Civil Unions Bill to Be Heard in Colorado Today


This report was filed last week:

State legislators will once again debate a bill that would allow for civil unions in Colorado.

State Sen. Pat Steadman (D - Denver) confirmed to 9NEWS political reporter Brandon Rittiman Thursday that he is introducing the Colorado Civil Unions Act. The bill will get its first hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee next Wednesday.

Senate Bill 11 would "authorize any 2 unmarried adults, regardless of gender, to enter into a civil union."

Last year, the Colorado House failed to vote on a civil union bill before the end of a special session of the legislature. (


  1. Jeanette Exner
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 8:54 am | Permalink

    Former NOM goddess Maggie Gallagher is still quick to stress that she doesn't "necessarily" opposed to civil unions for Gay couples. What is NOM's position on this legislation in Colorado? Are civil unions an acceptable compromise? Or are any and all legal arrangements for Gay couples verboten?

  2. Posted January 23, 2013 at 9:12 am | Permalink

    Jeanette Exner: The post wouldn't be here, if NOM agreed with it. After Prop8 in California, Civil Unions are seen rationally as legal precedent to impose SSm. Bad move.

  3. Mikhail
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 9:40 am | Permalink

    "Are civil unions an acceptable compromise?"

    It was the California Supreme Court who said they were not an acceptable compromise and imposed samesex 'marriage' instead. Logically, it isnt an option any more for traditional marriage advocates to support civil unions or domestic partnerships

  4. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 11:39 am | Permalink

    Trojan horse. They know it. We know it. Let's hope CO citizens make some noise.

  5. Posted January 23, 2013 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

    The Reciprocal Beneficiaries Relationship is needed for family relatives who need to live together, get automatic ties recognized like for hospital visitation/decisions or inheritance. Not a stage leading to SS civil union legislation.

    Whoever came up with the name for this legal contract has to find a better terminology:

    "Hi, we are in a Reciprocal Beneficiaries Relationship... Are you both is a Reciprocal Beneficiaries Relationship also? Nice to meet you..."

    it just sounds too much like legal jargon!

  6. OvercameSSA
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 11:18 pm | Permalink

    With Reciprocal Beneficiaries Relationships, I don't think it will be viewed as a social bond, but a legal relationship; as such, it wouldn't be a subject of conversation, generally, and certainly not in a social introduction. Good enough designation for hospital staff and lawyers.

  7. Ash
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    Civil unions are an acceptable compromise if they don't transfer the rights/responsibilities/presumptions of marriage to same-sex couples that concern sex, reproduction and parentage. If those parts of marriage are not transferred to civil unions, then not only would lawmakers be doing what's reasonable (as those laws can't apply to same-sex unions), but they would be shielding marriage laws from a constitutional challenge. Civil unions wouldn't be marriage by another name; they would be distinct from marriage in rational ways. We all know that this won't work for SSMers since they want homosexuality commended, i.e. a relationship that is publicly recognize and affirmed as sexual, governed within the same category as opposite-sex unions.

    A really great civil unions comprise would be one that is open to all relationship types, insofar as practical. First, it would be the fair thing to do. Why should same-sex couples get special benefits above all other non-marital relationships? Second, it would also obstruct constitutional challenges to marriage, as to say that civil unions are "not enough" and that only marriage will do, will, essentially, be an argument for for polygamy, incest, etc.

  8. Posted January 25, 2013 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

    :) Overcame: With that name, RBRs would never probably be a matter of conversation, like you wisely pointed out. I don't believe in SSm type civil unions. A civil union doesn't confer Federal recognition, so it can only be a legal 'stepping stone' towards SSm, as is happening in Hawaii right now. Thnks

  9. Mikhail
    Posted January 26, 2013 at 1:06 am | Permalink

    Little man, a samesex 'marriage' does not confer federal recognition either; that is what the DOMA case is about.

    I support reciprocal beneficiaries because they give rights to people who arent married: i.e.: samesex couples, cohabitation siblings, friends. Of course hospital visitation rights and inheritance rights aren't the true goal here; the goal is to normalise their lifestyle

  10. Posted January 27, 2013 at 11:30 am | Permalink

    Yes, Reciprocal Beneficiary Relationships resolves SSm matters for me. By trying to get more advantage SSm supporters are giving themselves a reputation for being 'pests' - they didn't think of that, because in reality they believe in reverse discrimination. And the DOMA case before SCOTUS shows their discrimination hasn't been that great. Sure, some instances show serious/deadly discrimination, but it is not like 'non-gays' (my new term) don't get killed also for even lesser motives. The problem with trying to illegally discriminate against 'gays' is they are difficult to discriminate at all (detected, who is, who isn't such). To me, 'gays'/'lesbians', for lack of better terminology, are a religion. Their lifestyle and circular dogma has all the characteristics of a religion. Who is, and who isn't, a member of their sect is determined by verbal affirmation or secret body language and such.

    Personally, they are good citizens on average; but as a group they are a political nuisance - wanting government to favor their religion at all costs. That's because they want respect for their partnerships, and they think they can buy it. No way. It will work the other way around.

  11. Posted January 31, 2013 at 1:47 am | Permalink

    Support our effort to get Colorado civil unions bill referred to voters A Colorado Political Committee.