Civil unions measure faces defeat in Colo.

By: Associated Press Email
By: Associated Press Email

DENVER (AP) -- Colorado’s civil unions measure appears headed for certain defeat, as Republicans and Democrats are spending the first day of a special legislative session pointing fingers over the proposal to give same-sex couple the rights of married couples.

Republican House Speaker Frank McNulty blasted the civil unions measure as a divisive waste of time and assigned the proposal to a committee likely to reject it. Democrats, meanwhile, blamed McNulty for preventing the civil unions measure from seeing a debate in the full House, where it would pass.

The Democratic Senate has approved civil unions more than once, but Democrats say see no point trying again in that chamber. That means the civil unions measure is unlikely to pass.

Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper called the special session last week, calling civil unions “a fundamental question of fairness and civil rights.

(COPYRIGHT 2012 BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.)


You must be logged in to post comments.

Username:
Password (case sensitive):
Remember Me:

Read Comments

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
  • by Anonymous on May 15, 2012 at 12:35 AM
    I hope we someday allow gay unions. I have a pet sheep that I would like to marry, and claim her as a dependent on my tax returns. I figure gay unions will have to pass before our society continues to soften a bit more and allows human-animal unions.
    • reply
      by Junior on May 15, 2012 at 04:52 PM in reply to Anonymous
      You probably aren't joking, so that will be fine, as long as it's a ewe and not a ram. Clifton Rocks!!!
  • by Will Location: Loma on May 14, 2012 at 07:47 PM
    I am all for denial of the pursuit of happiness for tax paying American citizens! My white skinned god from Palestine and the Jewish bible tell me so, that is why, so just kiss my gentile booty.
  • by Anonymous on May 14, 2012 at 06:18 PM
    Why should being gay be a "Civic Benefit"? Why should having "Civil Unions" be a benefit? If its not accepted by society why should there be any acknowledgement at all? Seems to me that this would be an additional cost to the taxpayers for a value they don't believe in.
  • by Rainman on May 14, 2012 at 05:01 PM
    Its always an attack on the system, something someone else has that you do not. Ask a question to divert the topic. What should be asked is why is this conversation even happening? Equal rights? What they are really asking for is "Special Recogination" of their choice in life. The people of Colorado have voted this down twice, so they change the name a little and try again. Its still a terd. They have the same individual rights as everyone else, they want more, they want recogination for something that should have stayed in the closet!
    • reply
      by Scott on May 14, 2012 at 05:19 PM in reply to Rainman
      If it belongs in the closet, then why should it affect what civic benefits they gain?
      • reply
        by Rainman on May 14, 2012 at 05:32 PM in reply to Scott
        Why do they need "EXTRA" civic benefits? Why do they need any recognation? Why should this cost the taxpayer anymore? All they want is MORE!
        • reply
          by Scott on May 14, 2012 at 07:22 PM in reply to Rainman
          Not extra benefits. The same benefits. The ones that married couple get that they can't under the current laws.
      • reply
        by Semen on May 14, 2012 at 06:01 PM in reply to Scott
        Is that what this is about? Benefits!?!? CASH! GIVE- MEs!
        • reply
          by D on May 15, 2012 at 09:16 AM in reply to Semen
          Unless you file 1040 separately you're in the same CASH GIVE MEs group. Except that you're getting the benefit and they're not. Instead of bashing minority groups go help homeless if you want to do something for your religion.
        • reply
          by SweetiePie on May 15, 2012 at 06:08 PM in reply to Semen
          Yea! What D said! Minority groups are only important to those who wish to divide us. When you pull out the Blacks, Mexicans, Asians, gays, women, Irish, Jews, Catholics, Muslims....who the hell is left???? Clifton Rocks!
  • by Fred on May 14, 2012 at 03:59 PM
    Many of the same people who oppose same sex marriage would have opposed interracial marriages 60 years ago.
    • reply
      by Booger on May 14, 2012 at 04:51 PM in reply to Fred
      Wow Fred. You must have tele-transport ability to know this. Can you go into the future and see if these are the same people who will still oppose pedophilia too?
      • reply
        by StarTrek on May 14, 2012 at 05:45 PM in reply to Booger
        Fred - it's safe to come back to the present now.
  • by We're Here Location: Denver on May 14, 2012 at 01:53 PM
    One thing people don't seem to completely understand is that the movement has been set into motion and its gaining momentum. The GLBT community isn't going anywhere and we're not second rate citizens. Anyone in that postion would fight for their rights. Further more no matter how you attmept to justify it, if you do not support legal unions of same sex couples you are a biggot. GLBT couples don't want to demean marriage, in fact most of them don't want marriage they just want basic legal rights to protect the ones they love. That's it! Stop masking your bigotry and fear with out landish claims, allow the GLBT their rights and lets move on. Last point as the older generations die so does their prejudice. Its already begun. The GLBT community will never go away but the unconstitutional laws that discriminate against them will.
    • reply
      by Rupert on May 14, 2012 at 06:05 PM in reply to We're Here
      Funny how this is a movement! Fight for their rights, something they believe in? Where do you draw the line? Is it OK to marry an animal? Sheep, goats, dogs, cats, monkeys should all have the same rights too. Its funny how your argument always ends in name calling!
  • by Scottish Otter Location: Colorado Springs on May 14, 2012 at 01:43 PM
    Really...?? Civil unions? High unemployment, more families than ever on food stamps, inflation, etc...and this is what Hickenlooper comes up with: a clearly divisive and low priority issue to make the Dems look like the 'champions of civil liberties'. Jeez! Quit with the BS and focus on the economy! Once things are back on track, THEN the state can discuss the issue!
    • reply
      by Booger on May 14, 2012 at 03:47 PM in reply to Scottish Otter
      Right on Scottish. You nailed it!
  • by Good on May 14, 2012 at 12:45 PM
    "Colorado’s civil unions measure appears headed for certain defeat"... Enough of this stupidity.. >2% of the population is homosexual... and that is a very thin part of the fringe.
    • reply
      by Scott on May 14, 2012 at 03:17 PM in reply to Good
      So how big a percentage would they have to be to make it worth giving them equal rights?
      • reply
        by Booger on May 14, 2012 at 03:51 PM in reply to Scott
        They have equal rights. They can have a marriage just like anyone else can legally have a marriage. I can marry someone from the opposite sex. They can marry someone from the opposite sex. I can't marry someone of the same sex. They can't marry someone of the same sex. Equal already exists!
        • reply
          by Anonymous on May 14, 2012 at 04:02 PM in reply to Booger
          Correction, you can marry they person you choose to, but they can't. Why should who they choose affect what civil benefits they receive? You probably won't answer this. No one ever does.
        • reply
          by Scott on May 14, 2012 at 04:02 PM in reply to Booger
          Correction, you can marry they person you choose to, but they can't. Why should who they choose affect what civil benefits they receive? You probably won't answer this. No one ever does.
        • reply
          by Scott on May 14, 2012 at 04:03 PM in reply to Booger
          And you didn't answer my original question. At what percentage does it become worthwhile to give them the right to marry who they choose?
        • reply
          by Anonymous on May 14, 2012 at 04:55 PM in reply to Booger
          Scott - I'll type slower so you understand. They have the SAME rights that I do. I can marry someone from the opposite sex. They can marry someone from the opposite sex. I can't marry someone of the same sex. They can't marry someone of the same sex. Was that slow enough? And if you read REAL SLOW you will see that this DOES answer your question by correcting the false premise that you base your question on.
        • reply
          by Scott on May 14, 2012 at 05:17 PM in reply to Booger
          And you still ignore the relevant fact that who they chose to marry should have no bearing on what civil rights and privileges they gain. Unless you can come up with some actual reason why it should matter. I'm betting you won't.
        • reply
          by Booger on May 14, 2012 at 05:28 PM in reply to Booger
          Since the beginning of man, this union has been defined as one man and one women. Now you want to see it changed. Using your expansion motives for the definition of marriage, why not allow people to marry multiple people? What makes the union between one man and one man unique?
        • reply
          by Scott on May 14, 2012 at 07:25 PM in reply to Booger
          Now who's got the tele-transport ability? Nice double standard.
        • reply
          by Anonymous on May 14, 2012 at 07:50 PM in reply to Booger
          Hey booger when you say since the beginning of man is that the 6000 year timeframe or the million year timeframe or just the sumerian cruneaform timeframe where written mythology takes hold, just curious.
        • reply
          by Booger on May 15, 2012 at 04:53 AM in reply to Booger
          Scott - on your telepoeither you are incapable of putting together a logical thought or choose not to, allow me to help. On your tele-transport commen, Fred presumes he can somehow predict how people of today would think in the past as opposed to my statement on the union between the man and women having always been between a man and a women. You are probably someone who also likes to re-write history so please tell us when this wasn't true in human development? And Anonymous, you can pick whatever time period you want. The statement still holds whether you believe your science,your religon or
KKCO NBC 11 News
2531 Blichmann Avenue
Grand Junction, CO 81505

Station Phone: 970.243.1111
Business Fax: 970.243.1770
Newsroom Fax: 970.245.3793
News Tip & Contest Line: 970.255.8477
Copyright © 2002-2016 - Designed by Gray Digital Media - Powered by Clickability 151416775 - nbc11news.com/a?a=151416775
Gray Television, Inc.