The effort to pass a domestic partnership ballot measure this fall is off to a demonstrably dishonest start.
A group that calls itself Coloradans for Fairness and Equality has been peppering the airwaves with two stunningly dishonest ads designed to mislead the public on the issues at stake this fall.
One ad shows a fetching photo of an infant who, the ad announces, is deprived of a whole series of rights simply because he was “born gay.” This claim ignores a large body of evidence suggesting that homosexuality is not merely a genetic issue. And it neatly leaves out any informed discussion of the rights that are supposedly being denied the infant on display.
The second ad features even more distortions than the first. It shows a man in a hospital waiting room who has supposedly been barred from visiting his “unconscious” homosexual partner. The ad says, “You are forced to wait. Not for a medical reason. But because you are gay.”
The sponsor of this ad would have the viewer believe that the only way to attack this problem is to pass the domestic partnership measure.
This is nonsense on a couple of different levels. There has been no proof that the state has a large number of comatose homosexuals or that they are the subject of disputes over visitation. The domestic partnership act, even if passed, wouldn’t address all or even most of those disputes, if they exist.
A little history is in order. A book called “Legal Guide for Lesbian and Gay Couples,” which was first published a quarter-century ago, listed just two cases involving the visitation issue. The first involved a lesbian who was incapacitated by an auto accident. Her family barred the woman’s partner from having a role in her care once they discovered the two women had been lovers. The second involved a man dying of AIDS. His biological family disputed the right of his lover to visit their son.
These disputes, it is worth noting, are not really different in kind than many others in which homosexuality is not an issue. These might involve former girlfriends, neighbors or even other family members. Hospitals, for a variety of reasons, have traditionally looked to blood relatives to make medical decisions affecting family members.
That does not mean there aren’t a variety of ways that exceptions to the rule may be addressed. Congress, in fact, long ago passed legislation giving a variety of rights to patients, among them the clear right to determine visitation issues.
Focus on the Family, during legislative debate on this referred measure, asked the state’s major hospitals to list their experience with the visitation issue. According to a Focus spokesman, three of the largest hospitals said that visitation disputes – not just those involving homosexual partners – arise in only 5 to 10 percent of the cases. The vast majority of these concern cases where the hospital has difficulty even finding a family member. For example, an elderly person may arrive at a hospital with literally no one to aid in decision-making. The hospital might find itself dealing with a neighbor who called the ambulance.
Finally, of course, homosexual partners have been free to grant legal authority to a partner to make medical decisions in case of incapacitation.
The point is, there is no factual basis to the claim that homosexual partners are forced to remain in waiting rooms because they are gay.
It goes without saying that the domestic partnership act would do way more than address hospital visitation. It would essentially rewrite the law books of the state and forever redefine such words as “spouse,” “family,” “immediate family,” “dependent,” what is meant by “next of kin” and “any other term that denotes the spousal relationship as those terms are used throughout the law.”
The referred measure is an invitation to unending litigation and is logically and rationally inconsistent with the commonly held view that marriage should be a pact between one man and one woman.
These are issues worthy of the most serious of political debates. It is too bad the campaign has begun with a package of television distortions that will cost its sponsors $1.2 million and in the end produce zero enlightenment.
Al Knight of Fairplay (alknight@mindspring.com) is a former member of The Post’s editorial-page staff. His column appears on Wednesdays.
