Posted on 10/25/2006 12:07:24 AM PDT by ajolympian2004
Earlier this morning there was a debate on two ballot initiatives here in Colorado, the 'Domestic Partnerships', Referendum I and the 'Marriage Amendment', Amendment 43. Mike Rosen of 850am KOA radio here in Denver was host and moderator.
Mike Rosen is FOR 'Amendment 43' and UNDECIDED on 'Referendum I'. Mike is not a social conservative. He is a fiscal conservative and pro-military.
---
Before the debate I thought "Ref I" was going to allow same sex couples visitation rights at hospitals, ability to will death benefits and a few other "rights". It is WAY WAY beyond just that. It will cause about 1000+ updates to Colorado state law.
The main reason I'm now voting against the "Domestic Partnerships' Referendum I is that it adds the words 'domestic partner' into all Colorado state law everywhere the word 'spouse' currently appears. This will essentially give same sex marriage the exact same legal standing in Colorado as a marriage between a man and a woman.
The Colorado state legislature recently created a law to give the very basic rights that even 'Focus on the Family' supported, but the pro-same sex marriage groups here in Colorado were completely against that because they want full same sex marriage to be on equal footing as marriage between a man and a woman.
Many companies in Colorado already offer domestic partnership benefits. This referendum FORCES all businesses in Colorado who already offer benefits for spouses to also include domestic partnership relationships. This includes small businesses.
You can listen to the audio for yourself.
The person advocating AGAINST 'Referendum I' was a woman from 'Focus on the Family'. The person FOR was a deputy communications director for (R) Governor Bill Owens.
Rosen Replay 10/24/06 10-11AM Debate on Referendum "I", the same sex partnership referendum.
Audio here
(mp3, about 45 minutes)
Referendum I - from the State of Colorado Blue Book voter's guide (PDF) http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/lcsstaff/Bluebook/06ReferendumIfiscalnote.pdf
---
Amendment 43 simply adds 20 words into the Colorado State constitution that that marriage is between a man and a woman. This supercedes the current statute against same sex marriage on the books in Colorado so activist judges cannot re-write the law from the bench. In the USA 20 other states made the same additions to their state constitution and apparently about 7 others have this on their ballots for 2006.
The person advocating FOR 'Amendment 43' was the same woman representative from Focus on the Family. The person AGAINST was some lawyer in a 13+ year same sex relationship and from a Colorado pro-same sex rights organization.
Rosen Replay 10/24/06 11-11:45AM Debate on Amendment 43, the Marriage Amendment.
Audio here
(mp3, about 30 minutes)
Amendment 43 - from the State of Colorado Blue Book voter's guide (PDF) http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/lcsstaff/Bluebook/06Amendment43fiscalnote.pdf
The person in the debate advocating AGAINST 'Amendment 43' was a very poor spokeperson for his side of the issue.
---
Our local Catholic bishops have come out against "I" and for "43" and have recommended that all Catholics in Colorado vote the same.
Bishops urge pulpit support for marriage amendment Rocky Mountain News story http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5080562,00.html
---
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
PING! just thought I would give you some other info... that the lady on Monday didn't ;)
Yes for 43 and NO for 'i'
Yep. And thankfully most organizations advertising on radio and TV here on these two ballot initatives in Colorado are advocating 'BOTH' a YES vote FOR 43 and a NO vote AGAINST 'I' in their spots. I have heard one commercial where some organization is only advocating for a YES vote on 43.
Here's some info for you on Referendum I and the 'Marriage Amendment', Amendment 43.
The same rights that are guaranteed to all American citizens.
I think Jan is referring to any special rights beyond what all American citizens currently have. Men who have sex with other men have chosen a behaviour. They do not deserve any special rights for their choice.
They have the same rights as all Americans.
That should be the employer's CHOICE, not a law forced by the government.
If a company chooses to pay benefits for domestic partnerships that's up to them. I do not want to see it mandated on all businesses, especially small businesses.
Of course with all the illegals working here, Americans might not be able to be as picky about what jobs they will do!
IMO the government should stay out of it! Of course, liberals like a nanny state and want the government to take care of them.
So, do you think employers should be forced to offer certain benefits to their employees?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.