As an elected official, one of the things I learned very early was that there is no shortage of people who will misconstrue and misrepresent one’s views, concerns, and motivations.

A case in point is The Gazette’s editorial concerning my opposition to HB 1260, a bill that would extend new rights to any two unmarried people in Colorado – whether they are gay, straight, same or different gender – through the use of new “designated beneficiary agreements”.

Contrary to The Gazette’s assertion, I have no desire to entangle “moralistic religious agendas” in the political process. Those who are familiar with my political views and record know that I am leery of any social agenda – moral or otherwise – in the legislative process.

The Gazette notes and I agree that decisions as to who visits one in the hospital, makes their funeral arrangements, or lives with them as their life partner for that matter, are private ones in which the state should have no role. To the extent that the rights are private and based on a contract between two people and in no way involve the state, I support the right of any two people to make these choices.

Contrary to the misconception held by many, as well as the misleading implication of The Gazette, these rights already exist in law. And, if HB 1260 only made it easier for two people to exercise those rights, I would be a strong supporter of the bill.

But, HB 1260 would extend new rights and those rights clearly involve another party besides the two people entering the agreement. That party is the state and its taxpayers.

These new rights include the right for someone to give an unrelated person the right to collect workers compensation benefits, claim public pension benefits, sue for wrongful death, and receive another’s property at death over and above other relatives, including children, if there is no will.

These rights are not simply matters of contract or the designation of a preference by two consenting adults. Rather, they are all legal rights or benefits that have been extended to citizens by state statute. The public has an interest in these matters if for no other reason than the associated fiscal implications. Indeed, these changes are fraught with both fiscal and legal implications that were glossed over by the bill’s proponents and by The Gazette.

Significantly, the bill has a safety clause declaring that its enactment is necessary for the “immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.” This is critical to the bill’s supporters because it denies the people of Colorado the opportunity to petition and place the measure on the ballot to determine whether granting these new rights to unmarried couples really is the will of the people. Given that The Gazette often portrays itself as the champion of the people’s right to act through initiative and referendum, I find its strident criticism of my opposition to HB 1260 rather curious.

Because HB 1260 does extend new rights to any two unrelated people in Colorado, it is a fundamental change in the law and public policy of our state and I believe it is contrary to the will expressed by the voters in 2006.

Moreover, the bill contains language that denies the citizens the right to have this fundamental policy change referred to the voters for their consent, an important right guaranteed by our State constitution. That should be reason enough for The Gazette, which often proclaims its own high principles and solidarity with the citizens for the right of petition and referendum, to oppose the passage of this bill.

It is for that reason and no other that I oppose this bill.

–

Gardner represents District 21 in the Colorado House of Representatives.

Photo by