Benefits for gay partners get initial OK in Senate
Lawmaker calls measure affecting state workers a fairness and equity issue
By Lynn Bartels, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published February 24, 2009 at 12:05 a.m.
Photo by Darin McGregor © The Rocky/2006
State Sen. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley, called homosexuality an "offense to God" in arguing against Senate Bill 88.
Photo by Dennis Schroeder © The Rocky
State Sen. Jennifer Veiga, D-Denver, says extending health care benefits to the partners of gay state workers is a fairness issue.
The legislature's first openly gay lawmaker appealed to her colleagues Monday to support extending health care benefits to the partners of gay state workers.
Sen. Jennifer Veiga, D-Denver, called it a fairness and equity issue, not a prelude to gay marriage.
Sen. Nancy Spence, R-Centennial, said she did not agree with the comments of her Republican colleagues, including one who quoted the Scriptures and linked homosexuality and murder as sins that should not be allowed by law.
But Spence noted that state workers are facing furloughs and going without raises to help close the budget gap. In light of that, she said, "I don't think this is the time" for a measure that would increase state government's health care costs.
"For gay and lesbian state employees, when is the right time?" Veiga asked.
"There is never going to be a right time to add these benefits for most of your colleagues, and you know that," she said. "If today is not the right time, then you've got to tell me when because equality is equality is equality, regardless of when we do it."
The Senate gave initial approval to Senate Bill 88. Later this week, it will take a final vote on the measure, which defines a domestic partner as "an adult over the age of 18, who is of the same gender as the employee, with whom the employee is in a committed relationship of a least one year with the intent for the relationship to last indefinitely."
The yes vote Monday came over protests that the measure violates the will of the voters.
Coloradans in 2006 approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and rejected a measure that would have given gays many of the rights and responsibilities of married couples.
"I find it breathtaking that we are here just a little over two years later . . . saying, 'Let's ignore that, and let's go down the road that the people of Colorado rejected," said Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud.
But Veiga argued nothing in the bill is about marriage or gay rights.
"This brings no two people, myself, my partner, no other gay and lesbian partner, closer to walking down that aisle," she said. "It provides no tax benefits. It provides no other benefits. This is not about marriage. This is about health care. This is an equality issue and a fairness issue."
Sen. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley, quoted the Bible during his speech against the bill. He called homosexuality an "offense to God."
"When we create laws that go against biblically what we are supposed to stand for, we are allowing to go forward a sin," Renfroe said. "We are taking sins and making them to be legally OK. That is wrong. I'm not saying this is the only sin out there. We have murder. . . . We don't make laws making murder legal."
Veiga told Renfroe she respected his beliefs but said they were not her beliefs.
"I will stand here today and tell you that God also created me, and the last time I checked, I am who I am," she said.
Veiga said one-third of the states and 17 Colorado cities and counties already offer domestic-partnership benefits.
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.
February 24, 2009
6:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Romanesco writes:
Anyone who uses the bible as a guide for actions whilst in public office should be removed.
Religion = fairness for some.
February 24, 2009
6:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
SanctuaryCity writes:
They scrap e-verify AND DEBATE THIS.
February 24, 2009
6:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
glowrock writes:
Who's THEY, SanctuaryCity? You mistaking the Colorado legislature with the U.S. House and Senate?
February 24, 2009
6:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Duckster writes:
So once we give gay unmarried individuals benefits at taxpayer expense, we can expect to be sued by normal unmarried individuals unless we give them the same benefits. It'd be discrimination to only give it to gays and deny it to normal people.
And either way, we taxpayers get to pay it all.
Remember--gays already have equality on marriage rights. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex, just like anyone else can. They just choose not to. But it is a CHOICE that they make. No one else makes it for them.
http://lagniappeslair.blogspot.com
February 24, 2009
6:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Shaupeen writes:
"Normal" people? That's all I need to know about you, Duckster. And that says a lot. I have no time for narrow-minded people who are afraid of anyone who is not exactly like themselves. And you are completely wrong.
Grow up.
February 24, 2009
6:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Fred writes:
Force the union's down state employees throat's. Check.
Add 3000 jobs to the payroll. check
Give benefits to unmarried people. Check.
Furlough all employees.....
Come on State Gov....
February 24, 2009
7:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
GK writes:
Really Duckster, what an ignorant fool.
February 24, 2009
7:18 a.m.
frosty writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
February 24, 2009
7:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
Duckster: "But it is a CHOICE that they make."
Can you recount how and when you made your "choice" and what went into making that "choice?" Have you ever revised or thought about revising your "choice?" How close did you come to making a different "choice?"
February 24, 2009
7:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Salchak_Toka writes:
Duckster: "normal unmarried individuals" have the option of being declared common-law spouses. Surely you knew that?
February 24, 2009
7:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Salchak_Toka writes:
Ah, Scott Renfroe, carrying the torch dropped by Marilyn Musgrave. And yet more proof that Greeley really is the anus of the universe.
February 24, 2009
7:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
glowrock writes:
Dude, Duckster is an ignorant fool. Ignore his tripe!
That being said, I'm all in favor of this. No reason why same-sex partners shouldn't have the same benefits as opposite-sex partners. Matter of equality, you know?
February 24, 2009
7:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ron writes:
I think this bill can be summarized into two points -
1 - Granting unmarried individuals the benefits of marriage at
taxpayer expense (regardless of orientation)
2 - Colorado voters have already spoken on granting marriage benefits to gay partners and this bill would override the voters
Vote NO.
February 24, 2009
7:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Shaupeen writes:
Oh frosty, you already DO go to work with a gay person. Everyday. They are all around you my friend. And you know what, they are regular people just like you (though better, because they're not insulting you without any knowledge of who you are). Get used to it dude, it's called America. People can be whoever they are, and yes, there will be laws to protect them and guarantee them basic rights. If you don't like it, tough.
Though it is good to see the country not bowing to the haters and oppressors anymore. Your kind are thinning out, and becoming known for what you really are--very un-christ-like hate mongers. Times are changing dude. And thank your god!
February 24, 2009
8:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
glowrock writes:
How many times does it need to be made clear that VOTERS CANNOT VOTE ON HUMAN RIGHTS??? Ron, this is ridiculous! Given that same-sex couples CANNOT LEGALLY BE MARRIED at this time, what the heck else can be done? Are you telling me that an opposite-sex couple is so superior to a same-sex couple that only THEY deserve benefits? Sheesh, what a bunch of bull!
February 24, 2009
8:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Beergut writes:
frosty: With a name like that I would think you and your males friends likes to play the Tasty Freeze game. And don't mix the perverts with the "homos"; most gay people I know don't come close to being a pervert. "take a gay to work day"? Why not "take a slave to work day". Whips in the office, that would make a good day. Especially if we can use them on bigots like you.
February 24, 2009
8:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
06concept writes:
State Sen. Scott Renfroe is right about what the Bible says about homosexuality! People don't want to hear the truth about it. But it is true and wrong! Glad to hear that there are still people like Scott Renfroe standing against this behavior. And Veiga, God did create you and you have a choice to live the way you do. Does not give you the right to. But you also don't have to push this on everyone else. Being gay is is a sexual perversion according to the Bible. So those of you who don't think it is wrong, why was Man and Women created and not only one species of human? Not hard to see that! I hope this bill fails as before.
February 24, 2009
8:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
IRUNMAN writes:
Romanesco, spot on.
Religion has nothing to do with government.
We are NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION.
February 24, 2009
8:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
INC writes:
once the right to marry the person you are in love with becomes reality.
republicans could come out of the closet. of course they would have to learn to be as turned on, now that their activities are legal.
February 24, 2009
8:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
pietrojoe writes:
06concept, your mind is thinner than the the county road Renfroe takes from crap town Greeley to Denver.
I was there, and his comments were loose and spotty. He was all over the place and did not make any sense.
The only reasonable argument he made was that this goes against the will of the voters.
Maybe...
The people voted against gay marriage. I think most reasonable voters would agree that health care is necessary and should be provided to domestic partners.
This is why there is a separation of church and state in the court room. People who are radical about religion and so entrenched in their beliefs are very dangerous. They use fear as their tool.
"If you vote against this, you're going to hell.:
Well, get over yourself Renfroe and start accepting people for they way they were born. It is not simply a choice, as you say.
February 24, 2009
8:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Shaupeen writes:
06concept, I have to apologize. When I first read your screen name, I assumed it referred to a concept from 2006. Then I read your comment, and I realized you actually meant the year 6, AD.
We are a bit more enlightened now. We don't kill people who aren't like us anymore, nor do we continue to believe that the earth is flat (Yeah, Galileo was right on that one--whoops!) So take a walk outside, and realize that the bible doesn't dictate everyone's lives--just the simple-minded people who choose not to think for themselves.
February 24, 2009
8:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Triumph writes:
Better that their companions health care benefits to pay for their STD's, HIV and full blown AIDS medical care than the taxpayer.
Of course that runs out and "Normal" moral taxpayers end up footing the bill for their abnormal lifestyle and promuscuity.
February 24, 2009
8:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Salchak_Toka writes:
pietrojoe: Renfroe has never made any sense, so he's remarkably consistent in that category. And all he can do in the Senate is bible-thump. Remember that his one accomplishment during his first term was to introduce a bill that would have outlawed all abortion in the state -- a stupid, time-wasting, foolish exercise, as it would've been null and void in the face of Roe v. Wade.
But he's what Greeley wants . . .
February 24, 2009
8:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
B300 writes:
Hey everyone; Duckster has a right to feel and beleive the way he wants to, just like gay people. Thats what being free means. You should be able to anything you want to in this country as long as there are no victims in what you do. There are some common sence issues that need to be discussed, but other than that let every man and woman enjoy the freedoms this country used to offer! We are all to eager to impose rules on other peoples lives! What is up with that anyway?
February 24, 2009
8:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Beergut writes:
06concept: So was it your choice to like women? I know I didn't have a choice.
2nd: Why should I have to live my life based on your faith? I don't think anybody who can't love there fellow man unconditionally should be allowed any rights or benefits under the law. That's my faith. Is it OK if we take away yours base on believe, just as you take way equality of gays based on your belief?
3rd If you believe in the Bible how about:
LEVITICUS 18:19
Never have sexual intercourse with a woman while she is unclean during her monthly period.
(If we are going to outlaw gay sex because of the bible, why not that Why give those that sin in this way the same rights as those that don't.)
Deuteronomy 22:5
"Women are not to wear men's clothing"
(Your wife or daughter never wear pants?)
And my favorite:
MARK 12:19
Teacher," they said, "Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his brother.."
(I keep telling my Christian ex-sister-in-law per the Bible she believes in she has to have sex with me. Is OK if I force her? It's in the Bible after all.)
February 24, 2009
8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
stumanchu writes:
Comments that are obviously feminine and" snippy ", should definetly be null and void as these ones are from somebody who is " out of the closet ".
February 24, 2009
8:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
stumanchu writes:
A sad day when a bill like this gets sponsored by a lesbian.
February 24, 2009
8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
T1anda writes:
Typical....We voters are shoved aside and people of Veiga's ilk kick us in the teeth! What next Veiga? I'm afraid to even speculate!
Colorado voters said NO to same-sex benefits and NO to same-sex marriage!
This is a lesson to voters everywhere!! We need to take our state and country back from self-serving arrogant politicians with personal agendas!! Go after these slimeballs and vote them OUT!!
February 24, 2009
8:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Beergut writes:
stumanchu: Would it have better if sponsored by a gay man? Sounds sexist to me.
February 24, 2009
8:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
glowrock writes:
A better idea, keep your religious and moral views out of the legislature! Stop trying to legislate YOUR morality!
We are NOT a Christian nation! I'm sick and tired of people thinking we should be able to vote on human rights! Remember, slavery was popularly accepted for hundreds of years, do you think that was right? Also remember, blacks were 3/5 of a vote in the Constitution for many decades. Is that good, too?
Sheesh, when is this garbage going to end? When are humans going to start treating one another with a modicum of decency and respect?
February 24, 2009
8:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
hoek writes:
Veiga commented: "I will stand here today and tell you that God also created me, and the last time I checked, I am who I am."
God did make Veiga. But that is not an adequate justification for how we are. That flawed thinking can be used to justify pedophiles, murderers, etc.
February 24, 2009
8:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ozone writes:
Why is it that if you ask people like Renfroe why a caring, loving God didn't give all the terrorists massive heart attacks right before they reached for the box cutters on 9/11 or why he would let an innocent baby die in a car accident it's always an answer along the lines of "we cannot understand the will of God". But bring up homosexuality and the thousands of years old book written by man somehow in that case allows us all to supposedly know exactly what God's will is?
February 24, 2009
8:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
stumanchu, please tell me where in the US Constitution, the Colorado constitution, the CFR, the CRS, any regulation passed by any state or federal agency, or any ruling made by any state or federal court, it states that a lesbian can't be a state senatorr? And don't look now, but there's an openly gay man serving in the state house as well.
If Senator Renfroe introduced a bill designed to help his meat-packing constituents, and Jewish legislators opposed the bill on the grounds that those constituents slaughtered pigs for human consumption, and that eating pork was an abomination to God, I suspect Senator Renfroe would go ballistic. But it's perfectly OK for Senator Renfroe and his pals to attack Sen. Veiga using that same book of the Bible, Leviticus?
If Senator Renfroe's marriage is threatened by state employees having health insurance coverage for their partners, then Mrs. Renfroe better start consulting divorce attorneys.
February 24, 2009
8:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Kaia writes:
BTW, "Separation of church and state" means that the government must not force its populace to belong to a particular denomination, such as Catholics, or Lutherans, or face punishment (as was done in Europe through the 1800s). It has nothing to do with banishing religious thought or values from the public square.
Our laws flow from our values, which flow from our worldview/belief-system/religion/faith. The secular-progressive worldview/belief-system clearly has a very different value system than the worldview/value system of Christians.
By definition, our pluralistic society must seek to find solutions to social issues that respect differing value systems/belief systems, without diminishing the rights of any group. When all else fails, we put the issue to a vote. We already did that on this issue.
The voice of the people should stand.
February 24, 2009
8:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
LockNLoad writes:
For the ignorant liberals in the blogasphere, this country was founded on Judeochristian principles. And the founding fathers stressed that God must play a role in shaping our country.
With that said, it is discusting how the liberal gay establishment has chosen to force their perverted ways on everyone else. Case in point: Gay Parades where they flaunt their sick sexuality on the general public. You don't see this kind of display from straight people.
There is a total lack of decency in this movement, and they have resorted to threats and intimidation of anyone who doesn't believe in their dimented lifestyles.
If they choose this kind of lifestyle, let them do it in the privacy of thier own homes and not force it on society.
They deserve no sspecial treatment.
February 24, 2009
8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Shaupeen writes:
It's the mark of a very low levels of faith in god when one person feels the need to force everyone else to worship and live like they do.
And here we go, 30 posts in and the oppressors are breaking out the false pedophile parallels! Wow. Some people have no shame or respect for truth.
Finally, stumanchu, what's wrong with a lesbian sponsoring this bill? Sounds like just the right type of person to sponsor it?
February 24, 2009
8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
minor amendment: If Senator Renfroe's marriage is threatened by "the idea of" state employees having health insurance coverage ...
February 24, 2009
8:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
stumanchu writes:
The voters have spoken.
February 24, 2009
8:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
stumanchu writes:
I apologize for submitting a Generic Vote that obviously did not matter.
February 24, 2009
8:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
DJ writes:
Not only are we NOT a Christian nation, we are not a nation which identifies as a whole with any religion. Read the first amendment. We have freedom of AND FROM religion in this country. Our forefathers made it clear we are not to write laws based on one group’s superstitions but based on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for EVERY INDIVIDUAL. Civil rights have no business on a ballot anywhere. This has NOTHING to do with marriage. This has to do with health care. Wake up! There are almost 50 million Americans without health care. In the long run that costs every taxpayer much more.
February 24, 2009
8:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
06concept writes:
pietrojoe, Beergut & Shaupeen - It don't matter what this bill is for. I'm not a resonable voter and health care should not be provided to "partners" as you call them. I would infact vote against this bill. Because if it is voted in, sooner or later gay marriage will be voted in. And I will be voting against this as well. As far as people should not let the Bible dictate the way they live is the reason that the world is the way it is today. Fear? Your dam right I fear God! But as far as fearing you all or letting the way "you" dictate me or what is right and wrong. Good luck to you. I will not lay my guns down because you feel I'm wrong in what I believe. I'm not a ratical Church goer by any means. But know once a crack is left in the door, it sooner or later gets kicked open. I don't need to answer to you or anyone but to God as you do. And it seems beergut has read some of the Bible, but as most so called Christians and "you". U try to use it for your own benefit and needs. But that was the Old Testement and laws were put into place for a reason by God Himself. War is war man! I'm ready to fight for what believe in. Bring it!
February 24, 2009
9 a.m.
Suggest removal
Salchak_Toka writes:
LockNLoad: Would those Judaeochristian principles upon which this nation was founded include owning and procreating extramaritally with slaves?
Thought so.
February 24, 2009
9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Salchak_Toka writes:
06concept wrote:
"I'm not a resonable voter"
--no kidding. Credo quia absurdum est, right?
February 24, 2009
9:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
JMH writes:
Sorry LockedNLoaded, the only "ignorant" one is you... someone who thinks that in a country where we have a "seperation of church and state" that somehow we are supposed to care about YOUR book of "fairy tales"?
Sorry, but the bible is nothing more than the writings of men that was used to expain the unknown. It has been transcribed and changed time and time again - by men, usually for political purposes. It is not the word of GOD! The bible has in fact been used by some to justify slavery, war, racism, sexism, etc, etc. over the years...
If you want to follow a book of "fairy tales", go ahead, that is your right in this country... but we don't have to! Just remember, the Middle Ages was a period that the "law of the land" was the bible... I would like to think we have grown up some since then.
February 24, 2009
9:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
stumanchu writes:
I will discontinue my attacks on lesbians and from here on only pick on gays in an effort to not be sexist.
February 24, 2009
9:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
Leave it to the liberals. During a fiscal crisis, what do they do? Increase employer-paid benefits for State employees. "Brilliant!"
You want fairness? Eliminate the benefit for everyone. Employer-paid health care benefits for spouses originated in an earlier time, when most spouses stayed home to raise children. Today 80-some percent of spouses work anyway. So have the State pay a portion of the health care premium for the employee and the employee's legally documented dependents only. No spouses, no partners.
Then maybe the taxpayers won't be paying extra premiums for every couple who decides they want to play 'house'.
February 24, 2009
9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Beergut writes:
Yes we are a nation founded on Christian values. So let's go back to those values. Women can't own land, only land owners can vote. Women can't wear pants. Men can't wear women's clothes (darn). Slavery is allowed, blacks have no rights and can be killed at will by their owners. Great values. Why is the treatment and hatred towards gays the only one you wish to keep? If you quote the bible about gays, I'll quote you passages that you have gone against. Been divorced? Off with your hand or head depending on which Bible you read. Why are the passages against gays the only ones you wish to keep from our founding so many years ago. There is no logic to his, only irrational fear that some how gay people are going to start passing laws to force you to have hiney sex.
February 24, 2009
9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Salchak_Toka writes:
Beergut: My favorite is the Deuteronomical commandment regarding rape. Rape the girl of your choice (provided she's not yet betrothed, of course, otherwise it's stoning for you!), then pay the father 50 silver pieces, and she's yours for life! (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
February 24, 2009
9:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
Yeah but 50 silver pieces was a LOT back in those days.
February 24, 2009
9:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Salchak_Toka writes:
davies: But of course. The rich always get their way with God.
February 24, 2009
9:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
MBR693 writes:
Romanesco writes:
"Anyone who uses the bible as a guide for actions whilst in public office should be removed."
Whilst? Actually, the majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were members of some Protestant denomination, and several were ordained ministers. You know, that document that says that our rights come from God. Also, many of the colleges and universities that still exist today were founded by Christians who understood that in order to have a good government, people must be educated in the ways of God's truth and laws, in order that they be self-restrained. Otherwise, government must be powerful to restrain man's tendency toward evil.
Also, while the US Constitution prevents Congress from establishing a national church (the obvious and real intent of the First Amendment), this did not prevent the states from consulting the Bible to see whether or not a law was just. Congress opened its sessions with prayer, and Jefferson, that great secularist according to modern-day secularists, saw no contradiction in using government money for the publishing of Bibles.
Then there's the Northwest Ordinance Act of 1787 that mandated that public education include religious instruction in order that people be taught to be moral.
So yeah, take the Bible out and you can do whatever your impulses lead you to do.
The Bible is a source of absolute truth, and you understand this to be true. Secularists and humanists alike would like there to be no absolute truth, because when there are no moral absolutes, man himself is absolute and is thereby freed to rule according to his own authority and with arbitrary morality. Conditional ethics and cost/benefit become guiding principles, as does the determinism of whatever group happens to be in power.
February 24, 2009
9:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Beergut writes:
Salchak_Toka : I think we should put that on the ballot next election; we need make sure those Christian values are enforced. Slogan for the amendment: "Sex slaves for the Rich: It's in the Bible!"
February 24, 2009
9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
MBR693 writes:
DJ writes:
"Not only are we NOT a Christian nation, we are not a nation which identifies as a whole with any religion. Read the first amendment. We have freedom of AND FROM religion in this country."
There is a difference between secular government and secular society. Like it or not, the great majority of the founding fathers were Christians who identified with a Christian worldview and saw the Bible as God's authority and basis for government. The US Constitution prohibits Congress from establishing a religion. But it doesn't follow that society is therefore secular, and that people were/are supposed to check their morality at the door when they begin the duties of government.
February 24, 2009
9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
Salchak: No, the rich always get the babes. But blessed are the poor, for they shall inherit the Earth.
February 24, 2009
9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
GK writes:
LockNload:
"With that said, it is discusting how the liberal gay establishment has chosen to force their perverted ways on everyone else. Case in point: Gay Parades where they flaunt their sick sexuality on the general public. You don't see this kind of display from straight people."
It's Fat Tuesday, wonder what's going on down in Louisiana with straight people.
February 24, 2009
9:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Shaupeen writes:
o6concept, thanks for the rambling incoherent reply. All of my grammar teachers are spinning in their graves at your butchery of our wonderful language. But even worse than your grammar skills are your Christian skills. Read the bible, dude. If you had, you would realize how very un-christ-like you are! Thank goodness the lepers aren't around anymore--you'd have them rounded up and shot because they scare you! Practice what you preach. Until you can do that, you are just an ignorant hypocrite carrying a book of fiction.
February 24, 2009
9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Salchak_Toka writes:
davies: Of course the poor shall inherit the earth. Gotta bury them somewhere, after all.
GK: curious, isn't it, how when God destroyed New Orleans, He somehow forgot the French Quarter, which is of course Ground Zero for both homo- and heterosexual debauchery!
February 24, 2009
9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
bph writes:
Well now we should extend those same benefits to adults with multiple partners. They cannot be married either but who are we to question their alternative lifestyles.
February 24, 2009
9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
MBR693 writes:
glowrock writes:
“A better idea, keep your religious and moral views out of the legislature! Stop trying to legislate YOUR morality!”
“We are NOT a Christian nation! I'm sick and tired of people thinking we should be able to vote on human rights! Remember, slavery was popularly accepted for hundreds of years, do you think that was right? Also remember, blacks were 3/5 of a vote in the Constitution for many decades. Is that good, too?”
That’s what happens when people compromise their moral principles. The 3/5th compromise was allowed in order that our nation came into being. Without the compromise, many of the southern states would not have ratified the Constitution. The northern states would have abolished slavery altogether. I think it was George Mason who warned of a coming day when this very compromise of moral principles would cause a great judgment to one day befall the nation. Almost a century later, Lincoln echoed those exact words, proclaiming the Civil War to be God’s judgment against our nation. The point is, when a nation acts in a way that clearly violates God’s principles, and I might add, those that are self-evident, there will be judgment.
By the way, I don’t know if you’re just naïve or what, but ALL legislators legislate morality.
February 24, 2009
9:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Salchak_Toka writes:
bph: Actually, I have no problem with polygamy (or polyandry), as long as it doesn't amount to a form of regulated spousal abuse, which is what the Jeffs folks are all about.
Best of all, of course, would be a single-payer system that avoided the issue of state-financed employee benefits in the first place.
February 24, 2009
9:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Salchak_Toka writes:
MBR693: Hard to see what your point is, especially because both testaments of the bible sanction slavery as a practice. Maybe you're suggesting the North should have yielded to the South at Constitution time?
February 24, 2009
9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
LockNLoad writes:
Reading these posts, its obvious the inmates are running the asylum in Colorado.
This must be the Liberal California influence.
February 24, 2009
9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
LockNLoad writes:
Reading these posts, its obvious the inmates are running the asylum in Colorado.
This must be the Liberal California influence.
February 24, 2009
9:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
the_ripper writes:
It's fine, as long as the same bennies are offered to hetero couples who happen to not be married.
February 24, 2009
9:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
ski4fun writes:
The problem here is that granting this right to homosexuals would open up many other doors (not that that is bad just it must be done carefully). For example, my mother and my aunt have both lost their spouses (my father and uncle). They have lived together for years and neither intends on marrying again. They share a house, bills, food etc. They love each other dearly but are by no means in a homosexual relationship. My aunt works for the state and my mom pays for her own private insurance which is expensive. The wording of the bill referred to in this article states this would be for domestic partners and defines such as
"an adult over the age of 18, who is of the same gender as the employee, with whom the employee is in a committed relationship of a least one year with the intent for the relationship to last indefinitely."
Again my aunt and my mother are 1.Over 18. 2.of the same gender. 3. In a committed relationship of at least 1 year. 3.Intend on the relationship to last indefinitely.
According to this bill my mother should be entitled to benefits from my aunt. This is but one example and I can think of many other scenarios similar to this. The term "relationship" is very generic as used. But even if it were specific to homosexual relationship why would that be anymore "fair" than my mother and aunts relationship?
February 24, 2009
9:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Salchak_Toka writes:
the_ripper: You too are unaware of the recognition of common-law marriage in Colorado?
February 24, 2009
9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Steph writes:
<<LOCKNLOAD writes: With that said, it is discusting how the liberal gay establishment has chosen to force their perverted ways on everyone else. Case in point: Gay Parades where they flaunt their sick sexuality on the general public. You don't see this kind of display from straight people.>>
Hey Lock, have you never seen Mardis Gras parades or spring breaks where young girls are constantly taking off their tops for drinks? Why don't you complain about those heteros flaunt their sick sexuality on the general public? Have you never heard of the multiple dvd versions of "Girls Gone Wild?"
<<There is a total lack of decency in this movement, and they have resorted to threats and intimidation of anyone who doesn't believe in their dimented lifestyles.>>
Hmm. Sounds more like some right-wing Christians during the last 8 years.
<<If they choose this kind of lifestyle, let them do it in the privacy of thier own homes and not force it on society.>>
Exactly, how is it being "forced on society?" How does it PERSONALLY affect you? Are you being forced to attend gay weddings?
And please, learn how to spell, will you?
February 24, 2009
9:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
GoldenKid writes:
It's curious to watch the homosexuals not ony pervert and destroy themselves but try to do the same to The Bible, Christanity and our Constitution and Bill of Rights that were founded on Judeo Christian principles and values. They cherry pick the Bible looking things that suit them and for contriditions and loop holes that are not there and do the same with our government and the laws the founding established and made clear in their writings.
No surprise most are atheists that support the ACLU. (Anti-Christian Litigation Unit or All Crimminals Love Us). If we had true moral leaders and Justices in this country that followed the laws of the this Christian nation, the people would see that homosexuals are crimminals in the eyes of God and of this nation and would be dealt with accordingly.
In reality this issue in the Colorado Senate is an open and shut issue.
February 24, 2009
10:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
MBR693 writes:
"MBR693: Hard to see what your point is, especially because both testaments of the bible sanction slavery as a practice. Maybe you're suggesting the North should have yielded to the South at Constitution time?"
No. The North should have stuck to its guns. Actually Paul condemns slavery I think in Timothy. Have to check later. God allowed the practices of the nations during the time of Israelite rule. But this isn't the same as condoning or mandating. Paul does urge bond servants (not exactly slaves as we know it) to remain faithful in order that their faith be evident. But again, that isn't the same as condoning the act.
February 24, 2009
10:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
ShepDog writes:
Wow, the comments on here are amazing. Don't you dare disagree with the homosexual agenda. They'll freak out, start rioting, looting and burning churches as they did in CA. So much for being a peace-loving, homosexual Liberal.
February 24, 2009
10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
JMH writes:
MBR693,
Glad to see you believe in the "invisable man in the sky theory" - one who is watching and judging us all...
But that is for YOU! Personally, I think alot of you religious people that are sooo sure that you have all the answers should grow up.
Always cracks me up... after thousands and thousands of years of conflict & religious war and literally millions of different religions invented in the course of human history... it is YOUR religion that is the "THUTH" & everyone else is wrong?
Quite a claim, don't you think?
If there is a God, surely he is too big and powerful to fit neatly into ONE religion (out of the millions on Earth)... secondly, if He is all knowing and judging, don't you think He knew what He was doing when he created "gay people" and how do you think He would like YOUR judgement of HIS work?
Personally, I think all religious organizations are just a way to control weak minded fools, who still believe the fairy tales told to them as children to "keep them in line"... and make some money on the side. Whatever comes from these instatutions is nothing more than propaganda and a few thousand year old fairy tales to explain things that science couldn't at the time...
Me? I'll keep my relationship with my "creator" to myself and would never be so smug to think that I know what He wants or thinks! If I start hearing "God" telling me things, it is probably schizophrinia!
February 24, 2009
10:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
ripper, that's the wonderful Catch-22 the sanctimony crowd creates. If someone introduces a bill for gay and lesbian couples, then the sanctimony crowd not only gets hot and bothered about gays and lesbians, they complain it discriminates against unmarried straight couples. If the bill includes such couples, then the sanctimony crowd complains the bill fosters heterosexual sinfulness. You can't win with the sanctimony crowd.
And, yes MBR693, we are a secular republic. The founders of this country wanted a secular republic. Not beleiving in God, or not believing in Jesus, doesn't mean free-for-all nihilism. You might find this hard to believe, but it's perfectly possible to construct moral or ethical codes without God or Jesus anywhere involved. Get over yourself: Atheists and humanists are as ethical as theists.
February 24, 2009
10:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Beergut writes:
GoldenKid: Why can you cheery pick but others can't? If gays are criminals by the eyes of God because of what is printed in the Bible, than you need to go after the other criminals (such as divorcees). If you wish to take the Bible as your text for what you believe in, why only believe in certain parts and then condemn those that point out your hypocrisy? Explain why this one part of the Bible should be enforced, yet others ignored.
February 24, 2009
10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Steph writes:
JMH! Amen.
February 24, 2009
10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Salchak_Toka writes:
MBR693: Try reading Paul's letter to Philemon.
February 24, 2009
10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
stumanchu writes:
How is it being forced on us? Taxpayers money ring a bell?
February 24, 2009
10:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
Salchak_Toka writes:
"GK: curious, isn't it, how when God destroyed New Orleans, He somehow forgot the French Quarter, which is of course Ground Zero for both homo- and heterosexual debauchery!"
Heresy! Everybody knows that George W Bush destroyed New Orleans. So perhaps this was just another incidence when he failed to clearly achieve his objective.
February 24, 2009
10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Steph writes:
Tell me Stumanchu. Since you seem educated on this issue, about how much tax money will be paid by each person in the state regarding this and more importantly, what EXACTLY is the tax money being spent on?
I assume that if you had the choice, you would not want to spend a penny of your own money so I'm asking you again, what would the taxpayers' money be spent on exactly?
Would be interested to hear your thoughts.
February 24, 2009
10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Salchak_Toka writes:
davies: Really? How did Commander Cuckoobananas create a hurricane?
February 24, 2009
10:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
Conjured it up, using a secret CIA-developed weapon of mass climactic destruction, you innocent rube. (By this time Iraq was getting boring for him.)
February 24, 2009
10:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
GoldenKid writes:
Beergut, look who is talking about hypocrisy. You need to stick to things you know about like immorality and deception and leave scripture to those who know the truth it professes. There are quite a few things I didn't mention that are crimminal in Gods eyes and in our moral laws that are not being enforced. Since you know just about zero of what is in the Bible you would know that divorce is allowed under certain situations. You only know what Catholism falsely says about it or what you falsely percieve. Besides this issue concerning $odomites has nothing to do with divorce. Typical homosexual diversionary tactic.
Don't whine to me. Whine to the Lord who created you and has your best interests at heart. I am just a messenger.
February 24, 2009
10:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Salchak_Toka writes:
well, GoldenKid, the number of Protestant churches that follow Jesus's teachings on divorce -- divorce only in case of marital infidelity (one situation only, not "certain situations" as you ignorantly claim), and no remarriage under any circumstances -- is just about zero. So if only the Catholics weren't so eager to grant "annulments" when the right palms are greased, I'd say they actually did a better job of following Jesus's teachings on the matter.
February 24, 2009
10:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
stumanchu writes:
Too many complaints from "snippy" commenters.
February 24, 2009
10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
zivo24 writes:
The incredible stupidity and ignorance of some these posts is amazing.
"Oh, it's so unfair that we taxpayers are gonna get stuck paying for gay state workers to have benefits for their partners that we won't allow them to marry".
Waaah!
I got a big freaking newsflash for you...we gay folks PAY TAXES, TOO!
We pay taxes so that all those state workers who choose to be heterosexual (it is a choice, right..that's what you keep telling us) to have benefits for not only their spouses for their kids.
We pay taxes so that your spawn can go to school.
It's called a level playing field, folks. We've been helping pay for the party all along but then told that we can't come in.
This is America, people. Equality is one of the principles that this country was founded on even if it's taken way too long to make it a reality for everyone.
If you're sanctimonious self-righteousness or your bigotry won't allow you to respect your fellow citizens rights to be treated fairly and equally under the law...THEN MOVE TO IRAN, where your f elitist, exclusionary views are "the norm".
February 24, 2009
10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
GoldenKid, "I am just a messenger"? That line is a cop out. If you don't like gays and lesbians, I can't help you, but own your own attitude and don't pin it on God.
I bet Senator Renfroe has the same line: "I don't hate Senator Veiga. God does! I'm just repeating what God says."
Quit hiding behind God's skirts and accept your own responsibility.
February 24, 2009
10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Steph writes:
<<Whine to the Lord who created you and has your best interests at heart. I am just a messenger.>>
If the Lord made so many homosexuals and He has our best interests at heart, then what's you're problem? He's made many sinners (which human being isn't a sinner?), including you.
BTW, who designated you to be a messenger? If the Bible was meant by God to be a roadmap of morality, how come it needs angry and argumentative people like you to spread the "truth?"
Tell me truthfully GoldenKid, are your "messages" coming straight from a pure reading of the Bible or are they reflecting your personal dislike of homosexuals?
Do you follow all Ten Commandments every moment of your life? If not, why do you spend time judging others?
February 24, 2009
10:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Shaupeen writes:
LockNLoad writes:
"Reading these posts, its obvious the inmates are running the asylum in Colorado."
Actually, no. Quite the opposite! After reading your reply, it's obvious that society has finally progressed completely past your hypocritical, oppressive beliefs! And that's a good thing! Instead of complaining about the way life progresses, try to open your mind a bit and realize that not everyone has to be (or will be) just like you. Yes, there are people who are attracted to the same sex. Yes that makes them different. That's ok. You don't have to understand them. But you cannot deny them basic human rights. No matter what any book says.
February 24, 2009
10:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
stumanchu writes:
After reading Zivo24's "we pay taxes too" it is apparent that I may have spoken out of turn.
February 24, 2009
10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Steph writes:
Good for you stumanchu. Something tells me that you're more open-minded and tolerant (good Christian values) than maybe you think you are.
February 24, 2009
10:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Shaupeen writes:
GoldenKid, don't flatter yourself! You aren't even close to "just a messenger." If anything, you are the best argument AGAINST religion! But keep the hypocritical rants coming, please! While providing no insight into actual religious discussion (you'd first have to know what you are talking about and then actually practice what you preach) you are worth keeping around just for sheer entertainment value.
February 24, 2009
10:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
stumanchu writes:
As for steph, where did you think "benefits for state workers" were going to come from? Proceeds from "la cage de folles"?
February 24, 2009
10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Salchak_Toka writes:
GenBalthus -- yet another person who's never heard of state-recognized common law marriage!
February 24, 2009
11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Salchak_Toka writes:
GenBalthus: Just because one is a gay male doesn't mean one doesn't have standards. Conversely, roughly 20% of heterosexual men enjoy coming home through the back door too.
February 24, 2009
11:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Shaupeen writes:
GenBalthus - yet another person from a long lost time, still determined to make everyone just like him. And a person not worth your time, energy, or arguments.
Ignore him as best you can, thinking people!
February 24, 2009
11:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Duckster writes:
And now we see why Colorado is going down the drain.
The state was originally founded by entrepreneurs and hard workers, and they build a nice low-tax, small government state founded on basic principles that included working for what you have, keeping your hands off other people's stuff, and behaving ethically and morally. And it was nice.
So then all the liberals back east and in California said "Hey, that's a lot better than the high-tax, no privacy, no rules place that we're from..." and they flocked to Colorado like pigeons to a picnic.
Soon the liberals outnumbered the decent people who made Colorado what it was and began to outvote them at the ballot box as they demanded more government services and acceptance of illegal aliens, drug use and sexual perversion. Taxes went up, the crime rate skyrocketed, and the state went to hell in a handbasket.
Liberals are a cancer, and welfare, high taxes, drug use, crime, disrespect for others and homosexuality are merely symptoms of the disease.
http://lagniappeslair.blogspot.com
February 24, 2009
11:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
GladysKravitz writes:
This is a simple equal rights issue FOR ALL! I am pleased to know that my state legislators will be supporting this measure.
This is not free healthcare, the bulk of the cost to buy into this health plan will come out of the employee's paycheck. Just like my mine and many other companies do.
So all you yutzes who want to make this a "gay" issue (which it is not), can relax. You can still pray in your churches and live your life in accordances to your spiritual dogma.
February 24, 2009
11:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
stumanchu writes:
I was always taught that state workers will never pick up the tab in a restaurant if someone else will because they felt as if the world owes them a living.
February 24, 2009
11:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Shaupeen writes:
Then move, Duckster. By you going back to the hole you climbed out of, you would, in effect, raise the IQ level in Colorado and fill in a hole! That way, everyone wins!
Later, prehistoric guy.
February 24, 2009
11:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
stumanchu writes:
no freeloaders
February 24, 2009
11:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Salchak_Toka writes:
stumanchu: They kill Christian babies for their yearly rituals too.
February 24, 2009
11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
GladysKravitz writes:
Hey Mr. Cheney...opps I mean Duckster....I see you've come out of your bunker. Are you still in a wheelchair contemplating world domination?
February 24, 2009
11:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Salchak_Toka writes:
Actually, D*ck Cheney loves his lesbian daughter. But then, he's from the People's Sodomite Republic of Wyoming.
[Dear RMT: Why can't I use the first name of the Ex-Vice-President in the form he himself prefers?]
February 24, 2009
11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
d1234 writes:
Bottom line, folks. We can't afford it right now. As soon as the legislature get's its budgetary ducks in a row, then we can increase spending. Before that, no way regardless of how anyone feels about the moral issue. You don't spend what you don't have.
February 24, 2009
11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Steph writes:
Tell me Salchak, if you knew a fetus was going to be born gay, would you have it? How would you deal with a gay son or daughter (or any relative for that matter)?
Wow, I didn't know Wyoming was brimming with so many sodomites! Where'd you get that idea from?
February 24, 2009
11:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
GladysKravitz writes:
Goldenkid "....If we had true moral leaders and Justices in this country that followed the laws of the this Christian nation...." ... we would all know how wonderful the Inquisition was! Hey Goldenyutz, take a look at Islamic nations and you'll see exactly why we have seperation of church and state.
Keep your religion to yourself, live your life in your beliefs, and leave my CIVIL rights to me, thank you very much!
February 24, 2009
11:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
GladysKravitz writes:
Is that Duckster of Schmuckster?
February 24, 2009
11:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
stumanchu, you are an idiot. Have you ever even met a government employee? Two sisters of mine work for the State of Colorado and for the EPA. Guess what? They're not freeloaders. They work hard. They pay for their groceries, their restuarant bills, just like every other decent person. Furthermore, my sister who works for the State of Colorado for years had health insurance whose premium was higher and whose benefits were less that what private employers would provide. I have no idea what field of employment you work in, but suppose some jerk said all people who work in your field are good-for-nothing leeches.
"I was always taught ..." Geez. Just 'cuz your elders taught you bias doesn't mean you have to promote it. Lots of white folks "were always taught" things about black folks that were vile. Lots of Christians "were always taught" things about Jews that were vile. Lots of Protestants "were always taught" things about Catholics (and vice versa), etc., etc.,
Try using your brain and your Internet browser and do a search on "You Have to be Carefully Taught" from "South Pacific".
February 24, 2009
12:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Steph writes:
I'm waiting Salchak. Would be interested in hearing your answers.
February 24, 2009
12:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
the_ripper writes:
Salchak_Toka writes:
'...the_ripper: You too are unaware of the recognition of common-law marriage in Colorado?...'
Yeah, I'm aware, and it's a joke. You're married if it in some way is a disadvantage, but if it means a benefit, you're not. So what was your point?
February 24, 2009
12:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
GladysKravitz writes:
Renfroe is elected to vote on civil laws not biblical laws! He is unfit for office!
February 24, 2009
12:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
LockNLoad writes:
Peterpi:
Yeah, I know some government employees too. They were pissed off with the GOP governor of their state for cutting their fully state paid benefits and pensions to try to lower the $1,000,000 defict the Democratic previous governor left him.
The sad thing about it was these poor guys were not going to be able to retire at 45 like they wanted.
Its a tough life.
February 24, 2009
12:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Triumph writes:
Why it's like $odom and Gomorrah on this site! All that's missing is the fire to purify it. I better get out of here and not look back.
I don't much fancy being a pillar of salt!
February 24, 2009
12:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
stumanchu writes:
I see by the number of posts on this, that this is a sensitive subject for both sides. As we continue, please remember the fact that many words used commonly could have a sinister second meaning and mind your "P's and Q's".
February 24, 2009
12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Salchak_Toka writes:
umm, steph, as a gay male myself, I can't imagine having kids, but if I did, I'd love them even if they were straight.
You must be terribly irony-impaired.
February 24, 2009
12:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Salchak_Toka writes:
the_ripper: Well, if my point is that you're ignorant of Colorado law, I see you made it for me. Congratulations!
February 24, 2009
12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Shaupeen writes:
Well, Triumph, a pillar of salt would be an improvement. After all, I've never heard salt judge a person as harshly as you have.
February 24, 2009
12:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Shaupeen writes:
And I agree Gladys, Renfroe is unfit for office. His actions and words have no place in the Colorado Senate. Greeley, does this man speak for your town? Is this the voice you want as your representative in the state Senate?
February 24, 2009
12:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Uno writes:
This country doesn't need enemies, it's destroying it's self from the inside out.
February 24, 2009
12:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
stumanchu writes:
As far as I can tell, a lot of these are just the result of somebody laying out wolf bait.
February 24, 2009
1:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
CaptainObvious writes:
I agree Uno. These narrow-minded religious zealots trying to push their morality on everyone else really need to give it a rest. They are ruining this once great country!
February 24, 2009
1:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
MBR693 writes:
GladysKravitz writes:
"This is a simple equal rights issue FOR ALL!"
"So all you yutzes who want to make this a "gay" issue (which it is not), can relax. You can still pray in your churches and live your life in accordances to your spiritual dogma."
You have spiritual dogma too, just by a different name.
Afraid it's not so simple. Actually, Jennifer Veiga was on the Caplis and Silverman show last year and had some pretty revealing comments. When asked by Dan Caplis whether she believed if a child was any better off with a heterosexual couple, she said emphatically NO! It makes absolutely no difference whether a child is raised by his natural parents, or by a gay couple. Nope. No difference.
So you see, this is much greater than health care. This is about destroying one of the greatest pillars of society, namely, the family. Gays probably don't actually believe the family makes no difference, but they must say they do. For the moment you acknowledge that a child is better off with a heterosexual couple, all else being equal, then by corollary you must acknowledge that there is something inferior in the gay lifestyle. Therefore, in order to have widespread acceptance of homosexuality, you must necessarily devalue marriage and the traditional family unit.
February 24, 2009
1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Salchak_Toka writes:
MBR693: All other things being equal, children happiest in families that love them and can provide for them. Seems to me the only inherent disadvantage of having two gay parents is the strong dose of ridicule and hatred such kids experience. Which is, wouldn't you know, hardly the fault of the the kids or their parents.
Same argument as with interracial marriage: "But the kids won't be accepted!"
Oh, and which "traditional family unit"? Abraham's, maybe?
February 24, 2009
1:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
CaptainObvious writes:
MBR, nice try. Once again, you are wrong.
February 24, 2009
1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
FCZ writes:
Coloradans in 2006 approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and rejected a measure that would have given gays many of the rights and responsibilities of married couples.
"I find it breathtaking that we are here just a little over two years later . . . saying, 'Let's ignore that, and let's go down the road that the people of Colorado rejected,"
February 24, 2009
2:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
glowrock writes:
Again, the voters cannot truly vote for or against EQUAL RIGHTS! It's called majority rules with MINORITY RIGHTS for a reason!
Stop this garbage about the people voting down gay marriage. This has nothing, and I mean nothing to do with that!
For the record, I guarantee that the constitutional amendment will eventually be declared unconstitutional. Sorry to say it, but human rights cannot and should not be subject to the whim of the electorate!
February 24, 2009
4:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cel writes:
For all of his hatred GoldenKid will burn in hell
February 24, 2009
4:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cel writes:
FCZ -
I think the correct term would be, "Colorado Voters Approved..."
A majority of Colorado voters can in no way be confused with a majority of Coloradans. The majority of Coloradans are not even registered to vote. All the result of that vote indicates is that there were voters on the right registered than on the left
February 24, 2009
9:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
GladysKravitz writes:
MBR693 the only devaluation of marraige is in your head. Marraige has been defined both in sectarian and secular society for generations. From divorce, to polygamy, to marraige equality in Europe, Canada, and 3 states. And in all though cases, the republics still stand, and your churches still are free to worship as they wish.
Dan Caplis says a lot of things and when it comes to this subject he writes checks he can't cash. Today he talked about how as a private employer he would extend benefits to gay employees and their partners. Yet when it comes to the discussion of same-sex marraige he oversteps that line of privacy and makes it his business to invade private liberty of Americans saying they should not. Regardless of how many "gays" he's had as roommates, employed or represented, it does not immunize him or anyone for that matter, of their bigoted, hateful anti-gay stripes.
February 25, 2009
12:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Republicansscareme writes:
To all of the bigots and so called "Christians", that claim to love God and honor him above all else, its clear to see that you dont have much trust or belief in the fact that he or she will carry out the important job of judging us, on a day you call Judgement Day, so you choose to break the chain of command and judge others yourself...Ask yourself, if you're really qualified to be God. According to the Bible I was given when I was saved, and when I was told that God loved me, and would always love me, it states that you should also be condemned for touching a pig on the Sabbath, However, I bet you have seen a Sunday Football game before, and probably even gripped a Pigskin football yourself, but I guess that is OK. The Bible also states that you can sell your daughter into slavery, if you are offered a fair price, But we decided to make a law against it. Separation of Church and State...Ever heard of it?
February 25, 2009
12:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Republicansscareme writes:
What a surprise for Duckster and Renfroe and Concept and others that share this belief when they find out that they arent going to Heaven either, for betraying their God and carrying out Hate in his name...What a great "made for TV" movie that would be.