Rep. Carole Murray Votes 'Yes' On Col...

Rep. Carole Murray Votes 'Yes' On Colorado Civil Unions Bill, Explains Why In Emotional Speech

There are 73 comments on the www.huffingtonpost.com story from Mar 1, 2013, titled Rep. Carole Murray Votes 'Yes' On Colorado Civil Unions Bill, Explains Why In Emotional Speech. In it, www.huffingtonpost.com reports that:

A Republican state representative may have befuddled some in her conservative region after she voted "yes" on Colorado's civil unions bill.

Rep. Carole Murray represents Colorado's District 45 -- a Republican friendly region sandwiched between Denver and Colorado Springs -- and she has a conservative voting record to match.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.huffingtonpost.com.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1 Mar 1, 2013
One step closer......
Truth

Minneapolis, MN

#3 Mar 1, 2013
She gets it, and she understands the language she is using and has used.

Since: Jan 12

Port Richey, FL

#4 Mar 1, 2013
as good as it seems it still falls short of marriage and the benefits that goes with it.
sorry Rep.Murray I want the piece of the pie not the leftover crumbs.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#5 Mar 1, 2013
I hope she sits in the back of teh bus.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#6 Mar 1, 2013
You idiots do realize Colorado has a constitutional amendment which bans us from marrying?

Until the people vote or the courts rule otherwise, civil unions is the best we're gonna get in Colorado.

A little perspective might be in order.

Btw, depending on how the SCOTUS rules, states with civil unions may be required to allow marriage instead.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#7 Mar 1, 2013
Carole, thank you. You DO "get it".

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#9 Mar 2, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
You idiots do realize Colorado has a constitutional amendment which bans us from marrying?
Until the people vote or the courts rule otherwise, civil unions is the best we're gonna get in Colorado.
A little perspective might be in order.
Btw, depending on how the SCOTUS rules, states with civil unions may be required to allow marriage instead.
It would be interesting if they voted in Civil Unions, and then the Supreme Court ruled that any state with DP or CU had to go with marriage, especially if they have a Constitutional ban on it. That would probably lead to even more court casts.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#10 Mar 2, 2013
"casts" = "cases"

Since: Jan 12

Port Richey, FL

#11 Mar 2, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
You idiots do realize Colorado has a constitutional amendment which bans us from marrying?
Until the people vote or the courts rule otherwise, civil unions is the best we're gonna get in Colorado.
A little perspective might be in order.
Btw, depending on how the SCOTUS rules, states with civil unions may be required to allow marriage instead.
Are you saying you don't mind being a second class citizen

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#12 Mar 2, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
It would be interesting if they voted in Civil Unions, and then the Supreme Court ruled that any state with DP or CU had to go with marriage, especially if they have a Constitutional ban on it. That would probably lead to even more court casts.
(whispering)

SSHH! Don't tell them!

Since: Jan 12

Port Richey, FL

#14 Mar 2, 2013
Jake wrote:
Ain't nothing any worse than a bunch of whiny a:ss queers. Poor pathetic creatures.
No Jake were nothing like you deary

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#15 Mar 2, 2013
disaster in the making wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying you don't mind being a second class citizen
I'm saying you don't reject civil unions just because they aren't marriage, especially when civil unions are a proven stepping stone to marraige equality as we've seen happen in other states- VT, CT, NH, CA, WA.

Some people can't wait for full marriage equality; they need the rights & benefits now.

Rejecting civil unions completely as 2nd class citizenship is like taking your ball and going home just because they offered you the shortstop position but won't let you be the pitcher, even though the last 2 shortstops eventually became the pitcher. Of course what you don't realize is you didn't stop them from playing; they just went and got another ball and kept playing, only now they don't let any of the gay kids play any position.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#16 Mar 2, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm saying you don't reject civil unions just because they aren't marriage, especially when civil unions are a proven stepping stone to marraige equality as we've seen happen in other states- VT, CT, NH, CA, WA.
Some people can't wait for full marriage equality; they need the rights & benefits now.
Rejecting civil unions completely as 2nd class citizenship is like taking your ball and going home just because they offered you the shortstop position but won't let you be the pitcher, even though the last 2 shortstops eventually became the pitcher. Of course what you don't realize is you didn't stop them from playing; they just went and got another ball and kept playing, only now they don't let any of the gay kids play any position.
I disagree.

Should black Americans accepted indentured servitude as a stepping stone to freedom, instead of emacipation as President Lincoln proclaimed ?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#17 Mar 2, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree.
Should black Americans accepted indentured servitude as a stepping stone to freedom, instead of emacipation as President Lincoln proclaimed ?
Of course you disagree, you're a complete moron.

An appropriate analogy would be should blacks in union occupied areas have rejected emancipation and remained slaves because didn't affect affect ALL blacks (i.e. those in confederate controlled areas) and also didn't come with full citizenship and voting rights?

Again, because you're a complete moron, I'll spell it out for you.

Rejecting civil unions gets us NOTHING, while passing civil unions in states which aren't yet ready to pass full marriage equality DOES get many same-sex couple many of the rights & benefits they so desperately need NOW. Civil unions are also proven to lead to full marriage equality in just a matter of years, as we've seen in CT, VT, NH, WA, CA, and as we're about to see in IL, DE, NJ, & RI.

No one is forcing you to get a civil union, but to attempt to deny that those limited rights to others is just selfish & stupid.

But then you're a selfish utter moron, so I'd expect no less from you.

Since: Jan 12

Port Richey, FL

#19 Mar 3, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm saying you don't reject civil unions just because they aren't marriage, especially when civil unions are a proven stepping stone to marraige equality as we've seen happen in other states- VT, CT, NH, CA, WA.
Some people can't wait for full marriage equality; they need the rights & benefits now.
Rejecting civil unions completely as 2nd class citizenship is like taking your ball and going home just because they offered you the shortstop position but won't let you be the pitcher, even though the last 2 shortstops eventually became the pitcher. Of course what you don't realize is you didn't stop them from playing; they just went and got another ball and kept playing, only now they don't let any of the gay kids play any position.
You are dead wrong even foxie got this one rite it does show you would settle for civil unions and second class citizenship you're fine with that after all your choice, don't criticize anyone that doesn't agree with such terms and conditions state governments will NEVER be required to recognize civil unions performed but will have to recognize marriages preformed from states that have them and might be sooner than you think

Separate & Unequal -- Second-Class Status:
Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the
fact that a civil union remains a separate status just for gay people represents real and powerful
inequality. We've been down this road before in this country and should not kid ourselves that a separate
institution just for gay people is a just solution here either. Our constitution requires legal equality for all.
Including gay and lesbian couples within existing marriage laws is the fairest and simplest thing to do.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#20 Mar 3, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm saying you don't reject civil unions just because they aren't marriage, especially when civil unions are a proven stepping stone to marraige equality as we've seen happen in other states- VT, CT, NH, CA, WA.
Some people can't wait for full marriage equality; they need the rights & benefits now.
Rejecting civil unions completely as 2nd class citizenship is like taking your ball and going home just because they offered you the shortstop position but won't let you be the pitcher, even though the last 2 shortstops eventually became the pitcher. Of course what you don't realize is you didn't stop them from playing; they just went and got another ball and kept playing, only now they don't let any of the gay kids play any position.
If a CU is the best one can get at the time, then is would be foolish not to take that, and still fight for full marriage equality.

I suspect those that feel superior for "standing on principle" are those tho don't have families to think of.

The fight NEVER stops until full equality is reached, but baby steps are welcomed, too, because they usually lead to more.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#21 Mar 3, 2013
disaster in the making wrote:
<quoted text>
You are dead wrong even foxie got this one rite it does show you would settle for civil unions and second class citizenship you're fine with that after all your choice, don't criticize anyone that doesn't agree ...
No one is saying that gay people should "settle" for civil unions, but they ARE a stepping stone. The fight won't end until complete marriage equality is achieved, everywhere in this country.

But, if YOUR family's security is at risk with having no protections at all, are you saying that you would keep them at risk rather than accept the less than optimal protections a CU provides?

Sorry, I would take what I could get, since where I live I can get NOTHING - my family comes before pride. In my state, a CU might be the only thing that could pass, at least for awhile.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#22 Mar 3, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you disagree, you're a complete moron.
An appropriate analogy would be should blacks in union occupied areas have rejected emancipation and remained slaves because didn't affect affect ALL blacks (i.e. those in confederate controlled areas) and also didn't come with full citizenship and voting rights?
Again, because you're a complete moron, I'll spell it out for you.
Rejecting civil unions gets us NOTHING, while passing civil unions in states which aren't yet ready to pass full marriage equality DOES get many same-sex couple many of the rights & benefits they so desperately need NOW. Civil unions are also proven to lead to full marriage equality in just a matter of years, as we've seen in CT, VT, NH, WA, CA, and as we're about to see in IL, DE, NJ, & RI.
No one is forcing you to get a civil union, but to attempt to deny that those limited rights to others is just selfish & stupid.
But then you're a selfish utter moron, so I'd expect no less from you.
Excellent points. At first I was angry that "civil unions" were considered the solution.

But then I understood it's like the old saying, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".

This IS progress. True it isn't the final step but it IS a step forward in the struggle for equality.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#23 Mar 3, 2013
disaster in the making wrote:
<quoted text>
You are dead wrong even foxie got this one rite it does show you would settle for civil unions and second class citizenship you're fine with that after all your choice, don't criticize anyone that doesn't agree with such terms and conditions state governments will NEVER be required to recognize civil unions performed but will have to recognize marriages preformed from states that have them and might be sooner than you think
Separate & Unequal -- Second-Class Status:
Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the
fact that a civil union remains a separate status just for gay people represents real and powerful
inequality. We've been down this road before in this country and should not kid ourselves that a separate
institution just for gay people is a just solution here either. Our constitution requires legal equality for all.
Including gay and lesbian couples within existing marriage laws is the fairest and simplest thing to do.
Of course full marriage equality is the goal, but in some states that's not going to happen just yet.

NO ONE is forcing you to get a civil union, but there is no reason those who WANT or NEED the benefits a civil union can provide UNTIL we get marriage equality shouldn't be able to do so.

You're simply being selfish and attempting to dictate what legal unions people enter into. Sound familiar??

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#24 Mar 3, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Excellent points. At first I was angry that "civil unions" were considered the solution.
But then I understood it's like the old saying, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".
This IS progress. True it isn't the final step but it IS a step forward in the struggle for equality.
Civil unions have always been a means to an end- the end being full marriage equality.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why does the Texas criminal code still ban "hom... 15 min Chris Rather 40
News Catholic parents fight gay couple's adoption 1 hr Mullahing It Over 6
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 hr Chris Rather 25,281
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr Frankie Rizzo 46,340
News 'Reading a book can't turn you gay,' say author... 2 hr Frankie Rizzo 105
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 4 hr GomerPyle 13,282
News Audra McDonald joins Michael Tilson Thomas for ... 4 hr Mullahing It Over 3
News Anxiety in America up since Donald Trump became... 6 hr Will 80
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 8 hr Wondering 5,416
More from around the web