Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Focus on the Family's founder endorses Colo. bill that expands gay rights

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU
 
kweerwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 07:57 PM
Original message
Focus on the Family's founder endorses Colo. bill that expands gay rights
Edited on Mon Feb-06-06 07:57 PM by kweerwolf
Dr. Paul Cameron -- Chairman of the Family Research Institute, a Colorado-based
think tank -- has challenged Dr. James Dobsons endorsement of a bill before the Colorado legislature that would grant to gay partners many of the legal rights currently reserved to married couples. These rights would include property-sharing, decision- making powers over funerals and organ donations and, potentially health-care policy benefits. If adopted, the proposed legislation could force employers to cover gay partners no matter how ill.

Cameron said, "This is madness. Currently there is one voluntary relationship that immediately confers these benefits marriage between a man and a woman. Married couples receive these benefits because they make substantial contributions to society. They are more economically productive, provide the best environment in which to raise children, and are the least likely to commit crimes. Homosexuals, on the other hand, are less economically productive, seldom produce children or raise them well, and are more likely to commit criminal acts. In addition, society should not reward relationships that tend to spread disease."

Noting the Christian dimensions of Dobsons Focus on the Family organization, Cameron pointed out that conferral of any part of marriage benefits to homosexuals is without precedent in the history of the Church. "Moses and St. Paul condemned homosexuality. As soon as the Church gained political power in the Roman Empire it outlawed homosexuality. Now Dobson tells society to give gays marriage lite benefits. During the confirmation fight over Harriet Meyers, Dobson, in a somewhat ambiguous manner, told his radio audience that he was in favor of gay rights. His support of this marriage lite bill removes the ambiguity. When the Denver Post, one of the most anti-family, anti-traditional newspapers on the planet, says it is "pleasantly surprised" by Dobsons support for "expanded legal benefits for same-sex couples," you know that a betrayal has occurred."

Dobson and Cameron were both prominent in getting Amendment 2 passed in Colorado in 1992. The Advocate, the premier gay rights magazine, listed Dobson #1 and Cameron #2 on the gay "enemies list" (1/31/06).

http://www.montanasnews.com/articles.php?mode=view&id=3...

Cameron vs. Dobson? I wanna sell tickets to that fundie smackdown! Maybe we could call it "Fundi-rama 1 - When Turds Collide!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BayCityProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. wow
if even some of the fundy wackos are supporting it maybe it has a shot!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 08:03 PM
Response to Original message
2. most crime in the usa is committed by christians, sorry Dr. Cameron
because most people in the usa are christians, statistically most crimes are committed by christians,
and most of those happen to be heterosexuals.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 08:04 PM
Response to Original message
3. Something just doesn't add up...
If Dobson is endorsing it, there's something nefarious going on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boobooday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
4. Whaaaa?
Curious!

And what about this . . .

"As soon as the Church gained political power in the Roman Empire it outlawed homosexuality."

Yes, and we all know what happened to the Roman Empire . . . we should certainly be emulating them . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
5. Something is going on.
I have not read it yet but I keep hearing little things like this and I do not trust it. Our lovely Attny General here in Kansas who has been just a real nasty piece of work is also working on certain GLBT rights. It makes me get really jumpy inside, something is up here.

This could get interesting.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. I got a letter from Kay Bailey Hutchison
they're really afraid that there are valid constitutional challenges, stacked supreme court or not. So they're setting up some easy "gimme's" to forestall a more far reaching grab for equal rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Won't they be surprised
when we take those "gimmies" and still go for our far reaching grabs?

Is it OK for me to use the term "our" or "we"? Is that insulting? I don't want to over step but I do consider all of us as one. I had never thought about that before on this site, just now. I don't want to assume, I have run into problems with that before. To continue...

We are getting it going here, the movement has begun. There ARE constitutional issues that are very valid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. our and we is fine
The "we" that is we is who we are because other people seem to think they know what's best for us.

I asked Other Mr. Sui, what if two people of the same sex lived together and DIDN'T have sex, should they still be reviled? What if two people of the opposite sex were married and had children but had homosexual relationships each with one of their own? They would have filled all the criteria that bigots give for being married, opposite sex, children, happy home, would they too be reviled?

So really the only thing that separates "us" from "them" is that we don't care what THEY do with their private parts for intimacy and entertainment, while the reverse is certainly not true.

We all want to be treated fairly and equally under the law and recognized as adults capable of making decisions about our own lives. So "we" is just fine, even if it occasionally also means "them" in that regard.

To my mind the single largest constitutional issue is that the constitution is giving special rights to heterosexuals and people who pretend to be heterosexual without a legal test for heterosexuality other than "one man on woman", which isn't a legal test at all.

Also, I believe there are many people who would require frequent retesting to see what they were on any given day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Ha Ha Now I am totally
confused!

I hate the terms when used to split people into groups, some considered Ok and some not. I use we because I work on these issues and frankly can't see a difference between any of us other than who we partner with. Isn't that just the dumbest reason to divide? I am trying to be sensitive because I know I belong to the group, by virtue of my partner choice (?), that seeks to deny you those rights. It is sometimes difficult because I know that trust can be difficult. I would rather be a we with your community than a we with the people from my community (?) who try to deny you. And now I am even more confused!!! I have been reviewing GLBT sites while we try to make ours look more official and professional and my brain hurts.

One thing I have learned that you should be very proud of. In joining this group and helping to write bylaws the GLBT community is far and away more tolerant than any group whose board I have ever been on. They simply defied me when I suggested that the state board members should all be GLBT, they would not hear of it. So far I have found that in struggling with how to use to proper terms and words that when I fuck up they laugh and correct me instead of getting all pissed off. It is a very very nice group of people. So, my struggle in the we's and they's and us's. Maybe we could coin a new term where we really means all of us.

Thanks for your answer. Back to work, know any particularly great GLBT websites I can look at? I really liked Indiana Equality, that is a nice site.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. sorry - sometimes tongue gets stuck in cheek
Yes the short answer is we are all "we". Sexual orientation comes in many flavors, including heterosexual, so legislature that prevents people from being fired for their sexual orientation protects those of "us" who happen to be of the heterosexual flavor as well as the rest of us.

People forget that the "equal" rights we are working for mean equality for ALL of us - so it's not really "us" and "them" in a court of law. My twisted argument above was just a comment on the absurdity of people who believe they have a right to judge based on what they think is happening or not happening behind closed doors.

Even the arguments that traditional families are some kind of social ideal is a fantasy and excludes the fact that many non-traditional families provide just as much love and just as many opportunities for their children and loved ones, and that those "ideals" are rarely universal anyway, and rarely ideal in practice.

Many "traditional" families are double income just to get by, and parents see their kids far fewer hours every week than they sit in traffic coming and going to work!

Thanks for being here for the good fight MuseRider - it takes all of us pulling at this together, and supporting each other. If we weren't here (and everywhere else) fighting for it, it could never even be in the dialogue, much less the realm of possibility, so what you are doing is very important.

:toast: :hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. No need to thank
in fact it embarrasses me. I am never sure how to reply. It is simply the right thing to do. I get so much out of it just for me so it is hardly selfless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jrw14125 Donating Member (378 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
6. anyone know where to find stats on % of convicted criminals are Xians?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Well, the Bible is the best selling book
among serial killers.

Just saying...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laheina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
8. This is all bullshit.
First of all, Dobson is evil. There's no way that he did a 180 overnight and came back from fundyville.

Second of all, gays tend to be more educated, higher earning, more politically committed individuals. They tend to be very productive members of society, and they are (statistically speaking) better parents. They are also more likely to own second homes. I've never actually seen crime stats, but somehow I doubt that the incidence of crime committed by homosexual individuals is anywhere *close* to that perpetrated by us breeders.

That's just ridiculous. :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kittynboi Donating Member (71 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
9. Hate.
"" Homosexuals, on the other hand, are less economically productive, seldom produce children or raise them well, and are more likely to commit criminal acts. In addition, society should not reward relationships that tend to spread disease.""

And people wonder why I hate christerism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 03:04 AM
Response to Original message
10. Nothing Paul Cameron has to say has any scientific validity at all
Edited on Tue Feb-07-06 03:05 AM by BuffyTheFundieSlayer
He has been discredited by the APA and the ASA for many years now. He is no longer recognized as a Psychologist, Sociologist or valid researcher by any reputable association. His use of the title "Dr." is false in the present sense. He is a legend only in his own mind, and is nothing but a hate-monger spreading lies and fear for his own purposes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TaleWgnDg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 05:18 AM
Response to Original message
11. Ah-ha! Dobson is opting to back the least "evil" (in his view)
Edited on Tue Feb-07-06 05:29 AM by TaleWgnDg
.

Ah-ha! Dobson is opting to back the least "evil" (in his view, apparently), not full legal marriage rights or "civil union" legal rights to gays. The bill that Dobson is backing covers non-married heads of households, no matter the sexual orientation of the couple. Potential covered non-marrieds must sign a document entitled, a "reciprocal beneficiary agreement" to kick-in the effect of the proposed law.

Well. So Dobson must believe that by backing this "non-traditional" bill, gays should be satisfied w/ hardly a bite of the legal apple guaranteed to other citizens of Colorado. Dobson continues to be an off-the-wall homophobe. No surprise.


Denverpost.com
Article Launched: 02/06/2006 01:00:00 AM
editorial

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.

. . . snip . . .

"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 (that Dobson is backing) . . . 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."

(Bold-faced type emphasis added by TaleWgnDg.)

http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_3479371
.

.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
12. oh oh oh
numbers please.

Married couples receive these benefits because they make substantial contributions to society. They are more economically productive, provide the best environment in which to raise children, and are the least likely to commit crimes. Homosexuals, on the other hand, are less economically productive, seldom produce children or raise them well, and are more likely to commit criminal acts. In addition, society should not reward relationships that tend to spread disease."

***

NAME ONE GAY COUPLE WHO DROWNED ALL FIVE CHILDREN. Who starved their and beat their kids to death. Just one. Incidentally, gays without children have significantly more disposable income, and they dispose it. We ARE good for the economy, with and without children.

I hate these shitheads who just assert all day long without a single fact to back up their preposterous bluster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidinalameda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
14. don't raise children well?
hmm-I'm sure there are thousands of kids out there that would disagree

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
19. males cause most crime in society
men also perpetrate most child abuse/sexual abuse


should we just deny men their civil rights?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
21. Where the hell does he get his statistics from?
How does he know who's better at raising children or who commits more crimes?

But don't be surprised. Anytime it looks like gays might get a large amount of rights, these assholes try to 'compromise'. Fucking lunatics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Dec 12th 2017, 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC