May 19, 2012 06:48 PM UTC

Coloradans For Freedom's other duty: apologetics

•  
• by: JeffcoBlue

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

I’d like to begin by offering genuine thanks to Mario Nicolais, Kelly Maher, and the other Republicans who formed Coloradans for Freedom for the purpose of providing a “conservative case” for passing civil unions legislation. I believe that their efforts were sincere, and that they really did want civil unions to pass this year with GOP support.

But civil unions did not pass. The GOP killed it again. Coloradans for Freedom did not succeed.

Today in the Denver paper, Mario Nicolais wrote a post mortem of the battle over civil unions from his perspective. I see no reason to link to the Denver paper; you can find his guest column in the Perspectives section. While he pledges to continue supporting civil unions next year, the point of his op-ed is to cover for fellow Republicans despite the killing of civil unions at Republican hands. While I respect Nicolais for his personal support, that’s simply not acceptable.

Republicans are the reason civil unions died, and they will pay for it in November.

While defending fellow Republicans from the consequences of their failure to pass civil unions, Nicolais makes a large number of factual errors that call his judgment into question.

Nicolais blames Democrats for not bringing up civil unions when they were in charge of the House. In addition to unwittingly admitting that Republicans consistently oppose civil unions, Nicolais forgets that 2006-2010 was the immediate aftermath of the failure of 2006’s Referendum I. Democrats worked on other legislation such as designated beneficiaries during this period, because the GOP would have castigated them for trying to pass civil unions “against the will of the voters” – which the GOP DID ANYWAY in 2012. Polling on civil unions shows the dramatic changes in support for civil unions have occurred in just the last few years.

Also, under this logic, why does the GOP keep trying to repeal Obamacare after Colorado voters rejected Amendment 63 in 2010? IOKIYAR, Mario!

Nicolais says that he will “work to ensure…Republican majorities include pro-equality majorities,” calling out hopeful examples in the Republicans who did support civil unions this year: BJ Nikkel, Don Beezley, Cheri Gerou, and the three women GOP Senators who support civil unions year after year. In addition to these, there are at least a few other Republicans, like Robert Ramirez, who would have voted yes if the bill had gotten to the House floor.

Even dyed in the wool partisans like me have to acknowledge it: there are Republicans who support civil unions, and their numbers are growing.

But this year, the fact that there were enough Republicans in the House to pass civil unions, in committee and on the floor, didn’t matter. It didn’t matter because those same House Republicans elected leadership that refused to allow the will of the majority of this chamber to be carried out!

For me, that’s the end of the line for Nicolais’ pro-GOP apologetics. Yes, there are Republicans who realize that their current course will permanently sever their party from the mainstream. Yes, there are Republicans who will do the right thing, for political or even moral reasons.

None of it matters if the Republican leaders they choose stop them cold. If civil unions does cost the Republicans seats and control of the House, some of the Republicans who lose their jobs might have voted yes on the issue that will defeat them. Think about that.

Sorry Mario, but this session proved a Republican majority and equality for LGBT citizens of Colorado are indeed mutually exclusive. By attempting to shield his party from this reality, Nicolais does Republicans, and the issue of LGBT equality, a terrible disservice.

I know what it will take to pass civil unions. It’s not excuses for a GOP majority that refuses to.