledge the existence of committed homosexual couples.
They can see that average Americans (including a majority of Republicans and a majority of self-described Christians) believe that gay couples should have some rights. Knowing that some of these laws (especially in heath care, hospitalization and death benefits) are going to be changed, the smart anti-gays are trying to diffuse the situation by removing the most blatantly cruel examples of inequality.
But they (FOTF in this example) are positioning themselves so that they favor disolving some (or all) of the rights reserved to marriage rather then would allow gay couples (as couples) any of these rights. They give random strangers the same rights as gay couples (and increasingly the same rights as married people) rather than to allow gay couples to distinguish themselves as of value to a stable society.
Ultimately the actions of these “pro-family” activists could result in serious damage to the institution of marriage. The definition of reciprocal benefits is bound to expand as society sees less and less reason to discriminate against gay couples. Eventually this course leads (as in California and Connecticut) to two institutions with equal standing, one called marriage and one something else. Then the anti-gays will have granted poker buddies have all the same priveledges as a married couple. And it’s all so that they may maintain their anti-gay positions.
And the willingness to destroy all you hold dear just so gay people can’t get it, demonstrates that the basis of their action is hatred. And is hatred not of some concept like “sin” but hatred of gay people.
Powerful job on that one Timothy.
So this bill in theory would do exactly what anti-gay activists have been saying gay marriage would do— devalue traditional marriage.
It is absolutely delicious to watch the cat fight between Dobson and Cameron. Dobson has the most rigid ego. If someone official impugnes his “integrity,” criticizes him, or makes him look foolish, he will stop the presses in his organization (which is nothing more than a GIANT vanity press for the man’s ego) to do damage control. The obsequiousness of the hosts and guests just drips with sycophancy. Then his buds like Alan Keyes (their chips having been called in by the MAN) fall all over themselves to right the wrong (not wishing to risk the wrath of the Great Leader). Only a truly sick mind like Cameron can stay the course in opposition.
The take-away-point here is that this represents an important admission of DEFEAT by the anti-gay religious Reich wingers. In this bill, even Dobson recognizes the inevitability of equal marriage rights for GLTB people. They can delay, but not thwart the tide of justice that is rolling on. Bill 166 is a bitter pill for Dobson to swallow, and it is nothing more than a tactical delaying manoeuvre to him. However it is more than that, hedge and obfuscate as he will this represents a strategic defeat for Dobson and the anti-gay forces.
Timothy, your analysis is dead on. We can see similar responses to gay/straight alliance clubs being suggested in schools.
Just to keep that from happening, schools opt to ban ALL extracurricular clubs.
To keep black kids from integrating, local governments promoted school closures, home schooling or private schools.
A similar response to schools that want to teach realistically about gays and lesbians.
Simply telling the truth about gay folks is called a ‘promotion’ of homosexuality and the ‘homosexual agenda’.
The inclusion of gays in marriage and child support is so awful to these people, they’d rather water down it’s purpose and destroy it’s basic tenets (that have nothing to do with romantic love).
I remember when an Russian Orthodox church (a beautiful thing) was burned down after a same sex marriage ceremony was performed in it.
This IS hate. This IS bigotry of the scariest kind.
What is the more moral approach to what gay people do with their lives?
Help gay people be and do their best?
Or spend time, money and social capital making their lives and those who care about them so hard, that no one is really safe?
Even someone just THOUGHT to be gay?
Ask those who think they know right from wrong and see if they answer that one.