Al Knight dissects Referendum I in his column in yesterday's Denver Post. Of course Mr. Knight is in opposition to the referendum. He writes, "A column in this space in late May complained that the proponents of Referendum I, the Domestic Partnership Act, were mischaracterizing the act. Now, three months later, that complaint is, if anything, more urgent. The domestic partnership supporters have, give them credit, succeeded in getting major news media outlets to describe the act as though it does little more than grant 'basic legal rights' to domestic partners, rights such as 'hospital visitation, end-of-life decisions and inheritance of property.' It is also emphasized that the act "would not allow gay marriage.' This description, no matter how many times it is repeated, is fundamentally inaccurate. The language of the act itself says that the intent of the legislation is to provide qualified same-sex couples all of the 'benefits, protections, and responsibilities afforded by Colorado law to spouses.' It would provide those same benefits, 'whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law, or any other source of civil law.'[...]
"The domestic partnership act's true purpose can be found elsewhere. It would allow same-sex partners the benefits now granted married couples. Importantly, it would also make it difficult for the state (when challenged, as it surely will be) to offer a rational basis for why it granted these benefits while withholding the right to marry. States that have recently succeeded in defending bans on same-sex marriage also bar domestic partnerships and civil unions. The act would also virtually rewrite the state's adoption laws. Not only would same-sex couples be able to adopt as a couple, partners would be able to qualify for what are called step- parent adoptions. That is, they would be able to adopt their partner's child. In all cases, the state would be required to issue new birth certificates listing the names of the two parents, presumably eliminating prior categorical distinctions like 'mother' and 'father.'[...]
"Under terms of the act, the legislature is empowered to pass such legislation as is necessary to implement its terms. The lawmakers will be free to interpret the fuzzy features of the act any way they wish. For example, the act says that a child-placement agency may be free to place a child with a same-sex couple but need not do so if that agency objects 'to such placement on the basis of religious beliefs.' Someone, the legislature or a court, will have to decide what constitutes a valid 'religious belief.' Finally, there is the issue of whether this act, once enacted, can like an ordinary law be simply repealed in the future. Because it grants financial benefits that arguably amount to a 'property interest,' it would be difficult to alter, let alone repeal. In earlier cases on education and welfare, courts held that financial benefits, once granted, can't be withheld without elaborate due process safeguards."
Category: Denver November 2006 Election
6:22:13 AM 
|
|
