Civil unions, at last

When the Colorado House Tuesday gave final approval to Senate Bill 11, it marked the end of a long effort by members of the gay and lesbian community in Colorado to win legal recognition of their relationships and something close to equal status with heterosexual married couples.

Gov. John Hickenlooper is expected to sign the measure so that it can take effect May 1.

We applaud the Legislature’s action. A few decades from now, Americans will likely be appalled at the fact that, in the recent past, same-sex couples were denied equal rights. Just as people today are appalled that a generation ago the United States allowed states to enforce Jim Crow laws and treat blacks with the condescending fiction that they were “separate but equal.”

Republicans in the House who opposed the civil-unions bill complained it is different from a measure that was killed in the final hours of last year’s legislative session because its exemption for religious groups is much more narrowly defined.

However, Republicans have only themselves to blame for that, or at least their former House Speaker, Frank McNulty, who contrived to delay last year’s bill until it was too late, even though he knew it had enough votes to pass. Democrats gained control of the House in last year’s election, and it’s no surprise that, working with their Senate colleagues, they have crafted a different bill this year.

Most Coloradans will see little effect from the civil-unions bill, just as the residents of other states that have legalized civil unions or even gay marriage have not witnessed wholesale change in the behavior of their citizens or a sudden decline in conventional marriage as a result of the passage of those laws.

But for gay and lesbian couples in Colorado, who heretofore have been denied the right to share certain parts of their lives — from combining on insurance and retirement benefits to having legal authority to make decisions for an ill or dying companion — passage of SB 11 will mean a great deal, indeed.


COMMENTS

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Page 1 of 1


Most of the hassle over things like civil unions for gays and abortion stem from a lack of understanding of the very real mechanical differences between God’s (Nature’s) free-will-based laws and man’s human-pecking-order (aka “govt”), coercion-based “laws”.
God’s law and man’s law are like oil and water. Their mechanics are exactly opposite.
God’s voluntary-compliance cause-and-effect laws are love-based, free-will based, individualism-based and protect all individuals (1) equally, (2) separately, and (3) simultaneously, in other words, the so-called “Golden Rule” and “Ten Commandments” which have been wisely paraphrased as “don’t do to anyone else that which you wouldn’t want done to you.” Even atheists should be able to live with that concept, which some of them like to call “The Non-Aggression Principle”, since the mathematics of the equation are pragmatically the same for atheist and Christian alike, regardless of the nomenclature.
In direct polar contrast, humankind’s deception-based, fear-based, and coercion-based laws by definition and necessity inevitably pit the “legal” rights of one individual or group against the “legal” rights of another individual or group in the following dialectic perfectly exemplified by the abortion “issue”:  the child’s right to life (thesis) versus the mother’s right to privacy (antithesis). Under this paradigm, after spending huge amounts of money on lawyers for going into their courts, fraudulently called “the people’s courts”, a phony illusion (e.g. Roe v. Wade) of genuine resolution and harmony is arrived at (synthesis). This subtle and complex scam is known as the Hegelian dialectic, a means by which clever individuals create and manage social crises for the purpose of gaining power and money to benefit themselves.
I have long favored civil unions as a strategic antidote to gay propaganda manipulation of the definition of the word “marriage”.
I am fed up with the propaganda which is based on rhetorical brinksmanship and demonization of dissent as “hate”.
If radical gay propagandists had their way, they would eliminate the 1st Amendment and criminalize my opinions with which millions (if not tens of millions) of Americans agree: It just so happens that I believe that smearing feces on one’s urethra (aka “sodomy”) is disgusting and medically risky. I also believe that rectums were designed (or evolved) for the expulsion of waste, not the expression of romantic love.
I don’t remotely “hate” gays. I’m just not going to be intimidated into agreeing with the intellectual dishonesty of pretending that a behavior CHOICE which is an adaptation that works for some is a natural state of being, like gender, or skin, or eye color. I call “B.S.!” on that.

Addendum:
Precisely because I believe it requires an Anarcho-Christian culture to support and sustain the type of constitutionally limited government given to us by America’s Founders in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, I disagree with those who, out of ignorance of the spiritual mechanics of the universe, seek to impose by coercion/force/violence of human law their “religious” beliefs on others who may not share those beliefs, especially when I believe those behaviors, however disgusting, and however condemned in the books of Leviticus and Romans, do not so obviously harm other individuals as murder, rape, theft and false testimony do.
In the system of God’s law, Jesus said to love the sinner but hate the sin. In the system of man’s law, generally speaking, sincerely held religious beliefs cannot be constitutionally extrapolated into contempt of court as they are beyond the reach of government. United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944).
There is nothing in either system of law that prevents me from saying what vile and reprobate minds it takes to, as a matter of propaganda strategy, pretend that those whose religion teaches that homosexuality is sin are “haters”, “racists”, “bigots” and/or “homophobes”. It takes an evil, vile and reprobate mind to try to control the thoughts and speech of others through the obvious intellectual and unconstitutional fraud of “hate speech” and “hate crimes”.
It takes a evil, vile and reprobate mind to try to use barbaric beheader imperialistic Islam to try to destroy the core principles of Golden Rule Christianity just to circumvent the biblical moral prohibitions against self-perceived-as-clever individuals from stealing the labor of their less clever neighbors via such criminal devices as interest-bearing debt-as-money fiat currency which are “none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation.” Citizens’ Savings & Loan Ass’n v. City of Topeka, 87 U.S. 655 (1874).

Page 1 of 1




TOP JOBS
Search More Jobs





THE DAILY SENTINEL
734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050; M-F 8:00 - 5:00
Editions
Subscribe to print edition
E-edition
Advertisers
Advertiser Tearsheet
Information

© 2015 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy