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.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#609 Sep 9, 2012
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Um that doesn’t make sense.... So you are only with your husband when the government recognizes you as “married”? Then you are “discriminated in so many way I don't even want to list it over again”?
How so?
Legally, as we cross state lines the government either does or does not respect us as a couple, and most of the time it's a does-not.

Since: Sep 12

San Jose, CA

#610 Sep 10, 2012
Gay marriage is a common thing, and more and more people has accepted. According to the report, have many gay living in the world, and they want to be treated normally!

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#611 Sep 10, 2012
TomInElPaso wrote:
Again, put up or shut up. Show us where states are having to change a bunch of laws because they legalized same sex marriage.
Or were you just telling another lie? Or pulling stuff out of your ass for the sake of argument.
<quoted text>
Keep calling me names, but it doesn’t change facts.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#612 Sep 10, 2012
TomInElPaso wrote:
No one has to redefine anything. The states will handle that issue easily by dropping a few words from their marriage license application just as New York has done.
Don't like it? Take it up with the states that have already legalized our marriages. You and your ilk have screwed up marriage, its our turn and we'll do a hell of a lot better job of it. You've already lost this battle.
<quoted text>
The differences still remain… That’s nature… I’m not battling you I’m pointing out the obvious facts.
You seem to be very dishonest.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#613 Sep 10, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
We define our relationship exactly the same as other couples: A lifelong commitment to love and care for one another.
You'll note that is exactly what the standard wedding vows call for. There's nothing in the standard wedding vow about procreating. There's nothing in the standard wedding vow about having complimentary genitalia. No, the standard wedding vow is about love and commitment.
That is exactly how we define our relationship.
You are the only one who needs to define it differently. Perhaps you should be asking yourself why that is. If you ever come up with an answer, you may come back and explain it to us.
The issue isn’t vows, commitment or love of a person. It is the fact of gender. The institution has been defined as between a man and a woman for thousands upon thousands of years. Men and woman aren’t interchangeable which and fundamentally causes a drastic distinction between your relationship and mine. Even the ancient Romans, who allowed same-sex relationships in their society held the distinction true by calling the same-sex partners a “UNION”.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#614 Sep 10, 2012
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
Legally, as we cross state lines the government either does or does not respect us as a couple, and most of the time it's a does-not.
That’s essential you and your and your partner’s existence? Government HAS TO RECOGNIZE you as married or your life is over?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#615 Sep 10, 2012
suemichael wrote:
Gay marriage is a common thing, and more and more people has accepted. According to the report, have many gay living in the world, and they want to be treated normally!
What report is that?

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#616 Sep 10, 2012
So you acknowledge that states have not had to make major alterations to their laws in order to accommodate marriage equality. Just as I said.

You get an F for your attempt to change the topic.
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep calling me names, but it doesn’t change facts.

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#617 Sep 10, 2012
Exaggerate much? Try hundreds, it works better.

And even at that it was only for those of wealth and involved mostly money, politics and power until the 20th century.
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
The institution has been defined as between a man and a woman for thousands upon thousands of years.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#618 Sep 10, 2012
TomInElPaso wrote:
So you acknowledge that states have not had to make major alterations to their laws in order to accommodate marriage equality. Just as I said.
You get an F for your attempt to change the topic.
<quoted text>
No they have… AND just because you call me names doesn’t change the facts.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#619 Sep 10, 2012
TomInElPaso wrote:
Exaggerate much? Try hundreds, it works better.
And even at that it was only for those of wealth and involved mostly money, politics and power until the 20th century.
<quoted text>
Hundreds?
Not sure what you are trying to say.
Is there a point?

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#620 Sep 10, 2012
They have? You have facts? Really?

PROVE it then. Or are you a liar? Your choice.
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
No they have… AND just because you call me names doesn’t change the facts.

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#621 Sep 10, 2012
You're the one who's earning the title of liar. You have no proof of what you say. That makes you a liar.
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
No they have… AND just because you call me names doesn’t change the facts.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#622 Sep 10, 2012
TomInElPaso wrote:
You're the one who's earning the title of liar. You have no proof of what you say. That makes you a liar.
<quoted text>
Distracting from the points by calling me names over and over… Do not change the facts. If you have a point of argument present it.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#623 Sep 10, 2012
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
That’s essential you and your and your partner’s existence? Government HAS TO RECOGNIZE you as married or your life is over?
No, it limits our options on where to move. For example, I want to move back to Louisiana, although, by doing so we put our assets at risk if either of us were ever hurt. At least CO has a designated beneficiary act, but we would have no such rights as a couple in LA.

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#624 Sep 10, 2012
You have no proof states with equal marriages have had to make major alterations to their legal and legislative system. You just made that up and we know it.

That's what liars and cowards do.
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Distracting from the points by calling me names over and over… Do not change the facts. If you have a point of argument present it.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#625 Sep 10, 2012
TomInElPaso wrote:
You have no proof states with equal marriages have had to make major alterations to their legal and legislative system. You just made that up and we know it.
That's what liars and cowards do.
<quoted text>
And you call names to distract from yourself and the truth…

If you don’t want to believe there is an impact on the re-definition of marriage, then I would suggest that you have a personal problem with that… What does it mean for you that the laws cause a great deal more laws to effect the gay relationship and man woman relationship? What are you afraid of?

Regardless of the law, the gay relationship is different enough to warrant its own definition. It would benefit gays, married people, and society as a whole.

You aren’t honest and even when I call you on it you chose to avoidance.

If you have a point or argument present it.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#626 Sep 10, 2012
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it limits our options on where to move. For example, I want to move back to Louisiana, although, by doing so we put our assets at risk if either of us were ever hurt. At least CO has a designated beneficiary act, but we would have no such rights as a couple in LA.
Still doesn’t take from your relationship even if you chose to move to a non gay marrying state?

All the more reason to advocate for yourself.
Civil Unions are Appropriate.

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#627 Sep 10, 2012
a liar is a liar.

You make statements you cannot prove. Youre a liar and nothing but a shell of a man who thinks they can ignore our laws an the constitution of our nation.

You should be ashamed of your cowardly behavior.

There is nothing to argue about. Marriage equality will soon be the law of the LAN and you'll continue acting the fool. That's what cowards do.

End of conversation.
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
And you call names to distract from yourself and the truth…
If you don’t want to believe there is an impact on the re-definition of marriage, then I would suggest that you have a personal problem with that… What does it mean for you that the laws cause a great deal more laws to effect the gay relationship and man woman relationship? What are you afraid of?
Regardless of the law, the gay relationship is different enough to warrant its own definition. It would benefit gays, married people, and society as a whole.
You aren’t honest and even when I call you on it you chose to avoidance.
If you have a point or argument present it.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#628 Sep 10, 2012
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Still doesn’t take from your relationship even if you chose to move to a non gay marrying state?
All the more reason to advocate for yourself.
Civil Unions are Appropriate.
Lack of legal recognition creates insecurity, and insecurity can affect a relationship. For instance, assets accumulated together belong to one or the other, not the couple. So one member of the partnership could be left with nothing in the event of the death of a partner or a break up. If one got too sick to make decisions for himself, the other could be shut out (and have their property appropriated) by the family.

You have yet to explain how creating an unnecessary distinction enhances the well-being of everyone else enough to warrant the denial of equality.

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
Women 5 hr what 2
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 6 hr Respect71 48,147
Male on Female Facesitting topix? 16 hr alimaster 11
Devil Clown Inc. Big Top Saloon (Dec '11) 19 hr Izzy-_- 3,435
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) Thu Respect71 28,194
News Students hack into school system, change grades (Apr '07) Apr 25 JP MORGAN 717
Ridge Home Information (Dec '06) Apr 21 Ben 63

Arvada Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Arvada Mortgages