From owner-glb-press@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 5 21:41:45 1997 Received: from listmail.aol.com (listmail.aol.com [152.163.200.7]) by abacus.oxy.edu (8.6.10/8.6.11) with ESMTP id VAA17723 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 1997 21:41:44 -0700 Received: from LISTSERV.AOL.COM by listmail.aol.com (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.0a) with SMTP id E36D1A80 ; Fri, 6 Jun 1997 0:38:01 -0400 Received: from LISTSERV.AOL.COM by LISTSERV.AOL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with spool id 122126 for GLB-PRESS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM; Fri, 6 Jun 1997 00:39:33 -0400 Received: from listmail.aol.com (listmail.aol.com [152.163.200.7]) by listserv.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-3.0.0) with ESMTP id AAA26409 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 1997 00:39:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from LISTSERV.AOL.COM by listmail.aol.com (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.0a) with SMTP id DED2F8F0 ; Fri, 6 Jun 1997 0:37:53 -0400 Approved-By: julie@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU Received: from mail.sdsu.edu (mail.sdsu.edu [130.191.25.3]) by listserv.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-3.0.0) with ESMTP id VAA25931 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 1997 21:05:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [130.191.242.121] ([130.191.242.121]) by mail.sdsu.edu (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id SAA07304; Thu, 5 Jun 1997 18:06:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: dcase@mail.sdsu.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 18:08:30 -0800 Reply-To: Doug Case Sender: GLBT* Community Press Releases and Announcements Comments: RFC822 error: Incorrect or incomplete address field found and ignored. From: Doug Case Subject: Colorado Governor Vetoes Anti-Same Sex Marriage Bill To: GLB-PRESS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Status: RO STATE OF COLORADO EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS 136 State Capitol Denver, Colorado 80203-1792 Phone (303) 866-2471 June 5, 1997 The Honorable Colorado House of Representatives Sixty-first General Assembly First Regular Session Denver, CO 80203 Ladies and Gentlemen: I am returning to the Secretary of State House Bill 97-1198, "Concerning the Invalidity of Certain Marriages," which I vetoed today at 4.20 p.m. I am taking this action for two reasons. First, experts in family law advise me that the final language in this bill could threaten the thousands of common-law marriages that currently exist in Colorado. This was unintended, but if they are correct in this interpretation, the consequences could be very real in terms of the loss of such things as health benefits, pensions, paternity rights, and child support enforcement. Second, as we began work on legislation earlier this year, I was hopeful there could be some clarification of Colorado law that would not further polarize us on this issue. But as I watched the debate unfold around H.B. 1198, it became clear to me that, regardless of how benign the wording, this bill is fundamentally negative and divisive. We do not need H.B. 1198 to protect marriage in Colorado. Colorado's current law on marriage is sufficiently clear, and I support it. The only real effect of this bill is to target gay and lesbian people and to exclude and stigmatize this group in our society. I want to assure all Coloradans that the institution of marriage -- as we traditionally understand it -- is safe and secure in Colorado and is in no way threatened by this veto. Colorado law already states very clearly that marriage is between a man and a woman. That will not change regardless of what happens to this bill. Nor is it at all likely that any other state -- including Hawaii -- will legalize same-sex marriage any time soon. Should another state do so in the future, nothing in the current law indicates those marriages would be recognized in Colorado. In my veto message last year, I suggested that the Legislature establish a commission to review and evaluate the legal and policy issues involved in recognizing same sex relationships. Since they have not done so, I am going to appoint such a commission. This Commission on the Rights and Responsibilities of Same Sex Relationships, to be chaired by The Reverend William J. Winterrowd of the Episcopal Diocese of Colorado, will examine issues of civil law relating to same sex relationships. Among others, this could include such issues as what legal and economic rights, responsibilities and benefits might be extended those in a long-term committed relationship with a person of the same sex. For example, should a same sex partner have hospital visitation rights when his or her partner is dying? Should the estate of a same sex couple be treated as it is for a legally married couple? It seems to me that there are many estate, property, inheritance, health care and other topics that need to be reviewed. I believe this commission, the details of which I will outline in the near future, will be a constructive forum in which to discuss many of them. These are serious issues and require thoughtful and thorough debate which we have not yet had. We must come together as a community to have a rational discussion and work to find some common ground. I look forward to such a reasoned and constructive dialogue. Sincerely, Roy Romer Governor