Last minute drama as Civil Unions Bill fails in Colorado
COLORADO, May 20, 2012 — The Colorado legislative session expired on Wednesday, May 9th with a civil unions bill and thirty others left unpassed by the House. Gay activists and the media focused on the civil unions bill, treating viewers and readers to scenes of tearful hugs and vows to raise the issue again next session.
The civil unions bill was authored by gay legislator Pat Steadman in the Senate—the second bill of the session.
When the bill got to the House the Republican leadership of Speaker McNulty and Majority Leader Stephens could have quietly killed it in committee but inexplicably failed to do so. (Stephens, who is running in a hotly contested primary, claims to be against civil unions.)
As a result, the bill came up for debate at the last minute and died on the floor along with the other bills.
But that was not the end of it: Democrat Governor Hickenlooper wasted no time the next day in calling for a special session to reconsider the civil unions bill, reportedly “emotional” as he made the announcement.
The Republicans’ last-minute kill seemed in jeopardy and pro-family conservatives rallied around the state on Sunday—Mothers’ Day—and prepared to descend on Denver on Monday when the special session would start.
This time the civil unions bill was killed in committee. Republican Don Coram (R-Montrose) voted against the bill despite having a gay son who wanted him to vote for it. Rep. Coram said that he could not overturn the will of the people who in 2006 voted against the idea.
In 2006, Amendment 43, specifying marriage as between only one man and one woman, passed with a 55% vote while Referendum I, to establish domestic partnerships, failed at 47%.
At the national level, the same week that ended the regular legislative session, Biden and Obama came out of the closet in favor of civil unions and in North Carolina, an amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman passed by 61% of the vote, making that state the 31st state to affirm traditional marriage.
Is all this just coincidence? Hardly. The Colorado Democrat Party takes its cues from Washington D.C. and the gay activist billionaires who fund their campaigns.
So much for civil unions and election politics. Are there serious issues involved? It is really not an issue of equity or fairness: two members of the same sex are free to enter into any contract or make any agreement that married couples can. Colorado law further allows any two people to designate each other as beneficiaries. And any person of any gender can use any public restroom. I am not making this up; it’s a state law.
The Colorado civil unions bill is really about securing state recognition of “gay marriage.” The proposed bill makes that clear in all but name. The word “spouse” would be replaced in statute with “civil unions.” And, yes, you’d need a state-supplied license to enter into a civil union.
Therein, I think, lies the objection that everyone concerned with civil liberties ought to be concerned about. Those who favor civil unions or homosexual marriage will often counter with, “Why not: the state recognizes heterosexual marriage.” As if two wrongs make a right.
Indeed if, as most Americans believe, marriage is an institution ordained by God and you are married by a church in the name of God, isn’t that enough? The involvement of the state is superfluous and at times even harmful. Why would homosexuals want more state involvement in their private affairs?
Over at the Green Dragon Tavern, Eric Moldenhauer writes that he is gay and he does not favor civil unions. He believes that marriage is a private contract and that people should be free to enter into those contracts without government interference. He is right: in Europe, marriages weren’t even commonly recorded until the sixteenth century and where they were recorded it was in the parish church record books.
That tradition came to Colonial America. In Maryland, for example, the Catholic Church recorded all vital records. When the government started requiring licenses the object was not to recognize or support marriage but to limit it—to prevent interracial marriage or, in the terms of the eugenics movement, to prevent “undesirables” from marrying and having children. This is the ugly truth of the Progressive eugenics of Margaret Sanger—founder and still the heroine of Planned Parenthood—and others, notably the National Socialists in Germany.
By involving the state in licensing marriage we also allow—even mandate—the state to define it. Religion defines marriage, not the state. We are not a theocracy, as Progressive liberals never tire of reminding us—and I agree. That’s why there is no definition of marriage in the Constitution and why there is a right to religious freedom. It is indeed completely a logical contradiction for those who argue for the separation of church and state to also argue for the state to become involved in the religious institution of marriage. That is exactly what the “wall of separation” was meant to prevent.
We’ve been too ready to trade our natural rights for artificial state-defined rights. It is time to stop; time to take the red pill.
