Here we go again: Senate sends civil union bill to House, doubt surrounds House possibilities

The Colorado state Senate gave its final approval April 26 to a bill that would establish civil unions here. But before the Senate even took up the matter, the legislation appeared Dead On Arrival in the House of Representatives.

The Colorado Civil Union Act passed on third reading with bipartisan support, 23-12. All 20 Democrats and all three Republican women voted for bill, just as they did last year.

“A person is a person is a person,” said Sen. Ellen Roberts, R-Durango, supporting the bill. “And individual rights should be shared by all.”

Roberts said her vote was steeped in both her personal and professional life as a lawyer. But her hope is that the passage of civil unions would repair some of the damage done by Amendment 2, a voter approved ballot initiative that would have forbidden municipalities for creating special laws for LGBT people. Amendment 2 was later struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“In 1992, when Amendment 2 passed, I was stopped in my tracks,” she said. “It was a punch in my stomach. (Passing civil unions) will restore yours, mine and Colorado’s collective soul we lost in the 1990s.”
But not all Republicans agreed.

Quoting scripture and the founding fathers, Sen. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley said, “I truly believe Jesus is a better answer than Senate Bill 2.”

Several other senators — Republican and Democratic — bent scripture to their position. And some Republicans showed up with hundreds of postcards filled out in churches across Colorado asking for a ‘no’ vote. But the bill’s sponsor Sen. Pat Steadman said the one commandment all lawmakers should follow is not in the Bible, but in the U.S. Constitution: Amendment 14.

“I don’t care how tall the stacks of postcards grow. They are outweighed by … the Colorado and U.S. Constitution,” he said. “I came to the Senate not with a theological background. And I was not elected to debate scripture,” he said.

Sen. Kevin Lundberg said he disagrees with the notion that a vote against the legislation was a vote against gays. Instead, it is a vote on whether Colorado law should expand and change its definition and practice of marriage.

“I know it doesn’t call it marriage,” he said. “But it takes every aspect of marriage in Colorado law and put another definition right beside it.”

The bill would grant most of all the rights and responsibilities of marriage to any two Colorado adults regardless of gender.

The Colorado Constitution defines marriage between one man and one woman.

If the bill becomes law, neither the Federal Government nor any state that does not offer similar relationship recognition status would recognize a Colorado civil union contract.

Several amendments to the bill — mostly technical — were discussed and approved April 25. But one amendment, sponsored by Republican state Sen. Shawn Mitchell, proved to be more contentious and failed at the hands of Democrats, costing the bill a major endorsement from the lawmaker once considered strongly anti-gay.

Mitchell’s amendment would have strengthened religious exemptions for service providers and facility owners. It would have allowed those who do not want to host a civil union ceremony or counsel a same-sex committed couple not to without fear of a lawsuit.

“I believe it’s possible to respond affirmatively to the desire of same-sex households for policies that meet their challenges and not stifle the free thought of other people in our society,” Mitchell said during the debate.

From here the bill will be sent to the House and — most likely — be immediately assigned to the House Judiciary Committee and scheduled for sometime the week of April 30.

The Colorado Observer, a website financed by Republican efforts, reported Assistant House Majority Leader Mark Waller, R-Colorado Springs, told the Observer the bill will be killed because Mitchell’s amendment was not accepted.

Waller claims he was misquoted.

“What he was saying is that if the exact same bill came over as last year, he thought it would have trouble getting out of the House,” GOP spokesman Owen Loftus said in an email. “The bill will get a fair hearing no matter what committee it is assigned to.”

Republicans have a one seat majority over Democrats, 33-32, therefore controlling committees.

“In just one day, more than 8,000 emails of support have been sent to the House Judiciary Committee,” said Brad Clark, executive director of One Colorado, a statewide LGBT advocacy organization. “Along with thousands of committed same-sex couples and fair-minded allies for equality, we call upon the House Judiciary Committee to stand on the right side of history and advance the bill to the floor, where it can be debated by all of our representatives. If this critical legislation makes it to the floor, we’re confident that it will pass and provide all families with the dignity, respect, and security we all deserve.”

Supporters of the bill had hoped to have found a House Republican co-sponsor for the bill, reasoning it would have a better chance of clearing a committee to the full House floor where it is believed to have enough support to pass. However, no GOP support could be mustered up, despite four months of courting.
House Minority Leader Rep. Mark Ferrandino will carry the bill as he did last year.

“I’m disappointed that none of my Republican colleagues have told me they’re willing to be the sponsor of civil unions, but many have said they favor the bill,” said Ferrandino said in a statement. “I understand that it would have been a courageous step for a Republican to do this.”

At least three members of the House have gone on record saying they’ll vote for the bill if it reaches the full floor: Reps. Priola, Ramirez, and Bradford. According to Representative Ferrandino, the bill has well more than enough votes to pass if it makes it to the floor for a full vote.

“It’s no secret that this bill has enough votes to pass and deserves a full up-or-down vote by the entire House,” said Clark. “Issues with overwhelming public support like civil unions deserve to be debated on the floor by all of our Representatives.”