Christian radio psychologist and political activist James Dobson has been taking heat from some on the religious right for his support of a legislative bill in Colorado to create “reciprocal beneficiary agreements.” These agreements would enable people who aren’t allowed to marry to make decisions about medical care and end-of-life decisions. It would also give them hospital visitation rights, extend domestic violence protections and provide inheritance and property rights. Dobson argues this is an issue of fairness and that the measure is sexual-orientation neutral — noting that it could apply to two elderly sisters who live together. It’s an interesting legal and political debate.
There are some conservatives who argue that the agreements are strategically smart because they take away many of the arguments for allowing gay marriage or civil unions. But opponents contend that the agreements can also become evidence of a legislative intent to value gay couples, which could then be used in court to push for additional rights. There’s also some concern, as there has been by conservatives about civil unions, that the institution of marriage might be weakened if heterosexual couples can get most of the legal benefits of marriage without having to be legally married.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Pro-con on Obama’s China visit
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
24 Comments
I think that you have to look at all of the scenarios that could make it important to have such legislation in place. Single people often have very little family to make decisions for them. This legislation would allow anyone to name someone they value to make decisions on their behalf. While the bill may make things easier for gays, it doesn’t have to be looked at as pro-gay or anti-marriage. It could simply be looked at as a bill that would allow a person to name anyone that they truly trust to act on their behalf.
Back before the vote on the Marriage amendment, these concerns were express about the amendment that stated “Only a legally married, hetro-sexual man and woman would be recognized as a couple by the state”.But were shouted out by the neo-cons and religious right as scare tactics by those supporting gay right.When it would effect common law couples, child support, child custody, domestic violence cases, etc.
I express this during the debate on these very blogs and discussion boards, I know that sound like I told you so. But such a law is needed as Dobson is supporting, if you use a broad bush to exclude only a certain segment of the population from rights granted to everyone.
The effects were plain to be seen, but were said to be not valid in the discussion or the law as it was intended. The extreme conservatives and the religious right were aware that such an amendment could and would effect those that were not gay. But were also not a married couple, but that was an acceptable outcome for them. If they want the right then they should be married, this was a way of imposing a self moral code on others. Yes the conservatives and the religious right were lying about it.
It makes sense, everyone in this country should be entitled the same rights, no matter how it is defined by law.
We need a constitutional amendment prohibiting divorced people from re-marrying. We also need one prohibiting shellfish and cheeseburgers as these are prohibited in Leviticus.
Ben, check this out. You just cant make this stuff up.
“Missouri legislators in Jefferson City considered a bill that would name Christianity the state’s official “majority” religion.
House Concurrent Resolution 13 has is pending in the state legislature.
…
The resolution would recognize “a Christian god,” and it would not protect minority religions, but “protect the majority’s right to express their religious beliefs.
The resolution also recognizes that, “a greater power exists,” and only Christianity receives what the resolution calls, “justified recognition.”
Maybe that cheeseburger legislation is right around the corner since kansas watches missouri to tell it what to think.
Perhaps the State should refuse to recognize births unless the child is “properly” baptized in the “correct” religion. Also refuse death certificates until the dead has been “properly” anointed.
Did you see the one where some state rep put up a bill that banned Republicans from adopting children? It was in respounse to a bill banning Gays from adopting.
Ben,You’re forgetting football and stay-press shirts, and probably a few more things. They may have help from the medical community on cheeseburgers.
Amazing…no criticism from that oh-so-vocal religious right on this blog?
It’s hard when one of your own jumps ship. They’re still grieving, Ksgrl, give them a little time and space, they’ll come around.
Dobson doesnt give a damn about gay people. He thinks throwing a bone to us will make us happy and take away our arguments concerning equal treatment under the law. I guess he thinks because we buy the lies of bushco, now he can lie with impunity and we will follow.Unfortunately, he is probably right. Lying is not a character defect now, it is a presidential quality.
You’re right, once a neocon, always a neocon.
Dobson is most likely trying to deflect and distract from the fact……..not widely reported……..that recent Supreme Court appointee Sam Alito sent Dobson a thank you letter Re his senate confirmation hearings.
Ya know, play at tolerance when ya know the law is gonna do otherwise cause you helped make it so.
Dobson is most likely trying to deflect and distract from the fact……..not widely reported……..that recent Supreme Court appointee Sam Alito sent Dobson a thank you letter Re his senate confirmation hearings.
Ya know, play at tolerance when ya know the law is gonna do otherwise cause you helped make it so.
Dobson does not speak for me. I don’t care what the evangelicals do to each other.
If Dobson is sincere then I think that his proposal is reasonable.
V.L.R.B!!
The ‘reciprocal benefits’ agreement is an assault on marriage, an attempt by the gay lobby to create gay marriage in the courts starting with this ’starter kit’ legislation. The arguement that ‘everyone deserves the same rights’ and therefore this bill is good doesn’t hold water. Does everyone deserve an electrician’s license? Does everyone deserve the special insurance protection extended to medical doctors? Marriage is a socially functional institution: it is the way the human race is reproduced. Homosexual “partnerships” are exclusively pleasure-driven. They exist for the fun of the participants. Society has a deep interest in providing license and benefits to marriage, real marriage. Any extension of those same benefits and priveledges to non-married people who are not in the child-rearing business, dilutes the special protection. Health care is an easy example: AIDS medications cost $12,000 per year. Which mothers & toddlers should be forced to pay higher premiums from dependent health insurance in order to support these new “equal” benefits for gays? It is not “equality” to extend the special helps we give to child-rearing couples to people who are rearing only their own recreation.
Andrew–
Don’t go away mad. Just go away.
Thank you,
The Management
Self-righteous ass.
“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness . . . ”
Oh, except for gays and anyone else I don’t approve of.
Andrew,Your equivocation of marital benefits with electrician’s licenses is a stupid analogy. Procreation is not the sole purpose of marriage. Sexual pleasure should be a part of any marriage, and if people wanna get married and don’t want to have children, who are you to stop them? Homosexuals are citizens and they deserve to be protected under the full extent of the law just like heterosexual citizens. “Equal justice under the law,” i’m sick and tired of saying it already, but I have to make it my constant reminder. What homosexuals or ANYBODY ELSE for that matter don’t have a right to redefine what a marriage is, hence civil unions are permissible. If a homosexual couple adopts a child why shouldn’t they get the same tax benefits for the number of children they have? They feed em, clothe em, send em to school, make em productive members of society, so why shouldn’t homosexual parents be given a break? I do believe that Dobson has a good idea here.
Sigh……..
Once again, like I said. This Dobson thing is just a distraction. He’s got Roberts. He’s got Alito…..who as I posted has sent a personal letter of thanks to Dobson.
Dobson is playing at tolerance. ( He has to at least appear to judge not lest ye) and he knows the SCOTUS is gonna do his dirty work for him.
Andrew says:
“Homosexual “partnerships” are exclusively pleasure-driven. They exist for the fun of the participants.”
You damn right boy! I knew I was gay for a reason! You straight people keep all the problems, and we will take the fun. Of course, we can have our “fun” without marriage.
But andy, being the nice people we are, we hate to see you all suffer alone. So please, let us be in double the debt, fight with our in-laws, and have ever decreasing amounts of sex. Just like you all. We hate having all the fun to ourselves.
Jealous?
JR, I think we have another punisher here.
There is still a very simple solution in my opinion. Separate the civil from the ecclesiastical natures of “marriage.” Since many faiths consider marriage to be a sacrament do not use the term at all in civil contracts; regardless of orientation. We don’t take our children to the Courthouse to have them baptized; why do we do that with marriage.
Leave “marriage” to the church and any other non-government group that wants to be involved; just don’t give that any legal status.
I would continue to allow Priests etc to perform the Union in conjunction with their marriage and would not ask them to perform that service for anyone for whom that would create a problem. There would be plenty of others who could be deputized to perform the strictly civil/legal ceremony.
LOL, I know plenty of heterosexual marriages that are certainly NOT pleasure driven….I’ll bet that’s a big relief to Andrew!!