May 07, 2024 10:38 AM UTC

Colorado Going Back To The Future on Marriage Equality

• 8 Comments
• by: Colorado Pols

On Sunday, the Colorado House passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 24-003, referring a statewide constitutional amendment to voters this November to repeal the state’s constitutional prohibition on same-sex marriage–a provision that hasn’t been enforced since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision making marriage equality the law of the land, but would suddenly become a big problem in the event that the conservative SCOTUS strikes down Obergefell as Justice Clarence Thomas has suggested. Colorado Newsline’s Sara Wilson:

Even though civil unions for same-sex marriage became legal in the state in 2013 — and same-sex marriages became legal nationwide in 2015 with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling — the Colorado constitution retains language that states, “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.”

Voters narrowly approved that language in 2006 through a ballot initiative, but the Legislature is now considering sending a measure to voters to get rid of the sentence.

“As representatives of the people of Colorado, it is our shared responsibility to uphold the principles of equality and justice for all citizens, regardless of political affiliations,” said state Sen. Joann Ginal, a Fort Collins Democrat. “While we’re protected today, our state constitution still reflects outdated language and values.”

The passage of Amendment 43 in 2006 ran counter to the overall political trends of the state over the last quarter-century, and since then public opinion has dramatically shifted in favor of marriage equality both in Colorado and across the nation. Much like the constitutional amendment voters will encounter this fall to enshrine abortion rights into the state constitution, the marriage equality amendment is expected to boost turnout of voters generally inclined to support Democratic candidates.

But as you might have guessed, don’t tell that to fire-breathing pastor and Rep. Scott “There Is No” Bottoms, who stands ready to refight the culture wars as if Dubya was still President:

As you can see, Rep. Bottoms is not real keen on Obergefell either, and would be overjoyed to see Justice Thomas make good on his musings. During floor debate on the resolution Saturday, Bottoms tread carefully to avoid being gaveled back to decency while still making his paleolithic views on the matter crystal clear:

BOTTOMS: Thank you chair. I don’t actually, disagree with the idea of bringing this before the people. I’m kind of interested what the people think about this, but I do think I have an obligation, to say something about this. I disagree with basically with everything that was just said. Every single thing. And there’s some reasons for that. And I don’t have a problem with people believing that. Everybody gets to believe what they want to believe. But here’s an interesting thing about marriage that I seem to be a little different than the then I would say the average pastor is. In fact, I’ve been, I’ve been, ostracized by ministry contacts because of this. I think the idea of what we call this, state sponsored marriage mentality is not it’s not actually a biblical thing. And the Bible is my foundational book. It’s my worldview. But here is where marriage, went off the rails. My opinion. Is literally in the 1600s, we had, some things going on here, in what we now call the United States. But it wasn’t the United States at the time. And there was some local, groups, some local townships and things like that that were popping up, and people were developing what we now call the United States of America. And. And then we at that there begin to be an understanding of what a government might look like on this continent. And so people begin to do the same things they had been doing in Europe, and they started actually taxing people. And this developed over quite a long time frame. And then all of a sudden they realized if we if we give the people an incentive to be to be taxed, they’ll do it. And so for the first time, we see what evolved later into the equivalent of a marriage license. This had never been done before. And now we see this marriage license mentality. And this marriage license basically was developed that if the state would now sign a contract with these people so that they could, get a, get a tax break, that’s, that’s literally the origination of marriage license…

So if we read this right, Rep. Bottoms is against the marriage tax break? That’s a curious platform to run on as a “family values” Republican. Stay with him, the word salad gets even better:

BOTTOMS: Most people don’t know that, the church was not in favor of it at the time, any more than I’m in favor of it today. I think it’s a I think it’s, I think it’s a humanistic approach to something that is not a human thing. Okay? So then what happens is now you have something called a marriage license. For the first time ever, the state is the one that is qualifying people to be married. And I don’t think that’s okay. Marriage was never between people and a state or governmental thought process or anything like that. Marriage was always between people and God. God established marriage in the in the first chapter of Genesis. This was this is a God ordained, God created thing. Men. Humankind didn’t create marriage. This was this was never a human-created thing. In fact, a marriage predates any institution that’s ever existed, including religion. And so now we then- So now we have this idea that the state is the one who decides this. This is why when when the church- I’ve had this discussion at a very high level, denominational groups and things like that, and I tell them, we sold we sold out a long time ago. I’m saying the church. The people of God sold out a long time ago because we wanted a tax break. [Pols emphasis] This had nothing to do with the state. People are not supposed to be making decisions about who can get married and who can’t get married. [Pols emphasis] There’s only one person that makes that decision. That’s God. And he decides. And he’s already told us in the Bible. And I know this is not. This is countercultural, and it’s the exact opposite of what the sponsors are saying. I get all that. That doesn’t bother me a bit. I know at the end of the day that God created marriage. People didn’t. You can marry whatever you want. You can marry a tree. You can marry a goat. Because that’s man-created concepts. Those are man-created unions. But if you want what God says is marriage because he’s the one who made it, then you have to go by his rules. And God said, between a man and a woman, that doesn’t change just because we decide to change it.

And there we have it, folks. Marrying trees and goats. You knew this wasn’t going to end seriously, and you were right.

Even in the years prior to the Obergefell decision, there was a vocal minority among Colorado Republicans who were increasingly disgusted by the culture wars vigorously prosecuted by the religious right and aware that such extremism counter to the changing attitudes of voters was a major long-term problem for the Republican Party. But as the Colorado GOP lurched right and not coincidentally lost their last vestiges of power in recent years, those voices have been effectively squelched.

If Rep. Bottoms becomes the face of opposition to this ballot measure, he’ll make the blowback on fellow Republicans worse–and the margin of victory greater.