CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
July 10, 2014 02:00 PM UTC
75 Comments
The real tragedy here is all the gay couples in Pueblo who want to get married but are stranded without any roads to the clerk's office.
I know, right? I spose we can saddle up the ol' mules so's we can get hitched. Or we could just have a "shotgun" wedding. Folks roun here got lotsa shotguns.
^^^^Pueblo and the Springs according to Bloomberg, who needs to get out more^^
A judge who is not chickenshit.
Yea!
99.9% of my fellow Republicans heads just exploded! Good day for Colorado, and equal rights!
What in God's name happened to the rule of law in this state? You may get SCOTUS to agree with you, but do you have to tear apart the system to do this? Why not just be patient and wait for the legal process to take its course?
Clerk Hall is ignoring the law of Colorado. If nothing else, don't ever criticize the sheriffs again!!!
Because this wouldn't have gone to court and there would be no decision without Hall's actions. Case law needed to be made, and now it's made.
What in God's name happened to the rule of law in this state ?
Why wasn't Udall with Obama at the fundraiser ?
Why didn't Obama tour the border ?
For the love of Jesus, its always about the bullshit questions with your crew Moddy. In lieu of governing, or doing anything constructive at all for that matter, our burning questions HAVE TO BE ANSWERED NOW, ABOVE ALL ELSE, ABOVE ALL EFFORTS AND WORK TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS THIS COUNTRY IS FACING.
If you don't want to witness the continual decline in credibilty in your party, try putting down the pearl clutching and try actually fucking doing something !
And in closing, BENGHAZI !
I'm betting "crickets". Time for BWB to evolve?
Here you and I can disagree. No law was made in today's decision, only the statement that the State can claim no harm from the issuance of these certificates. And in that I argue the judge is wrong.
The legal status of gay marriage in this state is still in limbo, and the harm to the state will be obvious if any of these people attempt to exercise their newfound marriage status in a legal way. Is this marriage certificate recognized in another state? In another county? For any legal joint rights claims?
I want this done right. Today's ruling is much more of an evasion of the issue than yesterday's stayed ruling and does nothing to clarify the issue.
Your contention of harm would be valid if possession of these marriage certificates created a unique harm to the state separate from any other married couple, but they do not. Any heterosexual couple can create as much or more harm to the state with a marriage license and certificate as a gay couple, and isn't that the point? They should be equally recognized under the law, and given the same benefits ( good or bad for the state) of such recognition. This is a major reason why Suther's and other state AG's arguments have been shot down so readily by aprox. 26 courts, they cannot establish harm to the state.
Sorry, 26 is suppose be 16!
Moddy, the Republic still stands, chill out.
The Clerks are following the rule of law. They're working under the legal assumption that the Utah ruling applies to Colorado as well, which means our marriage amendment is null and absent the now defunct DOMA, they can issues licenses. Until a higher authority rules otherwise, they're correct.
The Sheriffs, on the other hand, have lost their case that the gun bills violate the 2nd Amendment, and yet still refuse to enforce the laws.
All hail the king of false equivalencies
Moddy, this is the legal process. An elected official sees an injustice and they act within their powers to correct it. If another elected officicial disagrees, they can sue. Guess what, Hall was right, Suthers and Coffman were wrong. That's our Constitution — the one Republicans take a crap on everyday.
If you have a problem with how democracy actually works, go to Somalia where you can make your own rules.
Um – today's ruling does not say Hall was right. It says Hall is doing something that does not meet the burden of a temporary injunction – i.e. that even if Hall's actions are wrong, they do not burden the state.
Ok, so Hall will be right after Suthers' appeals run out.
Not in this case, no.
You're arguing the micro point, I'm talking about the macro point.
Thank you, Phoenix Rising. We won't agree on the issue of gay marriage, but you at least respect the process and teh rule of law. I respect you for that.
Like I said, if you're about to win, be patient and win honestly. Don't break the justice system to prove your point about injustice.
Why should gays wait for bigoted fuckheads like you to say its ok to get married before they get to exercise the rights guaranteed to them?
Sit in the back of the bus only
Don't eat at the lunch counter with normal folks
Wait your turn, the time isn't right
…
Amen Davie. Just be good little boys and girls and don't rock the boat so we can string you along for all eternity. Nope !
Moddy doesn't like it when people get all uppity…
Womenfolk, Colored folk (anything darker than a Flesh Crayola), and Homersexshuls…they should all just be patient, and wait until after Moddy dies. I'm sure he'd prefer it that way.
The justic system does need to be prodded from time to time in order to provoke lawsuits to correct injustice – though such prodding cuts both ways. That is the history of civil rights, but also the history of violent groups seeking to flout the law.
Hall's actions were, I think, meant to challenge the Colorado bans based on the 10th Circuit ruling. Instead, the course of justice – and there is blame to go around for Hall, Suthers, and Judge Hartman on this – has left things a muddled mess. Hall should have challenged the ban to the court citing the 10th Circuit ruling rather than attempt to issue licenses of questionable value. Suthers probably should have filed something a bit stronger, as the judge apparently couldn't figure out from the filing that having someone acting apparently against state law was worth an injunction. And the judge probably should have used his position to determine a legal basis beyond "harm" on which to base his ruling, even if that's what was presented to him.
Really, Phoenix? The judge should have based his ruling on somthing beyond the question brought to him? I thought we were only allowing the Supreme Court to do that! (See Citizens United, where SCOTUS went way beyond the question presented to them, overturned prior precedents and wrote new law.)
Don't the Repubs call that "legislating from the bench" and don't they pitch a fit and fall in it when such decisions lean left?
Not even reaching the basic conclusion of whether Clerk Hall was doing something that was legal under the law and the state Constitution to me says that the judge avoided the very issue that would have determined whether the injunction request was supportable. Either that, or the judge's ruling says that following the rule of law is not so important as to warrant an injunction.
Further, if this was to be considered a civil rights protest as was claimed, then Hall had made her point and been recognized for her actions, and the legal process that would have ensued from issuing the injunction would have been the remedy. That is how civil disobedience tends to run…
Modster, what is happening is the rule of law and your side is going to lose in the very immediate future. The suits are within the system, even Suthers' responses are within the system. But it cannot be dragged out indefinitely and it won't. Very soon, it will be settled just like separate but equal was settled. The tipping point has been reached. Nobody is abusing the law here. This is how it works. Grown ups understand this. It's all over but a little more shouting.
It is, B.C. My partner and have a bet. I said two years, she said one. Damn! Looks like I'm gonna lose this one.
I think so.
I don't know how to say this exactly, but the sheriffs– they were actually wrong. You see this whole court thingy played out with both Hillary and our constitutional* sheriffs. The court agreed that the state didn't meet the bar to stop Hillary issuing marriage licenses, but those laws the sheriffs say are unconstitutional? Yeah, not so much.
*Not related to any actual constitution– just the imaginary one they believe we should follow.
Big difference.
Gay Marriage does not kill people.
Guns do.
Some (not all) Colorado Sheriffs pushed the envelope for the gun head agenda, and they got slapped down by the court, too late to undo all the damage they did in the recalls.
They allowed themselves to be cynically used by the firearms industry, and now they are stepping up to give legitimacy to the causes of white supremacy, bigotry, paranoid militias.
If they had paid a bit more attention to doing their jobs correctly, not been corrupt, or sexually harassing their subordinates, then they wouldn't be embarassing themselves now. So, yeah, I at least will still have plenty to say about some of Colorado's Sheriffs.
Because helping people who love each other to marry is not morally equivalent to fostering an environment in which people are pushed to arm themselves to the teeth against imaginary threats from brown people.
Jeez, Moddy…. what're you crying for?
None of Da Gayz are going to force you to marry them, I promise!
I had no idea you were such an ardent lover of Big Government and The System…..
If you don't like gay marriages, don't have one. Suthers did prove one thing: modern day Coloradans do walk with dinosaurs…heh.
Rule of law? So far the AG is the only officer who is saying they are ignoring the rule of law. The judges seem to be siding with the clerk(s)….
Judge – single.
Judges. Two. Arapahoe county judge yesterday and the one today. Three, if you accept Hillary's interpretation of the Federal judge re: Utah.
Today's court hearing was not about the constitutionality of marriage equality. The judge today ruled that even were the 10th Circuit and yesterday's ruling to be overturned, the state would suffer no siginificant harm in Hill's actions.
oh chill…….when adultery was still on the books as a crime, why wasn't Suthers running around seeking to enforce THAT one?
Good point.
And please leave God's name out of it.
Hey, if he had worked "guns" in there, he would have had the big 3 sweep!
Too late, BC. The Conference of Catholic Bishops have already issued their press release assuring everyone they will stand with those 'ready to fight'. Five paragraphs of absolutely useless drivel.
Today should be Hillary Hall day. Fucking awesome job !
Just saw that the Denver clerk has just begun issuing licenses.
And Pueblo!! 4 Mo Bo!
John Suthers and Cynthia Coffman are on the wrong side of history. Please stop wasting our money!
They still have Kevin Lundborg and Dr. Chaps in their corner.
Don't forget (ex) Dr. Joshi, and "Barely" Saine, and and and…
According to a press release from Suthers' office this afternoon, he's not done tilting at this windmill (at considerable expense to the taxpayers):
(Uncertainty my ass)
Suthers has this one right. The judge today should have made a ruling on the issue at hand rather than discard the claim for lack of harm.
Again, good for you for being the voice of reason.
The decision was on the injunction, not necessarily the underlying case. In order to get an injunction, the AG had to show harm.
Harm is presumed when someone is ignoring current law.
I assume you read what the judge wrote about "harm"–the degree, and to whom. I thought it was a clear and pursuasive argument.
He ruled on the motion that was before him. State failed to meet its burden to prove entitlement to a preliminary injunction. So he denied. Judge did exactly what he was supposed on the issue that was before him.
I'm beginning to wonder whether Suthers is just phoning it in to maintain appearances.
It would take a reasonable and intelligent person about 10 minutes to put together the basics of a legal argument weighing the harm of uncertainty – state procedural changes, document processing (potentially having to be reversed), legal costs, and personal costs to those getting "married" but finding their certificates challenged… – versus the personal harm of only getting a civil union vs. a marriage until some court eventually rules that Colorado's civil unions must be converted to marriages because they are meant to be a "separate by equal" substitute to marriage in the first place.
But those " harms" are insignificant to the state, refunding couples if the certificates are found to be invalid is hardly cause to infringe on their constitutional rights, legal and personal costs do not harm the state, but the individual, and hardly any of these couples are going into this blind to the fact that these certificates could be challanged. The cost of Suthers defending this ban is causing greater harm legally and financially to the state than if he would just accept the adams county ruling and be done with it. These couples shouldn't have to settle for a civil union, if the only thing standing in their way is a stubborn AG who wont give up a poorly executed defense of a obviously discrimatory law.
If the state's legal position is that the Colorado bans are still in effect, then the state incurs costs every time one of these marriage certificates is presented for some legal purpose – they must take the time to respond that these certificates aren't valid, and they might (will) be challenged legally as to the validity of the certificates. That is actual harm.
And although Clerk Hall has been ordered to report these marriages to the state health department, the department workers must find something to do with them other than entering them into the system, because at the state level they won't accept them. They cause confusion at the state level – ie. extra work, and extra money, and therefore financial harm.
Finally, there is (as Judge Crabtree recognized in his stay on Monday) a presumptive harm whenever an existing law is to be overturned – or in the case of Judge Hartman's ruling, simply ignored because the harm is "insignificant". This harm is separate from other tangible burdens; Hartman downplayed this harm in ways I haven't generally seen in the legal decisions I've decided to look into.
If you get the idea that I disagree with marriage equality, or that civil unions are the right answer, you're wrong. My disagreement with this ruling is simply and strictly that these marriages may not be legal under the law even if the courts eventually rule in favor of gay marriage in Colorado – and that the results aren't simply a few happy people who know what they're getting in to.
I want a ruling that says "it's okay" or "stop until the higher courts rule", not "go ahead, but not because it's legal…". Somehow that's too much to ask, though.
It's interesting to compare these two cases and their determination of harm.
The stay issued yesterday – which most of us would rather have not had happen – was issued because the judge determined there was an obvious harm to the state in overriding the will of the legislature and the people (via the initiative process).
Today's ruling in contrast fails to see the harm in the issuance of licenses of questionable legal authority.
Either Suthers did a crappy job in arguing his case in Boulder, or I see an appeal for an injunction coming very soon.
(Or Suthers could realize he's got multiple inbound cases being ruled against him and give it up peacefully. Or maybe not.)
Can someone please lock up the AG office until next January, saying that there is no more money left for this pathetic continuance of the dead law?
The ban is dead. The justices saw no clear path or proof that the state has met the burden stating it is harming other people which we all know is simply fucking bullshit.
Don Quick should be very quickly making ads supporting the LGBT rights to get married, and bashing Cynthia Coffmann's head with it. Repeatedly.
Tim Gill needs to set up an independent "education" committee to educate voters about Cynthia Coffman and what she would bring to the AG's office.
Dust Puppy wrote: "the ban is dead." As a traditonal conservative Republican (meaning a conservative with hopefully more than an ounce of common sense), I've always considered the ban on gay marriages in Colorado to be a religious issue. That is, the ban violated the US and Colorado constitutions on imposition of religion and violation of religious liberty from Day One after passage by the voters. I've never quite figured out why persons from the LGBT community never went to court over the matter way back when.
I have also yet to hear any coherent or rational reason that supports the contention that allowing same sex marriage somehow damages the institution of marriage. Heck, with a divorce rate of somewhere around 50%, we heterosexuals do a good enough job of damaging the institution ourselves.
Regards, C.H.B.
I think you and I both know that there is no rational reason supporting the marriage ban outside of religious views. But remember – Lawrence v Texas was only a bit over 10 years ago. It's not so long ago that we considered even some sex acts performed by consenting adults in their homes to be illegal on the basis of some underlying "immorality".
None of the major religions has been strongly supportive of LBGT equality until recently, and the courts do look at the prevalence of a certain set of mores throughout our country when determining what is "religiously based".
If you're looking for coherent arguments for the contention that LGBT marriages "damage the institution of marriage", or "interfere with the state's interest in procreation", or "family stability", you won't ever find it. That's why so many courts are all of a sudden overturning these bans – the arguments presented before them are laughable.
CHB, The rationales heard again and again, ad nauseum have been as follows (with my takedown of each). 1) Marriage is for procreation-we allow the elderly and the sterile to marry. 2) Children are better off with 2 parents.- then change the divorce laws. 3) The people voted for it-people voted for slavery, too. 4) Religion says…- that one gets a stiff arm from the most conservative judges. I'm still waitng to hear a good reason. Ergo, the laws are dropping like flies.
Cook, go read Judge Crabtree's decision in the Adams County case. He quotes from the State's brief and the arguments are mind-numbing. For example:
Thanks for the direct link, PERA! I've seen bits of it. Just enough to know it was a "here we go, again." I'm going to enjoy reading it in its entirety.
Focus on the Family has been ominously quiet during the past 24 hours. Terry Maketa should put some clothes on and go over and do a welfare check to make sure they're ok…….
A sexy welfare check.
Ick.
expect a campaign to vote out judges
I don't know enough about Adams, but I say good luck to them in Boulder
Crabtree was appointed by Bill Owens!
They may not have actually changed their minds, but they aren't hooking votes with it anymore, either. It's not really worth sermonizing against if it doesn't fire up the reactionaries. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/evangelicals-gay-marriage-108608.html#.U8M_5_ldVqE