Does Even James Dobson Oppose the Ban?


Over the weekend Bill Wineke, a columnist for the Wisconsin State Journal, wrote about a growing disagreement among various organizations attempting to pass these bans throughout the country. It seems some among our opposition are beginning to think that two-sentence bans, like the one we're facing in Wisconsin, might just go too far. Some are even beginning to think that the state should extend some recognition to lesbian and gay couples: the ability to provide health insurance for one’s family, perhaps, or to visit one’s partner in the hospital, or to provide for one’s loved ones with a tax-free inheritance.

As Wineke notes, this division speaks miles about the radical far reach and extremeness of Wisconsin’s proposed ban on civil unions and marriage:
Which, of course, is why we're bringing up their feud today. The Wisconsin Legislature this week voted to send a proposed constitutional amendment that would make both same-sex marriage and arrangements that make "a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage" unconstitutional in this state.

In Colorado, however, [James] Dobson [founder of Focus on the Family] is endorsing a "reciprocal-beneficiary" bill that would permit "any two unmarried persons who are excluded from entering into a valid marriage" to sign an agreement giving each other certain legal rights, "including but not limited to health care insurance benefits."

The bill also seeks to give "reciprocal beneficiaries" the right to hospital visitation, inheritance and decision-making powers.

Sounds "substantially similar" to marriage to me.
It’s bad enough that Wisconsin’s proposed ban seeks to lock out loving, committed couples from the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage. As Wineke notes, what we’re facing aims to ban compromise as well.

For more on the column, check out Rebecca's comments at It's Only Civil.

Tags: , , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home

A Fair Wisconsin Votes No
Add this banner to your website