Colorado Civil Unions Bill Passes Second Reading In Senate

The Colorado Senate approved a bill on second reading Wednesday morning that would establish Civil Unions for gay couples in the state.

Senate Bill 172--sponsored by Denver Democrat Pat Steadman--would "authorize any 2 unmarried adults, regardless of gender, to enter into a civil union" that would ensure them eligibility for public assistance benefits, rights to visit one another in a correctional facility, and the ability to inherit property, among other rights.

The approval came after an emotional debate Monday morning during which Steadman, who is gay, called the bill essential for ensuring "very basic, but very important legal protections... that no family should be without."

Republican Kevin Lundberg, who voted against SB 172, said the bill "would change the very concept of what marriage is."

"This is not in line with what the people of Colorado have called for... [It's] not in line with the spirit of the constitution," Lundberg said in referencing a 2006 ballot initiative that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. The initiative passed with 55 percent of the vote.

The Civil Unions Act, as SB 172 is being called, would definitively not establish gay marriage rights in Colorado, but rather a distinct legal partnership that would allow gay couples to take advantage of some of the benefits that married couples enjoy.

Nonetheless, Lundberg expressed doubts over the constitutionality of the bill.

"Civil Unons are, in fact, as close to marriage we can come to marriage in Colorado," he said. "That is the fundamental problem and point as I can see it."

Recent public polling has suggested that 70% of Coloradans support some kind of legally recognized domestic partnerships for gay couples.

The bill faces one more vote in the Senate before moving to the Republican-controlled House, where it figures to face stronger opposition than in the Democratic Senate.

The Colorado Statesman's Ernest Luning tweeted a quote from Republican House Speaker Frank McNulty, who promised a fair hearing for the bill in the House.

"When we get it, we will assign it to committee and wherever it's assigned, it will receive a fair hearing," McNulty said.

READ THE BILL:

172_01

Comments

[johnb123]

11:50 PM on 03/27/2011

As a Christian, if I had a business and a gay couple demanded I do their wedding. I will explain I'm a Christian and would not be the best person to do your wedding, I will refer you to someone else. If they refuse, I'll tell them, I do carry bible tracks with me, and I have this annoying habit of shouting out bible verses, when I feel the need. But, hey, if it's no problem to you, fine. I'll stay within the law, but it will be very uncomfortable for you.

[Clive Coogan]

12:14 AM on 03/28/2011

As a business owner, if a Christian came in and asked me to do their wedding dinner, I would explain that I am sick of tired old bible babble and bigotry. If they refuse to take no for an answer, I will crank up Nina Hagen and The Clash. If a gay couple came in and asked me to do their wedding I would roll out the red carpet and serve make sure I served meat on a Friday.

[johnb123]

12:18 AM on 03/28/2011

You can do anything you want, as long as it's within the law. If I don't want a customer, I'll just make the service so bad they won't come back.

[Ioan Lightoller]

08:38 PM on 03/28/2011

Fanned and faved. Amen to that. The Xtians always have to be showy about every damn thing. It's all about them, all the time.

[Ioan Lightoller]

09:07 PM on 03/28/2011

Oh and it is is "tracts", not "tracts". Did they not teach spelling when you were homeschooled?

[johnb123]

11:28 PM on 03/27/2011

 If you're really serious about getting married, go to a state where it's legal. There, you're married. In your day to day lives, it won't matter to anyone else and the state (even if it's not legal) won't bother you. Just tell people you got married in Iowa. If your marriage doesn't work out, no problem. You don't have to go to court and hire a lawyer for a divorce. It's a win, win.
 

[Clive Coogan]

12:20 AM on 03/28/2011

Go Colorado... Bring on Gay Equality!

[Ioan Lightoller]

08:44 PM on 03/28/2011

Yeah! I'm cheering them on, too though we will not be fully equal until we have Marriage Equality.

[Ioan Lightoller]

09:01 PM on 03/28/2011

Nope. One day we will make sure that it will be legal in all 50 states. Not up and moving to some other state because of your prejudice.

[runtwelds]

12:51 PM on 03/26/2011

Hey Lundberg! You don't speak for all of us, some narrow minded coloradoans are opposed. Why do repubs always speak as if every single person is on their side?

[SteveDenver]

12:17 AM on 03/25/2011

For all of those who claim marriage is between "one woman and one man," it needs to be defined as "only once." You said "'Til death do us part" and you're not dead yet.

As for "marriage," what a tenuous joke. Heterosexuals have achieved a 53% divorce rate on their own, no help from us gays.

[Ioan Lightoller]

08:39 PM on 03/28/2011

Oh, amen and faved, Steve. I am so sick of their hypocrisy that they're "protecting marriage". Then ourtlaw divorce you hypocrites.

[johnb123]

10:26 PM on 03/24/2011

As a Christian, I could care less if you get a civil union or domestic partnership, just leave marriage alone.

[roald]

08:59 AM on 03/25/2011

Why? Marriage is a contract between two people, established and maintained by the state. The state allows religious leaders, among others, to act as its representative in performing a ritual that finalizes the contract.

[johnb123]

09:59 AM on 03/25/2011

Because the next  step is to use it against the church. Sooner or later someone wil sue the church for discimination.

[roald]

10:46 AM on 03/27/2011

Rereading this comment and your later posts, I see that you care a lot about civil unions and domestic partnerships and that you do not want them.

The typo - care vs. care less - is a Freudian slip.

[johnb123]

10:57 AM on 03/27/2011

I have problem with gays having a civil union or domestic partnership. I'd even support them having the same rights  as marriage under them. Leave the word marriage to the church.

[berrycuda]

02:17 PM on 03/24/2011

The Federal government should NOT recognize marraige at all! It's a religous arrangement.

This upsets me, not because of the "rights" issuses, but with all the problems we currently have with the federal government, cowtowing to a VERY SMALL minority of people is ridiculous at this time!

[Myoho]

03:35 PM on 03/24/2011

... so, two people who do not believe in God cannot get married then?

Marriage is a recognition of the state not religion. Even if married in a church environment... the license is provided by the state.

Your observation is incorrect.

[roald]

09:03 AM on 03/25/2011

Not only is the license provided by the state, registration of the marriage itself is maintained by the state. The state determines who is and who is not allowed to finalize the contract (marry the couple). The state determines the rights the married couple have within civil law (the law that affects the majority and the minority berry references. The state determines whether and how the contract will be broken.

[midknightryder13]

07:13 PM on 03/25/2011

Further, the person performing the ceremony must be so empowered BY THE STATE to do so, else the marriage will not be recognized by the state.

[CrazyThisIs]

03:42 PM on 03/24/2011

So, cow-towing to a bigger minority would be just fine with you?

[kkschachter]

02:15 PM on 03/24/2011

Interestingly, SB-172 allows for civil unions between two individuals of EITHER SEX, including two heterosexuals. By framing the bill in terms of 'either sex,' the senate does two things of note, one negative and the other positive. First, by defining sex here in terms of 'either' one or the other, impresses upon the reader the antiquated notion that the sexes (male and female) can be cleanly split down the middle, and ignores the reality that many human beings do not so define themselves. Second, and perhaps unintended, SB-172 opens the doorway to civil unions between consenting heterosexuals, co-parenters, and seniors. In France (as well as the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Andorra), the pacte civil de solidarite (PACS) is an increasingly popular option for heterosexuals. The potential development of this 'side effect' of SB-172 should be acknowledged and supported. Marriage is not a issue for the US government to decide, but rather, for religious institutions. Civil unions, on the other hand, should confer the rights of all citizens to enter into legally binding, albeit 'non-conventional' agreements.

[roald]

09:05 AM on 03/25/2011

Marriage is a state-sanctioned contract.

I propose replacing "religious marriage" with "religious union". Would a couple married in a church then feel like second-class citizens?

[Ametista]

02:00 PM on 03/24/2011

Marriage should only be for respectful straight people who appreciate the sanctity of such a union, like Liz Taylor.
Snark.

[roald]

09:06 AM on 03/25/2011

And Larry King, Newt Gingrich, and John McCain.

[Rand Johnson]

01:13 PM on 03/24/2011

If it is true that there is a need to protect "marriage" then wouldn't demonizing "civil unions", (nothing to do with marriage) be blatant evidence that there is no intention of protecting marriage and simply making sure that gays get nothing? Marriage protection is a lie. Punishing gays is the full intention.

[SteveDenver]

12:20 AM on 03/25/2011

Marriage is only sacred when gays and lesbians want it. Many heterosexuals use marriage like a tissue, then throw it away.

[roald]

09:07 AM on 03/25/2011

Steve - Rand makes a good point as do you.

[Ioan Lightoller]

09:05 PM on 03/28/2011

Fanned and faved. Of course their whole "protecting marriage" spiel is driven by the determination to give GLBT people get nothing. The fact that they oppose civil unions as well as marriage equality shows this very clearly.

[Vampyre Dog]

12:56 PM on 03/24/2011

If this passes I might try to marry a toaster just to make fundies mad. It is fun to make people right sometimes.

[Ametista]

02:01 PM on 03/24/2011

It states 'between two unmarried people". But they consider corporations people so maybe the toaster will work after all.

[CrazyThisIs]

03:45 PM on 03/24/2011

Unless the toaster can "consent" you're out of luck!

[Vampyre Dog]

04:09 PM on 03/24/2011

If it does how would you know? Are the f@scists going to make toasters speak English now?

[juzcuz]

11:05 AM on 03/24/2011

I like the phrase, "the spirit of the Constitution"!!
Also the Repug who says, "The bill "would change the very concept of what marriage is."
Please tell us Mr. Bigot... what exactly is the VERY CONCEPT OF MARRIAGE?? I'd really like to hear you put that in your own words.

[J Michael Norris]

04:04 AM on 03/24/2011

I still don't understand the "gays can get married but we just won't call it marriage" shtick. I mean, are people really that hung up on a word? And liberals are supposed to be the PC Police.

Separate but equal is always separate but never equal.

[juzcuz]

11:09 AM on 03/24/2011

Yes, one 8-letter word is at the core of this whole issue. "Marriage" is the ONLY word in the English language that allows for benefits & privileges for each citizen. The term civil union does NOT allow for federally recognized benefits/privileges. One measley word is the wedge that gives some Americans equality and justice... and other Americans NO equality or justice.

[J Michael Norris]

01:18 PM on 03/24/2011

Methinks you did not understand my post.

And FYI, right now marriage at the state level does NOT allw for federally recognized benefits/privileges either.

[adgreener]

03:15 AM on 03/24/2011

Separate, but equal. How sad.

[jbrantow]

11:10 AM on 03/24/2011

Is it time to have separate drinking fountains for married couples and civil union couples?

[Ametista]

02:02 PM on 03/24/2011

And the CU peeps have to sit at the back of the bus!

[Ioan Lightoller]

09:08 PM on 03/28/2011

F/F. Just what I would expect from the Xtian fundies though. They love to have someone to look down on.

[armywifee]

02:03 AM on 03/24/2011

This is a good step forward.
Where I'm from nobody cares who's sleeping with whom (it's nobody's business) or who's married to whom. Considered impolite and backwards to cluck cluck about it.
That would be Canada.

[juzcuz]

11:10 AM on 03/24/2011

I do envy Canadiens - you do seem to have the best of all worlds - if I could move up there I would.
So I'll keep working here in the states to maybe someday see our country progress to your stature.

[caution50]

01:16 AM on 03/24/2011

How delightful... more scraps. I suppose it's better than nothing, but it sure feels a lot like lip service with a hint of disdain.