Friday, February 24, 2006
Ruth, Naomi, And Reciprocal Beneficiary Contracts
Joe Carter has joined James Dobson in support of the Reciprocal Beneficiary Contracts proposed in Colorado. His arguement - that Ruth and Naomi would not have been able to support each other the way they did under current law.
Joe quotes, from a source he does not cite, but I presume to be a legislative summary of some sort the purpose for the legislation:
See, here's the thing - that "labyrinth of rules and regulations" isn't all that bad. I've had to navigate it to deal with a grandparent that no longer had the faculties to tend his own affairs. And while I would have appreciated it being easier than it was, in the end it was far from insurmountable.
So, it is time for the classic political deal. Take the bill off the table, bring it back recast. Don't sell it as setting up something to circumvent marriage, sell it as what everybody is claiming it is - a legal streamline bill. Sell it to me!
Shift the political question - as long as the question has anything, anything at all to do with marraige, this is a loser. That statement is true both politcally and in simple public morality. The slippery slope is real. If we devise a route around marriage people are going to take it, for same-sex reasons and more dangerously, I think, for heterosexual co-habitation reasons.
Look, lawyers are for the most part smart people. Pass the bill for the "right" reasons (lower burecracy) and they will figure out how to use it for the "wrong" (marriage circumvention) ones. But, if you promote the bill for the wrong reasons, it oughtta be a loser.
Related Tags: James Dobson, Joe Carter, Evangelical Outpost, marriage, Colorado, Reciprocal Beneficiary Contracts, same-sex marriage
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.So, the point of the bill would be to simplify an already existing process - always an admirable goal when dealing with bureacrats! But, I have a problem.
Joe quotes, from a source he does not cite, but I presume to be a legislative summary of some sort the purpose for the legislation:
"unmarried persons who are excluded from entering into a valid marriage under the marriage laws of this state."There's the rub - in that stated purpose - marriage is devalued. The law is presented not as a streamline, but as a circumvention.
See, here's the thing - that "labyrinth of rules and regulations" isn't all that bad. I've had to navigate it to deal with a grandparent that no longer had the faculties to tend his own affairs. And while I would have appreciated it being easier than it was, in the end it was far from insurmountable.
So, it is time for the classic political deal. Take the bill off the table, bring it back recast. Don't sell it as setting up something to circumvent marriage, sell it as what everybody is claiming it is - a legal streamline bill. Sell it to me!
Shift the political question - as long as the question has anything, anything at all to do with marraige, this is a loser. That statement is true both politcally and in simple public morality. The slippery slope is real. If we devise a route around marriage people are going to take it, for same-sex reasons and more dangerously, I think, for heterosexual co-habitation reasons.
Look, lawyers are for the most part smart people. Pass the bill for the "right" reasons (lower burecracy) and they will figure out how to use it for the "wrong" (marriage circumvention) ones. But, if you promote the bill for the wrong reasons, it oughtta be a loser.
Related Tags: James Dobson, Joe Carter, Evangelical Outpost, marriage, Colorado, Reciprocal Beneficiary Contracts, same-sex marriage
