美國維護家庭組織內戰
美國兩大維護家庭組織 Focus on Family 和 Family Research Institute 最近內戰, 事緣 Focus on Famly 支持 Sen. Shawn Mitchell 的建議, 給予非婚姻關係的人士部份已婚人士的權利。根據建議, 有關人士只要簽訂「相互受益人協議書」, 即可享有家屬醫療保障, 共有物業權利, 葬禮安排及器官捐贈決定權, 這項安排可適用於親人, 朋友, 房客及同性伴侶。
於是Family Research Institute 的主席Paul Cameron (只顧反同而使用最不科學的研究方法而被美國社會學學會及美國心理學學會踢出會) 便炮轟 Focus on Family完全瘋了, 他堅決認為此等權利只可由已婚人士享有。
但 Focus on Family此舉到底是真開明, 還是另有目的呢? 首先此項建議是針對Rep. Tom Plant所提出的同性伴?方案而出籠的。Focus 反對Plant 的建議, 認為該方案只為同性戀者而設是給予他們特權, 而Mitchell的建議卻適用於其他非婚姻關係人士。然而, 更重要的一點可能是Mitchell 的建議不包括子女的撫養及監護權利。
相關報導:
1. http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_3479371
2. http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_06026fonf.shtml
(www.leslovestudy.com)
於是Family Research Institute 的主席Paul Cameron (只顧反同而使用最不科學的研究方法而被美國社會學學會及美國心理學學會踢出會) 便炮轟 Focus on Family完全瘋了, 他堅決認為此等權利只可由已婚人士享有。
但 Focus on Family此舉到底是真開明, 還是另有目的呢? 首先此項建議是針對Rep. Tom Plant所提出的同性伴?方案而出籠的。Focus 反對Plant 的建議, 認為該方案只為同性戀者而設是給予他們特權, 而Mitchell的建議卻適用於其他非婚姻關係人士。然而, 更重要的一點可能是Mitchell 的建議不包括子女的撫養及監護權利。
相關報導:
1. http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_3479371
2. http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_06026fonf.shtml
(www.leslovestudy.com)
posted by 女同學社 at 12:04 AM
2 Comments:
Summary of the eRumor:
TruthOrFiction.com has had inquiries about whether pro-family advocate Dr. James Dobson of Focus On The Family has altered his long-standing conservative views on marriage and is now in favor of granting controversial domestic partner privileges to homosexual couples. The questions arise because of Dobson's support of a "reciprocal-beneficiary contracts" bill being considered by the Colorado legislature.
The Truth:
There is dispute over the proposed Colorado legislation but as far as Dr. James Dobson is concerned, no dispute about his stance on marriage. Focus on the Family says his support of Colorado Senate Bill 166 does not reflect a change in his long-standing opposition to homosexual marriage or domestic partnerships.
The legislation was introduced by Colorado state Senator Shawn Mitchell, who is described as a conservative pro-family Republican.
After Dobson announced his support of Senate Bill 166, Dr. Paul Cameron, president of the Family Research Institute in Colorado Springs, Colorado (not to be confused with the Family Research Council in Washington D.C.) called the decision "madness."
In a statement released by his office, Cameron said "The...bill is a political compromise that would provide gay and lesbian couples with many of the benefits of marriage without having to be married." He refers to is as "marriage-lite." He accused Dobson of endorsing gay rights.
In a strong response to Cameron Dobson said, "I don’t know what in the world has gotten into Paul Cameron that made him make a statement like this. I’ve never endorsed any bill granting gay partners legal rights currently reserved for married couples. That is sheer nonsense."
There was also an article critical of Dobson posted briefly on the web site of conservative commentator and former presidential candidate Alan Keyes. It was written by a frequent contributor to the site at www.renewamerica.us, Andrew Longman. After being contacted and told that Dobson was not supporting the homosexual agenda, the article was taken down and apologies posted by both Keyes and Longman.
According to a 2/15/06 article on Focus On The Family's CitizenLink web site, the Colorado legislation would streamline certain legal relationships that are already allowed under Colorado law such as powers of attorney, decisions about medical care, and administration of property after death.
Dale Schowengerdt, legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund is quoted as saying that Senate Bill 166 does not give benefits based on status, such as homosexuality, which is true of civil unions and domestic partnerships. Homosexual activists don't like the bill because it doesn't go far enough to accomplish their goal of homosexual marriage or full domestic partnerships. Schowengerdt adds that several states have similar laws and that, in his view, they actually protect marriage.
Focus on the Family says that Dobson's support of reciprocal-beneficiary legislation is not new. Focus supported such a bill in Hawaii in 1997 that helped protect marriage in that state from redefinition.
"All this bill does is say: If you have a need to be in one of these contractual relationships with someone you legally can't marry, you could do this through a notarized contract filed with the county clerk and — instead of paying thousands of dollars to an attorney for individual contracts — you can have one packaged contract offered to you," the article explains.
Carrie Gordon Earll, director of issues analysis for Focus on the Family Action, is quoted as saying that the bill does not advance homosexuality. It helps a lot of people such as parents with a disabled adult child living at home, sisters sharing property, grandparents and grandchildren and many other people who would choose those closest to them to have power to fulfill legal wishes for them. In other words, anyone who would have normally had to go through a complex and expensive process to define an important legal relationship that is not marriage.
Cameron disagrees and says the bill grants homosexual couples some of the benefits currently reserved for married couples and their families and that Dobson's endorsement of the bill advances the cause of homosexuals.
Updated 2/16/06
Interesting website with a lot of resources and detailed explanations.
»
Post a Comment
<< Home