Just as I described how gay rights activists in Utah are calling the bluff of the Mormon Church which has issued disingenuous statements that it is not against civil rights for LGBT citizens, so too are some politicians in the Colorado Legislature who have introduced a bill which would make it easier for unwed couples - including same sex couples - to plan their estates and share benefits in times of tragedy. The disingenuous GOP members of the legislature who claim to not be anti-gay and homophobic are now back peddling mightily from past statements alleging that they believed certain basic protections should be afforded LGBT couples? Why? Because (1) their Christianist masters are demanding it to "protect the sanctity of marriage" and (2) I suspect that they never thought that they'd be confronted with having to vote on the issue. Life's a bitch when your held to statements you did not really mean. Here are some highlights from the Denver Post:*
A bill that would make it easier for unwed couples to plan their estates and share benefits in times of tragedy is certain to touch off a gay-rights debate at the Capitol. Unwed couples can already designate each other as emergency decision makers, ensure that property goes to their partners if they die and list each other as health insurance beneficiaries. But the process for sharing these and other benefits is a costly and complicated series of contracts, said bill sponsor Rep. Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver.
*
His bill, to be filed later this week, would give couples the option of dropping by their local county clerk's office and filling out a check-off form stating which rights they want their partners to have. It's a benefit to same-sex couples, and Ferrandino expects a fight, but he said others would benefit as well.
His bill, to be filed later this week, would give couples the option of dropping by their local county clerk's office and filling out a check-off form stating which rights they want their partners to have. It's a benefit to same-sex couples, and Ferrandino expects a fight, but he said others would benefit as well.
*
In 2006, socially conservative lawmakers like Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, proposed similar legislation allowing so-called "designated beneficiary agreements." At the time, a ballot battle loomed over Referendum I, an initiative to legalize domestic partnerships and confer spousal rights on committed, same-sex couples.
*
The bill was seen by critics as a way to undercut the initiative and by proponents as a common-sense way to grant atypical households some basic rights. The bill and the referendum failed. This time around, Mitchell says the fact that the agreements would be open to heterosexual couples amounts to "marriage light or shacking up heavy." Either way, he's opposed, he said. The intent of his 2006 bill was "not to compete with or dilute marriage," Mitchell said. "It's a step in the wrong direction."
The bill was seen by critics as a way to undercut the initiative and by proponents as a common-sense way to grant atypical households some basic rights. The bill and the referendum failed. This time around, Mitchell says the fact that the agreements would be open to heterosexual couples amounts to "marriage light or shacking up heavy." Either way, he's opposed, he said. The intent of his 2006 bill was "not to compete with or dilute marriage," Mitchell said. "It's a step in the wrong direction."
No comments:
Post a Comment