Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Dobson Too Pro-Gay?

If there is an iron law in politics, it’s this: if you find yourself to the right of James Dobson on questions of gay rights, you’re a true right wing whacko. But believe it or not, Dobson is taking a ton of criticism from his fellow religious right leaders for not opposing a Colorado bill that would give just a bare minimum of protection to gay couples. And I mean bare minimum – the bill would allow any two adults not eligible to marry to register so they can visit the other person in the hospital, make medical decisions for them and transfer property without having to go through the process of getting an official power of attorney drawn up. Not exactly radical stuff.

But for hardcore anti-gay bigots like Paul Cameron, Dobson’s acceptance of this bill makes him an appeaser to the gay agenda. In point of fact, they both have the same agenda, however. Dobson’s support for this bill is designed not to help gay people but to take away an argument for gay marriage, as his spokesperson makes clear:

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.”

So in reality, this is all just politics. It’s just a strategic disagreement among anti-gay bigots over how best to avoid allowing gay couples to get married.

Comments

  1. #1 Treban
    February 25, 2006

    It’s really kind of funny because I am working on a house for my church’s youth minister and a few weeks ago he had a station on that plays focus on the family. I was surprised to find that when he was discussing how to give your child more responsability I truly agreed with everything he said. But then, just moments later he started talking about the feminist movement and I was nauseated. He is an extremist of the worst type when he talks culture and politics – but he really is quite brilliant when it comes to raising children, as long as you stay away from the interaction with culture – but strict nuts and bolts parenting – he is the man.

    That said, I didn’t realize that you could get to the right of his attitude about gay rights. I am quite certain he would love to see queers put in state hospitals and “treated” for their abnormal psycosis – or just stoned to death.

  2. #2 beervolcano
    February 25, 2006

    It’s just a strategic disagreement among anti-gay bigots over how best to avoid allowing gay couples to get married.

    Whatever. I am on the side of gays getting married because I don’t want them discriminated against when it comes to these “benefits.” If they get all the benefits of marriage, but the government doesn’t officially recognize their relationship as “marriage” who cares? They can still have a ceremony, swap rings, and everything, and call themselves married. If they then have all the legal benefits of being married except that they don’t have a lisence or some official government recognition or regulation of their relationship, then what’s the big deal?

    I think government has no place in marriage anyway.

  3. #3 Skemono
    February 25, 2006

    If they get all the benefits of marriage, but the government doesn’t officially recognize their relationship as “marriage” who cares?

    That’s a great idea, beervolcano! Now if only we could come up with a simple yet elegant catchphrase that encapsulates the core of this notion… how about “equal yet separate”? Doesn’t that sound good?

    Man, I wonder why no-one’s ever done that before!

  4. #4 Roman Werpachowski
    February 25, 2006

    But then, just moments later he started talking about the feminist movement and I was nauseated.

    How odd. Some people get nauseated when they here feminists talking.

  5. #5 Treban
    February 26, 2006

    How odd. Some people get nauseated when they here feminists talking.

    I’m nor he was talking about feminatzis. He was talking about that early feminist movement that wanted silly things like equal pay for equal work and the right to vote and such. His attitudes about feminism, gays and much of modern culture is worse than Neanderthal.

  6. #6 Gretchen
    February 26, 2006

    You get nauseated when listening to people who believe that women are equal to men in worth and respectability, Roman? How odd.

    http://www.oneangrygirl.net/images/feminist.gif

  7. #7 Roman Werpachowski
    February 26, 2006

    I’m nor he was talking about feminatzis.
    Ah.
    He was talking about that early feminist movement that wanted silly things like equal pay for equal work and the right to vote and such.
    Then he’s stupid. I have a lot of respect for these women. My grandmother was a Home Army medic in the Warsaw Uprising, on the front line of battle. My great-grandmother studied mathematics in 1915, but dropped the studies to join the underground organization. I respect women who fought for their rights then. I have no respect for women who now bicker over being let through the door first, or attack violently every person who thinks abortion is not just a cosmetic medical procedure.
    His attitudes about feminism, gays and much of modern culture is worse than Neanderthal.
    Does he beat feminists with a club and drags to his cave? ;-)

  8. #8 Treban
    February 27, 2006

    Does he beat feminists with a club and drags to his cave? ;-)

    I am pretty sure that if he could get away with it he would be all for it.