-
Senator Frank Lautenberg, R.I.P.
June 3, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Activist Saves Colorado From Massive Tax Hike
May 28, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant
May 24, 2013 | 10 comments
-
Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats
May 24, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Dismantling Networks, Preventing Footholds
May 23, 2013 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Congratulations to Colorado Republican House Representative BJ Nikkel who sided with Democrats on the Colorado House Judiciary Committee to approve Senate Bill 2, which would permit same-sex (as long as opposite-sex) civil unions in the state. The Committee’s approval does not guarantee that the measure will get to a full House vote, as it needs to pass two more committees, as well as minor but potentially terminal procedural issues, in a Republican-controlled chamber nearing the end of this year’s legislative session.
The bill includes some sensible provisions:
“A priest, minister, rabbi, or other official of a religious institution or denomination or an Indian nation or tribe is not required to certify a civil union in violation of his or her right to free exercise of religion.”
Parties to a civil union will have many or most of the same responsibilities and rights of married people, including responsibility for financial support,…the ability to inherit property,…the ability to adopt a child,…survivor benefits,…medical directives,…dependent coverage on life and health insurance.
The measure was clearly written with the intention of getting at least a modicum of Republican support, with these key caveats in the legislation itself:
“The Act shall not be construed to create a marriage between the parties to a civil union or alter the public policy of this state that recognizes only the union of one man and one woman as a marriage. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Act shall not be interpreted to require a child placement agency to place a child for adoption with parties to a civil union.”
I share Rep. Nikkel’s commendable view: “It’s not something I’m passionate about, but I think we ought to move forward and bring it to a vote in the House.”
In particular, I would in fact prefer not to have government involved in marriage in any way, and then allow any two people to make any contract they want to (as long as it’s not a contract aimed to illegally hurt someone else.)
But as long as government has its nose in our private business, I believe there should be “equal protection” regardless of sexual preference.
Furthermore, this is smart politics for Republicans…and especially here in Colorado where two of the biggest funders of leftist candidates are (or have been) gay men: Tim Gill and Jared Polis. While Polis is now in Congress and much less involved in Colorado state-level politics, Mr. Gill remains very active and highly motivated by “gay rights” issues.
[For the record, I don’t believe in gay rights or black rights or Jewish rights or any other rights granted to groups. We have our rights as individual human beings and Americans, not as members of “victim” groups or other politically-targeted segments of society.]
Neutralizing not just Mr. Gill (on this issue, at least) is a good thing. But it’s certainly not the only thing. Whether it’s civil unions or hawkish immigration rhetoric, Republicans too often look intolerant and xenophobic. And it hurts the GOP at the ballot box, so that we’re stuck with Democratic policies in other important areas of government, such as taxation and spending.
I hope that BJ Nikkel is rewarded in her next election, to give some other Republicans the backbone to do what’s right, both morally and politically. I realize this was a tough vote for her, and that more “conservative” and religiously-motivated Republican politicians may disagree for deeply-felt reasons. But for those who vote against civil unions and vote in other ways which cause the GOP reputation for being a party of straight, old white men to persist, I encourage you to ask yourself whether you truly believe your vote or whether you think it’s just what you’re supposed to do, under pressure from a vocal minority intent on imposing morality through government.
It remains uncertain whether this bill will pass (or even reach) the other House committees needed to get to a full floor vote, where it would likely pass given Rep. Nikkel’s support. I hope there are a few other courageous Republicans on those committees. It’s time…past time…to get this done, for reasons of both principle and politics.
View all comments (18) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Ross Kaminsky
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/05/04/civil-union-bill-passes-colora
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- How Not To Buy a Fighter
- Drink Earlier, Drink Less
- Confessions of a Soft-Drinking Newspaperman
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Chuck Anziulewicz | 5.4.12 @ 9:36AM
"A priest, minister, rabbi, or other official of a religious institution or denomination or an Indian nation or tribe is not required to certify a civil union in violation of his or her right to free exercise of religion."
THIS WAS AN ISSUE? Since when have religious organizations been forced to conduct ceremonies for anyone? Muslim and Jewish and Atheist couples are allowed to legally marry, but never once has a Christian church been coerced into providing weddings for them.
Anyway, I HOPE that this bill won't meet too much opposition. After all, there have been countless times that I've heard people say, "I don't care if Gay couples have the same rights as Straight couples, just don't call it MARRIAGE."
Fine with me. As long as Gay and Straight couples are treated exactly the same under the law, at all levels of government, I'm not going to quibble over terminology. "Marriage" is just a word anyway. There won't be language police roaming around, telling Gay couples they can't refer to one another as "married." When asked where the ceremony took place, Gay couples will just say, "Oh, we got married in Cancun" or wherever.
Ultimately, since most of the legal benefits and protections of marriage come from the FEDERAL government, the Supreme Court will have the final say ... and I'm confident that they will determine that there is no Constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal rights that Straight couples have always taken for granted. Whether they call it a "marriage" or a "civil union" is irrelevant to me.
LiveFreeOrDie| 5.4.12 @ 12:32PM
I mostly agree but you wrote, "...since most of the legal benefits and protections of marriage come from the FEDERAL government, the Supreme Court will have the final say..." what protections were you referring to? What benefits? And how are they provided at the federal level and not the state?
The only "benefit" that I know of is a higher tax rate.
Chuck Anziulewicz | 5.4.12 @ 1:00PM
DEAR LIVEFREEORDIE:
According to the Government Acccountability Office (GAO) there are 1,138 specific legal benefits, protections, and responsibility that the federal government extends to legally married heterosexual couples. Those benefits have to do with tax law, Social Security, inheritance, child custody, power of attorney, etc. etc.
Take Social Security, for instance. According to a statement I recently received in the mail from the Social Security Administration, my married spouse would be eligible for over $1400 per month (after retirement) in the event of my death. I think anyone would agree that $1400 per month is a pretty hefty chunk of change. However, it is money that my significant other would not be eligible for, because we would not be allowed to get married. I would like to provide for the financial well-being of my spouse, just as I'm sure any heterosexual would, but in essence I'm throwing away money on a fund that my partner cannot take advantage to in the event of my death.
At the root of this discrepancy is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was signed, to his eternal shame, by Bill Clinton. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in Iowa or Massachusetts are unrecognized by the federal government, and any such couple becomes magically “UN-married” once they move to another state. So frankly, even married Gay couples in Iowa and Massachusetts continue to be second-class citizens in the eyes of Washington.
There IS a bill in Congress which would allow Gay couples to designate one another for survival benefits under Social Security. But predictably that bill is being opposed by conservatives, who see it as violating the "spirit" of DOMA.
LiveFreeOrDie| 5.4.12 @ 4:00PM
Thank you for the extra information. I'd like to see the data on the GAO figure. You said benefits, responsibilities and protections. I would hazard a guess and say 99% of those directly involve tax and social security issues and more in the "responsibilities" category than the "benefits" category. You have made a good point that some consolidation eventually has to be made at the federal level. Not an easy task. Gay couples who move to a state aren't "unmarried" since the state never recognized the marriage in the first place. Is it fair? Maybe not but it's still a state issue. I can't think of anything in the constitution which grants authority for congress to enact laws that force states to adopt or recognize laws from another state. States' sovereignty must be maintained. Especially on social issues which people tend to take personally.
By the way, regarding your original post, "THIS WAS AN ISSUE? Since when have religious organizations been forced to conduct ceremonies for anyone?" This has already happened. Churches have been sued by gay couples, financed by activist organization, for refusing to perform ceremonies. These lawsuits have mostly been losers but since churches don't have huge piles of money to defend themselves this language was probably necessary and appreciated by the clergy who would like to practice their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion. I suggest the language could be stronger and more inclusive. Photographers, caterers and other businesses have been successfully sued for refusing to provide services to same-sex weddings. They ought to be included and their rights affirmed to discourage the legal attacks.
Chuck Anziulewicz | 5.4.12 @ 4:51PM
DEAR LIVEFREEORDIE:
You write, "Photographers, caterers and other businesses have been successfully sued for refusing to provide services to same-sex weddings."
They have been sued in those states in which businesses are not allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation. It's a civil rights issue. Suppose those ostensibly Christian photographers and caterers had refused to provide their services to Muslim couples based on their prejudice against Islam (which seems all-too-common these days). Should they have "freedom of religion" to do so? And if so, where does it end?
LiveFreeOrDie| 5.4.12 @ 5:25PM
What about the rights of the photographer? It's against his religion to photograph homosexuality. He should be forced to work for whoever walks in the door to hire him? I certainly don't think so.
To say this is a civil rights issue you must believe they have a civil right to a wedding photographer. You'd also have to show they were denied a wedding photographer, which they weren't since they were free to choose somebody else. You'd also have to believe their right to having a wedding photographer somehow outweighs the photographers freedom. That's a big stretch, sir.
LiveFreeOrDie| 5.4.12 @ 5:36PM
"Suppose those ostensibly Christian photographers and caterers had refused to provide their services to Muslim couples based on their prejudice against Islam (which seems all-too-common these days). Should they have "freedom of religion" to do so? And if so, where does it end?"
And to answer your question, yes. They should have the FREEDOM to refuse service to to anyone they aren't comfortable doing business with. Anything less amounts to a thought crime, which besides being evil and wrong, is completely unenforceable.
This is a true example for you. I have a friend who happens to own a wedding business. One day a family of dark-skinned folks wanted to hire him. Small community and he knows a couple members of the family are big trouble makers. One had been recently released from prison. This kind of trouble he wanted to avoid and quite frankly didn't think the extra business was worth the risk of possible problems. He simply refused to do their wedding. Have their rights been violated? Should the owner be forced to do their wedding? Should he be sued?
Dai Alanye | 5.4.12 @ 10:00AM
"Marriage" is far more than "just a word." It's a socially-recognized condition that has no meaning except in regard to persons of opposite sexes. It doesn't require a ceremony, blessing or document, and was in use before governments were organized. Consider common-law marriage, for instance.
"Death" is a word, certainly, as are "freedom" and "honor," yet these are not "just words" but important concepts. "Homosexuality" is also a word, and probably ought to be used in preference to the word "gay," which is not merely a word but a euphemism in this case.
Chuck Anziulewicz | 5.4.12 @ 10:19AM
DEAR DAI ALANYE:
Okay, then. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Supreme Court ruled that there was no Constitutional justification for denying Gay couples the same legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted, but that those benefits and responsibilities could be granted to Gay couples under a different term ... such as "civil unions." The rights under tax law, Social Security, etc. would be EXACTLY the same for Gay and Straight couples; only the terminology would be different. Opposite-sex couples would be allowed the option to "marry," and same-sex couples would be allowed the option to enter into "civil unions." Social conservatives could keep the term “marriage” for themselves, and Gay couples would be granted equal protection as specified by the 14th Amendment. AND of course those civil unions would be automatically honored in all 50 states, per the "Full Faith & Credit" clause of the Constitution.
Is this acceptable to you?
Leviticus 18:22| 5.4.12 @ 11:21AM
Ahem
"Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
- George Washington
Dai Alanye | 5.4.12 @ 9:16PM
Anziulewicz doesn't understand. I wasn't arguing semantics but reality. Here's another way of putting it, in an anecdote (probably apocryphal) concerning Lincoln.
Lincoln is arguing names versus reality with a man. He asks, "If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs would the dog have?"
Anziulewicz thinks the answer is "five." In fact, the answer is "four," because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so. Same with homosexual "marriage," civil unions or what have you.
These so-called civil unions could, of course, be applied under numerous situations. Let's suppose your son roomed at college with three other lads. Because of the financial advantages, two of the four could "marry," then "adopt" the other two, operating before the law as a family.
An intriguing situation, no doubt, but what benefits does this confer upon society? And let's remember -- marriage is meant for the ultimate benefit of society rather than individuals.
W| 5.4.12 @ 12:23PM
This is good news for divorce lawyers. Now we will have divorce, alimony, distribution of assets following divorces in civil unions.
Truth to Power| 5.4.12 @ 1:27PM
As long as we are doing this why don't we pass the Buffet tax increase. Its not that much and it might take an issue away from Democrats and polls show we are on the wrong side of the general public. We'll do this so we can get the cuts out of the Democrats through compromise and of course the hearts and minds of the those wonderful moderates. Now gay union types will vote for us. You have to live in Boulder and be infected with all kinds of liberal stupidity to believe that this would work. This was at the heart of compassionate conservatism and it didn't work. In the civil union case (this is thinly disguised nonsense that shows the contempt that Kaminsky has for conservatives) gays and their liberal buds will not be placated. Moderates will still be stuck in the middle and confused, waiting for the far left to frame the next debate. If RK feels he needs to make the case for immorality, then he should just do it. I am not buying that it would have any good effect on any budget argument or that it would defund the left. In fact one could make the case that there is a strong correlation between those that believe in gay marriage and those that want a gigantic government that tells them what to do in every sphere of their life. There needs to be a campaign in Colorado to throw the worthless BJ Nikkel back into the private sector. We have enough Republicans at the leading edge of surrender.
Ken| 5.4.12 @ 5:38PM
Civil unions are just the camel's nose into the tent. The left will never be satisfied until they have full "gay marriage" and can shove it down everyone's throat.
I'm tired of conservatives thinking they always have to cave. Don't we have any Buckleys today who are willing to stand athwart history and yell, "stop"?
Bruce| 5.5.12 @ 5:47PM
"Congratulations"?
Civil Unions are a cowardly means of slipping through the condition of legal marriage, that upon a society that does not wish to recognize people of the same sex in their society as being such.
Let's get real here for a change... Marriage means a societal recognition of a procreative partnership, the public choosing of a mate, such that someone else will not come along and make free with your procreative rights. That children of that partnership will be recognized for their consequent rights as offspring.
This is physically impossible to two gay individuals.
We have no obligation as a society to call such an arrangement "marriage", and they certainly have no business calling it a "right". They have no right to force me to recognize it, nor tap into the legal status it confers.
Nick| 5.6.12 @ 4:45AM
I'm a gay man. I also identify myself as Republican, conservative, and Catholic. And I can reconcile that. From what I have read, many of you are confusing politics with religion. As a Catholic, I know that I can never participate in the sacrament of marriage. In the Catholic faith, there are 7 sacraments, and of course not all of us participate in every one (look it up if you don't believe me). However, I also know I have the right to individual freedom under American law (not religion), regardless if my God-given preferences make others uncomfortable.
We can all agree not everyone in America is comfortable with the right to bear arms (I sure as hell am, though), with the right to vote, with the right to public expression as outlined in the first amendment. I don't agree with all opinions, but I know they are protected by the first amendment. So is mine. And so is my intention that my partner has the right to my finances after I die, so that he will be provided for after I die. We may not be married in the spiritual sense, but are we not entitled in the legal sense? Can I not provide for whomever I choose regardless of sexual preference?
Any of you who claim to uphold American individual liberty while refusing sensible liberty to another like myself, then you have lost sight of what American rights really are. Ask yourself, Are you upholding what American liberty is? Or just performing the act of what you have been told American liberty should be? Only you know the answer.
W| 5.7.12 @ 9:39AM
You can do a will to leave your asses to whomever you wish, and you can do a general and medical power of attorney to appoint whomever you wish to take care of you medical and financial issues.
W| 5.7.12 @ 9:40AM
Typo: Assets, sorry.