Focus on the Family, Dobson Defend Support for Colorado Benefits Bill

Evangelical ministry Focus on the Family is explaining its support for a Colorado bill, following criticism that it gives some rights to same-sex couples.

In recent statements, Focus 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.

Critics of the bill include gay activists who say that the bill does not go far enough in guaranteeing �marriage equality� as well as lesser-known conservative Christians such as the Family Research Institute�s Dr. Paul Cameron, and separately, Andrew Longman, a writer on the website of former conservative presidential candidate Alan Keyes. Longman's criticisms were followed by apologies by both Keyes and the writer.

"I'm used to getting beaten from the radicals, from the left. I deal with that because that goes with the territory," Dobson said on his radio program, according to the Associated Press. "I really find it very difficult to be attacked in such an unfair way from conservatives who claim to follow the cause of Christ."

Focus says that two people who are close such as family members and friends should not be treated differently when it comes to medical decision making or estate planning.

"They should not be singled out for special discrimination, nor should they be singled out for special rights and benefits either," said Jim Pfaff a Focus spokesman, according to Family News in Focus.

However, because the legislation could give those special rights and benefits to gay couples, Cameron maintains his opposition to the bill, saying that gay people are more prone to crime and disease and should not be entitled to similar rights as married people because they don�t have children, according to AP.

But Focus believes the �reciprocal-beneficiary� bill they support will address the issue of benefits separately from marriage.

"Homosexual activists in Colorado are strongly opposing this bill because they realize it will unmask their arguments for same-sex marriage," said Peter Brandt, senior director of government and public policy, noting that critics of the bill include gay activists.

�With this common-sense alternative on the table, same-sex marriage proponents can no longer hide behind their 'benefits' argument.">

People should be able to choose who can speak for them when incapacitated, regardless of being "gay".

Benefits being offered for reasons other than marriage ought to be available regardless of who is having sex with whom. I believe the law in question would allow an adult with no wife or kids to select another adult to recieve benefits (such as halth care) without regard to sexual relations. In other words, a company could not offer a "gay" couple or heterosexual unmarried couples any benefits without also allowing people who do not claim sexual relationships (such as a woman with a sister who depends on her for all her needs) to also sign up for such benefits.

In other words, the bill gets everyone out of the bedroom. Marriage benefits are for married heterosexual couples (who presumably have sex). All other benefits are equally available to employees regardless of sexual relationships. No special benfits base on who one has sex with.

I agree with your sentiments exactly.

Several years ago I used to listen to Dr. Dobson on his nightly broadcasts but when he crossed from preacher to political activist I stopped listening and held my peace but his activities became more and more pronounced until he was sending threatening lessers to unbeleivers that either they tow the bible line without salvation or converion or he was going to toss them to the dogs -- and for me that was the moment of truth and iI vigorously posted against his activities. Now as you indicate since he did not get what he wanted strong arming unbleivers now he is trying to get what he wants by compromise.

And this is the nature of this as we have seen in countless preachers ministries and so called christian orgainizations.

Now I await (sadly) the crash nd burn of yet another that had he stuck to his call -- and not lusted after the power and glamour of the world he could have done much more for the cause of christ. -- Instead of the cause of Dr. James Dobson.

I personally am aware of no threatening letters demading that unbelievers tow the bible line. Not at all. I have seen him write really great political activist stuff firmly asking that traditional moral standards -- the will of the people TODAY -- be followed. He has been a strong and necessary voice against judicial activism. But he is letting the good turn to bad by losing sight of his own standards.

Trying to keep our government true to its republican standards and articulating a desire for a basic moral framework to our society is not imposing Christianity on unbelievers. See, Christians are so fractured that they are worthless. Some think politics is evil on its face. Others think that we must compromise like crazy. Then there are those like me who think the church needs to focus on the truth of the gospel, but that Christians, even Christian leaders, also have an obligation as citizens of this country. WE THE PEOPLE are the government. Those who vote in Washington and in state houses are simply our representatives. If the government is corrupt and immoral then it is our fault. The gospel doesn't belong in government, but what happens in government effects our right to preach and share the truth, so we'd better pay attention.

There was a hugh debate here on FR early last summer when Dr. Dobson demanded in a letter that several liberal democrates tow the line on certain legislation or else Dr. Dobson would mobilize his voters to send these guys packing -- now I will grant you that you possibly missed this mess which was argued from three sides for almost half a week as article after article came out. The FR athieists and agnostics -- pointed fingers at this event. The people who believe that the church is to use beg government the courts and anything it can to control the nation and thus the unsaved so they will look and act more christian so they feel less of a duty to preach salvation were in another corner -- mind you now when CAIR proposed doing the same identical tactics almost word for word less than a month later these same people had a cow. (At the time I pointed out the utter hypocrisy

And we are sort of in that same place with Hamas being duly elected in a fair election. And in 5-10 years if they vote the same stuff into iraq waht do we do? See what these guys are supporting is not exactly democracy they want a government that supports christianity by legislating it from congress or the bench.

And when the liberals legislated their atheism and anti-god stuff and still are we are all angry and pull no punches of how we feel about it but this has nothing to do with the Gospel and Chirst -- it is for our own self comfort so people can not publicly say and do thing to offend us --so we try to make the unsaved act atleast partically saved and if they don't we use government and the courts as our sword to convert or atleast act so in public hence the FCC laws, and all kinds of stuff. This has nothing to do with general laws of all civilized societies and the ten commandments, and I might add that abortion is clearly murder I am not talking so much about that

I am rather discussing or I hope I am how we get back to better government and that would be as Rush would say him convincing people one person at a time (salvation one on one) until we see eye to eye and simply vote our consience with out threaatening or brow beating the unsaved into submission.

unfortunately few see it that way and would prefer giving the libs the same treatment they have given us -- (how enlightened, how christ-like). They instead prefer that we become activists and do this in your face shoutdown of those who disagree. And I do not find this behavior in the Gospel and epistles. But these people insist that to lay down our lives and to let people reward our good with evil is being a wimp and a failure. They insist that we are to stand up and seize this earthly kingdom from the devil and put him in his place -- this is largely due to the preaching of Kenneth Hagan, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell And these men have done a lot to shape evanglicalism fundamentalism and the Chrismatic movement since the early 1980's and I think it is fair to say that the bulk of the converts in these movements are from that time on -- the majority of the churches I have been in that are growing are filled with young people -- rather than the old faithful so we incerasingly have a church that has heard only this activist in your face Gospel and accepting without reservation that this is the truth and this is the way that it always has been.

Let me just say that when Jerry Falwell first began talking about the moral majority I lived in virginia, Alexandria just up the road from Jerry Falwell church and school amd He was rejected by many evangelicals fundamentalists and charismatics as a blow hard and self-righteous. Whether you know it or not he was deposed by his own church in lynchbug and he fellback to the bible school he had build. In those days nobody envisioned what would happen in the church over the next few decades.

Some things are not at all the way they might appear.

In my opinion you are purposefully misrepresenting what he did so that you can misinterpret it and then provide your chosen solution.

Dobson has every right to write letters and ask for things and to mobilize people to vote a certain way. Just because he is a Christian doesn't mean you define his citizenship rights as an effort to mobilize the church to bet government to control unsaved people. That is so bogus and that popular argument is very harmful. The things Dobson wants are POPULAR things. And our form of government, when operating as intended, does not allow for anyone to control the nation. That's why we vote. And mobilizing voters, writing letters, speaking on the radio, giving speeches, writting books, etc. is how it's done, whether you are a Christian or not. I get so sick of the implication that Christians haven't got the same citizenship rights as everyone else, or at least they should forfeit them if they want to be considered true Christians.

As for Hamas, there is no "we" in that. Their government has always been a mess. They always elected some degree of terrorist over there.

I find your post appalling. We are not on the same page at all.

Salvation has nothing to do with government. Hello? And according to your theories, the more Christians we have in America, the more people we have who are banned from having an opinion on political issues. I am deeply offended by your post. Just because the Bible teaches something, doesn't mean that it is bad or that gov't can't address the issue. "Thou shalt not steal" is in the Bible. Yet you're okay with that issue in gov't, aren't you? What is Dobson wanting that is so oppressive? Marriage defined the way it has always been defined throughout history, whether it be Christian history, Jewish history, or anything else? Oh how oppressive of him. Oh how dare he try to do that. I mean, doesn't he know that heterosexual marriage turns people into Christians by force?

I was typing too fast, so let me try again:

In my opinion, you are purposefully misrepresenting what Dobson did so that you can misinterpret it and then provide your chosen solution.

Dobson has every right to write letters, to ask for things, and to mobilize people to vote a certain way. Just because he is a Christian doesn't mean you can define his citizenship rights as an effort to mobilize the church to "get government to control unsaved people." That is so bogus, and that popular argument is very harmful. The things Dobson wants are POPULAR things. And our form of government, when operating as intended, does not allow for anyone to control the nation. That's why we vote. And mobilizing voters, writing letters, speaking on the radio, giving speeches, writing books, etc. is how it's done, whether you are a Christian or not. I get so sick of the implication that Christians haven't got the same citizenship rights as everyone else, or at least they should forfeit them if they want to be considered true Christians.

As for Hamas, there is no "we" in that. Their government has always been a mess. They always elected some degree of terrorist over there.

I find your post appalling. We are not on the same page at all.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.