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 (Page 4)

Showing posts 61 - 73 of73
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Jan 12

New Port Richey, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
You actually added the most important point of this debate- the right to CHOOSE.
Unfortunately there are those among us who would deny you that right to choose just because THEY would never accept a civil union.
Your missing the point, I don't care what you choose the point is so far there are only 2 states that for lack of better phrase upgraded to marriage one was Connecticut the other California all the other states have no plans on changing anything anytime too soon, the other point is couples choosing in CU's or DP's are going to find out that what federal rights gained will be limited to marriage and only marriage your going to find out your civil union holds as much water as the holy union I had 5 years ago

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72
Mar 6, 2013
 
disaster in the making wrote:
<quoted text>
Your missing the point, I don't care what you choose the point is so far there are only 2 states that for lack of better phrase upgraded to marriage one was Connecticut the other California all the other states have no plans on changing anything anytime too soon, the other point is couples choosing in CU's or DP's are going to find out that what federal rights gained will be limited to marriage and only marriage your going to find out your civil union holds as much water as the holy union I had 5 years ago
You'd be wrong- again!

Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, California, Washington, Maine, & DC all had either civil unions or domestic partnerships which led directly to marriage.

Illinois, Delaware, New Jersey, & Rhode Island currently have civil unions and as a result are now actively working on passing marriage bills.

Hawaii has civil unions but put off marriage legislation until next year, and Nevada & Oregon have some form of cu/dp but have constitutional bans on marriage.

Of course we all know civil unions don't get federal benefits; neither do marriages of same-sex couples.

Why do you support 2nd class marriage?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73
Mar 6, 2013
 
disaster in the making wrote:
<quoted text>
Your missing the point, I don't care what you choose the point is so far there are only 2 states that for lack of better phrase upgraded to marriage one was Connecticut the other California all the other states have no plans on changing anything anytime too soon, the other point is couples choosing in CU's or DP's are going to find out that what federal rights gained will be limited to marriage and only marriage your going to find out your civil union holds as much water as the holy union I had 5 years ago
And IF- IF- IF DOMA is overturned, then that will push those states with civil unions to pass full marriage equality, since THEN they won't provide the same rights/benefits as a marriage.

But for now they DO provide the same rights/benefits as marriage does for same-sex couples.

Why do you insist on denying the state rights of marriage to people just because the state isn't ready to pass marriage yet?

Since: Jan 12

New Port Richey, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76
Mar 7, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
And IF- IF- IF DOMA is overturned, then that will push those states with civil unions to pass full marriage equality, since THEN they won't provide the same rights/benefits as a marriage.
But for now they DO provide the same rights/benefits as marriage does for same-sex couples.
Why do you insist on denying the state rights of marriage to people just because the state isn't ready to pass marriage yet?
your way out of touch with reality

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#77
Mar 7, 2013
 
disaster in the making wrote:
<quoted text>
your way out of touch with reality
And yet you can't refute anything I said.

Why do you support 2nd class marriage?

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

disaster in the making wrote:
<quoted text>
Your missing the point, I don't care what you choose the point is so far there are only 2 states that for lack of better phrase upgraded to marriage one was Connecticut the other California all the other states have no plans on changing anything anytime too soon, the other point is couples choosing in CU's or DP's are going to find out that what federal rights gained will be limited to marriage and only marriage your going to find out your civil union holds as much water as the holy union I had 5 years ago
Let me get this straight in my head. You want to deny us the right to a CU or DP, but you object to someone denying us the right to marriage. So if a state offers us CU or DP, you want us to reject the limited rights that come with it. And since it has been demonstrated that two states have upgraded, you contend no other state will, and no one will succeed in suing to upgrade. It that about it?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me get this straight in my head. You want to deny us the right to a CU or DP, but you object to someone denying us the right to marriage. So if a state offers us CU or DP, you want us to reject the limited rights that come with it. And since it has been demonstrated that two states have upgraded, you contend no other state will, and no one will succeed in suing to upgrade. It that about it?
"Disaster" doesn't have a clue; he/she supports the same discrimination as the anti-gays. He/she opposes civil unions because they're a "2nd class" institution, yet supports marriage which is ALSO currently a "2nd class" institution for same-sex couples.

There were SIX states that went from CU/DP to marriage- VT, NH, CT, WA, ME, CA.

In addition there are at least 4 states with civil unions currently working on upgrading to marriage- IL, RI, DE, NJ.

"Disaster" accepts 2nd class marriage but not 2nd class civil unions. I wonder why?

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
"Disaster" doesn't have a clue; he/she supports the same discrimination as the anti-gays. He/she opposes civil unions because they're a "2nd class" institution, yet supports marriage which is ALSO currently a "2nd class" institution for same-sex couples.
There were SIX states that went from CU/DP to marriage- VT, NH, CT, WA, ME, CA.
In addition there are at least 4 states with civil unions currently working on upgrading to marriage- IL, RI, DE, NJ.
"Disaster" accepts 2nd class marriage but not 2nd class civil unions. I wonder why?
Seems he/she wants the entire loaf through a mandate from the Supremes. That's the only conclusion I can draw. I don't see that happening. I'm no Constitutional scholar by a long shot, but I believe they have too many options open to them to go that far at this time. I have always felt that we should take CU or DP, if offered, and then sue for an upgrade on a Constitutional basis. If I remember correctly, that's the way it was done in California.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
Seems he/she wants the entire loaf through a mandate from the Supremes. That's the only conclusion I can draw. I don't see that happening. I'm no Constitutional scholar by a long shot, but I believe they have too many options open to them to go that far at this time. I have always felt that we should take CU or DP, if offered, and then sue for an upgrade on a Constitutional basis. If I remember correctly, that's the way it was done in California.
You're correct again.

And Justice Kennedy was quoted just yesterday saying he's concerned the SCOTUS is deciding all these politically charged issues like gay marriage, abortion, healthcare, immigration, etc., instead of the democratic process working it out.

"Major policies in a democracy should not depend on what 9 unelected people from a narrow legal background have to say. Political leaders need to show the world that democracy works through compromise."

I think that's a BIG hint that he's not about to sign on to any sweeping ruling on marriage, but will instead support leaving it to the democratic process in Congress & the states.

That could mean both DOMA & PROP 8 stand.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
You're correct again.
And Justice Kennedy was quoted just yesterday saying he's concerned the SCOTUS is deciding all these politically charged issues like gay marriage, abortion, healthcare, immigration, etc., instead of the democratic process working it out.
"Major policies in a democracy should not depend on what 9 unelected people from a narrow legal background have to say. Political leaders need to show the world that democracy works through compromise."
I think that's a BIG hint that he's not about to sign on to any sweeping ruling on marriage, but will instead support leaving it to the democratic process in Congress & the states.
That could mean both DOMA & PROP 8 stand.
I agree with him to a point. But there comes a time when some issues must be decided at the Supreme Court. Our case is no less or more important than Loving. I doubt we should have waited on such "compromise" as he suggests in the Loving case, and such applies to ours. I think the problem is that we are such a divided nation, even more so than at almost any point since the Civil War, that we force these cases to move up to the Supreme Court. Whites feel more threatened by the fact that they are becoming a minority, and therefore seek to exclude people of color. Straights, for some wacky reason, feel threatened by GLBTs, and therefore seek to exclude us. And there are any number of other prejudices out there that threaten to exclude even more groups. Those things can only, ultimately, be decided by the Supreme Court. And those rulings deserve to be emphatic. I will now get down off my soap box, and leave Speakers Corner.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with him to a point. But there comes a time when some issues must be decided at the Supreme Court. Our case is no less or more important than Loving. I doubt we should have waited on such "compromise" as he suggests in the Loving case, and such applies to ours. I think the problem is that we are such a divided nation, even more so than at almost any point since the Civil War, that we force these cases to move up to the Supreme Court. Whites feel more threatened by the fact that they are becoming a minority, and therefore seek to exclude people of color. Straights, for some wacky reason, feel threatened by GLBTs, and therefore seek to exclude us. And there are any number of other prejudices out there that threaten to exclude even more groups. Those things can only, ultimately, be decided by the Supreme Court. And those rulings deserve to be emphatic. I will now get down off my soap box, and leave Speakers Corner.
Good points. I guess it just concerns me when the "swing vote" on the court is talking about how the SCOTUS shouldn't be deciding these cases in the first place.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#84
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Good points. I guess it just concerns me when the "swing vote" on the court is talking about how the SCOTUS shouldn't be deciding these cases in the first place.
Personally, I think they should not speak in vague generalities. It misleads people. And I, like you, am concerned that he would make such a statement shortly before such a monumental decision could be forthcoming.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85
Mar 7, 2013
 
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
Personally, I think they should not speak in vague generalities. It misleads people. And I, like you, am concerned that he would make such a statement shortly before such a monumental decision could be forthcoming.
Yeah, I mean I expect it from Scalia because he's always been clear he doesn't think gays have any constitutional rights.

It was kinda like when Ginsburg said Roe went too far and should have been left to the states.

I guess it just shows we really don't know what most justices are thinking (except Scalia of course).

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 61 - 73 of73
|
next 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••