Would you support legislation that would grant gay couples similar rights as straight couples?

Yes 191 votes

47.51%

No 201 votes

50.00%

Undecided 10 votes

2.49%

402 total votes

Comments

needstoknow 2 years, 6 months ago

There is NO DIFFERENCE from a same sex marriage an a regular marriage, GET over it people it's going to happen one way or another!!! You all make a big DEAL about this topic, but what about HUSBANDS that cheat on their wive's or beat them?? It's a sin to CHEAT. (RIGHT???) That's the problem with people now a days. So are things gonna go back to ol' days when all white people thought colored people were nothing but slave's Oh wait that is how it was.... GOOD OR BAD, DIFFERENCE OR NORMAL, IT'S THAT PERSON'S LIFE AND SHOULD BE THEIR CHOICE TO HAVE THEY LIVE IT!! WE DO STILL HAVE OUR FREEDOM RIGHT??? OR HAS THAT BEEN REMOVED FROM US AS WELL AS EVERYTHING ELSE WE USE TO HAVE???

0

Rebelgirl 2 years, 6 months ago

Well its something we can both agree on. What the hell happened to seperation of church and state?? Thats right its the government and they have their hands in everything. People just need to get over it. Yeah right freedom! What freedom?? I cant say something without getting into trouble, worship who or what I want, and now love who I want whether I am straight or gay. Thanks you religious hypocrites, try following the words of your bible. Going to church and praying does not make you christian, actually following the rules does. I say you treat me like dirt dont be suprised when I throw it in your face.

0

Brian Kotowski 2 years, 6 months ago

Civil unions, yes. Marriage, no. Curiously, both Elton John and Rush Limbaugh are in agreement on that point.

Speaking of “seperation [sic]” of church and state, Rebelgirl, how do you feel about the state requiring religious institutions to abandon their own beliefs and principles by forcing them to subsidize – at taxpayer expense - the sexual activities of its members? How does that not violate “seperation [sic]” you claim to admire? Do you believe that you and I and the Jesuits at Georgetown should be obligated to pay for Sandra Fluke’s sex life? If so, then you probably wouldn’t have a problem with requiring Jews to work on the Sabbath, or Muslims to subsidize production of pork, or the imposition of mandatory military service for conscientious objectors like the Quakers.

You whine that Christians should “try following the words of your bible [sic]”. My understanding is that the Bible condemns homosexuality, so be careful what you ask for. The reality is that your desire for believers honor their convictions is nothing more than duplicitous bs. You want Christians to behave Biblically only when their convictions are in lockstep with yours. Once they disagree with your sanctimonious condescension, you’d just as soon have them flush the Bible down the crapper.

0

jaxx 2 years, 6 months ago

Good point, brian, civil unions not marriage. Give same sex civil unions the same rights as married couples but leave religion out of the equation. Goverment and religion have no place together. It seems to me that too much emphasis is placed on the word marriage. Recognize civil unions and let this"problem" become what it should be- a non-issue.

0

nopittyforafool 2 years, 6 months ago

Rebelgirl, I do not want to explain to my small children why 2 women or men are kissing or making out at the park or where ever! Especially when they are the ones telling me it's disgusting. How about you go live somewhere else that doesn't have a government or freedom. See how those people live. Or live where there is a government that wouldn't allow you to speak your opinion or you will have your young cut out or killed. If you don't like your government then get the hell out! And I mean every word of that. The men in my entire family fought for your rights, and it sickens me to hear people like you because you don't always get tour way! You wouldn't even get an opinion if it wasn't for our government. It's about time you shut up, get up, and try something like... Oh maybe making your house habitable for a human, and the god knows how manny cats you have! Another part of your freedom, to be able to live in your filth!

0

Brian Kotowski 2 years, 6 months ago

nopittyforafool:

I don't want to see anyone playing tonsil hockey in public - straight, gay, or otherwise.

The rest of your rant is a juvenile contradiction. Extolling the virtues of free speech, then shrieking 'shut up shut up!' in the same breath, when someone you don't agree with presumes to exercise that right. It seems your embrace free speech is limited exclusively to you and those who agree with you. All others should "shut up", and not be allowed to speak. Newsflash: that's the opposite of free speech. If your passion were ever translated into policy, there would be little distinction between you and Stalin, Mao, Castro, et al.

0

WrestlinRockies 2 years, 6 months ago

It never fails to amaze me...the complete lack of intelligence perfectly intelligent people in this town seem to have. The biggest issue I have with religion and with anyone who feels obligated to rub it in everyone's face is this. If you are one of these people the simple fact of the matter is that you use Religion as an ace up the sleeve...Go ahead and play the card only when the time is right and furthermore subjectively choose what you will follow as well as interpreting most things from literal to "what works best for you". You want disgusting? That is far more disgusting and far greater of an affliction to mankind that any Civil Union will ever be. If there were indeed a God he would strike you down with a mighty vengeance for being a complete waste of air and an utter disgrace to an organized religion. Your God is talking...it's time to listen... and guess what is being said...you are a complete fool!!! A Religion Fixation WILL NOT fix this Nation nor will it fix any.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams—who had written in 1644 of " A hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"— Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

If you are that fanatical and you feel the need to be an obtuse & self righteous d-bag....all you need to do is point due West and hop, skip, & jump the 90miles over to the promise land.

Colorado is a LIBERAL STATE and will remain as such as our youth continues to become more conscious of the fact that we are no longer living in 1925.

Look back at past results and educate yourself on the "power of Craig", in nearly every major election or decision made in this state....Craig was of the minority on nearly every occasion. This will only continue to be true as more people leave Craig due to this "closed door, grand pappy way's" that most confused souls around here live with.

0

Brian Kotowski 2 years, 6 months ago

The phrase “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Federalist Papers, the Declaration, or Constitution. The Establishment Clause was crafted to prevent the government from ever establishing or sanctioning an official state religion.

The “wall of separation” wasn't built until nearly two centuries after the Constitution was ratified; by the Supreme Court's 1947 Everson v. the Board of Education decision. It was a 5-4 ruling, in whose majority opinion that “wall of separation” language appears for the first time in American jurisprudence. The majority opinion was authored by former Ku Klux Klan lawyer Hugo Black, whom many believe was motivated in no small measure by his virulent antipathy for the Catholic Church (had it been up to Justice Black, American law would have prohibited a Catholic like JFK from getting anywhere near the Oval Office).

Everson has swung the pendulum to asinine extremes. As a card-carrying heathen, I believe the illegality of a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn to be ridiculous. Back in my old stomping grounds, there was a Seattle mayor who issued an executive order prohibiting anyone on the city payroll from uttering the words “merry Christmas.” Idiot much, Mr. Mayor? A number of other municipal executives have followed that lead in recent years. In 2009, a college (in Minnesota, IIRC) excused a blind student from class because his guide dog offended the Muslim students in attendance.

Staggering pinnacles of arrogance, sanctimony, and stupidity. And it's all brought to you by Everson in 1947 – not by James Madison in 1787.

0

jaxx 2 years, 6 months ago

I tend to disagree with you wrestlingrockies when you say "Colorado is a liberal state" and "Craig has been in the minority in every major decision or election". I think we remember George W. being elected President twice (major decisions which carried in Moffat County). Conservatives have been elected senator and governor in fairly recent times. Colorado did carry for Barack Obama but not by a staggering majority. Colorado is made up of liberals and conservatives in fairly equal numbers. Moffat County does vote conservative but thats true in rural areas across the nation. Wrestling, I am neither liberal or "confused" and don't believe that Moffat County is as backward as you believe. I am a Western Republican willing to give civil unions the same rights as married couples. And I don't believe religion has any part in this conversation.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.