GOP lawmakers propose some rights for same-sex couples

[Dreadsox]

GOP lawmakers propose some rights for same-sex couples



The Associated Press

DENVER — When Democrats unveiled their proposal to allow same-sex couples to file as domestic partners two weeks ago, social conservatives objected because they said it would discriminate against people who weren’t gay.
Now some longtime opponents of expanding gay rights are supporting a proposal that would automatically give some rights to same-sex couples but only if they’re also given to other people who can’t marry and are living together. That would include everyone from roommates to daughters and mothers who live in the same house.

Sponsor Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, said the bill doesn’t specify what kind of relationship exists between the two people.

“This is an interesting challenge for some legislators as to whether or not they want to constructively solve problems or whether they only want to support bills that single out a particular kind of relationship and exclude other households,” he said.

The proposal also has the support of the public policy arm of Focus on the Family.

 

[nbcrusader]

Comprehensive legislation is needed to help define and protect the myriad of "domestic relationships" people establish.

 

[Irvine511]

this is why marriage equality -- not marrige-lite -- is the solution.

 

[cjboog]

this is why marriage equality -- not marrige-lite -- is the solution.

marriage equality cannot happen with the republicans in control of congress and probaly can't even happen with the dems in control

 

[Dreadsox]

I think this an interesting concept. This approach is not defining what the partnership is. Isn't that what equality is about?

 

[cjboog]

Yes, it is an interesting concept, but it will never happen in the US (for a long time) because of the huge number of conservatives and people who honestly believe they will burn in hell if they destory the sacred tradition of marriage.

 

[nbcrusader]

Yes, it is an interesting concept, but it will never happen in the US (for a long time) because of the huge number of conservatives and people who honestly believe they will burn in hell if they destory the sacred tradition of marriage.

Actually, it should get widespread approval, because it will not be labeled marriage, but achieve all the legal aspects originally sought.

 

[Dreadsox]

Yes, it is an interesting concept, but it will never happen in the US (for a long time) because of the huge number of conservatives and people who honestly believe they will burn in hell if they destory the sacred tradition of marriage.

Maybe they should be taken out and beaten for their beliefs....then they should change their minds.

 

[cjboog]

Maybe they should be taken out and beaten for their beliefs....then they should change their minds.

???

 

[deep]

anything

is worth a try

 

[melon]

Actually, it should get widespread approval, because it will not be labeled marriage, but achieve all the legal aspects originally sought.

So does this mean I can sponsor my roommate for U.S. immigration?

This is where ignoring and pretending that gay relationships don't exist falls flat.

Melon

 

[deep]

kick in the balls

seems to be the punishment du jour

 

[Dreadsox]

So does this mean I can sponsor my roommate for U.S. immigration?

This is where ignoring and pretending that gay relationships don't exist falls flat.

Melon

Do you feel that the proposed law will do that?

 

[melon]

Do you feel that the proposed law will do that?

Of course not. If I really believed it would, I would be pleasantly surprised.

Melon

 

[deep]

So does this mean I can sponsor my roommate for U.S. immigration?

This is where ignoring and pretending that gay relationships don't exist falls flat.

Melon

Melon,

This is subterfuge,

They could not get enough traction, comparing gay relationships to, bestiality, necrophilia and incest.

So now this.

 

[Dreadsox]

Why does it have to degenerate into this...

We are here and can have a discussion without introducing this to the thread.

 

[Justin24]

What is up with that.

Maybe they should be taken out and beaten for their beliefs....then they should change their minds.

When I talk about the DP I am called different names. How would that help your cause to let Homosexuals have the same right.

So if they dont agree with homosexual marriage they should be beaten? Thats like saying for ever Gay man or Lesbian getting married they should be lynched because it's a sin, wrong and disgusting and not human nature.

 

[deep]

Why does it have to degenerate into this...

We are here and can have a discussion without introducing this to the thread.

Do you really believe Focus on the Family and the Colorado GOP is in favor enacting legislation to benefit gays?

It is subterfuge.

 

[Dreadsox]

Re: What is up with that.

So if they dont agree with homosexual marriage they should be beaten? Thats like saying for ever Gay man or Lesbian getting married they should be lynched because it's a sin, wrong and disgusting and not human nature.

Thank you for making my point for me.

 

[melon]

Why does it have to degenerate into this...

We are here and can have a discussion without introducing this to the thread.

While appreciating the "deep" sense of irony, I'll try and frame my point in a more rational sense here.

Immigration is always going to be the sticking point with me, because that's really my largest concern. I could move to Canada (and probably will, at this rate), but I also happen to have a career path where I will find my most fulfillment in America. Canadian media is limited in scope, yes, but the biggest problem with it is that it is so highly protectionist in terms of hiring that I would have plenty of hurdles myself to overcome just to be able to work.

Maybe people might understand why I'm horrendously cynical. Plus, if "Focus on the Fascism" supports something, it's certainly highly limited in scope.

Melon

 

[Dreadsox]

Do you really believe Focus on the Family and the Colorado GOP is in favor enacting legislation to benefit gays?

It is subterfuge.

I do not yet know. Not enough to make that call.

 

[Justin24]

Re: Re: What is up with that.

Thank you for making my point for me.

????? Be more specific.

 

[Dreadsox]

My comment was not serious.

 

[Justin24]

Ok, but I was just trying to make a point.

 

[yolland]

I don't understand what's so troublesome about melon's wish. And even apart from that, pointedly endorsing a separate-but-equal "compromise" solution for gay unions does nothing to address the humiliation of repeatedly being told: You will never be one of us and your families will never be affirmed like ours.

If a straight couple freely *choose* to build a household and a family together without opting for marriage, then that is something entirely different. As far as it goes, I am all for more legal support for these folks.

 

[melon]

Here's the real reason behind this proposed legislation:

Banning Gay Marriage 'Act Of Love' Group Says
by The Associated Press

Posted: February 1, 2006 - 5:00 pm ET

(Denver, Colorado) Saying they were motivated by love, a coalition of religious and family groups formally kicked off a drive Wednesday for an amendment to the state constitution that would ban gay marriage.

Coloradans for Marriage submitted the proposed wording of the amendment to the Legislative Council office at the state Capitol, the first step toward getting it on the ballot this fall.

The group's president, Bishop Phillip H. Porter Jr., said the group was acting with "the love of a mother, the gentle guidance of a caring father" to preserve marriage and protect children.

He said the proposed amendment was not about hatred toward gay people.

"We can have it (love). We are all called to have that love even when it hurts us, even when it hurts others," said Porter, of All Nations Church of God in Christ in Aurora, a Pentecostal church.

"We live in a nation that wants no pain but all of the gain. We can't have it both ways," he said.

The proposed amendment reads, "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state."

Coloradans for Marriage includes churches, the Rocky Mountain Family Council and national groups such as Focus on the Family, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Association of Evangelicals, headed by Ted Haggard, pastor of Colorado Springs' New Life Church.

The group will need approval of the wording from the secretary of state and 68,000 valid signatures of registered voters to get the measure on the ballot.

Another group, Coloradans for Fairness and Equality, has already mobilized to oppose amendment, sending volunteers door-to-door in the Denver area.

Sean Duffy, a consultant for the group, said the proposed amendment does nothing to strengthen or protect families and would "enshrine discrimination into the language of the constitution."

"When it's thoroughly examined I think we'll see that hurting someone else's rights doesn't strengthen your marriage," he said.

Then once gay marriage is banned, they can withdraw or repeal the legislation and be done with it. This is just a ploy to get moderates to go conservative.

And I want to punch...I mean "love"...that Pentecostal moron.

Melon

 

[Justin24]

Well you can't always blame one Religous group. Islam forbidds gay marriage also, actually homosexuality period. I dont know about the Jewish religon or others.

 

[deep]

Here's the real reason behind this proposed legislation:

This is just a ploy to get moderates to go conservative.



Melon

Maybe next time

I'll say,

It is subterfuge

 

[cjboog]

I'm confused about Dreadsox's beaten for their beliefs comment. I said that "marriage equality" probably won't happen in the US because of Conservatives feeling the need to protect the "sacred tradition of marriage" and then he said something about beating people.

 

[melon]

Well you can't always blame one Religous group. Islam forbidds gay marriage also, actually homosexuality period. I dont know about the Jewish religon or others.

Don't get me started on Islam, because I'll probably have a fatwa put on my head if I really let people know what I think.

Jewish attitudes depend on the sect. Reform Jews are gay-friendly, conservative Jews are mixed (some are, some aren't), and Orthodox Jews are generally downright hostile. But, as I've learned, the most hostile elements of religion are the standards we hold ourselves to all the time. Maybe you can understand why there's so much appeal for ultra-conservative versions of Islam in the Middle East, particularly when Israeli law is generally defined by the most conservative brand of Judaism to the exclusion of all other beliefs. And the U.S.? It's no different at all. We're defining "morality" by the most conservative of members. To hell with the fact that there are Christian denominations that are wholeheartedly in favor of gay marriage. So much for "religious freedom."

In general, I'd say the appeal of all ultra-conservative elements of religion is that there's always a core group (heterosexual men) who get the benefits of not only being better than everyone else, but also get to tell everyone what to do. Then, to add insult to injury, these bullies are then rewarded with absolution of sin and the paradise of Heaven by perpetuating the abuse through the generations. Virgins, anyone?

Humans are sadomasochistic, at best.

Melon