Civil Unions Pass In Colorado?

PrintSmith wrote: 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.

So quickly one forgets the lessons of the Civil War.

Sure there is Dog, I just outlined it. The governed have spoken with their own voice on the issue of altering the manner in which they are governed. The Democrat "leaders" know that putting this issue before the people won't result in what they are seeking, which is why they kept it in the legislature. They delayed bringing the matter up in the legislature until after the Republican primaries as a political ploy to obtain more support from Republican legislators who wouldn't then be risking their current seat at the legislative table by voting in favor of it. The Democrats themselves are the ones who delayed the up/down vote you are calling for to subvert the consent of the governed. They knew that if the up/down vote you are saying was denied was held prior to the Republican party finalizing the ballot slots for the party that they wouldn't get the votes they needed to pass the measure.

Both party "leaders" may be culpable in the denial of the legislative process - but for different reasons. One party sought to do an end around the consent of the governed to appease a special interest group and the other party countered with a move designed to prevent that from occurring. Which legislative "leaders" rightly deserve the anger of the citizens as a result? I think that it would be the ones which sought to overtly deny the consent of the governed with their actions, not the ones who sought to preserve the expressed consent of the governed.

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.

Hey... on another thread you said you would vote Libertarian...

The Libertarian Party's position on LGBT rights has remained unchanged since it was created in 1972. In 1975, Ralph Raico, helped to create the "Libertarian For Gay Rights" caucus within the party, and subsequently published "Gay Rights: A Libertarian Approach".

The second LGBT rights organization to operate from a libertarian perspective was the Libertarians for Gay and Lesbian Concerns. The organization held its first national convention in 1985, and sought to promote libertarianism to LGBT Americans.[1]

During the 1980s, the organization was affiliated with the Libertarian Party of the United States.[2] One of its activities was the production of a lavender pamphlet, to distribute at gay pride events, that explained the libertarian perspective on LGBT rights. Some of the libertarian views mentioned in the brochure are the following:

1) Repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual acts between adults (with the age of consent reasonably defined). This would include abolition of laws prohibiting prostitution and solicitation, whether gay or straight.

2) Repeal of legislation prohibiting unions between members of the same sex, and the extension to such unions of all legal rights and privileges presently enjoyed by partners in heterosexual marriages.

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertaria ... GBT_rights

Good for you... you're coming around to sanity.

No, you are making assumptions to fit your conclusion. The Republican leadership prevented a vote from occurring even though it had passed the appropriate committees, requiring the Republicans to find yet a fourth committee to prevent it from being voted on. That is it. had the vote been allowed, had the legislators been accorded the opportunity to vote, then the constituents could decide whether or not their interests had been properly represented and act accordingly. A majority of Democrats and Republicans wanted this vote to occur, yet the Republican leadership went against the legislative process to deny the opportunity.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: 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.

So quickly one forgets the lessons of the Civil War.

Which lesson is that Dog, that might makes right? The strongest check and balance against federal usurpation of power is that the member States to the union could rescind their membership in it. That was one of the arguments in favor of ratifying the Constitution in every State forwarded by the federalists in every State Convention. Associations are voluntary under our form of government, are they not? Why then would that be any different for the associations between the States than it is associations between individuals? The very prospect of federal actions being responsible for the dissolution of the United States is what is supposed to prevent it from accumulating enough power to become a despotic and tyrannical form of government.

If the States do not have the right to withdraw from the union, then by what reason can it be supposed that the Colonists had the right to withdraw from their association with their form of government? The consent of the governed is what gives a government legitimacy after all, isn't it? If the consent of the citizens of Colorado is lost by the federal government to govern them, by what right can they thereafter claim that they have the legitimacy to govern them?

Something the Dog Said wrote: No, you are making assumptions to fit your conclusion. The Republican leadership prevented a vote from occurring even though it had passed the appropriate committees, requiring the Republicans to find yet a fourth committee to prevent it from being voted on. That is it. had the vote been allowed, had the legislators been accorded the opportunity to vote, then the constituents could decide whether or not their interests had been properly represented and act accordingly. A majority of Democrats and Republicans wanted this vote to occur, yet the Republican leadership went against the legislative process to deny the opportunity.

The Democrat leadership in the Senate denied the legislative process by delaying the vote until such time as some of the Republicans felt that their actions in subverting the consent of the governed wouldn't cost them their seat in the legislature, or that if it did, a Democrat would be taking their place. It was a party power move, not one intended to implement the will of the people.

Resubmit the bill - and take it to the people directly to decide. The Republicans couldn't defend not referring that bill to the citizens of Colorado. If the Democrats are right, that the majority of the citizens support this change, then the people will confirm that position with their vote. If the Democrats are wrong, then the people will vote it down and there will be no remaining doubt as to whether or not the majority of the citizens feel that their current government should be altered.

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: No, you are making assumptions to fit your conclusion. The Republican leadership prevented a vote from occurring even though it had passed the appropriate committees, requiring the Republicans to find yet a fourth committee to prevent it from being voted on. That is it. had the vote been allowed, had the legislators been accorded the opportunity to vote, then the constituents could decide whether or not their interests had been properly represented and act accordingly. A majority of Democrats and Republicans wanted this vote to occur, yet the Republican leadership went against the legislative process to deny the opportunity.

The Democrat leadership in the Senate denied the legislative process by delaying the vote until such time as some of the Republicans felt that their actions in subverting the consent of the governed wouldn't cost them their seat in the legislature, or that if it did, a Democrat would be taking their place. It was a party power move, not one intended to implement the will of the people.

Resubmit the bill - and take it to the people directly to decide. The Republicans couldn't defend not referring that bill to the citizens of Colorado. If the Democrats are right, that the majority of the citizens support this change, then the people will confirm that position with their vote. If the Democrats are wrong, then the people will vote it down and there will be no remaining doubt as to whether or not the majority of the citizens feel that their current government should be altered.

so the Democrats are at fault because they should have known that the Republicans would subvert the legislative process. That sounds about right, everyone should just expect the Republicans to be subversive and refuse to honor the legislative process. And your solution is to incur millions in cost to have a referendum rather than allow the legislature to do the job they have been paid to do.

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: 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.

So quickly one forgets the lessons of the Civil War.

Which lesson is that Dog, that might makes right? The strongest check and balance against federal usurpation of power is that the member States to the union could rescind their membership in it. That was one of the arguments in favor of ratifying the Constitution in every State forwarded by the federalists in every State Convention. Associations are voluntary under our form of government, are they not? Why then would that be any different for the associations between the States than it is associations between individuals? The very prospect of federal actions being responsible for the dissolution of the United States is what is supposed to prevent it from accumulating enough power to become a despotic and tyrannical form of government.

If the States do not have the right to withdraw from the union, then by what reason can it be supposed that the Colonists had the right to withdraw from their association with their form of government? The consent of the governed is what gives a government legitimacy after all, isn't it? If the consent of the citizens of Colorado is lost by the federal government to govern them, by what right can they thereafter claim that they have the legitimacy to govern them?

Where in the Constitution is the right for the states to secede? The Supreme Court has ruled that there is no unilateral right for a state to secede from the United States.

The Democrats intended from the get go to subvert the process - the Republicans joined a game already in progress. There doesn't have to be millions spent on the referendum - we have a general election this fall during which ballots are going to be printed, ballot booklets are going to be printed and mailed out, public funds are going to be expended to conduct the election. Adding one item to such a ballot doesn't incur an additional cost of millions of dollars Dog.

The Democrats didn't bring this issue to the legislature for the 4 years they held majorities in both chambers of the legislature and a member of their party was Governor of the State. Why would that be if this is such an important issue to them and they wish to avail themselves of the legislative process in order to implement the will of the people via their elected representatives. This was the 2nd bill introduced in the Senate for this session of the legislature - why did it take until the end of the term before it was submitted to the lower chamber for their consideration if the Democrats desired to avail themselves of the legislative process to enact a new law?

Answer is that they didn't - they wanted a divisive social issue to campaign on in the hopes that it would change the makeup of the legislative branch after the next election was held, an election which could have included a ballot initiative for the citizens of Colorado to directly decide this issue at less than the cost of this special session of the legislature whose sole purpose was to try and make that upcoming election a referendum on social issues instead of fiscal ones that the Democrats can't hope to win.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Where in the Constitution is the right for the states to secede? The Supreme Court has ruled that there is no unilateral right for a state to secede from the United States.

More to the point, where is it prohibited to the States by the Constitution to secede from the union? The 10th Amendment says that powers not prohibited to the States by the Constitution are reserved to the States respectively - so where in the Constitution does it say that the States may not secede from the union once they have joined it? I don't see that prohibition anywhere in the document, do you?