Colorado votes NO to gay marriage

[Zander]

Personally, I am in favor of "gay marriage". It is a Libertarian issue for me and I do not condone government discrimination against any group. It seems to me that most people don't have a problem with gays getting the same rights that married people enjoy- they object to the use of the word "marriage". Marriage is a concept that has long been "one man and one woman" (except in a few polygamist societies). Maybe the path of least resistance for gays is to take the "civil union" route, whereby states can grant gay couples the EXACT same rights as married couples, they simply call it something else. Seems like a minor compromise that would accomplish the objective...

So how are you going to prevent people from tossing the word marriage around? Pass a law?

That worked so well when people tried to prevent the word gay from meaning homosexual.

I doubt people will stand around at cocktail parties and talk about how their friends got "civil unionized".

That's my point. The legal definition would be "civil union" but colloquially everyone would refer to it as "marriage". Win/Win

 

[sfcalifornia]

Personally, I am in favor of "gay marriage". It is a Libertarian issue for me and I do not condone government discrimination against any group. It seems to me that most people don't have a problem with gays getting the same rights that married people enjoy- they object to the use of the word "marriage". Marriage is a concept that has long been "one man and one woman" (except in a few polygamist societies). Maybe the path of least resistance for gays is to take the "civil union" route, whereby states can grant gay couples the EXACT same rights as married couples, they simply call it something else. Seems like a minor compromise that would accomplish the objective...

So how are you going to prevent people from tossing the word marriage around? Pass a law?

That worked so well when people tried to prevent the word gay from meaning homosexual.

I doubt people will stand around at cocktail parties and talk about how their friends got "civil unionized".

That's my point. The legal definition would be "civil union" but colloquially everyone would refer to it as "marriage". Win/Win

What happens when gay couples have their ceremonies performed by religious institutions which also call it marriage?

 

[asaratis]

Personally, I am in favor of "gay marriage". It is a Libertarian issue for me and I do not condone government discrimination against any group. It seems to me that most people don't have a problem with gays getting the same rights that married people enjoy- they object to the use of the word "marriage". Marriage is a concept that has long been "one man and one woman" (except in a few polygamist societies). Maybe the path of least resistance for gays is to take the "civil union" route, whereby states can grant gay couples the EXACT same rights as married couples, they simply call it something else. Seems like a minor compromise that would accomplish the objective...

I have been pushing that for years. Let the gay/lesbian couples have MORE rights than I do. I don't care. There is just no need to change the definition of marriage as it applies to traditional couples.

I have argued that it is not just the rights and privileges that they gay side wants...it is to be able to say, "we won!"

 

[Zander]

So how are you going to prevent people from tossing the word marriage around? Pass a law?

That worked so well when people tried to prevent the word gay from meaning homosexual.

I doubt people will stand around at cocktail parties and talk about how their friends got "civil unionized".

That's my point. The legal definition would be "civil union" but colloquially everyone would refer to it as "marriage". Win/Win

What happens when gay couples have their ceremonies performed by religious institutions which also call it marriage?

Who cares? If a religious institution wants to call it a "baloney sandwich" it's none of my business- it's the legal definition that matters.

 

[asaratis]

Personally, I am in favor of "gay marriage". It is a Libertarian issue for me and I do not condone government discrimination against any group. It seems to me that most people don't have a problem with gays getting the same rights that married people enjoy- they object to the use of the word "marriage". Marriage is a concept that has long been "one man and one woman" (except in a few polygamist societies). Maybe the path of least resistance for gays is to take the "civil union" route, whereby states can grant gay couples the EXACT same rights as married couples, they simply call it something else. Seems like a minor compromise that would accomplish the objective...

I have been pushing that for years. Let the gay/lesbian couples have MORE rights than I do. I don't care. There is just no need to change the definition of marriage as it applies to traditional couples.

I have argued that it is not just the rights and privileges that they gay side wants...it is t say, "we won!"

...and Mitt Romney's saying that he believed marriage was between one man and one woman did NOT say that he is against gay couples having the same rights as married couples.

As far as the church goes, the government cannot make the churches do a goddamned thing!...and stay within the confines of the Constitution. Churches already have tax exemptions...maybe Obama could threaten to nix those if churches refuse to perform same-sex unions. (Yes, I said UNIONS!)

 

[Big Black Dog]

What part of "NO" is so hard to understand?

 

[Bigfoot]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/us/colorado-rejects-same-sex-civil-unions.html?_r=2&hp

Yet another state to reject gay marriage. And Colorado of all places.

This was a huge fuck up for Team Obama. Most Americans do not support gay marriage. I dont care about the issue, but I DO CARE about defeating Obama. And this topic may have pushed the snowball over the slope that will accumulate enough momentum to grow on itself and kick him out of Washington. Yay!

Oh god. They look like Mississippi!

LOL, good one

 

[sfcalifornia]

That's my point. The legal definition would be "civil union" but colloquially everyone would refer to it as "marriage". Win/Win

What happens when gay couples have their ceremonies performed by religious institutions which also call it marriage?

Who cares? If a religious institution wants to call it a "baloney sandwich" it's none of my business- it's the legal definition that matters.

Well then who cares if the government calls it "baloney sandwich"?

 

[Bigfoot]

Personally, I am in favor of "gay marriage". It is a Libertarian issue for me and I do not condone government discrimination against any group. It seems to me that most people don't have a problem with gays getting the same rights that married people enjoy- they object to the use of the word "marriage". Marriage is a concept that has long been "one man and one woman" (except in a few polygamist societies). Maybe the path of least resistance for gays is to take the "civil union" route, whereby states can grant gay couples the EXACT same rights as married couples, they simply call it something else. Seems like a minor compromise that would accomplish the objective...

I could live with that and I can't stand being around those degenerates.

 

[Zander]

What happens when gay couples have their ceremonies performed by religious institutions which also call it marriage?

Who cares? If a religious institution wants to call it a "baloney sandwich" it's none of my business- it's the legal definition that matters.

Well then who cares if the government calls it "baloney sandwich"?

Now you're being obtuse.

 

[Zander]

Personally, I am in favor of "gay marriage". It is a Libertarian issue for me and I do not condone government discrimination against any group. It seems to me that most people don't have a problem with gays getting the same rights that married people enjoy- they object to the use of the word "marriage". Marriage is a concept that has long been "one man and one woman" (except in a few polygamist societies). Maybe the path of least resistance for gays is to take the "civil union" route, whereby states can grant gay couples the EXACT same rights as married couples, they simply call it something else. Seems like a minor compromise that would accomplish the objective...

I could live with that and I can't stand being around those degenerates.

I think most people are willing to compromise even if they do not approve of homosexuality....well, unless you are gay. Gays are determined to call their unions "marriage" even though they do not meet the definition. It's like black people demanding to be called "white". It's silly. If I were gay I'd focus on getting the legal rights first, and worry about what it's called later......

 

[sfcalifornia]

Who cares? If a religious institution wants to call it a "baloney sandwich" it's none of my business- it's the legal definition that matters.

Well then who cares if the government calls it "baloney sandwich"?

Now you're being obtuse.

No, it's you who's being obtuse.

If the word marriage is already being widely used colloquially as you admit and there are religious institutions performing marriage ceremonies for gay people, what difference does it make if the government calls it marriage too?

 

[Inthemiddle]

I dont care about the issue, but I DO CARE about defeating Obama.

And that is why you're a raving lunatic.

 

[Claudette]

Rather surprised by this as from what I've heard Colorado is a pretty liberal place.

Mayby not.

 

[Flopper]

According to the gay representative "most" Coloradoans (right term?) want it.

But a majority voted those folks in. And those folks "represent" the people. ANd they voted no to it.

The people did not vote. The legislature did not vote. The bill was killed in the State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee by the GOP. The vote was 5 -4 along party lines, the GOP doing what they does best, denying freedom of choice.

 

[Listening]

According to the gay representative "most" Coloradoans (right term?) want it.

But a majority voted those folks in. And those folks "represent" the people. ANd they voted no to it.

The people did not vote. The legislature did not vote. The bill was killed in the State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee by the GOP. The vote was 5 -4 along party lines, the GOP doing what they does best, denying freedom of choice.

The good people of Colorado should have no problem getting this on some kind of ballot.

Then they can exercise their freedom of choice.

To his point, this is a representative democracy and the people they voted for will carry out their wishes....or be replaced.

But you knew that.

 

[oreo]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/us/colorado-rejects-same-sex-civil-unions.html?_r=2&hp

Yet another state to reject gay marriage. And Colorado of all places.

This was a huge fuck up for Team Obama. Most Americans do not support gay marriage. I dont care about the issue, but I DO CARE about defeating Obama. And this topic may have pushed the snowball over the slope that will accumulate enough momentum to grow on itself and kick him out of Washington. Yay!

Colorado voted against civil unions. Which shows the sentiment in this state--making it the 31st state to vote or ban civil unions and or gay marriage. It's not looking good for the Obama team. They thought they would get a step up--but have completely fallen off a ladder.

According to a recent CNN poll--67% of this country feel that Obama endorsed gay marriage for political gain--and nothing else. Obama had a 16 point lead among women a few weeks ago--now Romney is leading with women and independents.

I would hate to be a democrat right now up for reelection in November.

Poll: Romney up, Obama down among women | Politics - WCVB Home

 

[oreo]

According to the gay representative "most" Coloradoans (right term?) want it.

But a majority voted those folks in. And those folks "represent" the people. ANd they voted no to it.

The people did not vote. The legislature did not vote. The bill was killed in the State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee by the GOP. The vote was 5 -4 along party lines, the GOP doing what they does best, denying freedom of choice.

I agree--this issue needs to be on the ballot in Colorado--BUT if it is--it still may not pass the will of the voters in this state. This was a civil union bill--not a gay marriage bill. A gay marriage ballot proposal would never pass in Colorado.

 

[Flopper]

According to the gay representative "most" Coloradoans (right term?) want it.

But a majority voted those folks in. And those folks "represent" the people. ANd they voted no to it.

The people did not vote. The legislature did not vote. The bill was killed in the State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee by the GOP. The vote was 5 -4 along party lines, the GOP doing what they does best, denying freedom of choice.

I agree--this issue needs to be on the ballot in Colorado--BUT if it is--it still may not pass the will of the voters in this state. This was a civil union bill--not a gay marriage bill. A gay marriage ballot proposal would never pass in Colorado.

Never say never. That's a along time; support for gay marriage has been steadily increasing over the last 15 years.

 

[Peach]

For now. Time is on our side.

There IS no "our"; the liberty of all Americans is in jeopardy when the first individual is marked. "It can't happen here" is no longer a cliche.