Candidate Compares Gay Marriage To Bestiality

DENVER -- Democrats pounced on Colorado's Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez and his newly chosen running mate Janet Rowland on Tuesday for comments she made five months ago comparing same-sex marriage to bestiality.

In a March 17 broadcast of the Rocky Mountain PBS program "Colorado State of Mind," Rowland said homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle, adding, "For some people, the alternative lifestyle is bestiality. Do we allow a man to marry a sheep?"

Democrat Bill Ritter's campaign called the remarks "insensitive, close-minded, derogatory and crude" and demanded an apology.

"This shows just how far to the right and out-of-touch the Beauprez-Rowland ticket really is," Ritter campaign manager Greg Kolomitz said.

Beauprez campaign manager John Marshall said Rowland regretted the remark and has apologized.

He said Beauprez continues to believe Rowland is a strong candidate but added, "Let me be clear. He doesn't agree with (the) comments and neither does she."

Marshall said Rowland had told campaign officials about the remarks before she was chosen as Beauprez's running mate, and they accepted her apology and statement of regret.

Rowland was campaigning Tuesday and was not available for further comment, Marshall said.

The tempest arose just one day after Beauprez announced that Rowland, a Mesa County commissioner, is his running mate in what is expected to be a tight race for the seat being given up by term-limited GOP Gov. Bill Owens. Beauprez praised Rowland's accomplishments, integrity and "real-world experience."

Rowland, 43, is a married mother of two children. In the broadcast, she stressed she does not hate gays.

"I have friends who are gay, I've worked with people who are gay, I have utmost respect for them," she said.

She said society must differentiate between what is acceptable as marriage and what is not.

"Some people have group sex. Should we allow two men and three women to marry? Should we allow polygamy, with one man and five wives?" she said.

"And I know some of you are outraged that I would compare bestiality to this," she said. "Forty or 50 years ago, people would be outraged that we were talking about gay marriage."

Republican political analyst Katy Atkinson of Denver said it's difficult to measure what impact Rowland's comments will have on the race. She said it depends partly on whether key swing voters view Rowland's views as extreme.

"Coloradans tend to not like or vote for anybody who is an extremist," she said. "If that comment is used to portray her and Bob Beauprez as extremist, that's a problem."

Atkinson said Beauprez will fare best if he can regain the offensive in the campaign and shape the voters' impression of him.

"Bob Beauprez's secret weapon is Bob Beauprez," she said. "When he speaks to voters on television or radio, he seems like their favorite uncle, like every word he says is sincere and from the heart."

So far, she said, Ritter and his supporters have kept Beauprez on the defensive, and Rowland's comments only contribute to that.

"The challenge he has had all along -- it hasn't worked very well for him -- is to run the campaign on his terms, and he hasn't been able to do that," Atkinson said. "Now his campaign is having to react to these comments."

Rowland was a caseworker for the Mesa County Department of Human Services, investigating allegations of abuse and neglect for 10 years. Analysts said her choice by Beauprez was intended to assuage western Colorado voters angry over his support of projects they believed would shipped precious water to the Front Range.

Kolomitz and state Democratic Party Chairwoman Pat Waak compared Rowland to state Rep. Jim Welker, R-Loveland, who was widely criticized for forwarding e-mails that characterized black victims of Hurricane Katrina as lazy.

"Coloradans should not be surprised to see this type of mean-spirited extremism displayed by a high-profile Republican candidate," Waak said.

The type of rhetoric used by Janet Rowland is a good example of that commonly used by Phyllis Schlafly in her opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment (Which by the way, is a favorable comparison)

There are a lot of people who take a particular stand on things like the Equal Rights Amendment, and...hey...that sounds okay...I have no problem with that. Equal rights is a GOOD thing, right?

Then along comes Phyllis Schlafly, who asks the questions nobody wants to hear, or just hadn't thought of, as this woman Rowland did. It is not always comfortable to hear these things, but, then again...who wants to hear about the details of homosexual relationships, which are constantly foisted on us? I am sorry they think there is a problem with Bestiality, but as she said, 50 years ago, homosexuality was on par with bestiality in the minds of most normal people.

Here you go from more than six years ago ---

SHOULD A MAN BE ALLOWED TO MARRY HIS GOAT?

Culture/Society Opinion Keywords: WHY NOT A GOAT?
Source: DFU opinion
Published: 3-1-00 Author: Doug from Upland
Posted on 03/01/2000 22:18:11 PST by doug from upland

Sorry, although the title suggests that this is a humorous piece, it is not. Someday, there will be a demand by someone that the state officially recognize a marriage between he and his livestock.

In California voters will decide on March 7 whether the institution of marriage has meaning in the traditional sense. They will be voting on an initiative which is Proposition 22 on the ballot. This initiative statute would provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Marriages performed in other states and countries would not be legal in California if they did not meet this criterion.

I suspect that as we grow older we tend to hold onto or honor those traditions that have had meaning in our lives. And we would hope that such traditions would have meaning and importance to others.

A man and woman marrying and raising their children has been proven for generation after generation after generation to be the best possible family structure for society. Twenty years ago, never could I have imagined that a proposition such as Proposition 22 would be necessary. It was just assumed that men would marry women, have children and carry on in the traditions that have proven best.

What is behind the proposition, of course, is more than just a question of whether homosexuals may marry and be officially recognized by the state. It is clearly an issue of states rights. Since California does not sanction marriage between other than a man and woman, should it be forced to do so if a couple marries in another state and comes to California?

Homosexuals may live with whom they wish. They may work where they wish although there certainly exists some discrimination in certain job areas. I personally would not want my son to be supervised by a gay scout leader. Homosexuals may own property together. Homosexuals may visit each other in the hospital. And homosexuals may will their property, real or personal, to their partner.

So what is it that they want? If homosexuals are officially recognized by the state as married couples, their union will be recognized as equal to that of heterosexual couples. The next step is clear. Homosexual couples would demand equality in the adoption of children. If their marriage was officially sanctioned and determined to be equal to any others' marriages, how could the argument be refuted?

Now back to my originial suggestion which at first looks preposterous. If two homosexuals can marry, why can't a brother and sister marry, particularly if one is sterile and no deformed children would result? Or, how about two men and a woman or two women and a man? How about a father and his daughter? Or, a father and his son? How about a man and his goat? If a man is in love with his goat, who is to say that such should not be sanctioned? It won't affect you and it won't affect me. If they are happy together, why not? It is not animal abuse. After all, you can kill a goat and eat it. Can someone stop you from having sex with it?

The attempted devaluation of marriage needs to stop now. Marriage is between a man and a woman. That does not need to be fixed. Gays may do what they like behind closed doors and spend their lives with their partners. If a man cannot legally marry another man, that is just too damned bad. If a man cannot marry his goat, that is just too damned bad.

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.