Civil Unions Pass In Colorado?

otisptoadwater wrote: FYI, this bill is dead: http://www.9news.com/news/article/267940/71/Colorados-civil-unions-bill-dies-in-committee-

... and there will still be bigots on 285 Bound... so... nothing was accomplished.

Moderators... close this thread.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

otisptoadwater wrote: FYI, this bill is dead: http://www.9news.com/news/article/267940/71/Colorados-civil-unions-bill-dies-in-committee-

... and there will still be bigots on 285 Bound... so... nothing was accomplished.

Moderators... close this thread.

Hickenlooper was counting on his special session to pass the legislation and he failed, in the meanwhile he also spent a bunch of money that could have been put to better uses to benefit the citizens of Colorado.

otisptoadwater wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

otisptoadwater wrote: FYI, this bill is dead: http://www.9news.com/news/article/267940/71/Colorados-civil-unions-bill-dies-in-committee-

... and there will still be bigots on 285 Bound... so... nothing was accomplished.

Moderators... close this thread.

Hickenlooper was counting on his special session to pass the legislation and he failed, in the meanwhile he also spent a bunch of money that could have been put to better uses to benefit the citizens of Colorado.

The one day session cost 25,000... big whoop.

Something the Dog Said wrote: "Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual.

<snip>

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century."

http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

So what you are telling us with this brief tour of history is that the whole civil union between same sex couples crusade we are on at the moment has been tried before and that those societies evolved, or progressed, away from it in several different cultures at several points along the recorded history of western civilization. Given that reality, why should this culture at this time go backwards to what was tried and left behind once before?

Sad to see it killed. Especially by a committee, let the legislature represent us instead of just a few politicos.

The citizens of Colorado spoke to this issue themselves six years ago. If it is thought, or believed, that they desire a different law than what is in place, why not put it on the ballot as it was six years ago? Everyone from the president on down agrees this is a State issue, right? The reason the Democrats didn't make it a ballot issue, and didn't put this before the legislature during the four years that the had majorities in both chambers of the legislature and a member of their party in the governor's office, is that the citizens of this State wish to maintain the current situation. The politicians are looking to appease a special interest group and maintain their station in the legislature. Isn't this obvious by now? Every single time the citizens of any State are asked to decide the matter, they decline to alter their government. Enactment by the legislature would therefore be done not in compliance with the will of the people, rather in defiance of their will. It would be governing in direct opposition to their stated consent, not with the consent of the governed.

It does say something that Dems never did make civil unions legal when they were in control. Prefer it as a campaign issue to actually giving the LGBT equal rights?

It also speaks volumes that the Democrats didn't think the citizens of Colorado would support it either and didn't craft the bill to submit the proposal to the citizens to decide. The Republicans couldn't defend failing to refer it to the ballot and the Democrats are convinced it would get voted down, which is why they decided they had a better chance of appeasing their special interest group by keeping it in the legislature.

I keep saying this, but the Democrats don't want to listen - submit a bill which gets government out of marriage entirely. There is no reason to have two separate classifications for one function of government. Abolish the marriage license entirely as a State function and replace it with a single classification of civil unions open to everyone to establish the contractual obligations they seek to entangle themselves in for State purposes. Shouldn't matter to the government whether I am united civilly with one other person or ten in a society and culture which values and promotes individual liberty and freedom. The only function of the government is to have those civil contracts legally recorded so that the courts may properly adjudicate any problems associated with the dissolution of the contractual state that exists between the parties and the distribution of the property held in common between them when the parties desire to end the union.

The lesson is larger than it first appears. When one voluntarily joins a union, they are then also capable of dissolving that union and separating themselves from it. That is just as applicable to States as it is to individuals. Unions are voluntary compacts that can be dissolved should one of the parties to the union decide that they no longer wish to be party to the union.

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: "Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual.

<snip>

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century."

http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

So what you are telling us with this brief tour of history is that the whole civil union between same sex couples crusade we are on at the moment has been tried before and that those societies evolved, or progressed, away from it in several different cultures at several points along the recorded history of western civilization. Given that reality, why should this culture at this time go backwards to what was tried and left behind once before?

No, what I am telling you that the previous statements by posters that there is no tradition of civil unions is incorrect.

and the history does not show culture "evolving" away from civil unions, but the opposite.

PrintSmith wrote: The citizens of Colorado spoke to this issue themselves six years ago. If it is thought, or believed, that they desire a different law than what is in place, why not put it on the ballot as it was six years ago? Everyone from the president on down agrees this is a State issue, right? The reason the Democrats didn't make it a ballot issue, and didn't put this before the legislature during the four years that the had majorities in both chambers of the legislature and a member of their party in the governor's office, is that the citizens of this State wish to maintain the current situation. The politicians are looking to appease a special interest group and maintain their station in the legislature. Isn't this obvious by now? Every single time the citizens of any State are asked to decide the matter, they decline to alter their government. Enactment by the legislature would therefore be done not in compliance with the will of the people, rather in defiance of their will. It would be governing in direct opposition to their stated consent, not with the consent of the governed.

There is simply no excuse for a few legislative "leaders" to subvert the legislative process to deny an up or down vote on this issue.