"As expected, Senate committee passes Colorado civil unions bill" (home, income)

[delta07]

Originally Posted by dude_reino

It bugs us because in so many cases like this, people can't seem to draw the line between "Government treating all people equally" and "Government FORCING businesses to treat all people equally".

The former is an core aspect of a free republic, but the latter is not.

Okay, I see your point, although I will still argue against it. It's one thing when it's a bakery or even a service. If you want to refuse service to someone because they are gay, black, Asian, have red hair, etc, etc. then fine. Whatever. It's truly your loss as a business because of your own close-mindedness, bigotry, or otherwise discriminatory thinking. However, once your business crosses over into healthcare or other potential life and death situations where a life partner is not treated like a family member simply because they don't have a government sanctioned union, then the government has to step in and provide that piece of paper to sanction the union! So, while I see you wanting to keep government out of business, in this sense, they have to be involved so that a loved one can visit legally. And again, I will say that in places like Denver or other relatively big cities where hospital choice may be an option, for many people it just is not, simply because they have only one hospital to choose from!

Originally Posted by DgoNative

Hospitals are full of highly educated workers, therefore they are much less prone to hate on minorities indiscriminately. But that still doesn't change the fact that it is a part of hospital policy to turn away visitors who are not legally tied to the hospitalized individual. Should a hospital employee allow a non-legally bound visitor in, and the hospitalized individual did not want them to be there, the hospitalized person could turn around and slap the hospital with an invasion of privacy claim. Whether or not that civil claim comes, it would mean termination of the employee that let the visitor in. It all depends on who is occupying the front desk that day: someone who would put their job at stake to allow a gay person to see their partner or someone who would not like to take that risk.

The practice of turning away a gay partner is legal, advocated under policy, and carries the threat of potential litigation and/or termination and that is one of the many reasons why proponents of gay marriage are fighting for marriage equality. And as Delta pointed out, it does happen, and it is a very real potential issue for all gay partnerships.

Absolutely spot on! This is the point I was trying to make and I don't think it came across as well. While an individual employee may be able to look the other way, it's not always possible. They also shouldn't have to do this and put their own employment at risk.

[Prodigal Native]

Originally Posted by Bideshi

I agree on the "more" part, but the gay marriage trend is absolutely part of societal disintegration.

Societal disintegration?!

Wow, I would love to hear the explanation behind THAT.

[julian17033]

Originally Posted by GoneNative

So it's not just about getting equal rights, but rather also running roughshod over the religious liberties of Catholic hospitals?

But it's never really been about the marriage rights, anyway, so much as social acceptance. I know that. And especially when you blitzkrieg religious rights in doing so, it's a disgrace--politically, morally, and also constitutionally.

An eye for an eye as the bible says.

Hardline fundamental "" Christian "" sects have been losing membership for years now but it has been only in the last five or so that the exodus and lack of new membership in these sects have resulted in the shuttering of their churches and is now reaching critical mass.

The average age of the membership of such sects is reaching into the mid fifties.

The millennial generation that have reached voting age have sent a message last November that status quo of bigotry, hate and exclusion of these religious sects is actually no longer the status quo of the nation as a whole.

With each passing year fundamental "" Christianity "" is recognized more and more as being the disgusting, angry irrational hate filled house of filth that is highlighted in the fight for civil rights under the law.

Your time draws to a close. The bell of my church tolls not only to announce the imminent worship service but also to celebrate a new day in the struggle for civil rights for all.

[jazzlover]

Why don't we leave all of the "idealism" garbage about this issue--on both sides of it--aside, and talk about why the bill is being pushed by the gay/lesbian community: it is so that they can legally "marry" and enjoy all of the benefits that state-legal marriage confers--preferential tax treatment for married couples, enhanced medical benefits, better transfer payment/welfare benefits, etc. In other words, they would like the opportunity to stick their paws into the taxpayer till as deeply as married "straight" couples get to do.

I have a better idea: Why don't we expunge all marital preferences out of tax, retirement, and welfare codes? Then, people, gay or straight, can marry because they love their mate and WANT to, not in order to get a bunch of "bennies" from the government. Along with that, all of the various government subsidies for child-bearing (claiming dependents, welfare bennies, etc.) should be ended, as well. All of that should make both conservative and liberals happy. The liberals should like that there no longer would be discrimination by government in how people are treated based on their sexual orientation or personal choices, and conservatives should be happy that taxpayer dollars would no longer be used to influence people's behavior.

[Mike from back east]

Jazz, adjusting the tax code is a start, but still doesn't solve the discrimination discussed earlier in the religious hospitals example, not to mention the legal issues of wills, divorces, estate laws, custody hearings, etc. I'm all for marriage equality and for all the legal rights that it entails.

The various religions will have to live with it as the Constitution mandates that all are created equal and deserving of equal rights. The various religions can say no to performing marriage ceremonies for the GLBT population and not accept them as members too, as that is their right. But the right to equal treatment trumps religious doctrine. There are plenty of open-minded churches that will be glad to have anyone and everyone as a member, without being judgmental about the lives of its members.

So the issue is now for the Colorado legislature to grapple with these changes and produce revised state legal codes which incorporate the changes and also stand the test of constitutionality.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by Bideshi

I agree on the "more" part, but the gay marriage trend is absolutely part of societal disintegration.

I would say that a disrespect of democracy (which you state) and personal freedom (which you state) is the real threat for societal disintegration.

[Bideshi]

Originally Posted by Prodigal Native

Societal disintegration?!

Wow, I would love to hear the explanation behind THAT.

If you have to ask the question, you wouldn't understand the answer.

[Bideshi]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

Why don't we leave all of the "idealism" garbage about this issue--on both sides of it--aside, and talk about why the bill is being pushed by the gay/lesbian community: it is so that they can legally "marry" and enjoy all of the benefits that state-legal marriage confers--preferential tax treatment for married couples, enhanced medical benefits, better transfer payment/welfare benefits, etc. In other words, they would like the opportunity to stick their paws into the taxpayer till as deeply as married "straight" couples get to do.

.

Yup. For all the talk of love and equality, it's all about the money.

[Prodigal Native]

Originally Posted by Bideshi

If you have to ask the question, you wouldn't understand the answer.

Most likely I would not, but ducking out of answering my question in such a manner is more akin to someone who knows their position is indefensible as opposed to someone that has reasoned, rational points and is capable of discussion and debate.

[Prodigal Native]

Originally Posted by Bideshi

Yup. For all the talk of love and equality, it's all about the money.

So let me get this right, straight marriage is all about love and devotion, yet gay marriage is only about money?