2 small steps to improve gay rights

By Fester:

Just two quick and interesting things going on about gay rights.  I really like the Colorado proposal as I could see all sorts of rhetorical jujitsu --- mainly along the lines of making government smaller, less intrusive and screwing over the trial lawyers --- being mouthed by Democrats to wedge the Colorado GOP. 

9th Circuit of Appelas has ruled that gay and lesbian individuals can actually have families composed of themselves and their same sex partner and thus there is an equal protection claim that if an employer offers health insurance to heterosexual families, they must also offer insurance on the same terms to homosexual families.  This is a bit of an end run, but it is a step towards justice and recognition of reality. 

Colorado Democrats are trying to reintroduce a 2006 conservative Republican bill that will offer one page civil union like contractual and legal benefits to any two consenting adults in Colorado:

From the Denver Post: A bill that would make it easier for unwed couples to plan their estates and share benefits in times of tragedy is certain to touch off a gay-rights debate at the Capitol. Unwed couples can already designate each other as emergency decision makers, ensure that property goes to their partners if they die and list each other as health insurance beneficiaries.

But the process for sharing these and other benefits is a costly and complicated series of contracts, said bill sponsor Rep. Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver.

His bill, to be filed later this week, would give couples the option of dropping by their local county clerk's office and filling out a check-off form stating which rights they want their partners to have.

This might be a pretty smart end run around all of the emotionally manipulative grandstanding on the issue of "marriage." What if you could give any consenting pair of people a way to take care of each other in times of need? Everything from medical to legal to estate issues, with simplified processes that have a better chance of surviving court challenges? Simple personal rights that should be available to anyone--aging siblings, widows, or even, yes, gays and lesbians? That doesn't sound very controversial, does it? And since it's not really a controversial idea, it shouldn't surprise you to learn that Republicans actually proposed the same thing a couple of years ago--none other than family values arch-conservative Sen. Shawn Mitchell himself, as the Post continues:

In 2006, socially conservative lawmakers like Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, proposed similar legislation allowing so-called "designated beneficiary agreements."

 At the time, a ballot battle loomed over Referendum I, an initiative to legalize domestic partnerships and confer spousal rights on committed, same-sex couples. The bill was seen by critics as a way to undercut the initiative and by proponents as a common-sense way to grant atypical households some basic rights.