( – promoted by Colorado Pols)
POLS UPDATE: Senate Bill 172 passes Senate Judiciary Committee on a 6-3 vote. Republican Sen. Ellen Roberts of Durango joins Democrats voting yes.
—–
SB-172, The Colorado Civil Union Act, will be heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee today. The bill, which would provide crucial protections to same-sex couples, will face stiff opposition as well as strong support from members of the committee.
Polling shows that a solid majority of Coloradans are supportive of civil unions. A PPP poll found that over 70% of the state supports granting civil unions to same sex couples. These findings are almost an exact match to a poll conducted by two national firms, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and American Viewpoint. When asked whether they supported giving legals rights to same-sex couples – marriage-related responsibilities, visiting a partner in the hospital and making end-of-life decisions- respondent’s approval percentages soared into the high 80s.
Though Republican Sen. Shawn Mitchell has said that this bill is a social issue and that Democrats should be focusing on the economy, a recent study by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law predicts that the law would benefit Colorado with an additional $5 million in economic activity over 3 years.
My support for this law stems from an experience I had when a friend’s partner had to be rushed to the hospital with a serious injury. The anxiety, bearaucracy and uncertainty he encountered are things no one should have to put up with when a loved one is in harm’s way.
If you get a chance, stop by the Old Supreme Court Chambers in the capitol at 1:00pm or watch the hearing. OneColorado has encouraged supporters to come wearing red and ”pack the house”.
Then Colorado can do so also. And just like Hawaii I hope to see strong bi-partisan support here.
As to the bigots who will oppose this – you’re on the wrong side of history. And you’re not a nice person.
I’m loving the diaries you’ve been writing. Keep em coming! See you this afternoon.
Discuss Civil Unions bill among progressive friends. Tonight 7-9pm Dora’s Mexican Restaurant 2406 S. Parker Rd (near Iliff and Havana)
There’s a difference between agreeing to someone’s face about the details and voting to support homosexuality in private. There shouldn’t be, that’s not even what we’d be voting for, but it’s true.
That being said, we’re talking about gender discrimination in law. I don’t care how unpopular it is. Mississippi may still not support desegregation. So what? This is America. We shouldn’t have built in discrimination anymore. It’s not even a new group, it’s an old one.
As to the bigots who oppose this – STFU. Nobody cares about your personal problems.
Ah…I smell a sig line.
As to the bigots who oppose this – STFU. Nobody cares about your personal problems.
This is not a social issue, this is a civil rights issue.
We don’t deny or delay the civil rights of our citizens until the economy gets better.
Mitchell is a douchenozzle, he has done nothing to disavow me of that opinion.
When did we begin divorcing social issues from civil rights issues?
The overlap between them and the strong chemistry that binds them together make them stronger when they are unified. Tearing apart that bond makes each of them individually weaker.
I fully support it, but will it get to the floor? Is there R support?
Heard him speak on this recently–he felt the committee hearing was the critical juncture and it would pass on the floor.
I’m aware of 3 R reps that intend to vote in favor of the bill. That’s more than enough to get it through the floor as long as it makes it out of committee. Seems like the key will be where McNulty places it.
That being said, we’re already working on damage control with the base for the R rep I helped elect last year. Anticipating some serious base backlash from the vote and are already putting plans into place to mitigate it. Fortunately, in our case, our county chairman is supportive of this bill and will come out to defend our rep on this one. Would probably hurt fundraising for next cycle if he didn’t.
We’re also hopng this will cause less CODA money to come in against us. that’s probably wishful thinking though I suppose.
Completely on where Speaker McNulty sends it. And then if it does pass committee, Rep. Stephens could let it die on the calendar. So I am hopeful but certainly not thinking it’s a slam dunk in the House at this point.
There is a large crowd outside the doors of the chambers, most of whom are wearing red. They aren’t letting folks in just yet.
SRO. Steadman doing a nice job of addressing arguments against the bill.
whether is healthy or love or not is also similar to marriage. Almost exactly like it in fact. My understanding is that people who live together before marriage for years don’t see a whole helluva lot a difference the week after a legal ceremony. They still weren’t legally married the month before. Laws: Usually specific. Marriage is marriage. It’s defined. Civil unions are civil unions. Hopefully soon to be defined in law. Definitions are different. Like murder statutes. They are all basically the same, but have huge differences.
If he has an issue with his amendment language, he should have thought of that before fucking up our Constitution.
Do you see these white ribbons going around. What are those for?
Unfortunately not there. I crashed my scooter. Would’ve limped, but you guys seemed to have it covered.
And I’m about to ball like a baby listening to this couple, aren’t I?
I think just about everybody in my row was tearing up.
I’m here listening too and I almost lost it listening to that last lesbian couple.
I also want to fuck with the truck parked on Grant with all the homophobic muraling… I think it’s the same people who stand outside PPH.
It would be nice to see Sen Lundberg actually paying attention to testimony instead of tinkering away on his phone.
Nancy… I thought you did great. I’m sorry about your father
You can have his ignorance when you pry it from his cold dead brain. He has no need to listen to no one ’bout nothing.
He has looked up once since this started.
Wow, the opposition’s speakers are simply breathtaking. This old lady going on about the anus made me laugh audibly.
from going so far off topic. She didn’t even think to add that the statistic I just made up says that homosexuals have more sex than slutty heterosexuals.
Otherwise, why would stds come into it? Jeez, lady, horse THEN cart.
Gays are a Stalin plan to bring down America? Good to know. #We’reOnToYou
Sen. Steadman is wrapping it up quite nicely. This bill isn’t about you, your church, your god, or, apparently, your fear of anuses.
The arguments that not fighting for all discrimination to be taken out is legitimate. I personally do not agree in this case (I think many years of no repercussions will help, not hurt), I can appreciate the larger fight.
I’m a bit shocked. Pleased. But shocked.
Makes me nearly as happy as it passing at all.
See, not all republicans are evil
That was Sen. Giron, D-Pueblo, saying she’d support it. Though Ellen Roberts is a Republican who voted in favor.
Still happy it passed. Roberts is barely a Republican. I have House committee worries big time.
Roberts has always been a strong advocate for the rights of same-sex couples. I remember her going toe-to-toe with Bob Gardner on that designated beneficiary agreement bill from 2009 (HB 09-1260, I think; it was a Ferrandino bill that allowed cohabitating adults to designate each other as beneficiaries should something happen to one of them). I even called her office to thank her for vocally standing up to her own party…
at the diversity of the delegation that God sent to the hearing.
From the compassionate minister from the Highlands to the schizophrenic that kind of smelled like cheese, God’s varied opinions on issues ranging from gay marriage to the use of the anus were voiced vehemently in his name.
Looking back on it, I can’t tell what God’s overall message was to the attendees of the hearing, though every person claimed to be representing him. He must have been drinking when he made some of those people.
I admire his hard work on this bill, both in constructing the legislation and getting votes lined up. This is just the first hurdle, but things look good. It was courageous of Steadman to go against many in the GBLTQ community who are now on the “marriage or nothing” side.
(With which I do, wholly, sympathize, but I think there are people suffering from inequality today who could get some help via civil unions, so I’m pro-civil union on those grounds.)
I think it has to be a two step process. But passing civil unions will be gigantic.
I’m glad this civil union thing is making progress and I’m sure societal change is making marriage without reference to gender inevitable but am wondering on what basis marriage is put into the religious value category as distinct from civil union. Aren’t all legal marriages civil unions? It’s the license and certificate from the civil authorities that make a marriage legal along with, to a somewhat inferior degree, recognition of common law marriage in most states. A religious ceremony is completely optional (you’re just as married if it was a civil ceremony by a Justice of the Peace) and doesn’t make a union legal without the civil marriage or common law requirements. So it seems to me the solution is already there: The courts just need to bar discrimination based on gender. Legal marriage already is a civil, secular matter, in case anyone hasn’t noticed, and society is moving past this roadblock whether Focus on Your Own Damn Family likes it or not.
In the testimony of the lady who went into somewhat graphic detail on gay sex; I was hoping she would give equal time and descriptions on how the ladies do it
apparently we could all sit in a kindergarten class and learn.
This just keeps getting better!
but I am still speechless and shocked after hearing some of the things I heard yesterday. As the mother of three teenage sons, I really though I had heard everything. This lady was beyond interesting. I give great credit to Senator Pat Steadman for sitting next to her with a poker face.
all of the people who introduced themselves and said they were representing Jesus Christ or “Joseph Ratzinger the Living Christ”.
I really encourage all of you to attend if there are future hearings. I guarantee, you will NOT forget the experience.
Pat is an inspiration to us all. I would have pulled that woman’s wig off at the first mention of sodomy.