Brody's Notes... Republican Majority In Colorado House Committee Stalls Civil Unions Legislation

Colorado Capitol, Denver

By Brody Levesque (Washington DC) APR 1 | Yesterday, Republican legislators in the Colorado House Judiciary Committee stalled any further action on a proposed measure that would allow for Civil Unions in the state to move to the full house for a vote.

This vote counters the results of a February 2011 poll by the Public Policy Polling organisation which found that 72% of Colorado voters support legal recognition of gay and lesbian couples.

The Colorado LGBTQ Equality Rights group, One Colorado, released the following statement after the committee's action:

“Today’s vote was out of touch with everyday Colorado voters. With 72% of Coloradans in support of civil unions, House Republicans are out of the mainstream,” said Brad Clark, Executive Director of One Colorado, a statewide LGBT advocacy organization. “Once again, they have turned their backs on Colorado families and kids.” According to polls, support for civil unions is high. A February 2011 poll by Public Policy Polling found that 72% of Colorado voters support legal recognition of gay and lesbian couples. Additionally, a Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll conducted in 2010 found support for civil unions across political parties and religious affiliations, including 61% of Republicans, 84% of independents, 70% of Catholics, 67% of Protestants, and 55% of “born again Christians.”

RELATED: Colorado Republicans Block Civil Unions Bill As Opponents Warn Of ‘AIDS Tax,’ End Of Times

Igor Volsky

By Igor Volsky (Washington DC) APR 1 | Last night, Colorado’s House Judiciary Committee failed to advance Senate Bill-172, which would have allowed residents to enter into civil unions and provided same-sex couples with critical legal protections. The bill passed the Senate last week, but a motion to move the measure onto the Committee on Appropriations did not garner a majority and fell in a 5-6 party line vote. As the Denver Post reported, “it was clear that the vote was painful for some Republicans, including Rep. Brian DelGrosso of Loveland, whose uncle is gay. He bowed his head when voting “no.” “It was tough,” DelGrosso said afterward.”

Douglas Napier of the Alliance Defense Fund led the formal opposition against the bill and maintained that civil unions would likely lead to same-sex marriage, despite a 2006 voter-approved constitutional amendment that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The debate quickly disintegrated from there, as witnesses began quoting the Bible, regurgitating thoroughly debunked claims about ex-gay therapy and even predicting the end of times. The Family Research Institute’s Dr. Paul Cameron — whose so-called ‘research’ on homosexuality has been condemned and refuted by most major medical organizations in the United States and Canada — provided the most colorful testimony. Some highlights from the hearing:

• - “If you take all your clothes off and stand in front of a mirror, and your plumbing is on the outside, you’re a male.”
• - “Every Coloradoan now has basically a $112 AIDS tax from gays in the United States…if we as a society allow it to be accepted, we will get more of it…when gays are partnered they are more apt to get sexually transmitted diseases.”
• - “They found Sodom and Gomorrah two years ago buried underneath the ash heap so that proves right there by archaeology that any society that allowed homosexuality, including the Jewish society, disintegrated completely.”
• - “If you vote otherwise, you are going to help end — not tomorrow, the sun will come up — but you will help to end this most successful civilization.

Meanwhile, Napier argued that SB-172 used all of the “buzz words” of marriage equality and warned the committee that a federal court could seize on the legislation to establish same-sex marriage in the state. At one point in his testimony, Napier maintained that gay and lesbian relationships should be denied recognition because heterosexual couples would be able to exploit civil unions to avoid some of the responsibilities of marriage, including child rearing. Rep. Daniel Kagan (D) challenged Napier’s logic, pointing out that under current law, same-sex partners have no legal obligation to rear children. 

“[Y]ou seem to prefer that there be no obligation toward children on behalf of the parents who are not the legal parents of children under this current status quo but would become legally obligated as a parent,” Kagan said. “I just have tremendous trouble understanding why no protection for children is preferable to you than the protections of children that would be afforded by this bill.”

Audio: