Subject: Text of Colorado Governor's Veto of HB 1291
From: "W. Scott Barber" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 01:17:31 -0800

The following is the complete text of Colorado Governor Roy Romer's veto
of General Assembly House Bill 1291, which would have prohibited same-gender
marriage.
Governor Romer vetoed this legislation on Monday, March 25, 1996.

	=======================================================

Full text of Gov. Romer's veto of HB 1291

Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am returning to you House Bill 96 1291, "Concerning the invalidity of
Marriages Between Persons of the Same Sex", which I vetoed today at 12:41
p.m. This letter sets forth my reasoning for vetoing this bill.

I want the people of Colorado to clearly understand that my veto does not
mean that same sex marriages will be legal in Colorado. It does not mean
that a church or anyone else will be forced to perform or recognize same
sex marriages. Colorado law is very clear that marriage is reserved for the
union of a man and a woman. That is our policy. I support it. It does not
change by my action today.

The expressed motive for this bill is to preserve the definition of
marriage in Colorado from the actions of Hawaii, which may some day extend
marriage to include persons of the same sex. This issue may arise because,
under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U. S. Constitution, states
honor and recognize certain actions of other states, marriage being one of
the most obvious examples.

However, HB 1291 does not adequately resolve this issue. In fact it raises,
but does not properly address, other important constitutional issues,
including the possibility of discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Three principles underlie my action today:

First, I believe that marriage in Colorado should be reserved for the union
of a man and woman. That is our current law and I think it should remain
our law. There is a long standing, historic, cultural, religious and civil
tradition for the institution of marriage. We should continue that
tradition, preserving the institution of marriage for the union of a man
and a woman.

Second, I believe that decisions on this subject should be made by
Coloradans and not by people in other states. We should not permit our law
to be altered by the action of another state. We should take whatever
appropriate steps may be necessary to protect our policy.

Third, I believe that those members of our society who join in a long term,
commited relationship with a person of the same sex should be acknowledged
as fellow human beings and fellow citizens. I believe, for example, that
they should have access to each other in a hospital room when one partner
is dying. We need a discussion on how our law should evolve to give
stability and protection to their relationship in situations like this.

I believe these principles are shared by most Coloradans. What are we to do
when we look across the church congregation, our service clubs, or our
workplace and see a gay or lesbisn person, a human being who wants to live
his or her life in the most responsible and caring way possible, and
commits to sharing life with a person of the same sex? What are we to say
as a society about that relationship? Do we condemn them? Shouldn't they be
able to live their lives to the fullest, in a responsible and caring way?

These are the questions I am putting on the table. They don't readily lead
to simple or bumper sticker solutions, but life is not always simple, and
complex problems are rarely solved by bumper sticker slogans.

It is one thing to beieve as I do that marriage is for the union of a man
and woman. It is quite another to believe that committed same sex
relationships do not exist and should not be recognized by society. We
cannot prohibit or ban these relationships, and we shouldn't use our law to
attempt to do so.

Let's find out how we can live together with our differences, rather than
divide over the issue of sexual orientation.

I'm making this simple appeal to the Legislature and the people of
Colorado: let's come to terms with this issue, as elected officials, as
friends, as neighbors, as members of a community, as members of a church,
as Coloradans.

There is a right way to proceed, and a wrong way. There is a unifying way,
and a divisive way. There is a thoughtful way, and a simplistic way.

I believe HB 1291 fails on all thcse counts.

HB 1291 does not adequately do the job. I know some support this bill
because they believe it deals with the constitutional issues raised by the
courts in Hawaii. Some support it because they view it as a re affirmation
of our traditional structure of marriage. But let's be honest: some support
this bill because it is a way to single out and condemn the lifestyle of
gay and lesbian people.

Regardless of motivation, the bill I have before me now is simplistic and
divisive. It is simplistic because it ignores important legal and
constitutional questions and addresses only one part of the issue.It is
divisive because it singles out a group of Coloradans for condemnation,
equating their relationships with incest and bigamy. That is hurtful, and
it is counter to Colorado's rich tradition of tolerance and freedom.

We can be pro family, without being unfair to gay and lesbian people.

We can re affirm our commitment to marriage between a man and a woman
without condemning those who have different relationships.

The proponents of this bill say they want to ensure that same sex marriages
from Hawaii or some other state are not recognized in Colorado under the
Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution. But the way the bill
is drafted is to ban same sex marriages in the "prohibited marriages"
section of our marriage statute, alongside bigamy and incest. This is mean
spirited and unnecessary. We do not need to forbid or "ban" same sex
relationships to protect ourselves under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Moreover, structuring legislation this way may invite lawsuits against
Colorado based on discrimination and the Equal Protection Clause.

In fact, I am not entirely convinced we need any new statutory language.
Colorado law already clearly states that marriage is between a man and a
woman. But if some believe we need to reaffirm and strengthen our current
law to make it absolutely clear that marriage is between a man and a woman,
we can do just that. To preserve our law as it is, the Full Faith and
Credit Clause only requires us to indicate that our "strong public policy"
is that marriage is between a man and a woman. To strengthen that posture,
we may want to specify that conflicting out of state marriages will not be
recognized as against this public policy.

I would sign legislation that does two things: (1) States that "It is the
strong public policy of Colorado that marriage shall only be between a man
and a woman. It is the policy of Colorado only to recognize marriages from
other states that are between a man and a woman.' This will give us more
than enough protection against a Full Faith and Credit challenge from
Hawaii or any other state. And it does so with language that is
constructive and not discriminatory.

(2) The second change I would require before I sign legislation is language
based on an amendment introduced by State Senator Dottie Wham, which would
provide a commission to review and evaluate the legal and policy issues
involved in recognizing same sex relationships. This commission, which
would be composed of members appointed by the Legislature and myself, would
report back to Colorado on its findings by a date certain. I am open to
working with the Iegislature on when such a report would be issued.

Why do I think a commission is important? Because this is a serious issue,
and it requires a thoughtful and thorough debate. We have not yet had such
a debate. We must come together as a community to have a rational
discussion about these issues and attempt to find some common ground upon
which we can agree.

Send me a bill with the two changes I've outlined and I will sign it. The
approach I have outlined will strengthen our legal posture against
challenges under the Full Faith and Credit clause and other constitutional
challenges. Most important of alI, it will allow us to act on reason and
not out of fear. That is in the best tradition of Colorado and our people.
It id [sic]an approach that will unite, and not divide us.

Sincerely,
Roy Romer
Governor