Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Gay rights issue raised in debate over state contract ballot initiative

By Lynn Bartels, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published August 5, 2008 at 6:43 p.m.

Text size  

More Elections

More stories »

A proposed ballot initiative dealing with government contracting might accomplish an elusive goal of gay rights activists: putting domestic partnerships in Colorado's constitution.

The proposal bars no-bid government contractors and their immediate family members from contributing to political candidates. Its definition of "immediate family member" includes "domestic partners."

Republican Hank Brown, an attorney and former president of the University of Colorado, was asked his view on the domestic partnership language. Brown, who isn't involved in the debate over the measure, believes it could pave the way for state recognition of same-sex couples.

But Republican Tom Lucero, chairman of Clean Government Colorado, which is behind the initiative, said the language was included because a number of companies that bid on contracts recognize domestic partnerships.

"We categorically reject the argument that this initiative will create new ground for domestic partnerships in the state of Colorado," he said Tuesday. "It's shameful that the opposition would use shallow arguments to protect the culture of corruption in government contracting."

Lucero also pointed out that as a member of the CU Board of Regents, he led the fight against benefits for domestic partners.

"I would not be leading this effort if the initiative created that new ground," he said.

The measure has been linked to the Independence Institute, but President Jon Caldara said the think tank has its own initiative, on payroll deductions, and was not involved in drafting the contracting proposal.

Caldara said the Independence Institute and Clean Government Colorado did share the cost of a hiring someone to gather signatures to put their measures on the ballot.

That explanation didn't stop attorney Mike Feeley, who represents the measure's opponents, from taking a playful jab at Caldara.

"With this proposal, Jon Caldara is building an interesting relationship between the 'let's drown government in a bathtub' folks and gay activists," Feeley said.

He believes the initiative, if successful, would reopen the debate over gay rights.

"Would a Catholic hospital have to change its visitation policy so gays are treated like a son or a daughter or a wife?" Feeley asked.

In the 2006 election, Referendum I would have allowed gay couples to register as domestic partners and obtain many legal rights and responsibilities given to married couples. Voters rejected it.

The contracting proposal would ban firms or any organization with exclusive collecting bargaining rights - namely, labor unions - from giving political contributions for two years after expiration of the contract. cero said the measure is needed because state government awarded more than $386 million in contracts over the past year without taking competitive bids.

But Feeley countered that the measure is designed solely to go after two groups Caldara dislikes: unions and bond dealers.

Caldara said the measure doesn't hurt unions but it will impact bond dealers who "live for sole-source contracts."

"What I've heard is there are a lot of bond dealers who love this (proposal) because they're tired of having to play this game of promising to win an election for a school district in order to get their bond business," he said.

The proposal is pending before the Secretary of State's Office, which is reviewing whether backers collected enough valid voter signatures to put it on the ballot.

Comments

  • August 5, 2008

    7:40 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    me2 writes:

    Without legal papers, you can't prove any two people are domestic partners.

    That leaves it up to them to use the DP to their advantage or not. Interesting.

  • August 5, 2008

    8:23 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    The key to operating under this will be for the Unions will wash their money through 501c4s that can then pass it on to the 527 d'jour, which in turn can support the union-approved candidate or "bigger is better" government ballot item needed by the union.

    The real concern here is for government pukes who will see their political funding dry up.

  • August 5, 2008

    9:21 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    7_ogNiOj writes:

    Wait a second, the tree community completely rejects marriage as sham and entirely unnecessary for a good, cross-species love session.

  • August 5, 2008

    9:27 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    me2 writes:

    Gene, DP=domestic partnerships. To be on my husbands insurance he just tells them we are married. DP's have to prove they have lived together for so long, and probably need witnesses.

  • August 6, 2008

    2:08 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Domino writes:

    Who cares what Jon Caldera thinks. Does the News have a policy to quote the fascist on every issue?

  • August 6, 2008

    9:04 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Ringmaster writes:

    Like the article says... 2006... Ref I... votors rejected it (by a landslide). Period.

    Like it or not - the people of Colorado have spoken loud and clear.

  • August 6, 2008

    9:22 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    kayaker80206 writes:

    It seems like the Republicans want it both ways. They don't want to recognize my relationship, which I'll have to live with, except now they want to recognize in terms of regulating how my partner or I contract with the state to provide services.

    They need to either recognize it or not, and take their lumps, like I have to take them.