Please take action before the weekend and contact your representatives in Colorado demanding the protect marriage and religious freedom:
Civil unions for same-sex Colorado couples have cleared the state Senate for a third and possibly final time.
The Senate approved civil unions 21-14 without debate. All Democrats voted for the legal recognition for gay partners. Republican Sen. Ellen Roberts of Durango joined them. The other 14 Republicans voted no. (AP)
27 Comments
So are we against civil unions too, or just against marriage? I'm confused.
I guess you didn't get the memo. We are against gays, period, although we will occasionally quote the self-loathing ones who speak out against marriage equality.
NOM supported the NH civil union bill .... but opposes this one? Weird.
NOM does not support ANY efforts of gay and lesbians to be part of society in America. At first it seemed harmless gays and lesbians should not marry then they extended there views gays should not have any protections from the government they should not be allowed to be part of societies institutions and so on. At least this is my understanding of this group from MANY articals I have read.
I used to support civil unions. But every time they've been implemented they've been used as a legal stepping stone to pseudo-marriage.
In theory I believe civil unions are fair. But in practice they're a Trojan horse. Sadly, supporting civil unions has become synonymous with supporting pseudo-marriage.
Marriage unites children with their mother and father, as I've said many times on this blog. I've found all the counter-arguments to be severely lacking in substance.
Barb, your funny. I especially like when you use the word, Trojan!
Happy Friday everyone.
I have read the bill. This is exactly gay marriage with the name changed to "civil unions".
@SearchCz
Because that bill would have repealed the judicially mandated same-sex marriage law and restored civil unions. That's why they supported that bill.
Anyways, I have no real qualms with this bill.
@Chris
They are already apart of society.
The Republicans in Colorado must not want their jobs anymore. They need to understand they won't be reelected.
Gay and lesbians are NoT apart from society look around you. However it would be fair to say your friends here at NOM as well as yourself Zack would like your statement to be true.
NOTE: to this site and followers, gay marriage is becoming legal around the world and even here in the states we will continue to move forward on this issue, I do not see us going backwards. 9 states and counting 10 in a couple of months, more if the SCOTUS rulling is broader than I think it will be.
Only in the deluded mind of a homosexual would it seem they are winning when more than 80% of states do not recognize gay marriage whatsoever. Also, 32 states also have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage to nine that allow it. If 32-9 were the final score in the Super Bowl, no sane person would say the team with 9 is winning.
"The Republicans in Colorado must not want their jobs anymore. They need to understand they won't be reelected." Mere wishful thinking on the part of another local libertine. I, for one, rush to support public officials willing to stand up for waht is normal and decent.
@Chris
"Gay and lesbians are NoT apart from society look around you. However it would be fair to say your friends here at NOM as well as yourself Zack would like your statement to be true."
I do look around and nothing of what you say is true.
"gay marriage is becoming legal around the world"
A dozen countries out of 275 sovereign nations recognize it. I hardly count that as "around the world".
"and even here in the states we will continue to move forward on this issue"
The only states where activists tried to repeal Marriage amendments(Ohio, Colorado and Oregon) gave up because public opinion isn't on their side.
"I do not see us going backwards."
To those of us who understand history, the fall of civilizations came from moving "forward" away from their moral foundations.
"9 states and counting 10 in a couple of months, more if the SCOTUS rulling is broader than I think it will be."
The Supreme Court won't overrule the state's right to decide this issue. If anything they will declare this issue is to be settled on a state-by-state basis.
Forrest, the REAL score is 41-9, not 32. Many states havent had the chance to vote (Iowa, New Hampshire).
Chris, in France half a million people protested against SSM, in Denmark it was only approved last year (they rejected it in 2010), in New Zealand and the UK it is tearing the Tory Parties apart.
These four countries are ULTRA liberal when it comes to homosexual 'rights', even compared with most other western nations (e.g.: the US, Australia, Italy, Ireland etc.). In the Muslim world, in atheist China and Hindu India, the idea of gay 'marriage' isn't even taken seriously. Stop playing the 'inevitability' card please. You've had luck from a few activist judges and far left politicians, that is all
DEAR ZACK:
Let's say the Supreme Court rules that marriage equality for Gay couples can be settled on a state-by-state basis. If a Gay couple is legally married in Iowa, should they be entitled to the same beneftis awarded to Straight couples at the federal level, such as survivor benefits under Social Security?
And if that same married Gay couple decides to relocate to a state where Gay couples are NOT allowed to marry, do you think they should automatically LOSE those federal benefits? If so, how do you think that's Constitutional?
@Jeanette
"If a Gay couple is legally married in Iowa, should they be entitled to the same beneftis awarded to Straight couples at the federal level, such as survivor benefits under Social Security?"
Well since I said the Supreme Court would decide it should be settled state-by-state, don't you think they would allow states to afford federal benefits as well? Either way, they can get the same benefits in a civil union, anything else can be acquired through a written will.
"And if that same married Gay couple decides to relocate to a state where Gay couples are NOT allowed to marry, do you think they should automatically LOSE those federal benefits?"
Then they shouldn't move to a state that won't recognize their union.
"If so, how do you think that's Constitutional?"
Simple, States Rights. You've heard of the 10th amendment right?
The individual State does not have the power to dictate what federal benefits its artificial constructs should receive.
The State is free to decide where to spend the tax dollars it receives, but it has know right whatsoever to dictate where Federal tax dollars are to go.
Give unto Caesar...
Of all of the posts here, Barb hits the issue right where it needs to be. The sodomites do use civil unions as a trojan horse.
In CT after they got the civil unions they then crybabied their way to the CT Supreme Court to have those unions nullified and mandate SSM. It worked.
I believe Colorado already has man/woman marriage as voted by the voters. They want to use these civil unions to demand the courts overturn the voters decision and legislate SSM from the bench.
Will NOM go after Sen. Ellen Roberts (R) re-election? Re-elected every 6 years! Why not wait for the upcoming SCOTUS' desisions? Probably because SCOTUS is not to decide anything about same-sex civil unions.
SCOTUS has a way of looking into an issue of rights in their special way. You know why?
Because there's no other court to appeal to, plus their job is secured for 'life" or until they decide to retire (like the Pope).
Therefore, nothing we can read from lower courts can prepare us completely for a SCOTUS decision.
Rather than speculate, as if we knew better than SCOTUS, why don't we exercise some patience and wait for their decision? We do know DOMA and Prop-8 are being considered. Each defended by one side, and complained by the other. Super interesting. . .
In my very humble knowledge of law, i think i see a common denominator in SCOTUS court cases i am interested in - SCOTUS seems to always give out decisions that are in some way or another pleasing to all sides of an issue. Everyone gets a "piece of candy" from the majority or Justices; and then some get to read dissenting arguments from the minority of Justices. Like the Pope, by the time you make it to that office, you don't have much brain power left over - but certainly a lot of experience. The thing with these Justices is they had an amazing legal mind to begin with, tested in practice.
Being that i am not a lawyer/attorney/prosecutor/judge or justice, i stand in admiration at all the circus
Hopefully, no one falls from the debating 'trapeze', onto the tenure net. It's like a battle of 9 giant minds, most of the time dealing with too-technical issues.
But SSm, like driving, is something we all can understand, or pretend to, like cooking an omelet. . .
Forrest -
"Also, 32 states also have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage to nine that allow it. If 32-9 were the final score in the Super Bowl, no sane person would say the team with 9 is winning."
Except that is not the final score. We are only at half time in the battle for equality. 20 of your so-called marriage "protection" amendments also ban civil unions or domestic partner laws. Two (Michigan and Virginia) are blatantly unconstitutional, banning even private contracts for same sex couples to provide protection to their partnerships. The pure Gay bashing behind those 20 amendments only radicalized the Gay and Lesbian community and their friends. You and your ilk have made it clear this is anti-Gay, not pro-Marriage. Had you pushed for Civil Unions that provided equal legal protections, we would have accepted that compromise. Because you made this an anti-Gay crusade, we will settle for true civil marriage and nothing less.
SCOTUS is held to precedence and must base its finding on established intent rooted in natural law. Roe v Wade is the lone shinning example of what will happen if SCOTUS were to deviate from its mandate by declaring that they know better than the people they serve.
There is no precedence available to SCOUTS which will allow it to declare people to be what they do. The Emperor has no clothes and the SCOTUS is held by law to acknowledge self evident truths.
Gary47290 wrote: "Had you pushed for Civil Unions that provided equal legal protections, we would have accepted that compromise."
No, Gary, that's incorrect. Wherever civil unions have been implemented, they've been used as a legal argument for pseudo-marriage. Your side has proven that you're completely unwilling to compromise.
Another Victory for Marriage! We won in North Dakota. The bill, SB 2252, would have amended the North Dakota Fair Housing Act and the North Dakota Human Rights Act, would have encouraged the promotion of homosexuality in schools, community housing and the workplace.
Gary you seem to have a misunderstanding of history. There is nothing unconstitutional about any of the state amendments that define marriage between a man and a woman and that includes Michigan and Virginia's amendment.
Gary47290: Who said it's the final score? Where else could the count of SSm go, if starting from zero? - certainly not 'negative'.
Maybe what you mean is not "anti-gay", but "anti-gay's wishes", which is not the same. 'Anti-gay' can mean anything, but it means only one thing to you. You might be able to confuse some other people, but not on this comment blog. We are used to people who use ambiguous wordings, to their convenience. it's under every post. . .
You skipped mentioning RBRs (registration of couples as reciprocal beneficiaries relationship). A State can automatize hospital visitation logistics readily for those who would want to register, and it makes a lot of sense to everyone (per say). But we know that's not your objective, really. It is just an excuse.
Civil unions for same-sex partnerships (really, friendships) often offer the exact same State benefits (and responsibilities) as marriage, so becomes civil marriage by another name. (We are not falling for that, but thanks.) But we know settling for that is a hypocritical promise, as Barb succinctly (#21) points out, and case histories can prove that. In fact, that is one of the invalid arguments (better than nothing
) against Prop-8, right now.
So, keep counting, if that gives you the illusion. . . Your opposition is also getting radicalized more and more, and we shoot for constitutional amendments, like Prop-8, not just lower court decisions. It has become a matter of political power, not logic, or science; and we are more than ready to face you.
There is no justification for favoritism of the gay identity group. Not in the form of SSM nor in the form of civil union. Gay identity is not justification for elevating the gay subset of nonmarriage over and above the rest of the types of relationships that populate the non-marriage category.
Prtoections for vulnerable families (expecially those with children and/or dependants) would be justified -- se the long-existing and widespread provisions fordesignated beneficiaries. No need to touch marriage law. No need to fabricate a new relationship status -- call it civil union or whatever -- and attach it to the hip of marital status. No need to predicate protections on some favored sexual identity group's asserted supremacy. No need to predicate protections on same-sex sexual attraction or any other sexual aspect.
Society may justly discriminate between marriage and non-marriage but there is no justification -- zilch -- for disriminating in favor of gay identity, same-sex sexual attraction, or same-sex sexual behavior. Marital status is a preferential status that is merited based on societal regard for the core meaning of marriage. Gayness does not merit special status by way of merging SSM with marital status nor by merging civil union with marital status.
There is no equivalence but SSMers assert supremacy over the rest of non-marriage and much else.
Comment in the que.