A very interesting maneuver by the Dems, as the Denver Post reports:
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.
"It's going to be controversial, but if you think about it, it shouldn't be," Ferrandino said. "It's something that's smart government policy to try to encourage people to plan ahead."
This might be a pretty smart end run around all of the emotionally manipulative grandstanding on the issue of "marriage." What if you could give any consenting pair of people a way to take care of each other in times of need? Everything from medical to legal to estate issues, with simplified processes that have a better chance of surviving court challenges? Simple personal rights that should be available to anyone--aging siblings, widows, or even, yes, gays and lesbians? That doesn't sound very controversial, does it?
And since it's not really a controversial idea, it shouldn't surprise you to learn that Republicans actually proposed the same thing a couple of years ago--none other than family values arch-conservative Sen. Shawn Mitchell himself, as the Post continues:
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.
Unfortunately, if there's one thing we've learned so far this session from Senate Republicans, it's this--pay no attention to anything they might have said previous to the moment you are speaking with them.
The intent of his 2006 bill was "not to compete with or dilute marriage," Mitchell said...
We read you loud and clear, Sen. Mitchell. It's all about the intent. Or in this case, the ulterior motives--the current sponsors would not seem to have any, their motivations are obvious. And since they're basically using Mitchell's own language against him, his backpedaling opposition tells you what his motivations weren't.
For the proponents, it's a gamble that rests on who wins the battle over the bill's public impression. If it's perceived as a "pro-gay" measure it will add to Focus Action's scare tactic arsenal and make a lot of Democrats nervous about supporting it. If, on the other hand, supporters can make clear that it's not a concession to the "homosexual lobby" but a bill with broad and pragmatic applications--and that Republicans have proposed just about everything in the bill themselves as morally conscionable alternatives to "redefining marriage?"
We'd call that a winning frame. |
