Colorado Rep DelGrosso fundamentally misunderstands State Constitution

Daniel Gonzales

January 23rd, 2013

Rep. Brian DelGrosso, R-Loveland


From the Colorado Springs Gazette:

In 2006, Colorado voters approved an amendment defining marriage as only between one man and one woman.

Rep. Brian DelGrosso, R-Loveland, who voted against civil union bills in committees the past two years, said he questions the constitutionality of the proposed bill.

“The voters of Colorado have clearly said this is what we expect,” DelGrosso said. “How can you prove to us that what you’re doing is constitutional? That you’re not just changing the name of something and trying to pretend that it’s something that it’s not — same-sex marriage.”

Brian DelGrosso seems to fundamentally misunderstand how Colorado’s constitution. Our neighbors in Utah, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma have all passed amendments that not only ban gay marriage but also ban civil unions. Here in Colorado our constitution says nothing of civil unions.

The authors of Colorado Amendment 43 and voters have left the door open for us to have civil unions here in Colorado.

And yes, DelGrosso represents Loveland. Oh the irony.

Bernie Keefe

January 23rd, 2013

Thank God, I’m in Fort Collins.

Lindoro Almaviva

January 23rd, 2013

Daniel, i agree with you, but the fact is that he is right, in the grander scheme of things.

He is seeing the civil unions bill for what it is, an attempt to give same gender couples the rights and privileges of marriage under a different name. I agree with him, it is unconstitutional.

The problem is that he sees it in the much smaller context of “didn’t we put this to bed a long time ago? Fags are not entitled to the same rights that I am” while failing to consider both the bill or rights that guarantees citizens and tax payers the same rights and treatment under the law (thus making the voter approved constitutional amendment unconstitutional) AND the (I think) 14th amendment that guarantees protection from separate but equal.

So, think about it this way, he is right in his argument, but not for the reasons he is arguing, which makes his brand of blindness the worst kind there is.

Ben in Oakland

January 23rd, 2013

I was going to say what you said, lindoro, with this addendum.

Everywhere civil unions have been passed, they are an admission that we gay people have a moral. Religious, constitutional, legal, familial, and child centered claim on the heterosexual majority.

They are also a clear statement that we will never, ever be considered as good as the likes of fornicating, adulterous Newtie, or our lives as good asthe 27 marriages of Larry king, mickey rooney, and Liz Taylor.

Those civil unions stop exactly at the state line. If they can vote on our marriages, they can certainly vote on our civil unions.

So this Asshat here is both wrong and right for entirely the same reasons.


January 23rd, 2013

Lindoro and Ben in Oakland,
I disagree with both of your view on this. If the ammendment had wanted to ban domestic partnerships, in addition to definng marriage as one man one woman, it would have stated that in the ammendment itself. The ammendment defined MARRIAGE, it did not, in it’s text, say that no other relationships could not be legally formed or granted. In states that have ammended all forms of same sex relations, they have included wording to that effect in their text. No prohibitiopn of other forms of legalized relationships occured with the passage of this ammendment.

If one does not explicitly ban Civil Unions, then one can’t claim they are unconstitutional, as the author of this piece notes, the neighboring states explicity banned other unions at the same time they defined marriage.

Timothy Kincaid

January 23rd, 2013

The state website is a total mess. I found two different lists of members of the Judiciary Committee, but when you clicked the chair names it went to other random people. The more recent list (I think) doesn’t even include Rep. DelGrosso as being on the committee.


Who is on the House Judiciary Committee?

Ben in Oakland

January 23rd, 2013

Robert, that’s why I said he was both right and wrong for the same reasons.

Timothy Kincaid

January 23rd, 2013

Never mind, I figured it out. DelGrosso used to be on the Judiciary Committee but no longer is (as it said in the article, duh!)

His comments relate to his general opposition, not to the committee’s hearing today.

Daniel Gonzales

January 23rd, 2013

Correct, Rep Delgroso is in the House, the bill is currently in the Senate. He sits on the three committees, 1) Appropriations
2) Business, Labor, Economic, & Workforce Development
3) Finance


January 23rd, 2013

Wikipedia has a list of the state Amendments and lists which ones do and don’t have language that goes beyond Marriage. The Colorado Amendment did not have that language, so no, he is wrong. Bit pushover to say otherwise.


January 23rd, 2013

Ben, I posted because I don’t see where he is “right”. He isn’t, in my view, as any rights afforded civil unions will fundamentally lack all the same rights as married couples, thus the “just changing the name” aspect is erroneous. If it doesn’t afford all the same rights then one can not say “it’s the same thing” as marriage.

The linked article is pretty good and discusses some of this in more detail than Daniel did.


January 24th, 2013

“If it doesn’t afford all the same rights then one can not say it’s the same thing” as marriage.”

To add to what Robert said, even if a civil union grants each and every last right granted by marriage, it will still be inherently “less than”.

If you remember, we have already tried the notion of “separate but equal” (“Jim Crow” ring a bell? “Colored” water fountains?) and it did not work. It ain’t gonna work now.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.


Latest Posts


Another Temporary Hiatus

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1971: Minnesota Couple Stake Claim To First American Same-Sex Marriage

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1954: "Perverts Vanish" From Miami

Born On This Day, 1907: Evelyn Hooker

Born On This Day, 1925: Fr. John J. McNeill

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.