Civil Unions Approved In Colorado Denver Post

Civil Union Moniker apply to EVERYONE......what a novel concept.......KISS, keep it simple stupid. I agree with PS.,however
as someone else posted, " a little bit is better than nothing" THIS is at least a first step.JMO

The title of the thread is alittle misleading, it was approved by the first committee that the bill went to. It still has a long way to go. It has not be approved in the State of Colorado.

I do not have a problem with it, so long as it is fair to everyone not just those couples that are joined by a civil union, but all couples.

navycpo7 wrote: The title of the thread is alittle misleading, it was approved by the first committee that the bill went to. It still has a long way to go. It has not be approved in the State of Colorado.

I do not have a problem with it, so long as it is fair to everyone not just those couples that are joined by a civil union, but all couples.

The way to be fair to everyone is to not give anyone more rights based on their relationships, not to have special rules that make sure that once you have regulated it that the law will address all possible situations. We will debating plural marriage next and if we are going to regulate relationships, we should re-consider such things so that all couples legal, even those that have a few couples in a relationship.

Ah, the ol' asinine "special rights" argument... EQUAL RIGHTS is not "special rights." Not now, not ever.

All rights are special rights, now and forever, given to you by those in power, the question is, how secure are they?

I am seeking rights for gays and plurals that cannot be removed by a simple state referendum. Such rights do not feel that secure to me, being witty and stomping one's feet does not change this. I could start a group and strip these rights from you or whoever in less than one year within one state. I would seek some kind of constitutional federal protections, like the ones that let you vote. This is giving up the cake tomorrow for the cookie today, like the ACA vs. Universal care.

Would you be ok with states deciding women's or black voting rights as they are currently deciding gay marriage rights, I would not? I simply suggest the same level of protection for marriage that exists for other groups. The simplest solution is no changing one's rights by forming a govt sanctioned relationship, if allowed this is the first step towards royalty. Part of the reason Gay people want to be able to marry in teh first place is the increased rights they will get. This cup is up side down. We should all be equally unburdened, not equally burdened.

If you're suggesting that we need Federal protections, (which is about to be argued before the US Supreme Court in the DOMA case, and the California Prop-8 case, which should settle once and for all that equal rights for ALL of its citizens, INCLUDING Marriage Equality, should be guaranteed) so that individual states cannot legislate them away, then for once we agree on something.

I absolutely agree that it's time to stop allowing states to enshrine laws into their constitutions that TAKE AWAY rights for certain segments of society. Colorado tried that with Amendment-2 back in the early-90's, and it got slapped down for "singling out a suspect-group for unequal treatment". (As well it should have.)

We do agree, our language or methods may differ.

I would like US federal law to ensure equal rights for all INDIVIDUALS who are here or do business with the US.

This could address gay and plural marriage by not having to define rights for each situation, but could also fix the beloved job killer of min wage by making sure we are kept honest by only importing goods that were made by folks paid such a wage (and protected like we are under OSHA). When it comes to foreign goods, if people will note give up on min wage domestically, they must be willing to enforce it oversees for importers.

None of us should be discussing our rights within someone elses peaceful relationship.

NO ONE should have THEIR PERSONAL RIGHTS put to a vote. If we did, we would still have slavery, and we would still have prohibitions against interracial marriage. (They tried it with Prohibition--and look how well that worked out...)

I would like to be able to have some of these rights. I am currently looking at spending thousands of dollars to be able to have my SO in the ICU. These are rights you all take for granted.

You deserve those rights MsMam, and I am ashamed that my party works against you. I'm sorry.