DISQUS

The Colorado Independent: Living and Dying in Colorado Without Referendum I

  • Luis · 3 years ago
    Judge Leopold Thanks for this interesting post.  I just want to point out that the case will not go back to Judge Leopold, who is retiring from the bench.  It will get reassigned to some other judge.
  • NoonI · 3 years ago
    Unmarried heterosexuals not covered In the text of paragraph 3 you say that if Rex had been a woman, Rex would have inherited everything.  That comment is factually incorrect.  If Rex were a woman and not married to Ronald, Rex would still not inherit Ronald's money.  Rex would have had to have been Ronald's wife.  Referendum I will not help families where a man an a woman are unmarried.


    It seems to me that the problem is not with domestic partnerships, but with the laws concerning wills.  I would be supportive of making those laws clearer.


    I see Referendum I as the next step on the road to gay marriage.  If this one passes, the next one will be to make gay marriages legal or to make it easy for leftist supreme courts like we have in Colorado to force gay marriage on the rest of us.

  • Hank · 3 years ago
    Afraid of the slippery slope? Why is there all this hysteria about Ref. I?  If people really want to protect their family, they should go home and (pardon the pun) focus on their family.  You can't legislate love and commitment.  The religious right is so damned paranoid that this will lead to gay marriage, while centrists like me hope the Referendum will be a smart compromise.  If Dobson is so afraid of people adopting a homosexual lifestyle, why doesn't he just emphasize the qualities of a good traditional marriage.  Legislating against gay rights has nothing to do with the success rate of traditional marriage.  This can be highlighted by the fact that there is one state which has the most stable traditional marriages:  Massachusetts.