(2/18/2006)

Focus Action Explains Support for Reciprocal Benefits Bill

Colorado legislation is the subject of controversy among homosexual rights opponents, proponents

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., Feb. 17 /Christian Newswire/ -- Focus on the Family Action is supporting SB 166, a measure being put forward in the Colorado Legislature that would make possible "reciprocal-beneficiary" arrangements. The legislation is seen as a pro-marriage alternative to a "domestic-partnership" bill also currently under consideration.

"The reciprocal-benefits bill is simply good legislation," said Peter Brandt, Focus Action's senior director of government and public policy. "This measure has none of the flaws contained in the domestic-partnership bill, which would give special recognition to same-sex couples and grant them rights which are currently reserved for marriage."

SB 166, on the other hand, would simply streamline the process by which two adults can already obtain legal benefits. The bill excludes any couples who are eligible to marry and does not grant any rights that are currently reserved for married couples. It would allow a parent and a disabled, adult child or two elderly siblings, for instance, to share benefits that are currently available through contractual processes.

"Homosexual activists in Colorado are strongly opposing this bill because they realize it will unmask their arguments for same-sex marriage," Brandt continued. "Their usual tactic is to advocate for full recognition of same-sex relationships while claiming all they want is legal benefits. This bill doesn't extend benefits on the basis of a special status, but rather on the basis of need. With this common-sense alternative on the table, same-sex marriage proponents can no longer hide behind their 'benefits' argument."

Focus' support for the reciprocal-benefits bill is consistent with its position in 1997, when it backed a similar measure put forward in Hawaii. Just as in the current situation in Colorado, Hawaii's bill, which was approved, was introduced as an alternative to a push for civil unions that would have unfairly benefited same-sex couples.

"Those who claim that this bill promotes same-sex marriage simply don't understand the facts. SB 166 would give benefits based on the needs and qualifications of those who desire them. It does not give any advantage to same-sex couples, and sexual orientation is not even mentioned," Brandt said.

"SB 166 would ease the process of obtaining benefits that are already available, and would do so in a fair, non-discriminatory manner. It's good for Colorado's families, and that is why we support it."