As the Colorado Legislature convenes tomorrow, lawmakers will once again be asked to approve a package of legal rights known as civil unions. This is a hot-button issue because civil unions award legal status to same-sex couples.
The legislation would codify the ability to be involved in a partners medical decisions, including end-of-life issues, enhance inheritance and parental rights, and make acquiring health insurance coverage easier.
Last year, the Democrat-controlled state Senate passed a similar measure, which the GOP blocked in a House committee. This year, the General Assembly should but probably wont get it done.
Opposition is not universal among Republicans. State Sen. Ellen Roberts voted for last years bill and supports this years, for the right reasons. Many legislators believe a civil union bill could forestall a push for same-sex marriage, which faces far more visceral opposition.
They also realize that most of their constituents favor civil unions. Polling last year showed that as many as 70 percent of Coloradans approve, a majority that includes not only those who want same-sex marriage to be legalized but others who, although they adhere to a traditional definition of marriage, believe that individuals and society would benefit from civil unions.
That makes sense.
Those who believe marriage is a good thing value its stabilizing influence. Healthy long-term partnerships can provide many benefits, and not the least of them is the dependable presence of two loving adults committed to ensuring the welfare of their children. Why not encourage that?
The person best equipped to make difficult decision on behalf of an incapacitated partner is the person who knows that patient best. Many people talk to children about organ donation and discuss with friends the life-prolonging treatments they might want to utilize, or to avoid. Thats not the same thing as stating, explicitly, I trust you to make those decisions for me. Its not even close. Surely every human being has a right to designate a decision-maker without involving an attorney and a judge.
The issue of inheritance rights is a similar one. When two people build a life together, the surviving member of that partnership deserves to inherit the results of their hard work without facing a challenge that would not stand if the couple had been able to marry.
This issue really isnt all about sex, despite efforts to make it so. Hardly anyone believes that anything the Legislature does will influence Coloradans choice of partners, except, perhaps, by discouraging them from living here.
Nor is it the first step toward polygamy or the right to marry ones pet (neither of which is there any effort to legalize). In fact, it is necessary precisely because the former legal limits have been effective in restricting legal rights. The new limits would hold as well.
Simply put, this is a human rights issue, and its one that most Coloradans understand. In a year when voters are growing increasingly weary of having every issue freighted with an entire partisan political agenda, this is an opportunity to do the right thing for the citizens of Colorado.
