Gay couple found guilty
By Sue Lindsay, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published May 6, 2008 at 9:30 p.m.
Updated May 7, 2008 at 5:28 p.m.
Photo by George Kochaniec Jr. © The Rocky
Attorney Mari Newman hugs Kate Burns as Sheila Schroeder, right, looks on after being found of trespassing during a jury trial in Denver County Court on Wednesday.
Photo by George Kochaniec Jr. © The Rocky
Sheila Schroeder and Kate Burns look over court paperwork to pay a $41 fine each after being found guilty of trespassing during a jury trial in Denver County Court on Wednesday. On far right is their defense attorney Mari Newman.
Photo by George Kochaniec Jr. / The Rocky
Kate Burns, left, and Sheila Schroeder appear in Denver County Court on Tuesday. They are on trial for trespassing for refusing to leave the Denver County clerk's office in September after being denied an application for a marriage license.
Two gay women who refused to leave a city office after they were denied a marriage license were found guilty of trespassing today.
Kate Burns and Sheila Schroeder will have to pay $41 in court costs and serve 28 hours of community service.
The six-woman jury deliberated less than an hour before announcing the guilty verdict.
The two were arrested on trespassing charges Sept. 24 when they refused to leave the Denver County Clerk's Office.
In court Tuesday, the women's attorney, Mari Newman, said, "These are two courageous women who stood up for their love and to speak out about a law that's unfair." Just 40 years ago, it was illegal for people of different races to marry, she added.
That prompted one of many objections by city attorneys and a clarification by Denver County Judge James Breese.
"This is a trespass charge," he told the jury. "Whether the law is a good law is not an issue in this case."
Lawyers for the couple challenged the constitutionality of Amendment 43, the voter-approved ballot measure that defines marriage in Colorado as the union of one man and one woman, but Breese said he could not decide that issue.
Schroeder testified that she she was somewhat afraid of getting arrested, but thought the Denver clerk might give them a license despite the law, as has happened in other states.
"It was important to get married because I love Kate Burns very much and I want that love to be honored in full view of the state and the country that I love," she said.
Once they were denied the license, Schroeder said they decided to engage in civil disobedience. They sat down, holding hands and the bouquets of flowers they brought in hopes of getting a marriage license.
"We sat down in front of the counter supported by our tax dollars that wasn't serving us that day," she said.
Prosecutors said the two women knew what the law was and planned to break it, knowing they would be arrested.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
May 7, 2008
4:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
happymike44 writes:
Well let's not treat people with diginity.What is wrong with two loving people marrying each other.This is what I do not understand why two law abiding persons are treated like Jesse James and just robbed he last stage out of town.Remember civil disobedience is part of american history,if you do not like a law protest to change it.This is their right to freedom of speech.If you do not agree remember if you censure one group.Then you must censure all people's rights to freedom of speech.Also I believe all people should be allowed to live their lives the way they want.As long as it is peaceful and non volent.My right to be able to say this comes from a long line of military people who have fought to keep this country safe.I can trace m family right to the battle of Valley Forge and the cattle we sold to the American Revolutionary Army.So if I do not have a problem with this why should you?
May 7, 2008
7:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
What about Warren Jeff's cult in New Mexico? Do they have a right to live their lives the way they want? They believe it's what God wants, a older man to marry young girls starting at the age of 12 and having children with them? Is that their right? Is it okay to have many wives , even if it's against the law? Should the brainwashed scared mothers of this compound maybe go sit in the DA"s office and protest the laws of marriage and the child sex laws so their daughters can be offered up as sacrificial lambs to older pedophiles under the guise of Jesus wants it this way?
How far are we willing to go down the slippery slope of allowing any two people who love each other to be married? I would like to see civil unions set up so that the couple can actually by law do things like adopt children, have wills together that greedy family members can't get their hands on etc.... Marriage no.
May 7, 2008
7:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
holekeeper writes:
happymike44,
While I respect your opinion and am glad you support these two I dont. The voters of Colorado voted and decided what they wanted marrage defined as. If they want to put it back on the ballot please go vote in support of it. Your family has done this country a great service and I am assuming since they were all in the military that you were also in and thank you but your right to say how you feel dosent come from your familys history but from just being an American. I served in the Army. I love this country. I dont support the homosexuals getting married, but would have no problime with a civil union or the such that would help with the taxes and health benifits.
May 7, 2008
7:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
My family has also served this country in military in large numbers, but don't think same sex marriage should be legal.
They were charged with trespass, not the court to contest the lack of same sex marriage law. Say what you want, it just ain't natural.....
May 7, 2008
8:09 a.m.
airbornebigfoot writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
May 7, 2008
8:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
SteveM writes:
Part 1: If voters in Colorado voted that marriage should be defined as that between only one man of the same race as the one woman would you support that law too HappyMike? If two people of the same gender are married, Mike, does that hurt you in any way? Does it have any effect on you whatsoever? Do you think it's possible that homosexual people might be offended and non-supportive of heterosexuals getting married thinking it to be off base? Is this an issue of puritanically minded Christians trying to graft their beliefs onto those of everyone? If this has been grafted onto our Constitution by hate mongers what's next?
As for Vudumom, I don't get your comment at all, with due respect, because ironically the example you pose serves equally well in the contrapostive as in these Warren Jeff followers were Christian, God-fearing people who believe they are doing the good work as the Good Lord commands them. Except for polygamy and incest what about their lifestyle goes against the puritanical, evangelical etc. Christian doctrine you and others strive so vehemently to protect and proliferate? But, as your example shows, there was a cult run wild. Proving, in effect, that just because you claim to be Christian and God-fearing, doesn't mean you going to end up operating your life in a manner that conforms to the law. The Bible, apparently, and other holy books don't necessarily guide people toward what is right. And the day you convince me that God him or herself put us on this earth to judge each other and determine the punishments for our obviously inferior interpretations of the Holy Spirit's intentions is the day I'll agree with you both on this issue. All of my Bible education, in fact, and all of my studies of the life and sacrifice of Jesus Christ after whom the religion of Christianity was born tells me that we are not in fact the keepers of God's law. Jesus, peace be upon him, was in fact a noble saint who taught us to love our neighbor and to turn the other cheek. He taught us a valuable lesson in the story of Mary Magdalene "He who has not sinned may cast the first stone." You know the drill, but you don't practice what you preach or what Jesus preached or what GOD wants from we shallow and imperfect beings. Show me where in the Bible it says, "Thou shalt judge others and punish them for your perceived transgressions against my law." You won't find any such passage; and, in fact, you'll find hundreds of references to the notion that only God can forgive sin and only God can judge us. The issue I have with most right wing Christian views and they manifest in an ugly way in this Colorado definition of marriage which is not shared nationally and certainly not internationally is that it usurps God's law by placing human beings in the role as judge and jury on a completely moral issue.
May 7, 2008
8:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
SteveM writes:
Part 2: Here are the commonly accepted 10 Commandments:
I am the Lord your God
You shall have no other gods before me
You shall not make for yourself an idol
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
Honor your father and mother
You shall not murder
You shall not commit adultery
You shall not steal
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
You shall not covet your neighbor's house
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife
Hmm, I don't see anything about marriage being between a man and a woman. I see a lot about not stealing and murdering and coveting, but nothing about marrying. I wonder if you two and all of your like-minded hate mongering, God-power usurping, right wing Christians might rather spend your efforts trying to stop all the stealing, all the adultery, all the coveting, and all the murder, rather than directing all your hatred and loathing and venomous judgment against God-fearing homosexuals just trying to live as normal a life as they can in a nation preoccupied with sex and what and how other people are doing it, you might (a) earn greater favor with our heavenly spirit, (b) better demonstrate the principles of the religion's highest leader, Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, (c) do far more good for our community and the greater world at large, and finally (d) not come across as hypocritical.
May 7, 2008
8:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
SteveM writes:
Part 3: From my first few weeks in Vacation Bible School, to my every weekday mass at Catholic elementary school, I learned or was taught at least that Christians are a loving people with a religion founded on peace and compassion for our fellow people. I learned that God is all-powerful and all-knowing (I guess omnipotent and omniscient were too big as far as words go for me at the time so they kept it simple). And I never once learned anywhere that God put we mere mortal humans in charge of enforcing or interpreting God's law for each other. Just the opposite, in fact, is what I learned. I have asked 4 priests and 1 Episcopal minister to highlight (a) where in the Bible it says anything about homosexual marriage--they found nothing, and then (b) what it says about marriage in general. Unfortunately, only the Episcopal minister came through on this part, and I say unfortunately because what he found made me scratch my head and shudder. He spent about a week and a half and came back to me befuddled. I guess the four priests were so unhappy with what they found or rather didn't find they decided to pretend I never asked them. He said, "Well, I found nothing about who should or shouldn't be married. I found no reference to anything that says same gendered people cannot or should not be married. I did find this passage, however," which he handed to me on a folded piece of paper as if to imply I hoped I would keep it to myself which, until now, I have. While I don't recall the exact words, it had something to do with a long, drawn out section about how once married, women are to serve men, never have ideas of their own, and so on down a huge gender discrimination lawsuit pathway. At the time, I thought to myself, wouldn't it be great to have Jerry Fallwell and Rush Limbaugh read this on their radio programs? I'd love to see the Evangelicals of Colorado Springs merrily reading along in the scripture and read this passage aloud to the congregation and see the reaction on the faces of the women present.
Look, the bottom line is that (a) there are more important things to worry about in this world such as starvation, global climate change, child abuse, alcoholism, drug abuse, gambling addictions, mental illness, treatment and care of senior citizens, the high cost of gasoline, gang warfare, joblessness, homelessness, etc. and on and on to waste time, energy, and resources on this topic of same-gender marriage; (b) the good Lord Almighty in no place in any of the world's holy books surrendered the authority for man to sit in judgment of other men--in fact, that is a right preserved to the contrary by God for God the creator not person X the Christian from Colorado Springs, and (c) candidly this issue is moot and tiresome as in the end it's really none of our business.
May 7, 2008
8:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
SteveM writes:
Part 4: But, on the other hand, if you want to allow yourselves to be drawn into this pointless and distracting debate on same-gender marriage so that you don't notice that your elected politicians of the last 8 years have done absolutely nothing to work toward solving any of the real threats and problems in our great nation, that's your choice. I'm sure that same gender people not being able to marry in Colorado is going to provide millions of dollars for anti-drug education, jobs for the unemployed, home for the homeless, gas cost relief, etc. You want to get suckered into following his smokescreen issue that's your prerogative, but don't drag the rest of us down with you
May 7, 2008
9:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
nativegirl writes:
By their logic, I should be able to go to the PowerBall offices & stand there until they give me a jackpot. (hhmmmmmmm)
May 7, 2008
9:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
editor: Please look at achtung_jeuden, who is(or used to be juden_frei), who was banned from this site last week for being an idiot, moron, imbecile, uneducated, etc., etc.
May 7, 2008
9:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
Maybe you forgot to read the 10th commandment, Steve M. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife. How much more clear can it be? A woman cannot have a wife, and a husband cannot have a husband. Duh!
May 7, 2008
9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
SteveM: If you are going to quote the Bible, let's go back to Genesis 2:24. Early enough for you?
"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."
Man, and wife. Pretty simple, really.
Grumpymike: It's called civil DISOBEDIENCE. Disobedience means consequences. They knew what they were in for when they decided to trespass.
If someone came to YOUR place of business and would not let you go home at closing time, would you not (after asking them politely) call the cops? And if they did not leave after the cops asked them politely, would you then expect them to be removed by the police, or would you sit on the floor with them all night making smores?
Just asking.
May 7, 2008
9:24 a.m.
blacksho89 writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
May 7, 2008
9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
Steve M.
Picking and choosing from the Bible seems to be your method of winning an agrgument. So, I picked a couple of passages from the Bible, myself. If, after reading this, you still believe it is right and just to practice these sins, you need help.
For the sins of their inhabitants Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim were destroyed by "brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven" (Genesis 19:24-25). In Christianity, their names have become synonymous with impenitent sin, and their fall with a proverbial manifestation of God's wrath (Jude 1:7).
Sodom and Gomorrah have been used as metaphors for sinfulness and sexual deviation. The story has therefore given rise to words in several languages, including English: the word "sodomy", meaning acts stigmatized as "unnatural vice".
May 7, 2008
9:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
JohnBoogert writes:
Snapping as fast as we can, Bropus. Thanks for your help, everybody.
John Boogert, Rocky Internet News Editor.
May 7, 2008
9:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
urnfndbag writes:
Your bible laws are not everyone's laws you religious freakshows. These two people are harming no one, but you want to stop them because you are miserable SOB's who have nothing else to do other than control other people's lives, people who are harming no one, all because of your invisible sky wizard. I laugh everytime a religious conservative person has a gay child, then you can see who really has family values.
May 7, 2008
9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Seabreezes writes:
1. In defense of Christians, most of us don't use the Old Testament for justifying actions (if we did, there'd still be slaves, and all homosexuals would either be dead or imprisoned). 2. 25 years from now, we're going to look back on all this and wonder what the fuss was, much like the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's. 3. The trial is about trespassing, not civil unions/marriages. Let's not forget that. 4. Those whose knee-jerk reaction is to spew hate and venom at those that disagree with them will be ignored by those with more sense.
May 7, 2008
10:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytofi writes:
elkman -
You state how the 10th commandment uses the word "wife" as proof that that is all that was intended, then you interject the word "husband", though it is not used in the 10th at all.
Then you pick a quote about 'sins' of some people, but you don't state what those were. As if that was proof that homosexuality is stated as a sin.
Are you trying to support your view or are you trolling? I can't tell.
May 7, 2008
10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
Even if you leave the Bible out of this, a simple lesson in human anatomy proves beyond any doubt that a man's anatomy does not coincide with another man. Men were made to be with women. If they were not, there would be no offspring, and we would not be here.
May 7, 2008
10:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
I can't think of a LEGAL reason to deny partnership to same sex couples, as long as EVERYONE has the same rights (a sister and brother who want to care for each other, a couple who want only a "business" relationship, etc.) It truly is none of the government's business whether two people are sharing a bed.
But it ain't "marriage". Call yourselves married if you want. Call yourself a cat, if you want. It's no skin off of my nose. But I will not call you married, and my kids won't play at your house.
May 7, 2008
10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytofi writes:
blacksho89 -
"But it ain't "marriage". Call yourselves married if you want. Call yourself a cat, if you want. It's no skin off of my nose. But I will not call you married, and my kids won't play at your house."
Why not?
May 7, 2008
10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
Yea, why not? If they aren't sharing the same bed, why should your kids care if they have signed a piece of paper and get tax breaks that normal single people don't get?
May 7, 2008
10:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
mytofi:
Look up the definition of sodomy in the dictionary and see what you find. The first definition listed will do just fine. Sodomy was practiced by men in the cities of sodam and gomarah. It was considered a sin. Sorry for your confusion.
May 7, 2008
10:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
Because there are many things in this world that are legal but of which I do not approve.
Remember, "tolerance" goes both ways. While I may tolerate something, I do not have to approve of it. And while you do not approve of my beliefs, you must also tolerate them.
Isn't this country great?
May 7, 2008
10:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
The_Punnisher writes:
I thought this story was about the land grab couple in Boulder....
Oops, my bad...
May 7, 2008
10:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
holekeeper writes:
Man you guys are going off on this one. Mabey people dont want it defined just because they dont. I am not posing my choice on religon. I cant I am Pro- choice. But I think a union by homosexuals should be considered something diffrent than being married. I am a man, I have a wife. You are a man you have a husband. Its not right. You are a man and you have a civil Partner. I think that sounds just fine. If they dont like it then oh well. the people have spoken. I think most people supported a term like civil union, so If you want something you have to compromise. Now start the insults! I know you cant resist
May 7, 2008
10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
I understand blacksho, but do you believe in polygamy? Or do you think that you should be able to marry your dependent children, thus giving you double tax exemptions for them? Where are we going to draw the line?
May 7, 2008
10:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
urnfndbag writes:
elkman, what does that have to do with anything. men have sex with their hands all the time, though anatomically speaking the penis and hand do not go together. do you wish to outlaw masturbation? There is no offspring, afterall.
May 7, 2008
10:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
Urn, how funny! But I don't think a man should be able to marry his hand.
May 7, 2008
10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
jaymoveonorg writes:
Do you support incest? Would you support a man and woman (who are both over the age of 18) to be married if they were brother and sister or Uncle and niece or how about cousin and cousin? This is illegal as well. Why? It does not hurt anyone then why do we have laws saying this is illegal?
The law is on the books. Love it or hate it but we live in a country where the people have voted to ban gay marriages in this state. Since we are taking the bible word for word and not how it can be interpreted the US constitution does not say anything about gay marriage either just as the bible does not. So if you want to make gay marriage legal then you will need to convince the people of Colorado to change the law.
Calling people morons, bigots, religious zealots, and calling them out is not very smart to win them to your side.
By the way what tax breaks do married people get? It was not until 2001 when actually being married you were penalized under taxes. Doesn't anyone remember the marriage penalty?
Talking about why should I care about what people do in their own bedroom. I don't, but I do have a problem with people coming to my kids middle school and teaching them about homosexuality and how it is natural and that they might be gay too. So aren't you forcing your beliefs on to my family just as you claim we are doing the same? Funny how that works huh?
May 7, 2008
10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
urnfndbag:
Obvioulsy, you want to cloud the issue with whatever crap you can come up with. You don't want to have intelligent dialogue about the subject because you are mentally incapable.
May 7, 2008
10:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytofi writes:
elkman -
"Look up the definition of sodomy in the dictionary and see what you find. The first definition listed will do just fine. Sodomy was practiced by men in the cities of sodam and gomarah. It was considered a sin. Sorry for your confusion."
I understand the root of the word, but in your original quote, "sins" was not defined, yet you stated the quote as if it supported your point of view.
May 7, 2008
10:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
happymike44 writes:
To Mr Blacksho
When you go back to ancient times the spartans were a all male army.They never were allowed to be paired with a woman.They were paired to each other to fight to the death and protect each other.This was the first civil union ever to be recorded it was recorded before christ.So this is why I do not have a problem with two people who love each other to be together.When you deny one group of people you deny everyone the chance to grow and accept each other.By the way the I know this from being in England.This is taught all over europe and no one blinks twice if two men hold hands in public.I have been the first hand witness to hate crimes,the nasty words and the pushing and the punching.This occurred one night when a group of young men attacked two gay men.I risked my own safety not because I believe in what they do.But because it was the human thing to do.Hatred is not acceptable no matter what.So when you think of these two women.Remember it takes a really brave person to stand up for what you believe in.Also as a deaf man people make fun of me everydaySo that is okay too I guess in some people's eyes.This limits me in the pursuit of my life.Because I can not go out for dinner without someone telling me my service dog is not allowed.But then that is not hatred either.So to these two women stand proud for you have provenyour love for each other in my eyes.To everyone else the bible is a book it is not a reason to hate or maim anyone.As for Warren Jeffs he is a religous zealot.They are mentioned in the bible to.Beware of false prophets for they lead you a stray.
May 7, 2008
10:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
The_Punnisher writes:
Beware of people that don't use Spellcheck.....;-)....
May 7, 2008
10:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
mwakecek,
"By the way what tax breaks do married people get? It was not until 2001 when actually being married you were penalized under taxes. Doesn't anyone remember the marriage penalty?"
If you provide more than half of your spouse's support for the year and that person makes less than $3400 gross, then you may claim your spouse as a dependent. Your relationship must not violate local law either!
The rest of what you have to say makes perfectly good sense to me!
May 7, 2008
11 a.m.
Suggest removal
jaymoveonorg writes:
I was a victim of being different, nerd, geek, shy, and too quiet in school. I was constantly bullied, beaten up and laughed at. I don't remember anyone coming to my rescue or helping me out. Oh by the way this is in Europe just a few years ago. So I guess Europe is not all about accepting different people. Maybe if I was gay then I would be more accepted and I could rely upon special hate crime laws that would protect me. A little unfair? You bet!
May 7, 2008
11 a.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
"Marriage" is one man, one woman, consenting, of legal age.
Partnerships are a business arrangement. I guess a "domestic" partnership would have to be limited to persons over 18 (able to sign a contract), and the tax deduction for married couples could be done away with.
The rest of the partnership rights (inheritance, medical decisions, etc.) are what I can't justify denying any couple.
May 7, 2008
11:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
blacksho,
Those are good ideas, but imagine the law re-writing that would have to be done. Maybe that is the major reason gay marriages or domestic partnerships are not recognized in the eyes of the law.
Wouldn't a legal will take care of everything that you wouldn't want to be denied? Or am I wrong?
May 7, 2008
11:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
happymike: See my posting of 10:12 am. I don't care WHO lives next door to me. I will not call them names or harm them in any way. It just is not a marriage, that's all.
BTW: What restaurant is denying access to a service dog? That IS a violation under ADA.
May 7, 2008
11:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
holekeeper writes:
blacksho89,
The last two can be taken care of with a will and a living will or medical power of attorney. I am married and took one of each out just so we had no issues when I went to Iraq.
May 7, 2008
11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
mrNiceGuy writes:
It was nice of them to protest, but their media scope is limited so it will not accomplish what they hoped for. Again, should have consulted Rolo, then they could have appeared on Good Morning America and presented their arguement to the nation. When will people learn? Geez!
May 7, 2008
11:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
mrNiceGuy writes:
Is marriage a state thing or a religious thing? I'm confused. I didn't need a license to get baptized. I don't need a preacher to get married. Hmmmmmmm........
May 7, 2008
11:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
Heidi and holekeeper:
You are probably right. I am just offering a solution to what I see as a bar to the partnership portions of coupleship.
A marriage contains three components: Love, legal partnership, and God. God does not recognize same sex couples (don't argue; read Genesis 2:24).
Love is none of the government's business.
So we are left with legal partnerships. Government rightly regulates legal partnerships.
I;m just noodling there.
May 7, 2008
11:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
rip_vw32 writes:
Well... Everyone seemed to cover just about every aspect of this, but I still can't help but to throw my two cents in... If it was really important to get married, why didn't they go somewhere that allows and recognizes these unions? The legal wills that can be drawn up after that should take care of the health care decisions, provide for care after death etc... The only reason I can see to being married is the tax break you get when married filing jointly... and I see no reason to let that get in the way of your love, so why not go somewhere else to get married? Also, this is a voter decision, which means that your neighbors, co-workers, faimly memebers etc, voted to have it this way... You can't "force" people to see things your way, and expect them to go along with what ever you want. BTW... I was married and the tax break isn't all that great, and didn't keep us together, so what would be the reason after that? These people broke the law, plain and simple.... the only difference is if I tried to marry my hand instead of a same sex partner, people would have had me commited, not feeling sorry for me... though in this society they may have.... ;)
May 7, 2008
11:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
mrNiceGuy writes:
If the issue is government's right to regulate such a partnership, then what is the basis of regulation. I was under the impression that we live in the land of the free. Laws are created to protect people, not restrict them. There are laws against relations with children, to protect children. There are laws against relations with animals to protect animals. So who are we protecting by having a law against same sex marriage? Are we protecting the Bible? Besides ewwwwwww, it seems to be the primary tool for arguement against same sex marriage.
May 7, 2008
12:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
The citizenry have decided that is in our best interest to encourage a stable society through marriage of one man and one woman. That is where Government gets the right to regulate it-through society, through the citizenry. The State believes it has a compelling interest in promoting this stable society; and compelling interest is a strong decider in Constitutional law.
So you can probably give up on having same sex "marriage" as the compelling interest will not change in the foreseeable future. Legal partnerships, however, should not be based on a perception of who is sharing who's bed.
May 7, 2008
12:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
mrNiceGuy writes:
What's the difference between a marriage and a same sex partnership?
May 7, 2008
12:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
See my post at 11:28
May 7, 2008
12:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
mrNiceGuy writes:
Sorry, what's the difference between a marriage and a legal partnership?
May 7, 2008
12:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
Your local restaurant owner has a legal partnership to determine rights and responsibilities for the business. Part of marriage is business partnership, but business partnership is not necessarily marriage.
See, I don't CARE who owns the house next to me, how they separate their bills, whether they want to inherit from each other. If there is such a thing as "domestic partnership", I DO care that it be open to ALL interested parties, not just people who share a bed.
May 7, 2008
12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
I'm only going to make one comment about the bible and the ommission (or not) of same sex marriages. I believe that it was unheard of in those days so no one thought to even mention it. Or maybe someone can show me a passage where it mentions homosexuality and the desire to get married to someone of the opposite sex - not just having lustful relations.
May 7, 2008
1:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
momof5 writes:
And how much did this ridiculous trial cost the people of Colorado? They were obviously guilty of trespassing. Why not just pay the fine instead of making a statement?
May 7, 2008
2 p.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
mom,
Maybe all they wanted was a picture of themselves together in a court of law so they can put it in their wedding albumn. They should have been smiling pretty.
May 7, 2008
2:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Marriage is all about symbolism. Many people are more interested in the form of the union than the function. The purposes of marriage have changed drastically over the centuries since couples jumped over a broom or actually tied a knot of fabric around their two wrists in front of the village.
We should get the state out of the marriage business altogether. Then, if there is abuse or force, the state can step in on that legal area.
Basing our 21 century relationships on the ones written about 4 thousand years ago, when most men had multiple wives, is short sighted. We do not live Biblical lives with concubines, slaves and sever punishment for working on Sunday.
By the way, look up the commandments in an older Bible and you will find the original ones, not that truncated version posted above. The first commandment is a doosey. Lots of history in it.
And all that stuff about divorce in the Old Testament is cute, when in Hebrew mythology, Adam had a wife before Eve. Lillith was her name. Seems he divorced her! And then there is the story of the guy who slept with his two daughters to replenish the human race. Of cource it was the girls idea, those sluts.
All this is just too funny.
May 7, 2008
2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
freedomfighter1 writes:
I am sorry, but I do not understand how discrimnating against a minorities rights is American. I believe that (American)laws should protect people's rights, properties and lives. This law however protects an ideal or belief structure, a traditional christian doctrine. I wonder, is there any argument against same sex marriage that does not have some type of religious idealism? And should we vote on people's rights; rights that do not interfere with others' rights, property or life? Sorry, but if this is the case than this is not the country of the free and brave. Remember, brave people do not trade there freedoms for securities. And by the way, if marriage is a religious practice, then why does the goverment acknowledge it? Why aren't we (married couples) all just domestic partners?
May 7, 2008
2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
indisbelief writes:
I have a picture of my right hand in my wallet.
May 7, 2008
2:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
RUKidding writes:
This stretches way beyond the Bible and tax breaks, most marries couples I know do not even file joint returns. This is about basic human rights that the “married” couple has that the person I love with all my heart and soul, but happens to be the same sex does not have.
Your wife is seriously injured in a car accident, you will be the first person contacted and in the emergency room by her side. This happens to my partner, I have to show up to the Hospital with a box of papers I spent $2000 having drafted, my Attorney, and a prayer the hospital will allow me to see him.
I need a Power of Attorney to make decisions a married couple probably takes for granted on a daily basis.
In the event your wife or husband dies, everything automatically by law transfers to the other. I on the other hand have to spend several thousand dollars creating trust accounts and legal documents, etc to protect our assets.
Think about it…
May 7, 2008
2:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
MGD writes:
They were found guilty of trespass, not homosexuality. Homosexuality is not a crime, trespass is. They knew and accepted the fact that they would get arrested. They got their story in the paper and got all of us talking about it.
By the way, not all Christians think homosexuality is wrong except for themselves. Heck I'm sure some people consider themselves gay and Christian.
I don't care if these women get married or not. I don't care if they get married in a church or the county court house.
May 7, 2008
2:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
vudumom, I share your disgust with what transpired in those cults. I disagree, however, that allowing gays to marry would result in a slippery slope that would lead to acceptance of pedophilia. One of the primary reasons our society rejects rape and pedophilia is because of its involuntary nature. One of the parties is being forced to do something against their will or at the very least, is powerless to stop it. As we place a high premium on personal freedom, this insults us to the very core of our soul, as it rightfully should. So does the violence aspect of rape and pedophilia.
It's different with gay marriage. This involves two adults who are both willfully entering into such an arrangement. No violence or coercion is involved.
May 7, 2008
2:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
Let them get married. Only morons are opposed to gay marriage.
May 7, 2008
2:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
CaptainObvious writes:
I love these types of news stories. They certainly let you know who you are communicating with on these blogs. And after reading these posts, there are a lot of closet homosexuals posting here.
Doublechunkycrap, you need to just come on out of the closet. Your family will accept you. (If they still talk to you as it is.) Aren't you tired of finding dates in the restrooms of our nation's airports? All that pent-up rage is just repression of who you really are. It's OK to be gay. People will probably make less fun of you than they do now. C'mon out of the closet.
May 7, 2008
2:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
RUKidding writes:
MarineGrunt....LOL. You are right.
May 7, 2008
3:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
rip_vw32 writes:
Seperating Emotion from law can be difficult, but the fact of the matter is that the Marriage Certificate is a LEGAL binding document (just ask my Ex and her lawyer!). As it is a legal document and for all of the reasons stated above relating to Wills and POAs, the state has to step in a regulate them. Is it right the state doesn't recognize Same Sex Marriages? Who knows, but the voters of this state say no same sex marriages. THE VOTERS, not the STATE. Everytime I turn around it is the governments fault... If you don't like the laws then please do one of 2 things:
1. Get the laws changed
2. MOVE
It is that simple. Put up or Shut up. PLEASE....... stop being whiney little babies about it. Everyone always seems to like to complain, but not do anything about it. So do somthing about it already..... Don't place the blame on the government, WE voted to have it this way. Don't make some poor county clerk have to call the cops because you don't like the laws...that is totally irresponsible and un-called for. Like it is the state's fault...Geeze people...... Grow Up!!!!
May 7, 2008
3:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Marriage is an institution with the idea of it being the two members pro-creating. Man and man don't pro-create, and conversely, woman and woman don't pro-create. Two people can love each other without being married. Two people can live with each other without being married. Do their ego's need so much of a boost that a so-called validity of their relationship before the state is what it takes?
happymike, they were treated with dignity by the County Clerk. They weren't called names or anything, were they? Freedom of speech wasn't violated because they weren't told to stop talking or protesting, just that they couldn't do it in the Clerk's office. They do have hours of operation, right? If you feel it's against freedom of speech, then I'm sure you wouldn't mind your neighbor complaining about something you can or can't control, inside of your living quarters, whenever he or she feels like it. Calling the police to have them removed would be against freedom of speech, according to your logic.
Look, your ancestors could've fought for whatever, but it doesn't change the fact that a law was broken and just because you don't agree with it, it doesn't mean your voice is more important than anyone else's.
The voters didn't want same sex marriages, me included. I don't have to explain why, so don't bash like an offended little kid that isn't getting their way. Bottom line is that they broke the law trying to break another law and the law won.
May 7, 2008
3:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Shaupeen writes:
MarineGrunt wrote:
"Would the christian right be so against an abortion if they knew the baby was going to be gay?"
GREAT POINT!!!
May 7, 2008
3:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
freedomfighter1 writes:
RIP-And what should we do if we vote for something (and win) and then the Goverment says "we know whats best for you" and does not acknowledge the will of the people. I.E. 2006 Denver vote for possesion of marijuana by adults, majority of voters voted yes on this one, yet adults possesing marijuana is still a ticketable offense. Oh and by the way, there were actually more people ticketed after that vote than before it.
May 7, 2008
3:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
rip_vw32 writes:
freedomfighter1: I was ready to flame you to death over both your comment and your screen name ('cause I kinda doubt you were/are)... BUT I will try to take the higher road. The "law" was not passed in the entire state. As I remember it, it only passed in the city... Guess what... It is still a federal crime, and was ticketed as such...... The Federal government would need to pass the law in order to make it legal.. The law that was passed was only a "token" gesture.. No impact what so ever, but it was nice.... So the Government is following the law.. it HAS to. Law is what makes the Government the Government. Other wise it would be a socialist state.. Though Boulder is heading that way quickly....
May 7, 2008
3:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
happymike44 writes:
What planet do ou live on,not this one that is for sure.So let me tell you what a problem life is for anybody not deemed normal.I live with it everyday from the moment I get up in the morning till I go to bed.Believe me I know the difference before I went deaf I had a ton of friends.Now only have myself and my service companion I have been mugged twice in two years.Had never happened before in 43 years.So let me bring you up to speed my service dog and I have been thrown out of 2 bookstores and one restaurant.One place told me he was in the way and he could wait in the car.That was when I very nicely got mugged.The guy only left after my dog got out of the car and would not let him near me.So if you think to deny one persons rights is okay hope yu do understand how I feel about losing my watch and my wallet.So I prefer the gay people over the straight people.They at least treat me with more digiity.The gay restaurant I go to will let me bring my dog.Also they have never been cruel to me.As some people think if you can't hear then you can't see what is being said.Just call me dummy that seems to be a big one with people.So I think it takes more courage to stand up for what you believe in.By the way it was the men of the spartan army that gave straight people the marriage ritual.Not the straight people who seem to keep it from others.If you doubt what I am saying go look it up and see for yourself.Also I beg you to forgive my spelling since everyone here is a english professor.Also I do not want to offend anyone it is my belief in some people is better then for others.
May 7, 2008
3:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Golden writes:
Enough with the gay activists agenda already. I am so sick and tired of this give me my rights crap...
What gays really want is acceptance and marriage is an ends to that means. Sorry sisters, but he only people on the planet that care if you are gay is other gay people, hollywood celebs and a the fa-hags. The rest of us don't care.
We resent is your constant I'M GAY AND YOU NEED TO KNOW THAT attitude. Nobody cares if your gay. May be the evangelicals and some other hard core orthodox Christians do...but the rest don't care.
Just shut up already and get over yourselves...Your gay; big fn deal, I'm 5'10". You are not special because you are gay. You are not more enlightend or more persecuted. You are not the only person who didn't get along with other kids in high school.
This ACT-UP nonsense is old already. Sit down and just shut-up. Your like a bunch of five years olds on a road trip. Soooooo iritating. There are more important things in this world than you getting married.
May 7, 2008
3:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Shaupeen writes:
THAT is your logic Cwilly? That's the best you've got? Laughable. So, what if two married people--man and woman--don't have kids? Is that wrong? Do they have to divorce? I've never heard marriage defined that way. In fact, I think you just made it up to support your flimsy argument. Looks like you are the one with a small ego. Or a lot of repressed desire for another man.
And when you say pro-create, do you mean procreate? Or are you getting paid on the DL? Because that would be wrong...
May 7, 2008
3:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
rmnreader writes:
Cwillyrun1 - "Marriage is an institution with the idea of it being the two members pro-creating"
Really?! Where did you find this definition? The 1950's guide to being a good wife?! A marriage is about 2 people making a committment to be with one another for better or worse - it has nothing to do with pro-creating. There are a lot of people out there who are married that do not & probably never will have children additionally there are a lot of people out there having babies even thought they have chosen not to get married. So if they are not married but are together and have a child does that not make them a family?
May 7, 2008
3:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
freedomfighter1 writes:
flame me to death? I take this as a sign of aggression, Not that you worry me. As far as me being a freedom fighter, I call myself that because I am against oppressing any people for doing nothing other than being a minority. BUT you take "the higher road" whatever that means. By the way, it was ticketable offense by the state not the feds. I understand Federalism, even though I disagree with it. Oh and when a group of people spend their time, money, efforts and votes on something (in America), I hardly think it was meant to be considered a "token' gesture" "No impact what so ever" is exactly what I am talking about. How is the goverment following the law when police officers (not state patrol or dea) are ticketing people in the city limits of Denver for possesion. These officers are paid by the citizens of Denver, at least I think they are. And it would not be a socialist state as you said, but instead a facist or tyranical state. Anyway, I relize that I have gotten off target, but it is upsetting to know that my vote was a "gesture."
May 7, 2008
3:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
happymike, move on and deal with your pain. Most people go through bullying of some sort growing up. Most people deal with being called names, even being called stupid, at some point. Most people lose the majority, if not all, of their friends as they grow older. It's life. If you want a bubble, live in it.
And if you prefer gays to straights for the reasons given, you're just as guilty of discrimination as those you rail against. There's good and bad with any group -pick one (race, gender, etc.), it's not exclusive to one group.
May 7, 2008
3:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
holekeeper writes:
bropous,
what did I do?
May 7, 2008
3:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Shaupeen, mentally deficient today? I never said the "twisted logic" was anything made up to support my argument. It's a given and if you would've listened up in school instead of twiddling your thumbs and scratching your a s s, you would've been more educated. I can't help you with that since it's too late.
If you think I desire another man, quit with the wet dreams dude. Women are the S h i t! But as I said, instead of making legit arguments, the name calling comes out. Figures, since there's nothing better you can do. Sorry, but what is DL? Disabled list? You must know the current gay lingo, so fill us in?
Anyway, it doesn't matter if the two married people have children or not, it's defined as an institution between one man and one woman. Argue against that, princess!
May 7, 2008
3:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ashley writes:
The arguments of the religious blowhards is enough to give me a migraine. They're very pro-life, aka opposed to abortions and against gay marriage because it doesn't make new babies for them to screw up -- but on the other hand, they are all for the death penalty for anyone who looks even remotely scary. Either life is sacred or it isn't -- make up your minds! MarineGrunt, you are very right: they'd abort gay babies if they could. And by the by, why is polygamy such a bad thing if it's protected the same way other marriages are, ie no spousal abuse, underage marriages or welfare abuse? I don't understand the terror. Granted, I wouldn't choose a polygamous relationship, but nor would I choose a gay one -- I'm straight and highly possessive of my spouse. But what business is it of the government what we do in our own lives, in our own beds? Butt out, people!
May 7, 2008
3:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
People invented marriage, animals just mate. We can make marriage anything we want by changing the laws that prohibit such things as interracial marriage, and the marriage of first cousins. Utah recently upped the marriage age from 14 to 16. What does the Bible say specifically about these three areas? Nothing! Only recently did we let the mentally handicapped get married. We are constantly redefining marriage, with or without the states approval
We don`t know if there is a God, but we know people exist, and maybe they can create a society without the Hebrew myths if people of good will stand together.
And gays can and do procreate. But lots of straights never do.
I get such a kick out of folks who use the power of the state to control sexual behavior of others, and then write posts about the corrupt government (state).
May 7, 2008
3:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
katiestone writes:
it is so embarassing and infuriating that our society exists with such intolerance and fear. if we could, for two seconds, stop worrying about whether or not it's okay that these people love each other and focus on becoming more compassionate...man, our world would be a much better place to live in, for ourselves and for our children.
what kills me is that people actually believe that homosexuals choose to be subjected to this kind of abuse. they are simply trying to live with their true identity. that's much more commendable than remaining closeted and conforming to the ridiculous sex and gender stereotypes our society continuously suffocates us with.
if there is a hell, i hope that all of you homophobic hate-mongers end up there for judging these people the way you do.
May 7, 2008
3:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
Heidi:
Either God wrote the Bible, or Man did.
If God did, then you can bet He knew about homosexuality. If God wrote the Bible, see Genesis 2:24 for marriage instructions.
If Man wrote the Bible, then it doesn't matter what it says, because it has no authority. Do whatever you want.
May 7, 2008
4:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
rmnreader writes:
Actually Cwillyrun since you are so hung up on defining everything - not that I think a definition provides any defense here let me give everyone the Webster's dictionary definition....
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry
So it seems that marriage has many definitions!
May 7, 2008
4:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
Of course man wrote the Bible, but supposedly through God. That passage doesn't mention marriage, just that a man should cling to his wife. I don't like clingy men.
May 7, 2008
4:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Ashley, if you want to be a lesbian and do things in your bed, most people don't care. Me either. As I said in my first post, nobody should feel the need to have their love or living arrangement validated by the government.
me2, it's impossible for gays to procreate since that takes sperm and an egg. Now, a man and woman, where one or more are gay, can procreate.
May 7, 2008
4:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Newenergycommie writes:
I'm a straight republican male with a wife and 2 children. I have a gay friend that was in the reserves. Shortly after 9-11-2001, she left her job to return to active duty to fight for her country. Has she earned the right to marry who she wants?
May 7, 2008
4:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
rip_vw32 writes:
reedomfighter1: I do apologize for one thing.. I deleted the part where Denver is both a COUNTY and a CITY, it was passed in the city, not in the county... City cops are still beholden to the county laws under which they operate... And yes a "token gesture", as you yourself posted, people are still getting ticketed. The people that came up with the idea and thier lawyers knew what it wouldn't do.. but they wanted it because it WAS a gesture. IT still violates the law in Denver county, in which the city of Denver resides, so it falls under county law... not a real hard thing to figure out.
And by the way, I am/was a freedom fighter..... Spent time in the sand box so other people, less fortunate but still deserving people, in a country far, far away would someday have the rights that you and yours enjoy and take for granted. I am soooo tired of people crying about rights when the vast majority have NEVER EVER had to fight for them or even know what life is like with out them.
And before you speak, or flame our US servicemen and sevicewomen, please remember that when you sign on that dotted line and raise your right hand to swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, you give up your rights as a US Citizen and effectivly become government property. That means people with less rights than any minority or gay person are defending your lame a$$.... how's that for government?
May 7, 2008
4:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
freedomfighter1 writes:
Trythinking: only if she marries someone the goverment and the conservatives can agree upon. Did she think she was fighting for freedom?
May 7, 2008
4:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
holekeeper writes:
trythinking,
I would say yes but the majority has said no. She fought for our way of life and that means having to put up with laws you dont like. I am sorry if this sounds harsh but its true. I was in the military, and I am in the process of re-enlisting in the National Guard....does this mean I have the right to smoke in a bar even though the people have voted diffrent?
May 7, 2008
4:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
Heidi: There you go, then. You don't need to pay attention to the Bible, because Man wrote it.
You don't mind if I disagree with you, do you?
BTW: The verb you read as "to cling" is more rightly translated as "to be inseparable", which is what I think we all hope for our relationship with our spouses.
May 7, 2008
4:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
rmnreader writes:
Heidi - LOL fantastic point! Clingy man is like an oxymoron right?! Not very manly to be clingy....
Trythinking - Also a good point - an unfortunate one to have to make since people should not have to die for our country in order to be married in it but I can see your comment actually moving some of the backwoods rednecks on this forum!
May 7, 2008
4:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Golden writes:
katiestone... very compassionate of you...damning people to hell because you judge them as homophobic hate-mongers... I guess they will see you there.
Not agreeing with a gay agenda does not make you a homophobic, right-wing christian, fear filled hate monger. It means you don't agree with their agenda.
I don't agree with the way President Bush is running the country right now. That doesn't mean I hate him and it certainly doesn't mean I'm afraid of Texas men with degrees from Yale. It doesn't mean I'm a left-wing, God hating Socialist.
It simply means I don't like the way he is running the country.
May 7, 2008
4:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
holekeeper writes:
rmnreader,
Just because somebody had diffrent viewes that you makes them backwoods rednecks? And we need to be more accepting! Get off you soapbox.
May 7, 2008
4:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
blacksho, I really didn't think that we were disagreeing.
Have a good evening, everyone. No one here should be damned to hell, if there is one.
May 7, 2008
4:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
You too, Heidi. Good talking!
May 7, 2008
4:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Newenergycommie writes:
holekeeper,
I understand the law is the law. However your example, smoking in a bar, was sold to the public as a health issue. My friend getting married doesn't affect anyone other that 2 consenting adults. It in no way harms my family nor does it diminish my marriage. The same argument was used to outlaw interracial marriage. I am ashamed that my party uses this very personal issue as red meat for the "base". I can't speak for the couple in the article, but my friend is a good decent honorable person that deserves the same rights and responsibilities as I have. Sometimes laws are wrong and just plain mean spirited.
May 7, 2008
4:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
rmnreader writes:
holekeeper - First of all yes some of these comments are glaring signs of redneck blood to me. Second did I say that there was anything wrong with being a backwoods redneck? I am from a long line of backwoods rednecks who are still there shooting guns with beers in there hands & out of trucks with tires as big as my car (not kidding) - I'd like to consider myself a bit of a pinkneck at this point since I left the backwoods 13 years ago and came to the big city! I also did not say anything about others needing to be more accepting? On the contrary I was commending trythinking for putting it in a way me & my gun toting relatives may understand. I don't have a hard opinion either way on this matter however I tihnk it is interesting reading all the "opinions". The fact that YOU took that statement as an insult gives me pause....
signed,
backwoods pinkneck
May 7, 2008
4:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Seabreezes writes:
Charles_B...five year olds shouldn't be driving. CLASSIC. I'll have to remember that.
May 7, 2008
4:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
freedomfighter1 writes:
RIP: First off no one protects or defends me, I protect myself. As much as I would like to question American Military motives, I will refrain because of the sensitivty of the subject. However, I will remember as far as my vote goes, I have heard it from a military man, it is in fact a "gesture." I'll be sure to remember that when people criticize me for not voting. By the way you seem aggressive, is this how you act when you're beliefs are challenged? I am simply expressing my position and you want to throw in that you and/or the military are defending my lame ____. I will restate my main point again: American laws were created to protect individuals rights, property and life. Whose rights are the goverment protecting by prohibiting two people of the same sex from getting married? Remember what America stood or stands for. I have traveled to some other countries and lived oversees and have seen true freedom. And before you say to move there, this is MY COUNTRY and I would rather stay and fight against the domestic aggressors.
May 7, 2008
4:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
holekeeper writes:
Trythinking, I was using an example that I thought you might understand. How about this. If i dont like a law that has no effect on anybody else other than me and my family.....lets say I grow the weed in my yard too high and all people have to do is look at them but it is aginst the local laws as passed by the people of my city during the vote, This is not effecting property values. Since I was in the military and was stationed at Camp TQ (I would spell it but its impossible without my shirt) do I get to break that law?
May 7, 2008
4:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Venus writes:
Finding love is such an amazing thing in this world, so why should anyone be denied expression through marriage? Maybe it is the way I was raised, but I see nothing wrong or unnatural about a gay, lesbian, or transgender relationship... If marriage was a religious thing, then I shouldn't be able to marry a Christian since I am Jewish, right?
That is ridiculous.
May 7, 2008
5:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
holekeeper writes:
rmnreader,
Yes I took offence, I have grown up in the City of Lakewood and do not consider myself a redneck. Jeff Foxworthy speaks of these people and yes the jokes are funny, in every instance they have been made to sound dumb and unaccepting of others. The Backwoods part makes it sound as if we have not lived in a city but only with the people that are just like us. So yes I take it as an insult being called a backwoods redneck because we dont agree with you sounds to me like you are calling us stupid hillbliiys that dont know anything but guns and beer. That my friend is an insult
May 7, 2008
5:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
rmnreader writes:
holekeeper - The question that came to me when Trythinking posted the question about his friend was - Who am I to say that a woman who is willing to run the high risk of losing her life for my rights cannot get married unless it is to a man? Seems very petty when you put it in that context - to me.
May 7, 2008
5:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
rmnreader writes:
holekeeper - Hmm... My post was not hey holekeeper - you're a stupid hillbilly! Nor did I even use that phrase - you did. However you think my statement sounds or whatever offense you took to it is your issue. I actually didn't have any of your comments in mind when I posted that so down boy!
BTW - Jeff Foxworthy jokes are real life happenings in my family and we laugh at him until we are crying.
May 7, 2008
5:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Newenergycommie writes:
I'm not saying that they shouldn't obey the law. But just as people fought agaist bad laws during the civil rights movement they will fight against this law. Same sex marriage will eventually become legal, because there is no good reason for it not to be legal. Just as it was absurd to ban interracial marriage it will someday be absurd to ban same sex marriage. The arguments against (the bible says it's wrong) just don't stand up to things like equal protection under the Constitution. Racial segregation was once legal. Then came separate but equal. Then came equal rights. Do you see a pattern?
May 7, 2008
5:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Shaupeen writes:
happymike44, you are now my hero. I mean that sincerely. I know there's a lot of sarcasm thrown around here, and I do a lot of the slinging, but there is no trace of sarcasm in this post. I've enjoyed reading your posts/rants for a while now, but you just gave me a bit more of the puzzle of happymike. Your story made me pause and think. And to remember that these posts are from people, not just face-less opinions you do or don't agree with. I'd be happy to go book shopping with you anytime my friend. And don't worry about your grammar--your points are getting through.
May 7, 2008
5:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
holekeeper writes:
Trythinking,
I never said that it wont change. I hope it does someday so we can qiit debating it. What I was saying is your friend fought for the american way of life and since the voters spoke then you have to work to get it changed the right way. Take it back to the voters. I have mixed emotions on this and my best friend growing up is gay. So The debate is good. but the law is here for the people by the people. if this had just been a decision that the government enforced without a vote I would be right there with them fighting, but it was voted on so I hav to go with what the people of Colorado wanted for our state at the time.
May 7, 2008
6:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
redwhiteandBLUE writes:
You just can't break laws and expect to get your way. Gay, straight, or illegal. Suck it up!! They got a slap on the wrist
anyway..their motive was for back up from the gay & lesbian community anyway. Exposure for their cause.
May 7, 2008
7 p.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
fyi098, Thank goodness it wasn't indecent exposure!
May 7, 2008
7:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
My absolutely worthless white, straight father used to stand in the kitchen and yell at me that "Whites would never permit integration". I reminded him that it time, they would not have the complete say. Too bad he didn`t live long enough to be shouting about what straights would allow for gays. It was bad enough for him to see women make advances.
Since consenting couples can live together, and do all those acts covered in the old sodomy laws, but only certain ones can`t marry, that is discrimination.
Unless the conservatives pack the Supreme court with idiots, this should be struck down some day. When the justices get some backbone.
Anyone with egg or sperm can make babies, gay or straight. Sperm banks and egg banks. Thankfully, nature is not so straight laced (joke) that only hetero behavior is tolerated in mammals.
May 7, 2008
9:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
CaptainObvious writes:
Nope, sorry Tommy. That's neither right nor simple. Try to realize that there are other people in the world, and they might not be exactly like you.
May 7, 2008
10:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
BJG writes:
Here's my comment. I am a lesbian who has lived with the same partner for 24 years. I pay the taxes that this county requires me to pay, and I expect to recieve the same considerations that any couple would get as law abiding citizens. I don't make stupid comments about who should marry who, because, frankly it's none of my business who anyone chooses to marry. And frankly, it's none of your GD business who I choose to marry.
These are two ADULTS who want to have their partnership recognized by the state of Colorado. They didn't go to a church and demand that the "church" recognize their marriage. They went to a government office, where the employees are paid by the taxes recieved by all of the people who live in that city, this includes these two women. You want to tell these women who they should marry then they should have the same opportunity to decide who you should marry as well, and if your smart enough to reproduce.
When are we, as a country, going to get over the gay marriage thing? If your against same sex marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex, but mind your own business if someone else makes that choice. This is a matter of economic, and social equality, not a religious decision.
May 7, 2008
10:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
happymike44 writes:
Wow a lot of people here are so out of touch with people and their feelings it leads me to believe that hatred is acceptable.But remember deny one person heir happiness you deny all.If you are a bible thumping person then you are more a hate monger then I care to think of.What I am saying as a deaf person,I go to the gay places because I am safer.These people practice a tolerance of others.Straight people don't get it I am safer in a gay neighorhood then a straight one.Why because they will not beat on me or mug me for being different.However I can't say that for the majority of straight people.Also I am treated with more diginity by the gay community.So if you think I am one sided your right.Why would I spend my money at a business that chooses to openlytreat me like garbage because I am deaf.Also I found out how shallow some people are when I went deaf.So to the so called christians straighten up your act.Because god loves everybody,not because you read a book and it dictates your life.You are not listening to what you know is right and wrong.You are listening to some false prophet tell you to act in a less then christian manner.As for all the people who only could come up with the negative.Well I have respect for you speaking your peace.But also rmember to respect me for speaking mine.So why not put that anger and hatred that some of you have to a better use.Like maybe feeding the homeless,or helping a animal sheter.Remember how do you want to be remembered in your life.A compassionate person or a hate monger.That choice is up to you.
May 7, 2008
10:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay045 writes:
I hope those of you who oppose gay marriage on biblical grounds are not eating any shellfish, as the bible clearly states that it is an abomination: see godhatesshrimp.com
May 7, 2008
11:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
ES writes:
Why do they think that just because they are gay the laws do not apply to them. Thanks Rocky Mountain News for helping them with their political agenda.
May 7, 2008
11:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
nicktaste writes:
1/2 of you are bigots
shame on you
May 7, 2008
11:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
GWBushwacked writes:
Yes, we are out to make everyone gay--in fact, there is now a gay organization that is training people and then sending them out to various parts of the country and world(they wear rather drab white shirts and black pants, ride bicycles) to knock on doors and preach the word of gay (there is also the Book of Gay--divinely inspired by Josephhomo Smith and Brigay Young). Ladies they will take your husbands and then turn you all over to the butchest bearded lady in town to give you some lovin-that no man really knows how to do in the first place---you may think that is the case until you have had the bearded lady. Your kids will then be sent to the Gay Tabernacle in Salt Gay City to be schooled and indoctrinated in gay history, fashion, design, aesthetics and all girls will be taught how to build a deck in a day, play softball, shop for birkenstocks,kicking a guy's can and how to accessorize the perfect neon beer sign decorated house with the perfect cats. All men will be made over--yes time to get rid of those beer guts-which by the way- NONE OF US ARE CHECKING YOU OUT- DON"T EVEN FLATTER YOURSELVES, quit thinking an untucked shirt under a sports jacket is the "in thing", get rid of the unibrow, pull your pants up over your back side- because we dont want to see it anyway, quit cutting your hair with your Flobee, and quit thinking you are great in bed-because I constanty hear complaints from some very beautiful ladies I work with-- Mind you---to all those fabulous women and metrosexuals out there --None of this applies-no further instruction is necessary as you are comfortable in your sexuality and so we shall allow you to help populate the world. Have a nice gay everyone and be prepared next time you see the two guys at your door with the white shirts, the short cropped hair, handsome faces and built to last all night-THEY ARE THERE TO MAKE YOU SURRENDER.
May 8, 2008
7:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Alive writes:
Only white heterosexual males can be wrong about anything. Ever.
Everyone else deserves to have a voice. Come on people, get with the program! White male = BAD. All others = GOOD. Please don't forget these simple rules.
May 8, 2008
7:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
Why does anyone feel the need to have their partnership recognized by the state?? Why do they demand it? Why do you need a piece of paper to prove your love and commitment to someone? I feel that marriage should only be a religious entity and if you religion doesn't allow it, then find one that does. Don't be a religious hypocrit.
May 8, 2008
8:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
Charles_B,
"The only compelling argument I can think of for state-sanctioned marriage is to establish a legal structure for dealing with issues of potential litigation such as child-custody disputes and alimony."
I understand that and think it is a good idea where those issues may come up. But I just don't understand why people stress themselves out so much if the state won't recognize their union. Too much negative energy, when they should be enjoying life and each other. Maybe the laws should be changed, but until it does, too much anger and hate is taking over.
And of course, the state should not be concerned with what religion, if any, the couple chooses to be a part of.
May 8, 2008
9:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
Charles_B,
No, I am not married. So I don't receive any of those benefits that you mention (whatever they are), and I never will as long as I stay single. I am a taxpayer and don't claim any dependents, so am not expecting anyone else to take care of me or part of my dependent care.
Maybe you have a valid point, but I was just trying to make a point that it is unhealthy to let yourself get so stressed out about it.
May 8, 2008
9:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
rip_vw32 writes:
freedomfighter1: Whether or not you “think” you are protected or not, you are. Period. Visited other countries where there is “true freedom”? Where exactly was that? I’ll tell you what, I’ll list the places where I’ve been and you tell me what you “think” freedom was in those places:
Guam
Philippines
Iraq
Cambodia
Japan
China
Hong Kong
Korea (South)
Vietnam
Thailand
Indonesia
Kuwait
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Egypt
Australia
My point was that the law was broken, they knowingly broke the law, and should be punished. If they want the law changed, then get it changed. If it is too much trouble, then move. Simple…. The government has to abide by the laws. Getting it into law, a very long drawn out process, yes, but possible. As for the “gesture”, either you are calling those that created the law idiots because they only wrote it for Denver city and didn’t realize what the County would do about it OR you are saying that they knew it was a gesture, and wouldn’t really do anything other than call attention to the fact that “the people” wanted it, OR they were too lazy to actually do it all the way… So which is it?
And I really hope you do understand, that the only place in the world you can actually have your own opinion and not be censored by the government is here… read the laws regarding what can and can’t be printed or said in the UK, or Europe, or any other 1st world country… And you DO have these freedoms because of YOUR government… the one which you rail against, but voted for anyway….
Back to the original subject: Don’t care who wants to get married, or why… It is a legal binding contract, and therefore subject to STATE LAWS. The VOTERS voted no to same sex marriages. That sucks, it really does, but it is the LAW. If you don’t like it change it…..
May 8, 2008
11:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
seriously...what do you religious righters care if gay people get equal rights. does that somehow make your rights less equal?
is it so hard for you to just mind your own business?