CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 17, 2009 01:45 AM UTC
42 Comments
And thank you!
This is a perfect example of why it is so important to have diversity in our elected officials!
is why isn’t every other member of Congress saying the same thing. This isn’t a gay issue, this is basic human rights and crap like DOMA demeans us all.
that Obama shouldn’t be U-turning himself on DOMA, but at the same time, I have a hard time with the idea that marriage is a basic human right. I mean, what is it that makes it a fundamental right? Are countries without an institutionalized version of marriage somehow immoral? I don’t buy it.
But, truly, bully for Rep. Polis. I’m glad to see my congressman standing up for some consistency and sanity.
If you said only heterosexuals could do the hokey-pokey then that would be the issue. It’s not allowing a group of people equality based on what they are.
.
David, get some rest and try again in the morning. You’re having trouble with the concept of “civil right.”
.
It’s like the rule that women cannot have combat roles in the military (yeah, that’s happening). Basically what they are asking for is an increased chance of being killed – but it’s basic equality and that restriction also should be lifted.
but freedom from discrimination based on a number of factors is.
DOMA flies in the face of the fundamental notion that all Americans should be treated equally by our laws.
And when you boil it down, from a legal standpoint, marriage is nothing more than a contract between two people. By entering into this contract, these two people make certain committments to one another and, in return, receive some shared benefits which may or may not be financially advantageous.
It is absolutely absurd that two poeple should be legally barred from entering into such a contract solely because they happen to be of the same gender.
a civil right – the same as say “freedom of speech?’
No.
However, when one thing is taken for granted by the majority and denied to the minority, that is a question of rights. The minority has the right to the same government services (in this case contracts) as the majority.
If the federal government were to get out of the marriage business completely and not grant anybody any special rights no matter what union – that would still result in equal treatment.
Unequal treatment based on an inborn characteristic is a denial of rights – no matter if the right is an “inalienable.”
.
As you know, Justin, I support DOMA and oppose gay marriage.
From that perspective, I’d love to see DOMA opponents spin their wheels on the “civil right” argument. I don’t think that’s a fight you can win.
But overturning DOMA, that has a lot more potential/ vulnerability. Attacking it head-on makes me nervous.
Why don’t you take up a time-consuming hobby, or watch more TV ? Your thinking poses a much greater threat to my worldview than David, who is getting tripped up in circular arguments. I’d rather have him out in front on this than you.
.
relating to gay rights and gay equality. You keep invoking the word of God and the Church as infallible and as an excuse not to recognize the equality of your fellow GLBT citizens.
However, as I read your post tonight, I am deeply saddened by what you write. You say that I should not involve myself in politics or that I should watch TV, because the arguments I make for equality are so strong that they could change the tide.
As you keep wishing for perpetual inequality of GLBT citizens I want you to think not of the wealthy, white power players like Joe Solmonese that are the face of the gay civil rights movement, or even of me, a young recent college graduate (sidenote: anybody out there hiring?) who has come to terms with his sexuality. These people, myself included, have developed strong philosophical, political, and in some cases religious arguments for why we are equal and deserve to be treated so.
Think instead of young boys and girls in the Church and in your community. Many people first recognize their homosexuality (or transgendered orientation) at a young age, and, no matter what you would like to think, it cannot be changed, only hidden. Instead of growing up loving themselves and God, they are driven to hatred and self-loathing. They violently deny their desires and their true selves so as not to bring the disapproval of the church upon themselves. This drives most into deep depression and some to suicide. This harm can be irrevocable, scarring those that survive for a lifetime.
Next time you get on this blog and argue that gays are not equal and deserve unequal treatment. Don’t think of me, who will always be ready and willing to counter your arguments. Think instead of a young boy or girl, just starting to come out and accept themselves, until they see what you write – a reminder of the shame and disapproval some communities will heap on them. Think of them, and the irreversible damage that your words can have.
“It takes no compromising to give people their rights. It takes no money to respect the individual. It takes no survey to remove repressions.”
Harvey Milk, in a 1973 speech during his first unsuccessful run for supervisor
.
I don’t want a person who is just starting to realize that they might be homosexual to get depressed or to try to kill themselves.
.
I don’t recall quoting scripture concerning gay marriage. I can’t think of where that would be addressed in the Bible. But if I did, I’ll retract that.
I don’t suggest a homosexual isn’t a full, complete human being. A child of God, beloved. Maybe I have, but I would have been wrong. You are my equal, in that respect. You have equality in status.
But this isn’t about equality. It is about compelling me to agree that a “gay marriage” is a marriage. I don’t agree. You want the government to force me to agree. I don’t want the government to force me to agree.
My belief that homosexual acts are sinful acts, you know where that comes from. It is in scripture somewhere, and the Catholic Church teaches that clearly. I name you “sinner!”
But I name myself the same. I don’t care to get into specifics, but I carry around a lot of anger about things that happened a long time ago, things I could have done something about and didn’t. That, too, separates me from letting God love and bless me, which is the essence of sin.
You have the right to marry today. “Marriage” be definition, by DOMA, would mean to a woman. You don’t want to marry.
Instead, you want society to agree that a homosexual relationship can be the basis of a marriage, and it just can’t, no matter how hard you wish for it, or how many people wish for it, or how many young people are raised without actually being taught the mores of the culture from whence they came.
You are not seeking equality, you want a new right, a right that is contrary to nature.
Suppose you were formally given the “right” to float off the surface of the Earth in defiance of gravity. You still couldn’t do it, even if you had a framed certificate granting you the right.
I better stop before my rambling gets any more unintelligible.
.
Yet God, in the Bible, clearly didn’t address a troglodyte like you using a computer to spew hate. Clearly that’s contrary to nature.
And somehow your words appear on my screen, even though, no matter how much you want to think you are using a computer, you aren’t, because God didn’t address it in the Bible.
Yes, I think you better stop rambling. Your logic is selective. Your brain is broken.
Extention of equality for gays is not “forcing” you to do anything. And unless you can make the case of homosexuality being against nature without leaning on a religious crutch, I’d suggest retracting that statement. Talk about your illogical arguments…
There are plenty of marriages I don’t agree with. Yet the government “forces” me to acknowledge they exist. Big deal.
If I’m reading your argument correctly, you are basically saying that there exists a civil right to equality of government services (which is a good wording for marriage rights). And I have no problem with that, but I would have a hard time classifying that as a basic human right, as many gay rights groups do.
The right to love your mate the same as straight folk have — I’d say that’s as basic a human right as food, shelter and digital cable on demand.
Define basic human right.
Right to free speech – important only if there is a government (or other entity) with power to deny speech.
Right to self-determination – important only if there is a government (or other entity) with the power to determine your life circumstances.
Right to equal treatment before the government – can only be important if there is a government to provide services.
Would you classify the first two as basic human rights and the third as not? They all relate to government interaction in our lives.
I define a human rights as those most fundamental rights that are based on human essence, not existence. Since I also believe that human essence is our ability to freely make choices, I think the only true human right is the right to freedom of informed entry to/exit from a group or society.
I realize this is not widely accepted and rather contentious. It stems largely from the work of Chandran Kukathas, political theorist from the London School of Economics if you’re interested at all.
And I agree that at some level this is just semantics, but I think it is an important distinction to make nonetheless. If marriage is a civil right rather than a human right, then the government is morally endowed to grant this right or not. Since the argument for gay marriage is largely one of moral equality, I think its moral standing (human vs. civil right) is very important indeed.
I’m glad to see Polis isn’t afraid to buck his party’s line on a lot of issues. He has a pleasantly surprising independent streak.
if he would put his money where his mouth is and pull his sponsorship of the Democratic National Committee Gay Fundraiser, of which he is one of three sponsors.
Considering that this story has now broken nationally and four high profile figures have dropped out, including the Human Rights Campaign, I find the timing of Polis’s press release somewhat suspect.
You would be correct in your finding, but stay tuned.
same bat gaydar channel!!!
🙂
.
will they just drop out of politics ?
Will they start supporting the Constitution Party ?
the Libertarian party ?
What do Polsters think ?
.
…I bet they could take over the Republican party. The few remaining theocrats would leave in disgust.
I don’t think it really matters whether the GLBT community leaves or not – change can be forced from within or on the outside
BTW – I’m very proud of the Log Cabin movement within our good Party – there’s a lot of progressive Republicans, like myself, that are working to secure full civil rights for all
And well done for my Congressman!!!! We’re behind you 110% Congressman Polis!
progressive Republicans working to secure full civil rights for all, but if you keep nominating and working to elect candidates like Bob Schaffer, Bob Beauprez, Doug Lamborn and Marilyn Musgrave you are not helping the cause one iota…
for myself, but I no longer give to the DNC since Gov. Kaine was elected chair (he’s horrible on gay rights).
I support specific candidates based on their votes and campaign promises. If a democratic elected official screws up, I let them know about it.
For instance, Sen. Moe Keller (D), who is my state senator, came out in support of the constitutional amendment defining marriage as between only a man and a woman. I called her at her home (she publishes her home phone number in her campaign literature) and read her the riot act. When Ken Salazar was running for re-election as Attorney General, he stated he was opposed to gays and lesbians being allowed to adopt children. I called his campaign office and registered my disgust…I did not vote for his reelection and instead voted for the Green Candidate. Both Keller and Salazar changed their positions of those issues (not because of me, I’m sure, but I’m pretty confident they received other calls from gay rights supporters).
I have not left and will not leave the party…the Democratic Party is still the best chance for achieving some semblence of equality. Gays and our supporters can make more of a change within the party than from outside of it.
We’ll give our money to groups like Lamda Legal who are fighting daily for GLBT rights instead of supporting the politicians who are taking no steps on the issue.
With millions of dollars annually coming from gay donors – that could have some impact.
right, like where are they going to go? empty threats….
…I hope they come to our Party
Just an FYI. Just a user that for whatever reason, chose that name as his UID. He’s been around here for awhile. Senator Johnson does post here occasionally and it’s under another UID than this one.
http://coloradopols.com/showCo…
I really thought this was someone else by some of his later comments, perhaps a staffer.
when Steve had his heart incident, he came to Pols to thank everyone for their well wishes and to give a brief update of how he was. I don’t see that in his comments, which again makes me wonder if there is someone posing as him on this site. Then again, I could totally be wrong.
http://coloradopols.com/showCo…
We don’t have to go anywhere. We can stay home with our votes and our money.
Would I go to the Republican Party? Not as long as your party not only welcomes hateful bigots like Musgrave, Lamborn, Limbaugh, Scott Renfroe and Dave Schultheis but actually seems to relish their support…hell no.
But we are not talking about an either/or situation. We can refuse to support those on your side of the aisle who have built their careers on political gay bashing while simply punishing those on our side of the aisle who put our issues on the back burner.
My vote is not an “entitlement” to either party.
And, quite frankly, with your flippant attitude towards voters, I am surprized you are elected to anything.
.
I’d hate to see them overtake the Constitution Party, but they are the only organized party that you can bank on to support “gay marriage.”
Honestly, my heart skipped a beat when I read the line about being elected to any office. I thought that this was in reply to my post at Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 21:16:36 PM MDT. I am no more electable than Harold Stassen, who ran for President about a dozen times.
.
on some points, but I have a real problem with several of their positions. For instance, they are opposed to government aid to folks with disabilities, opposed to public education, and would likely close down the local fire and police departments.
Incidentally, they are not all that supportive of “gay marriage”…in fact, they are more likely to oppose government sanctioning of any marriages—straight, gay, or any other configuration. They are nothing if not consistant….
No, I’ll most likely stay a democrat and just be much more of a pain in the ass at the caucuses and continue being selective in my voting at general election time.