Now that the Dems control the Statehouse and the Governor's Office, why did they only settle for civil unions? Shouldn't they have also legalized homosexual marriage? Disappointed. Homosexuals are a subclass of people who only get certain rights? Not all the rights of a heterosexual.
Here is your civil union law, seperate but equal right? 3/5ths of a heterosexual?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Having the courage of your convictions takes intestinal fortitude. It's a shame, because this is an issue I disagree with my party about. Everyone should have the right to legally form a family with the one they love. The Democrats were timid on this one. It's one of the reasons I'm not as afraid of them as other conservatives here seem to be. They always round down.
chickaree wrote: Having the courage of your convictions takes intestinal fortitude. It's a shame, because this is an issue I disagree with my party about. Everyone should have the right to legally form a family with the one they love. The Democrats were timid on this one. It's one of the reasons I'm not as afraid of them as other conservatives here seem to be. They always round down.
That's really the problem on both sides... compromising their principles for votes (if they have principles that is). Wouldn't it be great if politicians were honest and told us straight up what they really believed and wanted for the country?
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
This is what happens when you let the govt regulate private relationships of any kind.
Get the govt out of marriage, civil unions or creating alternative classes. If you can change your rights by having a new relationship, we have created a path to second class citizenship, which is currently widely accepted, even if denied.
People with certain types of jobs can get better retirement benefits from the govt in the form of say SIMPLE iras, this second class citizen stuff has to shop. There is no need to have govt marriage or sanctioned relationships. Allow parents to own their children and everything else will work itself out.
FredHayek wrote: No goverment sanctioned relationships? While I hear this from libertarian types, increasing goverment regulation is more not less likely.
That does not mean you give up. How about we find a way to regulate marriage more then, but make sure that when you do it you don't change anyone's rights as to change their class...
...but then it won't add up, because the only reason to do it is to change rights, or people would just get married in churches (or whereever) and not tell the govt.
I say lots of relationships as people see fit, just no govt approval of who you have relationships with.
I just have not even heard a proposal that would address these issues within increased regulation. I really feel bad for folks that have gay marriage rights via vote or anything outside of the constitutions....those rights can be taken away as quickly and as easily as they got them, not secure rights.
Those that have given up on their ideals will surely degrade yours. And given all other crap out there I have said, this is a low priority and should not be addressed until all other bigger priorities effecting more people are addressed. So I urge no action on this issue at this time regardless.
FredHayek wrote: Now that the Dems control the Statehouse and the Governor's Office, why did they only settle for civil unions? Shouldn't they have also legalized homosexual marriage? Disappointed. Homosexuals are a subclass of people who only get certain rights? Not all the rights of a heterosexual.
Here is your civil union law, seperate but equal right? 3/5ths of a heterosexual?
Why? Because the Colorado Constitution would not allow the course of action that you speak of, that's why. What I want to know is why they just didn't do away with the "Marriage License" entirely and have the "Civil Union" moniker apply to everyone. That, to me at least, gives everyone the same access under the law, as well as gets government out of the business of defining what a marriage is or is not. I can't see how such a measure would offend anyone myself, but perhaps it is being done in order to appease the special interest lobby by giving another group a classification all their own.
FredHayek wrote: Now that the Dems control the Statehouse and the Governor's Office, why did they only settle for civil unions? Shouldn't they have also legalized homosexual marriage? Disappointed. Homosexuals are a subclass of people who only get certain rights? Not all the rights of a heterosexual.
Here is your civil union law, seperate but equal right? 3/5ths of a heterosexual?
Why? Because the Colorado Constitution would not allow the course of action that you speak of, that's why. What I want to know is why they just didn't do away with the "Marriage License" entirely and have the "Civil Union" moniker apply to everyone. That, to me at least, gives everyone the same access under the law, as well as gets government out of the business of defining what a marriage is or is not. I can't see how such a measure would offend anyone myself, but perhaps it is being done in order to appease the special interest lobby by giving another group a classification all their own.
Constitutions means nothing in the Obama error um era.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
