President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Ted Harvey

20%↑

15%↑

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Doug Bruce

20%

20%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

40%↑

20%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 15, 2012 12:58 AM UTC

Reporters should note McNulty's view that Stephens was "the rock" against civil unions

  • 15 Comments
  • by: Jason Salzman

(Just in time for the HD-19 primary – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Journalists, like Denver Post Editorial Page Editor Curtis Hubbard, speculated that House Majority Leader Amy Stephens’ primary fight against Rep. Marsha Looper might play a role in the fate of the civil unions bill.

Stephens would want to show voters in her El Paso County district that she’s the uncompromising conservative that she claims to be, versus Looper, who reportedly supports civil unions.

If this turned out to be true, you’d expect House Speaker Frank McNulty and Stephens to start bragging, especially in the Colorado Springs area, about how Stephens stepped up to the plate and batted away the civil-union proponents.

And that’s exactly what McNulty did on the Jeff Crank Show on KVOR Saturday. KVOR broadcasts from, you guessed it, Colorado Springs.

Reporters should take note of this exchange, as they explain what in the world happened to the civil unions bill today:

Crank said that he was hearing rumors that Stephens was for civil unions. But Crank complimented Stephens and McNulty for putting their political lives on the line to stop civil unions.

McNulty responded to Crank with this:

McNulty: “Well, thank you.  And it’s absolutely true that Amy Stephens was the rock that we came back to throughout the debate.  It wasn’t easy, and there were times when the pressure was great, when you have advocates for [civil unions] piling into the gallery, and you’re looking up there wondering what’s going to happen next.  And Amy is so strong in her faith, and is absolutely rock solid, and she just has a measure of calm about her in crisis and that’s one of the things that we relied on.  And our goal is to head into this Special Session.”

Listen to the audio clip here: McNulty On the Jeff Crank Show 5-12-2012.

Comments

15 thoughts on “Reporters should note McNulty’s view that Stephens was “the rock” against civil unions

  1. Jason, so what? McNulty supports Stephens and thanks her for her steadfast support.

    Also, you’re not correct about Looper. Looper flipped on this issue under pressure from Stephens. Stephens has shown 100% of the integrity in this contest, and the battle against gay marriage.

    1. also known as:

      “Another attempt by Republicans to deny people they don’t know from allowing them to exercise their right to the pursuit of life and happiness without interference from government.”

      Funny how allowing insurance companies to cover contraception is an invasion of individual beliefs but denying individuals the right to their lives, liberty and happiness through government decree is wonderful.

      Can you explain the difference why one is an infringement on individual liberties but the other isn’t?  I’m serious.  Don’t do another one of you dine and dash posts.  Give us an adequate explanation why one scenario is unacceptable but the other is your fondest desire?

    2. Consistent in her bigotry.  Inconsistent in the roll of Government.  Why I ignore Republican rhetoric on small Government.  Because they don’t want to use it to help people who need it or regulate appropriately, but they are all for making a decree to deny rights to a group of people through government.  

      You guys want small government.  Small enough to fit into people’s bedrooms.  

  2. Good for them.

    The Post has the story with this title:

    McNulty moves Colorado civil unions bill to “kill” committee”

    http://www.denverpost.com/brea

    That won’t read well in swing districts.

    It just amplifies the message that if you’d like to see civil rights for all, then you need to vote Republicans out of the majority, regardless of who your local Rep is.

    1. if you’d like to see government work for all, you need to vote Republicans out of the majority.

      Most Coloradans don’t give a hoot about gay civil rights, one way or another. But they do resent political machinations that thwart their idea of fairness.

  3. When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite

    Contrary to myth, Christianity’s concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the “Office of Same-Sex Union” (10th and 11th century), and the “Order for Uniting Two Men” (11th and 12th century).

    These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

    A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.

    Is the icon suggesting that a gay “wedding” is being sanctified by Christ himself? The idea seems shocking. But the full answer comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. These two officers in the Roman army incurred the anger of Emperor Maximian when they were exposed as ‘secret Christians’ by refusing to enter a pagan temple. Both were sent to Syria circa 303 CE where Bacchus is thought to have died while being flogged. Sergius survived torture but was later beheaded. Legend says that Bacchus appeared to the dying Sergius as an angel, telling him to be brave because they would soon be reunited in heaven.

    While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Christian church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly intimate. Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch (AD 512 – 518) explained that, “we should not separate in speech they [Sergius and Bacchus] who were joined in life”. This is not a case of simple “adelphopoiia.” In the definitive 10th century account of their lives, St. Sergius is openly celebrated as the “sweet companion and lover” of St. Bacchus. Sergius and Bacchus’s close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers. But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek describes them as “erastai,” or “lovers”. In other words, they were a male homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was not only acknowledged, but it was fully accepted and celebrated by the early Christian church, which was far more tolerant than it is today.

    Contrary to myth, Christianity’s concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual.

    Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the “Office of Same-Sex Union” (10th and 11th century), and the “Order for Uniting Two Men” (11th and 12th century).

    These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

    Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12thand/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.

    Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, “Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union”, invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to “vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints”. The ceremony concludes: “And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded”.

    Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic “Office of the Same Sex Union”, uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

    Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.

    The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667).

    While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, homophobic writings didn’t appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century. Even then, church-consecrated same sex unions continued to take place.

    At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope’s parish church) in 1578, as many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the cooperation of the Vatican clergy, “taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together” according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century.

    Prof. Boswell’s academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality.

    For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is, in fact, nothing of the sort.

    It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given love and committment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ.

    Here is the link to the article:

    http://anthropologist.livejour

  4. Ad attacks dems for being “divisive’ and not concentrating on the economy; portrays the republicans as responsible.

    The dems response?  Nada, so far.

  5. This story prompts a suggestion re: The Big Line 2012. How about a line on Switching the House? Your analysis would be appreciated.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

169 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!