The Statesman’s June 9th “Hot Sheet” completely missed the point of Senate Bill 150. The article leads one to think the bill automatically turned all civil unions in Colorado into marriages. It also makes it sound like the Legislature has accepted the Supreme Court’s ruling that completely redefined the meaning of marriage. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, in the legislative declaration of Senate Bill 150 it states: “Senate Bill 16-150 is intended to remedy the complicated legal process of dissolving a civil union and a marriage for the same couple. The ultimate constitutional question of the United States supreme court’s constitutional jurisdiction and authority to redefine marriage in Colorado’s constitution through a ruling on certain individual cases in other states is a matter the general assembly may take up at a different time, but Senate Bill 16-150 does not address, nor settle that concern.”

The bill’s legislative declaration also points out that the United States Supreme Court has grossly over stepped its bounds, once again. Far too often the Court exceeds the authority it is granted in the constitution and boldly forces itself into the law making process, thus denying We the People the right to a representative government. This was the case in the Obergfell opinion, which turned the meaning of marriage on its head.

I have throughout my entire legislative career defended the original meaning of marriage in Colorado’s law and our state constitution clearly defines marriage as only between one man and one woman. My support of Senate Bill 150 was not a change in those policies. It was my effort to remedy the particular dilemma of the complicated legal process facing Colorado citizens who are seeking the dissolution of a civil union and marriage license. I bent over backwards to work with the Senate sponsor to fix this specific problem and no more. Anyone who tries to turn this into a bigger statement on same-sex marriage is either not understanding the bill or intentionally misrepresenting it.

Those of us who do stand for traditional marriage understand the predicament in which some of Colorado’s citizens have found themselves. We were able to work with the sponsor of the bill and come to a solution that should be acceptable for everyone, in which neither side of the aisle compromised their principles or political opinions.

It is disappointing to see some press reports twist this bill into a full-scale acceptance of same-sex marriage in Colorado. What was meant as a compassionate effort to find a point of common agreement on a very limited piece of legislation has been turned into a political victory for those who want to abandon Colorado’s Constitutional definition of marriage.

I trust the citizens of our state will be able to see past the political posturing and recognize SB-150 for what is really is: a compassionate bill to alleviate an unnecessary redundancy in Colorado’s divorce laws. Indeed, the Legislature did not capitulate to the incessant cry to redefine marriage, nor surrender our authority to five black-robed kings. Instead we, the elected law-makers of Colorado, worked together, found some common ground on a difficult issue and fixed a specific problem.