Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Homosex "Marriage" in Colorado

Wisconsin homosex-"marriage" hucksters and promoters insist the The Amendment is unnecessary--that homosexual marriage is already "banned" under Wisconsin law.

They also whine, loudly, that The Amendment would prevent same-sexers from legally obtaining some benefits (such as hospital-visitation rights, or dependent health insurance.) It has been demonstrated that this argument is void--in fact, it is a lie.

The State of Colorado's history is informative, because the real agenda--homosexual "marriage" is in play there, too.

This past Spring, the Colorado Legislature failed to pass a bill which would have streamlined access to those options for all adults ineligible to marry, including people caring for aging parents, not just homosexuals. It would have made it possible to care for unmarried Coloradans without redefining marriage.

Why did this bill fail?

...gay activists didn’t get behind that bill, so it failed.

Well, then, what do the homosexuals in Colorado WANT?

They want Referendum I which: overhauls Colorado marriage and family law. For instance, it stipulates that everywhere the terms “spouse” and “family” appear, they must be changed or redefined to include homosexual domestic partners. That would require at least 1,000 revisions to the Colorado statutes.

Should that pass, Referendum I gives a point-by-point listing of the marital benefits to be awarded to gay couples, including “child custody,” “dissolution” rights (i.e., divorce), adoption rights, as well as state-licensed certificates recognizing homosexual unions.

These certificates are to be verbatim replicates of Colorado marriage certificates except that the word “marriage” will be replaced by “domestic partnership.”

And if there were still any doubt that this equals marriage, Referendum I specifically states that domestic partners “shall have” the “benefits” and “protections” that “are granted to spouses.”

They want "marriage," because they know that the Judicial branch will rule (as in California) that the existence of domestic-partner benefits made a voter-approved ban on gay marriage null and void. Since the state had awarded domestic benefits to homosexuals, “there is no rational state interest in denying them the rites of marriage as well,” the court concluded.

The long and short: the Homosexual Collective intends to force States to 'bless' homosex-coupling as 'marriage.' The Collective will achieve this goal any way it can. The Colorado situation is merely another example (and another method.)

Only voting YES on The Amendment will prevent Homosex "marriage" in Wisconsin.

No comments: