Colorado Gov. Signs Designated Beneficiary Law

Apr 10, 2009 | Posted by: Tony C | Full story: www.advocate.com

Gov. Bill Ritter of Colorado on Thursday signed the Designated Beneficiary Agreement Act, which allows unmarried adult couples -- including same-sex partners -- some of the legal rights afforded to married couples; the legislation delivers expanded rights in areas including inheritance matters, medical decisions, and hospital visitation. With an eye toward convenience, the law permits any two unmarried adults to designate each other as beneficiaries by filing a form with a county clerk. The legislation takes effect on July 1.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of24
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Apr 10, 2009
 

Judged:

1

It's not marriage, but it's not to be minimized, either. This is a step in the right direction.

Since: Dec 08

Toronto, ON, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Apr 10, 2009
 

Judged:

1

Certainly a step in the right direction!

“Sotomayor TheNewFace of Racism”

Since: Apr 09

Bailey, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Apr 10, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

The republicans should have supported this bill. It is a very conservative position to give individuals the freedom to choice their own family. So that goes to show that neo cons are not conservative but theocrats looking to control peoples lives.
Resist Ignorance

Huntsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Apr 10, 2009
 
censoredagain wrote:
The republicans should have supported this bill. It is a very conservative position to give individuals the freedom to choice their own family. So that goes to show that neo cons are not conservative but theocrats looking to control peoples lives.
I agree. This just proves that they are not interested in "Family Values" after all.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Apr 10, 2009
 
Oh, gee thanks... a Designated Beneficiary. That's really nice. %|

“Protestant, Gay, Libertarian”

Since: Apr 08

Long Island, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Apr 10, 2009
 
Second class citizens once again. Step to the back of the bus.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Apr 10, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

While this legislation guarantees a minimum of rights that didn't exists before, it shouldn't necessarily be seen as a step in the right direction; as it puts same sex committed relationships on par with roommates and further entrenches our second class status. More crumbs from the table that we're now going to be expected to be grateful for and satisfied with...

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Apr 10, 2009
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
While this legislation guarantees a minimum of rights that didn't exists before, it shouldn't necessarily be seen as a step in the right direction; as it puts same sex committed relationships on par with roommates and further entrenches our second class status. More crumbs from the table that we're now going to be expected to be grateful for and satisfied with...
You go too far with the "roommates" analogy. This requires a reciprocal commitment to care for one another--even after death. I have never had such a commitment to any of my roommates. Any of us could (and did) move on at any time with little disruption to the others' lives.

But it does put us on par with the two spinster sisters who care for one another like, well, sisters. Or two widows who share a house, home, and old age together--not because they're lesbians--because they honor their previous marriages and need each others' help.

A good libertarian would definitely approve of such choices. I used to think that libertarian values were closely associated with conservative values. Lately, however, the latter have been hijacked, as is illustrated in this vote.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Apr 11, 2009
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
While this legislation guarantees a minimum of rights that didn't exists before, it shouldn't necessarily be seen as a step in the right direction; as it puts same sex committed relationships on par with roommates and further entrenches our second class status. More crumbs from the table that we're now going to be expected to be grateful for and satisfied with...
Exacly my thoughts... not marriage, not a civil union, something even less than... definatly not a step in the right direction.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Apr 11, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

Daniel P from Long Island wrote:
Second class citizens once again. Step to the back of the bus.
It's "Foot in the door", and that's big.

Next, it will be both feet, an arm, and them LOOK OUT, we'll walk right on through in every state.

That's why the neo-cons were so afraid of this, and other small gains like this.

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Apr 11, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

Hmmmm. Some people want it ALL right NOW! Not going to happen over night. Good grief! This country has come a long way since Nov.4th. Most of what has happended would NOT have happened if McCain and a Rep. admistration was in there.
born that way

Washington, DC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Apr 11, 2009
 
So I'm traveling out of state with my "designee" and one of us is hospitalized. Guess I just tell the hospital to call the county clerk back in Colorado for my authorization to visit and make health decisions...

Is that the way this works?

“I will not go quietly.”

Since: Feb 07

Indianapolis Indiana

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Apr 11, 2009
 
Not enough information given at all.
So, how does it affect the taxes on inherited property? Are they eliminated or reduced as they are for a married couple?
Did earlier laws forbid same-sex couples from making similar provisions within a Will, power of attorney, medical PoA?
Does this law bear the same legal force as those laws which recognize Marriage rights?
It doesn't sound all that spectacular to me without more information and honestly including little legislative tidbits like that may indeed be used just as the 'Domestic partnership' laws were used in CA to rationalize denying full fledged marital rights to same-sex couples so you'll pardon me if I pass on breaking out the Champagne just yet.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Apr 11, 2009
 

Judged:

1

Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
Exacly my thoughts... not marriage, not a civil union, something even less than... definatly not a step in the right direction.
Better than trying to get something less than a civil union passed and even THAT not passing.

Since: Apr 07

Palmyra, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Apr 11, 2009
 
censoredagain wrote:
The republicans should have supported this bill. It is a very conservative position to give individuals the freedom to choice their own family. So that goes to show that neo cons are not conservative but theocrats looking to control peoples lives.
Oh, they're obsessed. Oh, they're obsessed. They are like *mental patients*(I was just saying this in another thread) in their seething, vomiting, spewing *hatred* of anything which they feel threatens a "familial core" that they attempt ceaselessly, ceaselessly to *force* down the throats of other people. What a sickening "laugh" that it's *ANYONE* pro-gay who is forcing anything upon anyone; it is these obsessed, sick individuals who are *almost literal mental patients* about their endless, sick, anti-religious and anti-christian selfishness.

It's so unconscionable that (as I've been saying for some time now) I have come to associate *religion itself with evil*. This is not to say that I don't appreciate many religious people who follow precepts of love, compassion, and so forth; I'll be the first to want to identify their virtue and their nobility. But now, it's got to be *proven* to me; upon *first* hearing that anyone is religious, I think, "Ahhh, in other words, selfish and evil." But I am very open to *seeing* that they are not that way,*if* I see it in their behavior.

Since: Apr 07

Palmyra, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Apr 11, 2009
 

Judged:

2

And I do see both sides on this one.

It really is the equivalent of telling the slave, "You can eat directly outside the mansion next to the dogs, rather than sitting way out in your shack in the field." I can absolutely see it in no other way than that.

HOWEVER, the "master" is still letting the slave eat directly outside the mansion rather than in his own shack.

I don't mean this post in a backhanded way, either; I'm *NOT ABOUT* to call this anything near equality, but it *IS* technically better than nothing, absolutely.

“That's Mama Luigi to you too”

Since: Jun 08

Orange County,CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Apr 12, 2009
 
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
Better than trying to get something less than a civil union passed and even THAT not passing.
Don't forget Referendum I allmost passed in '06 The No on I and Yes on 43 where the same.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Apr 12, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

In some states you pass what CAN be passed and work for more in the future. I think ANY bill that address rights for same-sex couples, ESPECIALLY if it includes other types of relationships, can help advance gay rights in the future. Maybe this would be the spark that makes the old spinster sisters realize they do indeed have something in common with the gays and they may be supportive when civil unions or whatever does finally come up for a vote.

The biggest hinderance of the advancement of gay rights (besides religious zealotry) is that many people just plain don't believe they have anything at all in common with "the gays". That's the real reason we keep losing these votes on constitutional amendments in the states. The anti side is very polarized, as is the pro side. What we need to do is reach the people in the middle who just don't really care one way or the other. Those people either don't vote at all, or just skip that part of the ballot because they think it doesn't affect them.

Interesting statistics from the Prop 8 vote:

Total ballots cast- 13,743,177
Total votes on prop 8- 11,613,355

That means over 2 million people who voted did NOT vote on the Prop 8 measure at all. Prop 8 only passed by 523,431 votes.

Another 3 million registered voters did not come to the polls at all, and another 6 million eligible voters did not even register.

That's 11 million eligible votes in California who didn't vote on Prop 8. Since the total votes on Prop 8 were 11.5 million, almost 50% of eligible voters did not even vote on Prop 8.

Now granted, even if every single person in the state voted, the end result may have been the same- we'll never know for sure. But considering the fervor of the anti-gay side, I'm pretty sure that just about everyone that was definitely opposed to marriage equality came out to vote.

Sorry for the long post, but I just got around to crunching the numbers myself and even though I suspected as much, I never looked at the raw numbers before. I urge everybody to go to www.vote.sos.ca.gov and see for yourself.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Apr 14, 2009
 
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
Better than trying to get something less than a civil union passed and even THAT not passing.
...or more like something to keep us apeased so the whole issue gets knocked down in priority.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Apr 14, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
...or more like something to keep us apeased so the whole issue gets knocked down in priority.
Do we all see what is happening in Nevada? They're going to get nothing because the Governor is going to veto a simple DP bill.

So I'll take what I can get at the moment in Colorado.

That all important first "foot in the door" is critical. Upgrading it later seems to be easier.

So if marriage would come in ten years, this temporary compromise might make it come in 7.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of24
< 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••