Colorado Bar Association President's Message to Members
| Publication year | 1996 |
| Pages | 7 |
| Citation | Vol. 25 No. 4 Pg. 7 |
1996, April, Pg. 7. Colorado Bar Association President's Message to Members
At a recent meeting of the CBA Bill of Rights Committee, the Committee decided to ask the CBA to lobby against and otherwise actively oppose H.B. 96-1291. That bill would expressly prohibit marriages between persons of the same sex in Colorado and refuse to recognize such marriages in this state, even if validly obtained elsewhere.(fn1) The vote in the Bill of Rights Committee was 5 to 3 (with two abstentions) in favor of taking a position against this proposed legislation. The Family Law Section, on the other hand, voted to take no position on this bill.
H.B. 96-1291 was introduced in response to a decision from the Hawaii Supreme Court recognizing a potential right in Hawaii's state constitution to same sex marriages.(fn2) Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution, if valid in Hawaii such marriages necessarily would be recognized as valid in Colorado unless expressly prohibited here. The bill, containing just such a prohibition, is moving rapidly through the Colorado legislature.(fn3) Thus, the CBA has been asked to weigh in at a time when it might make a difference in stopping the bill. (No one has asked the CBA to support the bill.)
At its March 1 meeting, the CBA Legislative Policy Committee ("LPC") declined to take an official position on behalf of the CBA. Instead, it voted to refer the issue to the CBA Executive Council with a unanimous recommendation (with a couple of abstentions) that the Council vote promptly to oppose H.B. 96-1291 and have CBA lobbyist Mike Valdez proceed accordingly. The LPC thought the issue to be too important and potentially divisive for the LPC to act alone on behalf of the CBA.
At the LPC meeting, varied arguments were advanced in favor of the CBA opposing this legislation. The bill is thought by its opponents to be mean-spirited, unconstitutional and, at best, premature. The Hawaii courts are still considering the case, and same sex marriages are not yet recognized there or elsewhere in the U.S. Another argument was that the legislation is infirm or unnecessary. Opposition to the legislation does not necessarily mean that the government...
To continue reading
Request your trial