Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Partnership on Colorado Ballot

The following is a reprint from the State of Colorado Research Publication No. 554-6--Analyses of the 2006 Ballot Proposals:
Referendum I proposes a change to the Colorado statutes that:
* creates a new legal relationship, called a domestic partnership, providing same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the legal protections and responsibilities granted to married couples by Colorado law.

*defines the criteria and process for entering into a domestic partnership, and

*specifies that domestic partnerships are not marriage and do not change the public policy of the state, which defines marriage as only the union of one man and one woman.

Summary and Analysis

Under Colorado law, there is no process for same-sex couples to establish a legally binding relationship with legal protections, benefits, and responsibilities. Referendum I creates such a process, beginning February 12, 2007, and gives domestic partners the legal rights and responsibilities that spouses have. The legislature is required to pass law to implement the provisions of Referendum I.

My take:

As long as the citizenry is subject to a government that "gives rights," it is unfortunate that such legislation is necessary. All are created equal, but the government is in the practice of defining "equality" and trying to manipulate Natural Law to justify its existence. Benefits such as whom can be legally designated as a benefactor of inheritances, survivor's benefits from insurance, workman's compensation, etc, or joint ownership should be up to the individual or consenting individuals in personal relationships. A government at any level should never define same- or opposite-sex relationships.

Under the status quo, however, we are forced, if we are to act according to our beliefs in universal equality and Natural Law, to vote to approve such legislation. All legislation in which sexuality is defined is, in reality, discrimination and human prejudice, and all such legislation is blasphemous in that it purports to give the government the power of God.

So, under protest, in order to protect our fellow human beings from the government, we must vote "yes" on this referendum, even though it justifies unnatural power for the government.

Also on the Colorado Ballot, and presumably on the ballots of many other states is this little "gem::"
Amendment 43 proposes adding a new section to Article II of the Colorado Constitution that:
*defines marriage in Colorado as only a union between one man and one woman.

To include a definition discriminating and defining sexuality in the constitution of any level of government is yet another sure step toward fascism. This is a personal and moral issue, and the legislation of morals is tantamount to oppression. Vote no on this issue.


TerraPraeta said...

Hi Jim,

I agree all around.

I would love to see an inititative to take government out of 'marriage' all together. Define a governmental 'civil union' if necessary, but leave marriage firmly and unrelatedly in the hands of church/personal philosophy.


RevJim said...

Terms such as "civil union" and "Marriage" are relevent to the government only in the case of income tax and social security, both of which are strongly in need of reform or repeal anyway. Regulation of these terms when it comes to other uses is strictly unconstitutional.