This has to be one of the best posts I’ve ever read by an evangelical Christian. Joe Carter argues in favor of compromise civil union legislation in Colorado that would streamline the formation of legal arrangements between people without resorting to SSM. Some conservatives oppose the legislation, but it seems like a good compromise to me. It’s tough to be against the idea of two people deciding on their own how to handle their legal affairs, whether they are gay or straight or two brothers living together or a mother and daughter-in-law, a la Naomi and Ruth.
The Millennial Star
Thanks for calling this to our attention. I hope the legislation succeeds for the reasons stated in the article. And, if one wanted to be machiavellian (assuming, of course, that one knows how to spell that word), one would note that passing this sort of legislation takes most of the wind out of the sails of SSM and makes SSM legislation much less likely to pass. Perhaps that is what Dobson is thinking.
Ooh, I like this legislation, and I’m against civil unions. I think it’s a great way to make things easier for people in many situations who struggle with navigating the current rights-and-benefits system.
Not a new idea. This is what Alberta’s legislation did before SSM was legalized by the federal government in Canada. Americans are just catching on to the idea now.
This is not a new idea, this is what Satan have you do to start a trip down a very slippery slope, SSM is just plain well wrong, the prophets have said so, society’s that have gone through significant demise witness to this, and last but not least, God is completely and utterly against any such legislation that goes near this taboo!
There is no compromise in the end you see. This is all part of the SSM agenda, if they can’t get full on marriage rights, they start with simple civil liberty breakdowns until they get their way which will eventually lead to the argument that the stoppage of SSM is completely unconstitutional even with ammendments. Lulled away into carnal security, that’s where this is going!
I like this pretty well. I think Dobson and Carter (the blogger in the link above) are punting a bit on the morality issue (the right decision, as I see it), but this deals with the heart of the issue for me.
Anonymoose, how exactly is granting a reciprocal beneficiary contract an offense against God? Why is it that being gay disqualifies you from making decisions about how to manage your property and affairs? Besides that, face facts: it will take fire and brimstone from heaven to stop some kind of legislation granting homosexuals some form of relationship rights from happening. Dobson knows it. Carter knows it. And you should. This is a great way for the state to say that the relevant rights are available to all no matter what their sexual relationship or lack thereof. It would take a very strained reading of this concept to imply any state endorsement of homosexuality, which is your only argument. It’s exciting that the prophets have opposed this legislation. Nice of you to tell me.
And, I’ll beat yet another dead horse: living in SSM is no worse than having gay sex outside of one. Providing relational rights will not encourage anyone to be gay that wasn’t already.
I hope my last comment wasn’t bitter. It wasn’t meant to be. It’s just that this is obviously distinct from SSM/civil unions while offering many of the substantive things that are at the root of that debate. I don’t think it’s appropriate to presume prophetic opposition to something that’s never been mentioned in any official or unofficial message from the Church.
I’m not sure if Anonymoose in #4 is being serious, but as a strong opponent of SSM I see nothing wrong with two private people deciding to have legal relationships between themselves. This is a completely different thing than SSM, which involves changing the traditional — and Church-supported — definition of marriage.
I am very serious!
why not just call a ‘Legal Relationship’ a marriage then in some cases, or vice versa? What happens when the legalities of this ‘Legal Relationship’ begin to breakdown, then what? A slippery slope indeed.
D-Train, you’re welcome for the commentary. BTW, SSM couldn’t be better in any circumstances because what you have said then is that this sort of marriage is good with God just because they legalized it, but what you might want to say is that they have made a solemn mockery of that which is good before God. Just cannot be better! Homosexuality is just never right before God in whatever form they deem it legal. As for the Prophets not accepting such legislation, I don’t seem to recall that I even insinuated that, but I do know that when Canada, specifically Ontario, was on the verge of leaglizing SSMs, Church leaders actually sent out letters to all the Stake Presidents in Ontario asking members to write their MPs to not back SSM legislation, but of course, you are right, we couldn’t stop it, and we won’t be able to stop it, but it does not mean I ever have to agree with it or accept it in any way. Sorry these are legal arguments I just cannot accept.
Who actually makes the legal relationship binding, the voice of the people, or the courts? If the latter then who is to say that those with these legal relationships cannot one day draft laws that make some “types” of private legal relationships into marriages and grandfather all of these changes into the future and thus we have SSM of which we are supposing to be opponents. A slippery slope indeed.
There are an entire set of social ramifications that need to be considered and they are all long term problems of which Canada has started to think through. Here are just a few to mention, legal relationships between any number or genders or ages of people (polygamy or pedophilia in disguise) — think how this affects Colorado City or Hilldale for that matter, the costs to taxpayers to pay for the legalizing or breaking down of these legalized relationships, and perhaps the regression of a society built upon families. Just because these legal relationships are legal, does not imply they will work, and then when they don’t, who pays the price both socially and economically? A slippery slope indeed.
What about the long term ramifications if this does carry into SSM that Bishops may need to have their civil marriage powers denied by the church and what happens to the ‘Discriminatory’ nature of the temple sealing which is in effect a civil union? Perhaps the very constitutional rights of the people hang in the balance here in the long term
Yes, I agree with the what is said in the article that Dobson has lost his mind. In order for this kind of legal relationship thing to be right and not head down those slippery slopes, you need some way to exclude certain relationships, but then if you do that you get into the world of “discrimination” which then becomes “unconstitutional” and which would then open the door to SSMs for the simple reason that if legal relationships are discriminatory in nature, then this says the same thing about not allowing SSMs to happen even with ammendments to the constitution, etc. A slippery slope indeed!
Let me conclude by saying that I do agree with the idea of the concept of what they are proposing in the legislation which may seem like a contradiction to what I have been saying herein, but in terms of the long term ramifications of this and the agendas that are out there, this just not a good idea in my mind.
Anonymoose, I think your heart is in the right place, but you are misunderstanding this legislations and its purpose. Please read this article.
Here is the point: this legislation would not allow “civil unions.” I oppose civil unions. Why? Because it is about normalizing a relationship that should not be normalized. But we still are left with a big issue: how do we justify two people who have been living together for 30 years not having any say in each others’ legal affairs? For example, why should they not be able to agree with each other that they can have power over dealing with hospital visitation or funeral arrangements or inheritance issues? Under many current laws, because they are not married, they cannot do this. And this has been one of the main underpinings for support for SSM and civil unions: it is basic common sense that people with a long-term relationship should be able to have some say in such issues.
But the truth is that there are legal means to make this happen. People can make contracts between each other that spell out their relationship on a private basis without involving the government. That is all this legislation in Colorado does: make it easier for private contracts between people to take place.
I will predict that there are many people who are not gay who will take advantage of this, probably the majority. Imagine a woman with a senior citizen mother-in-law (a la Ruth and Naomi). Why not make it easier for the woman to have make a legal arrangement with her mother-in-law if both are in agreement?
The beauty of this is that it makes the sexual nature of these relationships a non-issue. It is simply a mutually beneficial private contractual relationship between two people (or multiple people).
Marriage is a completely different issue. There are literally hundreds of legal and tax ramifications involving marriage that will not be affected by the Colorado legislation. Marriage is still the foundation for society and is honored for its role in fostering stability and indeed the long-term survivability of our culture. None of this is denigrated by streamlining the process of private contractual relationships.
And, indeed, such legislation would take the wind out of the sails of the SSM movement. Suddenly, there are no more stories about homosexual partners not being able to visit each other in the hospital — because the answer will be, well, why didn’t you take advantage of this new legislation? It seems the perfect solution.
Mouse:
The proposed legislation seems similar to Hawaii’s laws; which btw, were given the Church’s seal of approval. Hawaii allows a form of “parternship,” say between a grandparent and a granchild, in order that they get hospital privileges, insurance coverage, etc.
I love this idea.
I’ve never understood why the government would make it so hard for 2 unrelated people to assign eachother as heirs/guardians/beneficiaries. I think it is fair and clear that we should be free to contract with other individuals however we choose, and when it comes to medical decisions, financial accounts, or whatever else, it’s out clunky beurocracy that has limited folks to marriage only- but I can’t see what right the government or other institutions have to tell us we can’t name another citizen our partner for these matters.
Cchrissyy: “new” liberals hate the concept that contracts between individuals can extend to such; whereas classical liberals have always been happy with individuals making contracts w/o government interference.
Lyle,
Don’t want to threadjack, but be aware that “new liberals” have a much more nuanced view of contracts than you’re suggesting. Indeed, this debate should reveal that quite clearly. “Classical liberals” also have a more nuanced view than that.
Anonymoose,
I understand your frustration, although I don’t agree with it. I ask again: why does being gay justify not being able to make legal decisions about one’s possessions and future? Say I wanted to sign one of these contracts between myself and my best friend, who happens to also be male. You’d probably be OK with that, given that we’re not involved in any kind of romantic relationship.
Suppose we have sex. What makes him unworthy, unfit, or unable to, say, visit me in the hospital? This legislation doesn’t say that this relationship is OK, it just says that all people should be able to make these decisions as they see fit. You’re right that it probably won’t be enough for SSM advocates. I personally favor civil unions. But this represents a big step forward and a sensible legal compromise between SSM and the status quo. Would you be comfortable with denying these rights in cases where other sins are involved? I sure wouldn’t be.
Richard Wilkins, of BYU’s Family Policy Center proposed this a couple of years ago for the reasons cited. It gives the SSM proponents what they want without sanctioning homosexual relationships.
I must not be sophisticated enough to tell diferences between kinds of liberals. I lean pretty libertarian, myself.
There were two comments following the article linked-to that I completely agree with. First:
“How about this: let’s all support Dobson’s idea and at the same time get the government out of the marriage business altogether.”
And the response:
“Perfect! I don’t know about the rest of you, but the experience of getting a State marriage license was fairly surreal. First, we had to put our hands on the Bible and swear that we weren’t biologically related to a forbidden degree (closer than second cousins, IIRC). After we filled out all the forms, we were given a newlyweds gift pack — sample sizes of dishwasher detergent, fabric softener, a coupon for a pregnancy test kit (but no birth control), etc. The sooner the State stops degrading the sacred institution of marriage with little packets of Bounce fabric softener, the better.
The Christian wedding service, on the other hand, was one of the three most important days of my life.
Mumon’s been very quiet today. Could it be that he actually agrees with Joe for once?”
I think these guys have hit the nail right on the head. I for one, am tired of the government trying to co-opt my own religious beliefs. As if the state of Colorado has anything useful to tell me about my marriage above what I learned from my parents, my bishop, and at the temple. Frankly, I wish the state would just buzz off.
I learned from the temple that I had to have permission from the state before God’s agent would seal us for time and all eternity…
Yeah ed, I didn’t miss that part in the temple either.
So what does that have to do with changing the nature of “lawfully wedded” under US law?
The solution, as I see it: Make “marriage” something that is done in a church, and is regulated by a church. (We see some of this already- cancellations of sealings are not automatic after a divorce.) Make “civil union” something that is done by a justice of the peace, and is regulated by the state. Allow marriage and civil unions to overlap, but don’t require them to overlap. Allow the citizens of the state to vote on whether civil unions will be extended to homosexuals.
Oh, and I forgot the one most relevant to this thread: Allow people to choose to have legal ties to each other for hospital visitation, insurance, power of attorney, and the many other rights that the government arbitrarily restricts to marital relationships. Whether these people are in a sexual relationship or not shouldn’t be a concern. We aren’t “accepting” homosexual relationships, we’re just extending basic non-sexual, non-marital rights to people who aren’t married.