President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
50%
50%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 12, 2007 06:46 PM UTC
47 Comments
the state senate is to hear SB 07-025 today which will expand current Colorado employment anti-discrimination laws to include Sexual Orientation.
Here’s hoping it passes….
leave any time to rearrange the furniture.
That’s a busy 2:00-2:30 pm schedule
to “be fabulous”? LOL.
and it’s exhausting:)
Made me laugh !
For a site that scorned me by saying they always stick to issues dealing strictly with Colorado politics, I sure can ask the above question a lot……..
Um, given that it is state SENATOR Renfroe claiming the existence of a homosexual agenda while talking about pending legislation (I wonder if it’s different than the “radical” homosexual agenda I’ve also heard about?), this IS a political discussion, albeit with a lighter touch.
I like that bmenezes, very funny.
A lot of scorn has been heaped on real conservatives like Marilyn Musgrave and Scott Renfroe for their support of the family. You may laugh, but you are just the unwitting tool of the anti-family agenda.
That’s why we need to maintain the support of pro-family leaders like Don Wildmon and Lou Sheldon for the Real Republicans in Colorado!!!!
Visit http://www.tradition… today!!!
is one, ephemeral form of a very elastic, very adaptive institution that needs no “protection” from people who don’t understand the nature of human history (i.e., constant change). Why is that modern conservatives claim to love “laissez faire,” but can’t seem to let anything be?
We’re not anti-family.
http://www.tradition… really is a piece of shit ! Thanks for sharing !
I’m pro-family too. But I’ve read the scientific research and know that two parents are best. Period. Mother and father, father and father, mother and mother… kids do better in all these environments than in single-parent households. So Dems, don’t be afraid to say you’re pro-family too.
Love makes a family.
Sorry buddy, I have to respectfully disagree with you. It takes more than love to make a family. It’s not that vague
Yes, my beautiful, intelligent niece has two mommies.
My sister became pregnant 16 years ago by a gay coworker, don’t know if he held his nose or the turkey baster got thrown out later, what does it matter?
Yes, Sarah went through a number of years trying to understand what her family was about as she compared it to others, but that’s history now.
Sarah is a 4.0 AP senior in HS. She has four doting grandparents, a father who will make sure she has a top notch college education, and two protective uncles.
My sister’s partner (same first name, of all things)is part of our family, period. Just like my granddaughter from my first daughter’s husband’s first marriage. She is family.
Meanwhile, one cousin just had his third marriage, his wife’s fourth. Another cuz on his third, too. But these families would be just fine with you, right?
So what do you have against love and family?
That’s how I’m going to take you last sentance because I’m sure you don’t think that I have anything against “love and family”. Such an assertion, if it were serious, would be completely ridiculous and I think I know you better than that.
Here’s what I think about family. It’s something that my church put out and I agree with it 100%. I would greatly appreciate you read the entire document before responding.
http://www.lds.org/l…
It was under mine….so I assumed. You know what they say about assuming….
Sometimes the indents can get mighty long and hard to follow.
And I want to be clear, you agree with this 100%? Because what I see is a call for government backed discrimination. You can ignore this post if you like, but I would really like to know the reasoning behind your agreement. Is it because Mr. Hinckley is the current prophet? Is it purely from a faith standpoint that you line up behind this, for lack of a better term, faith based claptrap?
the LDS has a long history of discrimination. The lifted this exclusion eventually—it just takes the right “prophet” being appointed.
http://www.jefflinds…
Correct me if I’m wrong but did not the Church of Latter Day Saints – the Mormons cut a political deal in the 1880’s and 1890’s to change their theological tenet that plural marriages were not only acceptable to God but part of God’s plan just for the expedient of getting Utah admitted as a state?
The church did change it’s views on polygamy back then. Sure, there’s speculation as to whether or not is was political, but it’s all speculation. When I find someone that was there, I’ll let you know.
I would have to be a real spineless jerk to post something like that here and no expect it to be questioned. As long as the questioning is done respectfully, I promise to give you an honest answer! 🙂
Yes, I agree with it. I would agree with it even if it wasn’t produced by our church. I line up with it as a faith standpoint, but not because it’s the mormon standpoint.
If that’s discrimination, than I guess it’s discrimination. I don’t view it that way, but that’s my opinion. I don’t refuse friendship or change my views of a person based on their sexual orientation. However, I don’t think that gay marriage should be accepted. I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Your church is under no obligation to bless a gay marriage nor is mine (F.Y.I., Roman Catholic…..albeit, I’m of the cafeteria Catholic variety).
The First Amendment guarantees churches that perrogative. We’re talking about the right to a CIVIL ceremony which simply a government agency-issued license.
If a church wants to limit marriage to one man and one woman for one life time (as the Catholic Church does), that’s its business.
If a church wants to limit marriage to one man and one woman at one time (as most Protestant denominations do), that’s its business.
People need to recognize the fact that there are ceremonial (also known as religious) marriages, and civil marriages in this country.
It’s the civil marriage that counts. It’s what grants all the rights enjoyed by married people.
still and yet, here in America. That doesn’t mean that it is a moral position or withstands ethical scrutiny. Don’t forget your very similarly justified position of your church and blacks for almost two hundred years. Someday, one of your prophets will catch up with the rest of society.
At the risk of sounding un-humble, some religions do lead and not follow. The Quakers were the first to “make” women the equal of men, right at the founding 350 years ago. The first religious body to denounce slavery in America. And, I think, the first to acknowledge homosexual relationships.
We have a few in our meeting and all I see are loving, contributing, caring women. (Full disclosure: I wish one of them was straight! Ha ha.)
As Ghandi said (paraphrasing), “Escuse me, I must catch up with my people, they think I’m their leader.”
In thirty years, we will be so over this discussion. Our grandchildren will be amazed it even took place.
I am not posting this with a disparaging flip off of your faith Haners, but as facts to be put on the table.
Will probably be over in thirty years, I believe you’re right. If the government determines that it’s ok, I will respect that, but I will still believe that it’s wrong. It’ll be the next abortion issue. People will still believe that it’s wrong, but will accept it as law.
That the folks against a “new” idea, or the next generation, seldom carry on the battle. Yeah, a few folks still believe that “the South will rise again”, but so far, hot air.
What is generally called “liberalism” is the march of history. Our nation was founded on principles decidedly liberal for the era,and called so many times by the Founding Fathers. As I recall, you too are a renter; once we could not have voted, now we can. Ditto for women. Ditto for minorities.
I don’t know who said this, but it’s pretty accurtate:
Q: What’s the difference between a liberal and a conservative?
A: Oh, fifty, sometimes a hundred years.
Conservatives have “always” fought progress, then find themselves riding the same train a generation or two later.
Give up now, save your energy! Ha ha, just kidding.
Not a chance! 🙂
Sorry, I’m a believer. When it comes to say…tax issues, or something like that, I’ll admit when I think I’m wrong. I just don’t think I’m wrong on this one. Everything else may change, but not this. The day I think that gay marriage is right is the day I stop believing in God.
Anyway, I am glad we’ve been able to discuss this on a semi-civil level.
I think it is quite rude of you to pipe off about how you feel about two complete strangers getting married.
Why, exactly, is it any of your business whom I marry? You certainly didn’t consult with me about your choice of spouse and I wouldn’t be so bold as to offer my opinion be it invited or not. Frankly, I couldn’t give a shit who you marry/divorce/screw or anything else. It doesn’t concern me unless it is me you are doing it with.
Fifty years ago your predecessors in the conservative movement were quite vocal in your opposition to interracial marriages. It took a Supreme Court descision (and several years) to shut (most of) them up. Hopefully we will get the same.
Change?
Social Progress?
You can’t stop it, although these last 6 years have been a challenge for those of us who believe in equality and justice.
You go right ahead and believe anything you want…that’s protected by that liberal First Amendment thingy. You go right ahead and let other people tell you what to think, especially if they confirm your own fears or prejudices. That’s always been a lot easier than thinking for yourself.
Look, I grew up in the fifties and sixties, and there was NO worse epithets than “Fag” or “Queer.” Gay still meant happy and exuberant. It took a lot of years of living, of finding out friends that I loved and respected were queer, of having a sister that is different. It hasn’t been an easy journey. It wasn’t a gay agenda that changed me. It was God, the same as yours, that effectively told me that homosexuals are fully human.
Forty years from now, ask your grandkids if they give a damn about “gay marriage” and the like. They’ll probably give you a “What the hell are you talking about” look.
When did I say that I view homosexuals as less than human? You show me where I said that. Right now. You tell me when I said that I fear them. Show me. Now. DO NOT say that I discriminate and do not preach to me that I’m judgemental when you have assuming things about me. Do not play that freaking game with me.
I thought we could have a level headed discussion, but that ended when you started suggesting that I am not thinking for myself, or that I have some closet fears of something that’s different than what I think is right.
I’m sorry that you had some hard journey to find out that “queers” are “fully human”. That’s never been a problem for me. If you think that I don’t view them as “human”, you haven’t listened to a word I’ve said.
I did paint you with a pretty broad brush. My apologies. Those who don’t support full civil rights for homosexuals come in a lot of stripes and I got included a lot of them. I did not mean you in particular, I was “talking” to folks taking any position other than full equality.
I would also ask that you examine why it is you don’t want homosexuals to be full participants in our society. There is something that won’t let you. Your church has every moral and legal right to not marry gays, but there is nothing that should stop them in our secular society. Separation of church and state and all that.
I re-read your post several times and frankly, I don’t see how you can take the stance that you are and then, in previous posts, take the positions you have.
Maybe becuase you are much younger and grew up in a society that already has been much more tolerant of gays that you don’t understand what it was like fifty years ago. The fact that gays are victims of crimes for nothing more than being who they are shows the rage that is still out there. I know that you aren’t one of them; on the other hand, you don’t want them to be full citizens.
I like your participation here, you are one of the more approachable, can have a discussion with, righties. Kudos.
And would like to offer one of my own. I’ve had a rough day, and may not have reacted that way under normal circumstances. Sorry. Maybe we just both needed to vent.
In all my political views that happen to coincide with my religous belief, I establish viable “non-secular” reasons why I feel the same way. I haven’t been able to do that with gay marriage. That’s why I offered the link.
I don’t have a problem with gays serving in the military, owning property, living next door, etc. In fact, I helped a gay republican get elected president of our college, and I took a lot of heat for that from other republicans.
Yeah, I’m younger….24 to be exact. I don’t know what it was like 50 years ago. Even if someone told me, I probably wouldn’t understand it. All I can say is that my disagreement on this issue has nothing to do with me hating gays. I just don’t think it’s right. Same thing with me being a Republican. I don’t hate liberals, I just think republican principles are more correct (not always, but most of the time).
Anyway, glad we could clear this up. I promise, no hard feelings. Thanks again for the tip on the BBQ place.
I have two Dem friends who don’t approve of gay marriage. Their reasons aren’t too articulate, along the lines of “It just doesn’t seem right”. If it was only a Republican issue, gay marrigae would have passed into law by now.
and head down main street Fort Morgan and pretend you care.
http://www.landoverb…
That website is hilarious ! I read some of the pastors E-mail and Betty Bowers. Good stuff.
But I’m at work…I saw enough to know I have to finish looking later! Like at home…..
And the Christian Girls Guide To Spring Break Abstinence is right up there, too 🙂
the research quoted in Sheldon’s book has been clearly proven as inaccurate years ago. Get a grip Rizzo.
After one accounts for “Gay Standard Time”, we’re lucky if even make it to “Bulldozing all places of worship”!