The Constitutionality of Fairness

I get to talk to a lot of unhappy people at my job. It's often better when the voicemail talks to them, because sometimes it's hard to keep smiling, and not reach through the phone lines and strangle people.

Yesterday, I got a message from a lovely gentleman unhappy with the Colorado Legislature's proposal to offer health care benefits to same-sex partners of state employees. It's a controversial subject, I know. Homophobia is rampant, especially among conservatives. This guy went another step, though. He explained, with citations to the Colorado Constitution, that it was unconstitutional to extend benefits to same-sex partners because in this state, marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman. Sadly, that last part is true. We do define marriage that way. I wanted to say to this man, "sir, that's the whole reason for the bill. It's because we restrict marriage this way that we have to take extra steps to give homosexual citizens the same rights you have. The Colorado Constitution prevents them from getting married, but it does not, thank goodness, also say that they are not entitled to all of the other rights that you are."

Alas, it was just a message, so I couldn't. Well, I couldn't have even if it was a live call. My job is just to listen and smile. And what's saddest? That we do need legislation for this kind of thing, and even worse, that there's a good chance we won't achieve it this time. Will the bigotry ever end?

Colorado's Ban on Gay Marriage

Here's a lawsuit I support: one brought by a lesbian couple here in my home state to overturn our ban on gay marriage. This amendment to the CO constitution was one of the first causes that Rex and I championed together, but alas, Coloradoans did not agree with us that we shouldn't put a ban IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION. It was a ridiculous amendment, evidence of the mass hysteria felt by some people when they think of marriage applying to gays. Colorado is only one of many states that have such constitutional bans, and I am glad to see that we are challenging it [or that this couple is, anyway]. Their challenge is under the equal protection clause, so the real question is whether a judge will find sexual orientation to be a protected class. I hope so. The right to marry is sketchy because the Supreme Court has found such a right to exist, but not as to what that entails in terms of the couple's gender makeup.