Colorado will have a peculiar looking ballot this November.  In addition to a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, there will be a de facto initiative to sanction civil unions between gays.  Conservative Denver Post columnist Al Knight has a piece today on why opponents of same-sex marriage should vote against referendum I, the civil unions initiative. 

Voters in Colorado don't have to guess what will happen if Referendum I passes. Just look at Vermont. That state's Supreme Court has recently handed down a ruling touching on a variety of issues including when one state must recognize the rulings of another state and what defines a "natural or biological parent." In a stunning footnote, the court refused to accept the notion that "natural parent" is the same as "biological parent."

It also danced around the issue of how the common-law rule of presumed paternity applies to homosexual couples. In heterosexual couples, it is presumed that when the wife gives birth, the husband is the father. This presumption cannot be applied to gay couples for obvious biological reasons, yet the Vermont court refused to say so, leaving this question for yet another day and yet another lawsuit. (Denver Post, today).

Knight correctly asserts that for the very same reasons those of us oppose same-sex marriage, it is consist to vote against civil unions.  More precisely, because it is fundamentally basic to our society that kids have both a mother and a father, and gay unions would negate this imperative.  If gays can unite or marry or whatever, ther is no legal restraint preventing them from adopting.  What's more, referendum I is no simple civil unions bill.  Rather, it is absolutely marriage.