« Compromise Reached, Nuclear Option Abandoned | Main | Tuesday Open Thread »



Rep Carroll,

Are you single?


I saw your criticisms of the speaker in the paper last week. You thought he played a part in killing a major bill of yours. Is that accurate? If so, do you regret airing dirty laundry in the paper?



The real answer is that I do not know and can not know for sure what happened with the mistaken vote and in the absence of pretty concrete knowledge, I am not comfortable erring on the side publicly impugning a colleague.

After the vote, I had dozens of colleagues come up and share with me "oh, that happens all the time. I did that on this vote. I accidentally killed this bill."

I can't say I was particularly comforted by that.






There were soooooo many rumors circulating on this bill. One of the rumors floating was that the Speaker wanted this bill dead. The reporter asked if I had heard that. I had heard that. Doesn't mean it's true.

Exposing the realities and problems of the lobby influence at the capitol and on our state's public policy is probably not something that would ever be a good PR move for either Dems or Republicans. On the whole, though, I am glad they ran the story because it should be of profound public interest to the whole state for both Ds and Rs.


If you preview then post, it doesn't double post as often. Usually.

On the "mistake vote" bill, are the plans to reintroduce it next year? Or will there be changes to try to produce a more broadly supported bill.

Thanks for responding to everyone, including me.



I plan to go back to the drawing board to work with everyone interested and willing over the summer and re-introduce some version of this bill, preferrably with more broad-based support.

It is my pleasure and honor to participate in this forum.


Rep. Carrol,

Do you support full marriage rights for same sex couples; and if you don't, what do you support and why?


Come on now Morgan -- no one has ever even heard of someone accidentally voting the wrong way on a vote of importance -- are you now going to act like Anne and be charitably less than candid?
Or, are you going to tell the truth
Anne McGihon either lied in order to curry to special interests or she was not paying attention on one of the most important votes she has yet to cast -- which is it? But, spare the people this oh it happens all the time nonsense -- it does not happen all the time -- it never happens and if you want to morph into McGihon and claim that than I am sorely disappointed -- one thing to try to get along another to try and mislead people -- Or, OK give me a list of the folks who claimed they accidentally killed bills and the bills they killed? Or, the bill alone will do to protect the innocent, the guilty or the ghosts you claim said they had killed a bill by mistake --




Civil marriages are a function of the State, contracts law and legal rights administered by the government. I believe in equal protection. Marriage is a very intimate decision. I don't believe it is the role of government to micro-manage or morally pre-filter or pre-ordain our marriages so long as it is a relationship between two consenting adults.

Religious marriages are a function of the Church, or synagogue or mosque etc. and they should have the religious freedom to recognize or not recognize whatever marriages they want. We should NOT impose Secular or State criteria on them.

On a third tier, I believe if any two people are lucky enough to find love, romance or compatibility and want to commit and spend rest of their life together -- more power to 'em! Who am I to stop that?

The biggest threat to the institution of heterosexual marriage as far as I can tell is heterosexuals. We can't blame gay people for our divorce rate, problems with domestic violence, child abuse, infidelity, disrespect, incompatibility, deceit or dysfunctionality.

Overall, I don't think we suffer from too much love and committment in this world.



I didn't say it happens all the time. I was telling you what people were telling me immediately after the vote...and as I said I didn't find it very comforting.

I have been candid. I don't know for sure which it was and don't know how I can ever know for sure. I would be lying if I said I knew.


Generally speaking, do you belive that state government is too big or too small? If it's too small, what taxes would you raise?

Phoenix Rising

Followup on Coloradodem's marriage question: State marriage law (tax breaks, etc.) originally had a purpose of promoting certain government objectives, such as establishment of a population. Do you see any remaining State interest in marriage that would argue against same-sex unions? Or are we just protecting a religious view at this point?

Thanks so much for taking time today!



Generally I would say government is too inefficient. I don't know the magic size of government but I think we have segments of government that suffer from huge bureaucratic, red-tape bloating which can be inefficient and impair the end delivery of critically needed services.


Do you have any examples of "red tape bloating" in the state govt? I hear that often but never hear any specifics. Why can't these specifics be made more public? Thanks for your time today.


I've heard of legislators accidentally hitting the wrong button before, even on important issues. My boss did that a four years ago on a major vote. He was distracted by a conversation he'd been having. But, he never ever used that as an excuse. That just makes you look stupid.



I don't have statistics at my finger-tips but many of the inefficiencies seem to be apparent from the end experience of state citizens that can't get phones answered, calls returned, straight answers or results from state government in any timely fashion.

One example from a conversation I had today with someone in voc rehab said that per rules they must by software locally ($1,700) that they could get online ($250).

The rule-making process for state agencies is often opaque, difficult to understand and can be inflexible, leaving state workers obligated to follow rules that don't always make sense.

The State Auditor however has done some really good "performance review" audits of various functions of state government and while exhaustive each of those reports are replete with examples of places where things are working well and areas of inefficiency. I think you can access a good number of these audits online or call the state auditor's office for copies.


Rising Phoenix:

I think a lot of the initial policy behind State Secular marriages was to promote predictable record-keeping around children. Sociological research seems to indicate the institution of marriage as a good predictor of "settling people down" and getting them to behave and invest in other social institutions. However, given the number of heterosexual couples that can not or choose not to have children, that can not really be the modern basis of tax policy etc. I don't see any remaining State objectives that argue against it...and the only (albeit significant) State objective arguing for it would be to at least ensure parity or equality in access to the same legal rights (health care, inheritance, insurance, employment, tax policy etc.)

I think any opposition to State Secular marriages would really just be on some people's religious grounds.

Alva Adams

Please join us in thanking Ms. Carroll for graciously spending so much time with us today.


http://cwtate.hypermart.net/wwwboard/messages/2322.html boyslaurenretail


http://www.webminister.com/wwwboard/messages/11843.shtml glidedwhooshwindow



beastility xxx

http://amateurdogfuck.europeanbeastiality.com/740625494/ animalpenismammal

Billi Yong

Cool Site

Billi Yong

Cool Site

The comments to this entry are closed.