Should gay people be allowed to marry in Colorado?

bubba writes:

In reference to the need for gay people to marry, I remember that old saying, "All the single people wish they were married and all the married people wished they were dead".

If being married was the utopia they think it is we wouldn't have so many divorce lawyers.

hogarm writes:

Is the question,
spiritual marriage,
religious marriage,
or legal marriage?

redwhiteandBLUE writes:

NO!

scooterchic writes:

I don't see how my relationship affects other relationships. I want the same legal benefits that married couples receive. Being gay isn't a choice. I knew when I was a young child (under 10), and I wasn't exposed to other gay people that "converted" me. I was raised in a very small town in the middle of nowhere. If the argument is that "it's God's word", then we should take everything in the bible and make it the gospel. Straight couples shouldn't be allowed to get a divorce until gay marriage is legal. Banning gay marriage is complete discrimination.

nicolec writes:

I can't see how we can deny it given the constitution. Equal rights means equal rights for ALL citizens. If you don't like it move to somewhere like Iran (they don't even have gay people there!) but don't come crying to me when they step all over the rights you're accustomed to having here. If we don't grant equality to all our citizens we risk losing it for all our citizens.

KarenSDR writes:

I went with my daughter and her friend to old town Fort Collins for a last-minute rally of about 150 people. We had speeches by a minister, a state representative, and two women who were married in CA this summer. We sang "Gentle Angry People" and marched (processed, since we didn't have a marching permit) to the Lambda Center a few blocks away. Lots of great signs ("Will Work for Equality"). Many people honked and waved as we walked.

I would have gone to Boulder or Denver if this hadn't been happening closer to home. I'm a mostly-straight ally and PFLAG mom; my daughter is bisexual and her best friend is gay. It felt amazing to be part of something happening nationwide today.

JKon78 writes:

They should have the right to marry in order to gain equal rights as far as adoption matters go, estate rights (in case one of them passes away), filing as "married" for tax purposes and any other rights that married couples receive. And why should it matter to anyone anyway whether the couple that's marrying is of the same sex? It's THEIR decision, not ours. They should be free to make that choice.

tbizzy writes:

Marriage is a state-sanctioned privilege, just like a driver's license.

What "rights" is it that you are looking for that cannot be granted through the proper paperwork?

thevealchop writes:

This is an issue of rights. Gay or straight, any person should be allowed to marry. I am saddened to see our society hasn't caught up with the ideals set forth in our constitution. People who support a ban on gay marriage are on the wrong side of history.

rdamurphy writes:

It truly amazes me how Liberals find things in the Constitution nobody else can find, like a "right" to marriage... It has nothing to do with rights, marriage is a religious institution legitimized by statutes and laws. What's next? Polygamy? Bestiality? Muslim "marriage" to nine year olds? Homosexuals have the exact same rights everyone else has. They just don't have the special "rights" they want that no one else has. Nobody has a "right" to marry anyone, they have to do so within the confines of the law. Just as no one has a right to drive a car, they have to be licensed, and follow the same laws everyone else does. Since the libs found a "right" to abortion, everyone else seems to want to find "rights" in the Constitution that aren't there, and were never meant to be, while ignoring the ones that are there! Tell you what, those of you that want to live "alternative lifestyles," just close that closet door again and leave the rest of us alone.

yaakovwatkins writes:

Marriage is a relationship between at least one man and at least one woman.

I'm reminded of something Abraham Lincoln said in a debate with Douglas for the 1860 election for president. Lincoln asked Douglas "If you count the tail as a leg, how many legs does a horse have?

Douglas responded: "Five."

Lincon said: "Wrong, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg, it's still a tail."

Calling a relationship between two people of the same gender a marriage doesn't make it a marriage. It's not a marriage.

If they want a domestic partnership law that is virtually identical to marriage, that's fine with me. But they can't have the term marriage.

LS writes:

If you don't like it move to somewhere like Iran (they don't even have gay people there!)

What?! There are gay people all over the world, some just cannot proclaim or embrace it openly without being killed in the process. Seriously? No gay people there? OMG.

Uno writes:

The answer is no.

BJG writes:

To tbizzy:
Heres some you can't get through the "right" paperwork..Social security benefits for spouses, federal retirement for spouse, in most states retirement benefits for spouses, visitation rights in hospitals, inheritance rights without taxing the survivor, in most cases health insurance for your partner, in almost all states no regnition of your marriage performed in the two states that allow gay marriage and no federal recognition at all....there are about 1000 rights given to "married" couples that are not given to partners. And the "paperwork" for some of these ritght don't come cheap, yours comes with a marriage license.

jimmyrobot writes:

tbizzy, redwhiteandBLUE, rdamurphy, yaakovwatkins, uno, and all other intolerants out there:

we live in a country that defines limits between church and state. the two cannot co-mingle in legal terms. however, it has been decided by our country that two people can enter marriage in what is a traditionally religious matter... and the reason that our country entered that fray is to ensure that committed couples that cannot gain religious approval are still allowed basic human rights under the law. these would include any catholic married to someone outside of the church, any jew married outside of the synagogue, and an atheist who believes that they can love an individual without loving God.

under the guise of the law - and specifically NOT your religious beliefs - i would ask you do define how same-sex couples should be counted exempt from the tenets of our constitution. your anecdotal arguments are inappropriate - take, for example, and driver's license and a marriage license. one pertains to the ability to drive... does the other pertain to the ability to love? no.

i beg of you, imagine what life would be life if you were told you weren't allowed the same rights as the majority (first, i'd imagine, you'd have to take some leave to imagine yourself in the minority) and realize that your God created us all equal. perhaps you should take note.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4xfMi...

chizman69 writes:

Gays shouldn't be able to marry. Whats next some guy wanting to marry a 14 year old?

mcge8715 writes:

Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege between one man and one woman. If we allow gays to marry why not allow bigamy...why not allow a truly free society with legalized drugs and prostitution, even child prostitution. A man who answers the call of his carnal desires is less than the beast of the field, they eat, sleep and procreate.
As far as those spouting "separation of church and state" need to read the Constitution.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Or there should not be a "State religion"
Free exercise...the right to proclaim one's views on religious beliefs, doctrines.

mcge8715 writes:

What is this I read about a mom and her bi=sexual daughter...on odd days she can be married to her girlfriend and on even to her boyfriend. What a sham, sexuality is a choice

roger44 writes:

The statement that all are created equal does not wash, what about down's syndrome? kids born with defects? The divorce rate in this country shows that even marriage by men and women are not successful for the most part, and it is a fact that most gays have far more partners than straight, might give you a clue.

Shellyoung writes:

Some proposition 8 supporters are using a false excuse for not supporting gay marriage. In the Oxford dictionary there is MORE THAN ONE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE, such as "An intimate union." Therefore the constitutional definition is false.

Mindfulcoach

Art writes:

Marriage is a religious issue and the government should just get out of the marriage business. If my church wants to allow gays to marry or wants to allow any other forms of marriage it is up to them. Since when does the government have the right to tell the churches what they can do? Can the government tell the churches who can have communion or who they can have funerals for, or who they can baptize? No one seems to see that this is not a government issue but a religious issue. If my church wants to allow a certain type of marriage it is up to the church. And to the person who asked "what's next, allow a marriage to a 14 year old?" Yes. Marriage age has been going up and up based mostly on government regulations. In the recent past marriage of 14 year olds was quite common. If the government would get out of the marriage business many of us would be much better off.

bubba writes:

These people have lost my vote. Demanding it won't get it, protesting won't get it and attacking a religion won't get it.

I no longer feel any sympathy for you people. Try earning our respect. It works. Violence doesn't.

lukylu writes:

Scooterchic is so right. Use all the words from God in the Bible as the sole resource for laws for today's society. Had God intended same sex marriage, how would the world re-populate itself? God didn't create Adam and Steve, but Adam and Eve. Following God's rules is a sure path to everlasting live and happiness.

JKon78 writes:

Chizman.... the difference is that marriage is between 2 consenting ADULTS (be they black/white/asian/hispanic/etc., straight/gay/bi/etc.). Last I heard, a 14 year old is not considered to be an adult.

GK writes:

"I no longer feel any sympathy for you people. Try earning our respect. It works. Violence doesn't."

Does that include all the gays that have been beaten, even murdered for just being gay??

BJG writes:

To all those who are against this: What does it matter to you? Will this infringe on any of your rights? You need to get this through your thick skulls, the marriage rights that are being requested are NOT,I repeat, NOT a religious rite. This is civil marriage rights. See the difference...it's even spelled different...rights and rites. Cheezzz!!!!!

Dixie8 writes:

until Loving v. Virginia in 1967, it was illegal for a caucasian to marry anyone with even 1/8 African-based race. Google that. This couple (Virginians) went to DC to marry, where it was legal. Returned home to VA and were arrested, jailed & had to go through a trial to have their marriage OK'd by the law. People screamed & hollered that this type of marriage would bring the downfall of American, that it represented the end of moral values. We've come so far since then, it seems absurd that this country ever outlawed mixed race marriages. Now we have a mixed race President-elect & his African-American family en route to the White House. Let's all calm down. My closest male friend has been with his gay partner for 24 years. They live quietly in a senior community. They have both worked hard all their lives, saved up & bought a small house. Neither wants to get married but they feel it should be legal for those who do want to marry. Marriage should be absolutely Separate, as our Constitution states: separation of church & state. Marriage is a spiritual union & the govt. should have NO say in this issue!

Dixie8 writes:

How dares anyone compare a gay marriage to bestiality or child rape? This is the type of fear-based religion which is ruining our country. I am a Christian, devout--so therefore, I believe "love one another." Not fear & hate anyone different. To get a marriage license in this country, both parties must be adults (proven with birth certificates). If the person is under legal age in that state, the parents must sign for the underage person. Both parties must sign, giving their consent to this union. A beast cannot sign a paper. Get real. Stop making idiotic comparisons. And really, stop with the fear of Muslims. There are millions of Muslims who are more peaceful than many Christians I know. You are focusing on a tiny minority of people who have done terrible things. Think "Gitmo" and ask yourself how wonderful Americans are.
By the way, the Constitution demands that we keep church & state separate. That's what people mean when they say gay people have rights under the Constitution. It says the govt. shall not meddle in peoples' private religious lives. So if a gay couple wants to get married, they should be allowed to do so. It is absolute prejudice which keeps gay spouses from receiving the benefits of marriage.

dbeene writes:

I have to repeat this link as it really says it all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4xfMi...
What difference does it make to those of you against this? They are taking nothing away from you. If it doesn't affect what is inside your house, let people be who they are and love who they wish. It's no skin off your nose. They aren't looking at what you do in your house. Leave them be to love.

adamkadmon writes:

Why does it seem that those who have no problem with gay marriage generally present educated and intelligent arguments on the subject while so many of those who disagree with it present arguments that appear to be overly-simplistic, illogical, and often incredibly dumb?

josiebrown writes:

Equal, huh? Everyone seems to get equal consideration .. oh, except the Christians! Why is it ok for Ellen DeGeneres etc to sink mucho money into fighting Prop 8, but it's NOT ok for Mormons to contribute against it? It has been proven that the breakdown of traditional marriage leads to society's eventual demise; it is not wrong to defend against destruction. And the only truly ignorant responses are those of the ilk of adamkadmon ... 'incredibly dumb'?? Justify, please.

YngDodger writes:

The answer is YES. This is really sad.

For everyone RELIGIOUS that is replying - here's something to chew on:

It's sad that religions, to a large extent, have become DIVISIVE rather than unifying forces. Instead of bringing about an ending of violence and hatred through a realization of fundamental oneness of ALL LIFE, they brought more violence and hatred, more divisions between people as well as between different religions and even within the same religion. THIS DIVISION PERSONS OF RELIGION ARE FIGHTING SO HARD TO KEEP (gay marriage) IS NO DIFFERENT!

Religions have become ideologies, belief systems people could identify with and so use them to enhance their false sense of self. Through religion you can make yourselves "right" and others "wrong" and thus define your identity through your enemies, the "others", the "nonbelievers" or "wrong believers"... Throughout history, is has been mostly these persons of religion who have seen themselves even justified in killing. Man made "God" in his own image. The eternal, the infinite, and the unnameable was reduced to a mental idol that you had to believe in and worship as "my god" or "our god."

I wish more religious people would become spiritual.

There is a difference... having a belief system - a set of thoughts that you regard as the absolute truth - does not make you spiritual no matter what the nature of those beliefs is. In fact, the more you make your thoughts (beliefs) into your identity, the more cut off you are from the spiritual dimension within yourself. You become more controlled by those who are molding your identity for you - your religious leaders.

Many "religious" people are stuck at that level. Unless you believe (think) exactly as they do, you are wrong in their eyes, and in the not-too-distant past, they would have felt justified in killing you for that. And some still do, even today.

The change in religion is people waking up and finding spirituality.

Don't be blinded by your thoughts. Look deeper at your connection with all humanity.

ChristineB writes:

Josiebrown:
The difference between Ellen DeGeneres and the Mormon Church should be obvious....

But I'll clear it all up anyway.

Ellen DeGeneres is not a tax-exempt religious organization. The Mormon Church is. That's the difference.

The IRS has a lot of rules for tax-exempt religious organizations. Staying clear of politics is one of them.

Ellen Degeneres pays taxes. She can give money to whatever political party/cause she wishes without causing a conflict.

The Mormon church can't.

adamkadmon writes:

"It has been proven that the breakdown of traditional marriage leads to society's eventual demise"

I don't think that it is necessary for me to defend my position, josiebrown .....

It would appear as though you have just done if for me.

adamkadmon writes:

I apologize for my un-called for attacks on people with whom I disagree.

I really do understand that there are many aspects to any issue that involves controversy. And I always try to not engage in Ad Hominem attacks. But I sometimes tend to lose patience with people who seem to be so blatantly and appalingly ignorant.

lts writes:

In Colorado, a couple can simply declare themselves married. The requirements to establish the validity of a common law marriage are hardly complicated (http://www.ago.state.co.us/FAQ/CLM_FA...). Civil marriage is *not* (repeat *not*) a sacred institution in Colorado. It is a civil contract between consenting parties. (The Catholic bishops in Colorado consider a couple's existing common law marriage to be positive evidence of their denial of the sacramental nature of marriage, and will refuse a Church marriage to a couple who are already living together as common law spouses!) Arguments against extending Colorado civil marriage contracts to same-sex couples defy logic.

debshari writes:

My partner and I have been together for 24 years. We have no children, but pay school taxes, give back to the community through several important volunteer organizations, are caregivers for our elders, are block captains in our neighborhood, are well educated career professionals, and yet are denied access to the civil institution of marriage. Since our union is not legally recognized, we must take costly legal steps to protect our civil rights and partnership. It is time for social justice for the GLBT community.

dmiller328 writes:

eloquently said............. Please give this 6 and 1/2 minutes of time to listen and take as long as you'd like on thinking about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecP...

willibeaux writes:

Marriage is as it should be. A union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation. Gays and Lesbians cannot procreate. BTW Colorado and 37 other states already have an amendment to their State Constitutions that marriage is between a man and a woman. So the poll won't accomplish anything.
Domestic partnerships with the rights that go it is more practical for those whose can't naturally procreate. Call me a bigot but who gives a rats rear end what you call me.

IRUNMAN writes:

willbeaux-

What does procreation have anything to do with marriage? I know of multiple "married" hetero couples who have no interest in raising any ankle biters yet they are married.

Your case and reasoning is poor.

I can't even grade your post, I give it a "Does not fit criteria."

Come back when you have something knowledgeable to contribute.

willibeaux writes:

IRUNMAN
Who gives a rats rear end what you think of my post? Scientific facts are facts so don't try to use married couples who have no interest in raising "ankle biters" as the norm. You like every human being was once an ankle biter.
As an honorably discharged veteran of the USAF (Korean War Service) I earned my right to free speech. If you are not a vet yours was a gift. I suggest to go visit your nearest National Cemetery and count the headstones. That's the cost of your free speech gift.

OffTheChain writes:

If gay people are not allowed to marry, then straight people should not be allowed to divorce.

adamkadmon writes:

I really hate it when they start using terms like "rats rear end".

What does that mean ????

quietchristian writes:

I am not gay, I am a Christian and I have absolutely nothing against gay people. If they are allowed to get married - does it have ANY effect on me or my marriage or my rights? No. If it doesn't take any of your rights away, or cause harm to you then keep your nose out of their business. For all the other Christians out there throwing around that being gay is a sin remember this... Matthew 7:1-2 "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." Or how does John 8:7 sound to you: "...He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone..." We all live in sin, all sin is equal - focus on your own sins and leave others alone until you get your life in order. If you don't think you are living in sin, I ask that you pray for help from God to see the truth. Here are a few more quotes for those that feel they are living a life of righteousness: Mark 10:9 "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Mark 10:11-12 "And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." The last time I checked, adultery happens to be one of those silly commandments - being gay isn't. If gay marriage isn't legal, then divorce by straight people shouldn't be either. If my children grow up to be heterosexual, homosexual, asexual, so be it. Love your fellow man - as God commands. If everyone did, it would be a MUCH better world.

pbleopard writes:

As a straight (and married) man, I believe gay marriage should definitely be allowed. It is time to end ANY discrimination against people who are gay. The priviliege of being heterosexual in this culture is profound. Straight people are not the target of violence because of their sexual orientation, can display love for their partners in public without fear, never have to think about whether to disclose their orientation or the gender of their partner in work or social encounters, and on and on it goes. Preventing gays from being married is just another artifact of privilege and it is blatantly unfair!

davdclimbski writes:

Blogging is interesting; I have actually learned that there are some very decent, well meaning Christians. Who understand "Love thy neighbor" and "Judge not lest ye be judged." The issue is not rights so much as it is equal treatment under the law. Marriage may be a priviledge, but there are associated rights and considerations that are denied to Gay/Lesbian people becasue they cannot be "married". Domestic partnership is fine, but measures like California's Prop 8 are designed to marginilize Gay people. The United States has played in the past with taking something away, (Alcohol in U.S. Amendement 18, that was repealed U.S. Amendment 21); this has never been a good idea. Also if those who are so concerned about keeping marriage away from people who want it are really worried about the sanctity of marriage you should do something in the straight community. For the first time in the history of the United States there are more single people than married people. Straight marriage is falling apart nationally. You guys have lots more to worry about than two men or two women trying to find a small bit of happiness in a difficult world.