No matter where you stand on the controversial civil unions issue, it's amazing to note how quickly the issue's recent history has been forgotten, or in some cases, outright ignored. Let's briefly review how the Legislature got to where it is today.
Civil union supporters have pre-emptively pointed their fingers at Republicans. But whom they really should be mad at is Terrance Carroll, Peter Groff, Andrew Romanoff, Ken Gordon, Mark Ferrandino, Pat Steadman, Tim Gill and Bill Ritter. Democrats, the alleged champions of civil unions and gay marriage, had an all out monopoly on state government for four years yet never brought up the issue once.
Why is that? Why didn’t Democrats introduce a civil union bill when they controlled both chambers of the Legislature and the Governor’s office? The chance of such legislation passing during that tenure was not in question, it was guaranteed.
But Bill Ritter didn't want to have to sign the bill, so the supposed civil rights champions in the Legislature meekly backed off, and did Ritter's bidding.
Not once during those four years did The Denver Post call on the Legislature, and then-Governor Ritter, to call a special session to address the issue.
Democrats sat on their hands because they would rather play politics with civil unions than actually make legal and legislative gains on the issue. The gay community in Colorado should be outraged at those who claim to be their biggest champions, but who have sold civil unions down the river in hopes of making legislative gains down the road.
Politics, not policy, has been the name of the game for Democrats on civil unions. As long as it didn't pass, the checks from Tim Gill kept coming.
Democrats are no doubt salivating at the prospect of using the failure of civil unions as a campaign issue during the elections this year. You can see the dollar signs in their eyes as they imagine the millions Tim Gill will shell out to defeat Republicans.
Tim Gill, the billionaire software developer turned political kingmaker in Colorado Democratic politics, spent millions and millions getting Democrats elected to the statehouse. Credit for the Democrat’s four-year monopoly from 2006 to 2010 is in large part due to Gill’s financial contributions to Democrat campaign coffers. The one issue that motivates Gill to spend more than anything else is gay rights. It is the reason Gill took such a strong interest in Colorado politics to begin with.
Gill gave Democrats the chance to pass civil unions on a silver platter, and they couldn’t have screwed up worse. If we were Tim Gill, we wouldn’t give Democrats another dime. In fact, we'd be asking Democrats for our money back.
With supporters of civil unions talking about needing to pass the bill, it's important to remember why the bill still hasn't been passed. Democrats blocked it for four years.
2007’s Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act was the big issue then. It protected sexual orientation and gender identity.
It is a de facto ban on morally conservative businesses and a de facto affirmative action program for “LGBTs”. Businesses need to proof themselves against lawsuits by pandering to the LGBT patronage network and the diversity industry.
I don’t remember many “small government conservatives” putting up much of a fight on that, though I was not able to pay much attention at the time.
If two more Republican appointees on the U.S. Supreme Court had upheld Amendment 2, we wouldn’t be in this mess. There’d even be more socially conservative Democrats in Colorado politics!
that conservatives only want partisan, activist judges on the SCOTUS.
Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
I’m surprised you deigned to comment on this issue, Peak. You have a track record of ignoring issues that are only “controversial” among right wingers. But then again, it looks like the spinmeisters were hard at work on this one. (I notice a distinct lack of hyperlinks to anything that would support this story – not even back to previous unsupported Peak diaries. Nor are “our sources,” whoever they are, cited Both are sure signs that all this is completely made up.)
You went from being a token sometimes-insightful liberal to a fucking moron troll.
How do they link to editorials that weren’t written, complaints from gay activists that weren’t made, and so on? How do you link to shit that doesn’t exist? Every comment you’ve made today (and indeed lately) is just a blind allegations at Peak.
When a blog posts something as FACT – as when Peak says “Bill Ritter didn’t want to have to sign the bill, so the supposed civil rights champions in the Legislature meekly backed off, and did Ritter’s bidding.” (just one example) – it should report how they know this.
Maybe you can tell me why, in the face of Ref I’s defeat in 2006, the Dems would have taken up the issue during those years? You know, disrespect the people’s will and all that, at least while a majority of voting Coloradans were still ignorant of the righteousness of marriage rights. Got any “insights” there?
the “did Ritter’s bidding,” guessing that’s a reference to to his “green” energy agenda (how green that solar, wind etc. is a debate for another day).
What makes you think CO voters wouldn’t vote for a Ref I-type measure today? A few polls, which show wildly different results? I agree with you on a few points, but generally think CPP was right in not including links. It’s not conjecture necessarily, but having both chambers of the Legislature and the Governor’s office can’t lead you to draw any other conclusions. Especially since Ritter announced before 2010 session that he wasn’t seeking re-election. Why not in 2010????
Really? I can’t conclude that the Dems took the message from the voters and decided NOT to risk political capital in challenging it? Really?
Come on, man.
I’d like to know more about why it’s “right” to not include links supporting the case being made here. I highly doubt you’d extend the same courtesy to a blog alleging the opposite.
Regarding a new Ref I, besides polls (which do NOT show wildly different results – the trend toward support of marriage rights is there in all of the legitimate polls, if you look at their history), just the evidence of this diary is a good indicator. Just two years ago, this diary would have been all about the [im]morality of preserving marriage as it is, and you’d find no elected Republican bucking that party line. This blog would have jumped on this last week, not delayed like they did with the Rep. Bradford affair, and there would have been no lines like “No matter where you stand on the controversial civil unions issue;” the authors of this blog and its intended audience all stood in the same spot then.
Now we have it passing in legislatures around the country, including this one (if the Speaker will allow it an up or down vote – hey, remember when Republicans chanted that mantra?) with the support of some Republicans (and with some Dems opposing it). The line has been crossed.
When did it become politically palatable enough that it was also brought last year, but couldn’t have been introduced in 2010? From May-December of 2010? They had a lame-duck governor in 2010, what did it matter? He fucking announced he wasn’t seeking re-election a week before the 2010 session began. The Dems had super majorities in both chambers, where they could have lost a few vulnerable Dem votes and still have been OK.
Did it suddenly become vogue once they realized they could use it as a wedge issue? They didn’t really learn the lessons the Republicans had to over the past decade.
Demanding an answer while avoiding giving one yourself. Well, just to show you which of us is the bigger man….
My guess is that in 2010, they determined that it was still politically too risky, but in 2012, while still risky, is now a safer one to take. Hell, Ritter may well have been opposed to civil unions. Remember when he vetoed that pro-union bill out of nowhere? I don’t know his stance, though.
But keep in mind that smart politics is about choosing your battles and choosing favorable fields on which to wage them. Ritter may have been stepping down, but that doesn’t mean Dems could be carefree about the issues they chose to address. You probably know that too, and are being disingenuous in suggesting that they had completely free hands to govern as they saw fit. I know that’s how ‘pubs rule, but as you can see from Wisconsin’s example, it isn’t smart.
Furthermore, the matter of civil unions really not that divisive of an issue anymore. As I said, the tide has turned. And again, only social conservatives find this issue “controversial.” Everyone else is evolving.
Now, why don’t you put your big boy pants on and answer my question about why you let Peak skate on links supporting their case. If you can.
I already did. There’s no articles about civil unions that existed back in 2010. No statements, no bills, nothing.
Of course they thought it was too risky, but isn’t this a “civil rights” issue? Where was their backbone if this is the “right side of history”?
I’m asking about links supporting their assertions – the things they state as FACT. Which checks from Tim Gill do they mean? How do they know that’s why the Dems won in 2006 – and not, you know, because that was a Dem wave year? What was Ritter’s “bidding?” What proof can they present to show that Dems “blocked” civil unions?
The answer is that they have none, of course.
Now, I will not go out and accuse the Dems of being brave leaders on this issue. They have not been. But that doesn’t make this a completely disingenuous (and revealing) attack, especially when one considers its timing. They have been working on a civil unions bill for months, and I believe one died in the previous session for lack of votes. Now that they have them, McNulty used procedural tactics to kill it. Calling the Dems out for politics is the height of hypocrisy AND dishonesty.
a link to show you the contributions Gill has made? I can give you a link to the SoS website, but it’s a well-known fact that Gill gives to Dems, hardly one warranting a link.
2006 you could make a case, but Rob Witwer’s book also laid out a very detailed and well-documented book about the 2002-06 spending. I’d say ’08 was probably when Gill et al were least relevant. What proof do you have to say Dems thought it was too politically risky? Blogs are opinion, or spin as you like to call it, this one happens to be mostly observation and opinion–more-so than others. At least that’s my opinion.