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.
I have mentioned my point repeatedly. Marriage provides protections to the couple and to any children this couple may have. Homosexuals are a couple and more and more are starting to have children. They deserve the same protections as a heterosexual couple. Granting them marriage is the only way to do this.
You argue that homosexuals are somehow inferior to heterosexuals. I have seen this thinking many times. It used to be that minorities were viewed in the same way. Perhaps you will never agree, but I have met many decent, hard-working gays and lesbians. Many of them started out dating other members of the opposite sex, but unfortunately, they find members of their own sex attractive and are not interested in members of the opposite sex. Is this a disease? I know many people around here think so, but I do not. True, they deviate from the norm, but does that make them bad people? Does that make them less worthy?
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?
Marriage already means different things to different people. Some have no respect for the idea and cheat repeatedly. Some save themselves for marriage. Don't go blaming others for your lack of parenting. My parents raised me with certain ideals that I hold myself to. I will raise my children with these same ideals. But I do not enforce my ideals upon others. My culture is mine, I do not enforce it upon others, and I do not see why the government has to get involved.
I recall a story very recently about a man rolling a pig head into a mosque. Everybody was ranting that the government should not get involved with religion in terms of granting special protections for the Muslims. I tend to agree. However, when it comes to marriage, I hear all sorts of talk about tradition and religion.
You have met MANY ...gays? Most people rarely associate with them, simple laws of averages.
So I guess you tend to hang out with them, got a bit of a limp wrist yourself, and this is all about validating you as well. Thanks for clueing us in.
Well, since the Bible verses condemning homosexuality are bracketed on either side with verses re bestiality and incest, it's hard not to see the logic.
So you've reduced yourself from trying to make a point to attacking me, eh? I guess I win by default.
I'm not attacking you, just accepting that your arguments really don't even mean much to you, you will say anything for validation. So how can we argue or discuss, if you don't come at it honestly?
I am honest. I am guessing that you are attacking my "I have met many decent, hard-working gays and lesbians" comment. This is true, although I suppose there is no way to prove it online. I have worked with a few homosexuals, and they tended to do well and I have not had any problems with their work or working with them. I also have a lesbian friend, through which I have met many homosexuals. Also, in college there were a number of gays I met through class and in my dorms. I can't say that I met any delinquents, and while I did find the effeminate nature of many male homosexuals annoying, I was not bothered by them. It seemed that some of them (male and female) cared very deeply for their partners, and I saw no reason to prohibit their marriage. I think these people are just that, people. They have a different sexual preference, and a few have told me that they wish they were straight. However, they just do not get aroused by the opposite sex, and find themselves happier with a partner of the same sex. Not my gig, and I don't agree with most of them politically (homosexuals tend to be liberal; hence pro-gun-control and anti-Israel), but I still believe that they should have the right to get married as heterosexuals would.
What % are gay in America? About 3%. What % want to get married? Let me throw out a number, a guess. 20% I pick a low number, because most men are horndogs (or would like to be if not constrained by societal pressure, religious morality etc), most gay men are VERY promiscuous. The average gay man, according to surveys, have had hundreds of lovers. Not marriage material. So maybe 20% of 3% of the population would be in a gay/lesbian marriage, that is .6%
What % would be likely to be involved in a 5th amendment situation? Let's say 20%. Obviously, any of these numbers can be argued. so 20% of .6% =.12%
So for the benefit of about .12% of the population, you would discard millenia of tradition, tradition that a solid majority of people want to see untouched.
For .12% you would go against the religious beliefs of the majority of the country. You would contribute to the weakening of the foundations of an institution that is CRITICAL to children, and to the mainenence of a society that is not totally dependent on the govt (face it, without families, welfare becomes "daddy").
This is why I question your motives, there is no logic to counter this. I cannot explain it any better, and I find it hard that someone would need this much of a breakdown to get it.
First of all, it doesn't matter how many members of the population are receiving unequal treatment. If something is unfair and it affects a portion of the population, that must be changed.
Secondly, allowing gays to get married does not destroy marriage. Just because it is a tradition does not mean it should not be touched. As I have said repeatedly, I will say again, appeals to tradition are logical fallacies. Just because something was done in the past for years does not make it right. There used to be laws on the books saying homosexuality was illegal, and would sentence people to death. Those laws were not just. In addition, I "would go against the religious beliefs of the majority of the country" because as it states in the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Laws are not to be based off of religion.
Now, here is where I can understand your point. I am opposed to homosexuals getting married in Synagogues and Churches and if I was religious, I would not join a congregation that specifically goes against its religious text. If it is so offensive to for gays to call what they have marriage, which has religious connotations, then the government should not be giving out marriages. Call what you get from the government a civil union, because that is what it is, and give it out to everyone. That way, everyone is assured of receiving equal treatment, and should a new law or new court ruling come out relating to civil unions, everyone gets affected by it in the same way.
Next, what I am pushing does not contribute to the breakdown of family. Families are not going to start dissolving because all of a sudden homosexuals can get married. In addition, homosexuals will have biological children regardless of whether or not they can get married. The only thing, like someone said, gays will try to adopt children. However, I will oppose them there because the psychological effects on children have not yet been studied. But just because I oppose them on that issue, does not mean that they should receive different treatment from heterosexual couples.
By the rules of logic, a single exception disproves a rule.
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.