February 24, 2009 03:32 AM UTC

Sen. Renfroe Tells You How He Really Feels

• 0 Comments
• by: Colorado Pols

The Denver Post reports on initial passage today in the Senate of SB-88, which would extend limited health benefits to same-sex partners of Colorado state employees. Did you know, gentle reader, that the Bible declares homosexuality punishable by death?

Scott Renfroe does.

After a debate that saw one lawmaker quoting Bible verses and another calling gay rights the “civil-rights issue of our day,” a bill to allow gay and lesbian state employees to share health benefits with their partners in the way married couples can passed its first vote before the full state Senate today.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Jennifer Veiga, D-Denver, began the debate in a low-key way, arguing that such a policy would make the state more competitive for workers with private companies.

“It would place Colorado state employment practices in line with the private sector,” Veiga said, noting that 17 Colorado cities and counties, numerous states and many businesses already have such policies. “It will move us toward the 21st century.”

But things grew considerably more heated from there…

You might say, yeah.

Sen. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley, [quoted] Bible verses to argue that the state should not be condoning homosexual relationships. He called such relationships a sin, equal in some sense to murder and adultery, and noted that one passage in the Bible says homosexuality is punishable by death.

“Homosexuality is seen as a violation of this natural creative order, and it is an offense to God,” Renfroe said. ” When we create laws that go against what biblically we are supposed to stand for, I think we are allowing to go forward a sin that should not be treated by government as something that is legal. We are taking sins and making them legally OK.”

That brought swift rebuttal from Democrats…

To tell you the truth, we’re a little sick of talking about Senate Bill 88. It’s not the most important bill on our scorecard this year–in fact, it’s not even the tenth. It does appear to be James Dobson’s most important bill, so we suppose that’s something.

But the fiscal impact estimates have come back negligible, and if you ask us, granting some basic provisions that let people function in modern life, without treading on the thin semantic ice of “marriage” may just be the right way to deal with the whole divisive business of this issue once and for all. That seems to be the intent of SB-88 and another bill introducted in the House this session that more generally allows people to designate rights and responsibilities to another person.

This approach also clarifies the nature of opposition from Republicans in stark and occassionally (see above) freaky terms. Very few politicians these days are willing to just come out and say “I don’t like gay people.” It’s always couched in more benign, fiscal or procedural language. This is done since most voters don’t like frothing haters, even if they could be persuaded on the particular issue.

And then there’s Scott Renfroe and death by stoning.

Funny, nobody’s talking about health benefits anymore, are they? Republicans had an effective argument against this bill on fiscal grounds, even though we’re talking about a trifling amount of money–it’s money. Sure. Hold that line all the way, it’s an easy sell for voters. But once the conversation turns to, you know, death sentences for homosexuals, you can’t help but wonder if Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry has lost his message control.

For the second time in a week, isn’t it?