Colorado lawmaker: Democrats using ‘mind control’ to make people accept ‘homosexual marriage’

Colorado lawmaker: Democrats using ‘mind control’ to make people accept ‘homosexual marriage’ (via Raw Story )

A Republican Colorado lawmaker on Tuesday asserted that the state’s law permitting civil unions between people of the same sex was a “mind-control experiment” by Democrats to force voters “to believe in homosexual marriage.” In an interview…

Once Again, These Were Two Different Recall Elections

Recalled Colorado Senators John Morse and Angela Giron.

Recalled Colorado Senators John Morse and Angela Giron.

As the post-mortem coverage of last week's historic recall elections in Colorado continues, we're seeing a trend toward an inaccurate hindsight narrative of what happened. It's important for both sides–Democrats seeking to prevent further recurrences, and Republicans hoping to adopt their success as a model to use elsewhere–to understand what actually happened, and how the results in the two separate recall elections held last week differ widely–just not in the biggest respect, the bottom line.

A story by the Denver Post's Lynn Bartels today typifies this problem:

Opponents of an effort to recall two Democratic state senators for supporting stricter gun laws borrowed a page from an earlier playbook, arguing reproductive rights were in peril if the lawmakers were kicked out of office.

But the message — so effective in keeping Republican Ken Buck from becoming a U.S. senator in 2010 — failed to protect Senate President John Morse and Sen. Angela Giron, who were recalled by their constituents Sept. 10…

Here's the hole in Bartels' seductively lazy analysis: The Senate District 11 recall was decided by a mere 343 votes in unofficial tallies, while the margin of defeat for Sen. Angela Giron was over ten times that in an election with only about twice the number of voters as SD-11. As we've noted repeatedly in this space, the loss of mail ballots in the SD-11 recall can fully account for the margin of defeat for Senate President John Morse. Fewer vote centers and shorter hours to vote in El Paso County also factored disproportionately in this very close election.

This means any attempt to ascribe some kind of "common meaning" to these two elections, as the above story seems determined to do, is off-base. But for the logistical voting problems in SD-11, it's very likely that Sen. Morse would have prevailed in his recall. If that had happened, obviously we wouldn't be reading about how this or that tactic "failed" to save Morse, we'd be talking about how those tactics had succeeded. The truth is, 343 votes is not enough of a margin, especially given those balloting problems, to make any such judgment either way. In 2010, Sen. Michael Bennet very narrowly defeated Ken Buck in a victory heavily influenced by a collapse of support from women. Without polling to know that had happened, which we haven't had in this recall, it's impossible to know how well the ads against Bernie Herpin on the issue of reproductive choice actually worked.

Impossible to know, and irresponsible to assume.

That said, Democrats do need to acknowledge that something bad, and very different from the close race in SD-11, happened in Senate District 3. They won't find the answer in this story, in which Bartels indolently lets GOP talking head Katy Atkinson dive into free-ranging speculation about why Pueblo Democrats turned out one of their own. We seriously doubt it was the civil unions legislation passed this year as Atkinson speculates. The story we've heard, and tend to believe, is that Sen. Giron was perceived by many rank-and-file Pueblo Democrats as having neglected constituent services in the district. There is some cross-partisan appeal to the gun issue that needs to be acknowledged too, but if those we've spoken with about this are to be believed, much of the heavy margin of defeat for Giron, in a far more Democratic district, can be attributed to factors unique to Giron personally.

The proof of our theory, which we're at least honest enough to represent as a theory, will come in 2014–when GOP Sen.-elect George Rivera is defeated by a wide margin of his own. In the meantime, if Republicans want to believe that they are no longer vulnerable on the issue of reproductive choice and health, we know plenty of Democrats who'd be happy to encourage them.

Always Count On Dave Schultheis To Keep It Real

Ex-Sen. Dave Schultheis (R).

Ex-Sen. Dave Schultheis (R).

The Denver Post's Lynn Bartels reports on an awkward brush with the GOP's ugly past this week:

Former state Sen. Dave Schultheis is at it again, this time calling an adoption by gay House Speaker Mark Ferrandino “deliberate child abuse.”

The Colorado Springs Republican posted a comment about the adoption on the conservative blog, Colorado Peak Politics.

“To deprive this little girl of a loving mother for the sake of self-gratification is perverted,” Schultheis wrote. “I would place it in the category of deliberate child abuse.”

Bartels reports that Sen. Dave "I hope babies gets AIDS" Schultheis' comment was posted to an otherwise inoffensive blog post at Colorado Peak Politics, congratulating Colorado House Speaker Mark Ferrandino and partner Greg Wertsch on finalizing the adoption of their daughter Lila. Bartels notes that former GOP House Speaker Frank McNulty was "one of the first guests to show up" to Ferrandino's adoption party on Wednesday. While that may not comport with McNulty's voting record as a legislator, as a gesture of respect it's certainly nice to see.

There are of course a growing number of Republicans who recognize that the "bad old days" of Sen. Schultheis were a major component of the party's loss of majority standing in Colorado, beginning almost a decade ago and continuing even during so-called "Republican wave" years. Some of these old-school hardliners are now out of office like Schultheis, but others like Sen. Vicki Marble are popping up to replace them. The problem for those who would like to modernize and soften the party's image is simple: the hard-right faction in GOP politics that produced Schultheis, Marble, and so many others, like Dudley Brown and the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, still wields tremendous power. In Marble's case, enough power to defeat a much more qualified and moderate Republican in a contentious primary.

All of this was true before "Scary Schultheis" reared his ugly head in a blog comment, but Schultheis did manage to provide a useful lesson in how things have changed over time–and, unfortunately for those "fighting to improve the Republican image," how they haven't.

Much Ado About…Disenfranchising Voters (Recall Updates)


To no one's surprise, Richard N. Anglund did not gather sufficient signatures to make it onto the recall ballot in Pueblo.

In the Springs, Libertarian candidate Gordon Butt had already dropped out to pursue his business interests.

However, he had been replaced by Jan Brooks. The Libertarian party has announced  that they have turned in more than enough (more than 575) signatures to the Secretary of State's office, which will determine the validity of the signatures. If the signatures are deemed valid, then January Brooks will be on the recall ballot.

I, and others, think that the intent of the lawsuit was not about adhering to the Colorado Constitution, nor about enabling third party candidates. The court's decision on the lawsuit, in effect, has disenfranchised voters who needed mail-in ballots to vote. So in Pueblo, we'll waste $80,000, and 100,000 recall ballots, in order to disenfranchise and suppress the votes of poor and working people, seniors and disabled folks (likely Democrats). I still think that the recall will fail, but it will be all about turnout.

And, to make things even more bizarre, the Atlantic's Joshua Spivak, and those who predicted yet another legal challenge to the recall proceedings, were correct. Lawyers will be asking the Colorado Supreme Court for guidance about whether the Colorado Constitution may conflict with the First Amendment – because if one does not vote for or against the recall, one's vote for successor candidates will not count.

Stay tuned for further updates from Recall Bizarro World.



And here are those updates!

  • Richard Anglund still plans to run as a write-in candidate in Pueblo..
  • If her signatures pass inspection, Jan Brooks, the Libertarian candidate, would be an openly gay candidate on the recall ballot. Ms Brooks is married to her wife, Amanda, on "About Your Family" on the  "Q&A with Jan Brooks" section.
  • My take:  If Brooks' signatures pass muster, it could be interesting to see how this plays out with the Springs' large and politically diverse gay and lesbian community.  El Paso County liberals will still vote against the recall, as Bernie "Personhood" Herpin would likely be their Senator if the recall succeeds. Senator Morse has done an outstanding job,  and should not be recalled. However,  Brooks' candidacy is an evident attempt to cater to female and socially liberal voters.
  • Neither Brooks, nor the Libertarian party, seems to have any position on abortion, personhood, choice, or those other pesky issues. The Libertarian stand on "privacy" is a stand for online privacy. The stand on "healthcare" is (wait for it) a demand for an end to government intervention.  If Brooks' signatures pass the S o S inspection to allow her to get onto the ballot, it will definitely be time to try to draw out her positions on choice and access to abortion.

One Colorado Slams Recall/Prop 8 Spokesperson

Jennifer Kerns, Morse recall spokesperson.

Jennifer Kerns, Morse recall spokesperson.

We told you this was coming. An email from One Colorado, the state's leading LGBT advocacy organization:

Many of us remember the heartbreak our community felt last year when extreme, anti-equality forces killed civil unions legislation. But following that defeat, we fought back and prevailed. 

Now, they’re back. A small, radical group has launched a misguided effort to undo the progress we’ve made. They are attempting to recall two of our most steadfast allies in the Colorado Senate: Senators John Morse and Angela Giron.

And who have they sent to steal our fair-minded majority? None other than Jennifer Kerns, former spokesperson for the campaign to pass Prop 8 and limit the freedom to marry in California. Read more about Kerns here.

This is the same Jennifer Kerns, by the way, who just the other day said that these recalls are partly the result of this year’s “radical agenda” in the state legislature. Any guess as to which agenda items she’s talking about? Just ask one of the recall organizers – they’re specifically instructing their canvassers to attack our elected leaders for supporting civil unions.

These cynical scare tactics have got to stop – and it’s up to us to stop them…

We discussed the "professionalization" of the recall campaign against Sen. John Morse a few days ago, and Jennifer Kerns is probably the best example of this–with a long resume of Republican and right-leaning communications jobs. Unfortunately, that long resume risks dragging all of the baggage from those other issues into this recall, which may not help it succeed. Ms. Kerns tried to preempt criticism of her previous job as spokesperson for California's gay marriage ban campaign, as she told the Colorado Springs Independent:

"My work there had no influence on my work with the Recall campaigns," she states. "Not only do I NOT disapprove of his support of Civil unions, I have been on record for a long time supportive of Civil unions myself. Also, the Basic Freedom Defense Fund does not engage in social issues."

But that's not what Kerns told KUNC's Bente Birkeland:

Kerns says Democrats – who control both legislative chambers – had a radical agenda this year. The legislature passed several bills in addition to the gun measures, including civil unions, [Pols emphasis] in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants and new renewable energy standards.

Also, as One Colorado points out in their email, numerous sources have confirmed that civil unions legislation is a part of the canvassing script being used by recall organizers in Morse's district. Given the deceptions freely employed by recall petition gatherers, we suppose it's to be expected that their spokesperson will be two-faced about an issue that doesn't cleanly divide along partisan lines–or in the case of civil unions, enjoys very broad support among the public. But the more this recall becomes a broad ideological battle between left and right and less about the specific gun safety bills that originally provoked it, the weaker their case becomes.

Recall’s Hired Hands: It’s a Small World After All

Jennifer Kerns.

Jennifer Kerns.

The Colorado Springs Independent reports on the new spokesperson for the Basic Freedom Defense Foundation, Jennifer Kerns, who has a lengthy resume in GOP communications. For good for ill:

[Jennifer] Kerns is the spokesperson for the Basic Freedom Defense Fund, the group behind the recall of Colorado Senate President John Morse. But opponents of the recall, eager to paint the election as less "grassroots reaction" and more "calculated political move with national consequences," have pointed out the Kerns isn't a small fry in the political world.

In fact, Kerns' website reveals that she has long worked for the conservative cause, mostly in California. Kerns has worked for the California Republican Party and the Koch brothers. She's also directed "the two largest Tea Parties in the nation."

Perhaps most interesting in light of recent news, Kerns was the main spokesperson for California's Proposition 8, which banned same sex marriage before it was overturned in the courts. [Pols emphasis] But Kerns says via e-mail that her prior work did not influence her work against Morse, who was a major supporter of Colorado's civil unions law…

The recall election now proceeding against Colorado Senate President John Morse began as a loosely-organized volunteer operation, featuring such entertaining characters as former "spokesman" Nick Andrasik–whose embarrassing "proud gun nut" photos combined with highly inappropriate comments about certain female Democratic legislators during the debate over gun safety bills this year to get Morse's recall off to a shaky start.

But the story of the recall didn't end with Andrasik, of course, and this blog was first to report the arrival of professional petition gathering operatives back in April, funded by another organization overseen by Republican usual suspects Bob Beauprez and Mark Hillman. That paid signature drive was principally responsible for the overwhelming success of the petition effort to force a recall election against Morse. Since then a number of allegations have surfaced, ranging from highly misleading petition gatherers to an outright fraudulent "signature" from a woman dead two years–which passed the Secretary of State's validation process.

The "professionalization" of the recall campaign against Morse is evident from the paid petition drive, the growing role of well-funded national groups like Americans for Prosperity in the recall campaign, and in new spokesperson Jennifer Kerns of the BFDF. Kerns also lists on her resume "Founding Communications Director of Charles and David Koch’s Americans for Prosperity in California." Is that the way AFP likes to describe themselves?

Therein lies a potentially big problem: all of these people and organizations bring their own baggage to this "grassroots" recall campaign against a relatively obscure state senator. Kerns, the former spokesperson for California's invalidated Proposition 8 gay marriage ban can claim, as she does in this story, that Morse's work to pass civil unions legislation this year "had no influence" on her work to recall him. But thanks to her, that's part of the story now. Likewise the longstanding controversy over the Koch Brothers' machinations in American politics becomes a factor in this recall that's supposed to be about guns. The proxy war being waged becomes obvious.

And that may not help the recall of John Morse succeed.

BREAKING: Amy Stephens Being Courted To Challenge Udall

FRIDAY UPDATE: The Hill's Alexandra Jaffe reports on our scoop:

According to local news site, Republican strategists in the state are urging [Stephens] to run in a race that currently lacks any likely GOP contenders…

The purple tint of Colorado has given some Republicans hope they'd be able to mount a challenge against Udall in 2014, but he maintains high popularity in the state and has posted strong fundraising numbers so far this year, sitting on $2.5 million for his reelection fight at the close of the first quarter. 


Rep. Amy Stephens (R-Focus on the Family).

Rep. Amy Stephens (R-Focus on the Family).

The so-far fruitless search for a Republican to challenge incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Udall next year continues. We last reported that GOP Rep. Cory Gardner will not run against Udall, leaving the field open for wide-ranging speculation about various possible opponents–including former Rep. Bob Beauprez, Treasurer Walker Stapleton, former Gov. Bill Owens, and even freshman state Sen. Owen Hill. None of these candidates seem particularly resonant, but that's the state of the troubled GOP bench these days.

Sources tell us this bleak picture may be about to change: former Colorado House Majority Leader Amy Stephens of Colorado Springs is being courted by GOP strategists to run against Udall. Stephens is a former Focus on the Family public policy "specialist," who wrote two abstinence-only sex-ed school curriculaSex, Lies & the Truth, and No Apologies. As House Majority Leader, Rep. Stephens played a major role in the killing of the 2012 civil unions bill, which without extraordinary action by Republican leadership would have passed with bipartisan support.

Stephens' generally solid right wing credentials are somewhat complicated by her on-again-off-again sponsorship of the legislation that created Colorado's new health insurance exchange, a major component of "Obamacare" nonetheless favored by many business interests. It will be interesting to see, should Stephens decide to run for U.S. Senate, how that plays with the GOP base. To her credit, she did survive a primary challenge from Rep. Marsha Looper that was largely based on Stephens' support for this bill.

Bottom line: Stephens has an enormous amount of wedge-issue baggage, and on balance there's little to suggest there she would be any more competitive against Sen. Udall than any of the other names that have been mentioned (or already declined). That said, her resume, institutional support on the Christian right, and relatively clean slate in terms of public opinion–this is a nice way of saying she has no name ID–could make the race more interesting than, say, Bob Beauprez would make it.

How To Waste Your Ad Budget

Here's an ad spotted by several users atop our homepage in recent days:


It's another opportunity for us to point out that these are Google ads, selected automatically (though contextually) by Google for display on our site–we have no control over the content of these ads, except we think we could get one removed laboriously if the ad rose to a sufficient level of offense. This is a frequent source of confusion.

Just for once, let's help this advertiser out: do you support "tradtional" marriage? What do you suppose a "tradtional" marriage looks like? We've never been in a "tradtional" marriage to know if we "support" that.

One thing we do "support," though, is proofreading.

Congrats Sen. Pat Steadman, Colorado’s “Champion of Change”

Colorado Sen. Pat Steadman is being recognized today at the White House as a "Harvey Milk Champion of Change." From Fox 31:

Over the last few years, as LGBT advocates have pushed for a new civil unions law, many of them lauded the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Pat Steadman, a long-time lobbyist on equality issues, as “Colorado’s own Harvey Milk.”

…The Champions of Change program was created as an opportunity for the White house to feature groups of Americans – individuals, businesses and organizations – who are doing extraordinary things to empower and inspire members of their communities.

In 1992, Steadman organized the lawsuit challenging “Amendment 2,” the voter-approved anti-gay initiative that made Colorado known for a time as the “Hate State”; the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the statute in 1996 in the landmark Romer v. Evans ruling.

The civil unions legislation was finally passed this year and signed into law in March.

Thank you, Sen. Steadman, for decades spent fighting for equality for every Colorado family! Your work honors Harvey Milk's legacy every day.

“Overreach” is Overwrought. Give it a Rest.

There are 65 members of the Colorado House of Representatives, and 35 members of the Colorado State Senate. The Colorado legislature as a whole is a representative body, with each Senator representing about 143,691 constituents, and each House member standing for 77,372 Coloradans.

The Colorado Constitution outlines the makeup and duties of the state legislature, but it is a guarantee in the United States Constitution that every state shall have a republican form of government (with representatives elected by the people), rather than a direct democracy governed by the citizens.

Even Dawson doesn't cry this much.

Even Dawson didn’t cry as much as Colorado Republicans in 2013

Why the brief history lesson? As the legislature closes out its 2013 session, Republicans and some political pundits are busy accusing Colorado Democrats of "overreaching" for passing a lot of progressive pieces of legislation, yet they seem to forget that this "republican form of government" is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Members of the Colorado legislature are elected by popular vote, the purpose of which is to see that the majority of Colorado citizens are not overruled by the minority. It is a logical extension of the process that the minority may not be happy with the results of an elected body chosen by the majority.

To put it bluntly, that's kind of the point. The system is working as designed.

But don't tell that to Colorado Republicans. Take this recent press release from the Colorado House Republicans titled: "ICYMI: Democrats continue to run up the score."

The posting from the House GOP quotes liberally from an April 28th story in the Denver Post, though they notably failed to quote the sillier parts of the story about a "marathon legislative session":

Rep. Frank McNulty of Highlands Ranch raced to the microphone and, in a thundering voice, accused Democrats of "doing a touchdown dance at the expense of the minority." [Pols emphasis]

…Republicans have accused Democrats of "overreaching," waging war on rural Colorado and introducing bills to reward unions and trial lawyers while harming businesses.

Rep. Dan Pabon, D-Denver, disagrees.

"Overreaching? No," he said. "I think we've been listening to the people of Colorado and they've told us, 'We put you in charge and we want you to get something done.' "

Hey McNulty, ask Carly Simon if this is about you.

Hey McNulty, ask Carly Simon if this is about you.

Pabon is absolutely right here, and we've made the same argument before in this space. But before we get to that, let's examine how Republicans are so upset at the Democrats for continually beating them in elections that they think the 2013 legislative session is actually about them. To quote Carly Simon (no, seriously):

You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you

You're so vain, I'll bet you think this song is about you

Don't you? Don't You? Don't You?

There are many, many reasons why Republicans have never come close to regaining control of the state legislature since their surprise ouster in 2004, and their reaction to being steamrolled in 2013 is just another number on the list. Democrats are pushing ahead with progressive issues because Republicans don't do anything but get in the way. They don't offer reasonable amendments or attempt to debate in good faith — they just try to gum up the works and play procedural games. Anyone who has heard Republican Rep. Bob Gardner's version of a filibuster can understand what we mean here; Gardner just talks comically slow for as long as he can, his only goal to try to bore people into submission. Yet Republicans are annoyed when Democrats try to move things along and actually, you know, do their job?

Republicans call this "overreaching," and take it as a personal affront. But it's not about them, and it never was. It's about Democrats understanding that Colorado voters want them to lead; voters gave McNulty and the GOP a narrow majority in the House in 2010, and they promptly yanked it back from them two years later when it became clear that Republicans still have no intention of actually legislating.

Voters are tired of Republicans who can't figure out if they should still hate gay people. They're sick of Republicans who compare abortion to the Holocaust while everyone else is worried about schools and the economy. They're fed up with Republicans who persist with their ridiculous "Personhood" policy ideas that keep…getting…rejected…again…and again. "Personhood" isn't even about the issue anymore — it's a symbol of Republicans refusing to listen to even the most loudly shouted opinions of voters.

The simple truth of the 2013 session is this: Democrats were given a significant mandate from voters in 2012, and they are putting it to use. Some would say it is long overdue, and perhaps they learned their lesson from Congressional Democrats who did next to nothing with their 2008 mandate and then lost the House of Representatives in 2010. In fact, a closer look at the election results from the past decade tells a story that makes you wonder why Democrats waited so long to push harder on their agenda in the first place…


All-Night Celebration As Civil Unions Law Takes Effect

"The shot": Fran and Anna Simon kiss after their civil union ceremony. Photo by Evan Semon, Out Front Colorado

If you were part of last night's partying related to the first legal civil union ceremonies for LGBT couples in the state of Colorado, chances are you're not even awake yet (unless you haven't gone to bed). But here's a roundup of initial coverage on the first day of the Colorado Civil Union Act in effect.

Much more after the jump…


PPP: Hillary Bests Hickenlooper in 2016, Gun Safety Still Popular

Lots of interesting poll results from Public Policy Polling today, the second half of their recent survey work in Colorado. PPP is generally considered a Democratic-leaning firm, but their performance in recent elections has been quite good. A study by Fordham University rated PPP the most accurate pollster nationally of the 2012 elections. From today's memo on a number of questions, two standouts: lackluster support for a presidential run in 2016 by Gov. John Hickenlooper, and resilient popularity of gun safety bills passed by the legislature.

Although he is a strong favorite for reelection as Governor next year, there's not a lot of enthusiasm in Colorado for a 2016 John Hickenlooper Presidential bid. Only 21% of voters in the state think he should run to 65% who think he should not, and even among Democrats just 30% would like to see him run with 48% dissenting. Hickenlooper does hold a narrow 47/45 advantage over Rand Paul and Marco Rubio in hypothetical match ups. But even without the benefit of home state advantage Hillary Clinton does slightly better than Hickenlooper in the state, leading Paul 48/45 and Rubio 48/44…

Coloradans support stronger gun laws in general (49/44) and an assault weapons ban in particular (49/45). Latinos, who Republicans need to be more competitive with if they're going to win key statewide races in Colorado, support stronger gun laws by a 59/32 margin. We didn't bother testing support for background checks in the state given the overwhelming support for them everywhere.

“Republicans are looking for a path forward after losing 6 elections in a row for President, Governor, and the Senate in Colorado,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “But being on the wrong side of public opinion about hot button issues like gun control and gay marriage isn’t going to get them out of the wilderness.”

We're not surprised to see soft support for a run for President by Hickenlooper, and we wouldn't necessarily count it all as sentiment against him. As PPP's earlier released polling showed, Hickenlooper's unfavorable rating has shot up in the last year as he has been compelled to engage on issues with negatives on both sides of the political spectrum–upsetting conservatives on gun safety and liberals with his questionable support for oil and gas drilling. Despite that, Hickenlooper is still well above water in terms of favorability, and Republicans have no candidate in Hickenlooper's league with which to challenge him. There are a host of reasons why Hickenlooper may not be viewed as the best presidential candidate in 2016, but none of them look to be a threat to his re-election in 2014.

For Republicans, the enduring popularity of gun safety bills passed this year is nothing short of disastrous. After having put all of their messaging eggs in this basket this legislative session, the fact that gun safety retains this much support even after Republicans threw the kitchen sink at Democrats portends a very bleak 2014 for them. Not only have they failed to be persuasive, further credibility damage awaits them when those bills take effect in a few weeks–and the outlandish consequences Republicans warned of fail to materialize.

John Suthers, Meet The Wrong Side of History

The Denver Post's Allison Sherry reported moments ago:

Colorado’s Republican Attorney General John Suthers signed onto a brief that urges the Supreme Court to uphold California’s Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage.

Reports Sherry, Attorney General John Suthers claims to be taking this action in defense of Colorado's Amendment 43, passed in 2006 amending our state's constitution to define marriage as "between one man and one woman." Since the passage of Amendment 43 nearly seven years ago, public opinion in this state (and the party affiliation of the state's chief executive) have shifted solidly in support of equality for gays and lesbians. Just last week, Gov. John Hickenlooper signed the Colorado Civil Union Act into law in an historic ceremony at the History Colorado Center.

But today, John Suthers' discordant act against the same equality most of the state is celebrating? To say it stands out in ugly relief, a mark against him any time this man ever aspires to higher office, is an understatement.

Colorado Civil Union Act Signing Today

UPDATE #2: A message from Gov. John Hickenlooper to LGBT advocacy group One Colorado supporters:

Just moments ago, I had the incredible honor of signing civil unions into law.

It was a historic moment for Colorado, which now joins a tide of hope sweeping the nation that affirms all couples should have the protections they need to care for each other and their families…

Today, we should all take a moment to reflect on the critical progress we have made, as well as the powerful difference it will make in the lives of thousands of families across our wonderful state.

Congratulations, and thank you for making Colorado a better place for each and every one of us. 


UPDATE: The photo for the history books, courtesy One Colorado:


Via 9NEWS' Brandon Rittiman, they've got the certificates ready, though May 1st is still a few weeks away:



The Crayon Plan

Hello, Mr. Hispanic person? I’d like to discuss why my party needs your support in order to win elections.

Hispanics don't really like us. We should try to make them like us better. We've taken to calling it the Crayon Plan, because while it looks colorful, ultimately Republicans aren't going to take it seriously.

Yesterday, our friends at "The Fix" outlined some of the key points from the "Growth and Opportunity Project":

If Hispanic Americans hear that the GOP doesnВ’t want them in the United States, they wonВ’t pay attention to our next sentence. It doesnВ’t matter what we say about education, jobs or the economy; if Hispanics think that we do not want them here, they will close their ears to our policies. In essence, Hispanic voters tell us our PartyВ’s position on immigration has become a litmus test, measuring whether we are meeting them with a welcome mat or a closed door.

Sounds nice, don't it? Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus was so excited about it that he announced a big $10 million door-to-door "outreach" program. Now, if they could just figure out what they are actually going to say to Hispanic voters.

Today, Allison Sherry of the Denver Post shows us how implementing this Crayon Plan is going to be a lot harder than scribbling it together in the first place:

To understand the difficulty in passing comprehensive immigration reform on Capitol Hill, just ask Colorado's four House Republicans how they would tackle the problem.

Each has a different solution…

Colorado Republicans all said they believed in strengthening the border and as well as instituting some sort of guest-worker program, but the four were split on what to do with the existing illegal immigrants living in the United States, including those brought to the U.S. as children.

To be sure, Republicans need to do a better job in reaching out to Hispanic voters if they ever hope to start winning again. But there's still that one little asterisk in the plan that cannot be erased: The Tea Party. Even if Republican elected officials agree that they need a more moderate immigration reform plan, many are still too afraid of gaining a primary challenge from the far-right. It's an issue they need to address in order to win a General Election, but the slightest misstep will cost them in a Primary.