Posted on 10/25/2006 12:07:24 AM PDT by ajolympian2004
Earlier this morning there was a debate on two ballot initiatives here in Colorado, the 'Domestic Partnerships', Referendum I and the 'Marriage Amendment', Amendment 43. Mike Rosen of 850am KOA radio here in Denver was host and moderator.
Mike Rosen is FOR 'Amendment 43' and UNDECIDED on 'Referendum I'. Mike is not a social conservative. He is a fiscal conservative and pro-military.
---
Before the debate I thought "Ref I" was going to allow same sex couples visitation rights at hospitals, ability to will death benefits and a few other "rights". It is WAY WAY beyond just that. It will cause about 1000+ updates to Colorado state law.
The main reason I'm now voting against the "Domestic Partnerships' Referendum I is that it adds the words 'domestic partner' into all Colorado state law everywhere the word 'spouse' currently appears. This will essentially give same sex marriage the exact same legal standing in Colorado as a marriage between a man and a woman.
The Colorado state legislature recently created a law to give the very basic rights that even 'Focus on the Family' supported, but the pro-same sex marriage groups here in Colorado were completely against that because they want full same sex marriage to be on equal footing as marriage between a man and a woman.
Many companies in Colorado already offer domestic partnership benefits. This referendum FORCES all businesses in Colorado who already offer benefits for spouses to also include domestic partnership relationships. This includes small businesses.
You can listen to the audio for yourself.
The person advocating AGAINST 'Referendum I' was a woman from 'Focus on the Family'. The person FOR was a deputy communications director for (R) Governor Bill Owens.
Rosen Replay 10/24/06 10-11AM Debate on Referendum "I", the same sex partnership referendum.
Audio here
(mp3, about 45 minutes)
Referendum I - from the State of Colorado Blue Book voter's guide (PDF) http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/lcsstaff/Bluebook/06ReferendumIfiscalnote.pdf
---
Amendment 43 simply adds 20 words into the Colorado State constitution that that marriage is between a man and a woman. This supercedes the current statute against same sex marriage on the books in Colorado so activist judges cannot re-write the law from the bench. In the USA 20 other states made the same additions to their state constitution and apparently about 7 others have this on their ballots for 2006.
The person advocating FOR 'Amendment 43' was the same woman representative from Focus on the Family. The person AGAINST was some lawyer in a 13+ year same sex relationship and from a Colorado pro-same sex rights organization.
Rosen Replay 10/24/06 11-11:45AM Debate on Amendment 43, the Marriage Amendment.
Audio here
(mp3, about 30 minutes)
Amendment 43 - from the State of Colorado Blue Book voter's guide (PDF) http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/lcsstaff/Bluebook/06Amendment43fiscalnote.pdf
The person in the debate advocating AGAINST 'Amendment 43' was a very poor spokeperson for his side of the issue.
---
Our local Catholic bishops have come out against "I" and for "43" and have recommended that all Catholics in Colorado vote the same.
Bishops urge pulpit support for marriage amendment Rocky Mountain News story http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5080562,00.html
---
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
PING! just thought I would give you some other info... that the lady on Monday didn't ;)
Yes for 43 and NO for 'i'
Yep. And thankfully most organizations advertising on radio and TV here on these two ballot initatives in Colorado are advocating 'BOTH' a YES vote FOR 43 and a NO vote AGAINST 'I' in their spots. I have heard one commercial where some organization is only advocating for a YES vote on 43.
Here's some info for you on Referendum I and the 'Marriage Amendment', Amendment 43.
The same rights that are guaranteed to all American citizens.
I think Jan is referring to any special rights beyond what all American citizens currently have. Men who have sex with other men have chosen a behaviour. They do not deserve any special rights for their choice.
They have the same rights as all Americans.
That should be the employer's CHOICE, not a law forced by the government.
If a company chooses to pay benefits for domestic partnerships that's up to them. I do not want to see it mandated on all businesses, especially small businesses.
Of course with all the illegals working here, Americans might not be able to be as picky about what jobs they will do!
IMO the government should stay out of it! Of course, liberals like a nanny state and want the government to take care of them.
So, do you think employers should be forced to offer certain benefits to their employees?
For the entire history of the U.S. only married couples were considered qualified for benefits until the far left began to get their way through pockets of liberal voters and especially through rulings by liberal activist judges.
My answer would be, if this is an important issue to them, then they should look for companies that offer those benefits.
My guess, and that's all it is, is that this is only an issue with a very small minority of homosexuals. Most of them are just like heterosexuals in that they are content to go to work,and live their lives and mind their own business.
There is a small, but very vocal minority, that want to force their agenda on others, and demand others to approve of their lifestyle.This same group also 'out' homosexuals that don't want any part of their agenda.These activists have no respect for other people's privacy, and that is really a disgrace.
Over the past 30 years I have gone to school with gays, worked with gays, and had friends that are gay...this has NEVER been an issue with any of them.
There is much more to this than what is at the surface.
This is not an issue I care about at all. I am more concerned about our open borders, islamofascists that want to take over the world, and the Democrats, who are blinded by so much hatred they are willing to sacrifice this Country just to hurt President Bush.
Well, it's 3 hours past my bedtime. Thanks for the discussion. G'night.
It's disingenuous of you to imply that Referendum I is simply about homosexual spouses' health care. From what I can see, it goes way beyond that.
You're equating a person's race with a chosen sexual lifestyle?
Also, why do you limit additional coverage to just one type (homosexuality)? Shouldn't other forms of deviant sexual partnerships also be covered? What about incest, bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, and ephebophilia,for example? Don't their feelings count?
I don't know. Here I thought you were open minded. Guess not.
they already have all the "rights" in referendum I, this is a back door way to undercut 43 should it pass
most of the large employers in colorado already pay same sex health benefits. Beyond that, I do not think domestic partnerships should be elegible for health ins coverage for the partner. There are some benefits reserved for marriage, which enriches society, not undercuts it.
And no, I am not homophobic. I don't care what they do (although I will pray for their salvation). I just don't think I should have to subsidize it.
There's a reason benefits, not rights, are given to married couples. The family is the foundation of society. A strong society needs strong healthy families. It is assumed that marriages will bring forth children under normal circumstances. Benefits given to married couples, by both the government and private employers are to support them in raising healthy children who will become good, productive, educated citizens. Laws weakening marriage have created a whole host of problems for society in recent history.
Homosexual relationships do not tend to bring forth children, do not tend to be as stable, and do nothing to help stabilize society, therefore why should society encourage or reward them with benefits?
The gaystapo response will not meet your points head on, for they cannot win in they concede the overarching procreation value in marriage.
Instead they will point to childless heterosexual adult relationships as if that somehow disproves the procreation basis of the family unit. It is sleight-of-hand, misdirection, and they are very slick at playing it.
My kids go to private school but I still pay taxes to support the public school. Yes there are all kinds of things I am forced to pay for that I do not like, this is reason to add another to the list?
Also marriage benefits society, domestic partnerships do not. The family unit is the basis for society. I do not recognize same sex units with whatever children they have or adopt as a family unit. They are a collection of individuals living together, and do not promote stability in society.
The slippery slope has already begun. I see others on this thread saying domestic partnerships may be OK for 2 gay partners, but what about larger number groups, pedophiles, etc. Once you step away from the standard, we are lost as a society. Marraige is between a man and a woman PERIOD. The benefits of marraige are reserved for the union of a man and a woman legalized by the state. (I am also not a fan of benefits for common law partnerships - they are not marriages either)
The gaystapo response will not meet your points head on, for they cannot win if they concede the overarching procreation value in marriage.
Instead they will point to childless heterosexual adult relationships as if that somehow disproves the procreation basis of the family unit. It is sleight-of-hand, misdirection, and they are very slick at playing it.
Go back to DU. Homo lovers like yourself are beneath contempt.
You are the absolute scum of the earth.
You're conniving and disingenuous.
after seeing the outright meanness and craziness of the pro gay "marriage" crowd and listening to their ridiculous arguments in their efforts to legitimize their chosen sexual proclivities thru marriage I am now in favor of making homosexuality aka sodomy illegal. I don't think they should be put in jail of course but they should not be legitimized and normalized either. And no, gays should not be able to adopt kids either.
I used to be of a mind to just live and let live when it came to gays but not anymore. Not after I have come to the realization that it is not really marriage they want. After I see the way they deomonize anybody that is against their agenda and after they have demonized a man like Rick Santorum I have taken a hardline stance. To put it plainly these folks and their progressive liberal counterparts that rabidly support the effort to legitimize homosexuality are just plain nuts! And they are mean about it too!
If America does ever stoop so low morally to allow so called gay "marriage" I believe that there will be efforts and DEMANDS to legitimize other forms of sexual deviancy and lower the age of sexual consent. If these gay crusaders try to equate their "struggle" with the struggle of blacks then what is next? Maybe affirmitave action and reparations for gays?
It is also worth mentioning that many of those homosexuals pairs with children are legally just single parents with a same sex sex partner.
Homosexuals who adopt children do it in a two step process. First one homosexual will adopt the child THEN IF their state allows second parent (or heather has two mommy) adoption, the sex partner of the homosexual MIGHT adopt the child. Since 27 states FORBID or limit second parent adoption by a homosexual sex partner then it a very rare thing to have anything other than single parent homosexuals cohabitating with their sex fetish partner in the presence of a child.
(not to mention that homosexuals with children is very very very very rare in the 2% of the population that comprises the homosexuals)
Domestic partnerships are a joke and intended to be an attack on marriage. Everything, like hospital visits or medical decisions can be done FOR FREE using redily available forms. Cohabitation agreements can be had for $24.95, no laywer needed.
Good question.
What do you think, pericytosis? Your posting history discloses quite clearly that you are a gaystapo troll from DU. What's next? Reparations?
Many laws have been made that weaken marriage, thus the increase in divorce rate, but in no way does this approach the instability existing in homosexual relationships (and I challenge you to find a source that indicates it does).
The primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children. The marital act, the physical union of man and woman, naturally tends to produce children (unlike homosexual acts). The responsibility of raising children not only necessitates the stability of marriage but also acts as a force to strengthen the bond between the spouses. Factors such as the advent of legalized birth control, legalized abortion, elective sterilization, no fault divorce and "feminism" have now given license to heterosexuals to deny their own nature, deny the primary purpose of marriage and to become as promiscuous and unstable as homosexuals.
But shouldn't those kinds of benefits, then, be reserved for people who actually have children?
In my view, married couples with children should get far more benefits than they do now.
I am of the position that government should grant benefits to couples with children or couples in general, but not make distinctions otherwise.
How does providing benefits to "couples in general" (what ever that means- 2 people who choose to fornicate for a certain time?) strengthen society? And if you include homosexual couples with children I strongly disagree. A child deserves both a mother and a father. This is not always possible, but is the ideal. Society should not promote and encourage something that deprives a child of a mother and father.
FYI Ping-a-ling
Thanks! I caught some of this early this morning when I couldn’t sleep so stopped by to see what was going on.
The poster is probably a troll, IMHO. These guys are pushing their agenda and want everyone to consider them to be normal. They aren’t. The comparison of behavior to race is laughable.
I was surprised at how the responding posts were so civil too. Shows well for Freepers.
When it comes to issues similar to this, I always have to wonder... how does somebody prove they're gay?
MOM MD posted...
"I do not recognize same sex units with whatever children they have or adopt as a family unit. They are a collection of individuals living together, and do not promote stability in society. "
Pericytosis asked
Why?
I can't answer for MOM MD, but I will give my reason.
For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
Genesis 2:24
It's as simple as that. The Bible says homosexuality is wrong, and no matter what percentage of people 'accept' or 'approve' of it, God's Word never changes.
The Final Word on the subject can always be found there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.