Referendum I directly undermines their rights by setting the stage for a judge to impose full-fledged gay marriage on voters against their will.
On Nov. 7, state voters will be asked to approve Referendum I, which would legalize homosexual unions under the name of “domestic partnerships.” Referendum I is bad for Colorado – bad for businesses, bad for the state budget, bad for taxpayers’ pocketbooks and bad for voters.
First, consider the impact Referendum I would have on our state’s businesses. If passed, it would force employers across the state – both private and public – to offer the full range of marital benefits to same-sex domestic partners. That includes medical insurance, as well as death and disability benefits.
It’s one matter to allow business owners the option of providing such benefits, a choice they currently have. But Referendum I goes much further, requiring employers who offer spousal benefits to also provide coverage to cohabitating homosexuals.
Religious freedom? Forget it. There isn’t any exemption in Referendum I for business owners or faith-based organizations who have religious objections to covering same- sex partners. Nor is there protection for owners of smaller business who simply can’t afford to do so.
“The consequences on Colorado’s economy could be staggering,” concluded The Pueblo Chieftain’s editorial against Referendum I. But, if Referendum I passes, employers will be forced to comply, no matter the cost, or face the domestic-partner police. That’s right: Government-funded compliance officers would be created by Referendum I to ensure that all employers, and others, obey the new law.
And just who is going to foot the bill to pay for this enforcement? Colorado taxpayers, of course. Not only will they be forced to cover the cost for Referendum I’s “compliance investigators,” but they’ll also bear the burden of the extra insurance costs that state, county and municipal government employers incur.
The most conservative estimate found in Referendum I’s fiscal note projects a state loss of at least $600,000 in the first two years as expenditures to implement Referendum I exceed the revenue it collects. That number doesn’t include the increased cost and stress on the court system adjudicating domestic partners as they legally separate and divorce.
Referendum I is also unfair to Colorado voters: It directly undermines their rights by setting the stage for a judge to impose full-fledged gay marriage on voters against their will. It does this by creating a parallel form of marriage. Those who take the time to read Referendum I will quickly see that it gives homosexual domestic partners the full benefits of state- recognized marriage, including child custody and adoption and divorce rights.
And if Referendum I is approved, same-sex couples will go to the county clerk’s office for a “license” just like engaged-to-be marriage couples. The certificates they receive will have the same wording as traditional marriage licenses – except that the word “marriage” will be replaced with the words “domestic partnership.”
In short, Referendum I is gay marriage by another name. And that’s dangerous when you consider what’s happening right now in New Jersey. Gay couples there filed a lawsuit, attempting to get a judge to force gay marriage onto the state. Their lawsuit is based on this logic: Since New Jersey already had a domestic-benefits law that gives homosexuals marital benefits, there’s no reason not to give them legalized marriage in name as well.
(Editor’s note: The New Jersey Supreme Court Wednesday gave that state’s legislature 180 days to decide whether to legalize full-fledged gay marriage or pass a Vermont-style civil union law.)
There’s nothing to prevent the same scenario from happening in Colorado if Referendum I passes.
Referendum I supporters know this. But in public, they claim that their measure only creates “basic legal rights” without “changing Colorado marriage law.”
But again, you only need to read Referendum I to see the truth: It requires a complete overhaul of Colorado marriage and family law – specifically stipulating that everywhere the words “spouse” and “family” appear, they must be redefined to include same-sex domestic partners.
The bottom line? Referendum I is clearly a bad deal for Colorado citizens. It adds more burdensome bureaucracy, financially penalizes taxpayers and businesses, and gives voters more than they bargained for: gay marriage in disguise.
Jim Pfaff is a co-founder of Colorado Family Action.
