Gay marriage could be on CO ballots

Gay marriage could be on CO ballots

There are 618 comments on the Vail Daily News story from Jul 14, 2011, titled Gay marriage could be on CO ballots. In it, Vail Daily News reports that:

A constitutional amendment to repeal Colorado's gay marriage ban and replace it with language saying marriage is allowed regardless of sex could be headed to the 2012 ballot.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Vail Daily News.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#508 Sep 2, 2012
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don’t know your family... Sorry. I've told me nothing about you.
You are NOT LESS of value... Not sure were all that’s coming from.
I am not wrong in any of my assertions...
Civil unions are Appropriate.
You just answered your own question, I think. You are saying that MY family only deserve a lesser designation and less legal recognition. That my kids deserve lesser protections.

And that can only mean you believe we are all of lesser value, I believe.

Am I wrong?

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#509 Sep 2, 2012
The fool keeps forgetting that most states closed the door on civil unions at the same time they closed off marriage making any of his opinions mute.

He reached troll status a long time ago. Time to treat him like one by ignoring him.
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You just answered your own question, I think. You are saying that MY family only deserve a lesser designation and less legal recognition. That my kids deserve lesser protections.
And that can only mean you believe we are all of lesser value, I believe.
Am I wrong?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#510 Sep 2, 2012
TomInElPaso wrote:
The fool keeps forgetting that most states closed the door on civil unions at the same time they closed off marriage making any of his opinions mute.
He reached troll status a long time ago. Time to treat him like one by ignoring him.
<quoted text>
If he responds politely to me, then I will respond in turn.

But, YES, all of the "Civil Union Only" folks seem to forget that, along with the knowledge that a civil union NEVER offers the same protections ans a marriage license. The problems include no federal recognition, and the don't cross state borders.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#511 Sep 2, 2012
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL... ALL men are created equal, but marriage is between a man and a woman...
Civil unions are appropriate.
If all men are created equal, then why are you not in favor of treating us equally? Treating us unequally as a couple is the same as treating us unequally as individuals. I don't really believe you think all men are created equal. If you do, then you should acquiesce to favoring marriage equality in the interest of being fair.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#512 Sep 2, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Is a family with a mother who is deployed overseas and a working dad the same as a family with a working mother and a stay-at-home dad? Is that family the same as a "traditional" family whose father keeps his secretary working late on "business" while mother takes care of the kids? Is it the same as two parents on Social Security Disability Income?
I don't get your point. Because you have none.
It seems to be you who is lacking a point...
Yes... A mother and a father... Man and woman.. is different from a gay couple family where the are 2 moms or 2 dads. You don't see that?

The point is a “gay” relationship is different that that of a man and woman relationship.
Civil Unions are appropriate.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#513 Sep 2, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
So, to you, it's ONLY about the name, and not the institution?
Why?
Is it because you believe that civil unions are the lesser of the two, and you need to make sure that gay couples receive the lesser designation?
Would YOU accept a lesser designation for your spouse and family? And if you would not, why would you think that a gay couple would?
Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman, and the “gay” relationships doesn’t fit with in the definition of marriage... The “gay” relationship is worthy of its own definition.

Civil unions are appropriate.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#514 Sep 2, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Again you are only stating you opinion, and one not based in real first hand knowledge.
"Not by any stretch"?
How would you KNOW?
I was raised by straight, loving, wonderful parents. So I have direct knowledge of what that's like. I am raising two beautiful kids of my own, and personally know several other gay couples who are doing the same, so I have seen this first hand, and the results of it.
I learned how to be a parent from MY parents, God Bless them.
So, I think you need to prove how my family is different from yours, and ALL other straight couples. How are the personalities, parenting styles, strengths and weaknesses of myself and my wife any different from, say the average straight couple?
Don't we all choose a life partner that fills in our gaps (if we are lucky). Are all men and all women really completely different in utterly predictable ways? Or are we each strong and weak in different ways? Just as two men or two women in a marriage might be?
It's up to you to prove otherwise, since you are making the assertions.
The fact that you state,“How would you KNOW?” only proves my point.
Like I said, you have told me nothing about your family, so I can’t answer that question.

I didn’t pick a life partner, I chose a wife. Gender is different and that is a fact.

Genders have proven otherwise, and I have only pointed out the facts.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#515 Sep 2, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You just answered your own question, I think. You are saying that MY family only deserve a lesser designation and less legal recognition. That my kids deserve lesser protections.
And that can only mean you believe we are all of lesser value, I believe.
Am I wrong?
Yes you are wrong.
Do you feel lesser? Are you projecting? I never ONCE said “gay” relationships are “lesser”.“Gay” relationships are worth enough to have their own definition and legal recognition.
Civil Unions are appropriate. Or call it whatever you want.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#516 Sep 2, 2012
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
If all men are created equal, then why are you not in favor of treating us equally? Treating us unequally as a couple is the same as treating us unequally as individuals. I don't really believe you think all men are created equal. If you do, then you should acquiesce to favoring marriage equality in the interest of being fair.
Yes men are created equal and marriage is for a man and a woaman so please tell me how the “gay” relationship is equal to make that definition fit?
The “gay” relationship is worth its definition, and I’m sorry you seem to want to be something you are not....

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#517 Sep 2, 2012
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes men are created equal and marriage is for a man and a woaman so please tell me how the “gay” relationship is equal to make that definition fit?
The “gay” relationship is worth its definition, and I’m sorry you seem to want to be something you are not....
if you wanna get right down to it, men *and women* are created equal. it is your definition that's abat fit.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#518 Sep 2, 2012
*bad fit

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#519 Sep 2, 2012
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
if you wanna get right down to it, men *and women* are created equal. it is your definition that's abat fit.
???

No... Men and women are different... The definition is sound...

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#520 Sep 2, 2012
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
???
No... Men and women are different... The definition is sound...
Different? YES. Unequal? NO! Different != UNEQUAL

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#521 Sep 3, 2012
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>Different? YES. Unequal? NO! Different != UNEQUAL
Equal = same.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#522 Sep 3, 2012
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Equal = same.
Yeah, and nobody is exactly alike, so in that regard we *are* all the same.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#523 Sep 3, 2012
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, and nobody is exactly alike, so in that regard we *are* all the same.
Again we are talking gender. Not individual personalities.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#524 Sep 4, 2012
Respect71 wrote:
Civil Unions are appropriate. Or call it whatever you want.
How about we call our relationships "marriage.". That makes it easy for everyone to know what we're talking about. Nobody has to learn a new vocabulary or write hundreds od statutes.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#525 Sep 4, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
How about we call our relationships "marriage.". That makes it easy for everyone to know what we're talking about. Nobody has to learn a new vocabulary or write hundreds od statutes.
In order to do that you would have to re-define “marriage”. You don’t feel your special enough to define your relationships for yourself? Trying to be something that you’re not?
Civil Unions are appropriate.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#526 Sep 4, 2012
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Again we are talking gender. Not individual personalities.
If the latter is meaningless in terms of what rights a person is afforded, then the same is especially true for the former.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#527 Sep 4, 2012
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
In order to do that you would have to re-define “marriage”. You don’t feel your special enough to define your relationships for yourself? Trying to be something that you’re not?
Civil Unions are appropriate.
Who's redefining anything? There's a difference between redefining and broadening the meaning. For instance, we didn't redefine "telephone" when we moved from handsets attached directly to the wall to portable phones. Nor did we redefine when we moved to cell phones that went where ever you needed them. We merely expanded our telephoning capabilities.

As for the word "marry," it has always been used to describe many things--some not even animate. For instance, a sailor may marry two ropes. Cooks may marry flavors. If such abstracions are easily understood, then applying the word to two men or two women is a no-brainer.

Your saying that it doesn't make sense merely points out your lack of ability to think.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Arvada Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 4 min EdmondWA 44,964
Mayor Hancok/Sheriff White have blood on their ... 1 hr MAGA2016 1
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 1 hr Respect71 27,070
Mayor Hancock and His Sanctuary City Democrat B... 3 hr Walther 1
Denver mayor,Denver sheriff,Gov Hickenlooper 4 hr VF 201 Navy Retired 1
News Dozens Arrested In Sex Trafficking Crackdown (Apr '16) Nov '16 Joann Johnson 4
Ridge Home Information (Dec '06) Nov '16 Joann Johnson 62

Arvada Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Arvada Mortgages