Thoughts on Denver Election (11/7/2006)

Amendment 38 – No

Amendment 39 – No (see previous Blog entry)

Amendment 40 – No
I would be in favor of 4-6 year retention votes, but not of term limits.

Amendment 41 – No
I am in favor of campaign finance, but this bill goes too far in my opinion. If you don’t like the gifts that a person is receiving (they are required to disclose this information), vote against them.

Amendment 42 – No
It is abhorrent that the minimum wage in the country and the state has not been raised for nearly 10 years. It is equally bad that state law forbids individual cities from setting their own minimum wage. However, an amendment to the constitution that immediately raises the minimum wage significantly and then guarantees raises every year seems too much, too fast. If it was one or the other of these proposals, I would vote for it. However, I think that trying to do both at the same time, in the constitution is a bad idea.

Amendment 43 – No
Colorado statutes already define marriage as between one man and one woman. I don’t understand why this is such a critical thing to protect. There is no evidence that I have seen or heard that suggests “normal” marriages will be diminished if we allow same-sex marriages. If anything, it seems to me that by allowing same-sex marriages, we may promote family values of togetherness, love and compassion. I will not vote for an amendment to the constitution that prohibits someone from expressing their love and commitment for another human being through marriage.

Amendment 44 – No
Although I can see the relevance of the arguments claiming that legalizing marijuana would allow courts to focus on more “important” offenses, I can’t vote for this amendment. This amendment would make it legal for anyone to “give” marijuana to teenagers (15 years and older). Also, although I don’t believe marijuana to be a severely dangerous drug on its own, it is commonly a gateway drug that leads users into much more serious drug use.

Referendum e – No
While I am definitely appreciative of the sacrifice that most disabled veterans have made to help defend our country, I don’t believe that a property tax break is the way to “thank” them for their service. We are already suffering from a budget shortfall that has taken money away from schools, roads and other very important issues in the state. This tax break would financially hurt our state and I think we should find other ways of showing our appreciation.

Referendum f – No
Recalls are rare in our state and I have not seen evidence in the past that there is an issue with the current deadlines.

Referendum g – Yes
Cleaning up outdated provisions and language is a good thing to help keep the constitution current. It should not affect historical research as I’m sure there will be archived copies of the constitution available.

Referendum h – No
This is another one that sounds good in principle, however it doesn’t make sense to me how it will be enforced. We currently have laws making it illegal for businesses to hire illegal aliens. So...if a business is currently claiming an illegal alien in their tax deductions, then they have already broken the law. We could pass 100 more laws and it still would not change the fact that it is impossible to enforce.

Referendum i – Yes
I haven’t found an argument against this that makes sense to me. One argument is that same-sex couples can already legally obtain all of the rights of married couples. That simply isn’t true. There are many things such as wrongful death claims, child support, etc. that cannot be legally obtained by same-sex couples. Another argument claims that this will “diminish the significance of marriage.” There is nothing in referendum I that takes any rights, responsibilities or privileges away from any married people. I don’t understand how this will diminish the significance. Perhaps they are concerned that same-sex couples will form domestic partnerships just for the benefits. Well, opposite sex couples can get married for the benefits just as easily. Again, I don’t see how this would “diminish” marriage. Another argument claims that the benefits given to married couples are intended to help support child rearing by “one man and one woman.” If this were truly the case, then only married couples with children would get the benefits, which is obviously not the case. Finally, the most absurd argument I’ve read is “domestic partnerships exetend benefits to same-sex couples that are not extended to any other two unmarried people.” Colorado law already recognizes “common-law” marriages. Any man and woman who live together and “hold themselves out publicly as husband and wife” qualify for the exact same privileges and rights of married couples. These unmarried couples, unwilling to make a legal commitment, for whatever reasons, are still guaranteed the rights and privileges of marriage. It is time for our country to get over our fear of homosexuality. The only arguments against allowing homosexuals equal rights with heterosexuals are spawned by fear and ignorance.

Referendum j – No
This amendment seems to be an attempt to confuse voters about amendment 39. There is no need to pass any law that prescribes specifics of how local school districts decide to spend their money. If people don’t like how schools are spending their money, do the same thing you do to congress...vote out the school board and replace them with people you support.

Referendum k – No
This is another ridiculous bill. If you want the federal government to enforce current immigration policy, then VOTE for federal government representatives that will do it. Don’t force the state to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in an effort to sue the federal government that has already failed in so many other states. There are reasons why current immigration laws are not enforced. Address the issues by electing representatives that agree with you...obviously a lot of people that voted for George W. are upset that he hasn’t helped them with this issue...too bad! If you voted for him, deal with it!