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.
You don't have to go back that far.
Sure does in my book!
If hope this democrat outrage backfires on them.
Remember the homosexuals spent a fortune and concentrated all their efforts in colorodo to defeat the marriage amendment there. They lost by 10% after ALL that effort. It was their "best defeat" in 2004.
Two men who have sex considered the same as a human having sex with a sheep is a good analogy. Hopefully they will push it as successfully as they try and BS people with the lie that homosexuals are not more likely to be child molesters.
I think that you missing some of the argument.
The point is that, if the definition of marriage is changed by one group, then the definition of marriage can further change. It is going to be at the whim of a judge or interest group.
If the law allows marriage between gays, it is discriminatory to not allow others to have their own definitions of marriage. What gives gays the right to change the definition to fit what they want but others are denied their definition? Gays are being discriminatory.
Let's change it to a woman and her German Shepherd. If the male animal initiates sex, she is not forcing herself on Wolfgang. She would make the argument that it is clearly not animal abuse. Wolfgang is happier, he eats better, his coat is shinier, etc. Do you think some sicko won't make the argument?
If there is no history of abuse, why can't a grown daughter marry daddy? They will make the argument.
DFU: Or, how about two men and a woman or two women and a man?
PSYCHO: Not my thing, but I am not about to force my will on others.
You are part of the problem. Retaining the definition of marriage that has worked for centuries is not forcing your will on others.
Perversion has no limits.
Perversion has no limits.
20 amendments and how many state laws prove that homosexuals are not accepted.
It is just the public declarations which have become PC sanitized.
In the privacy of the voting booth, people are free to express their true opinion of homosexuals.
I believe at the time Mrs. Rowland (my county commissioner) said this the main concern was where the SCOTUS was headed with their rulings and what it would mean. She was not comparing homosexuals in a direct comparison. I think she got into a 'mixed context' situation.
It's Decause to be a Dem, is to crave the beastly
nature, such as homosexuality, extraspecies, and
base self gratificary flagellation.
Liberalism = "Humanism" = Bestial degeneration.
"Forgive me for my naivete on this subject... but wouldn't that thing they do with the gerbils count as bestiality?"
Urban legend.
I don't see a problem here.
Always wondered what sex with a Ferengi would be like? ---Sorry, I am addicted to Star Trek.
The love that dare not moo, baa, bark or neigh its name.
Dude, you aint right.
Agreed! Plus, they tried to further smear her by comparing her remarks to a Republican state representative who allegedly forwarded emails that Black Hurricane Katrina victims were lazy. Listen, it took a lot of effort for Looter Guy to wade through waist-deep water with his load of looted beer! The truth sure do hurt, don't it?;)
there was a guy in Malibu busted for having sex with a horse ...
I also will admit that I have no respect for homosexuals. None! Define someone by their sin and I will not say I have respect for them. I will not commit violence against them or whatever. But I do not respect homosexuality and therefore do not respect "homosexuals."
unwarrented = unwarranted.
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.