Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (13260)	2/24/2006 5:29:33 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541674

Embracing Naomi: Dobson and Reciprocal Beneficiary Contracts A controversial bill under consideration in the Colorado Legislature, which is supported by Dr. James Dobson and Focus on the Family Action, would facilitate certain contractual obligations or legal arrangements for any two "unmarried persons who are excluded from entering into a valid marriage under the marriage laws of this state." According to Carrie Gordon Earll, director of issues analysis for Focus on the Family Action, the bill would simply create reciprocal-beneficiary contracts and streamline arrangements which are already allowed under Colorado law. “These are contract agreements that people can already have," she said. "We're talking about powers of attorney, medical decision making, what will happen with your will and your property when you die. All this bill does is say: If you have a need to be in one of these contractual relationships with someone you legally can't marry, you could do this through a notarized contract filed with the county clerk and — instead of paying thousands of dollars to an attorney for individual contracts — you can have one packaged contract offered to you." Not surprisingly, Dobson is being criticized by many of his fellow conservative Christians. Paul Cameron of the Colorado Springs-based Family Research Institute, believes that Dobson has "come off the tracks" of the Christian movement in “backing rights for gay couples.” And a blogger posting on Alan Keyes' Web site called the proposal "a drag queen in proper conservative blue blazer, button down shirt and red tie." The critics of Dobson and this legislation are, in my humble opinion, dead wrong. The bill is not about homosexuality, but about relationships. These relationships could cover a broad range of domestic situations, such as two elderly sisters who share a home or a widowed parent of an adult child who has Down’s syndrome or other potentially disabling condition. Such legal protections should be completely “desexualized” and open to any two adults who desire to form a contractually dependent relationship. I came to this conclusion not from listening to the arguments of civil union advocates but rather from a most unlikely source: the Bible. I was reading the book of Ruth and was, once again, amazed by the dedication of Ruth to her mother-in-law Naomi. Recently widowed and trying to survive during a time of famine, Ruth chose to stay with Naomi even though it would mean she would almost assuredly live the rest of her life in poverty and eventually die alone. Such love and compassion is so remarkable that many modern readers assume the relationship must have been sexual (it’s a sad commentary on our times that all filial relationships are assumed to have an underlying sexual motivation). Again they cried openly. Orpah kissed her mother-in-law good-bye; but Ruth embraced her and held on. Naomi said, "Look, your sister-in-law is going back home to live with her own people and gods; go with her." But Ruth said, "Don't force me to leave you; don't make me go home. Where you go, I go; and where you live, I'll live. Your people are my people, your God is my god; where you die, I'll die, and that's where I'll be buried, so help me God - not even death itself is going to come between us!" When Naomi saw that Ruth had her heart set on going with her, she gave in. Ruth 1:14:18 The Message But what if Ruth and Naomi lived in modern-day America? Would they be able to keep this commitment to each other without hindrance from laws that recognize only dependents, guardians, and spouses? The law may very well provide them “equal protection” under certain circumstances (i.e., powers of attorney) but often requires the ability to navigate a labyrinth of rules and regulations. Reciprocal-beneficiary contracts simplify this process. Some conservatives and libertarians may see no need for the government to expand the definition of civil unions in any manner. But the political reality is that the change is inevitable. The issue is no longer when civil unions will be recognized but what form they will take. (The Colorado bill is competing with a domestic partnership proposal from Democratic lawmakers.) By desexualizing the issue we preserve the government’s purpose (a social institution that brings stability to our society) without endorsing behavior that many of us consider immoral. Besides, why should we extend social and government benefits to a group based on sexual orientation while excluding others who are equally worthy? Why extend civil unions to the lesbian couple down the street but not reciprocal beneficiary contracts to the elderly sisters who live next door? The State doesn’t create marriage; it only recognizes its value. It has no authority to redefine the term to make is more inclusive. Marriage should be reserved for the intimate, exclusive, sexually complementary relationship of a husband and a wife. The State also doesn’t create civil unions. But when stripped of any sexual connotation and reserved for binary, dependent, committed relationships, the State should recognize their value. evangelicaloutpost.com