February 16, 2009 08:13 PM UTC

Stay Classy, Ted Harvey

•  
• by: Colorado Pols

Senate Bill 88, a bill that would grant health and dental benefits to same-sex couples employed by the state, passed committee on Friday. AP reports:

State analysts estimate that 79 people, including children, would be added to state health plans under the bill at a cost of about $116,000 a year.

The Senate Appropriations Committee voted 7-3 to back the measure.

The Christian Family Alliance of Colorado, a socially conservative group that advocates on political issues, accused two gay lawmakers sponsoring the measure of having a conflict of interest, because they could benefit…

If you thought last week’s specious, bigotry-laden smear on the bill’s sponsors was distasteful, you’re gonna love what GOP Sen. Ted Harvey had to say in response to an email from LGBT interest groups asking for his support.

Thank you for writing me about Senate Bill 88, the proposal to give health benefits to same-sex partners.

I am absolutely opposed to this bill and will never support it. Not only do homosexual partnerships violate my personal moral beliefs, they are often dangerous for the individuals involved and will lead to the degradation of society through undermining the sanctity of marriage.

The people of Colorado have voted on the issue of homosexual partnerships twice and have soundly defeated both initiatives. It is clear to me that Coloradans do not want to further the homosexual agenda any more than I do…

So, a couple of gaping logical inconsistencies to point out here:

1. This bill isn’t about “marriage,” or anything remotely close to it–it’s about health benefits. Frankly, if more inclusionary laws like this were passed, giving gays and lesbians the basic legal tools to function in modern society like anybody else, the whole cornball and intentionally polarizing issue of the “sanctity of marriage” could be sidestepped. This is what some opponents of gay marriage claim to support–as an alternative to simply looking like a bigot who not only opposes “gay marriage,” but seems genuinely interested in making gays’ personal lives as difficult as possible.

It’s a question that needs to be answered: if the bill in question is solely intended to facilitate health and dental benefits, what has it got to do with “the degradation of society?” Especially since every time you provide for these simple necessities it becomes less likely that marriage will be “undermined” by an attempt at legalizing “gay marriage” in Colorado–which is already constitutionally prohibited?

2. If #1 can be accepted, where does that leave Ted Harvey? Well, his shocking assertion that “homosexual partnerships” are “often dangerous for the individuals involved” should be your first clue as to what’s motivating him–simple, ignorant prejudice. What the hell is that supposed to even mean, anyway, except maybe to further utterly groundless Jim Welker-style stereotypes about “unsanitary gay people?”

We can’t say what motivates everyone taking part in debate over difficult issues like this one, but Ted Harvey’s motives are kind of shamefully obvious.