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 09, 2005 09:00 AM UTC
68 Comments
How much hate is enough hate to keep up their hategenda with this hatemendment?
Disgusting…
I am an agnostic so I have nothing to do with Focus on your own damn family……even though they are based in my town. But I firmly believe there should be no way two men or two women should be allowed to be “married”. I do believe that they should be allowed to enter into a “legal union” if they so desire, with the same basic rights as marriage, but we need to protect what the term “marriage” stands for. And has stood for, for what?…thousands of years? …….The union of one man and one women…..period. Think up a new name for gays. Leave MARRIAGE alone.
If we abandon the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman, what can possibly justify laws against polygamy, polyandry and group marriage? There are at least religions, Mormonism, Islam and Old Testament Judaism among them, that sanctioned a man taking more than one wife, though in Judaism that was an obligation to support the widow of a close relative. If it’s HATE to oppose every dumb idea Mr. Gill comes up with, then how can we possibly legislate against marriage between six women, four men and the occasional Gecko?
Well said, Gecko.
If we really want to defend “marriage” we should outlaw divorce.
Please remember this initiative isn’t about prohibitng gay marriage. That’s simply the subject. The initiative is about generating a wedge issues to mobilize the right wing base to increase turnout to elect their boys to local, state and national offices. Rove successfully used this tactic in 04 and it’s back in 06.
With that being the real reason, any internal disputes will be worked out early. Money to buy signitures will flow and the issue gets on the ballot. The only reason it won’t be on the ballot is if it’s determined not to be helpful in getting right wingers elected.
And, there will be other initiatives generated just to energize the base without caring if the issue itsself passes or not.
If we outlaw divorce can we outlaw cheating scum sucking spouses?
I do not see a realistic way to outlaw divorce. I could see making it tougher to get but how do you outlaw it? Cut off the dicks of cheating husbands? Sew shut the personal parts of a cheating wife?
Whether some want to admit it or not, marriage is a social contract between two individuals and the government. (Sure, it can be more then that to the two getting married, but on the bare-bones government level it is a contract giving certain benefits.)
I don’t care what they call it, but give same-sex couples the same benefits as any other couple for being monogamous.
Why doesn’t everybody just call this what it is?
Gay Bashing.
Focus on the Family isn’t concerned about the institution of marriage, they’re concerned about gays getting legalized rights and becoming more acceptable to society.
When you grant a set of rights to one group and don’t allow another group those same rights based on race, sexual orientation, etc. that’s what we call discrimination. It’s a pretty slippery slope when we start putting discrimination into the constituion.
A lot of these people look familiar, 40 yrs ago they were the same one’s claiming we had to protect the races by seperating them, they advocated for seperation of races and used that argument (along with the bible) to fight for seperate but equal schools.
Where will you let it end? First you don’t want to let them marry, what’s next?
For all the people that will follow this post with their insane ideas about how “activist judges” will ruin the world and be the cause for marriage between men and horses, polygamy, etc. I’d urge you to look at other countries that have done it recently, and you’ll notice that none of your evidence or theories rings true. The UK just decided to allow civil unions, I doubt they’ve seen a recent splurge in beastiality.
Why not drop the term marriage from any seclularly ordained union? Why should a judge, sea captain, justice of the peace, Elvis impersonator or magistrate be allowed to perform a marriage? Let them all perform secular unions recognized by the state. Marriages, that is, unions blessed by some religious authority, can be performed by ordained Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Druids, Taoists, Animists, etc. Based on the dogma of each belief certain couples can be refused a marriage. The state union would be a secular contract between two consenting adults.
Demento – Sounds good to me.
I’m with Demento on this one. Let the churches own “Marriage”. If anyone want to get “married” find a church that will sanctify the union in accordance with that faith.
You just want to get paired up with another human being (or animal for those of you in Larimer County)? Go to the County Clerk, pay $15 and get yourself a “Civil Union”.
Although I think this will solve the whole “next of kin” problem (like it help Schiavo though), economically I don’t think it is going to make a difference. Insurance companies will still charge higher rates for the civil union couples than for the clients who pony up a certificate signed by Father Dolan.
I say again, I’m not into religion even slightly so I’m not pulling for Focus……I’m just a hard working white biker and I still say don’t call a union between two people of the same sex “marriage”. Call it anything else but if you call it “marriage”, in my opinion you are trying to lump me and my wife into their group. Go ahead and call me a gay basher. I go my way and they can go their way, but leave marriage out of it. It is something sacred to me, not necessarily religious, but sacred.
Not that I care about semantics Gecko. But what exactly is it about a same-sex couple being under the label “marriage” that would make your own personal marriage not sacred? I don?t see the connection.
I guess I’m old school. I grew up in a small town in northern Illinois. We had no blacks or mexicans the whole time I was in K-12. If we had any gays, they were in the closet. So excuse me for being old fashioned but “marriage” is and always will be a sacred union between a man and a woman. I think people are trying so hard to be politically correct, they don’t care what institution they diminish. Being trendy and calling two gay people “married” is wrong. Call it whatever you want but not marriage. I married a woman. I didn’t marry George…….
Oh EMRosa got you there Gecko! She’s been crouched down and waiting for you to walk into that whole “it will undermine my marriage” kill zone so she could turn the flank of your argument.
What EM doesn’t realize is that it is a total BS argument. EM you know why a guy like Gecko can say in one breath that he doesn’t believe in a religion, but that he thinks there is something sacred about marriage? It’s because it is true. Marriage is a man and a woman… Everything else is just various degrees of partnership. Marriage is when “he said, she said” becomes “we said”. The ability to reproduce without the help of science (usually) hammers it home even more, because what is more sacred than the creation of life.
EM, everyone knows this. Why are divorces so messy? Why are unhappy marriages so hard on the kids? Because there is that expectation of the sacred, something that makes life easier, more beautiful. And when it ain’t there life sucks bad.
So nice try with the whole “How is it going to undermine your marriage?” thing. When people don’t answer you it’s not because you baffled them with such killer logic… It’s because they think you’re an idiot.
Thank you Iron Mike……….I am not very suave in the writing department and sometimes have a hard time getting my reasoning out there but I think you nailed it.
Gecko, I don’t think you have a thing to feel bad about. Those human beings who can accurately and concisely descibe “sacred” are few and far between… In English we use the term Artist.
That is why when you make your arguement about marriage being sacred, people like EMRosa think they can screw around and use a seemingly logical arguement that will win the day. But this just isn’t an issue of logic or reason, it is an issue that defines us as human beings… Not the other way around.
Oh Iron Mike, you can call me what ever names you want but it doesn?t change the fact that:
1. You have made no logical argument to your definition of marriage. Who made such a definition? God? And even if you believe that’s so, you obviously can’t deny that in the legal and government realm, it’s nothing but a contract.
2. The procreation argument is not valid, because a man and a woman still may need assistance in reproducing.
3. Broken up gay relationships can be just as devastating to children as straight break ups/divorces can. It?s not about the institution.
If it’s your morals then just admit it. But don’t try to pass off the faulty “everybody knows” argument. It isn’t logical. Nix the ad hominem why you?re at it; it just shows your lack of control.
Iron Mike
So you admit you’re not in the logical realm but the moral one? That’s fine, just realize you have no argument other than “it feels right that way”.
Morals play a role, but so does logic, especially when arguing and especially when others want to forcibly push their moral theory on other citizens.
And I wasn?t trying to feel superior to anyone, I was asking an honest question.
EMRosa, why are you pressing so hard to change something that yes, is morally right, and has been since man crawled out of the seas? Is it because you like the rest of the yuppies want to be “with it”?
How many marriages between gays were performed when supposed Jesus was walking? Marriage is not intended to be between boys and boys or dogs and dogs. Don’t try to argue that it should be open to anything that wants it.
And at least men and women CAN produce offspring. If it was intended for boys to marry boys and girls to marry girls only, we wouldn’t be here. It would have ended life before it began.
If gays want to hold hands and play house, go ahead. This isn’t Nazi Germany. But call it what it is. Not marriage.
This is a slam dunk for the Dems. Let them oppose the anti-gay marriage amendment, like they should. Then let them support a civil union-type amendment. Even refer it to the voters in Nov. 2006, to counter Dobson’s amendment. A referendum will take the heat off of the Dems in the legislature. Colorado voters love choice. Coloradans are fair people. We’ll have a Vermont style civil union measure passed on Nov. 7. Everybody wins.
Gecko
It is morally right to you, but not to others. That?s what I?m trying to get you to realize. In ethics there are lots of moral theories, and they can be argued endlessly. It is you?re opinion that it has been right ?since man crawled out of the sea?. But science shows us that homosexuality is endemic in all mammals, especially males. Jesus is irrelevant outside morals and faith, because even the existence of God is highly suspect scientifically. (And this is not to inhibit others from having faith.)
Yes, we all took sex-ed class, but the underpinning of your suggestion is that marriage exists for reproduction purposes. Men and women can reproduce with out marriage, and do. Personally, all I care about is the government giving the same benefits to monogamous couples.
My argument is that if you have such a strong opinion against same-sex couples being ?married,? but you can?t logically argue why, then it?s your personal moral problem. Ergo, your personal problem should not burden another individual?s happiness?especially when there is no evidence that said person?s happiness will physically inhibit yours.
And you obviously don?t know me; otherwise you wouldn?t call me a yuppie. But keep on reaching for that rainbow.
So mankind has been wrong this whole time? Marriage as a definition should have been offered to anything that wanted it? I’m thinking what has been the norm since man crawled out of the seas should be left as is.
What gives you or anyone else the right to change it? And why can’t you just call it a civil union? Surely you know doing that would probably satisfy the millions of people that agree with me. Can’t you see that is all me and millions of others are asking for. I’m thinking the main reason is that you want to push YOUR ideas on others.
If Bob and Joe want to play legal butt rangers, fine. I really don’t give a rat’s ass. But don’t call it the same thing as my wife and I are.
And if you aren’t a yuppie you are missing your chance.
Homosexuality has existed among men for a long time. Normalcy is an aspect of culture; and is based on customs. For example, homosexuality was not seen as abnormal in Ancient Greece. This isn?t to say I?m a cultural relativist, but normal is in no way a logical measurement.
As I have explained before, marriage on paper is a government contract of benefits to a man and woman who have chosen to be in a monogomus relationship. It is my belief then, that the government, under law, is required to be equal in the appropriation of that contract. That doesn?t mean polygamy or bestiality. It means giving those benefits to any two consenting adults that have committed themselves to each other in a relationship. Like marriage.
I?ve said two times before that I do not care what it is called, as longs as the couple receives the benefits. I was curious to your apprehension of the word ?marriage? and wanted to see what argument you had. It turns out, yours is a moral one, and as I noted, it has no place in retarding others of their rights.
But judging by your vitriol against human beings you call ?butt rangers?, I can?t say I?m surprised at your inability to articulate a solid and valuable argument.
Chance of being a yuppie? I just dropped out of community college. Something tells me I won?t be moving into Central Denver anytime soon.
Central Denver? What the hell does that have to do with anything? I guess that jab went over my head. I only drive through Denver once a year on the way to Sturgis.
Well I guess the bikers I hang with and I are just a bunch of neanderthals. Old school ones at that. You are right. I can give you no reason other than a moral one. And if you read my posts I did several times say; call it a legal union. Give them legal rights. Just don’t call it a marriage. What the hell is so hard to get about that? I take offense and so do many others of the term marriage being used so lightly.
I’m sick of the politically correctness mentality raising its ugly head.
And my rantings aren’t just male bullshit. I know of not one female that shares your views. They also say call it anything you want. Just not Marriage.
It?s hard to get, because the only real definition of marriage we have is a legal one. You may not like it, but that?s the way it is now. And that definition is the only one that applies to the state. Why do you think so many people want to change it? The problem is when that legal definition is not upheld correctly under law. IE unconstitutional rulings.
I understand you take offense, but you give no real reason other then you don?t like it. That?s not sufficient enough to retard other individuals of happiness?especially when those individuals are not inhibiting you of your rights. And what happens when moral crusaders don?t get their way? When they can?t possibly fathom a defense to their position? They call it political correctness. But this isn?t about annoying euphemisms; it?s about equality under law, no more, no less.
I don?t care about semantics. But some people do. So I can understand why same-sex couples would want that word. And honestly, I can?t see how it would hurt traditionalists.
Gecko & Iron Man – I think you guys need to give EMRosa a break here. I agree with her, but I also can respect different viewpoints. Although I am gay, and would love to see gay marraige, I would settle for civil unions at this time because I think that is all the country is ready for. Would you both vote to support civil unions?
Also, while other countries around the world vote to have gay marriage and\or civil unions (Canada, Belgium, France, U.K., Columbia, Spain, The Netherlands, etc, etc) we seem to banning everything and anything. Doesn’t it ever feel like while the rest of the world is in the 21st century, we are sometimes going backwards?
It doesn’t look like I’m the one who needs a break.
My guess is then that you aren’t married. Did you ask your folks, or better yet, grandfolks what their opinion is?
You don’t get the point I’m trying to make. It isn’t only that I don’t like it. It has been the norm for centuries. And I disagree with you that “so many people want to change it”. A vast minority maybe want to change it. And maybe some trendy left wingers. But by no means a majority. And I am not trying to “retard other individuals of their happiness”. You are telling me that unless their union can be called a marriage, they won’t be happy? Too bad.
I say again, Marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. Always has been and always will be. I will vote against any legislation aimed at reducing the moral concept of said.
Just because something is tradition doesn’t make it right. I would think that to be obvious.
So you’re argument is a) you don’t like it, and b) it’s tradition. Hardly convincing.
And when I said a lot of people want to change the legal definition, I meant the whole spectrum. How many battles over marriage have been fought in the ballot box these last couple of years?
You are inhibiting the rights of the individual to equality, under the guise of tradition and personal preference. Then you just excuse people as “trendy left wingers”. It?s real easy to do that. It?s quite another thing to realize that same-sex marriage is not a threat to you or your own institution?sacred as you see it. Or more importantly, sacred, as you the individual, make it.
But hey, small steps. It?ll happen eventually. I care about the law and benefits. That?s the most important thing. You don?t want to read anything I have to write; other wise you wouldn?t keep making the same arguments over and over again.
And if you could, stop referencing my personal life. You didn?t know my parents or grand parents.
Gecko –
Your argument just doesn’t fly – “It has been this way since the beginning of time, so it must be so forever” – For hundreds of years slavery was “the norm” as well, do you think we should have maintained that practice? Women didn’t have the right to vote, because that’s the way it had always been, do you support a ban on women’s right to vote?
Or is it only when two guys kissing makes you squirm that it’s time to pull out the rope and fire and get to destroying?
I am married, I’m christian (baptised and all) and to add to it, I’m even a republican. And whether you like it or not, gays have been getting married for a long time now, maybe not in Colorado – but just because you don’t agree that it’s a marriage doesn’t make it so.
And for whoever said that being gay has been taboo since Jesus’ time, I’d like for you to look back at greek art or history for that matter and tell me that Greeks and Romans weren’t doing it during the time of Jesus?
I would expect your reasoning if this was California. Never thought I’d hear this crap in the state of Colorado. Sad. What is next to go out the window under the, yes, guise of political correctness? That is what you are spewing.
You didn’t answer my question. If gays are allowed to enter into a legal binding civil union like I suggested several times, but not a marriage, they won’t be happy?
What the hell do they expect?
What about the millions of heterosexual married couples that think the same way I do? Their opinion doesn’t matter?
You can try to push your views on me but it won’t work.
And oh yeah, I really don’t care about your personal life. You sound like someone who wouldn’t been seen dead on a Harley.
Gecko –
No, I swore off two wheeled vehicles after a bad experience in Cozumel.
Here’s my point, and I’m not trying to push it on you. If you grant group A certain rights and don’t grant group b certain rights just because you don’t like what they do, then it’s discrimination.
And putting an amendment in CO’s constitution doesn’t make it any different.
Homosexuals are married, they’ve been married – they have the same type of realationship you have with your wife, you can’t change that, not even with an amendment.
Gecko is right, EMRosa is wrong. Civil Unions yes, gary marriage, no. That the ideologues can’t admit is that marriage was not established just so two people of whatever gender can have sex. It is about the sheltering and rearing of children, which is why it is given special status by the state. Without marriage, civilization would not exist. The fact that some heterosexual marriages don’t have children doesn’t invalidate the template. Marriage exists for a reason and that reason is to raise children in a sheltered environment. To degrade the institution by extending it to a class of people that doesn’t even have the biological possibility of raising children does threaten its social role. So, if two homosexuals want the “joy” of paying the marriage penalty, go to it, boys, and file those civil union papers. But leave the institution of marriage alone. I guess to follow my logic to the end, I’d say gay men or Lesbians who have children by adoption, artificial insemination or custody from a previous marriage should be allowed to marry in name as well as fact. The rest of homosexuals should stick to civil unions. As howard Dean said, in Vermont, a civil union grants basically everything marriage does except the name. But the name, and the respect that comes with it, and the obligation to care for the next generation, should not be sneered at by the trendy crowd.
Gecko
You don’t want to listen to anything reasonable. Try looking at your own “arguments”. They don’t add up. I’ve spent many posts spelling it out to you, and you won’t even try to understand.
Scotch
You and EMRosa keep avoiding my question. Why can’t we just settle for a happy medium. Call it a goddamn CIVIL UNION……..Not a marriage. What the hell is wrong with that? That would make millions of people happy including me. Is that too much to ask for?
I understand the equality thing. And I’m not trying to bring us back into the dark ages but my views and the views of most people is that marriage is SACRED. Respect us too.
Oh, and Scotch, I wasn’t responding to your post with my last post about not being seen on a Harley. Sorry. It was aimed at Rosa.
Thanks GrandFather. You said it better than I can.
Gecko –
To be honest, I wouldn’t be all that bothered if all that was granted was civil unions – I’d prefer if they were allowed to do just as I was and that is, fall in love with somebody and get married. But these amendments aren’t about allowing rights; they’re about making sure people aren’t granted them.
Here’s where I think we get into a slippery slope is when we start putting stuff like this into our constitution; I just don’t think that this is something that belongs in there.
As republican’s, we’re always saying, smaller government, less interference, but then we go and support amendment after amendment going against that ideal. I don’t think that the constitution should be used to legislate morality; I think we tried that with prohibition and it failed miserably.
But that’s just my cent and a half.
Grandfather
There is no scientific basis for your tirade. Amusing as it is. According to APA studies, and others, children of same-sex relationships are just as stable as those in straight relationships.
Why don’t you actually do some research before you post that crap? Some logic.
Gecko
I never said I had a problem with the civil union moniker. I’m just saying the logic behind your reasoning with gay marriage is unsound and ignorant. You have still yet to show me how one word would not make your marriage sacred. Can you do that?
Rosa, you say my logic is unsound. Millions of others disagree. I think we are right and you are wrong. And my reasoning is not ignorant. Just because you don’t agree doesn’t make me or my reasoning ignorant. I would venture to guess that there are far more people holding my opinion than yours.
And if everybody else believes it, it must be true!
Let’s look at your reasoning:
You have problems with the word marriage used in gay relationships because:
A) You like the tradition of marriage in society
B) You don’t like it.
C) It will somehow mock your “sacred” marriage.
and
D) Because far more people don’t like the idea of gay marriage.
Well that’s totally sound logic! You sure showed me.
Geez Gecko, don’t you know that poorly educated, bleeding heart libs like EM are always right and those of us who disagree are always wrong?
But keep at it and she’ll call us all Nazis here in a little bit.
Iron Mike:
I never called you names.
Do you have an actual argument or something?
Iron Mike, I thought you and GrandFather said best what I have been trying to say but Rosa, but she won’t listen.
Screwed that post up, sorry
I’ve listened, and I’ve rebutted logically. But logic just doesn’t come in to play in your apprehension. So why don’t you just admit it? You have no logical basis to deny gay couples from using the word marriage.
I presented my argument very clearly, and I didn’t loose control and start using ad hominem attacks.
It’s really pretty clear. But hey, it’s what I get for coming out to the Pols.
Logic? What are you now? Spock? You are the one that is blind to what Me, Iron Mike, and GrandFather have been saying. You refuse to acknowledge our point at all. We are willing to meet you half way but you want to “grab the whole scene, baby”.
Making the Iron One contribute instead of just poking fun? How rude EM.
But I’ll try to keep up…
I actually like what was said earlier about getting the State out of the marriage business. Let the churches own the word marriage and police it as they see fit. The Immaculate Church of the Liberated Madonna wants to allow lesbians to marry because it would please God, then let them write that in as their creed and the state could play along by granting the happy couple a civil union.
I’m a Catholic myself. I believe marriage is a sacrament. It was the way I was raised. The love I feel for my wife is not just different from the feelings I had for other girls prior to marriage, it transcended it. That love deserves a special place… A special title.
As I said earlier, I think applying reason and logic to this topic is stupid because it is not a matter of logic. A marriage is a joining of a man and woman… Duh! Can two men have a loving relationship? Maybe. Is it what nature had in mind for us as a species? Does it reflect the natural state of humanity? Probably not.
Anyhow, that’s about all the logic you’ll get out of me on this topic. The reality is that if we green light civl unions, the actuaries will then have the last word in the logic sphere, and right not there is nothing more unequal than how a health insurance actuary views a gay couple vs. a strait one.
I’ve rebutted all three of you individually. I acknowledge your point, but I’m saying it doesn’t add up.
And I don’t know how many times I have to say it before it will somehow get in to your brains:
I’m fine with civil unions, but I can understand why same-sex partners want the word. And I also realize that such a word will not hurt any straight marriages.
Through all of this, you have failed to show me how gays getting married will make you’re marriage less sacred.
Since it’s late, and we’re all tried–AND since you seem to have nothing new to say–why not let the readers decide for themselves?
Actually Mike,
I would agree with getting the state out of marriage. Let whatever religion define it and decide on their own accord the ceremonies.
Then the social contract, what ever it would be called, could be applied equally.
I thought I was a reader… She so mean.
So young.
So liberal.
So angry.
I’m with Mike on this one…
That’s funny, I used to be youg too about 30 years ago, but I was never liberal…….was angry sometimes but not liberal
So in other words EM, you’re really with us on our arguements, but felt the need to instigate a kind of “pickup firefight” just to sharpen your wits a bit eh? And I thought I was having a dull day.
You missed out. I have it on good reference that young conservatives have no fun.
Actual, EMROSA, research shows that children of same-sex couples are a little behind, though children of two parents, …yes, preferably a man and a woman but two mommies will do in a pinch …do better than kids of single parents.
But if you had actually read my post, instead of just shrieking whatever the gay line of the moment is, you’d have seen that I said that same sex couples with children probably should be entitled to the term marriage with the few benefits …and many responsilities…that come with it. Raising children is the whole point of marriage and if that offends your radical point of view, so be it.
No. But if the Churches decided, gays and straights could both be “married” technically, and they would all have the same social contract. Everyone gets the same rights. The Churches decide the marriage status. No church is forced to perform ceremonies they don’t want to.
Fixed.
Actual APA research does not say that.
Read the site. And I did read your whole post.
Did you ever take in to consideration that some gay couples might want to have children some time later?
See, and now I’m a “radical” now.
GrandFather, correct. I have raised three boys. My wife and I have the same conservative views. Rosa is not going to be swayed but that is fine. I know I am morally right and that is all that matters. Even though I’m an agnostic, I could die tomorrow and know my views are correct.
And here I though the liberals were supposed to be the emotional, feely-touchy ones, and conservatives the logical.
Not when you’re trying to destroy an institution like what we have been talking about. Then we become like you.
I did Promise Keepers… Learned how to cry, love my wife, cheer for my son when he played football. I’m sensitive dammit.
Yep that’s me. The straight white girl that wants to personally destroy everyone?s sacred marriage.
If you were married, to a good man, you might just see what some of us have been saying.
Dubious Gecko, very dubious.
EMRosa, hey, it has been fun but I don’t think you will ever see my side. I guess youth is part of it.
Have a good one.
Problems springing up in anti-gay-rights groups?
Colorado Pols links to a Denver post article suggesting that there is some discord among anti-gay-rights groups in Colorado, specifically regarding a possible amendment banning gay marriage here.
At issue among the different gay union foes is the s…
I’ll take the whole “State out of ‘marriage'” deal. If someone wants to call my legal contract with my wife a ‘civil union’ and my certificate from the pastor who married us a ‘marriage’, I’m good with that; my moral sense of justice is served by my pastor’s judgement, and others are free to judge differently. Gay people can head on over to their local liberalized United Church of Christ or U-U chapel and get the same…
BTW, ‘Marriage’ as recognized by the Catholic Church of old is recorded to have included the occasional gay couple, including at least one pair of Saints. The practice was de-authorized in the 1300’s, but there were still some up through the 1800’s. Jewish and Mormon polygamy records each union between man and wife as a ‘marriage’ as well. And it’s only very recently that a majority of this country actually approve of inter-racial marriages (read: the 1990’s!). So it hasn’t exactly been a static definition through time.