Family Council argues Final Wishes Act is ‘discriminatory’
Wednesday, April 01, 2009 at 11:33 am
- 11 Comments
A bill that would rectify discrimination in Minnesota statutes and allow domestic partners to make end-of-life decisions for each other is being strongly opposed by the Minnesota Family Council. The reason? The measure discriminates against married couples, council President Tom Prichard charged.
Prichard made the argument during testimony Friday over the Final Wishes Act in the state House Civil Justice Committee.
The measure would protect the interests of people in a domestic partnership. For instance, if one partner in a same-sex couple died, the bill would allow the surviving partner to make the final determination of what happens to the body. The bill also applies to people who choose to live together in an interdependent relationship but for one reason or another choose not to marry.
Rep. Erin Murphy, DFL-St. Paul, the chief author of the bill, explained that current state law denies many the right to make important decisions.
“The last thing that we do as we go through that process is determining those last wishes. It is sort of a sacred process,” she said. “It’s the last thing we do for that loved one and I think the laws in Minnesota have a closed eye to some Minnesotans on this issue.”
But Prichard of the Minnesota Family Council charged that the measure would unfairly give legal benefits to same-sex couples.
“What you are doing is you are giving a benefit or a legal recognition to a group that doesn’t have the attendant legal responsibilities,” he said. “It is an unfairness to married couples, giving [domestic partners] legal rights but not the attendant responsibilities.
“You are now creating a domestic partner status. As far as the establishment of domestic partner status, I think this is really unfair. It is discriminatory on one level, because it doesn’t include other people.”
Rep. Peggy Scott, R-Andover, got to the crux of Prichard’s opposition, however.
She asked, “Doesn’t this bill really just elevate domestic partnerships to be the next step to same-sex marriage?”
Prichard responded, “Domestic partner status is really just marriage by another name. This is clearly a stepping stone.”
But Murphy disagreed. “I think Minnesotans are engaging in a discussion of [same-sex marriage], but I don’t think it’s time yet. I think it’s going to take Minnesotans time,” she said. “We have to recognize that certain Minnesota statutes discriminate against Minnesotans. We should resolve that separate from the issues you raise.”
The bill passed the Civil Justice Committee by a voice vote.
Follow Andy Birkey on Twitter11 Comments
Comment posted April 1, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
Oh Please. Another one of those stupid claims by someone who has rights and privileges over everyone else to cry discrimination when those rights are offered to other people. What a crock of shit.
Comment posted April 1, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
What B Hanson said. How about we strip away all those special rights for married heterosexuals, and give them something to complain about? All I want is equity – either give me the same rights, or give them the same (lack of) rights.
Comment posted April 1, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
Agree with the first two comments: turns out there’s no such things as reverse discrimination.
Comment posted April 1, 2009 @ 7:53 pm
When Prichard reaches the end of his days, I think most of us would agree on what to do with him…like stuffing him up an elephant’s ass.
Pingback posted April 2, 2009 @ 9:31 am
[...] to the Minnesota Independent, the Final Wishes Act that would rectify discrimination in Minnesota statutes and allow domestic [...]
Comment posted April 2, 2009 @ 10:06 am
There is a valid case to be made on both sides of this issue.
Every Minnesotan, irrespective of sexual orientation or marital status, has the right to determine who will make a final determination of what happens to his or her body. Any law that prevents such voluntary action and agreement should be repealed.
On the other hand, the argument that benefits and privileges should not be extended to specific relationships without the attendant obligations is also valid. Extending benefits to same-sex couples without or before the legal obligations imposed by marriage is begging the question and side-stepping the issue of same-sex marriage rather than confronting it.
If the legislature doesn’t have the courage to propose and vote on legislation that grants full privileges and obligations of marriage to same-sex couples (which I would support) then it should confine itself to legislation that removes barriers to any two individuals, irrespective of sexual orientation, voluntarily contracting for all of the benefits automatically given to married couples. It should not automatically confer benefits on a “domestic partnership,” irrespective of sexual orientation, that has no legal standing.
Rule of law means requires doing the right things right. If same-sex marriage is the right thing to do, it should be implemented in a principled way.
Comment posted April 4, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
I completely agree with the comments made. Let’s take away every heterosexual couples rights, even if just for a day, and see how well they would fair at a doctor appointment, parent-teacher conference, what have you and not be able to make a decision for the other domestic partner because they have no legal right…..
Comment posted April 21, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
I think everyone should go to Tom Prichards Blog and see the level of hate the MFC produces. They are a very dangerous right wing extremist group.
Comment posted April 21, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
Yes I agree with Jerry please go to http://mnfamilycouncil.blogspot.com/ and see the dangerous level of hate, miss use of context, and their use of the title of Religion to cover under to try and conform, and change laws based on their Faith. This land is not ruled under one church. They are a very dangerous group to be weary of.
Comment posted May 2, 2009 @ 7:26 am
Prichard and his followers are a bunch of sick bigots.
This is the same sort of totally illogical argument that right-wingers used to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment decades ago. They argued that the ERA would “force” women to share bathrooms with men, among other absurd claims. These fanatics will resort to anything in order to achieve their goals.
Comment posted May 14, 2010 @ 11:03 am
If gay people get equal rights then everyone will want them!!
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
