For Faith & Family

Equal Rights and Responsibilities?

by: John Loudat - Mar 28, 2008 - comments: 1

During New Mexico’s most recent legislative session, our legislators were once again thrown a political “hot potato,” and again, much to the delight of many of us, they didn’t let the proposed legislation become the law of the Land of Enchantment. I’m talking about the “Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities” bill that was tabled Feb. 9 by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Baptist Convention of New Mexico’s Christian Life Committee fought the good fight against the bad legislation and did everything they could to enlist New Mexico Baptists to join them in the effort. Many of you did, calling your senators and representatives and urging them to give the bill the thumbs down. Thank you!

I have no doubt, though, that some of you may have wondered what the big deal was. You listened to (and read) all the news reports carefully, and though you may never admit it, you may have thought that we made way to much ado about nothing. Personally, I’m not going to give you a hard time for that, because I can understand why even good Christians could come to that conclusion, because I didn’t hear much from the media in the way of good arguments against the legislation either. While our office did send to hundreds of you numerous e-mails from the CLC that contained some really good reasons for opposing the bill, I do realize that many of you never saw them. Because I don’t want any readers of this publication to say they haven’t seen sufficient rationale for opposing the bill, here goes.

I believe the most helpful e-mail we sent out during the thick of the battle was a transcript of the testimony that Brad Miller of Focus on the Family presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 1 (after being enlisted to do so by our CLC). Below is how I have rewritten some of his testimony in a way my pea-brain can understand, as well as some of my own thoughts on the subject.

Proponents of the bill said, and we all heard, that it was only right and fair to give all the rights and responsibilities married people have to people in “domestic partnerships,” including same-sex partners. They were quick to say that they were not asking for those relationships to be called “marriages”; they simply wanted domestic partners to have all the same rights and responsibilities as married people, and domestic partners would have to go through the same process to dissolve their relationships as married people do. In other words, while domestic partners would benefit immensely from the bill’s passage, no one else would be harmed in any way, they said.

That sounds nice; it’s just not true. Our state and its residents, particularly our children and our culture, would have been severely impacted if that bill would have become law.

God, not governments, created the home, which is formed from the union of one man and one woman freely and totally committed to each other as companions until the dissolution of that union by death (God’s ideal plan). That union, and that union alone, is what produces children for whom those marriage partners have, understandably, a unique love, which is an incredible motivation for them to care for and raise their own flesh and blood in such a way that they will become responsible individuals and upstanding citizens who will contribute significantly to the stability and well-being of society as a whole. God gave that union His stamp of approval that He hasn’t given any other living arrangement, because that union, and that union alone, is unique in the superior contributions it makes to the social order.

While some protest that their domestic partnerships (or same-sex “marriages,” civil unions or whatever they call their relationships to make them seem more respectable) contribute as much or more than marriages to the well-being of society, saying so doesn’t make it so. The fact of the matter is, there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Governments have for hundreds of years granted certain rights to and encouraged certain responsibilities of people who marry because, simply stated, they know that their states will benefit from their doing so. And they have, until recently, refused to give in to the cries to grant those same rights and responsibilities to people in other kinds of relationships or living arrangements, and for good reason. No other relationship or living arrangement comes even close to benefiting society the way that marriage between one man and one woman does.

Furthermore:

• If the bill would have passed, granting domestic partners ALL the same rights and responsibilities married couples have, how long would it be before someone introduced another bill, saying, “If they have all the same rights and responsibilities as married people, why not let them consider themselves married?” Indeed, if the state were to give people in domestic partnerships all the same rights and responsibilities that married people have in theirs, we shouldn’t be surprised if we heard them claim that “all rights” include the right to marry each other. That, though, would be unconstitutional, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has upheld laws prohibiting polygamy on the very basis that marriage is universally understood as being the union of one man and one woman.

• When the bill was introduced, it included an anti-discrimination section that prohibited discrimination against people in domestic partnerships while assuring religious bodies that their practices would not be affected in any way. But the bill nowhere defined what a religious body was. We assume that would be churches. But what about associations and the state convention; what about our state convention’s Children’s Home, camps and Foundation; what about other denominational organizations and Christian bookstores; and what about ministers who aren’t tied to local churches but work for other religious organizations? Could the state prosecute me for discrimination, for example, for refusing on religious grounds to conduct a commitment ceremony for a same-sex couple, or a Christian photographer for refusing to take pictures at such ceremonies?

Very early in the process, the anti-discrimination section was removed entirely so that the bill could pass the House Judiciary Committee and, then, the House, which it did. Proponents, no doubt, had no problem with dropping the section because in 2003 the Legislature had passed, and the governor had signed into law, the New Mexico Human Rights Act, which included the very same provision (which we also opposed). Consequently, there is currently a sexual-orientation discrimination complaint pending before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission against a photographer who refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony on the basis of her religious convictions.

• No doubt you heard that the legislation was necessary to ensure that unmarried people could visit their domestic partners in the hospital and, if necessary, they could make medical decisions for them. The truth of the matter is, new legislation to ensure that is not necessary. Since 1997 the Uniform Health-Care Decisions Act has required hospitals, according to Miller, “to recognize visitation and surrogate decisions-making designations contained in advanced health-care directives. In the absence of such a directive, the statute requires hospitals to recognize an individual in a long-term relationship with a patient with a commitment similar to a spouse.” If there’s a problem with hospitals complying with the law, and Miller said he was not aware of any, it’s a problem of the enforcement of existing law, not a reason for passing a new one.

• Finally, regardless of what many are saying, everybody in our state already has equal rights when it comes to being married; every citizen in this state, regardless of his or her “sexual orientation,” has the same right as any other citizen to marry a person of the opposite sex.

You may be able to add to the above a whole host of other good arguments against granting people in domestic partnerships the same rights and responsibilities married people have. I encourage you to write them down (and rewrite what I’ve written in a way that makes sense to you) and share them with your legislators before the next legislative session, which will begin Jan. 20, 2009, and last a full 60 days. (Yikes!) Be assured, this bill will be back.

And do remember, all of our state senators and representatives are up for election this November, and we’ll be electing a new leader for our nation, too. Listen closely to what they say about this and a whole host of other important moral matters that will impact us all, whether we like it or not.

This article is reprinted from the March 15, 2008, issue of the Baptist New Mexican, the newsjournal of the Baptist Convention of New Mexico.

Further Learning

Learn more about: Family, Marriage, Sexual Purity, Homosexuality, Citizenship, Legislation

Recently

• Lessons from the divorce generation
• Children first
• Divorce—Yet More Costs to Society
• Critics Put Abstinence Education on Trial
• The Christian and Alcohol

Get Involved

Sign Up

Get connected with the latest information on ethical and moral issues throughout the week with For Faith & Family communications.

Talk Back

We want to know what you think about today’s big issues.

• How do you separate church and state?
• Religious Liberty in Your Community

Donations

Partner with us as we seek to transform our culture and our nation. Make a financial gift to the ministry of For Faith & Family.

Internship Program

An internship can be a tremendously formative experience for students as they prepare for their career. An intern will come away with a deep satisfaction of knowing that they were directly involved in affecting issues that impact millions of people.