Talk:2006 Colorado Amendment 43

Suggested Replacement Article, short article for extremely short amendment

Amendment 43 would add the following sentence to Article II of the Colorado Constitution.

"Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state."

This section was amended in 1992 with the following:

Section 30b. No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian or Bisexual Orientation. Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self­executing.

This seems similar in intent and effect to Amendment 43. However, this section 30b was ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in 1996. It is not in force.

Article II of the Colorado Constitution is labeled "Bill of Rights." It guarantees many rights, but it doesn't guarantee equality under the law. Indeed, no mention is made of equality except to guarantee equality of the sexes under the law and equal access to the courts.

It should be noted that passage of this amendment will, apparently, only affect the passage and enforcement of laws and regulations relating to marriage: i.e., only those which use the word "marriage." There is no reason that Coloradoans could not pass both this amendment and Referendum I, which creates "domestic partnerships."

================

This has the virtue of being purely factual. We need not give any mention to anyone's opinions about any ballot measures. We should give facts that people can use to form informed opinions. Debates and presentations of "both sides" of an issue do not help anyone form an informed opinion. If only those who call themselves "journalists" understood this!

What about it? Should this become the new article?

David

Discussion page is NOT for debate on this amendment.

This discussion page, as well as all discussion pages, are NOT meant for political debate about the issue at hand. They are for debate and discussion regarding the content of an article and the direct relation it has on the ability to inform users.

Do not place your personal beliefs on this page. It does not belong in an encyclopedia unless the article pertains to it. There are plenty of other outlets to post your personal opinions on an issue.

The neutrality of this article is in question. Weasel words must be removed. Furthermore, if such content is not drawn down to a neutral point of view, I will recommend the article be "locked" to registered users only and will reverse any editing thereto that is deemed too conservative or liberal.

Finally, this article is in direct relation to a Colorado amendment banning same-sex marriage. The article is not about whether homosexuality is wrong. For that, please visit the Homosexuality article.

Links must also be neutral ... if you post a link supporting the amendment, post one that opposes it. Trodaikid1983 23:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Trodaikid1983, angry at me?

Was this last remark directed at me? I hardly see how it could be, as I didn't mention homosexuality (though I did quote an amendment that did). Do you really see a bias in my suggested change? Let me know...please.

David David32768 23:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The remarks were not directed at any person in particular. As a new discussion point, it defaults to the last comment. I agree with the fact that the article should be truncated to only allow the facts of the amendment, and not all the political rhetoric associated, as well as no other relations to other failed Amendments, such as Colorado Amendment 2 (it passed but was ruled unconstitutional). All other Colorado initiatives are factually based, and generally retain "stub" status, as should be. If someone wants rhetoric, they can tune to any number of local media. This is an encyclopedia; not a message board. Refer to your blue books for factual basis and actual wording of the Amendment. Trodaikid1983 00:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Archive the first three headings?

Shall we move the first three headings of this talk page to the archives, then, since they are more debate oriented? I haven't archived discussions before and do not trust my judgment on it. Epte 14:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think the entire article needs to be re-written only to include the facts from the Voter's Blue Book. Trodaikid1983 16:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the main article with basic, encyclopedic information from the blue book, as suggested, to remove bias and inappropriate discussion. I've also removed (archived) obsolete discussions from this page. I've left the previously proposed article here for possible additions. Epte 21:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This, I think, is a big improvement! As you may have guessed from my remarks above, I would have been even more brief. In particular, I don't think I need to know how other people _feel_ in order form an informed opinion. Remarks about the effect of the amendment, other than to add one (not especially long) sentence to the constitution are welcome as long as they're not open to dispute. We know about objections to the Blue Book's remarks on the marijuana proposition. How about a comparison of the benefits of the proposed domestic partnerships with the benefits of marriage (_legal_ benefits, that is)? Such a comparison could add ammunition to both pro and con.

Are people more likely to come here during these last few days to read about initiatives? There are still 2 left. Who wants to write? I wrote a brief, and I hope, neutral article on the Minimum Wage proposal. David32768 00:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hrm... The support and opposition sections are taken directly from the blue book and briefly describes the sides of the controversy in what I hoped would be a factual, unbiased manner. Epte 06:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The article has improved 180 degrees. Very well done to all! Trodaikid1983 16:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

there wasn't much to merge

But here is a link to the last version of the other page if anyone would like to bring over some of the content. — coelacan talk — 06:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Lack of inline citations

There aren't any inline citations in this article. CrussianObadagus (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Nebraska Initiative Measure 416 (2000) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Move completed Tiggerjay (talk) 07:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Nebraska Initiative Measure 416 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Move completed Tiggerjay (talk) 07:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)