STANDARDS' PICK
FOR WEAKEST QUEER POLITICS, 1996

Colorado Governor Roy Romer's
"Veto Statement"

March 25, 1996

The Honorable Colorado House
of Representatives
Sixtieth General Assembly
Second Regular Session
Denver, CO 80202

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, committed 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 lesbian 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 believe, 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 these 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 Legislature 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 all, 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 is an approach that will unite, and not divide us.

Sincerely,
Roy Romer
Governor