Blogger News Network

From the Christian Post...

In recent statements, Focus [on the Family] founder Dr. James Dobson and the government lobbying arm of the Colorado Springs-based ministry have noted that the bill in question addresses the issue of “fairness” in obtaining certain benefits for a pair of people who want them. He has denied he supports "gay marriage," civil unions, or domestic partnerships.

“What this bill is that we have endorsed is a fairness bill with regard to need, not sexual relationships,” said Dobson in a recent broadcast of the Focus on the Family radio program.

Senate Bill 266, sponsored by state Sen. Shawn Mitchell (R-District 23) would give any two adults not eligible to marry – including gay couples – easy access to certain benefits already available through legal contracts, including hospital visitation rights and authorization for medical treatment.

Having a one income family, it is painfully clear to me the harm such a bill will bring. We live in a two-income economy, and until very recently married couples were actually penalized in their taxes for being married. But the truth remains that stable, two parent families, where one parent stays at home, is the best environment to raise a child, in spite of the ignorant rantings of Feminists and others. The law of Supply and Demand creates a hardship on one-income families, which therefore creates a situation that discourages the healthiest environment for raising our next generation. Prices rise and fall depending on the average ability of the consumer to purchase items and services. As more and more families shifted to two incomes during the sixties, seventies and eighties, prices rose to meet the increased spending ability of the average family. That hurt those who chose to remain a one-income family. Think of it this way: Every kid has a dime to go buy ice cream, so ice cream remains a dime. Suddenly most of the kids have a quarter to buy ice cream, so the ice cream man raises his price, because he knows most of the kids can and will pay it. Only a minority are hurt, and the ice cream man makes lots more money, so what does he care. Except in this case those who are hurt are the ones choosing to sacrifice to provide the best family environment for their children.

What does this have to do with health insurance and other legal benefits? Who provide those benefits? Employers. Are those benefits free to the employer? No, they have to pay for them. What will happen if employers now have to provide more benefits? What is actually offered will be reduced. If you have two people sharing a home and other bills, but they have no chance of having children, then they both can work and there's not a problem—they both can get benefits. But married couples (male/female married couples) are a different category. They will be raising the next generation and ideally one won't be working, and will therefore need those benefits. Yes, those same benefits that will be reduced because homosexuals are demanding that they get the same shared benefits.

What about visitation rights and power of medical decisions? The problem is actually on two fronts here. Because of our cultural acceptance of easy divorces as well as the push for homosexual marriage, the institution of marriage is under attack from two fronts. That the openly adulterous Michael Schiavo was allowed to make medical decisions for a woman he obviously no longer treated as a wife, showed that the law has little regard for what a marriage is supposed to be., but simply followed a blind, literal interpretation that proved convenient. A marriage is supposed to be a legally binding agreement between a man and a woman to share their lives until one dies. Is that anything close to what is actually practiced today? It is for some, but not for a growing number of married couples. The question is, should those who actually respect the institution of marriage be punished for the acts of those who don't?

If you've ever read Karl Marx's The Communist Manifesto, his basic argument for almost all of the idiocy he proposed was built on the straw man that in capitalist countries, such abuses were already being practiced—Communism, he claimed, would simply apply the same abuses fairly. That is the same argument homosexual activists, and now Focus on the Family, appear to be using. These sacred bonds that allow shared benefits, the power of emergency decision making and special privileges are enjoyed by people who have no real respect for the institution (marriage) that opens the door for these privileges, so why not toss them out to anyone who wants them? In other words, because some misuse the institution, tear it down so no one can use it, and it becomes a meaningless anachronism.

Now, remind me again, what is it James Dobson is supposed to be focusing on?

Crossposted at: JackLewis.net