Notable Links



Denver Internet Marketing by Parallel Path

Knowledge Messenger

Arvada Boutique Clothing Store Stella B's

How Low Did Renfroe Go?

by: Colorado Pols

Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 07:58:37 AM MST


The Colorado Springs Gazette reports more of what Sen. Scott Renfroe had to say about gay people, women, etc. on the floor of the Colorado Senate yesterday.

"I'm not saying this (homosexuality) is the only sin that's out there," said Sen. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley. "We have murder. We have all sorts of sin. We have adultery. And we don't make laws making those legal, and we would never think to make murder legal." [Pols emphasis]

The Senate gave initial approval to the bill, which would head to the House after final approval by the Senate.

Renfroe called homosexuality an "abomination" and an "offense to God" and argued that God created men and women so they would procreate.

He compared the nuclear family structure to the Holy Trinity and, quoting the book of Genesis, said women had been created to be "helpers" for men...

Okay? A bill about health insurance set off this tirade, which in addition to embarrassing every reasonable Republican present basically ensured passage of Senate Bill 88. Like we said yesterday, limited and dispassionate arguments against the bill based on cost might have proven effective at dislodging moderate Democrat support.

But now that this has been so clearly squared as an equality-vs.-bigots issue, with Republicans helpfully, eagerly supplying the most audacious display of straight-up bigotry (and sexism thrown in for good measure, see above) perhaps seen since Jim Welker was stinking up the floor of the House?

Guaranteed pass. Right down Renfroe's throat--we assume he would gag but you never know--while Minority Leader Josh Penry haplessly watches another ugly derailment unfold in his caucus. We wouldn't be surprised if a Republican or two switched their vote out of conscience now, or just to not be identified with Renfroe's extreme rhetoric.

It's alright, Penry's young, he'll figure this "leadership" stuff out eventually. Right?
Colorado Pols :: How Low Did Renfroe Go?
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
How Low Did Renfroe Go? | 39 comments
And next week the GOP will propose
Stoning of any woman having sex out of wedlock. Colorado GOP's new slogan "if you think returning to the '50s is good, we want to take you back to the 1500's."

Tea party support in the primary.
Bible says nothing about gays in committed relationships
The Bible says nothing about gay marriage, civil unions, gays in committed relationships or health care reform.

But the Bible has been rewritten many times, and maybe Renfroe is just trying out his new version.

What's amazing is that Renfroe won't admit that there are thousands of versions of marriage and that in this country marriage is so different from 50-70 and 200 years ago.

Women no longer serfs, except in the homes of the Jim Dobson and Bill Armstrong and Renfroe followers, I guess.

Another John Andrews moment destined to turn off thinking conservatives and real Republicans.

[ Parent ]
This is so weird
I'm actually reading a post by the skeptic that I agree with.

Hell must be pretty chilly today.

[ Parent ]
Same here
Good job, AS.

When I use lots of words, they always form an analysis (and, while producing high volume, also produce high information-density).
--Steve Harvey, 2009
[ Parent ]
This is not new for AS
When I first started posting here three years ago, I really respected AS for being a con who really didn't buy all the social/religious bullshit, and in fact had quite liberal views on those matters.

I guess I just liked reading someone I agreed with. :)

"Fine, let's take a vote. Who wants fish for dinner?...Yeah, democracy ain't so fun when it fucks you, huh?" - shitmydadsays

[ Parent ]
Penry...
needs to pull Renfroe aside and remind him that although all the members of the Republican caucus think the same way, they are not supposed to actually vocalize it on the floor of the Senate as it turns off moderates.

Too bad Dottie Wham isn't around to slap some sense into these fools.


"But when I see a 9-11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh, shut up!' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining."  Glenn Beck  

wow
what a wanker!  I can't think the people of Greeley support that position.

Blue Colorado!
Um
Have you been to Greeley?

We are all triguardian, but some of us are more triguardian than others.
[ Parent ]
The smell alone...
should convince anyone.  :)

Michael Bennet is the new Abraham Lincoln.
- Sharon Hanson
[ Parent ]
The smell alone...
That used to be a lot more true than it is these days.

But, seriously guys, go easy on the easy bigotry about Greeley. The town helped elect Betsy Markey, after all.

"Please don't eat any peanuts out of anyone's crap." - LaughingBoy

[ Parent ]
Smell
You are right, it's not so smelly these days.

Call it bigotry if you want, but this was pretty much Renfroe's platform when he ran for office.  It was mostly a anti-gay marriage position.  He's really only doing what he promised, and Greeley voters supported him.

It will be interesting to see if the politcal climate has changed here when he comes up for re-election, but don't put too much stock in the Markey election.  We mostly just voted Musgrave out, not Markey in.  

[ Parent ]
What the hell does
the holy trinity have to do with anything?  What doesn't  Renfroe get about the irrelevance of his bible and his personal religious beliefs to state legislation?

If we wanted to live without freedom of religion, including the freedom not to believe in any religion, we could all just move to someplace nice and religious like Afghanistan.  Sounds like Renfroe would just love to have a Christian Taliban right here. As long as it would be impose his specific interpretation of Christianity and no one else's.  

That's always the tricky part that keeps sectarian violence alive for hundreds of years. The kind of thing our founders aimed to avoid with their do-your-own-thing-and-leave-the-state-out-of-it treatment of religion and the whole personal spiritual sphere in our constitution.

"irrelevance of ... personal religious beliefs to state legislation"
.
do you really believe this ?  

For a believer, their religious beliefs inform every decision and every action, even when they sin and reject that information.

........

You may disagree, but I'd say that most of the views expressed here are reflections of the personal religious beliefs of those who write them.  
You may think that you don't have a religion, or that you have progressed beyond religion.  If so, I'd say that your idea of what "religion" means is too small.
It's a coping mechanism, a framework for dealing with the world, that brings people together. It need not be handed down by God; it can be (and almost always is) created by Man.  

What you think are self-evident truths, particularly those which contradict the "truths" of my Catholic religion,
such as your notion that homosexual relationships are no different morally than hetero ones,
are some of the identifiable religious beliefs of your creed.

I can't name your religion; that would be up to you, which is why I reject the "Secular Humanism" label.  That's why so few characterize themselves as "Brights."
But from the anthropological view of what a religion is, you are as devoted to yours as I am to mine.  

...........

So, what you're saying is that the tenets of your religion should prevail in the Legislature, simply because you deny that your religion is a religion.  

Maybe, instead of trying to ban (my) religion from government, there ought to be a free debate, allowing the participation of all religions.
Rather than establishing yours as the state religion.
Maybe the best approach in a pluralistic society is to allow free speech, since religious speech is just another form of political speech.  
.

[ Parent ]
The bill isn't about relationships
It's about insurance.

When I use lots of words, they always form an analysis (and, while producing high volume, also produce high information-density).
--Steve Harvey, 2009
[ Parent ]
yes, my post is off that topic.
.
But I think it responds pretty directly to the post I replied to from le chat bleu.
.  
[ Parent ]
Ban you're religion?
How about you keeping your "religion off my gender?.  When I was in the US Army, I wasn't a "helper" I was a soldier.  I will defend to the death your right to your religion, would you do the same for me?
[ Parent ]
Catholic Church Teachings
Barron, I posed this question to you on another topic and you never responded, so I thought I'd try again:

Impotence?
Barron, do you agree with your church's teaching that forbid men who are impotent from being married in the church?

http://www.cathnews.com/articl...

http://ct.dio.org/question-box...

"But when I see a 9-11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh, shut up!' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining."  Glenn Beck  

[ Parent ]
thanks for offering to discuss the articles of my faith on this blog.
.
I wrote a lengthy reply, investing more than 20 minutes, then lost it when I checked the spelling of "Q'ran."  

Bottom line: I suspect you'd kick my butt in such a "discussion," and respectfully decline the opportunity to learn even more humility.
.

[ Parent ]
Don't blame you...
If you are going to assert "church teaching" as a model for one area of public policy, then you should expect all of your "church teachings" to be examined in terms of their potential impact on public policy.

If my church refused to marry individuals who were paralyzed, I would have a hard time defending that as well.

"But when I see a 9-11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh, shut up!' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining."  Glenn Beck  

[ Parent ]
What a crock, Barron.
First, I do not consider myself a secular humanist, atheist or any other kind of ist. For the record I believe in a spiritual reality but the idea that the great mysteries are  all explained in one particular group's little instruction book, as if the meaning of life can be explained the way your toaster oven can be explained, strikes me as childish beyond belief.    

The specifics of any one religion have no place in determining legislation because legislation is a secular matter. If a legislator wants to argue against various  rights for gays that legislator needs to come up with something besides his interpretation of his bible says so.  We just aren't obliged to take that into consideration any more than we need to consult Hindu texts.

[ Parent ]
and that, my friend, is your religion.,
.
which you are entitled to embrace or discard, as you choose.  

Your coping strategy, and your frame of reference, tell you that established religions like mine could not possibly capture the complexity of it all.  Fair enough.  Believe as you choose.  

But how is it that your religious beliefs trump mine ?  
Why should legislators discard my beliefs and instead base their actions on yours ?  

Oh, right.  Your religious beliefs are NOT merely religious, because you believe them so strongly.  
They MUST be authentic "true facts," because why else would you feel such a strong commitment to them ?  

I happen to be a religious extremist, like you.  In some respects, I have more respect for your religious faith than for some lukewarm "believers" in my own church.  
Your religious faith moves you to action, and faith without works strikes me as empty.  

........

We will not resolve this.
You will never accept that your religion is just another religion; you believe deeply that you have moved beyond the boundaries of religion.  
You think that you are post-religious, or, put another way, that your religion is the culmination and completion of earlier, more primitive religions.  
 Your religion, by the way, has that theme in common with just about all other religions, including Islam, Judaism, LDS, Protestantism, Christianity and Buddhism.  
If this exchange were to go on at length, it will just boil down to whose God is stronger or bigger or whatever.  
Nobody wins such arguments.  

As long as you deny that your beliefs, rituals and faith (in whatever) are what give you context and meaning, this discussion cannot go any further.  
As long as you believe that you are striking out on your own in a brave new acknowledgment that there is no God,
and as long as you decline to see the sustenance you take from that confidence that you are dealing with real reality,
as opposed to us mouth-breathers who deny the apophatic and name Him who is beyond naming,
well, you know.  

.........

While you have claimed Jewishness in earlier posts, you probably have a little knowledge of Catholicism.  You probably know that we take as an article of faith that bread wafers are transformed / transubstantiated into human flesh, and wine into human blood, which we then consume in our religious observances.  Pretty gross, huh ?  
And we get really upset when someone who doesn't believe that has the gall to walk forward and "take Communion," despite our efforts to prevent that.  

So I find it very, um, accommodating that I get to post here,
because for many of you, this is your sacrament.  
I do it with respect.
.

[ Parent ]
Nothing of the kind
I just don't feel entitled to impose religion. You religious folk will always be convinced you have a great argument when you sat that non-religion is a religion but that's just not so. Atheism is a religion because it requires absolute faith in the unprovable but doubt and open-mindedness are not religions.  They may be the result of a philosophy but as such are irrelevant to discussions of church vs state.  

Our state is secular.  Therefore what the bible says, while it doubtless informs the values of legislators, has no place in the  discussion of legislation, just as it has no place in science.

Now before you tell me science is a religion, it isn't. The absolute belief that science can explain everything is akin to a religious belief but that's not the fault of science.  

Science leaves what it can't explain an open question. It accepts that not everything is yet or perhaps ever will be explained.  It just keeps trying.  The Christian right wants to fill in the unexplained areas with made up explanations that must be accepted on faith.  

Faith has no place in determining public policy. The government isn't in the business of making your faith my rules or anybody else's. But, as you say, we'll never agree. Peace, Barron.

[ Parent ]
Lefties invoke God too.
"What doesn't  Renfroe get about the irrelevance of his bible and his personal religious beliefs to state legislation? "

From the Rocky:  
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.
=====

If Renfroe's beliefs are irrelevant, Viega's should be too.

Of course, the religion debate is a red herring. You don't have to be religious to see that sodomy is an immoral act. George Orwell, for instance, took a dim view of homosexual acts. It's quite obvious which sexual organs are complementary and which are not.

Homosexual politics are clogging up the system and making the state take sides(in this case, the wrong side) in the culture war. What's next on Tim Gill's agenda?

All that talk in the '90s about "tolerance" was a smokescreen. I apologize to all those prescient Evangelicals I sneered at.

[ Parent ]
immoral act????
HA HA HA HA HA.....

My poor deluded friend, something that occurs between two (or more) consenting adults and results in no harm can not be "immoral" by any rational definition of the word. However, I'm open minded and would like to read your argument that it is. (Remember - just because you find it distasteful doesn't make it wrong.)

"Fine, let's take a vote. Who wants fish for dinner?...Yeah, democracy ain't so fun when it fucks you, huh?" - shitmydadsays

[ Parent ]
that's it, take your time...


"Fine, let's take a vote. Who wants fish for dinner?...Yeah, democracy ain't so fun when it fucks you, huh?" - shitmydadsays
[ Parent ]
That's why I'm not moved by lefties who find places in the bible to support their views either.
I consider that equally irrelevant.  The secular is the business of government.  The spiritual is a personal matter.  Don't make rules for me based on how you, lefty or righty, interpret ancient religious texts.    
[ Parent ]
Have you actually read the Book of Gomorrah?
It's a book-length letter written by St. Peter Damian to the Pope in the year 1049 A.D. That's where "sodomy" was defined, and it includes basically all sex except man-woman intercourse in the missionary position--and not too often.

If you've ever spilt your seed anywhere but your wife's vagina in the correct position during the right time of the month (and not too often), you are a sodomite.

So sorry you are going to hell, because I guarantee you're a sodomite, you sodomite.

Non impediti ratione cogitationis.

"Some of the people that wanted to engage me in conversation appeared to have been the losers in the 'Are you smarter than Michele Bachmann contest?'." --Rep. Barney Frank

[ Parent ]
And yet Renfroe
doesn't get called in by Dick Wadhams to apologize to anyone. They've certainly got their priorities straight.

"Please don't eat any peanuts out of anyone's crap." - LaughingBoy
As Usual, Misquoting Scripture
So, why can't a man be a "helper" for another man and a woman for another woman?  Having just re-read the passage to which he refers, there's nothing in this scripture which is anything near to what this idiot ascribes to it.  He is undoubtedly reading the next Verse which says that a man shall leave his mother and father and take a wife and they shall be united as one flesh.  Of course, this doesn't say the a man and a man can't do the same thing.

Of course the real problem with his "statement" is that if all of what the Bible describes as sin is a crime, then we will all go to jail which means of course that no-one goes to jail.  Jesus himself said, none except He is without sin.  The Bible also says that no sin is too great to be forgiven and that one sin is in no way worse or better than any other sin.  So, now how does he deicde what "sin" should be a crime?  For instance, if a man shall leave his mother and father, does this mean that any male who lives with his mother and father after the age of puberty has also violated  this restriction.  Does it mean that a man who never marries has violated it?  At what age does a man have to marry to satisfy his ridiculous reading of the Bible?

There is no Biblical basis for Sen. Renfroe's argument.  It's a sham for flat out religious bigotry and a claim that separation of church and state does not exist.

I vote to send Sen. Renfroe to jail for misquoting and misusing the Bible.  Let's make that a crime.

Not sure making....
misquoting and misusing the Bible a crime is a good idea.  Our prisons are already overcrowded.

"But when I see a 9-11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh, shut up!' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining."  Glenn Beck  
[ Parent ]
Once again, so what?
The bible is a collection of writings, accumulated, edited and translated over hundreds of years, considered sacred, all or in part, by a particular group of religious sects.  As such, it is simply not relevant to this or any other secular legislation. Now excuse me, I'm going to go out for a bacon cheeseburger.  
[ Parent ]
Yes- there is all kind of sin and some of it is illegal
But the Bible prohibits all kinds of things we don't make illegal and likewise it allows all manner of things we do make illegal.
Just a couple of examples

Exodous 21:7 allows me to sell my daughter in to slavery. Not legal here.

Leviticus 11:7 says touching the skin of  of a dead pig makes one unclean.  Yet Colorado funds several college football teams.


What worries me is my friends on the left who are buying into the 'inevitable GOP resurgence' - or helping it for misguided reasons. JeffcoBlue Jan 2 2010

Greeley is a veritable hot bed of dead pig touching.
Moreover, the activities going on in Greeley, unlike those in football, are precisely the kinds of activities that Leviticus sought to prevent.
[ Parent ]
The damn liberals criminalized slavery in Colorado in 2006.
by enacting Section 18-13-129, CRS, entitled "coercion of involuntary servitude," during the special session in 2006. :)
[ Parent ]
They did?
I just can't countenance taking sins and making them to be legally OK. And forbidding slavery is seen as a violation of the natural, created order and it is an offense to God, the Creator. Someone needs to get on this.

"Please don't eat any peanuts out of anyone's crap." - LaughingBoy
[ Parent ]
Can't ascribe Penry's ignorance to youth
when he is the puppet of the likes of O&G's "Thing on the Fourble Board", former Club 20 tsarina and lobbyist Kathy Hall.    
don't forget Renfroe's next line after the murder bit-
"All sin is equal. That sin there is equal to any other sin that's in the Bible- to having wandering eyes to coveting you neighbors' things. Whatever you do, that sin is equal"

good thing this guy isn't in a position to shape our criminal justice system...oh, wait.

FWIW, Colorado decriminalized adultery decades ago.
The Colorado adultery statute states "Any sexual intercourse with a married person other htan with that person's spouse is adultery, which is prohibited."  Section 18-6-501, Colorado Revised Statues.  No punishment is authorized.  I believe that this was done in the general recodification of Colorado's criminal code in 1971.  Only adultery case in Colorado which produced an appeal that entered the casebooks took place in 1925, in the case of People v. Bright.

The U.S. Supreme Court's jurisprudence would probably render a non-military criminal adultery statute unconstitutional in any case (notably, while state criminalization of contraception was held unconstitutional on the basis of marital privacy shortly before Roe, it was followed in very short order by a case holding that criminalization of contraception for unmarried people was unconstitutional.  Lawrence v. Texas pretty much seals that deal).  Military adultery prohibitions survive largely on the theory that an impact on the good order and discipline of active duty troops is an element of the offense as applied, and on the grounds that military law can criminalize what would be mere grounds for employee discipline outside the military.

Under Colorado's "No Fault" divorce laws have likewise made adultery irrelevant in dissolution of marriage actions for decades (all but a handful of states had done likewise within five years of California's adoption of "no fault" in 1969.  IIRC, Colorado did so in 1971, the same year that it adopted "no fault" divorce.)

Civil lawsuits for money damages in connection with adultery cases and broken engagements are barred by Title 13, Article 20 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, and have been since 1937 in Colorado.  It is a misdemeanor to file such a lawsuit in Colorado's courts or to settle such a case out of court even if not case if filed in court.  The U.S. Supreme Court recently refused to grant certiorari in a case seeking to have a civil lawsuit for adultery thrown out on constitutional grounds, which while no precedential, suggests that these lawsuits would be constitutional to permit.


Birth control SCOTUS ruling
Griswold v. Connecticut

We are all triguardian, but some of us are more triguardian than others.
[ Parent ]
How Low Did Renfroe Go? | 39 comments
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?



Advertise Here!
ads@coloradopols.com

Active Users
Currently 35 user(s) logged on.

Search




Advanced Search

Colorado Pols Network


Jeffco Pols
  More >

Denver Pols
  More >





















Stay home if you have flu symptoms. Visit www.cdc.gov/h1n1 for more information.


RSS 2.0



Pols Gets Mobile: ColoradoPols.com/mobile/

Colorado Pols is on Twitter: twitter.com/coloradopols

Email Pols


How to Write a Diary That Will Make the Front Page



Relevant Links

Back Roads to the White House

The Big Media Blog

Blog It Right

Blog For Growth

Blogometer

Colorado Capitol Journal

Colorado Center on Law and Policy

Colorado Democratic Party

Colorado Ethics Watch

Colorado Independent

Colorado Veterans for America

Colorado Legislature

Colorado Lib

Colorado Libertarian Blog

Colorado Media Matters

Colorado Progressive Coalition

Colorado Republican Party

Colorado Secretary of State

Colorado Senate

Colorado Young Democrats

Commentary Today

Coyote Gulch

CU Democrats

Curious Stranger

Daily Kos

Dan Willis-Rumors

Dem Notes

Democracy for Colorado

Denver Politics

Denver Post

East Boulder County Politics

Ed Stein Ink

Election Neutrality Now

George in Denver

Great Education Colorado

Head First Colorado

The Hotline Political Network

Left in the West

Liberal and Loving It

Maintain Educational Standards in Colorado

Mount Virtus

MyDD

National Journal

On Call

Peak Dems

Political Gravy

Politics West

Political State Report

Progress Now

Prometheus

Project Vote Smart

Radio Free Denver

Rocky Mountain News

Senate Guru

Slapstick Politics

State 38

Steam Powered Opinions

Square State

Stygius

TalkLeft

The Thicket

The Bell Policy Center

The Hypothetical Wren

ThomasMC.com

Toilet Paper Online

Ultimate Politics

View From a Height

Walter in Denver

Wash Park Prophet

Washington and the West

Western Democrat



 
Colorado Pols is wholly owned by www.ColoradoPols.com, LLC
webmaster-at-coloradopols.com
Powered by: SoapBlox