Seeing Red

I used to be a supporter of James Dobson and his ministry. That changed after he blasted The Army a couple of years ago when we had decided to allow employees to choose their benefitiaries in California. He totally used this opportunity to push his agenda forward at the expense of The Salvation Army and the pressure became so heavy, we actually reversed our decision.

This issue was not about supporting the lifestyle of gays. It was completely about allowing employees to choose their benefitiary. The whole thing was blown out of proportion and was encased in misunderstanding. For a person of Dobson's stature and influence to use another organization (church) for his own ends was and is unconscionable.

But now look what's in the news:

A new idea "The debate over gays and marriage in Colorado has recently taken a different turn from the national debate," Ramesh Ponnuru writes in National Review Online (www.nationalreview.com). "Until a few weeks ago, the debate looked familiar. Gay-rights advocates were trying to get the legislature to enact a bill recognizing civil unions (or 'domestic partnerships') for same-sex couples. Social conservatives were trying to get voters to adopt a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Now conservative state senator Shawn Mitchell has changed the script by introducing legislation that grants some benefits to same-sex couples — with the support of James Dobson and Focus on the Family," Mr. Ponnuru said. "His legislation results from an asymmetry in the debate. One of the reasons many people support civil unions or same-sex marriage is to get certain practical advantages for gay couples. The main reason other people oppose these policies is that they do not want the government to recognize homosexual relationships as marital, or even as akin to marriage. "Mitchell's idea is to make certain benefits available to gay couples — and to many other pairs of people. His legislation would make it easier, for example, for gay men to arrange to give each other a say in their medical care by becoming 'reciprocal beneficiaries.' But two brothers, or a brother and sister, or two male friends, could enter the same arrangement. Thus there would be no recognition of homosexual relationships as such. (Hence Dobson's support.) - The Washington Times 2/17/06

So now, when he is probably in a similar situation The Army was back then, he does the same thing we did. How sad. Who is going to call him to account?

I hope someone (who can do something about it) catches this and remembers. With all the publicity Dobson got out of that, he should recant and issue an apology . . . OR reverse his decision as he pushed us to do.