Gay rights, marriage measures spark debate

Sides differ on effect of issues, especially if voters pass both

John C. Ensslin, Rocky Mountain News

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Recognizing domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian couples will radically redefine marriage and open the door to similar protections for polygamists and others, advocates of Referendum 43 argued during a televised debate Wednesday.

Nonsense, countered supporters of Referendum I. Gay partners already are a part of society, they said, and all the referendum will do is give them some of the same rights and economic security that heterosexual couples have now.

In a spirited but generally polite hourlong debate on KDBI-Channel 12, the opposing sides agreed on very little, other than that voters should carefully read the language of the two measures as well as the state-issued blue book that explains them.

They disagreed on what impact the measures would have, especially if voters approve both of them.

Referendum I would give spousal rights and responsibilities to gay couples in domestic partnerships. Amendment 43 defines marriage as a union only between a man and woman.

Recent polls show likely voters favoring both measures, which could make Colorado the only state with two such laws on the books.

Jeff Crank of Coloradans for Marriage argued that Referendum 43 would provide traditional marriage protection from "activist judges" who might seek to redefine it in their rulings.

"Judges aren't always right, but the people of Colorado tend to have more common sense," Crank said.

Jeremy Shaver of the Interfaith Alliance of Colorado called that argument "the rhetoric of fear" and added, "What makes marriage strong is care and commitment, not a constitutional amendment."

The panelists were even more sharply divided on what impact Referendum I would have.

Carrie Gordon Earll, a policy analyst with the political arm of Focus on the Family, predicted that if Referendum I passes, it will open a floodgate of litigation and hidden costs for Colorado employers and taxpayers.

"This is open-ended. We do not know what this is going to cost taxpayers," she said. "(However,) we know there is going to be a bill at the end of this."

But Pat Steadman, a consultant for Coloradans for Fairness, predicted that the measure will defuse some of the controversy over gay marriage by refocusing the issue on domestic partnerships.

"This is a common-sense solution," he said.

They said it

Here are some quotable quotes from the KDBI debate over Referendum I and Amendment 43.

• Pat Steadman, supporter of Referendum I, which would extend spousal rights to same-sex couples: "Children (of these couples) will be the big winners if Referendum I passes. It will provide the economic security that they do not have today."

• Carrie Gordon Earll, opponent of Referendum I: "I'm glad that we live in a state that is tolerant and fair, but Referendum I goes much further than that."

• Jeremy Shaver, opponent of Amendment 43, which would define marriage as the union between a man and a woman in the state constitution: "I think it's just a political wedge issue and a diversionary tactic."

• Jeff Crank, an Amendment 43 supporter: "They (gays and lesbians) can have a good relationship, but it shouldn't be marriage."