Civil Unions Pass In Colorado?

PrintSmith wrote: 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.

All suppositions on your part without a single fact to support them. The bottom line is that the Republican leadership refused to allow the legislative process to work.

God, he can still spout more irrelevant "sovereign states' rights" bullsh*t than anyone I know...

Always amusing, though. Pity about that thing called "The Civil War"...

Anyone besides me notice that SFB has a defecation fixation? Just curious.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: 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.

All suppositions on your part without a single fact to support them. The bottom line is that the Republican leadership refused to allow the legislative process to work.

But it is OK, and within the legislative process when Democrats send bills to their own "kill committees" ???

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: 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.

All suppositions on your part without a single fact to support them. The bottom line is that the Republican leadership refused to allow the legislative process to work.

Bottom line is that the Democrats intended to use the legislative process to create a divisive issue for the upcoming elections, not to get civil unions passed into law. This was SB2 and the Senate didn't pass it until April 27th - the session started in the second week of January - why did the bill sit idle in the Senate for over 3 months before they passed it given the same bill breezed through the Senate the year before on a 23-13 vote? That is, incidentally, the same margin the measure passed the Senate this year - a month later than the failed effort last year. Have I got "beyond a reasonable doubt" type proof? No, I'll give you that - but I certainly have preponderance of evidence case that survives the common sense smell test.

Nope, just pure spin on your point. Of course, I appreciate how desperately you must be to deflect from the bad behavior of the GOP leadership.

You presume that I share your opinion that the GOP leadership's actions were bad - which I don't. I think that McNulty's actions were entirely consistent with having the government run in compliance with the consent of the governed. In 2006 the citizens of this State approved an amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman and rejected Referendum 1, Colorado Domestic Partnership Benefits and Responsibilities Act of 2006. If it is desired to see if the citizens have changed their mind, the Democrats should follow the same path that was followed 6 years ago and not seek to thwart the consent of the governed by doing legislatively what the citizens of this State have already said they don't wish done when they were asked to decide the matter. It is the people after all whose consent is necessary to have a legitimate government, the people who have ultimate say over if and how their form of government should be altered. The Democrats and their special interest groups need to recognize and respect that when they are seeking to have the manner in which the citizens of this State are governed altered.

Personally I am for getting all levels of government out of marriage entirely and simply having anyone interested in forming a union fill out some paperwork, have it notarized, and be done with it. I don't think that the interests of the government go beyond recording for legal purposes the existence of such a union regardless of the sex of the people involved, how many of them there are or their relationship to each other prior to forming the union. When the Democrats show an interest in forming a coalition that unites the populace instead of trying to find wedge issues to divide it, they might find themselves pleasantly surprised at just what can be accomplished when you work with others instead of trying to compel them to see things their way.

Looks like the LGBT community will now need to take the civil union issue to the courts. Might be more successful than putting it on the ballot.

Didn't read them all, but I hope someone in these 10 pages has already reminded people that the govt has no place in marriage. We should not be debating this AT ALL, our opinions should not matter in other people's relationships, even if we are staunch traditional catholic, letting the govt regulate marriage opens the doors to all kinds of other stuff. It also allows for the manipulation of rights based on the relationships that one is in, which is just morally wrong. Please don't fall for the trap and debate this, please debate how to get the govt out of straight marriage and same sex marriage where it has passed. Let's also work to get the govt out of plural marriage, let us work on and discuss basic human rights.

Let's work towards the ideal of getting them out of our relationships, not debate how they should be in them to make it fair to the next guy because of what he or she already lost or gained from the govt. If the govt can approve which sexes marry and we allow them to debate this, they will feel like we can put any aspect of a marriage up for public debate and law....how you have sex, how often you have sex, who can have custody of children, who gets other peoples money with the relationship ends, etc. etc. none of this has anything to do with anyone outside of the relationship. Kids are a product of the relationship and the govt/neighbors should only get involved if they are abused or otherwise physically hurt. We can still have rules that say that kids are in both the custody of the father and the mother, but only if that responsibility is accepted or factually known (like someone saw the baby come out of that woman, so she is the mother).

No govt regulation of adult relationships, no govt regulation of children relationships, very limited regulation of adult/children relationships (to be able to nail adult people that have had sex with young kids etc.). It's called freedom and individual rights, don't give them up even more so that govt. can sanction gay marriage which is only needed because they run straight marriage.

popcorn eater wrote: No govt regulation of adult relationships, no govt regulation of children relationships, very limited regulation of adult/children relationships (to be able to nail adult people that have had sex with young kids etc.). It's called freedom and individual rights, don't give them up even more so that govt. can sanction gay marriage which is only needed because they run straight marriage.

Sure... other than having sex with children, in your fantasy world, let's leave parent alone who beat the snot out of the little bugger. I don't mean a little swat on the rear, I mean all out World Class Wrestling sort of tossing around? That's fine with you I guess. Hey, in your scenario, let's introduce kids to drugs, alcohol, cigarettes... I'd love to be able to drag my 8 year old to some parties I go to. Any of you kiddies out their want to see my pornographic DVD collection.

What you see as freedom is called abuse in most countries.

(P.S. are you married, have children... how old are you)