Gay Benefits Gain Traction in Colorado

[Frodo]

Colorado Gay Benefits Gain Traction

By 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
February 21, 2006 - 5:00 pm ET

(Denver, Colorado) A proposal that would give same-sex couples some of the benefits of marriage has been filed in the Colorado legislature.  If adopted it would put the plan to voters in November.

The House late Monday referred the bill to the Judiciary Committee.

The Colorado Domestic Partnership Benefits and Responsibilities Act is a response from Democrats to a Republican backed ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriage in the state.

The domestic partner measure would give same-sex couples the right to visitation and to be involved in the care of hospital patients and nursing home residents, protection of property rights, including inheritance and pension benefits, access to a partner's health care benefits and family leave benefits, and the right to take possession of a deceased partner's remains.

GOP lawmakers say the bill would be tantamount to endorsing gay marriage, but to take reservations some Coloradans have about the anti-gay marriage amendment Republicans in the Senate are pushing a bill that would grant some limited rights to a wide range of adult partners referred to as "reciprocal beneficiaries" - which would includes same-sex couples, siblings and roommates.

source

[Alcon]

Colorado may have some left leans, but I'd be surprised if this passed, honestly.  A shame.

[Brandon H]

Dr. Dobson of Focus on the Family supports this. (I'm not joking.)

[MODU]

Colorado may have some left leans, but I'd be surprised if this passed, honestly.  A shame.

Agreed.

[Gabu]

Dr. Dobson of Focus on the Family supports this. (I'm not joking.)

????

That's the last person I would have expected to support something like this.

[Ebowed]

"Gay benefits" makes it sound like they get something extra that straight people don't.

[Platypus]

"Gay benefits" makes it sound like they get something extra that straight people don't.

Well, they would be-unless those straight people were also married/in a relationship.

[Smash255]

Colorado may have some left leans, but I'd be surprised if this passed, honestly.  A shame.

A good porttion of the state lives in metro Denver which is moving pretty quickly to the left.  Parts of the Denver suburbs, especially Boulder County are quite liberal especially very socially liberal (probably more liberal than the suburbs in the mid-atlantic & northeast).  The ski resort areas are also very socially liberal.  The state does have its conservative areas, especially around Colorado Springs, but the state in general is moving quite a bit to the left & is easily the most socially liberal of the states Bush won in 2004.

[Alcon]

Colorado may have some left leans, but I'd be surprised if this passed, honestly.  A shame.

A good porttion of the state lives in metro Denver which is moving pretty quickly to the left.  Parts of the Denver suburbs, especially Boulder County are quite liberal especially very socially liberal (probably more liberal than the suburbs in the mid-atlantic & northeast).  The ski resort areas are also very socially liberal.  The state does have its conservative areas, especially around Colorado Springs, but the state in general is moving quite a bit to the left & is easily the most socially liberal of the states Bush won in 2004.

I'm pretty sure Boulder County isn't suburban Denver, but rather Boulder.

Besides, Denver suburbs like Adams and Douglas Counties are very, very conservative.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'd be shocked if a Bush state decided to not be bigotted.

[Gabu]

I'd be shocked if a Bush state decided to not be bigotted.

The results from Colorado in the 2004 elections were Bush 51.69% - Kerry 47.02%.  This is pretty damn close to the national result of Bush 50.73% - Kerry 48.27%.  Does that make America a "Bush country"?

A state is not defined wholly by whom it votes for in presidential elections; otherwise, every single state except for Minnesota would be a "Reagan state".

[A18]

I find it amusing that same people who whine about bigotry in this case, turn around and oppose polygamy and incestuous marriage.

[MasterJedi]

Give them the benefits if they want them just don't let them get married.

[MODU]

Give them the benefits if they want them just don't let them get married.

 

They already have all the benefits any single person has.  There is no need to grant them any other special benefits.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'd be shocked if a Bush state decided to not be bigotted.

The results from Colorado in the 2004 elections were Bush 51.69% - Kerry 47.02%.  This is pretty damn close to the national result of Bush 50.73% - Kerry 48.27%.  Does that make America a "Bush country"?

A state is not defined wholly by whom it votes for in presidential elections; otherwise, every single state except for Minnesota would be a "Reagan state".

WTF does Reagan have to do with gay marriage or civil unions in 2006?  It was Bush who called for a constitutional amendment to revoke valid Massachusetts marriage licenses.

[John Dibble]

I'd be shocked if a Bush state decided to not be bigotted.

The results from Colorado in the 2004 elections were Bush 51.69% - Kerry 47.02%.  This is pretty damn close to the national result of Bush 50.73% - Kerry 48.27%.  Does that make America a "Bush country"?

A state is not defined wholly by whom it votes for in presidential elections; otherwise, every single state except for Minnesota would be a "Reagan state".

WTF does Reagan have to do with gay marriage or civil unions in 2006?  It was Bush who called for a constitutional amendment to revoke valid Massachusetts marriage licenses.

And jfern misses the point entirely. No surprise there.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'd be shocked if a Bush state decided to not be bigotted.

The results from Colorado in the 2004 elections were Bush 51.69% - Kerry 47.02%.  This is pretty damn close to the national result of Bush 50.73% - Kerry 48.27%.  Does that make America a "Bush country"?

A state is not defined wholly by whom it votes for in presidential elections; otherwise, every single state except for Minnesota would be a "Reagan state".

WTF does Reagan have to do with gay marriage or civil unions in 2006?  It was Bush who called for a constitutional amendment to revoke valid Massachusetts marriage licenses.

And jfern misses the point entirely. No surprise there.

Get a real argument dumbass.

[opebo]

I'd be shocked if a Bush state decided to not be bigotted.

The results from Colorado in the 2004 elections were Bush 51.69% - Kerry 47.02%.  This is pretty damn close to the national result of Bush 50.73% - Kerry 48.27%.  Does that make America a "Bush country"?

A state is not defined wholly by whom it votes for in presidential elections; otherwise, every single state except for Minnesota would be a "Reagan state".

In general, bigotry is more pervasive than just support for the Bigoted Party.  For example, while certainly nearly all Republicans support bigotry, so do a fair number of Democrats - perhaps even a majority.  Therefore, jfern is correct in assuming that a vote against bigotry is unlikely in a Bush state.  Only in a state that not only voted for Kerry, but did so by an overwhelming margin, is a tolerant vote likely.  Say, perhaps, in Vermont or some such place.

[Ebowed]

Give them the benefits if they want them just don't let them get married.

 

They already have all the benefits any single person has.  There is no need to grant them any other special benefits.

Yes, hospital visitation rights are an extra right now.  It's cool to be gay now, because you get special benefits.

[Platypus]

Give them the benefits if they want them just don't let them get married.

 

They already have all the benefits any single person has.  There is no need to grant them any other special benefits.

Yes, hospital visitation rights are an extra right now.  It's cool to be gay now, because you get special benefits.

Of course, they aren't extra when compared to straight couples, only straight singles.

[Jacobtm]

I find it amusing that same people who whine about bigotry in this case, turn around and oppose polygamy and incestuous marriage.

I support gay couples having the same rights/priveleges as heterosexual couples. I also support the same with Polygamy.

Incest however, leads to genetically deformed children, which is why I don't support it.

In my opinion, most people who are for gay marriage but against polygamy have been propagandized into that position, or are just not admitting to support polygamy, because it's so radically unpopular.

[Ebowed]

In my opinion, most people who are for gay marriage but against polygamy have been propagandized into that position, or are just not admitting to support polygamy, because it's so radically unpopular.

I disagree.  While supporting gay marriage may be a comfortable opinion on this forum, in the real world, especially in the South, it's not a position you can flaunt in public without embarassment.  So one supporting gay marriage but opposing polygamy (as is the case with myself) is not necessarily doing so because polygamy is unpopular.

[A18]

Incest however, leads to genetically deformed children, which is why I don't support it.

Do you have the statistics? I don't think the difference is all that big between normal and incestuous couples.

Anyway, two sisters or brother could want to get married (or three or four, or whatever).

I respect your position, nonetheless. I was mostly just responding to jFraud.