U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
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) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
December 30, 2005 09:00 AM UTC
37 Comments
We have some old fashioned Nazi’s here in CO!
http://www.defendcoloradonow.org/index.html
( You can also read it on White Revolution ” Defend Colorado Now and Defend Colorado Now – Stormfront White Nationalist Community) – in a search of Yahoo.
This and Gay Marriage Bans… its a state for Blue Eyed and Blonde Haired Men! TRAGIC… One day we will move out from the Stone Age!
hey, didn’t you know? if gays are allowed to marry, Nazis will return riding on dinosaurs.
I’ve gotten hate literature tossed into my yard in a plastic bag weighted with rocks. (obviously the deliverer was driving as fast as possible to avoid being id’d) Hispanic neighbors have had their vehicles vandalized numerous times – and the local police just shrug and say ‘Freedom of Speech’. Yeah Right. Don’t think for ONE SECOND that local law enforcement isn’t totally complicit with this activity. Stand up to it and you’ll come home to a smoking foundation and a fire department wringing it’s hands and crying alligator tears.
Colorado = the New Reich. NOW KNEEL AND PREY!… er PRAY!!!
So, if you’re not in favor of homosexual marriage, you’re a Nazi? Great logic, boys. Goebbels would be proud.
oh voyageur! It’s from a TV show, “Drawn Together” on Comedy Central–where they have the “first gay marriage for the insurance”.
Ah, Voyageur…
From Wikipedia, “Godwin’s Law (also Godwin’s Rule of Nazi analogies) is an adage in Internet culture that was originated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states that:
“As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
“Although the law does not specifically mention it, there is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.
“It is considered poor form to arbitrarily raise such a comparison with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil that any such deliberate invocation of Godwin’s Law will be unsuccessful.”
You lept too soon, dude. The argument was just getting started.
:-]
No you are a Nazi if you support Defend Colorado Now… Search it on Yahoo. Look at the names that come up of people reposting press releases
No you are a Nazi if you support Defend Colorado Now… Search it on Yahoo. Look at the names that come up of people reposting press releases
Demanator made the support gay marriage or you’re a nazi line in the opening post, George. I buy your argument that the first to raise the Nazi issue kills the thread, but that means this one was stillborn.
So, let’s recast. Support the Denver Broncos or you’re a Stalinist lickspittle!
That ought to draw Go Raiders out of his shell.
It is sick, this country is moving backwards not forwards. Soon we will be keeping women inside and demanding they keep sheets covering all parts but the eyes.
It is a truly sad day for Colorado when you can ban people who love each other from marriage and keeping people from civil services they need.
You’re entitled to your opinion, demanator, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a dumb one. As recently as the ’60s, homosexual acts were outlawed in every state. Now, we’re seriously discussing homosexual marriage, though at least two-thirds of Americans reject the notion, and are increasingly open to the civil union concept. If that’s moving “backward,” it is only doing so from James Dobson’s perspective.
As far as Colorado, it’s worth noting that no state has ever adopted a gay marriage law through the Democratic process. It was a judicial putsch in Massachusetts. The California lege passed one, but it conflicted with a public referendum on the point and Arnold vetoed it. So your notion that Colorado is somehow uniquely against gay marriage — and that makes us nazis — is wrong on both points. But have a nice hate anyway.
Your facts are wrong again Voyageur… it seems to be an on going trend with you. 55% to 41% ( taken from the latest poll… not two thirds.
How many states have voted to allow gay marriage? Let me think about this? only 32.5 % of the pop think the issue should be placed in states constitution. If you take the word marriage out of the poll…two thirds of people support rights for Gays.
No doubt it will pass here which is sad. We are writing hate into our state’s constitution. Not that long ago Whites were banned from marrying Blacks. We will look back at this debate in 20 years and laugh at ourselves for being so near sighted. Oh and how many Hetro Marriages Fail… Hmmm there is a good question.
Gosh, you didn’t even call me a nazi! Wimping out?
Meh, it was more pointed at the people working at Defend Colorado Now… ( one of them being Dick Lamm… ( well he is fundraising at it)
but your facts are still wrong just like you.
Don’t worry, if I see any Nazis, I’ll scratch their eyes out in your honor, demanator.
John Hickenlooper is not going to run for Governor.
Democrats who want to win and about a woman’s right to choose had best stopped day dreaming.
Get a real candidate not an illusion to run.
David Skaggs
Andrew Romanoff
Ed Perlmutter could do the party a favor and end the expensive blood bath in CD7 and run for Governor
Mark Udall could show some guts and run
Hmmm… GoHickGo is apparently in the wrong room. But, as to Nazis and same-sex marriage.
I do believe that my twenty-three year loving, devoted union with my partner, David, is as significant and worthy of Constitutional protection as any other union, gay or straight. Now, if the Catholics or the Baptists or the Muslims or the Mormons or the Seventh Day folks don’t believe in the worthiness of my and David’s commitment to one another, then that’s fine. So be it. But, the US Constitution says what it says. Let me remind Voyegeur of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Do I want to be able to be able to comfort my partner if he happens to be on his death bed in a hospital? Of course I do.
Do I want my partner to be able to inherit my paltry worth when I pass on? Of course I do.
Do I want to be able to make decisions about my partner if he is debilitated and unable to make decisions for himself? Of course I do.
Do I believe the precious forsight of the Founding Fathers applies to me and David as well as Joe and Sue? Of course I do.
Let’s stick the Nazis back into the dark and dangerous corner from whence they came. This discussion is eminently American and the polemic is certainly one that, at the end of the day, will, I sincerely believe, provide justice and equality to all America’s citizens.
If that ain’t the case, Voyeguer, then I’m headed for South Africa or Canada or (probably most likely) Vermont.
Your side was the one that dragged in the nazis, george, from the opening post. Gay activists simply can’t argue rationally, they have to say anyone who disagrees with them is full of hate, hate, hate, and thus need to be linked with nazis.
I’m glad you have a stable partner and suggest, if you already haven’t, that you write a will, and a medical power of attorney…which will give you all the rights you claim to covet. Buy the willwriter program and get the legal standing you deserve. Hetero or bettero, you need a will and the medical power of attorney stuff. I’m much less convinced of the value of living wills, which many lawyers say leave much to be desired.
Of course, my 37 years of marriage added a couple things you overlooked…two kids and now grandchildren. I kind of think they are entitled to some protection and recognition in the law too, as well as the institution that spawned and nurtured them, our marriage.
But no doubt that just proves I’m full of hate.
I’m wondering, Voyageur, what thoughts you might have about a childless hetero couple who have been together for 37 or more years? Do they magically garner more Constitutionally protected rights than same-sex couples who have lived, struggled through the same longevity?
I thank you for the advice, and will advise that David and I have taken all necessary steps to assure that our “rights” will be protected via powers of attorney, living wills, wills, etc.
Still, I’m interested in your thoughts about childless hetero couples.
That flatlander champion of family values, the Vet from Loveland, has announced–via the Rocky–that he will be introducing another defense of marriage act legislation in the next Congress, not necessisarily because he’s a tried and true jack-booted devotee of Dubya’s insanity, but, rather, because he’s just a God-fearin’ politician who (having pledged to serve only two terms) thinks it’s kind of neat having some seniority in the Senate and, well, just might renig on his promise to serve only two terms.
What’s up with that?
voyageur – Even Living Wills do not stand up in court for Gay Couples. IE – One was just over turned and the partner was left pennyless because the family too it all.
Again… Defend Colorado Now was what I was directing the Nazi Comment at. Such as ypu search them on Yahoo White Revolution & Stormfront White Nationalist Community come up. I was bring up the point of… Banning Gay Marriage, Banning people living here of services. Seems like Hitler is on power to me. Maybe we should all wear arm bands
The reality, George, is that the only real “right” a childless heterosexual couple has that you don[‘t is the right to pay the marriage penalty when they file their taxes.
Of course, their marriage is not the equivalent of mine, they don’t have the issue. But that’s their problem, or mine, depending on your perspective. The law certainly doesn’t extend their family the same rights it does to mine because they have no children to protect. Marriage, after all, came about for a reason. That reason was to protect and nurture children. The fact that not all heterosexual couples have kids in no way cheapens or invalidates what my wife and I have built…or, for that matter, what a gay couple who acquires a child in one of the various ways that is possible can build. But adopt one, and yes, you get the same tax exemptions, and even health insurance benefits, that a hetero couple
I’m also puzzled by your affection for Vermont, which emphatically does not have gay marriage. it has civil unions, which Howard Dean, rightly, says confers all the benefits of marriage except the name. But it is precisely the name that prompted Demented to hurl the nazi epithet at anyone opposed to homosexual marriage.
As to Allard, he has never formally pledged to limit himself to two terms. I don’t like term limits and repeatedly pressed him on that point. He only said he expected to leave after two terms. Funny how evil old Washington grows on you, isn’t it?
Allard and Musgrave’s amendment, according to them, actually did allow civil unions. I have my doubts, since it limits marriage “and the legal incidents thereof” to men and women.
And, of course, even you know that saying marriage is limit4ed to men and women in no way violates the 14th amendment. If it did, we’d have had gay marriage for 130 years. Saying men can only marry women and vice versa treats all men, and all women, equally. As long as all men are banned from marrying men, they are all treated equally. I think if you’d have told Frederick Douglass he was authoring a bill to legalize Gay Marriage, he’d have thought you a madman.
Personally, I hope Allard doesn’t put the issue on the table and that Colorado doesn’t either. I think the people should have the right to approve gay marriage, if they should ever decide to do so. That’s very different than saying that unelected judges should force it down the throats of people who are denied any voice in the democratic process on the matter, as happened in Massachusetts. And it sure doesn’t mean that anyone who questions gary marriage is a nazi.
Methinks Allard just wants to fire up the GOP base again. I wish he wouldn’t, but right-wingers have rights, too, even if Dementor doesn’t believe that.
Demanator, your comment is confusing, you refer to “living wills” being tossed out and leaving a partner penniless. You mean ordinary, leave your property to your dog wills? Living wills just say “if I’m brain dead and hooked to a ventilator, either pull the plug or send me to Congress, where that’s the norm”
Or did you mean a medical power of attorney, where a gay partner lost out to a family in deciding course of treatment?
Voyageur –
Unfortunately, there are many more rights and responsibilities that come with the legal definition of marriage than just the few mentioned here. In fact, there are over 1000 different references to marriage/spouse in federal law.
It’s not just tax filing status – it’s taxation on health insurance for partners, it’s no social security survivor benefits – the list goes on and on.
Marriage was not originally designed to protect and nurture children. It was a means of transferring property. To pretend that it has always held some sanctimonious place in society is rewriting history for the convenience of your argument.
All in all – marriage is a legal, civil contract. One that is disolved by going before one of those “activist judges” you cite. Note, you don’t go to church to get divorced!
That said, marriage is an important word – because of it’s legal definition. Civil unions aren’t the answer. Seperate but equal doesn’t work – because it’s never really “equal.” unless everyone (straight or gay) gets their civil union from the Gov’t and their marriage from their chosen faith.
That’s politically correct, more, but dead wrong. Assume that no marriage, under whatever name, ever had children. There would be no Society, indeed, no human race. To say marriage didn’t evolve to protect and nurture children is just stupid. And I’ve heard the 1,000 rfeference before, it’s from the gay doxology, but it is basically irrelevant and, if you were honest, you’d admit that. Your effort to force all unions into a gay template is simply ludicrous, and helps explain why the public rejects your plan every time it is given a chance to do so.
You imply that since we have kids, marriages must be the reason; don’t know where that logic came from, but it’s off-point…
Marriages have been many things, but the legal transfer of “property” (wife and dowry) is the primary historical purpose of the compact. No part of the marriage compact includes “be fruitful and multiply, and take care of your offspring”, or at least I don’t remember that in any of the vows I’ve seen or taken.
Hey
Hick is not going to run
Democrats need to realize that it is morning and Hick was nothing but a wet dream.
Ritter loses
Democrats need to recruit someone
Ed Perlmutter.
End the divisive primary in the seventh.
David Skaggs. Andrew Romanoff.
That DA from Pueblo.
Someone please some Democrat run for Governor.
OK, the radical gay lobby has convinced me. The sole legitimate function of marriage is to formalize homosexual relationships. The entire history of human society to the contrary is irrelevant, and only people without children are worthy of having their relationships sanctified.
Gosh, life is simple when you’re an ideologue.
Have a happy, everyone.
Voyageur, man you gave it a hell of a fight. Just want to let you know that I believe you are right. Of course I get scorned for speaking my mind alot because I’m not a liberal.
Some people will not admit they just want to be politically correct no matter what the issue is about.
I can see you were getting tired of argueing. Good run though.
Jeez, this thread has it all today.
I am reminded of the Southpark Episode featuring Big Gay Al and the Big Gay Animal Sanctuary..
“Christians, Republicans, and Nazi’s… Oh My!”
Personally speaking I am against Gay Marriage, and in favor of Gay Civil Unions. Personally I would prefer it if Marriages were performed by churches and the Union was the official governmental act.. this would take all of the conjecture out of it… however that would make this thread much less amusing as there would be very little to fight about.
And just to annoy everyone here… I predict the Broncoes will lose in the playoffs.
Go Raiders…..you’re the man…………!
My $.02 on gay marriage:
Marriage from a legal standpoint is nothing more than a contract between two people. It has always struck me as unfair to disallow two people from entering into that contract just because they happen to be the same gender.
“Civil Unions” are nothing more than a use of semantics to try to get some form of the legal contract I mentioned above. However, so far civil unions have not given the same level of protection and access as legal marriage so it is merely “marriage-light” as far as I am concerned.
Holy Matrimony is a different animal altogether and is strctly between a person and his/her faith. The government has no business being involved in it anymore that a clergy member has been involved with dictating who may or may not enter a legal marriage.
I prefer the European system of marriage. Nearly ever country requires the civil registration of a marriage top be kept totally separate form the religious ceremony. If the participants want a religious service they are welcome to have one. However, a priest cannot marry anyone on his own authority without the civil registration happening first.
Call it what you want, just don’t call it “marriage”.
I support Defend Colorado Now. I guess I’m a Nazi. Sieg Heil, you f***ing Stalinist!
Oh yeah!
GO BRONCOS
Yup, typical liberal… If the Europeons do it, it must be good.
Hows that French Immigration policy working out for them???
I take umbridge at being called “typical”. (smile)
I actually know very little about Euopean govermental policies. I happen to know marriage laws there very well because it affects my hobby as a genealogist.
Hey, bisexuals need two marriages to each sex to express fully their love and their sexuality. Privileging monogamy marginalizes bisexuals!
(How long before somebody seriously makes *this* argument in a campaign, I wonder?
Goodness, I guess I should have stayed around a bit longer yesterday. Ya’ll really had it out.
Cute comment, Kevin. But, hell, no reason to be serious about this hot button issue, is there? Why, there’s even a voice in the Colorado Legislature who believes in the Oh My God domino theory that once queer folk get to marry, then the horse lovers are gonna want to marry their horses and the dog lovers are gonna want to marry their dogs and on and on until, by golly, marriage just won’t mean anything to anybody any more.
Now, that’s a knee slapper for sure!
Voyegeur, Vermont is a pretty place. I like Maine, too. And, the “nazi” thing which you attributed to “…my side…” Please understand that the word “nazi” is not part of my lexicon of argument. Witness my Godwin’s law spiel near the beginning of this thread.
Anyway, Happy New Year!