U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
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) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
December 04, 2008 09:22 PM UTC
24 Comments
but not that much. I mean, 83% support marriage? Not civil unions, but marriage? I don’t think that the state’s attitude has changed that much since they voted to ban it entirely.
I misread the number.
as opposed to likely voters. The younger someone is the less likely they are to be discrimatory. So it makes sense that a (very slight) majority of citizens approve of gay marriage, but the voters do not.
Within 10 years gay marriage will be legal and in 20 people will wonder that it was once outlawed.
Rather than something to base a ballot initiative/legislation on.
That being said, 83% support for legal recognition should be a wake-up call to some lawmakers and citizen groups thinking of pushing civil unions or partnership initiatives in 2009.
Any campaign that leads by 22 in September and proceeds to lose by 4 should be a warning sign: DON’T HIRE THESE PEOPLE AGAIN.
The states which have civil union laws (NJ, NH, VT, and CT prior to legalization of same sex marriage) have comprehensive legislation integrating a civil union relationship into the state’s matrimonial laws, including all provisions relating to dissolution of marriage or civil unions (i.e., alimony, property division, etc.).
Referendum I simply would have allowed for some benefits like insurance benefits and hospital visitations (which are important) for same sex couples, but nothing like that afforded under civil union laws.
Indeed, Ref. I would not have even allowed same sex couples to file state income tax returns jointly, which would have save the couple money. Probably the only time in recent history when Republicans passed up on the opportunity to cut someone’s taxes.
Ref I was the whole shebang. It was civil unions with a different name.
The only exception is income tax but that’s because Colorado’s tax code is directly married (to coin a phrase) to the federal tax code. The only way to include joint filing would be a huge overhaul of the state tax code which would not have fit under the single-subject rule anyway.
Like CO, CT and MA have state income tax codes piggybacked to the federal code. But they manage to allow same sex couples to file joint state returns.
The way it works in those states is that the same sex couple must file individually at the federal level, then prepare a married filing jointly federal return which does not get filed, then they use those numbers to prepare and file a joint state return. (The federal DOMA serves as an Accountants Full Employment Act in CT and MA.)
The single subject rule only applies to initiatives, not referenda, so that wasn’t the reason no married filing jointly tax status was included in “I”.
…that applies to bills passed by the legislature, which is always the beginning of a referendum.
Mass. tax is a flat tax, 5.9% currently, despite a referendum that overwhelmingly passed a few years ago to cut it to 5%.
The 1994 single-subject amendment (Article I Section 5.5) extended to initiatives the single-subject rule that has applied to legislative bills (from which referenda come) since 1876.
The only reason Ref I was a referendum was to bypass Owens. I wonder if the leg. could pass it without stepping on the constitutional ban? The simplest argument, it’s not marriage, it’s a partnership, may work for the courts.
…was that it was consistent with the gay marriage ban (i.e., Ref. I wouldn’t run afoul on the constitutional amendment). Otherwise, it would’ve been utterly pointless to even try to pass Ref. I (since everyone correctly assumed that the marriage ban would pass).
David’s right on the money on this one. 2 or 3 decades from now people will be looking back at our history on this issue and shaking their heads just like we do with womens right to vote that didn’t happen nationally until 1918!
In early 2007 a councilmember in a North of Denver Area City proposed that the City add sexual orientation to the Cities EEO policy that would protect city workers from being fired or discriminated against in the workplace because of their sexual orientation. There were not enough votes in favor to get this passed! However, right after the elections in Nov. 2007 the issue was brought up again and it passed unanimously. Even the councilmembers who were against making the EEO change earlier in the year voted for it because they new there were enogh votes to pass it and they didn’t want to be on the losing end of a vote. Slowly but surely we are getting to where we need to be on this issue.
a good couple of months for Mad Cow Musgrave…
…is that woman irrelevant.
MM, I’m an R. Get lost. Please.
…since she surfaced long enough to record her robo-calls supporting Saxby Chambliss, and Chambliss went on it win.
She probably thinks that her endorsement still carries some weight…..albeit it only in GA and not in CO CD 4.
…since she surfaced long enough to record her robo-calls supporting Saxby Chambliss, and Chambliss went on it win.
She probably thinks that her endorsement still carries some weight…..albeit it only in GA and not in CO CD 4.
Pols could make huge headlines and begin a transformation wave in leading the effort to make these changes constitutional.
this is an issue that will be left to the voters. there was an interesting article in NEWSWEEK discussing a 60’s court case on interracial marriage. in it a couple was charged with a felony for being a white/black couple and the state (virginia, i think) that they lived passed a ban on interracial marriage. it was the supreme court that over turned this one. i think we are headed to the same logical conclusion on same sex unions. With the rising number of people in general accepting same sex partnerships, the time is right for just such a court battle. also, civil unions suck. it has to marriage or nothing. Seperate yet equal doesn’t work, AND WOULD BE A DANGEROUS STEP BACK IF WE ALLOW IT.
I find it interesting that the “left” believes in “the people” when it suites them (Iraq) and dismisses them when they don’t (22 out of 22 times gay marriage has been voted down). My question is… when do voters count? What is your line? You have to draw one, given your contradictory stances.
Does this get my roads fixed? Does this provide a governmental service? No… That is why “give-o-shit-o-meter” rates (-10). Stop using the “civil rights analogy” and the “60’s,” it doesn’t apply, for so many historical reasons….
But regardless, I really really deeply don’t care either way… I just want the government to fill in the sink-holes in the Inter-State system.