Civil Unions Pass In Colorado?

But are not all classes of individuals allowed equal access to those laws in that laws are not allowed to discriminate between classes of individuals. If the states have the right to grant the privilege of marriage, then should not all classes of competent individuals be allowed access to those rights. This is identical to argument against mixed race marriages, that the state can decide who is allowed access to those privileges.

But the current situation is beyond that argument. should the GOP leadership be allowed to circumvent the legislative process? The bill has passed three committees, yet the House Speaker has assigned it yet to another committee in order to keep it from coming to a vote. Even David Balmer, as conservative of a politician as there is in Colorado, and an adamant opposer of civil unions believes that the House GOP has gone way too far and is distorting the legislative process.
Rep Balmer:
"I do not support abrogating the House Rules to pass or defeat any bill. The House Rules have their underpinnings in our State Constitution. I have served under three Speakers, and I've never seen the rules changed to advantage or disadvantage any specific bill. I never saw Speaker Romanoff bend the rules, so we must follow the Rules now. Bills should proceed to their normal committees of reference."
The House Rules don't just belong to us (the 65 current Representatives). They belong to all Representatives who served before us and all those who will serve after us. More importantly, the House Rules belong to the People of Colorado."

Can you just imagine if this were Democrats making these decisions....the conservatives would be squealing like stuck pigs......but since it's Republicans changing the rules to circumvent not only the will of the majority of the legislators, but of the people, it's quite alright with them.

PrintSmith wrote: Marriage is not a right, never has been. It is, and always has always been, a restricted privilege. There have always been laws which restrict who may marry - some of them good, some of them not so good, but civil society has always restricted access to marriage for a variety of reasons and it will continue to do so.

Bear is right here. The very same arguments used to claim that rights are being denied if homosexuals aren't allowed to be married are valid to claim that rights are being denied if polygamy isn't allowed. If I indeed have a basic human right to marry the person of my choosing and have it recognized by the government for the purposes of property rights and government benefits, then denying me the ability to choose to whom, or to how many, I am married to, for any reason, is a violation of that basic human right. I can make an argument that denying access to marriage for more than two people violates the constitutional prohibition against laws which restrict the free exercise of religion given the historical reality that certain sects within the Mormon religion and the Islamic religion, not to mention numerous Native American Tribes, have included polygamy within what the religion or the culture allows within its canon and traditions.

This is not a matter of civil rights - marriage has never been a right, it has always been a restricted privilege in our laws, customs and traditions. Saying that one has a fundamental human right to be married to the person of their choosing means that there is a basic human right to marry one's sibling, or their parent or their first cousin if that is what they desire to do that would also have to be allowed. The logic isn't there folks, nor is the history of the law - marriage is, and always has been, a restricted privilege, not a right.

This BILL WE ARE DISCUSSING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SAME SEX MARRIAGE... it is a bill to guarantee legal civil rights in a union.

PrintSmith wrote: Marriage is not a right, never has been. It is, and always has always been, a restricted privilege. There have always been laws which restrict who may marry - some of them good, some of them not so good, but civil society has always restricted access to marriage for a variety of reasons and it will continue to do so.

Bear is right here. The very same arguments used to claim that rights are being denied if homosexuals aren't allowed to be married are valid to claim that rights are being denied if polygamy isn't allowed. If I indeed have a basic human right to marry the person of my choosing and have it recognized by the government for the purposes of property rights and government benefits, then denying me the ability to choose to whom, or to how many, I am married to, for any reason, is a violation of that basic human right. I can make an argument that denying access to marriage for more than two people violates the constitutional prohibition against laws which restrict the free exercise of religion given the historical reality that certain sects within the Mormon religion and the Islamic religion, not to mention numerous Native American Tribes, have included polygamy within what the religion or the culture allows within its canon and traditions.

This is not a matter of civil rights - marriage has never been a right, it has always been a restricted privilege in our laws, customs and traditions. Saying that one has a fundamental human right to be married to the person of their choosing means that there is a basic human right to marry one's sibling, or their parent or their first cousin if that is what they desire to do that would also have to be allowed. The logic isn't there folks, nor is the history of the law - marriage is, and always has been, a restricted privilege, not a right.

This is a "same sex marriage bill"- read the damn bill- it says that all rights of a traditional marriage would apply to the same sex union. People in Colorado have already voted on this issue- The state would be stomping all over what the people have alraedy voted on just 6 years ago if they let this bill pass.

Yep- Once again PS- you have eloquently defined the issue- better than I could have. My view on this topic mirrors your post. Sorry if I'm not coming across as politically correct - but I never make an effort to be politically correct - it's low on my value list. There are many groups who are just waiting for the abandonment of the "one man one woman" definition of marriage before they spring forward with their "civil rights being violated" argument for all kinds of variations to this bill. As you have pointed out - sharia law, certain sects within the Mormon religion and numerous Native American Tribes can argue that their "rights" are being violated.

It opens up the can of worms as soon as the traditional definition of marriage is trashed.
I'm stickin with what has worked for more than a thousand years.

BearMtnHIB wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Marriage is not a right, never has been. It is, and always has always been, a restricted privilege. There have always been laws which restrict who may marry - some of them good, some of them not so good, but civil society has always restricted access to marriage for a variety of reasons and it will continue to do so.

Bear is right here. The very same arguments used to claim that rights are being denied if homosexuals aren't allowed to be married are valid to claim that rights are being denied if polygamy isn't allowed. If I indeed have a basic human right to marry the person of my choosing and have it recognized by the government for the purposes of property rights and government benefits, then denying me the ability to choose to whom, or to how many, I am married to, for any reason, is a violation of that basic human right. I can make an argument that denying access to marriage for more than two people violates the constitutional prohibition against laws which restrict the free exercise of religion given the historical reality that certain sects within the Mormon religion and the Islamic religion, not to mention numerous Native American Tribes, have included polygamy within what the religion or the culture allows within its canon and traditions.

This is not a matter of civil rights - marriage has never been a right, it has always been a restricted privilege in our laws, customs and traditions. Saying that one has a fundamental human right to be married to the person of their choosing means that there is a basic human right to marry one's sibling, or their parent or their first cousin if that is what they desire to do that would also have to be allowed. The logic isn't there folks, nor is the history of the law - marriage is, and always has been, a restricted privilege, not a right.

This is a "same sex marriage bill"- read the damn bill- it says that all rights of a traditional marriage would apply to the same sex union. People in Colorado have already voted on this issue- The state would be stomping all over what the people have alraedy voted on just 6 years ago if they let this bill pass.

Yep- Once again PS- you have eloquently defined the issue- better than I could have. My view on this topic mirrors your post. Sorry if I'm not coming across as politically correct - but I never make an effort to be politically correct - it's low on my value list. There are many groups who are just waiting for the abandonment of the "one man one woman" definition of marriage before they spring forward with their "civil rights being violated" argument for all kinds of variations to this bill. As you have pointed out - sharia law, certain sects within the Mormon religion and numerous Native American Tribes can argue that their "rights" are being violated.

It opens up the can of worms as soon as the traditional definition of marriage is trashed.
I'm stickin with what has worked for more than a thousand years.

I have read it... evidently you have a reading comprehension problem, or you are outright lying. "Rights of a traditional marriage would apply to the same sex union" refers to legal rights... legal rights to be included on employer sponsored health insurance programs (which as I pointed out before, that right is already offered by certain health insurance companies under a "domestic partner" designation), rights to be included as a legal partner in a will, rights to be listed as a legal partner in a situation where one of the civil union members need hospitalization, the legal right to petition a court for restitution in the case of the ending of the civil union... the same rights... not a legal marriage certificate. Nothing in this bill gives the same-sex couple the legal right to call their union a marriage, nor does this bill redefine the definition of what a legal marriage consists of.

You go ahead and stick with what works for you, your tradition, your concept of a legal marriage. But their are many people who don't share your opinion or traditions and too bad so sad, but you don't represent those people and they deserve the same legal protection under a civil union law as you enjoy.

How do you think you have any right to tell these people how they can live in a relationship and do you think you have any right to deny them the same legal rights that you currently now have?

How do you think you have any right to tell these people how they can live in a relationship and do you think you have any right to deny them the same legal rights that you currently now have?

They have the same exact rights as I do right now under current laws. A heterosexual man can not marry another heterosexual man either- so which right are you talking about? We all have the same rights.

The issues of rights to be included as a legal partner in a will, rights to be listed as a legal partner in a situation where one of the civil union members need hospitalization... etc. can be addressed without a same sex marriage law. In fact the law already provides a remedy for those issues now.

So some insurance allows same sex partners- this bill would force all insurance companies to do it- force all government agencies to allow same sex spouses eligable to spousal benefits- force all public businesses to accept these unions- the impact will be enormous- and eventually force all churches to accept those terms- which are highly objectional to many religious organizations. What about their rights?

Lastly- it forces the public in general to accept homosexual lifestyles as "normal and therefore acceptable". No matter how they try to slice it- their queer. Forcing those who object to these lifestyles for whatever reasons by using the power of the state is wrong- these lifestyles are an extereme minority- and they want the state to tell us it's mainstream.

That's just wrong.

BearMtnHIB wrote:

How do you think you have any right to tell these people how they can live in a relationship and do you think you have any right to deny them the same legal rights that you currently now have?

They have the same exact rights as I do right now under current laws. A heterosexual man can not marry another heterosexual man either- so which right are you talking about? We all have the same rights.

The issues of rights to be included as a legal partner in a will, rights to be listed as a legal partner in a situation where one of the civil union members need hospitalization... etc. can be addressed without a same sex marriage law. In fact the law already provides a remedy for those issues now.

So some insurance allows same sex partners- this bill would force all insurance companies to do it- force all government agencies to allow same sex spouses eligable to spousal benefits- force all public businesses to accept these unions- the impact will be enormous- and eventually force all churches to accept those terms- which are highly objectional to many religious organizations. What about their rights?

Lastly- it forces the public in general to accept homosexual lifestyles as "normal and therefore acceptable". No matter how they try to slice it- their queer. Forcing those who object to these lifestyles for whatever reasons by using the power of the state is wrong- these lifestyles are an extereme minority- and they want the state to tell us it's mainstream.

That's just wrong.



They still execute homosexuals in many perts of the world- most recently in Iran and Iraq.

And you are a bigot. Why don't you be honest and admit that and then this subject will be closed. Because a bigot has already made up their mind. You complain about the left and it's class warfare and you yourself go ahead and relegated a whole group of American citizens to a lessor class status than you.

Admit it... your bigoted!

archer wrote: Can you just imagine if this were Democrats making these decisions....the conservatives would be squealing like stuck pigs......but since it's Republicans changing the rules to circumvent not only the will of the majority of the legislators, but of the people, it's quite alright with them.

As much as I disagree with their decision I think Coloradoans have already decided that they don't support gay marriage or civil unions. So if a couple valiant Dems were filibustering a law legalizing slavery that legislators wanted but the citizens didn't wouldn't you support them?

BearMtnHIB wrote:

How do you think you have any right to tell these people how they can live in a relationship and do you think you have any right to deny them the same legal rights that you currently now have?

They have the same exact rights as I do right now under current laws.

No...They don't.

Marriage is for the perpetuation of the family; i.e., children.
A gay marriage cannot create children between the partners.
The ideal family that our society promotes is one male father and one female mother for the children. Everything else is less than ideal and should not be promoted.