CommunityPam's House Blend

Daddy Dobson folds on his home turf

[UPDATE: Moved the post back up to the top…I added Freeper comments below — lotsa fun watching them squirm. ]

This bit of news is something Daddy Dobson definitely doesn’t want to get around. The Colorado-based Focus on the Anus had to back off any attempt at a pushing a full-bore marriage amendment that also excludes acknowledgment of the rights of domestic partners.

Even more delicious, one of Daddy’s minions was trotted out to say the organization supports a bill that will allow same-sex couples to receive some of the same legal benefits of marriage. In Daddy Dobson’s Christian paradise? He may have to relocate FoF to a more supportive environment, perhaps, Ohio, Mississippi or Alabama (not that I wish him on you, Kathy, lol). (Wash Blade):

A Colorado bill that would result in same-sex couples receiving some of the same legal benefits given to married couples has drawn a surprising supporter: Focus on the Family, a Colorado Springs-based Christian organization known for opposing gay civil rights.

A bill sponsored by Colorado state Sen. Shawn Mitchell would grant specific rights to same-sex couples who entered a ‘reciprocal beneficiary agreement.’

Proposed by Republican state Sen. Shawn Mitchell, the measure would allow “reciprocal beneficiary agreements,” where any two parties excluded from marrying under Colorado law could gain specific rights “including but not limited to health care insurance benefits.”

Jim Pfaff, state policy analyst for Focus on the Family, told the Denver Post that the group supports Mitchell’s bill as an alternative to domestic partnership legislation, as it does not try to “recreate the family structure.”

“A domestic partnership bill based on sexual orientation is giving extra benefits to a class that has a high standard of living at the expense of other adults who are at or near the poverty level, and we believe that’s discriminatory,” Pfaff told the Post.

OK, watch this ace double-backflip-with-a-twist attempt to say it has nothing to do with the homos…

…While gay couples could be reciprocal beneficiaries under Mitchell’s plan, Pfaff said the bill “is not premised on sexual orientation,” and if it were, Focus on the Family would not endorse it.

…Michael Brewer, public policy director for the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Community Center of Colorado, said the Christian group’s support is not ironic, but a “political reality.”

“[Focus on the Family] realizes that domestic partnership is popular in Colorado,” Brewer told this newspaper. “I think they’re definitely afraid that Colorado could be the first state where the voters themselves would pass it.”

Despite Pfaff’s amazing gymnastics above, his BS isn’t flying with the true believers. Look at what the Family Research Institute has to say about Daddy Dobson’s position.

If passed, merely by signing a form with the county clerk, gay and lesbian partners would have property-sharing rights, decision-making powers over funerals and organ donations, and could be covered under one person’s health care policy. State law could force employers to cover gay partners — no matter how ill. Partners could cancel the form and the benefits sharing arrangment at any time.

Dr. [discredited bogus science peddler Paul] Cameron said “the Mitchell bill is really ‘marriage-lite’ for gays. Focus on the Family’s support for this bill is madness.”

Paul Cameron’s bogus vanity-published studies on homosexuality have been discredited, such as “Gay Foster Parents More Apt to Molest.” (He turns up in Blend posts quite often).

According to Dr. Cameron, conferral of any part of marriage benefits to homosexuals is without precedent in the history of the Christian Church. “Moses and St. Paul put homosexuality among the worst of sins. As soon as the Church gained political power in the Roman Empire it outlawed homosexuality. Now Focus on the Family — an avowedly Christian organization — is telling society it is OK to give gays benefits similar to marriage, as long as it is not called ‘marriage.’”

…“When the Denver Post, one of the most anti-family, anti-traditional newspapers on the planet, says it is ‘pleasantly surprised’ by Dobson’s support for ‘expanded legal benefits for same-sex couples,’ you know that a betrayal has occurred.”

Catfight! Meeeow, Daddy!

UPDATE: I added Freeper comments below.

Actual Freeper Quotes™

“I am really shocked by this. Does Dr. Dobson know about this?”

“How do you decide who is ‘head of household’???”

“yeah… I’m with you. But then, we shouldn’t have to decide either of them as head of household. Maybe the kids (shudder) will be heads of household. It’d make just as much sense.”

“The best way to collapse a system is to keep piling it on till it flattens under it’s own weight..Remember though ..while you are lookin’ out for #1.. don’t step in #2”


“I have the same reaction. Then again, Dobson never claimed to be a theologian, he’s far too interested in the ‘relationship’ side of things and sounds like he’s getting dragged off course by that as well as most of the evangelical church nowadays.”

“Calm down people. This is totally false. Dobson has emphatically refuted it.”

“I’m not in the least surprised by this. About ten years ago or so I decided to join Focus on The Family and was sent a form to read and sign. As I read along I came to a part that excluded members who follow the Papacy, (can’t remember its exact wording, but it was crystal clear what it meant). So much for the ‘good’ Dr. Dobson. I mentally dumped him into the trash bin along with his membership form.”

“The Business of Religion proves yet again that it’s bottom line is political support, not biblical Chrisitanity. Really, should we be surpirsed? But, here is a new idea, if homosexual “marrage” is against current law, what “rights” do lawbreakers have? To a fair and speedy trial.”

“Family research Institute’s reaction to FOF’s support of bill”

“These folk who think they can redefine what God created (marriage) are only kidding themselves. They can only end up with the pagan leadership that Christ admonished His followers was not of His kingdom. If we love the Lord, we will follow His commands. He created male and female and He created marriage between one of each of these. Period. within that institution, He has established the hierarchy (Ephesians 5) and we cannot shy away from it.”

“Well, we of course don’t enforce
cohabitation or other anti-promiscuity laws that are on the books. However this law will make it impossible for people to deny companies paying for the support of someone’s current domestic partner under insurance policies and other legal contracts.”

“”This is totally false. Dobson has emphatically refuted it.””

“Where is the statement of the refutation?”

“Why would he exclude Catholics? But *now* he can’t take a stand against gays? That’s pretty bizarre. After all it wasn’t like his organization was a church in which case I could understand some of those doctrinal exclusions…”

“I agree with Dr. Dobson. Homosexuals already have equal rights and should not be given special rights.”

“Me too.. except that doesn’t seem to be what this bill does. I can’t cover my ‘friend’ on my insurance, etc… only my ‘domestic partner/spouse.’ I also don’t think that heterosexual couples not married should be able to have each other on their insurance policies.”

“Mitchell’s bill extends a range of benefits to unmarried people who sign what he calls a “reciprocal beneficiary agreement.” He says relatives, friends, roommates and same-sex couples would all be eligible. Besides it’s drawbacks, I can see some benefits from a bill such as this one.”

“Ok, the Colorado legislature is going to pass a “domestic partners” bill. Take that as a given, as that is the what the political climate is heading towards right now. Now, accepting this as fact (although I would vote against it personally), there are now two proposals before the legislature. The first proposal specifically give “domestic partner” rights to only homosexuals. The second proposal gives the “domestic partner” rights to all non-married domestic partners. Given the first fact, that one of these proposals is going to pass, I would choose the second proposal. Not to give rights to homosexuals, but to prevent homosexuals from getting special rights. This is being twisted to say that it is giving special rights to homosexuals.”

“”To say that this is somehow endorsing homosexual rights is twisting and obscuring the truth into a shallow lie.””

“It’ll do nicely for the fervent Christian-bashers on this forum, though.”

“I’m a Christian myself, and ashamed for the majority of lukewarm CINOS that everyone calls Christian.”

“I’m not looking at this bill as strictly a gay rights bill–that is just a component of it. I just think that since so many freedoms are getting clamped down it’s nice to see a little openness.”

“The freedom to turn reality on its head and demand by judicial fiat and or legislative subterfuge that society recognize homosexual activity as normal or somehow beneficial to society will remain clamped down for eternity…”

“I’ve often wondered why I had to be related to someone by marriage to buy insurance for them.”

“Because the nuclear family is what benefits society, therefore society has a duty to encourage it.”

“And from a Christian standpoint, (which doesn’t apply to government necessarily) it is the only sanctioned family unit, separable only by death. The point is not that Colorado is going to pass the bill, the point is that FOF, ostensibly a Christian family organization, is endorsing it.”

Previous post

The Risen Witch Hunt Begins

Next post

DePaul's LGBTQ studies program unhinges conservative Catholic group

Pam Spaulding

Pam Spaulding