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

Mar 1, 2013 | Posted by: Gay And Proud | Full story: www.huffingtonpost.com

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.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of73
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

One step closer......
Truth

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

She gets it, and she understands the language she is using and has used.

Since: Jan 12

New Port Richey, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

33.00, -111.51

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

I hope she sits in the back of teh bus.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Carole, thank you. You DO "get it".

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

St. Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Mar 2, 2013
 
"casts" = "cases"

Since: Jan 12

New Port Richey, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

New Port Richey, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

33.00, -111.51

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

New Port Richey, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

“Liberty AND Justice”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

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: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of73
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

53 Users are viewing the Gay/Lesbian Forum right now

Search the Gay/Lesbian Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 6 min HMT 123 50,431
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 7 min Irving 200,200
CO Baker Found Guilty for Denying Gay Couple We... (Dec '13) 11 min Frankie Rizzo 15,430
NC's Rep. Stam: Pedophilia could be a sexual or... 16 min Homostats 54
Croatia same-sex vote: Croats strongly vote aga... (Dec '13) 17 min Sigh Nope Fairy Tale 121
Tony Perkins Warns Support of Gay Rights by 'Li... 17 min Frankie Rizzo 20
NPR Boosts Plight of Catholic School Teacher Fi... 21 min Dan 12
Losing Streak Lengthens for Foes of Gay Marriage 33 min Frankie Rizzo 1,779
Court favors disclosing anti-gay marriage donors 47 min Catholic League of Duncey 1,532
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••