CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 25, 2011 03:50 AM UTC
59 Comments
Thank you from a Democrat.
Roberts has the constituency, so its a smart move on her part. But Sen White has a mixed constituency. Overall it’s probably good politics–for the General–but more risky as well, with Cowboy Bob looking for a job. She did the right thing and deserves kudos. Thank you Sen. White.
I testified for it when it was heard by the Senate Judiciary, but cannot be there for each step. I am grateful to know what happened. We should all call Rep. McNulty and tell him how important this bill is to all of us, and to the people we care about.
Also, sign the petition!
http://www.change.org/petition…
It’s not as good as a personal phone call, but you can do it after hours and it’s easy to get friends and family to do it too. I’d guess that if the petition appears to have momentum, change.org will front-page it so they can take some credit if the bill passes. Petitions they front page generally get a few thousand signatures each day. Most of those won’t be from CO, and won’t mean much–but many of them will.
Perhaps one day Sen. Renfroe will come to see that
and that his being a follower of Jesus is his personal affair, a matter of conscience for him as it is for every individual and that it isn’t the place of the temporal government to which he has been elected to meddle in matters spiritual. Equality under the law is the business of our elected officials and that must be the basis for this debate without reference to any elected official’s preferred religion.
In the meantime, civility is certainly preferable to the ridiculous and nasty fear mongering about the next step being the right to marry your pet or your sibling that has too often been part of this discussion.
but Republicans have never really been hung up over civil unions. Marriage has spiritual connotations, so it is understandable why people would want to defend the definition of a marriage as one man and one woman. But as far as equal rights, GOP opposition is mostly a bogeyman cooked up by the left to scare gays into voting Dem.
Make that bogeymen.
Your theory is a nice one, beej, but it’s at odds with the facts.
You know who disagrees with you? Real Republicans Ted Harvey, Kevin Lundberg, Greg Brophy, Shawn Mitchell, Kevin Grantham, Mark Sheffel, Steve King, Kent Lambert, Bill Cadman, Keith King, Scott Renfroe and Mike Kopp.
Seriously, are you even capable of commenting on something without making shit up?
ummmmmm what about Pat Robertson raising money for repubs? What about Joe McCarthy? Your extremely limited view and understanding of history makes me question whether your education actually educated you.
Oh wait. I applaud the Republicans who actually apply the “small government” idea to all issues and not just pick and choose, but it’s far from the norm.
Not that the GOP is not really filled with boogeymen, but…
I know a lot of religious conservatives (my huge family in the midwest is full of them). Marriage is the big deal for them, not civil unions. Yes, many of them believe homosexuality is a sin, but most also practice “love the sinner, hate the sin”. They want marriage to remain spiritual. For some; it’s a sacrament. They do not believe G-d supports gay marriage.
Civil unions are a different story because they seem them as purely civil, in nature. These “believers” tell me that they tolerate the governments made by man, but G-d is their true President/Leader/Authority, so if a man-made government wants to issue a civil union between two “gays” (their words), it is not their problem — they just don’t want it confused it with marriage, which they see as spiritual, not legal.
Another example of this are the many people who see spiritual “marriage” as important to them, but not a legal marriage. I am an ordained interfaith officiant. I have married many couples since 2003 (mostly friends or aqcuaintances — there is no money in it). A number of older couples asked me to “marry” them spiritually but not legally. Why? They could live together and feel okay about it morally, but they could also keep their social security or health care benefits. You’d be surprised how many of these ceremonies happen everyday, in backyards all over America.
I have heard this from many, many people over the years, and it is why I have always argued that we should go with government-sanctioned civil unions for everyone across the board. My straight legal marriage should also be a civil union. Many western European countries do this — have the government issue civil union registrations for everyone who comes to them — whether male and female or two same-gender people. Let the churches decide for their parishioners what is marriage and what is not.
Let couples choose legal unions (government), spiritual marriage (church/synagogue/temple/etc.), both, or neither.
I agree. But this also means that churches get to issue same-sex marriages (or not) according to their beliefs (and that one gets the same recognition in civil matters as the other); the American Taliban doesn’t get exclusive usage of the term. If the religious ‘marriage’ is just a certificate (like a commendation from the Rotary or something) without civil import (with the ‘union’ being the legal document) then that might work, although I am not sure it would pass muster with fundamentalists who think their current interpretation of the ideal family was ordained by God in the Garden of Eden 6,000 years ago.
So I think that still the campaign for equality has to be waged. As noted, plenty of ‘real’ Republicans oppose civil union and any acknowledgement at all by society that gay people exist and live among us, are us in many cases. Even right there in their own churches…
The idea of ‘traditional’ marriage is another figment of the beejster’s imagination. A fictitious rendering that doesn’t really exist as a consistent model across the institution. Like the mythical time many of these folks want to return to…
It is an agreement between a man and a woman and God. Many traditionalists consider the government optional in that equation.
Likewise, many secular people see it as a legal designation, and the spiritual/religious portion is optional.
In many parts of Europe and Asia, the government issues the secular license to two people (in Europe, that often means people of any genders). Legal rights are the same, no matter who comes in to get that license. Then, if you want to make it a “marriage” in the spiritual sense, you go find your own clery / congregation.
Not all religious conservatives are okay with this, but surprisingly, many of them are. A lot of folks on the left are too — it’s a win/win in many places. It allows the religious people to have their religious word (marriage) and allows everyone to have the legal rights and privileges associated with that word normally (it’s just called “union” by the government — you can call it anything you want when you get home (marriage, hatbox, goldfish… whatever). Hope that makes sense.
the sticking point for most Rs is marriage, not civil union, but the fact is that most R pols vote against civil unions and in states where civil unions have been voted down by the public, most Rs have voted no.
I also believe the distinction made between marriage as spiritual and civil unions as civil is false. Leaving aside common law marriage all legal marriages are civil unions already. Being married in a spiritual way only, as you point out, doesn’t constitute a legal marriage. Obtaining a license from the state and completing a witnessed ceremony carried out by an official recognized by the state as having the authority to do so what constitutes legal marriage.
A clergy member or a religious or spiritual ceremony is already entirely optional. Two atheists getting married by a Justice of the Peace are just as legally married as anyone married by a priest in a religious ceremony.
That’s why I believe there shouldn’t even be a need for legislation. If courts forbid discrimination based on gender then we are all entitled to obtain a marriage license and to be married by any official recognized by the government. As always, a religious or spiritual ceremony would be an option. That banning gender bias would naturally have no effect on the legality of marriage to other species or to close relatives goes without saying.
If a same gender couple wants a religious ceremony as an option and can find a denomination and clergy person willing to perform it, fine, but banning gender bias would force no clergy members to perform such a marriage against their sects teachings just as no one now can force an orthodox rabbi to marry a Jew to a non-Jew. All that’s needed is for people to realize the obvious: All legal marriage is already a civil matter. Discrimination based on gender being banned should grant everyone equal access automatically.
Also, no longer experiencing slowdown on this site, FYI, ColPols.
It’s even more civil than that. In Colorado, you can go to the courthouse, fill out the application for a marriage license, sign the license right there and hand it back to the clerk. No clergy, no officiant recognized by the state. As I like to say to couples, “My cat could marry you.”
This also why I continue to do weddings while some of my colleagues in other states have refused until gay marriage is legalized in their state. Here in Colorado, I’m not a tool of the state. They have no authority over me. There is no, “By the power vested in me by the state of Colorado.”
This is one reason why this issue is ABSOLUTELY about discrimination as BlueCat says. The marriage license is not a sacred document. It is a legal and civil one. So, regardless of what the state says is a legal and civil union, I will continue to perform SACRED marriage ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples. They can’t STOP me from blessing couples any more than they can force Pat Robertson to bless a couple. What they can do is stop the civil discrimination that currently exists.
that were this not all true, no one would care what the state allows. If a couple couldn’t find anyone to marry them in the eyes of the Lord, oh well. But because they can, a bunch of wackos feel the need to add some layer of screw you.
Sigh. Welcome to 2011; when children are starving to death and people are worried about marital sex.
As you say, that makes it even more a cut and dried civil matter as far as legality is concerned. We don’t need to create a special category of civil union. We’ve already got that and it’s called “marriage”, apparently even if you just hand in the form to the clerk. The rest, the spiritual aspect, may be the most important part to the individuals involved but it’s just bells and whistles as far as the law is concerned.
It seems the solution has been staring us in the face all along. The solution is, there isn’t really the need for anything we don’t have already. It could be clarified pretty quickly by the courts, just like the end of official segregation and Jim Crow, not to mention laws against interracial marriage.
And by the way, my Godless Justice of the Peace marriage is going on 30 years and I’m pretty sure gay marriage isn’t going to somehow break it up. Even when it becomes legal for me to marry a girl, I’ll still like guys, especially my guy, and I can’t imagine why some of my fellow straights feel threatened.
I agree that in a perfect world, marriage (using that word) should be exactly the same for everyone. I’ve just been trying to explain to those who may not speak fundy that if we are hoping the religious right may give up on exclusive rights to the word itself, it may never happen.
I for one don’t care what my hetero marriage is called if I know it’s marriage. If they all become civil unions, that’s fine by me.
Marriage, at least as it now exists in our law, necessarily requires the state to be involved in a spiritual matter.
Religious denominations have the right to restrict religious marriage ceremonies to those they think are entitled to it. The state has no business second-guessing that. It’s part of freedom of religion.
But the state has no business giving civil recognition only to those marriages sanctioned by a particular religious tradition or group of religious traditions. That is, ipso facto, a situation where the state is saying that one religious view of marriage is more worthy of respect than another, and that is, in turn, a violation of at least the idea behind the establishment clause and certainly in conflict with our sectarian traditions.
The solution is simple. Eliminate marriage from state law altogether. Churches can marry people and the state should be limited to sanctioning civil unions for anyone over the age of majority that seeks them. If you get married in your church, you would then have to get your civil union certification from the state separately. It would replace a marriage license. If you didn’t get married in a church, you would still be able to get a civil union certification from the state.
This solution ends the controversy and respects all points of view by taking the public, the state, out of the business of saying one religious view of marriage is morally superior to another. There is no logical basis on which to make that assertion and, in any event, the popular will – pretty important in a democratic system of government – says that the privileges of marriage, even if you call that extension of them a “civil union” – should not turn on whether Christians, Jews, Muslims, or any other adherent of a particular faith tradition approve.
When I was in Mexico four years ago, I noticed that this division is made even more clear by the fact that couples RARELY get married in the church on the same day that their marriage is recognized by the state. They are two completely separate events. You go to the courthouse to sign the legal papers that declare that you are married and, from that day forward, the state recognizes your marriage. Even though the ceremony happens on a totally different day.
Let’s call the legal rights and responsibilities inferred by a certificate given by the state to be called, “peanut butter”. Let’s also say the state in question gives peanut butter to whoever asks for it — two men, two women, or a man and a woman.
Let’s call the spiritual covenant between a man and a woman under conventional traditional western religious traditions called “jelly”.
Lots of secular-minded people want peanut butter.
Lots of religious people want jelly.
Some want both, and wouldn’t think of having a sandwhich that did not have both.
I think the confusing part is both the government and the religious institutions still keep using the same word — marriage, when they should have different words. These are different things. Unless your state is a theocracy (and ours still isn’t that… yet… and hopefully will never be), these things should be separate.
I have been married to a man for 25 years. I would have no trouble changing our word to “unioned”. I don’t care what the word is.
Religious people DO CARE what the word is, most of the time. The word has been “owned and operated” by the church for thousands of years. To them, it is the very meaning of “a covenant between a man and woman and God”. If the word means so much to them, why not just let them have it? It’s just a word.
In a free society and a country that (on paper) believes in the separation of church and state, a religious ceremony really should be completely separate from a civil registration anyway.
Reminder — I couldn’t be more pro – LGBTQ rights if I painted myself with rainbows. I have been marrying (there’s that word again) people spiritually as an ordained Interfaith Officiant since 2003. I’ve married couples spiritually and not legally, and I’ve married them legally and not spiritually. I even married a couple who hated each other so that the guy could be on his wife’s health insurance. Without it, he was literally going to die. I’ve married gay and straight couples alike. One of my weddings was in a movie called “Saving Marriage” (I married two lesbians in the movie).
Whatever the couple are into is fine with me. Whatever they want to call it is fine with me, too.
THE IMPORTANT THING IS THEY ALL SHOULD HAVE THE EXACT SAME RIGHTS — GAY OR STRAIGHT!
I’m not sure about this proposed bill, but other domestic partnership bills around the US don’t grant all of the same rights and privileges. I wouldn’t bet that this one does, but someone who knows family law and has read the bill can probably tell us.
No. It’s the same as any other of these bills. It only grants the rights most people think of when they think marriage.
Fairly basic. I suspect the majority of the other over-my-head benefits are only offensive because there’s a line, not necessarily because they are so important. Odd stance to take when I don’t understand them, but it’s mine!
But the answer is definitely not.
Civil unions do not confer the right to file a joint federal tax return. Since Colorado income tax law is based on federal income tax law, and a couple must file a joint federal return to file a joint Colorado return, a Colorado civil union does not confer the right to file a Colorado joint return.
Also, tax preferences that married couples can take for granted–like the exclusion of employer-provided health insurance to a spouse–are not available to couples joined in a civil union.
they don’t own the word and legal marriage has nothing to do with religion. There is simply no way around that fact. It is not and never has been the religious ceremony that makes an American marriage legal. People don’t have to like that but there it is. So I don’t see any reason to grant religious people the right to restrict the use of the word “marriage”. My marriage wasn’t religious, it was Justice of the Peace and I’m just as married as any evangelical Christian. They don’t get to decide what I call it. Civil law does.
And if gender discrimination is banned, that should be all you need for same gender couples to have the same access to marriage that I had. The religious don’t have to like it and don’t need to be asked to vote on it any more than anyone got to vote on maintaining segregation, once the courts decided the issue. We shouldn’t need to placate them.
It’s not primarily a spiritual matter. It is a contractual matter. That’s why the state is involved. If one party wishes to dissolve the contract there has to be a legal procedure to do so and without the state role there would be no way of enforcing the contracted obligations.
The distinction you are making between civil union and marriage is a false one. Marriage is a civil union already and there is no reason or need to call only religiously blessed unions marriages and have a special name for non-religious ones. I don’t have to call my relationship a civil union because I was married by a Justice of the Peace in a non-religious ceremony. The religious have no more right to that word than I do.
In traditional Jewish law a man can obtain a religious divorce which allows subsequent religious remarriage by going before the properly constituted religious panel with his wife and saying to her “I divorce you” three time. It’s only the civil contract that can be enforced to make him meet his civil obligations to his family. Otherwise it would just be between him and his God whether he chose to pay child support or nat. The Rabbi could fume if he didn’t but couldn’t do anything about it. Only the law can.
Marriage has always been a primarily economic contractual relationship. Those who most staunchly insist on it being strictly a spiritual matter, curiously, are just as likely to be unfaithful and to divorce as anyone else. Considering that the bible belt has a higher divorce rate than the much bluer and less fundamentalist north east, maybe the fundamentalists should worry less about gay marriage and more about keeping their own damn marriages and families together. Their behavior shows that when they talk about marriage being more sacred to them and family values being more important to them than to the more secular, that’s all it is; talk. They trash their “spiritual” marriages as often or more often than anyone else.
Clearly, you and I are not religious fundamentalists. I’m an inter-spiritual, very liberal Jew by choice. Clearly, neither of us are attached to the word marriage as a religious word/sacramant or tradition. We have chosen marriage for pretty much secular, civil reasons. Am I right?
If the religious right wants their word that badly and will stand in the way of equal rights, why not let them have their word? Let them have the word “marriage” so their churches can own it. If that is what stands in the way between them and allowing everyone else to have equal rights, let’s let go of our end of the rope like they did in much of the rest of the industrialized world.
Change what we know now as “marriage” in a civil sense, to “civil unions” across the board — gay, straight, whatever. I still don’t understand why that is objectionable to you. You stated elsewhere you are not religiously observant (at least I think you did). If that is the case, why are you attached to the word marriage, so much so, you’d be willing to not have rights for all in exchange for giving up the word? Please explain — I really don’t understand.
If I had an opportunity for people in poverty in CO each to be given a pile of money, and someone said, “but from now on, everyone in the state — rich or poor alike — would have to agree to publicly calling it pickles instead of money”, I’d say, “Bring on the pickles!” Then I would be thrilled to watch people’s smiles and know my tiny sacrifice helped give others what they needed. (And, I could still call my small pile money in my house if I felt like it.)
In June I’ll be celebrating my 30th wedding anniversary and I have no intention of calling it a union anniversary, or anything but a celebration of my marriage, in deference to someone else’s ignorance.
I also believe that the end to all this nonsense will come as suddenly as the end of Jim Crow and state mandated segregation. There is no need to surrender to ignorant bible thumpers who, quite wrongly, refuse to recognize the fact that marriage is already a civil matter, a contractual relationship enforced by secular law. It is what they call marriage, not what I call it, that has no legal standing.
I don’t care if that hurts their feelings. Any more than I care that many didn’t like the idea of blacks and whites marrying or even using the same drinking fountain when the courts ruled that they couldn’t prevent those things anymore. Hurt feelings there, too. Boo hoo.
Once again, they have no exclusive right to the word. They have no right superior to mine to that word. My relationship absolutely meets the long accepted definition of marriage and fundies can kiss my ass.
No one is under any obligation to cater to their clearly incorrect definitions of that word or any other. It is what it is. The particular meaning it has within their specific belief system is simply not relevant in terms of the law in a non-theocracy banned from endorsing their religion or imposing it on others.
Demographics are such that, in the not very far future, same gender marriage will be a reality whether we bend over backward for these people now or not. I choose “not”. I’ll support civil unions for the time being but with the recognition that it really isn’t necessary since marriage is just a prettier word for civil union, nothing more or less in legal terms, as it is. Right now. Already. It only remains for the courts to get over their bias, just as they eventually did with racial segregation, and recognize it.
As always, I am a practical progressive. I want change sooner rather than later, and if the license says “Civil Union” at the top and I call it marriage in the rest of my life, I’m cool with that. I respect that you are not.
In the end, we are on the same side of justice and equality. Thanks for all you do.
but that doesn’t mean I have to accept any nonsensical premise for the need for any such completely redundant thing.
The basic premise, that there is some distinction based on religion between civil unions and marriage, is demonstrably nonsensical as witnessed by the fact that nobody has ever denied the right of those married without religious ceremonies of any kind the right to call themselves married. It’s a made up argument by those against same gender marriage which was never used against marriage by Elvis impersonator in Vegas as long as a man and a woman were involved.
Nothing to do with idealism. Just the facts and the law. You seem to be advocating for considering the feelings of those who choose to make up their own definition of marriage based on absolutely nothing that has any legal meaning. I don’t care about their feelings any more than I care abut the feelings of those who weren’t comfortable about having to tolerate African Americans in their public swimming pools.
This whole civil union thing will one day be looked on as a brief interlude and all Americans, straight or gay, will have equal access to marriage. In the meantime I’ll support the nonsense if it makes the lives of same gender couples easier.
Once again, all legal marriages are already civil unions and all heterosexual couples married in non-religious ceremonies are already considered to be in marriages so legal marriage already isn’t a religious matter. There is no need for a two track system or a parsing of an already non-existent legal distinction.
When today’s 20 and 30 somethings are in charge, this controversy will be over. The majority of them don’t see why different sexual orientations are a problem or why gay people who love each other shouldn’t be able to get married. This is the last stand of a bunch of dinosaurs. And they aren’t going to support civil unions either because they are simply against any recognition of unons outside their comfort zone.
If you think this is going to pass with the support of most Republicans because it’s just the word “marriage” that’s a problem for your fundies, Nancy, you’re the idealist, not me.
All Dems voted for civil unions. Only 3 out of 15 Republicans voted for the bill. The only opposition in the House is from Republicans. If the bill fails, it will be because of Republicans.
How can you possibly say something like “Republicans have never really been hung up over civil unions”? Are English and logic that foreign to you? Is there any connection between what you read and what you write?
that in 2006 the once up and coming face of the Grand Old Party supported the idea so much that it didn’t have to go to the ballot. Owens just signed it!
This bill clearly passed already and is law. Right?
Or maybe the point is that civil unions aren’t prohibited in the Contract with America (or whatever the hell it was called). It’s just coincidence that the vast majority of the elected Republicans from every state are xenophobic (or self hating).
Not the party, just its members. Odd, since the beej is constantly arguing that the party is the people and ruled by no one. Having it both ways must be uber sweet!
for the reasons I described above. Focus on the Family is NOT against this bill (they’re not really for it either, but they have released a statement saying they are NOT against it). Why? It does not use the word marriage.
The word “marriage” is a huge issue that a lot of my dem/secular/liberal friends cannot seem to wrap their head around. If those of us on the pro-GLBTQ side called it something else, even with the same rights and responsibilities that straight people already enjoy, some (not all!) religious fundamentalists would have no problem with it. Why? Some (not all!) religious fundies don’t hate gays, they just love tradition.
I know this is hard. I am super-liberal in the spiritual sense, but have tons of religious relatives. They (some, not all) are okay with gay marriage if it is called something else. Anything else.
“all” Republicans are against Civil Unions.
It only matters whether the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are against Civil Unions.
Without them, the rest of the Rs don’t matter.
About Focus on the Family —
Just googled and stand corrected. I guess they did put out a statement saying they were against it recently, but they do not oppose “civil unions”. They oppose “gay marriage” so they are afraid it “might lead to” gay marriage. They did say that “fair minded people see civil unions” as okay.
they think that civil unions will satisfy most voters and eliminate support for marriage equality.
Introduced in the House and assigned to House Judiciary Committee
in the Open Thread
So I have to retract my statement on an earlier thread that the bill is DoA. It may actually have a shot.
Just saw the committee make up.
Gingrich, Owens, “wide stance guy”, and all the other anti-same sex life committment guys now have to cheat on their wives?
My marriage doesn’t feel any different. Maybe that’s only if it passes the House and the gov signs it.
but only for the good of the country.
Conti, Looper, and Priola being able to vote, then their votes matter. However, it remains to be seen whether the vote will get that far.
To me, it seems that the effort needs to be directed to the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. Their votes REALLY matter. Be polite. Don’t piss anyone off.
The House Judiciary Committee will hear testimony on SB 11-172 at 1:30PM on March 31.
House Judiciary Committee:
CHAIR: BOB GARDNER (Republican)
VICE CHAIR: MARK BARKER (Republican)
BRIAN DELGROSSO (Republican)
CRISANTA DURAN (Democrat)
DANIEL KAGAN (Democrat)
PETE LEE (Democrat)
CLAIRE LEVY (Democrat)
B.J. NIKKEL (Republican)
SU RYDEN (Democrat)
JERRY SONNENBERG (Republican)
MARK WALLER (Republican)
Barker leads Bible study at his church.
DelGrosso from Loveland – Fiscally conservative, socially leans Libertarian. Believes in small govt, personal freedoms. Active in his church and a member of “Warriors for Christ”.
Jerry Sonnenberg flirts with women when they testify (just my observation), and is big into farming and fiscally conservative. Doesn’t mention religion on his website.
Mark Waller. Very military. Does not mention religion on his website.
BJ Nickel – She’s from Larimer County, fiscal conservative, worked for Musgrave for 5 years and managed her offices.
Pete Lee is a moderate Dem from the Springs. Says nothing about civil rights on his website.
There are several on the R side who don’t like big government and don’t want their rights limited. Two do not mention religion on their websites. This is going to be tough for Steadman and co., but using poll results and the fact that Focus on the Family is not against this bill may help.
Wish I could be there Thursday!
I’m fairly certain that Lee will be a yes.
Waller is the guy who ousted Bruce, aka Cadman’s old seat, aka FoF’s representation. He’ll be a no. He doesn’t mention religion because he doesn’t have to. He is, obviously, very aware that the occasional primary of an incumbent works.
I used to have a high hope for Sonnenberg, but have been disappointed every time. And yeah, he’s kind of selectively weird. I don’t think it’s flirting, it’s him being condescending and what he thinks is charming to make up for it. Just my observation.
DelGrosso is such a party shill that he’ll do whatever they say. “They” are saying no.
Some hypocrites in the bunch? You bloody well bet. Doesn’t change a thing though. SIGH!
“Republicans schedule Civil Union Bill for Thursday without ever checking with me (the sponsor), not a good sign for a fair hearing.” – Ferrandino’s latest tweet. 🙁
All 5 Democrats on the committee, including Lee, are sponsors of the bill.
Focus on the Family says they are NOT against Civil Unions but they are now against this bill because it “may lead to gay marriage”.
Whatever.
I don’t think we ought to view participation in one’s church as the key factor in determining whether one will support this bill. I’m really active in my church, too, and I’ll be calling all of these Rs to ask for their support for 172. In fact, it’s my (Catholic!) beliefs that drive me to support bills like this one.
Just nitpicking, of course. But it’s important for me to nitpick about these things.
We need to broadcast to every Dem we know to work on these Rs. We need every faith community on our side calling these Rs, emailing, and writing to these Rs. We need poll results saying that most Americans favor civil unions, plastered everywhere these Rs will be until Thursday.
Does the hearing guarantee an up/down committee vote? Is it likely to live or die then, or might it get tabled or amended and brought back up later?
Tactically that might be a better course for Dems on the Committee–push to bring it back in a few weeks, so they can line up more pressure for it.
Also: go quick to be the hundredth signatory…
http://www.change.org/petition…
There could be amendments, they could also have too much testimony and the bill is laid over.
It won’t matter. The Dems can’t do jack shit on the committee other than not show up for the quorum. Stays the same because the committee members are who they are. Not only are they arguably the least likely to change a vote in the whole of the House, they are also the most likely to lose their jobs for doing so.
McNulty, whether or not he ultimately would’ve officially opposed the bill (as the party, rather than individually), he now is fully covered. This is the same committee as used in the Other Place and is naturally made up of a majority no one will be surprised to see kill the bill. There’s no Wisconsin moment here. Sorry.
And I am. Very. Sorry. To the sponsors, to the every couple who could’ve used the protection (regardless of gender make up), and for the state.
I am willing to give this bill the next 6 days of hard work, regardless of the outcome. And pronouncing it dead while its still on its feet is exactly the kind of thinking that has held back Democrats for a while now.
Republicans don’t stop fighting. Not before the vote, not during the vote, not after the vote.
And if Republicans kill this, it will be one more reason to shuffle them out in 2012 so we can pass it with a D majority.
Remember 70+% of Coloradoans support legally recognizing same-sex couples. There is a good chance that at least one member of the committee will see the moral obligation to honor both the will of the people and the constitutional right to equal protection under the law.
I’ll be fighting until the last vote is cast, and I will shout the results from the roof tops, either way, until the next election.
I hope that everyone here who supports this bill will be up there with me.
I thought compromising where one is not needed is what holds the Democrats back. Like how this wasn’t done under Ritter to make the R’s feel better.
Of course, all this civil union shit is a big ass compromise. Isn’t it? Working so well!
And I’m pointing out, again, that those polls are bullshit. They are. The majority of people are basically saying that those colored kids can have schools, they just can’t come to ours.
I don’t count on the bigot vote.
Regardless, looking at the numbers in those bs polls, it lines up with party affiliation. A third support equality (about the same number of registered Dems in the state +/-), more than a third support the bigot compromise (about the number of independents, plus a few sane Republicans – historically the numbers of the leg GOP votes are about the same percentages), and then the rest of the Republicans.
Look at the committee make up again. Look at their district make up. Now tell me that the Dems haven’t already shot themselves in the foot by fucking compromise. Again.
Republicans don’t “fight”, they grandstand. Huge difference. I prefer actual action.
Change your sig line and fuck off.
First of all. Giving up to soon and compromising needlessly are pretty much the same thing, or at least come from the same root cause.
Second of all, I’m supporting the D’s right now because they are the only ones coming to the table with ideas (see Heath’s tax proposal) while the R’s are bring the same tired ideology (see Doug Bruce, the Colorado Union of Taxpayers, and the rest of the people who want to bankrupt the state). I have been incredibly disappointed in the Rebulblican party this year. I had hoped that the split legislature would bring a couple of year of working together, but everytime the Ds extend a hand, the Rs have punished them for it.
You can agree with the R tactics or not, but the fact is that they stick to their guns and do whatever it takes to win. The Ds could use some of that conviction now and then, instead of shying away from what they believe even when they’ve already practically won.
Finally, I don’t know what you’re pissed at in the world, but you should go address it instead of taking it out on someone who is fighting hard for something you clearly support.
Have a nice weekend.
is ugly. Especially three time over. In a single post (possible record).
And you’re giving the GOP way too much credit.
Keep playing shuffle board on the Titanic while admiring the new pools on deck. I’m going to start working on a better solution.
Finally, people like you are what makes me “pissed at the world.” This isn’t a board for recommending the best place to have a pizza party. It’s a political blog. I can’t help but notice that you haven’t bothered to refute a single political reason I gave. But hey, it’s Super Happy Fun Time, so don’t worry about solving an actual problem. I get it.
McNulty is no slouch. He’s a jerk, but he’s not an idiot, and I have a lot more respect for jerks than for idiots. He’s choreographed this whole thing, I’m confident of it, and although one could argue for either perspective, I am leaning toward the belief that he understands the sky will not fall if there are civil unions in Colorado. Furthermore, I think he understands that the political tide is going to turn against social issues Republicans, and probably right around the same time he starts to seriously consider seeking higher office.
Some Republican has been given permission to vote for it. That person will take some flak from evangelists right wing groups, but it’ll be fairly tepid, like Focus on the Family’s opposition. As Steadman has been saying, nobody wants to speak out too loudly against this bill because then they risk getting into the territory where they have to explain why they oppose things like people holding their life partner’s hand in the ICU or children being protected by a process similar to divorce if a same sex couple splits up, and you can’t really win when you oppose those completely common sense protections.
I’m nervous, but I have a feeling this will go all the way, the sky will not fall, and then we’ll see a Rhymes with Toast story in a few months about how not very many couples are actually using at after the initial wave dies down.