As the issue of gay rights forges on from state to state, yet another controversial topic comes to the forefront. According to an article by Baptist Press correspondent Tom Strodes, Washington is gearing up for a battle over a same sex partners’ benefits bill for federal employees. The article entitled "SBC's Page opposes same sex partners bill", appeared on the Baptist Press news website, www.bpnews.net, on July10th. The bill entitled “Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act” (also called HR2517), would grant benefits such as health insurance, retirement, and disability to the same sex partners of gay federal employees. Among the main opposers of this legislation, is the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). The object of the bill is to extend the same rights that heterosexual federal employees have. While the question of this bill may be quite obvious, the answer may not be so obvious.
.jpg)
Frank Page, who is a former president of the SBC (2006-2008) appeared before a House of Representatives subcommittee on July 8th, and sat waiting quietly for over six hours before getting his opportunity to speak. As he addressed the subcommittee, he politely acknowledged that though others were there to oppose the bill, he was the only person asked by the subcommittee to speak on behalf of the opposing side. However, seven gays, lesbians, and supporters of the legislation spoke first, depicting the denial of same sex benefits as being equal to being treated like second class citizens.
Supporters that testified in favor of the bill included Michael Guest, who was the first openly gay ambassador in U.S. history. Mr. Guest, who was the Ambassador to Romania from 2001 to 2004, said that his life-partner had to sacrifice his military career because of his relationship with the former ambassador. Guest continued to say that his lover received insufficient training, was restricted from promotion opportunities, and was not afforded protection against terroristic threats while serving overseas because he was gay. The former ambassador also referenced the fact that the military would pay for a married person’s pet to be moved to another military post, but would not pay for his partner’s airfare when he was asked to travel abroad. Guest criticized the lack of marital benefits for gays and lesbians, saying it seems that in the government’s opinion, his partner was “less important than a dog”. Ironically, Guest acknowledged that when he was in college, he attended the very same church that Page now pastors.
Also among the supporters that testified was a lesbian African American clergy-person who has been a federal employee for 33 years. She noted that her father had worked in the very building where the subcommittee meeting took place. She went on to say that her father would be proud of her for standing up for her rights to have equal benefits that married couples enjoyed. She also talked about having “pretended to be straight” so that she would not be ostracized because she loved a woman instead of a man.
However, Page sought to contradict the supporters’ testimonies by stating that “extending marriage-like benefits to same-sex couples will give such unions an elite status and will promote a social agenda largely opposed by evangelical Christians” (Strodes, BP news). According to Strodes' article, Page, who is the pastor of the First Baptist Church in Taylors, S.C., stated that, “I do believe that it has been the perennial role of the government to support the institutions of society, such as marriage,” Page said before the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service and the District of Columbia. “[This bill] is taking a direct role in opposition to a traditional definition and support of that which marriage has traditionally been....
“[T]he government should be in the process of encouraging the traditional marriage that has stood for many, many hundreds of years as that way that culture is best protected,” Page said, adding that “government ought to be encouraging, not discouraging, [marriage]. And I think this act discourages
.” Pastor Page made it clear that he believed in “moral absolutes”. “Those are words we have not heard today,” Page said as the last witness in a lengthy hearing. “Those are words that are not popular in our culture today. We also, as unpopular as it is today, believe that this is a part of a social agenda that continues to seek normalization of a homosexual lifestyle that I and, I believe, many other evangelicals, not all, certainly oppose,” Page said. “We care for people. We do love people, but we’re painted as if we are hateful, caricatured as mean-spirited. We’re not. But we do believe there are absolutes, and we stand by them.” (Strodes). The sponsor of HR2517 is House Representative Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat from Wisconsin. In a written statement, Frank Page described the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, as being legislation that –
“Undermines the rationale for the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars the federal government from recognizing homosexual marriage and gives states the authority to refuse to recognize the same-sex marriages of another state.”
According to Strodes’ article, Lee Badgett, who is a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, estimated that the cost of bestowing just health benefits to the partners of the approximated 34,000 gay and lesbian federal workers, would amount to over $60 million in the first year alone. Strodes mentioned that Prof. Badgett, in her written testimony, cited that employers in 250 cities across the U.S. were already extending benefits to same sex partners .(Strodes, “SBC’s Page Opposes Same Sex Partners Bill”, posted on July 10, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=30870 )
Among the cities that passed legislation similar to Domestic Partnership Benefits, was my former hometown of Philadelphia, P.A., where the city council voted that city workers in same gender relationships should be allowed to name beneficiaries of their choosing and were no longer limited to spouses and/or children. One might jokingly say that it lends a whole new meaning to the phrase “The City of Brotherly Love” – but that would be in poor taste perhaps.
Whether you agree with or disagree with HR2517, now is the time to make your voice heard – contact your local representative and make your opinion known. Use this link to access contact information for North Carolina’s Representatives -http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/index.html . You may also wish to contact Representative Tammy Baldwin, who sponsored the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act. I have provided her contact information with this link -http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cgi-bin/newmemberbio.cgi?lang=&member=WI02&site=ctc
To view the video of the hearing, which was posted by reporter Tom Strodes on the Southern Baptist Convention website, go to http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=30870.
All of the information regarding this story by posted Tom Strodes can be found on the Baptist Press website - www.bpnews.net
I invite you to share your thoughts on HR2517 in the Comments section below this article. Please be tactful when expressing why you are for this bill or against it.
Comments
Everyone should read all about the "moral absolutes" that was the genesis of the Southern Baptist Convention.
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NXG/is_1_37/ai_94160891/
Seems that always find someone to hate. Lovely organization, lovely people.
If you need another example of this modern-day nutcase group:
www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4126&Itemid=53
PS: Dear Lord, please save us from your followers!
baptist can believe what they want to and they dont have to marry anyone gay-but what about the people that do not believe the same...baptist can hate sin or the sinner but some people dont believe it is a sin--remember that thinking you know what is right for everyone is what Hitler thought too....
Please visit the Number #1 Baptist site on the internet - Landover Baptist Church:
www.landoverbaptist.org/staff/
The Landover Baptist Church is a fictional[1] Baptist church based in the fictional town of Freehold, Iowa. The Landover Baptist web site and its associated Landoverbaptist.net Forum are a parody of fundamentalist Christianity and the Religious Right in the United States.
Let's just recognize for a moment that the fact (or prediction) that giving the suggested modest benefits to gay and lesbian federal employees "would amount to over $60 million in the first year alone" is a recognition that taxpaying citizens working for the federal government are currently being DENIED at least $60 million in benefits per year that their straight colleagues (doing the same work) get automatically.
And that isn't even addressing what the non-federal gay employees in this country don't have equal access to.
Mahatma Gandhi once wrote:
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ".
Oh, how true...
Please keep your comments coming. But I would ask that your responses be based upon your agreement or disagreement with HR 2517 and why,just like Peter's comments are. But I must admit that I greatly admire Ghandi and James' point is well made. It reminds me of the famous words of Nietzche's when he supposedly said "God is dead", As you know,he was misquoted he actually wrote - God is dead and Christians killed Him". I would ask that you refrain from endorsing or demonizing any particular church, since every church (especially Baptist churches) has their own doctrinal believes- there are a number of Baptists who would support HR2517, just as there are Methodists, Episcopalians, etc. Jesus said that the greatest commandment was to LOVE God and then your neighbor as yourself - if this is the greatest commandment, then perhaps the "greatest sin" must be to break the greatest commandment. We should all be able agree or to disagree in love.
i dont think anyone has demonized any particular church.....but the article is about the SOUTHERN BAPTIST and their attempts to block the partnership bill...by doing that the SOUTHERN BAPTIST church opens themselves to all debate...this is not about perhaps Christianity, but it IS about SOUTHERN BAPTIST initative to twart a political process
You are right Just Me, I was actually referring to future comments, though the issue of Landover Baptist church was based upon opinion of the church - the topic of the SBC and its attempt to block HR2517, is and should be open to criticism because any faith should be able to withstand scrutiny. I'd like to hear your opinion on why should or why shouldn't the SBC attempt to block this legislation.
the SBC should not be allowed to attempt to block this legislation because:
there is seperation of church and state
Very interesting point and a valid argument. We must consider whether or not the forefathers instituted that separation of Church and State for such occassions as this.
Okay... Pastor Page says that the reason not to support the bill is because evangelistic Christians don't agree with it.
To which I say...so what? Is the role of government to endorse one religious group's agenda or is to protect the rights of ALL citizens?
I am FOR this bill. The pro's appear to be: equal benefits for gay couples and straight couples; health insurance for more Americans (so that gay partners don't have to be covered under whatever plan Pres Obama comes up with to insure the uninsured); less need to be closeted, leading to less suicides, mental health issues, etc. The con is that one special interest group doesn't like it.
Is there any real argument here? Can someone come up with a legitimate down side to passing this bill?
Im for this bill for the simple reason that insuring equality for all IS the right thing to do.
As for the first amendment...If we start making exceptions for when it should be applied...Then it wont be long before it will have no more meaning.
Until the United States Constitution applies unconditionally to all Americans, organizations like the Southern Baptists will continue to believe that the rights of gay and lesbian Americans depend on the approval, agreement or acceptance of a tyrannical self determined majority.
What if the Southern Baptists, or any other religious organization, knew that they could continue to have heterosupremacist beliefs, and would never be expected to approve of or accept gay and lesbian Americans, would they then step aside so that the United States Constitition could be enjoyed by every Americans, whomever they loved?
While we wait for their decision to lay down their tyrannical lynch mob nooses, gay and lesbian Americans are serving this country in the federal government. Why shouldn't they have the exact same benefits as every other federal employee? Why should they just pay taxes to support spouses of other employees?
Should America be run by tyrannical lynch mobs like Iran?
Although I am Jewish, our views are the same on this issue. This heinous act must not be allowed to become law. In fact it should become illegal for companies to offer benefits to anyone but the legally married partner (of the opposite gender). Sex is for the purpose of creating children, and is not a topic for discussion in the workplace.
America seems to have become blind to what's going on here. Remember the "Emperor's New Clothes"? This is the syndrome that we have now with this issue.
"They should have the same rights as others" - they do - when they get married, their spouses will be covered - just as with the rest of us.
Wanting someone doesn't mean we can have it. If Gay people feel they can't get married and have children (which is not true), then they are making themselves not able to give benefits to their spouses to be - but they still have the same rights as everyone else. If someone is single and not gay, they don't get benefits for a partner, same way if someone is gay and not married, they shouldn't get benefits for a partner.
This article states, "According to Strodes’ article, Lee Badgett, who is a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, estimated that the cost of bestowing just health benefits to the partners of the approximated 34,000 gay and lesbian federal workers, would amount to over $60 million in the first year alone. Strodes mentioned that Prof. Badgett, in her written testimony, cited that employers in 250 cities across the U.S. were already extending benefits to same sex partners.
______________________________________________
Hello???? Same-sex couples are paying for OPPOSITE-sex couples. How on EARTH do you justify that not working both ways????
I am more than happy to stop contributing towards the Heterosexual lifestyle. Where do I cast MY vote????
We need to punish these hateful, religious organizations. I don't give a damn about what they think of me, but they've crossed their line by imposing their disgusting religion into my private life, through constitutional amendments that limit my liberties, while I pay federal taxes for their churches, and they are advocating for my damnation.
They can go to hell! I hate religious zealots!
“A tyrannical self-determined majority” “hetorsupremacist beliefs” “tyrannical lynch mobs like Iran”
These phrases and several other comments on here are very unfair to a group of people who are simply standing up for what they believe in. It is unfair to paint every Baptist and Christian as hateful, spiteful and narrow-minded. I have gay friends and I am a Christian. I don't agree with their behavior but I still love them. I don't look at homosexuality as an identity, just like my heterosexuality is not a part of my identity. I don't think it is unreasonable that I stand up against a bill that is going to put my tax dollars in support of something I disagree with. Does that make me a horrible, hateful, judgmental person? No. The Southern Baptists are a group of people who have organized themselves against a position on an issue they feel strongly about. People have been doing that for years. It is called 'Democracy.' They have that right. --Thanks WH, Charlotte Conservative Ex.
Dear Hailey W.,
Well, if Southern Baptists have the right to limit my rights through a majority vote, then if I can get a majority to vote against Southern Baptists, we can strip them of their rights too. Isn't that correct?
Many people find Southern Baptists to be giant roids. Not just gay people, but a lot of people are sick and oh so tired of the Christian fundamentalists. We might not get enough votes in Bible Belt states like North Carolina, but I think we could successfully pass constitutional amendments in many Yankee states.
I particularly like the shoe being on the proverbial other foot. And since the constitutional amendments you're passing against me doesn't make you a "horrible, hateful or judgemental person", well, right back at 'cha babe. I guess I must not be a horrible, hateful or judgemental person for voting you off the island either.
You see, sweetie, it goes both ways. Enjoy the ride.
Homosexuality is not a Choice, the APA has already determined this. I do not care what your beliefs are, they are just your beliefs. Gay Rights and Gay Marriage do not affect any church or religion. They will always have their beliefs. We are talking about the Constitutional right for Equality under law.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!