Posted on 08/16/2006 9:50:04 AM PDT by Abathar
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.
"We all say things we don't mean sometimes," he said. "That's what happened."
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.
She returned to the bestiality comparison at the end of the broadcast.
"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.
Well, the same limitations often apply to siblings and even to parents. Even without civil unions, legal instruments exist to establish common interests . Even when you sign a rental lease together you create legal obligations.
The lesbian relationship --as a sexual relationship-- does not produce children, whereas the most casual sexual encounter between a man and a woman can.
The thing is that with marriage, there are further protections. A spouse does not have to bear witness against a spouse. This has not yet been tested in the case of a civil union, as in Trammel vs. US. There are a number of other protections granted as a result of marriage. I do not see a reason to exclude homosexuals from these protections.
The lesbian relationship --as a sexual relationship-- does not produce children, whereas the most casual sexual encounter between a man and a woman can.
Really? I never knew that! Seriously, what is the point of that? Are you trying ot address my point that lesbians can have kids? That doesn't exactly do it. You initially said that "marriage is an institution that has developed to provide care for human progeny." Ok, lesbians can have projeny and can take care of them together. Why can't they then get married? Because the child is not biologically one of the parents? Well what about step-fathers? What about artificial insemination?
Gay marriage is a fraud, an oxymoron. If two gays want to engage in a consensual fraud between themselves, that's their business. But giving gay marriage legal effect moves it beyond the two of them and onto the rest of us. No one has the right to force the rest of us to acknowledge and support an outright fraud of this nature.
Marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman for the purpose of creating and rearing children. It has special significance, importance, and value above all other human relationships for that very reason.
Some gays are asking for acknowledgement, I will agree on that. However, most gays I meet simply want the same legal protections that a heterosexual couple can have. What is wrong with that?
Marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman for the purpose of creating and rearing children. It has special significance, importance, and value above all other human relationships for that very reason.
Why does it have to be between a man and a woman? And what about people who remain childless? Is their marriage a "fraud" as well? If it is, why should they enjoy the benefits of marriage and not homosexuals, some of whom are raising children together?
In the case of lesbians, the sexual relationship is the very heart of the personal relationship and it is necessarily sterile. The purpose of marriage is to produce as well as nurture progeny. Of course there are families without fathers, or natural fathers. But I cannot see awarding rights to two women joined by sexual desire and not give the same to two sisters living together to take care of a ward or a child of one of them.
As you have hinted, marriage is a sexual relationship. A relationship between two sisters taking care of a ward is not sexual. I have know two lesbians who plan on having children one day. Both of them have a similar story; they want to settle down with a woman who they love, and then have a child. The only difference is the origin of the child, and that does not sound like a good reason for disallowing the union.
Suppose you have a kid raised by a lesbian couple who gets divorced. Would it be right for one of the women to deny visitation to the other? Furthermore, do you not think that the child would be devastated at the loss of a parent, even if that parent was not biologically his or hers, and that both parents were of the same gender? Or, suppose one women decided to not pay child support?
I suppose there are ways to contractually get around many of these things, but that still seems very much like a "separate but equal" policy, and that is not right. Especially since their union will never be equal to marriage, because there are things like the fifth ammendment extending to marriage, and because the rights and protections of marriage are subject to change and if things are turning sour in the relationship, one member may not want to sign off on a contract covering this new protection.
When someone says "What next sex with animals I say yes. that is the biblical line of perversion. If you read Leviticus 18 22-23 (that would be in the old testament for those of you who only read half of the bible) it says this "you shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination. Neither shall you lie with any beast to defile yourself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is a perversion. So when someone says that they support gay sex they are also supporting beastiality.
How does the sexual relationship elevate a lesbian family above that of my hypothetical family consisting of two sisters and a child? What is essential to marriage is not the sexual act but the object of the sexual act. Even when the male and female are incapable of reproduction, the object remains reproduction. Where two males or two females copulate that outcome is precluded in every case. It is LIKE bestiality, which is why the term sodomy includes both homosexuality and sex between man and another species of animal. (Ref. Black's Law Dictionary.) So those who were shocked when a Colodado political candidate equates the two OUGHT not have been shocked.
She was only Dr. Johnson kicking the stone.
The personal relationships between man and woman are also different from those between two men or two women, and the mariiage laws reflect this kind of sexual relationship. To attempt to substitute Part A and Partner B in place of man and wife is to make marriage a procrustean bed.
That is another difference between lesbians and two sisters. The child will be either be neither of the sisters, in the case of a ward, or the child will be one of theirs, and the other sister is the helpful aunt. With lesbians, the child will look at both women as his/her mother.
Sodomy also used to include oral sex. How come we aren't hearing people compare that to beastiality? I can't quite understand why people fight so hard against gay marriage.
"It's between two man and a woman!"
Why?
"It's to have children!"
Then why does it provide protections for the spouses that is independent of the children. And, some homosexuals seek to have children after they are "married." Why should a homosexual couple receive a different set of protections from each other than a man and a woman do? And why should a child from a union of two women, or two men as some men find ways to have a child outside of adoption, receive fewer protections than a child from a union between man and woman? Because the child is not a result of the sex between the two?
Gays are NOT seeking "the same protections" when they seek marriage. A living will gives them all the protection they need.
They are seeking to FORCE society to accept them as normal. No more, no less.
Unless you count pissing off Christians as a sub-goal.
I love this post from one of the DUmmies.
"zbdent
as if being a liberal is more disgusting than beastiality"
Uh yeh zbdent, being a liberal is more disgusting that just about everything in the whole world.
5th ammendment protection is not covered by a living will.
Christ,
So we should allow marriage to be completely redefined, taken from it's roots that stretch back beyond history, so that criminal gays won't be compelled to testify against each other.
And you think it is worth it?
The fifth ammendment was just one example. There are other privileges given by marriage that are not covered by civil unions, living wills and other contracts. Furthermore, you are assuming that anyone who invokes the fifth is a criminal, bringing into question whether it should be an ammendment. Also, appeals to tradition are a logical fallacy. Plenty of things were done for a long time and were later acknowledged to be unjust.
Oh, so you put the tradition of marriage in the same category as things determined later to be unjust, like slavery?
Dude, you are reaching. You don't throw the majority to the wolves for the benefit of the minority. I know liberals are oh-so-proud of what they are willing to sacrifice (or require others to sacrifice)for esoteric principles, but that is a suicidal tendency.
And yes, your argument was about protecting gay criminals.
Appeals to tradition are not a fallacy. Marriage has existed for a long time and has a long tradition, and most people feel strongly about it. Those who want to destroy tradition bear the burden of proving that it is unjust, and "feelings" have nothing to do with proof.
You and I both know that gays are pushing for marriage for validation. We (US society) have no obligation to validate what we consider wrong, and certainly not by damaging the institution of marriage any more than feminists and gays have already done.
Homosexuals are people unable to have normal relationships, by definition. Society is not required to bend over backwards for devients. The fact that we do so much of it now portends poorly for the survival of our nation.
No, my argument was not about "protecting gay criminals." My argument was to point out that "a living will" will not give homosexuals "all the protection they need." In addition, it is troubling that you believe that the fifth ammendment exists solely to protect criminals.
I will acknowledge there are homosexuals who seek validation from the public. However, many others simply want the same protections as heterosexuals and don't give a damn whether they are accepted or not. Civil unions, etc. do not grant the same rights and protections as marriages. If marriage is granted more protections/rights, those will not necessarily trickle over to rights civil unions possess.
Allowing gays to get married does not damage marriage. How does homosexuals getting married affect your marriage? I am not throwing the "majority to the wolves for the benefit of the minority" for the very reason that I do not feel like my marriage would be cheapened by gays getting married, and I doubt that husbands will love their wives any less (and vice versa) if homosexuals can get married. I do not believe that marriage is unjust; I only believe that it is unjust to limit marriage to heterosexual couples.
If you want to change the way things are, you have to prove your point. You sound like a bratty 14 year old shouting "why should I" to her parents, when in fact she need to convince her parents of the need for change, not the other way around.
And as for cheapening marriage, how do you tell your virgin 13 year old daughter to save it for marriage if she snorts at the word because marriage now means whatever you want it to mean?
As far as protections go, gay couples are not normal couples, they should not demand to be treated as normal. 40 years ago homosexuality was accepted as a disorder. Now, because of marketing and lobbying, we should change a tradition that predates recorded history.
You sell your culture off cheaply.
And the male muslim vote.
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.