U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 17, 2014 08:29 AM UTC
23 Comments
I've been following this issue very closely as I have a dog in this fight. Reading APstory after AP story and legal brief after legal brief from the states' (weak) attempts at defending them it is clear to me that once again, the state's got nothing: marriage is about chldren, it contradicts religious teaching, and my personal favorite; the people voted for it. See? Nothing. The law's going down and any day a ruling is coming down from the 10th Circuit that will overturn Colorado's law anyway. Of course, they'll appeal. I'm taking bets on which Circuit's case will be heard by SCOTUS and drive the last nail into DOMA's coffin.
How the U.S. Supreme Court rules is hard to predict: they've voided amendments in the past (e.g. Colorado's Amendment 2), however, part of me suspects that the court will be reluctant to outright strike down a state constutitional amendment. It's something you want do sparingly–otherwise federlism is virtually meaningless, and if nothing else–the courts get accused of the dreaded "judicial activism."
I'm completely in favor of the amendment banning same-sex marriage being removed; however, I'm not sure a court decision is the best way to do so.
That's the only way it's ever going to happen, U.S. Besides, what these mini-DOMAs violate is the principle of comity. That is what Loving v. Virginia was partially about. The marriage was legal in D.C.; in Virginia it was a crime. In states with mini-DOMAs the same-gender marriages are void, thus violating the 14th Amendment right "freely to travel among the several states". If one's marriage ceases to exist when one crosses a border into a state that does not recognize it, one is limited in where one can go.
The only division is in the Republican Party? Really? Who represents the pro-equality side within the Republican Party? Is there a single elected republican…or republican candidate for any office in Colorado that is pro-equal marriage rights? They seem pretty uniform to me and anyone else who is paying attention. The only division on gay issues in the Republican party of late seems to be if gays are worthy of stoning or reparative therapy.
You aren't so far off.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/06/11/oklahoma_tea_party_candidate_scott_esk_supports_stoning_gay_people_to_death.html
No Crap! I wasn't being facetious.
He'd be easy to get rid of in just one direct mail piece. Send a postcard and tell the voters he's trying to bring Sharia law to Oklahoma.
There was the Log Cabin Republicans, but then they cashed in their credibility attacking Jared Polis.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/30/greg-abbott-log-cabin-republicans_n_5418458.htmlLog Cabin Republicans? They are not even welcomed in their own party…they are just too stupid to realize it.
Thanks for the link, A1. As closely as I've been followin the marraiage fight, I missed this, but it figures.
Next year they'll probably let them in just to try to conduct an intervention….
Not welcome and apparently lucky to escape being stoned to death. What's with these self loathing gay Republicans?
My big worry about this is that there is no controlling Federal court decision to contradict the Colorado State Constitution. While Scalia's words are often quoted from the DOMA case, it was a dissent about a peripherally related issue. To date, Federal district courts are the highest level ruling on gay marriage rights. And that's not sufficient to overturn a Constitutional provision.
While this state Court judge might rule against the state, it is an open question whether the state Supreme Court would uphold just a ruling overturning a provision in the state Constitution which they are obligated to uphold barring a ruling from above (US Court of Appeals or Supreme Court), or a finding that the Constitutional provision clearly violates the US Constitution. Since the court already ruled that Amendment 43 language was valid, such a finding would be a pretty severe turnaround.
Of course, it's possible the 10th Circuit could rule on the Utah case in favor of gay marriage soon – and not issue a stay. In that case, the state court would be obligated to overturn Colorado's ban.
Just MHO. I am not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV.
I'm not a lawyer either, Phoenix, but I've been watching these cases and the states haven't won one since Windor was handed down. !5 in a row have been stricken for being in conflict with SCOTUS' reasoning in that case. They are all based in "bare animus toward an unpopular group" as Justce Kennedy wrote.
Oklahoma is also in the 10th Circuit and it's a bit of a race which of them will hit the Tenth Circuit first.
Utah was heard April 10; Oklahoma on April 17. My guess is they'll rule on both at the same time, and soon.
My point is that this case is being heard in the Colorado state court system. The state courts are limited in their ability to rule on things – and one of those limitations is that they can't just invalidate sections of our state Constitution. If a Federal court covering our state rules generally on gay marriage, then they'll have something to go on. If there were a clear ruling on the Constitutionality of gay marriage bans, they could rule.
But simply having a plethora of Federal district courts (and state courts in states unlike Colorado that have broad grants of rights) ruling against the bans doesn't help our state courts overcome the hurdle that is presented by enshrining the ban into the state's Constitution. My hunch is that they need more than that.
Phoenix, I just re-read your post and wanted to address your point about the court ruling on the acceptability of the language in Amendment 43. The court ruled on the wording of the question, but said nothing about its constitutionality as that would have been considered prior restraint. The language of Amendment 2 was also challenged and found to be acceptable, only to be enjoined the day after it passed at the ballot box. Again, I'm no lawyer, either, I just watched that case with as keen interest as I've been watching this drama play out and I see little chance for a different outcome.
You are, of course, right on the Court's pre-ballot ruling – it's just the wording.
However, I still maintain that there is no clear guidance at the Federal level for the state courts to follow in this case – but there will be by the time the case hits the Colorado Supreme Court.
In the event that the US Court of Appeals rules for Utah and Oklahoma, Colorado's case becomes a separate issue – whether civil unions have any reason for being distinct from marriage. IMHO the CO Supreme Court would rule on this.
In the more likely event that the 10th Circuit rules against Utah and Oklahoma, the Colorado Supreme Court will likely tie A43's fate to those cases. While they're stayed, the Colorado Supreme Court will probably await the Federal ruling. If there's no stay, the justices will probably overturn A43 based on the fact that the Appeals Court ruling is binding on the state.
John Suthers always seems to end up defending the losing side: e.g. Affordable Care, and now same-sex marriage.
Cook, you'd get married if you could?
I wonder how much the bans on gay marriage create impermanence and infidelity in gay culture. You and I know how prevalent that is. (I'm bisexual).
So far, all my long term marriages, straight and gay, have failed in the end, for similar reasons, but I did get two great kids out of the straight one. I wonder if gay marriage had been legal then, how that would affect commitment and quality of same-sex relationships.
MamaJ I have a secret. My spouse is a M-F TS. We were legally married over 20 years ago as male and female- long after she partially transitioned. We figured that if Colorado wouldn't allow her to change her documetation (which at the time, it would not) then we should hang 'em with their own rope. My interest in these cases now is actually in Virginia, where her company is based. They won't recognize the marriage as F-F so it affects my elegibilityfor health insurance on her company plan.
Good luck with getting the same legal rights most of the country takes for granted.
Doug Lamborn and Bentley Rayburn in their debate last night were trying to outdo each other in continuing to oppose same-sex marriage.
Of course it's headed for history's dustbin — with or without Suthers, or Quick — as it should be.
Doesn't change anything about the fact that even in his wettest dream, Quick won't be AG — and could never be half the AG of Suthers, or even of Quick's opponent.
Too bad really. There's dozens of Dems that would make great AGs for Colorado, and hundreds who could do better than Quick. I can't figure out why this chump is the best we could land this cycle???