In other CO legislative news- CO General Assembly Passes Civil Unions Bill

Human Rights Campaign (a pro-gay movement, kind of a misleading name) President said this:

Quote:

---

The Colorado legislature has taken a definitive step forward in the march toward equality. The passage of civil unions in the Centennial State is further proof that full equality for committed and loving gay and lesbian couples is in sight. From now on LGBT couples in Colorado will no longer be legal strangers in the eyes of their state, but rather recognized and supported by the law.

---

You can read the full story, but it looks to be that now it has to go to Hick and we become the 18th state to "provide the equivalent of state-level spousal rights to same-sex couples."

http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/civil-unions-pass-in-colorado

I couldn't care less. The government doesn't belong in my bedroom or my marriage, and it doesn't belong in anyone else's either. Gay/straight/democrat/liberal - make friends, introduce them to the shooting sports, teach them firearm safety, take them to the range, teach them how to defend their self and their families, stay out of their private lives.

I just posted as an FYI, not taking any side- but I am happy that they call it Civil Unions and not "Marriage"... I still see a separation between the two.

Just to get the ball rolling in here... the term "marriage" has no real effect on the relationship me and my wife have. We would be just as content and happy if it were a "civil union". I think they should do away with marriage certificates and make it to where EVERYONE, who wanted the benefits that go along with a "marriage", had to go get a civil union. That takes the term marriage away from the state (where it doesn't belong) and puts it right back in the chapel. It seems like a win-win for everybody. Everyone gets the equal rights and treated the same. And for those of you who believe in a biblical definition of the word "marriage" you still have the ability to have a marriage ceremony at your chapel or place of choice with your ordained minister or individual of choice and the blessings of your particular god and family and friends. Gay people getting married has no effect on MY marriage. And if we flipped the boat... I bet my civil union with my wife would have no effect on the civil unions of gay couples. I wish that is the route states would take. You "save traditional marriage" and everyone gets the same rights and SHOULD be happy. I have a feeling some people wouldn't be happy with that though. Just a hunch! hehe

Now the question, to get us back on topic, is -- do two partners in a recognized 'civil union' get the same benefits for 'transfer' under our new Universal Background Check law?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brobar

Just to get the ball rolling in here... the term "marriage" has no real effect on the relationship me and my wife have. We would be just as content and happy if it were a "civil union". I think they should do away with marriage certificates and make it to where EVERYONE, who wanted the benefits that go along with a "marriage", had to go get a civil union. That takes the term marriage away from the state (where it doesn't belong) and puts it right back in the chapel. It seems like a win-win for everybody. Everyone gets the equal rights and treated the same. And for those of you who believe in a biblical definition of the word "marriage" you still have the ability to have a marriage ceremony at your chapel or place of choice with your ordained minister or individual of choice and the blessings of your particular god and family and friends. Gay people getting married has no effect on MY marriage. And if we flipped the boat... I bet my civil union with my wife would have no effect on the civil unions of gay couples. I wish that is the route states would take. You "save traditional marriage" and everyone gets the same rights and SHOULD be happy. I have a feeling some people wouldn't be happy with that though. Just a hunch! hehe

---

THIS! Well said. That's what I've been saying the entire time, and every subsequent time this subject gets debated among my friends- a UNION is recognized by the state, a MARRIAGE is recognized by the Church.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teufelhund

I couldn't care less. The government doesn't belong in my bedroom or my marriage, and it doesn't belong in anyone else's either. Gay/straight/democrat/liberal - make friends, introduce them to the shooting sports, teach them firearm safety, take them to the range, teach them how to defend their self and their families, stay out of their private lives.

---

Thank you! I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks this way. I think it's fair to say if gun owners want to maintain their rights, the best way is to encourage people from all walks of life to exercise their Constitutional rights. I'm always on the lookout to educate ethnic minorities and the non-hetero community on their rights as Americans. If we want freedom and equality for all, let's walk the walk instead of letting our prejudices isolate us as citizens. I can happily say that out of all the gun shops I've walked into ever, only ONE has ever been racist towards me. It didn't stop me from maintaining my rights because I went elsewhere.

so this issue that got the D thier majority got sidelined to rush through the gun debacle... fucking lovely, this should have been the first bill they passed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epyon

Thank you! I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks this way. I think it's fair to say if gun owners want to maintain their rights, the best way is to encourage people from all walks of life to exercise their Constitutional rights. I'm always on the lookout to educate ethnic minorities and the non-hetero community on their rights as Americans. If we want freedom and equality for all, let's walk the walk instead of letting our prejudices isolate us as citizens. I can happily say that out of all the gun shops I've walked into ever, only ONE has ever been racist towards me. It didn't stop me from maintaining my rights because I went elsewhere.

---

I have stood up for the rights of all people, no matter color, creed, race, religion or sexual orientation.... but I do not see any reciprocation for 'my' RTBA....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by two shoes

I have stood up for the rights of all people, no matter color, creed, race, religion or sexual orientation.... but I do not see any reciprocation for 'my' RTBA....

---

yeah, this sums it up very well.
http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/bl...-off-everybody

don't skip the update at the bottom. wonder what state his friend was in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by two shoes

I have stood up for the rights of all people, no matter color, creed, race, religion or sexual orientation.... but I do not see any reciprocation for 'my' RTBA....

---

Take the high road... As my BDE Chaplain once said "If you treat others well and fair, but they do not treat you well or fairly, you just proved to God and, more importantly, yourself, that you can be and are the better man."

Republicans continued the usual dumb-fuckery by trying to amend this bill to allow the license clerk to with hold the marriage license if they held a personal religious belief that was against gay marriage. This is the equivalent of the DMV clerk denying the renewal of your Driver's License because of his or her personal religious beliefs. Way to continue to be unelectable Republicans, thanks for all the new gun control. Don't say you're for less goverent if you don't mean it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by merl

yeah, this sums it up very well.
http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/bl...-off-everybody

don't skip the update at the bottom. wonder what state his friend was in.

---

Good read merl... feel like I am done with others fights and concentrate on my own, with like minded individuals. LOVED the "AMFs" at the end and the update is sad...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by two shoes

I have stood up for the rights of all people, no matter color, creed, race, religion or sexual orientation.... but I do not see any reciprocation for 'my' RTBA....

---

Were you standing up for the rights of all people back in the late 1960's when the police were regularly raiding gay nightclubs and arresting gays for congregating?

That stupid article that Zundfolge posted only does further damage to all causes. One could simply say, "Where were the gays to stand up for us back in 1934?!" We can dick measure about who turned their back on whom first, until the origin of time. It is a continuous Chicken or the Egg question, and it doesn't mayyer when it started, only when it ends. People can step up and put their "less government" money where their "less government" mouths are, or we can just continue to fuck each other over in the face of a common enemy like we do every election when we vote for the lesser evil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by two shoes

I have stood up for the rights of all people, no matter color, creed, race, religion or sexual orientation.... but I do not see any reciprocation for 'my' RTBA....

---

I'm one of them, and I believe that if the republican party REALLY wants to make a comeback it has to go back to its old school roots of personal liberties and keeping government out of people's personal lives. That would also include keeping religion out of politics, and they need to take a step back and really weed out the messes they have created among their own party. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

Republicans continued the usual dumb-fuckery by trying to amend this bill to allow the license clerk to with hold the marriage license if they held a personal religious belief that was against gay marriage. This is the equivalent of the DMV clerk denying the renewal of your Driver's License because of his or her personal religious beliefs. Way to continue to be unelectable Republicans, thanks for all the new gun control. Don't say you're for less goverent if you don't mean it.

---

Yup! Totally agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epyon

I'm one of them, and I believe that if the republican party REALLY wants to make a comeback it has to go back to its old school roots of personal liberties and keeping government out of people's personal lives. That would also include keeping religion out of politics, and they need to take a step back and really weed out the messes they have created among their own party. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion.

---

Well said. I'm not sure the GOP is capable of being this honest with itself. If it were, the time to do so was well before this last election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

Were you standing up for the rights of all people back in the late 1960's when the police were regularly raiding gay nightclubs and arresting gays for congregating?

That stupid article that Zundfolge posted only does further damage to all causes. One could simply say, "Where were the gays to stand up for us back in 1934?!" We can dick measure about who turned their back on whom first, until the origin of time. It is a continuous Chicken or the Egg question, and it doesn't mayyer when it started, only when it ends. People can step up and put their "less government" money where their "less government" mouths are, or we can just continue to fuck each other over in the face of a common enemy like we do every election when we vote for the lesser evil.

---

two shoes did not exist in the sixties, 1960's nor 1860's nor 1760's...

I understand fighting the "good fight" and doing so for nothing more than knowing it is the right thing to do.... Just frustrated that it is like this.

When choosing between the lesser of two evils, no matter which the choice, is still evil...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epyon

I'm one of them, and I believe that if the republican party REALLY wants to make a comeback it has to go back to its old school roots of personal liberties and keeping government out of people's personal lives. That would also include keeping religion out of politics, and they need to take a step back and really weed out the messes they have created among their own party. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion.

---

Yes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by two shoes

two shoes did not exist in the sixties, 1960's nor 1860's nor 1760's...

I understand fighting the "good fight" and doing so for nothing more than knowing it is the right thing to do.... Just frustrated that it is like this.

When choosing between the lesser of two evils, no matter which the choice, is still evil...

---

I wasn't alive either, which makes it difficult for me to pound my chest about all the times I've been thrown under the bus, when some of the people I'm screaming at have been thrown under the bus long before I was born.

Who cares. Doesnt affect anyone other than the party involved and they get the same rights as everyone else. Now they need to realize what the government is doing to all citizens and get behind ( not literally) those groups and support them!

Good. One less issue the left will have to rally people to their side.

New campaign slogan to get gays to help us out, "An armed homosexual is better than a dead one!"

in case anybody is curious, you don't need a judge or a priest or anybody to marry you in CO. You can pretty much just have the two people sign the marriage certificate and boom-married!
My wife and I had a friend marry us. He is one of those naturally gifted funny people who can hold an audience well!

As for my opinion on this matter...eh don't care. Heterosexual married couples have screwed up the institution of mariage well enough at this point. Let homosexual couples have at it. It will still be just as screwed up as it was yesterday.

From a purely constitutional perspective, it is a joke. First, why should "married" people have any financial benefit over the unmarried? They should not and marriage tax benefits create two classes of people...unconstitutional. Second, I can grant any person I want Power of attorney for any variety of issues. Signing a "Civil Union" gives no more "joint property" benefit than drafting a contract did before. Three pieces of paper gave my wife MORE legal authority of her fathers medical information and decisions than our marriage grants her, and it was a HECK of a lot cheaper. So, instead of making everyone equal under the tax code, we added a segment (small) to a protected class. We should have gone the other way. I know a same sex couple who were adamantly opposed to this law. They put all their property and financial vehilces in trust, are both members of the trust and signed medical directives. They have more tax advantage and if they dissolve their "trust" the details are spelled out and they won't end up clogging up divorce court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper7

Who cares. Doesnt affect anyone other than the party involved and they get the same rights as everyone else. Now they need to realize what the government is doing to all citizens and get behind ( not literally) those groups and support them!

---

We should all care, because the dumbass Republicans in office last year had a huge fillibuster to block this bill last year. That stunt left such a bad taste in everyone's mouth that they all got booted out of office and now we have 5 gun control measures. Besides that, I totally agree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

We should all care, because the dumbass Republicans in office last year had a huge fillibuster to block this bill last year. That stunt left such a bad taste in everyone's mouth that they all got booted out of office and now we have 5 gun control measures. Besides that, I totally agree with you.

---

i completely agree.

Republicans lost more than one seat over what... a feel-good law. It changed nothing, represented little to nothing, and cost nothing to sign off on. So stupid and so easy to avoid the fallout.

If I remember correctly, doesn't Colorado have common law marriage where if you live with someone for more than 7 years and others know then by default you end up married?

Quote:

---

We should all care, because the dumbass Republicans in office last year had a huge fillibuster to block this bill last year. That stunt left such a bad taste in everyone's mouth that they all got booted out of office and now we have 5 gun control measures. Besides that, I totally agree with you.

---

Yep. This is the crux of the issue. I'm completely fine with gay marriage/civil unions/whatever you want to call it. I'm also fine with legalized weed.

Suffice it to say, I think most people in Colorado, even those who may dislike gay marriage or pot, are probably willing to tolerate these things to one extent or another. Furthermore, given that the evangelical movement has been somewhat on the wane in the last couple of years, it seems very clear to me that the Republican party has already reaped any gains to be had from beating the drum for social issues in order to get votes and contributions from the God Squad, while essentially alienating any middle-of-the-road moderates or Colorado libertarians.

Quote:

---

Now the question, to get us back on topic, is -- do two partners in a recognized 'civil union' get the same benefits for 'transfer' under our new Universal Background Check law?

---

When I talked with Kent Lambert, I brought this issue up. He said that once civil unions pass, all of the language in Colorado law would be changed to recognize civil unions, which meant that, as far as he understood it, a gay couple wouldn't have to worry about engaging in an illegal transfer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justin

Yep. This is the crux of the issue. I'm completely fine with gay marriage/civil unions/whatever you want to call it. I'm also fine with legalized weed.

Suffice it to say, I think most people in Colorado, even those who may dislike gay marriage or pot, are probably willing to tolerate these things to one extent or another. Furthermore, given that the evangelical movement has been somewhat on the wane in the last couple of years, it seems very clear to me that the Republican party has already reaped any gains to be had from beating the drum for social issues in order to get votes and contributions from the God Squad, while essentially alienating any middle-of-the-road moderates or Colorado libertarians.

---

Yup, we're on the same page. I don't care if you want to sleep with someone of the opposite sex or same sex, I don't care if you want to hit that bong as long as you're not being disruptive to others. As long as we can all be Americans and keep our Constitutional right, that's all that matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epyon

If I remember correctly, doesn't Colorado have common law marriage where if you live with someone for more than 7 years and others know then by default you end up married?

---

I believe it is six months.

Although I could completely care less what any one does I their bedroom, I am still disappointed with what I had heard during testimonial in the State House. I listened to a bunch of whiney homosexuals cry about their rights.... The very same day that the Senate decided to take away our rights. So part of me say...fuck them all. It is apparently ok to have the rights to be a butt plunger or a dildoe jockey, but ok for me to have my rights to bear arms infringed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by palepainter

Although I could completely care less what any one does I their bedroom, I am still disappointed with what I had heard during testimonial in the State House. I listened to a bunch of whiney homosexuals cry about their rights.... The very same day that the Senate decided to take away our rights. So part of me say...fuck them all. It is apparently ok to have the rights to be a butt plunger or a dildoe jockey, but ok for me to have my rights to bear arms infringed.

---

+1,000

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epyon

... Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion.

---

Um, no, it doesn't.


Amendment 1 USC
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epyon

... "An armed homosexual is better than a dead one!"

---

Um, no, it isn't.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14650663

Abstract

Is domestic violence more frequent in homosexual partnerships? The 1996 National Household Survey of Drug Abuse, based upon a random sample of 12,381 adults aged 18 to 59 years, estimated that 828,900 men and 828,678 women engaged in homosexuality in the prior 12 months. Random surveys indicated that at any given time, 29% of homosexual men and 32% of homosexual women are in same-sex partnerships. The National Criminal Victimization Survey for 1993 to 1999 reported that 0.24% of married women and 0.035% of married men were victims of domestic violence annually versus 4.6% of the men and 5.8% of the women reporting same-sex partnerships. Domestic violence appears to be more frequently reported in same-sex partnerships than among the married.

People most likely to be in abusive relationships are least in need of protection. Got it.

We're happy it passed but we've never voted any issue before gun rights. Ever. I've gone further, criticizing hate crimes legislation, as the priority to be self-reliant and defend yourself against the predator requires (in my case, as I'm not the physical equivalent to a pumped-up nutcase) Vermont-style shall-issue concealed carry foremost!

And that got the GLBT community pissed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epyon

If I remember correctly, doesn't Colorado have common law marriage where if you live with someone for more than 7 years and others know then by default you end up married?

---

In Colorado you just have to meet some qualifiers to prove it in court. Some of them are cohabitation, joint bank account, filling joint tax returns, introducing your self as husband and wife. There is no fixed time period, you just need to convey your self as if you were legally married and you have a common law marriage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davsel

Um, no, it doesn't.


Amendment 1 USC
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

---

What does Freedom From Religion mean to each of you? Unless the definition is agreed upon, the argument is not going to accomplish much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davsel

Um, no, it isn't.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14650663

Abstract

Is domestic violence more frequent in homosexual partnerships? The 1996 National Household Survey of Drug Abuse, based upon a random sample of 12,381 adults aged 18 to 59 years, estimated that 828,900 men and 828,678 women engaged in homosexuality in the prior 12 months. Random surveys indicated that at any given time, 29% of homosexual men and 32% of homosexual women are in same-sex partnerships. The National Criminal Victimization Survey for 1993 to 1999 reported that 0.24% of married women and 0.035% of married men were victims of domestic violence annually versus 4.6% of the men and 5.8% of the women reporting same-sex partnerships. Domestic violence appears to be more frequently reported in same-sex partnerships than among the married.

---

Nice try, I never specified what kind of violence they are defending themselves against whether it was domestic violence or an attacker trying to carry out a hate crime. Your statistics hold nothing, it doesn't even make a mention of use of a firearm in homosexual domestic violence. Add to the fact that the Family Research Institute has religious bias tied into their views. I should also mention that you're entitled to throw numbers at a personal opinion all you want, even if you have no idea what my broad statement is about.