Reciprocal Benefits & Marriage

I am for marriage and currently I am supportive of Colorado's Reciprocal Benefits measure put forth by Mitchell (further explained in the extension of this post.)  Many have viewed much of my activism, speaking and lobbying on behalf of marriage as being inherently against what the gay identified community wants.  In reality, I am for marriage and what was intended by our Creator to be a blessed union of husband and wife.  I believe public policy that upholds this time proven social arrangement is good policy for all of us across all generations.

Even for those of us who are single people called to celibacy.

It's not about being against the gay identified community, no matter how much a rare few in that community would like to think my world revolves around opposing them, that is very very far from the truth.  As I have said before, public policy has the word *public* involved for a reason; it involves all of us and not just gay framed worldviews.

I am for the celebration of marriage.  We in the west clearly need to rediscover the reasons for doing so.

The following article and my comments on it are about a new public policy measure concerning Reciprocal Benefits.  My views are my own and not of Exodus (where I joyfully work.)  I make this clarification simply because Exodus may or may not take an official position on reciprocal benefits.

How Colorado's reciprocal
benefits proposal helps defend marriage
By Glen Lavy

Mar 24,
2006

Some conservatives and Christian leaders – Dr. James Dobson, in
particular – have been reaping the whirlwind over their support for legislation
recently introduced in the Colorado state legislature that would make
reciprocal benefits available to a broad spectrum of the public …including
same-sex couples.

For some conservatives, blocking these benefits is part
of their battle to defeat the homosexual marriage agenda. After all, same-sex
“marriage” advocates have built the bulk of their case for redefining the
institution on the premise that marriage is about benefits for loving couples.
They claim that same-sex couples cannot obtain basic things like hospital
visitation or inheritance rights without paying excessive legal fees.

It
is for that very reason that passing Senator Shawn Mitchell’s bill is such a
good idea.

By disproving the homosexual activists’ fundamental premise –
by making certain benefits available to any persons not able to marry, whatever
the basis of their relationship – we take away the most plausible rationale for
changing the historical definition of marriage.

The Mitchell plan differs
dramatically from the reciprocal benefits legislation passed in states like Vermont and Hawaii.  Unlike those, the Colorado proposal does
not create a legal status – like domestic partnership or civil union – nor does
it give any benefits based on any status or relationship.

Mr. Lavy has valuable insight.  However, it isn't the taken away of an opponent's talking point that makes this legislation appealing to me personally.  What's appealing is that the legislation actually addresses the stewardship of benefits issues without all the political empowerment of institutionalizing the gay identity as a policy recognizable group.  In fact, it is policy that addresses all of the public and not just one fraction of it.

More on what the Colorado legislation actually accomplishes …

What it does do
is give a wide variety of people (including same-sex couples) some basic legal
benefits that are already available to each person through powers of attorney,
wills, etc. Any two people of any orientation (friends, roommates, siblings,
etc.), who are willing to grant each other power of attorney or bind themselves
to a formal contract, are already eligible for most of the benefits in question.
To the extent the bill includes benefits not already contractually available, it
still does not premise those benefits on a legal status; it premises them on a
private contract.

This legislation doesn’t create a marriage equivalent
or endorse same-sex relationships; just the opposite. This bill drastically
undermines the emotive arguments for redefining marriage. That’s why same-sex
advocates oppose Senator Mitchell’s plan.

All that Senator Mitchell’s
bill does is simplify the manner of transferring such benefits to those who want
or need them, but cannot marry.

When I turned away from my homosexuality being the filter for all of my relational life by identifying as "gay" ,almost 14 years ago, I didn't have to worry about divorce, custody or leaving behind a partner who no longer had public policy benefits because of my departure.  The above legislation would make it easier for gay identified couples to bind themselves together and that is something I don't think would be good (my personal pov.)  At the same, once again, this policy is about more than that one scenario.  As a single person I could use the above legislation to give Reciprocal Benefits (RB) to a loved one I cannot legally marry.  It is a pure secular piece of public policy that does not attempt to classify people, or condone sexual unions, but gives more freedom to steward benefits by more people to more people. 

My biggest concern with all of that is the cost.  If the cost proves to not be feasible, not good.  But if it is benefits we are already paying into … I think it is a great move. 

If some people decide to steward their RB's to their same sex partner, I personally think that is a bad move.  Even so, that's their choice and something they would be responsible for.  More…

By endorsing that expediency, supporters
of the bill are in fact “heading off at the pass” the efforts of advocates of
homosexual behavior to cloak their bid for legally-recognized same-sex
“marriage” in the guise of benefit fairness.

The reality is that same-sex
“marriage” advocates want to force the government and their fellow citizens not
just to extend benefits to same-sex couples, but to fully endorse such
relationships by extending legal status to them.

Dr. Dobson’s opposition
to that agenda is well-known and well-documented. In supporting Senator
Mitchell’s legislation, he is endorsing a bill that protects marriage, not
undermines it. Like other Christian and conservative leaders, he is advocating
an effective defense against efforts to extend legal status to same-sex couples
… and eliminating one of the homosexual activists’ most-used weapons in their
effort to redefine the social and legal linchpin of civilization.

Glen
Lavy is Senior Vice President of the Alliance Defense Fund’s Marriage Litigation Center.

It appears that the function of the policy and this take on Reciprocal Benefits seems to really work itself out in a way that empowers stewardship and affords personal responsibility.  In a secular environment, this policy makes sense.  As a person of faith, I may not agree with how other people will use this to bind themselves to others but that does not mean I should throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I know I will get some grief from beloved friends for supporting the ideas behind this legislation and all I can say is what I have already said.  I am not saying they are wrong.  I am only saying that this policy makes sense to me.  I think this policy is finally fertile ground in the culture war for the two sides to get down to brass tacks and work out a solution.

As usual, I reserve the right to be wrong… I mean … consider.. I don't live in Colorado and am not a lawyer … 'nuff said.  And on the disclaimer note…remember this is my own personal opinion, not those of Exodus.

Please share your thoughts.  I would especially love well reasoned feedback both pro and con on reciprocal benefits from the conservative pov.  As always keep your comments personal, civil and respectful.  I will not entertain double binds, distractions or trolls on this thread.  Please read the Discussion Policy for ETC.

Technorati Tags: Reciprocal Benefits Marriage Colorado