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.

First Prev
of 31
Next Last

“Church | | State”

Since: Jun 07

Toby's Landing

#1 Jul 14, 2011
I am not happy about this, even though I should be. If this is on the 2012 ballot it will affect Colorado's voting in national elections. The right-wing will bring out the anti-gays in droves and it won't do much to draw independents and progressives.

It almost sounds like somebody decided to do this to make sure Obama has no chance of carrying Colorado. It's become a battleground state and this could push it red.

Now... If they were going to have this in 2014 I'd be THRILLED.
Frank Stanton

New York, NY

#2 Jul 14, 2011
Well, despite all our differences at least we can ALL agree that Obamaniac® is Evil. PURE EVIL.

:)

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

Seminole, FL

#3 Jul 14, 2011
Tough job to get 86,000 signatures in a fairly short time. Reality is you're going to need somewhere in the 120,000 signature range in order to guarantee you have 86K registered voters. On the other hand you'd only need 6% more votes than you got last time, which is entirely possible. That nasty nest of bigotry, Colorado Spring, seems to have a lot less sting than they've had in the past. There may be enough Gay money in the area to make it happen.
Lazlow wrote:
I am not happy about this, even though I should be. If this is on the 2012 ballot it will affect Colorado's voting in national elections. The right-wing will bring out the anti-gays in droves and it won't do much to draw independents and progressives.
It almost sounds like somebody decided to do this to make sure Obama has no chance of carrying Colorado. It's become a battleground state and this could push it red.
Now... If they were going to have this in 2014 I'd be THRILLED.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#4 Jul 14, 2011
So it looks like we'll have votes on marriage equality in Minnesota, Maine, Colorado, Washington, & Oregon.

While I doubt we'll win them all, winning ANY of those votes would be historic.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#5 Jul 14, 2011
Lazlow wrote:
I am not happy about this, even though I should be. If this is on the 2012 ballot it will affect Colorado's voting in national elections. The right-wing will bring out the anti-gays in droves and it won't do much to draw independents and progressives.
It almost sounds like somebody decided to do this to make sure Obama has no chance of carrying Colorado. It's become a battleground state and this could push it red.
Now... If they were going to have this in 2014 I'd be THRILLED.
While I understand your concern, Obama is going to have to be able to stand on his own in 2012. Unless we want to wait another decade for the right case to get to the right SCOTUS, we're going to have to start repealing these amendments state by state, just like they were passed.

It may take multiple votes, but eventually many of these bans will be overturned.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#6 Jul 14, 2011
Lazlow wrote:
I am not happy about this, even though I should be. If this is on the 2012 ballot it will affect Colorado's voting in national elections. The right-wing will bring out the anti-gays in droves and it won't do much to draw independents and progressives.
It almost sounds like somebody decided to do this to make sure Obama has no chance of carrying Colorado. It's become a battleground state and this could push it red.
Now... If they were going to have this in 2014 I'd be THRILLED.
I say if it doesn't work in 2012, then in 2014. If it doesn't pass in 2014 then in 2016, 2018,2020,2022,2024.... as many FN years as it takes to get this thing passed.
Frank Stanton

New York, NY

#7 Jul 14, 2011
WeTheSheeple wrote:
So it looks like we'll have votes on marriage equality in Minnesota, Maine, Colorado, Washington, & Oregon.
While I doubt we'll win them all, winning ANY of those votes would be historic.
There shouldn't even BE ANY votes ! Marriage IS a fundamental right, protected by the U.S. Constitution, and people do NOT have the "RIGHT" to vote on other people's constitutional RIGHTS.

Fast-tracking the fight to SCOTUS would be a better idea.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8 Jul 14, 2011
Frank Stanton wrote:
<quoted text>
There shouldn't even BE ANY votes ! Marriage IS a fundamental right, protected by the U.S. Constitution, and people do NOT have the "RIGHT" to vote on other people's constitutional RIGHTS.
Fast-tracking the fight to SCOTUS would be a better idea.
Well the "fast track" has been taking decades, and I see absolutely ZERO indication this SCOTUS is in a hurry to get involved.

So it's vote or wait another decade.
Frank Stanton

New York, NY

#9 Jul 14, 2011
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Well the "fast track" has been taking decades, and I see absolutely ZERO indication this SCOTUS is in a hurry to get involved.
So it's vote or wait another decade.
I disagree with the strategy. New York recently enacted marriage equality via the legislative process. It is now the 6th state to do so, and by far the most populous. California will probably join us too in the near future, although I have no idea what teh timetable is, or where teh Prop 8 case is now in the prcess.

Since the Article IV of the U.S. Constitution REQUIRES (with NO exceptions) each state to legally recognize the legal acts of all of the otehr states, I think the best approach is to have SCOTUS rule on it. I realize that tehy can pick and choose which cases to hear and which cases not to hear, but with a significant percentage of the U.S. population living in jurisdictions with marriage equality, and that number is expected to double to about 25% once the Prop. 8 case is finished, I think SCOTUS, in the foreseeable furure will decide taht they MUST hear a case on this.

It's already creating a patchwork mess of legalities, and the federal government's own laws is contributing to the mess. I think they'll hear a case on this sooner tahn you think, and tey should.
aleycat

Aiea, HI

#10 Jul 14, 2011
Sorry for CO having this put on the ballot. I live in CA and in 2008 it was put before the people. Well do you really think most straights will vote yes with all these super right winged people coming in from other states and tell lies and stories as they did in CA. Hear it is 2011 and we still can't get married in CA.

Want to add what the Judge Walker said that you can't let the public make the decison on equal rights. The majority will always win. With that siad I hope that HRC and other gay org are working on getting something that does not have to deal with the voters.

We have been on PUBLIC DISPLAY ALL OUR LIVES.... LET US LIVE AND LET LIVE. THIS IS NOT A GOVERMENT PROBLME.. IT IS THE LIFE OF MILLIONS OF GAY/LESBIAN PEOPLE WHO LOVE AND WANT TO SPEND A LIFE IN HAPPYNESS NOT HAVING OT DEAL WITH PLEOPLE LIKE BUCKMANS.. SICK PEOPLE AND SHE WANTS TO RULE THE COUNTRY..

Our governer today signed the bill to insure that gay/lesbian history is taught in all Ca schools today. YEA!!!!!!!!!! Soon Marriage...

Sorry if spelling if off. No glasses today. Sorry fokes
Frank Stanton

New York, NY

#11 Jul 14, 2011
aleycat wrote:
Sorry for CO having this put on the ballot. I live in CA and in 2008 it was put before the people. Well do you really think most straights will vote yes with all these super right winged people coming in from other states and tell lies and stories as they did in CA. Hear it is 2011 and we still can't get married in CA.
Want to add what the Judge Walker said that you can't let the public make the decison on equal rights. The majority will always win. With that siad I hope that HRC and other gay org are working on getting something that does not have to deal with the voters.
We have been on PUBLIC DISPLAY ALL OUR LIVES.... LET US LIVE AND LET LIVE. THIS IS NOT A GOVERMENT PROBLME.. IT IS THE LIFE OF MILLIONS OF GAY/LESBIAN PEOPLE WHO LOVE AND WANT TO SPEND A LIFE IN HAPPYNESS NOT HAVING OT DEAL WITH PLEOPLE LIKE BUCKMANS.. SICK PEOPLE AND SHE WANTS TO RULE THE COUNTRY..
Our governer today signed the bill to insure that gay/lesbian history is taught in all Ca schools today. YEA!!!!!!!!!! Soon Marriage...
Sorry if spelling if off. No glasses today. Sorry fokes
I'm not sure if your poor spelling is the result of no spectacles or just standard Cali education.

LOL

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#12 Jul 14, 2011
If polls suggest this could win, major groups will get the 120K signatures. If the major groups' polls don't suggest winning, it will just be a band of disorganized college students carrying petitions around campus.

I can't possibly know how good the environment is in CO, but I have strong doubts. The other question is which side is hurt worse by ballot initiatives in multiple states. My feeling is it's our side.
Al P

Pekin, IL

#13 Jul 14, 2011
Lazlow wrote:
I am not happy about this, even though I should be. If this is on the 2012 ballot it will affect Colorado's voting in national elections. The right-wing will bring out the anti-gays in droves and it won't do much to draw independents and progressives.
It almost sounds like somebody decided to do this to make sure Obama has no chance of carrying Colorado. It's become a battleground state and this could push it red.
Now... If they were going to have this in 2014 I'd be THRILLED.
Voters ALWAYS reject homosexual 'marriage,' just as homosexuals have overwhelmingly rejected it as an actual practice everywhere it is legal.

I wouldn't worry too much about Obummer. In today's Gallup Poll he was EIGHT POINTS behind a Republican. His Presidency has failed miserably.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#14 Jul 14, 2011
Frank Stanton wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree with the strategy. New York recently enacted marriage equality via the legislative process. It is now the 6th state to do so, and by far the most populous. California will probably join us too in the near future, although I have no idea what teh timetable is, or where teh Prop 8 case is now in the prcess.
Since the Article IV of the U.S. Constitution REQUIRES (with NO exceptions) each state to legally recognize the legal acts of all of the otehr states, I think the best approach is to have SCOTUS rule on it. I realize that tehy can pick and choose which cases to hear and which cases not to hear, but with a significant percentage of the U.S. population living in jurisdictions with marriage equality, and that number is expected to double to about 25% once the Prop. 8 case is finished, I think SCOTUS, in the foreseeable furure will decide taht they MUST hear a case on this.
It's already creating a patchwork mess of legalities, and the federal government's own laws is contributing to the mess. I think they'll hear a case on this sooner tahn you think, and tey should.
I see you're still trotting out your FFC clause b.s., even though it's been pointed out to you hundreds of time that it has NEVER been used to force one state to recognize marriages from other states- NEVER EVER HAPPENED.

If you want to rely on the SCOTUS breaking with all precedent and creating and entirely new interpretation of the FFC clause, then you're in for a LOOOOOOOOOONG wait for equality.

I know it's YOUR opinion that the FFC clause applies to marriage, but every SCOTUS since 1776 has disagreed with your interpretation.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#15 Jul 14, 2011
aleycat wrote:
Sorry for CO having this put on the ballot. I live in CA and in 2008 it was put before the people. Well do you really think most straights will vote yes with all these super right winged people coming in from other states and tell lies and stories as they did in CA. Hear it is 2011 and we still can't get married in CA.
Want to add what the Judge Walker said that you can't let the public make the decison on equal rights. The majority will always win. With that siad I hope that HRC and other gay org are working on getting something that does not have to deal with the voters.
We have been on PUBLIC DISPLAY ALL OUR LIVES.... LET US LIVE AND LET LIVE. THIS IS NOT A GOVERMENT PROBLME.. IT IS THE LIFE OF MILLIONS OF GAY/LESBIAN PEOPLE WHO LOVE AND WANT TO SPEND A LIFE IN HAPPYNESS NOT HAVING OT DEAL WITH PLEOPLE LIKE BUCKMANS.. SICK PEOPLE AND SHE WANTS TO RULE THE COUNTRY..
Our governer today signed the bill to insure that gay/lesbian history is taught in all Ca schools today. YEA!!!!!!!!!! Soon Marriage...
Sorry if spelling if off. No glasses today. Sorry fokes
If the "majority always wins" we wouldn't have marriage equality in New York or New Hampshire or Vermont or Massachusetts or Connecticut or Iowa or DC, since the majority of those legislators & governors & judges were all straight.

Have a bit more faith. The younger generations approve of marriage equality by 75%+ and they are quickly replacing the over 65 anti-equality crowd.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#16 Jul 14, 2011
nhjeff wrote:
If polls suggest this could win, major groups will get the 120K signatures. If the major groups' polls don't suggest winning, it will just be a band of disorganized college students carrying petitions around campus.
I can't possibly know how good the environment is in CO, but I have strong doubts. The other question is which side is hurt worse by ballot initiatives in multiple states. My feeling is it's our side.
I see no harm in attempting to repeal these amendments. If we lose, then we try again next time. I can guarantee these votes will be closer than the votes which passed the amendments, which if nothing else show the progress we've made in a relatively short period of time.

It also lets the anti-gays know that we aren't just going to accept these votes and go away like they hoped.

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

Seminole, FL

#17 Jul 14, 2011
I remain of the mind that 2014 is the year. But then again I didn't think that Bill Clinton was a effing political coward either.
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Well the "fast track" has been taking decades, and I see absolutely ZERO indication this SCOTUS is in a hurry to get involved.
So it's vote or wait another decade.

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

Seminole, FL

#19 Jul 14, 2011
That is a virtual impossibility in Texas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Mississippi and the list goes on and on. Texas given our physical size is especially difficult. Hell, I live in Texas and I'm closer to Los Angeles than I am to Dallas. We managed to get a lot done during the AIDS crisis only because we got state monies to meet in Austin several times a year.
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I see no harm in attempting to repeal these amendments. If we lose, then we try again next time. I can guarantee these votes will be closer than the votes which passed the amendments, which if nothing else show the progress we've made in a relatively short period of time.
It also lets the anti-gays know that we aren't just going to accept these votes and go away like they hoped.

“You'll love me!”

Since: Sep 10

I promise.

#20 Jul 14, 2011
Al P wrote:
Voters ALWAYS reject homosexual 'marriage,' just as homosexuals have overwhelmingly rejected it as an actual practice everywhere it is legal.

In 2006 Arizona voters denied a gay marriage ban David.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_Proposit... (2006)

[QUOTE who="Al P"]
I wouldn't worry too much about Obummer. In today's Gallup Poll he was EIGHT POINTS behind a Republican. His Presidency has failed miserably.
Let me guess, it was a generic republican and not an actual candidate? The truth is, the republican party is leaderless. They have no clue who their nominee is going to be and their monumental fuck-ups in Wisconsin and their bullheadedness over the last four years are going to cost them David. Obama got Osama. He's done in three years what took Bush almost a decade. You are a complete retard if you think any of the current republican challengers have a chance in hell.

“The Buybull is innerrrent.”

Since: Jun 08

Parksley, VA

#21 Jul 14, 2011
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
I say if it doesn't work in 2012, then in 2014. If it doesn't pass in 2014 then in 2016, 2018,2020,2022,2024.... as many FN years as it takes to get this thing passed.
You missed and/or failed to address the simple, tactical point the other poster was making about timing.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 31
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 Pulse nightclub massacre is Florida's top story... 21 min gary 5
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 27 min lides 44,022
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 31 min lides 23,883
News DeGeneres says her show is no place for anti-ga... 35 min Demon Finder 201
News The Case for Decriminalizing Gay Sex in Public ... 48 min Southern Charm 2
News Homosexuality against natural law (Sep '09) 1 hr Southern Charm 1,433
News Gay man legally donates blood after a year with... 1 hr Cordwainer Trout 4
More from around the web