In Colorado, same-sex marriage remain...

In Colorado, same-sex marriage remains a hot issue

There are 147 comments on the The Kansas City Star story from May 19, 2012, titled In Colorado, same-sex marriage remains a hot issue. In it, The Kansas City Star reports that:

Minutes after President Barack Obama announced he supported gay marriage, the Democratic governor of Colorado choked back tears in Denver as he ordered state lawmakers to reconsider a civil-unions measure that Republicans had defeated the day before.In the week that followed, the debate over equal rights for same-sex couples consumed the state ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Kansas City Star.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#127 May 22, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
most recent vote, overwhelmingly against gay marriage...number 31...
reality supports reality.
a federal law?
while you argue against DOMA that marriage is a state's rights issue...(if you're not you should be)
Um, it wasn't legal in Colorado, therefore all that happened was the status quo, nothing more. Seriously, are you just trying to troll? Because you are failing miserably. Marriage is also a civil matter, thus the constitution bans are, technically, illegal for that one reason.

Your kind are wanting a civil war over this, the rest of us are just pushing for equality.
Reality

Windsor, VT

#128 May 22, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, it wasn't legal in Colorado, therefore all that happened was the status quo, nothing more. Seriously, are you just trying to troll? Because you are failing miserably. Marriage is also a civil matter, thus the constitution bans are, technically, illegal for that one reason.
Your kind are wanting a civil war over this, the rest of us are just pushing for equality.
you are speaking about popularity as gay marriage gets rejected by vote time after time...

yes a renewel of the status quo, we dont want gay marriage...

a civil war on this?
your not that important.
Reality

Windsor, VT

#129 May 22, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You are treating three cases as if that is the trend, 3 cases spread among 7 successful deregulation bills on marriage. The trend is clearly toward equal rights, and Washington will soon be the eighth such state, and you ignore that as well.
Your willful ignorance in an attempt to discourage people is merely giving more people reasons to completely ignore you fundies. Your world view is so small and narrow that you think a few failures count as a trend, I pity your lack of perspective.
I pity your entitlement and hope your side pushes for a scotus review soon...
reality will get very real at that point.
(Wonder why Prop 8 got derailed for that, you should...)
Christsharian Law

Philadelphia, PA

#130 May 22, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
except EVERY-TIME its come to a vote
We don't normally vote on historically disliked minorities' rights. Because they're in the minority.

The NC vote was much closer than it would have been even three years ago.

The trend is clear. The sexually sick talibangelicals are about to start losing the votes.

And it will be your personal psychotic break, you dumb pos.
Reality

Windsor, VT

#131 May 22, 2012
Christsharian Law wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't normally vote on historically disliked minorities' rights. Because they're in the minority.
except when we do, right?
Christsharian Law wrote:
<quoted text>

The NC vote was much closer than it would have been even three years ago.
the trend is an overwhelming vote against in NC (not a landslide is a win for you?)
and 31 of 50 states have banned gay marriage by amendment(psst that's more than half)
and obama drops in the polls on his forced announcement of support?

you are delusional.
Christsharian Law

Philadelphia, PA

#132 May 22, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
except when we do, right?
<quoted text>
the trend is an overwhelming vote against in NC (not a landslide is a win for you?)
and 31 of 50 states have banned gay marriage by amendment(psst that's more than half)
and obama drops in the polls on his forced announcement of support?
you are delusional.
The Bill of Rights is all about not voting to do away with the rights of minorities.

Had we voted there would still be states outlawing interracial marriage.

We don't normally vote on the rights of minorities, but there's so many unhinged jeebus freeek bigots that we have gone astray.

Again, the NC result would have been much more bigoted even three years ago. This fact shows where things will be there in about another three years - marriage equality would be no big deal for most of the population.

You're not too stupid to understand "trend." In fact you're terrified of the way things are going.

Okay, you disgusting, evilgelical pos?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#133 May 22, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
except EVERY-TIME its come to a vote, we vote overwhelmingly against gay marriage.
NC voted recently, oh yah, you ignore reality that doesn't fit your point...
How do you think you will change 31 state constitutions?
Don't you think when the SCOTUS case finally comes up, the 32 states who do not Constitutionally protect gay marriage explicitly will be a factor?
it will.
Support in North Carolina is more today than it was 5 years ago. Granted it's not as much support as in other parts of the country, but it's the south- no one expected us to win.

The state constitutions will either be changed by the people of those states or by the courts. Oregon is working on repealing their amendment, and the anti-gays in Ohio are so afraid the people would actually vote to repeal their ban that they're going to court to prevent the pro-equality side from getting a referendum on the ballot.

Let me repeat that- the anti-gays in Ohio are suing to prevent the people from voting on a marriage equality referendum. What happened to "let the people vote"?

The state bans will have about as much effect on the SCOTUS as the state bans on inter-racial marriages had on that SCOTUS, or the number of states which banned abortions, etc.
Reality

Windsor, VT

#134 May 23, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Support in North Carolina is more today than it was 5 years ago. Granted it's not as much support as in other parts of the country, but it's the south- no one expected us to win.
The state constitutions will either be changed by the people of those states or by the courts. Oregon is working on repealing their amendment, and the anti-gays in Ohio are so afraid the people would actually vote to repeal their ban that they're going to court to prevent the pro-equality side from getting a referendum on the ballot.
Let me repeat that- the anti-gays in Ohio are suing to prevent the people from voting on a marriage equality referendum. What happened to "let the people vote"?
The state bans will have about as much effect on the SCOTUS as the state bans on inter-racial marriages had on that SCOTUS, or the number of states which banned abortions, etc.
thats what you miss, when you amend the constitution, you cut off your court...
courts merely interpret what is written, so a clear amendment is not reviewable except under the US Constitutions(like in CA).

but I see a trend of new support for a federal amendment...
Obama actually kicked it off by making an election issue out of it.

If there is a federal amendment, you guys are done...
maybe you should consider addressing the oppositions concerns about what they believe marriage is instead of calling them bigot?
In my mind, full rights under CU's is the answer....its a lock to most people that gays should be recognized by the state...but marriage is another story. I do note that when amendments pass they usually ban both Cu's and gay marriage like in NC...
compromise generally finds the justified center, and in this debate that is CU's.
But you guys will insist separate is unequal, and in my own personal opinion, it will likely lead to you being banned from both.
US conlaw, and our reasons we provide "marriage" benefits simply dont fit what you are after...
Reality

Windsor, VT

#135 May 23, 2012
Christsharian Law wrote:
<quoted text>

Okay, you disgusting, evilgelical pos?
I am not religious at all, but don't let that stop your ignorance or your hate...

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#136 May 23, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not religious at all, but don't let that stop your ignorance or your hate...
If you are not religious, then you have no grounds for being against same sex marriage, thus you agree that it should be legal. Good to know.
Reality

Windsor, VT

#137 May 23, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are not religious, then you have no grounds for being against same sex marriage, thus you agree that it should be legal. Good to know.
whats the point of putting false words in my mouth like this?
it only indicates your inability to be forthright...

I do not need a religious base to believe a child should have both a mother and father...
lesbians seem to think father's are obsolete and I disagree...

you will be surprised when you finally see the reality that a lot of opposition to gay marriage is on this basis and not religion or "sin". MANY people are like myself and would actively push for CU's, but would oppose marriage...
think is, you guys would have to actually try to understand what our side is saying rather than ignoring it and calling it bigotry just so you can stay ignorant.
Makes sense

Dearborn, MI

#138 May 23, 2012
What does Ted Haggard think of all this?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#139 May 23, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
thats what you miss, when you amend the constitution, you cut off your court...
courts merely interpret what is written, so a clear amendment is not reviewable except under the US Constitutions(like in CA).
but I see a trend of new support for a federal amendment...
Obama actually kicked it off by making an election issue out of it.
If there is a federal amendment, you guys are done...
maybe you should consider addressing the oppositions concerns about what they believe marriage is instead of calling them bigot?
In my mind, full rights under CU's is the answer....its a lock to most people that gays should be recognized by the state...but marriage is another story. I do note that when amendments pass they usually ban both Cu's and gay marriage like in NC...
compromise generally finds the justified center, and in this debate that is CU's.
But you guys will insist separate is unequal, and in my own personal opinion, it will likely lead to you being banned from both.
US conlaw, and our reasons we provide "marriage" benefits simply dont fit what you are after...
Good luck with that. You anti-gays couldn't pass a federal constitutional amendment with an anti-gay Republican majority in both the House & Senate and an anti-gay Shrub squatting in the White House at the height of the "gay marriage" hysteria after Massachusetts passed marriage equality.

The trend is only moving in one direction- toward equality. Every poll shows MORE support for marriage equality, than last year, and MORE than the year before that, and MORE than the year before that, and MORE than the year before that, etc, etc, etc, etc,.

We'll have marriage equality across the country within the decade.
I have no concerns at all about the FMA every getting anywhere.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#140 May 23, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
whats the point of putting false words in my mouth like this?
it only indicates your inability to be forthright...
I do not need a religious base to believe a child should have both a mother and father...
lesbians seem to think father's are obsolete and I disagree...
you will be surprised when you finally see the reality that a lot of opposition to gay marriage is on this basis and not religion or "sin". MANY people are like myself and would actively push for CU's, but would oppose marriage...
think is, you guys would have to actually try to understand what our side is saying rather than ignoring it and calling it bigotry just so you can stay ignorant.
It's too late or civil unions; that ship sailed the day Massachusetts started marrying same-sex couples.

It's your fellow anti-gays who insist on opposing ANY legal recognition/rights/benefits for same-sex couples who are to blame.
At one point we would have gladly settled for civil unions, but once we saw states like Michigan, Ohio, and most recently North Carolina passing bans on ANY & ALL recognition that we knew it was all just a big lie.

So we have NOTHING to lose by pushing for full marriage equality, because we all know your fellow anti-gays won't support civil unions either, just like they did in Colorado this month.
Latter Day Taints

Philadelphia, PA

#141 May 23, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not religious at all, but don't let that stop your ignorance or your hate...
Okay, you don't use fundie interpretations of religious to buttress your bigotry.

And lying moron, I don't say that sexually sick homophobes like you can't marry, adopt, serve openly, be protected from arbitrary firing.

We know who the haters are.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#142 May 23, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
whats the point of putting false words in my mouth like this?
it only indicates your inability to be forthright...
I do not need a religious base to believe a child should have both a mother and father...
lesbians seem to think father's are obsolete and I disagree...
you will be surprised when you finally see the reality that a lot of opposition to gay marriage is on this basis and not religion or "sin". MANY people are like myself and would actively push for CU's, but would oppose marriage...
think is, you guys would have to actually try to understand what our side is saying rather than ignoring it and calling it bigotry just so you can stay ignorant.
Evidence to support your assertion that children require parents of opposing genders.

Also, if marriage is about children, then does that mean all married couples without children, any desire or means to create children, should not be married? If that is your assertion, then that would outlaw many marriages, I'd wager at least half of them.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#143 May 23, 2012
Point of fact, civil unions was put to a vote here in Washington, it was one of those "anything but marriage" laws. It was voted down by the anti-rights groups. That is why our state government did the reverse and signed a same sex marriage law, which I believe was just enacted, but if not then only a few days from it. The anti-rights people could not get the signatures to oppose it.

Should have gone with the civil unions. If anti-rights bigots keep pushing against equality, then they will lose their voices, and I'm perfectly fine with that.
Reality

Barre, VT

#144 May 24, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

The trend is only moving in one direction- toward equality. Every poll shows MORE support for marriage equality, than last year,
and every vote overwhelmingly bans gay marriage...

your polls are always skewed since they ask should gay marriage be "illegal" and none of us want gay people arrested or anything...
but when the polls ask is marriage between a man and woman, you lose every time...

I really think Cu;'s are the appropriate balance...
I don't think calling that stance bigotry will get you anywhere, IMHO, it will hurt you to do so...
Reality

Barre, VT

#145 May 24, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidence to support your assertion that children require parents of opposing genders.
that it takes opposite genders to MAKE them?

I would say our experience alone proves it, but if you want a study, show a study that says both a mom and dad is NOT preferable...
I will warn you, the studies about gay parents always compare them to single parents...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#146 May 24, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
and every vote overwhelmingly bans gay marriage...
your polls are always skewed since they ask should gay marriage be "illegal" and none of us want gay people arrested or anything...
but when the polls ask is marriage between a man and woman, you lose every time...
I really think Cu;'s are the appropriate balance...
I don't think calling that stance bigotry will get you anywhere, IMHO, it will hurt you to do so...
A 4% spread in California and Maine is hardly "overwhelming". Of course the North Carolina vote was extremely lopsided; no one expect anything else from a southern bible belt state. But it IS noteworthy the ban in NC passed by a 61-39 margin, while all their fellow confederate states passed their bans 4-8 years ago by 70-30 margins.

So even where opposition to marriage equality IS overwhelmingly against us, the trend is STILL going in only one direction. Of course the south will take longer to get to equality, and just like with inter-racial marriage bans it will likely take the SCOTUS to force them to join the rest of the nation.

Different polls as the question in different ways. The biggest problem with the polling is they don't limit pollig to actual voters. We know your fellow anti-gays are much more motivated to vote against marriage for same-sex couples, while for many of our supporters it's not an issue they care enough about to actually get them to the polls.

You can support civil unions all you want. The rest of us will be fighting for equality no matter how long it takes. As was shown recently in Colorado & North Carolina, the anti-gays will vote against civil unions just as they will against marriage equality. There are VERY FEW people who actually support civil unions but not marriage equality, and that pool is shrinking every year.

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 Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min OzRitz 1,417,674
News Hillary Clinton tops Donald Trump in battlegrou... 7 min d pants 203
News Think black people aren't voting for Trump? Gue... 22 min Black People 4 Trump 6
News George Soros: Dark Lord Sowing Chaos Around the... 27 min spud 2
News Clinton blames Republican leaders for a 'paraly... 27 min payme 1,497
News Backlash for Trump after he lashes out at the M... 29 min Ms Sassy 996
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 33 min Chimney1 204,733
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 hr Abe 239,238
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 1 hr Brian_G 393,404
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 1 hr abc 7,504
News Trump calls on GOP to improve African-American ... 3 hr Carol 259
More from around the web