Colorado to define Gay Partner Benefits

While we haven’t seen a detailed bill yet, the general idea is to recognize that long-term same-sex relationships do exist in Colorado. Because such couples aren’t allowed to marry, their rights and responsibilities are often murky.

This initiative would give members of gay couples the legal right to make medical decisions for incapacitated partners, protect inheritance rights when one partner dies and - most important - clarify rights and responsibilities when a couple breaks up.

That last point is vital. Some gay couples have children. But gay unions can break up just like heterosexual marriages can. When that occurs, state law should be clear as to the financial obligations and visitation rights of the former partners, using the legal yardstick of “the best interests of the child.”

This principle is so important than even the sponsors of the amendment banning gay marriage have elected not to specifically forbid civil unions. It is thus possible that the measure banning gay marriage and the law approving domestic partnerships could both pass next fall.

Possible, yes - but foolish. In our view, the state constitution is the wrong place to set social policy, let alone discriminatory social policy. (source)

Let’s think about this for a minute. Let’s remove gay people from the argument and pick on some other group who has been stigmatized in the past. Say, Jews or Blacks. Take your pick, it doesn’t matter.

Let’s then put it to the voters that an amendment will be proposed and voted on that will give certain rights to that group. The voters themselves would allow and deny certain rights to that group.

Can you imagine what would happen? Can you imagine how members of that group would feel? Yet, this is exactly what is happening to gay couples in Colorado and around the country (Virginia is about to pass their constitutional amendment banning ANY form of recognition for gay couples - it’s expected to easily pass). They feel that they don’t want to pass a full ban on marriage and civil unions - perhaps they feel that they couldn’t get it passed or that it would be “un-Christian”. But rest assured, it’s not out of any love they feel for gay couples.

People like this amaze me. A constitution in the United States of America should not be used to deny anyone equality. And if elected officials are unable to execute the demands of their office without bringing their own personal religious baggage into the equation and are unable to honor the separation of church and state, they should step down from office.

Yet, I’m hearing more and more all the time that many of these legislators are proposing these amendments because they view being gay as “a sin”. And, we tolerate that.