In response to:

Why No State, Including Colorado, Should Accept “Civil Unions”

Walter115 Wrote: May 06, 2012 7:37 AM
A reason besides coveting straight nomenclature? Aside from favorable treatment vis-a-vis single persons under property law, inheritance law, contract law, family law, and the US Tax Code, I can think of nothing. Keep up the good work.
Walter115 Wrote: May 06, 2012 8:12 AM
You are wrong. I refer in part to the "Tenants by the Entirety" Common Law doctrine which advantages married couples in ways not available, even if a contract is present, to singles. As for your assertion the the US Tax Code screwqs married couples, that only occurs when both spouses have taxable income that is roughly equivalent. When the spouses incomes are not roughly equivalent, they are atvantaged, not disadvantaged.
NormRx Wrote: May 06, 2012 7:53 AM
Everything you mention can be handled with a legal contract, as far as the tax code goes it screws a married couple.

Note: This testimony was provided to the Colorado House Judiciary Committee on May 3, 2012 concerning Colorado S.B. 002, a proposed “civil unions” bill.

Well-meaning folks, including legislators, who oppose redefining marriage, yet support civil unions and domestic partnerships for same-sex couples, do so with the mistaken belief that both sides of the marriage debate will be satisfied with this apparent compromise. In practice, however, neither side is happy. And more importantly, as a legal matter, civil union laws absolutely undermine the case for marriage.

Make no mistake about it; a vote for this bill is a vote for same-sex “marriage.”...