So for those of you not in Colorado, Referendum I would provide specific rights normally associated with marraige (inheritence, medical visitation/approvals/etc, property ownership). Basically what you get automatically when you get married would now be available to domestic partners though they would still have to go through a process to be recognized as domestic partners.
Here’s my question - what is wrong with this idea? Why does something that doesn’t get called marraige, has nothing to do with a ceremony like marraige and is related to legal rights of a domestic partner get shot down? If it was creating the establishment of gay marraige I would have expected this to fail - but when it is worded and pointed towards legal process whats the problem with it? If your state had a similar measure, which way would you have voted since obviosly Colorado is still stuck in some messed-up logic world as this failed on the most recent ballot.
Just peeved that apparently a majority of voting Coloradans think that equality doesn’t apply to homosexual couples in committed relationships. I’m happily married and this still pisses me off…grrr.
Eddie Murphy said something like: I make fun of the homosexuals because…because they are homosexuals. Gays are one of the few groups to discriminate against anymore.
I couldn’t believe this didn’t pass when I looked at the Post this morning. I don’t understand at what the problem is either.
The Haggard thing really opened my eyes to how out of touch I am with the thinking / mindset of the Evangelical movement. The fact that he initially admitted to buying meth from the guy but not having sex with him (as if the meth was somehow more acceptable whereas the gay sex was not) just blew me away. Eventually I figured the Meth thing would be parlayed as an addiction to painkillers from surgery or something that eventually devolved into a meth addiction, but when that argument was dropped, I was amazed at the thinking that the Meth thing was more acceptable than homosexuality.
So, I don’t know what to think about this state’s view of homosexuality. I’m from Boston, so I grew up in a much more liberal area than this, but I just can’t understand the problem with legal rights.
I wasn’t surprised that Amendment 42 (or 43?) passed, but I can’t believe there is some sort of problem with Referendum i.
The campaining by anti-Ref. I groups was effective. Basically, they convinced enough people that I was either 1) a step toward gay marriage or 2) unnecessary because gays already have the ability to legally obtain the rights outlined in I. I was disappointed in I’s failure. I have some friends who feel like nothing more than second class citizens because they don’t get some of these same basic rights. It’s too bad.
From a purely legal perspective a couple of things struck me. Things that would have been covered by this law are already covered by existing instruments: healthcare directives, powers of attorney, wills, living wills, etc.
The other issue was the constitutionality of assuring these rights just to same-sex partners. There would likely have been a challenge to include heterosexual partners as well.
The difference is that as a married person, I don’t have to go through the hoops of healthcare directives to be with my wife in the hospital and make decisions about her care, I don’t have to give her power of attorney to act on my behalf…ok, so should still have a will, but by default (I believe) she would generally get my stuff without having to do anything just because she is my spouse.
I do agree with your second point, even if I also believe that the majority of the population wouldn’t think that far in advance. And wouldn’t hetero partners already be qualified under the common-law marraige rules?
The other issue was the constitutionality of assuring these rights just to same-sex partners. There would likely have been a challenge to include heterosexual partners as well.
What exactly is the constitutionality question? Heterosexual couples would have exactly the same rights under the marriage laws. They would not be denied any rights by their exclusion from the domestic partnership law.
Basically, they convinced enough people that I was either 1) a step toward gay marriage or 2) unnecessary because gays already have the ability to legally obtain the rights outlined in I.
Maybe we should leave the first question on the table- I think it’s patently obvious that this would have been a step towards gay marriage. Are any of it’s backers satisfied with civil unions? Have they been in other states? But I suspect we’ll have to agree to disagree over that. I will if you will.
No, and what’s more, I’m not all that familiar with the rest of Colorado law. That’s why I’m asking you. What legal rights would it have accorded gay couples that they cannot currently avail themselves of in Colorado by existing means?
As a married person, you still have some of the same hoops. You need to go to an attorney to develop a will, a living will, (perhaps) a prenuptial agreement, go to the courthouse for the marriage license, etc.
The motto for the referendum was “It’s not marriage, it’s basic legal rights”. Those rights already exist - for anyone. A half-hour in a law office signing papers does not seem like a big hoop.
For hetero couples, I think it is a broad stroke to assume that they all want to be married. They may be committed, the same as some people in same sex relationships may be committed, but they distrust the idea of marriage.
The following, which are provided for in the Proposed Domestic Partnership Law of Referendum I, cannot be modified by agreement of the domestic partners, and may only be exercised pursuant to authority provided by law (sorry for the all caps… it’s cut an pasted from the proposed text): CAUSES OF ACTION RELATED TO OR DEPENDENT UPON SPOUSAL STATUS, INCLUDING AN ACTION BASED ON WRONGFUL DEATH, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, LOSS OF CONSORTIUM, DRAMSHOP LAWS, OR OTHER TORTS OR ACTIONS UNDER CONTRACTS RECITING, RELATED TO, OR DEPENDENT UPON SPOUSAL STATUS; PROHIBITIONS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION BASED UPON SPOUSAL STATUS; ADOPTION LAW AND PROCEDURE; DOMESTIC ABUSE PROGRAMS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 7.5 OF TITLE 26, C.R.S., EMERGENCY PROTECTION ORDERS PURSUANT TO SECTION 13-14-103, C.R.S., AND THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE PROTECTIONS AND PROGRAMS SPECIFIED IN PART 8 OF ARTICLE 6 OF TITLE 18, C.R.S., NOTWITHSTANDING THE INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP REQUIREMENT; FAMILY LEAVE BENEFITS; PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BENEFITS PURSUANT TO STATE LAW; LAWS RELATING TO IMMUNITY FROM COMPELLED TESTIMONY AND EVIDENTIARY PRIVILEGES PURSUANT TO SECTION 13-90-107, C.R.S.; THE HOMESTEAD RIGHTS OF A SURVIVING SPOUSE PURSUANT TO PART 2 OF 4 ARTICLE 41 OF TITLE 38, C.R.S.; THE ABILITY TO PROTECT EXEMPT PROPERTY FROM ATTACHMENT, EXECUTION, OR GARNISHMENT;
*As a married person, you still have some of the same hoops. You need to go to an attorney to develop a will, a living will, (perhaps) a prenuptial agreement, go to the courthouse for the marriage license, etc. *
No, you don’t. By operation of law, if a married man dies intestate (without a will), his wife inherits the estate. If a gay man dies intestate, his family, not his domestic partner, inherit the estate. Different hoops. Now. If you want to change the default, then yes… you have to see a lawyer and make a will. But the law specifically provides for spouses in a way it does not for gay partners.
The motto for the referendum was “It’s not marriage, it’s basic legal rights”. Those rights already exist - for anyone. A half-hour in a law office signing papers does not seem like a big hoop.
That is a miststatement. See my previous post.
For hetero couples, I think it is a broad stroke to assume that they all want to be married. They may be committed, the same as some people in same sex relationships may be committed, but they distrust the idea of marriage.
“Separate but equal”. What of heterosexual couples that don’t like the idea of marriage but still are “committed”?
What about them? I don’t understand the question.
EDIT
“Separate but equal” is not a constitutional issue. Do you mean Equal Protection? If so, then I would argue that there is equal protection because the marriage law exists. Why would a heterosexual couple want to be a domestic partnership instead of a marriage?
And wouldn’t hetero partners already be qualified under the common-law marraige rules?