U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
60%↑
40%↑
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
October 31, 2006 08:03 PM UTC
16 Comments
Ref. I is a brilliant stroke of genius by Shawn Duffy, Ted Trimpa, Pat Steadman, and Tim Gill. Hopefully its passage will drive a stake through the evil Count Dobson’s heart and will put an end to his reign of terror over our state and our country.
it took so many states passing marriage bans before Tim Gill,et.al., brought balance with Ref. I to Colorado. Look for this to be the “great balancer” with any future marriage defining amendments.
read “…between one man and one woman FOR LIFE.” That would address the real threat to marriage….divorce!
Come on, Ref I has to be a no-brainer. 44% against? It’s personal choice. All these hypocrites who talk about the so-called “sanctity of marriage” are looking like weasels now.
It’s called homophobia. But ya know what, the GAYS aren’t going anywhere. Next time these people rail on about their precious 2nd amendment, I’ll still be there for them. But I’ll ask where they were when the GAYS needed them?
Phonies.
If we allow gay marriage, the sanctity of Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun-marriage would be destroyed.
No seriously, it’s not right that Britney Spears had more rights during those 55 hours than a gay couple raising kids has in an entire lifetime together.
And if that argument doesn’t work, just tell people that gay couples deserve the right to be just as miserable as straight couples.
50% divorce rate nationwide and 70% in El Paso county… and these people want to talk about the sanctity of marriage? I think straight people are just afraid the gays might actually not screw it up as badly as they have.
I thought it was more like 18 hours. I seen remember reading that her parents stopped at nothing to get an expedited hearing on the annulment.
But after seeing the baffoon she’s married to now, I think Brittny may have been better off taking her chances with Husband Number 1.
They say that on a multiple choice test, when in doubt, always go with your first hunch……
My only problem with Ref I is that it requires the people entering into the domestic partnership to be a same sex couple; why exclude heterosexuals who prefer a domestic partnership to a marriage? Not that this will keep me from voting for it. My personal preference for a solution is to have civil unions (or some equivalent) which would be basically what a marriage license is now, except that any couple could enter into a civil union. It would be a legal contract that would grant the rights currently given to married couples. Those couples who wished to be married, in addition to having the legal relationship, could pursue that in the religious (or, I suppose, secular) context of their choice; who would be permitted to be *married* (as distinct from who is allowed to enter a civil union) would be left to each religion (or religious sect) to decide. It wouldn’t really be that different from how things work now, because marriage ceremonies are generally separate from the legal aspect of it; it would just involve a little renaming and drawing a stricter line between church and state.
We should ALL be going to the government if we want a civil union… basic rights, basic paperwork. We should be going to the church if we want a marriage / wedding.
but why on earth would you, as a straight person in a straight relationship, prefer a civil union which is not recognized by the federal government? Would you want a relationship recognized only by the state of Colorado–and it not recognized when you are on vacation in another state?
Let’s face it, Domestic Partnership IS NOT MARRIAGE–it is a cheap imitation. Marriage is a Lexus; DP is a Yugo.
The “it discrimiates against straights” is a weak argument invented by those who hate gays to try to get a few left wing voters to help oppress gays and lesbians.
I think what we’re talking about here is that nobody would get “married” by default. I think what we’re saying is that “civil unions” would be the default for everyone. Signing that document, not a marriage certificate, is what would take care of all the legal stuff. Then you can condut the ceremony at a church if you want them to bless the “marriage”. And churches are under no obligation to bless gay couples if they object. It’s really not that far off from how it is today. When are you really “married”? Is it when you say “I do” in the church? Or is it when you sign that certificate and file it with the state?
I believe the “civil union” vs. “marriage” question the origional person raised was meant to indicate support for a more defined separation of church and state than we have today.
That is exactly what I’m advocating. I also believe same sex couples need to have equal rights to opposite sex couples, but I understand why religious people get up in arms about “the sanctity of marriage” because it is an area where church and state are blurred. I think people would have less ground to object to equal rights for LGBT folks if we weren’t talking about something that has religious, as well as secular, meaning.
Why are you assuming I’m straight? I’m not. And I hardly said it discriminated against heterosexuals, I said it *excluded* them. I also said that this was *not* a reason not to vote for it, it’s just something that I would have done differently if I had written the referendum. One of the reasons I thought of that a straight couple would want to use the civil union ref I would make available is to show solidarity with gay people. I know lots of straights who don’t want to get married until gay people can too, and a lot of people who refer to their straight partners as “partners” instead of husband/wife for the same reason. Another reason a straight couple might not want to get married (and this is the reason I don’t want to get married) is because marriage is a religious institution, or at least it has religious connotations. Since I’m not religious, I would prefer to have a completely secular relationship sanctioned by the state, rather than a semi-/pseudo-religious one.
The fact that we’re even voting on Ref I in Colorado is truly amazing. It seems like the not-so-distant past that Coloradans voted in-favor of Amendment 2, the anti-gay referendum in the early 90s. That Ref I exists and has a chance of winning is this state is due entirely to Tim Gill, his foundation and progressive allies who put their money where it counts. For Ref I and so many other progressive causes, we’re lucky to have these folks here…
Ok, sure the money helps but it’s so much more than that. It’s every gay person that has come out of the closet to show others who we really are… that we’re real people. It’s every straight person that has chosen to stand with us for equality. It’s every parent that has taught their children that hate is not acceptable family value.
Guys, if Ref. I is only polling 48% with 8% undecided why do you think it’s going to pass? Remember how Amenendment 2 looked to be going waaaay down the night before the election? Of course it passed because voters didn’t want to tell pollsters the truth for fear of appearing homophobic.
If you’re an I-can’t-believe-it’s-not-marriage supporter, this is bad news. Most of this 8% will break towards “no” and many of the 48% will still vote “no.” What’s more, it’s common knowledge that if your initiative is not at 50% by the week before E-Day, it’s going down.