Think it will pass this year? Looks like it will need only a couple Republicans to support it to pass.
The biggest hurdle might be the legislature running out of time.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
It will likely be held up in the Appropriations committee controlled by Rep. Cadman (R-Colo Springs) who has already stated that he has not scheduled it for a vote. He will probably let time run out on it rather than allow it to be voted on.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
The bill that should have been proposed was one that did away entirely with any entity of the governments of this State issuing a "Marriage License" and in its place providing a legal document to establish a civil union for anyone who wishes to have the relationship between them recorded in the State's legal records. I personally don't care if it's a man and a women, two men, two women, two men and a woman, two women and a man, or two women and two men who wish to establish that legal relationship - the state has no business deciding who may or may not voluntarily enter into a legally binding arrangement.
That's a bill I can, and would, support. Multiple definitions of the same State function makes no sense to me personally. The State shouldn't care - for the purposes of the State it is a legal contract, pure and simple. If 7 people voluntarily choose to enmesh themselves together legally, why should the State care beyond having their legal status recorded? Both camps tie themselves into knots over the word "marriage", so just eliminate it from the legal document entirely and let them both get mad that no one is given a "Marriage License" anymore.
PrintSmith wrote: The bill that should have been proposed was one that did away entirely with any entity of the governments of this State issuing a "Marriage License" and in its place providing a legal document to establish a civil union for anyone who wishes to have the relationship between them recorded in the State's legal records. I personally don't care if it's a man and a women, two men, two women, two men and a woman, two women and a man, or two women and two men who wish to establish that legal relationship - the state has no business deciding who may or may not voluntarily enter into a legally binding arrangement.
That's a bill I can, and would, support. Multiple definitions of the same State function makes no sense to me personally. The State shouldn't care - for the purposes of the State it is a legal contract, pure and simple. If 7 people voluntarily choose to enmesh themselves together legally, why should the State care beyond having their legal status recorded? Both camps tie themselves into knots over the word "marriage", so just eliminate it from the legal document entirely and let them both get mad that no one is given a "Marriage License" anymore.
For once, and hopefully the heavens won't split, I totally agree with Printsmith. It should simply be a registration process between consenting adults. Then if the individuals so want, they can have it sanctified in accordance with their religion which has bearing only within that religion and not before the government.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
