Civil unions clear Colo. Legislature,...

Civil unions clear Colo. Legislature, head to gov

There are 210 comments on the SavannahNow story from Mar 12, 2013, titled Civil unions clear Colo. Legislature, head to gov. In it, SavannahNow reports that:

Civil unions for gay couples was a rallying cry for Democrats who took control of the Colorado House in last year's elections and vowed an early vote on the proposal.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at SavannahNow.

Since: Jan 12

Port Richey, FL

#66 Mar 17, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, so then you must oppose any of the current marriage laws for same-sex couples because they DO NOT and WILL NOT provide full equality even after DOMA is repealed.
So it's okay for you to support unequal marriage, but we can't support similarily unequal civil unions?
Bottom line is I support WHATEVER rights & benefits we can get for same-sex couples WHERE EVER we can get them UNTIL we can achieve full marriage equality nationwide.
Once we have full marriage equality nationwide, then there will be no need for civil unions. That said, there may still be people- gay or straight- who would CHOOSE the limited rights & benefits of civil unions because for whatever reason they CHOOSE not to marry. You DO realize there are opposite-sex couples TODAY who choose to get a civil union over a marriage, even though marriage is available to them.
There is no reason they shouldn't have that choice.
I have not seen anywhere hedro's settle for less than marriage, but Hea if settling for less makes you happy I'm happy for you. As long as people like you will say to them thank you thank you thank you instead of NO that,s not enough what you see is all your going to get

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#67 Mar 17, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
But at least you support civil unions while negating the intelligence of that by insisting on being unequal. By the way, we agree that (specifically) will not ever be equal in any way. Congratulations.
Of course civil unions, by their very nature, and in practice, are unequal to marriage.

If they weren't, they would not need a different name.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#68 Mar 17, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
He has always been an asshat. I had no trouble following what you were doing there.
Thanks.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#69 Mar 17, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
But at least you support civil unions while negating the intelligence of that by insisting on being unequal. By the way, we agree that (specifically) will not ever be equal in any way. Congratulations.
As I've explained before, I support civil unions as a means to an end; the end being full marriage equality.

Once we achieve marriage equality there will be no need for civil unions, but I'd still support a person's choice (gay or straight) who wants the limited rights a civil union provides.

Freedom of choice- what a concept.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#70 Mar 17, 2013
disaster in the making wrote:
<quoted text>
I have not seen anywhere hedro's settle for less than marriage, but Hea if settling for less makes you happy I'm happy for you. As long as people like you will say to them thank you thank you thank you instead of NO that,s not enough what you see is all your going to get
Where did I EVER say I would settle for civil unions?

Are you just completely stupid??

One more time-

I support civil unions in states where passing marriage is not a possibility RIGHT NOW. Obviously we will continue to push to upgrade any civil union law to full marriage equality WHEN WE CAN, like we are doing in Illinois & Rhode Island & New Jersey & Delaware.

Why do YOU support unequal marriage?

Btw, thousands of opposite-sex couples have entered into civil unions because for whatever reason they didn't want to get married. They are usually widowed old people who don't want to give up their separate social security benefit if they remarry.
Swede

Stockholm, Sweden

#71 Mar 17, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course civil unions, by their very nature, and in practice, are unequal to marriage.
If they weren't, they would not need a different name.
And rightfully so.

Two filthy, perverted ass-pirates shacking up isn't equal to a normal, decent man and woman getting married.
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#72 Mar 17, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course civil unions, by their very nature, and in practice, are unequal to marriage.
If they weren't, they would not need a different name.
And tangerines are not "equal" to oranges, yet both are good, even with different names.
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#73 Mar 17, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
As I've explained before, I support civil unions as a means to an end; the end being full marriage equality.
Once we achieve marriage equality there will be no need for civil unions, but I'd still support a person's choice (gay or straight) who wants the limited rights a civil union provides.
Freedom of choice- what a concept.
You're the one who wants civil unions to have "limited" rights, not me. And if there are inequities in the law about that, I support rectifying such inequities.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#74 Mar 17, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> You're the one who wants civil unions to have "limited" rights, not me. And if there are inequities in the law about that, I support rectifying such inequities.
Where did I ever say I wanted civil unions to have "limited rights"?

I've always supported civil unions having all the same rights of marriage, including federal recognition.

That said, even IF we could ever get the GOPasaurs in Congress to pass a federal recognition of civil unions, AND get every state to create civil unions, they STILL wouldn't be equal to marriage.

Only marriage is equal to marriage. If we have to call it someting else, then it's not equal.

So while I welcome your help in getting as many right for civil unions as possible in as many states as possible, I'll also be working on getting the right to marry in every state as well as federal recognition of our marriages.

Btw, in about 3 months we'll likely have federal recognition of our marriages. How are you doing on federal recognition of our civil unions?
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#75 Mar 17, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did I ever say I wanted civil unions to have "limited rights"?
I've always supported civil unions having all the same rights of marriage, including federal recognition.
That said, even IF we could ever get the GOPasaurs in Congress to pass a federal recognition of civil unions, AND get every state to create civil unions, they STILL wouldn't be equal to marriage.
Only marriage is equal to marriage. If we have to call it someting else, then it's not equal.
So while I welcome your help in getting as many right for civil unions as possible in as many states as possible, I'll also be working on getting the right to marry in every state as well as federal recognition of our marriages.
Btw, in about 3 months we'll likely have federal recognition of our marriages. How are you doing on federal recognition of our civil unions?
I'm not working at all on federal recognition of anything. Don't much care, nor am I required to care.

Your claimed fortune telling is about as reliable as your other bullsh!t so that is something else I don't much care about.

But I support and encourage your feeling not equal. I really do. And at the same time, don't much care about that, either.

Do you see a common thread in my response? You, personally, mean nothing. As often stated, you are merely cheap entertainment at your expense.(I enjoy exposing hypocrites and frauds.)
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#76 Mar 17, 2013
In post #69 you mentioned civil unions having "limited rights." If you want limited rights, I support your having limited rights. And yes, I am making fun of you and your silly bullsh!t.

Then again, you were just playing word/victim games so whatever point you were claiming means nothing.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#77 Mar 17, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> I'm not working at all on federal recognition of anything. Don't much care, nor am I required to care.
Your claimed fortune telling is about as reliable as your other bullsh!t so that is something else I don't much care about.
But I support and encourage your feeling not equal. I really do. And at the same time, don't much care about that, either.
Do you see a common thread in my response? You, personally, mean nothing. As often stated, you are merely cheap entertainment at your expense.(I enjoy exposing hypocrites and frauds.)
The only thing you've "exposed" is that your opinion is as irrelevant as usual.

But just to review, my "fortunne telling" correctly predicted us being able to marry in a state ('04), and getting the first legislature to pass marriage equality ('09), and getting DADT repealed ('10), and winning our first statewide vote on marriage ('12).

So I'm pretty comfortable predicting we will get federal recognition for our marriages and eventually all 50 states; if not this year, then the year after, or the year after, or the year after.

Some of us are actually willing to fight for what we believe in; not that I'd expect you to understand that.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#78 Mar 17, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
In post #69 you mentioned civil unions having "limited rights." If you want limited rights, I support your having limited rights. And yes, I am making fun of you and your silly bullsh!t.
Then again, you were just playing word/victim games so whatever point you were claiming means nothing.
Again, I never said I wanted limited rights; I was simply pointing out the fact that civil unions only offer limited rights.

You really do have difficulty understanding basic English; maybe that's why you think it's just "word games"......

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#79 Mar 17, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> I'm not working at all on federal recognition of anything. Don't much care, nor am I required to care.
Your claimed fortune telling is about as reliable as your other bullsh!t so that is something else I don't much care about.
But I support and encourage your feeling not equal. I really do. And at the same time, don't much care about that, either.
Do you see a common thread in my response? You, personally, mean nothing. As often stated, you are merely cheap entertainment at your expense.(I enjoy exposing hypocrites and frauds.)
Btw, then obviously you were lying once again when just a couple of posts ago you claimed you would "support rectifying any inequities" civil unions may have.

You can't even keep your lies straight......

Since: Jan 12

Port Richey, FL

#80 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did I EVER say I would settle for civil unions?
Are you just completely stupid??
One more time-
I support civil unions in states where passing marriage is not a possibility RIGHT NOW. Obviously we will continue to push to upgrade any civil union law to full marriage equality WHEN WE CAN, like we are doing in Illinois & Rhode Island & New Jersey & Delaware.
Why do YOU support unequal marriage?
Btw, thousands of opposite-sex couples have entered into civil unions because for whatever reason they didn't want to get married. They are usually widowed old people who don't want to give up their separate social security benefit if they remarry.
to start with post # 59 I would settle for what ever I could get
and thousands of opposite sex couples OK prove it show us a article a news video something proving your point I'm sure if "thousands" are doing this opposed to marriage there has to be some media out there. I guess coming from a GOPher it's to be expected
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#81 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing you've "exposed" is that your opinion is as irrelevant as usual.
But just to review, my "fortunne telling" correctly predicted us being able to marry in a state ('04), and getting the first legislature to pass marriage equality ('09), and getting DADT repealed ('10), and winning our first statewide vote on marriage ('12).
So I'm pretty comfortable predicting we will get federal recognition for our marriages and eventually all 50 states; if not this year, then the year after, or the year after, or the year after.
Some of us are actually willing to fight for what we believe in; not that I'd expect you to understand that.
You have exposed nothing but your "vain and self conceit." And if you're too stupid to realize you've been outed as a fraud, that substantiates (yet again) my assessment that you are incredibly stupid.

You can be as comfortable and dishonest as gives you a stiffy. Doesn't matter to the real world. But I notice your new disclaimer "if not this year, then the year after, or the year after, or the year after." Conveniently added wiggle room showing yet again your dishonesty and bullsh!t. Different than your claim that you *will* win your decision in the next three months. Yet again, you are shown to be a fraud. Surprise. I can predict with absolute certainty that you will die, "if not this year, or the year after, or the year after." But eventually, you will die.
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text> Some of us are actually willing to fight for what we believe in; not that I'd expect you to understand that.
I spent four years in uniform at a time when people like you didn't appreciate or respect people in uniform... until the matter of gays in the military became convenient to your bigotry and hatred. Don't talk to me about fighting. Phuque you. I don't suppose you ever considered putting on the uniform and REALLY fighting for what you believed in. No, you just want to play victim and expose yet again what a fraud and bigot you are. My guess is that your version of "fighting for what you believe in" is to whine, play the victim, and carry on about how people don't like you because you're gay. More likely people don't like you because you're simply a self-absorbed, self-loathing, not-at-all nice person.

And I won't bore you with what some of us did in the sixties and seventies re real civil rights. You wouldn't believe it anyway because it happened to have been done by a straight guy.

Have I mentioned recently that you're a fraud, and Phuque you?
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#82 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Btw, then obviously you were lying once again when just a couple of posts ago you claimed you would "support rectifying any inequities" civil unions may have.
You can't even keep your lies straight......
hehehe. You poor dumb bastard. What lie do you fantasize? Oh, that's right. You can't. Once again, you are outed as a complete fraud. Quote somewhere that I stated I would NOT support, or specifically oppose, rectifying inequities of civil union. Not your tortured and dishonest interpretation of what you would like to dishonestly believe, but factual quotes. Quotes only will be accepted since you are a known and proven liar.

Go ahead. I'l wait... and get a head start on gloating over your continued humiliation.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#83 Mar 18, 2013
Swede wrote:
<quoted text>
And rightfully so.
Two filthy, perverted ass-pirates shacking up isn't equal to a normal, decent man and woman getting married.
When discussing marriage, do you ALWAYS fantasize about straight or gay people having anal sex? Why?

Are you suggesting that there should be some sort of test to prevent straight folks from engaging in it, or banning them from legal marriage if they do?

How will the government run such a program?

And why would it bother?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#84 Mar 18, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> hehehe. You poor dumb bastard. What lie do you fantasize? Oh, that's right. You can't. Once again, you are outed as a complete fraud. Quote somewhere that I stated I would NOT support, or specifically oppose, rectifying inequities of civil union. Not your tortured and dishonest interpretation of what you would like to dishonestly believe, but factual quotes. Quotes only will be accepted since you are a known and proven liar.
Go ahead. I'l wait... and get a head start on gloating over your continued humiliation.
The only way to completely rectify the inequalities would be to make civil unions absolutely identical to marriage in every way, on both the state and federal levels.

And then you would need to change the name to marriage, since the requirement of having a "special" name for an identical institution still sets it apart, and below.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#85 Mar 18, 2013
disaster in the making wrote:
<quoted text>
to start with post # 59 I would settle for what ever I could get
and thousands of opposite sex couples OK prove it show us a article a news video something proving your point I'm sure if "thousands" are doing this opposed to marriage there has to be some media out there. I guess coming from a GOPher it's to be expected
Nope, wrong again.

Go back and read what I ACTUALLY wrote, and what you WANTED to read.

I said I would support (not settle) whatever rights & benefits we can get for same-sex couples whereever we can UNTIL we can get full marriage equality.

UNTIL WE CAN GET FULL MARRIAGE EQUALITY; which I'm supporting as well.

Just one example of many- the Cook County Clerk's office reported 138 opposite-sex couples got a civil union from Jun-Nov 2011. That's just ONE county in ONE of the states which offer civil unions in just a 6 month period. The most common reason given in their survey was a "solidarity with the gay community"; the 2nd most common reason was for the benefits.

Again, it's about having the CHOICE to get whatever rights/benefits are right for your family.

Btw, I chose to get married because that was the right choice for MY family. And while I'm a registered Republican so I can vote in their primary races to help them pick the worst possible candidate, I'm actually an independent who votes for the Dems in the general election.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min CANUK 1,458,839
News Trump says cancel new Air Force One: Costs 'out... 1 min gwwwThe media 4
The time is fast approaching for Obama to ........ 3 min Amy 2
News Thousands of people march during rally at Bosto... 3 min Truthsayer 2,125
News Trump soaks up the adulation, brags about victory 4 min TRUMP WINNERS 154
News The Racist Smear Against Jeff Sessions 5 min Dee Dee Dee 27
News Paul Ryan Says U.S. Will Not Wall Off Entire Me... 6 min inbred Genius 32
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... 9 min TRUMP WINNERS 229
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 45 min TRUMP WINNERS 403,896
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 51 min TRUMP WINNERS 253,263
More from around the web