Anti-LGBT Parade Of Horrors Hearing Thursday

TUESDAY UPDATE: The Denver Post’s Saja Hindi:

For Rep. Stephen Humphrey, R-Severance, the legislation is about doing what he says his district expects of him. As a Christian man, that includes preserving what he views as religious freedoms. Humphrey introduced two bills that would affect LGBTQ people: House Bill 1272, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman and only allows adoptions by heterosexual couples; and House Bill 1033, which would let businesses refuse to serve LGBTQ people based on religious beliefs.

It’s a matter of “religious freedom” to outlaw marriages and families that exist happily today? That doesn’t seem like anything Jesus would do.


Rep. Shane Sandridge (R-Transphobic).

This coming Thursday afternoon in the Colorado House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee, a marathon and intestinally challenging hearing will review (and barring something bizarre and unexpected, kill) a slew of Republican-sponsored bills featuring some of the more overt discriminatory intent in any legislation we’ve seen in Colorado in recent years. A press release from LGBT advocacy group One Colorado a few days ago warned these were coming:

During the second regular session of the 72nd Colorado General Assembly, House Republicans have introduced a total of six anti-LGBTQ bills in the first three weeks of session. The most recent, introduced on February 3rd, are HB20-1273 “Equality And Fairness In Youth Sports Act” and HB20-1272 “Colorado Natural Marriage And Adoption Act.” One Colorado, the state’s leading advocacy organization for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) Coloradans and their families, released the following statements:

“This is the most aggressive slate of anti-LGBTQ legislation introduced in the past decade. [Pols emphasis] In the first few weeks of this legislative session, we have seen attacks on transgender Coloradans, same-sex parents, LGBTQ youth, and the list goes on. These bills do not represent who we are as Coloradans, and One Colorado will fight these bills every step of the way.” – One Colorado Executive Director, Daniel Ramos

“Some say it’s not the government’s role to interfere with personal liberty. Some would say this is textbook overreach. I would say it’s time to work on actual issues that improve people’s lives here in Colorado.” – Representative Alex Valdez (D-Denver), Chair of the LGBTQ Caucus

Rep. Steve Humphrey (R-Gynotician)

House Bills 20-1114 and 20-1273 both have Rep. Shane Sandridge of Colorado Springs as their primary sponsor, because apparently transgender people really keep him up at night. These bills strike at the heart of basic rights for transgender people by making pertinent medical treatments a felony if given to minors, and excluding transgender people from sports events in the event a participants gender is “disputed.” Rep. Stephen Humphrey, the GOP House minority’s leading “gynotician” sponsor of perennial abortion ban bills, is the prime sponsor of the “Colorado Natural Marriage And Adoption Act,” which says that the U.S. Supreme Court can stuff it on marriage equality–and families with children adopted by same-sex couples should be broken up.

Finally, there’s the “Live and Let Live Act,” a returning bill to “roll back protections for LGBTQ Coloradans in the areas of adoption and foster care, healthcare, housing, employment, and public spaces on the basis of religious freedom.” Back in 2018, Humphrey described this as legislation to “ensure that tolerance is a two-way street,” which we assume is an attempt to morally equate one group’s right to exist with a another group’s right to hate the first group.

There was a time, not so long ago, when at least a faction of Colorado Republicans pleaded with the wedge-issue warriors in their midst to stop these gratuitous insults and threats against a segment of the population most Americans believe should have the same rights and protections as anyone else, correctly arguing that politically it is doing more harm than good. With the GOP’s lurch right accelerating under President Donald Trump, that good advice seems more dated and forgotten than ever.

And like reproductive rights, it’s a reminder that the unthinkable is never more than one election away.


18 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. RepealAndReplace says:

    I’m guessing that the Natural Marriage Act is to provide a test case to take to the U.S. Supreme Court in the hopes that Kavanaugh goes with the dissenters in Oberfell and makes them the majority.

    You gotta love the name, Natural Marriage Act. Traditional marriages were contractual arrangements for financial and political reasons between the families. The parties to those marriages had little to no say in the deal.

    I’m guessing that they are pushing this shit so aggressively this session because they know it will go no where but it will make the nut cases in the base feel good.

  2. Arvadonian1Arvadonian1 says:

    Someone should introduce an amendment to the Natural Marriage Act to invalidate all divorces performed and any subsequent marriages by either party to the original marriage.

    Congratulations Ivana Trump…you are now the nation's first lady….at least according to Colorado.

    You want to get biblical, let's get biblical!  

    • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:


      Also, this: (apologizes if it's already been posted here) 

      Man Plans on Suing NFL Over 'Crotch Shots' Shown During Super Bowl 

      (eternal damnation, something, something. BTW, I've never seen J-Lo or Shakira negged.  That's more than I can say for FLOTUS). 

      • Diogenesdemar says:

        I’m guessing that just taking a knee might be completely out of the question?? . . .

        . . .get him booted out of his HOA and his KlanKard discount shopper card revoked?

    • JohnInDenverJohnInDenver says:

      Perhaps they could have this clip played into the record ……..

      The West Wing Bible Lesson

      Only 4 minutes or so …

    • MADCO says:

      Off the top of my head I can think of five kinds of marriage recognized in the bible

      1. Man and woman (as chattel)
      2. Man and women (as chattel)
      3. Man, woman and her slave (s) (all as chattel)
      4. Man, woman, his concubine  (s) (as chattel)
      5. Man and his brother's widow, and any combination of of 1-4

      to my knowledge, the bible doesn't absolutely prohibit divorce and is silent on the possibility of a marriage between a man and underwear model illegal immigrant

      • JohnInDenverJohnInDenver says:

        "The Bible" is a collection of writings, from a variety of eras, under a variety of forms of government, as translated, as interpreted by a wide variety of believers.  The one element I'm certain of — any single policy specific recommendation about policy that would equate to a state law is an oversimplification.

        For what it is worth … you can lots of people saying some variation of

        Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. The phrase "except for marital unfaithfulness" is the only thing in Scripture that possibly gives God's permission for divorce and remarriage.

  3. Conserv. Head Banger says:

    20-1114 makes sense in that it protects minors. Let them turn 18 and then make their own decisions.

    Back in the day, Dr. Stanley Biber down in Trinidad would not have performed a sex change on a minor. He made adults undergo heavy counseling and also made patients wait a year before he would do the operation.

    But no worries; the bills have been assigned to the kill committee.


    • notaskinnycooknotaskinnycook says:

      CHB, treatments for minors are reversible.  All any doctor will give a minor is puberty blockers. They delay physical changes (some of which are irreversible). No doctor will give an underage person cross-sex hormones, much less any surgical intervention. Multiple studies have concluded that puberty blockers alleviate acute emotional distress. 

  4. Blackie says:

    I saw something just like this on either HuffPo or Politico this morning about Tennessee doing this very same thing. And over 100 companies warning that is bad for business.

    (Fed Ex refused to sign the letter to the TN. governor about the bad business).

  5. Diogenesdemar says:

    WTF?!  Every February the GOPers drag that poor, old Assfistin’ Granny outta’ her hole, and every year it’s the same damn thing, we still have six more weeks of winter?!?! . . .

  6. CDW says:

    Could this  be a hit against Buttigieg in case his surge takes him all the way. Are other states experiencing similar movements?

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.