Focus on the Family conspicuously silent on marriage ruling

http://www.csindy.com/csindy/2006-06-29/news3.html

The recent flap over Colorado common-law marriage has put the state's most visible defender of traditional matrimony in a curious position: adamantly opposed to legal recognition of committed same-sex couples, yet resolutely silent on an antiquated, easy-access type of heterosexual marriage open to children.

Focus on the Family's formal statement on same-sex unions "strongly opposes any legal sanction of marriage counterfeits, such as the legalization of same-sex 'marriage' or the granting of marriage-like benefits to same-sex couples, cohabiting couples, or any other non-marital relationship."

The massive ministry supports proposed state ballot initiatives that would bar gay couples from both marriage and domestic partnerships. Same-sex unions "reduce marriage to something of a partnership that provides attractive benefits and sexual convenience without an understanding of lifelong commitment," according to Focus founder James Dobson.

Colorado's common-law provision allows any single, willing male or female to claim the benefits of legal marriage if they live together, plan to be married and publicly present themselves as married — even if they've been together just a few weeks. Focus maintains "no position" on common-law marriage — despite a recent state court ruling suggesting that girls as young as 12 and boys as young as 14 could be allowed to wed.

(in my best church lady voice)
----so children are in a better position to make this life long commitment than adult same sex folks? Give me a break.

...(well actually, I don't, but still...), I would point out that his quote



is actually a pretty accurate description of the concept of marriage already in existence in the eyes of the state. For matters of civil law, marriage is an arrangement that provides for sharing of property and joint responsibility for the caring of children; in the few states that still outlaw "fornication," it also essentially serves as a "license to have sex." But nowhere in civil law is there any requirement of "lifelong committment," merely that an approved plan for division of joint property and the support of any children resulting from the marriage be in place if and when the marriage ends.

Don't believe it? If you're facing a divorce, try arguing in court that the judge should refuse to grant the divorce because the marriage was a contract for a lifelong committment, and that lifelong committment must be enforced. See how long it takes the judge to stop laughing before telling you what you can do with that argument.

The fact is that "marriage" as defined by the state and as defined by one or another religious body, although containing some overlapping elements, are essentially different. One more reason why I firmly believe that the state should grant only civil unions, whether the couple is gay or straight, and that marriage be a matter for one's faith community alone.

<http://cnn.com/2006/US/06/28/dobson.gaymarriage/index.html?eref=sitesearch>

I'm disappointed CNN gave Dobson a platform to preach his bigotry.



More at the link