Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

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

Gay rights beneficiary bill advances in House

Rocky Staff And Wire Reports

Published February 21, 2009 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Colorado Government

More stories »

A bill making it easier for gays and lesbians to leave property to their partners and visit each other in the hospital won tentative approval from the state House on Friday, over objections from opponents who said it was an attempt to establish civil unions.

The measure would allow any two unmarried people to make each other their designated beneficiaries.

Rep. Bob Gardner, a Republican from Colorado Springs, strongly opposed the bill. He called it an attempt to circumvent voters who have rejected civil unions and defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Rep. Mark Ferrandino, a Denver Democrat who is openly gay, said the bill is meant to give gays and lesbians, older people, and low-income people a range of rights, including to make hospital visits and funeral arrangements, and to inherit property when there's no will.

He said it falls far short of the rights given married couples, including the right of dissolution.

"This bill will do a lot to help the people of Colorado, people of low income, and, yes, the lesbian and gay people of the state," Ferrandino said.

Rep. Lois Court, D-Denver, said it will help another population.

"Our husbands are going to die sooner than we are. That's a fact," she said. "I have some dear women friends, all heterosexual, and I can see a time when we might combine households."

Comments

  • February 21, 2009

    3:09 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Konyok writes:

    For goodness' sake, why can't Republicans learn to pick their fights judiciously?

    There are some good reasons to oppose gay marriage, but this measure only institutes what has become the consensus of the people, even old curmudgeons like me. There is nothing here to object to on moral grounds in a secular, pluralistic society.

  • February 21, 2009

    8:46 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    freethinker07 writes:

    What is illegal now that this would make legal?

    Making a will is real simple. The executor of the will has the authority to make funeral arrangements. Here is a website which will do it for $20. http://www.buildawill.com/google/?ad=...

    A medical power of attorney is easy also. That allows the person holding it to visit, ask questions of doctors and everything that a spouse might do. And the hospital will help set it up free of charge.

    The "right of dissolution" is not needed because it dissolves marriages and the people this bill is aimed at aren't married to each other. So they have nothing to dissolve.

    This is political grandstanding.

  • February 23, 2009

    9:37 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    PhilM2 writes:

    Freethinker, I agree.

    Currently all of these desired actions can be addressed through other, pre-existing legal channels. If two people are that commited to providing for others in their wills, providing power of attourney, etc. they can do it.

    The bill is a waste of time and taxpayer money to call attention to an agenda, only.

  • February 23, 2009

    3:53 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    timothyc writes:

    Why shouldn't two consenting committed adults of the same gender have the same benefits as two consenting adults of opposite genders who also happen to have the legal right to marry? Explain intelligently, please.