U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Michael Bennet
50%
50%
50%
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) Brian Mason
60%↑
30%↑
20%↓
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%↑
30%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 26, 2006 08:00 AM UTC
18 Comments
I’m proud to be related to 2 gay married aunts. They’re just like every other married couple I’ve ever known. What’s the beef? They work hard, pay taxes, fight about the petty contrivences of households everywhere, and aren’t out to molest children or indoctrinate new gay members. In my mind, to say they can’t be married by constitutional decree is at its core discriminatory.
Why not this: You can enter a civil union with whomever you like, to satisfy the conditions of the state and the law. [Note emphasis on “whomever”, not “whatever”. I’m firmly opposed to marrying livestock.] Then, if you need to further validate your union in the eyes of whatever God you prefer, go to a church/temple/shrine of your choice. Just throwin’ it out there.
That’s exactly how I feel, Mythical. The reason this issue has gotten so loaded is that a complex set of legal (i.e., civil) relations and (for many people) a religous sacrament have been joined in this single institution of “marriage.” I think separating the two as you suggest is exactly the answer. Let the state sanction whatever civil unions two consenting adults want to enter into, on whatever non-discriminatory conditions it wants to impose, and let churches sanction whatever marriages they want to.
Thanks brio. With this in mind, why shouldn’t we then insist on a ban of conservative republican marriage? I mean, I don’t have the “facts”, or “evidence”, but I know it in my “heart” to be true: Conservative republican marriage just results in depravity, meth labs, and impure relations with Canadien geese. Plus, the only reason they insist on getting married is to cheat the system, and let the rest of us pay for it, y’know? I saw two conservative republicans kissing the other day. How am I supposed to explain this to my nephew? Why must they insist on “ramming it down my throat”?
Nothin’ like having your life used as a political football….
I wouldn’t go that far, Mythical, but there is some evidence that conservatives are a threat to the sanctity of marriage. I’ve seen the results of more than one study which showed that the rates of divorce and domestic abuse are higher in red states and states with higher percentages of evangelicals than in blue states and states with lower percentages of evangelicals. Kinda makes one wonder.
So what is the deal about possibly 4 ballot issues in regards to gay marriage. Colorado leads the way on a lot of issues, but I think 4 sets a new record.
The other thing is this, these ballot issues are going to have a lot of money thrown at them. No matter which side you’re on, there is a huge amount of money on both sides to spend. Through out the national spending, which will be huge, and Colorado has a lot of very red, and very blue. Both Boulder and Denver have liberial tendancies and some powerful gay groups. Colorado Springs is a huge conservative bastin and Focus on the Family will be huge on this. Contrast their powerful group with the Gill Foundation and you are setting up a battle of the titans.
Give me a break brio. Now you’re saying only Democrats have marriages that last. Only liberals, Democrats, and gays have a decent chance at having a marriage/union last and/or lesser chance of abuse.
BS.
Actually, I didn’t say that Gecko. Lighten up. I am saying that there is evidence that the very social groups that are most vocal about the need to protect marriage have have the highest rates of divorce, and that I find that interesting.
Gecko, unfortunately, subscribes to the notion that a hypocritical devotion to “American” values leads to something meaningful, something profound with regard to the gay marriage issue. His conclusion, “BS,” is typical of one who neither understands the issue or subscribes to a legitimate argument in opposition to gay unions. Or, indeed, perhaps he supports gay unions. “BS,” doesn’t give one much information of where the Gecko stands. One does know, however, that Gecko avoided service to his country (armed forced) because, “…his number wasn’t called.” Gecko relied upon the draft (Vietnam) to determine his ultimate devotion to his country. Many of us didn’t even give a second thought to the likliehood of our number being called when we volunteered (YES, GECKO, VOLUNTEERED!) to serve in the armed forces during the Vietnam conflict.
Gecko’s opinion is, of course, as valid as anyone elses. But, when it comes to issues that roil the essence of this country’s fundamental promises (liberty and justice for all!) then, I’m sorry, “…BS…” just doesn’t work, just doesn’t make the cut, as it were.
Well George not all of us were born and raised with complete and total liberal attitudes. I’m not going to say I’m sorry and I also don’t care if you or anyone else likes it or not. Where I grew up in the far suburbs of Chicago I never even saw a black person or Mexican except for on TV, until I actually went into the city of Chicago. Gays were something never even mentioned or known about until in 1973 when the radio announced that David Bowie was bi-sexual.
So excuse me for being born in a sheltered existence. But no matter what you say, I still find it deep down wrong. That is something that I can not and will not and don’t have to change. I was raised that way. So to cut me down is to cut my folks down. And since they are both dead, stay out of it.
And as for the service, you are saying that myself and millions of others that didn’t volunteer are less a people than you.
Bullshit. You don’t know me. You have no idea how giving I am to my family and friends and co-workers. Your attitude is one of someone trying to look down their nose at others.
By the way, the fucking Vietnam war was over before I turned 18. Was I supposed to lie and quit school to join just so I could be as good as you?
Take a chill pill. I didn’t do anything against you, but if it is an arguement you want, I’ll bite.
Ok, Gecko, but that’s exactly the same kind of reasoning used in the 50s to justify keeping interracial marriage illegal — it’s deep down wrong, and it’s how we were raised so why change. I’m assuming you agree that that was a morally flawed position to take, so how in your mind do you distinguish interracial marriage from gay civil unions (notice I’m not saying gay marriage; I get that churches have a particular argument about their belief systems, and I’m willing to grant them that)?
Pointdexter
I see your reasoning and your comparison is noteworthy. But no matter what I still find that lifestyle wrong. I do not go out of my way to make bones about it but it is wrong. And I’m not religous so I have nothing to do with Focus or any of the rest of them.
Gays can do what ever their little hearts desire as long as they don’t try to rub their lifestyle in my face. But I’m thinking pro gay rallies is rubbing it in our faces. Same as the immigrant rally waving Mexican flags in the USA is rubbing it in our faces.
I don’t take kindly to people expecting my to bow down to their desires and wants.
I stand on my own, I ask for nothing, and I expect nothing.
I have never asked the government for aid, assistance, or even un-employment compensation…Ever. And never will.
Fair enough, Gecko — I have my own attitudes from my childhood that are hard to unlearn, or that I don’t wish to. But do you actually thinking asking for equality under the law (the ability to leave property to one another in wills, to visit one another in hospitals, to share parental responsibilities of children even if one perishes) is “rubbing it in our faces?” I don’t think the two are equal at all. That’s all the civil unions law is about. It astounds me that the gay and lesbian couples I know who’ve been living together 10 and 20 years don’t have those protections unless they spend beaucoup bucks on a lawyer (and even then unscrupulous families could try to challenge those arrangements after death), whereas Brittany Spears gets them because she got drunk in Vegas over the weekend. Talk about an unearned government handout. . .
Gecko, I was raised on a farm south of Chicago. Same story for me–no one of color lived in our community. College was my ticket to diversity. Until then, a sheltered farm girl, truly.
I respect your point of view, although I don’t agree with it. It is difficult to overcome a mindset that one is raised with and I say that from personal experience.
My biggest problem is that I find it incomprehensible that gay couples do not have the most basic rights under the law, particularly to make decisions about their partners where their health is concerned, to be able to leave someone your property when you die because your family can take it away from your partner, even if you’ve been together 50 years. It just seems fundamentally wrong to me to deny anyone the basics and do so because of their sexual orientation. I look at it as government intruding into someone’s bedroom. Privacy is a basic right, particularly privacy in your own home and in your own relationships.
I would be sickened if my boyfriend, who has power of attorney in my personal affairs, could be superceded by my family. I chose him for a reason and I think most people in relationships do the same.
Poindexter
I was involved in some long arguements several months ago about this. Although I do not agree with their lifestyle I do believe that gays should be able to enter into legal binding unions. I do not believe said unions should be called “marriages”, but I would not raise a finger to try and stop them from getting legal “union” rights.
That is all I have ever tried to say.
But you have to admit, many of the pro-gay rallies are just a way for many to flaunt their lifestyle. To rub it in our faces as it were……..
I agree with you about marriages versus unions; actually, I agree with Brio and MLG that the state should get out of the marriage business altogether and only license civil unions.
But I see the gay rallies a bit differently than you do. I also grew up in a very conservative environment, and work for a religiously affiliated institution now. I saw quite a lot of homophobia then and now, and saw the effects of homophobia then and now (as in, some of my good friends were perennially harassed, threatened, two were physically assaulted, another was fired, etc.). I’ve also had more than a couple gay and lesbian friends who don’t come out to family, or friends or coworkers, for a long time (sometimes never), and I’ve seen how unbelievably stressful it is to go through life like that. And with what I know of the gay rights movement (the Stonewall riots starting because gays were sick of being rousted and arrested by police on a nightly basis simply because they were in a gay bar), I see the riots as people finally having a safe space to be playful, with enough of them together in public that they don’t have to hide or be self-conscious. I see them as celebratory.