It is not surprising that Colorado has gone a little "Lefty Loopy" lately...(hey, I like that...LLLL).

All states have their moments. In one my petitions I usually sign 6 or 7 a day, this one got fowarded to the Denver Post about Colorado Senate Bill 88, that would give same sex partners health benefits to state employess at our expense. Just the beginning if you ask me...

 

Here it is as follows....Reporting in from the Little Lefty Loopy State your pal , Jason

 

 

15 Comments »

1. The writer is actually mistaken. According to the bible (which is the main source of reasoning against gay marriage) Polygamy was quite common.

   Comment by Jennifer — March 23, 2009 @ 4:53 am

2. Mr. Hudson is so right.

   It is obvious by looking at the design of man and woman’s bodies that marriage is intended to be between only a man and a woman. And God has given us very clear instruction in the Bible that this is His intent and purpose.

   But a small group of radical homosexual activists keep trying to take society down the dangerous road of other experimentations.

   It’s time for us to just say NO.

   Comment by bellle — March 23, 2009 @ 5:13 am

3. Wow. There are so many unsupported opinions and claims in this letter, it’s difficult to know where to begin in response.

   First, awarding health care coverage to domestic partners does not “elevate same-sex relationships to the status of married couples”. What it does do is make the system of coverage fair to all state employees. At last. There are still over a thousand specific benefits that married couples receive that are denied to same-sex couples (and, by the way, “domestic partner” doesn’t always mean same-sex).

   “Senate Bill 88 seeks to force taxpayers against their wishes to provide financial support that would encourage same-sex relationships.” How do you know this? Why can’t someone who supports the idea of marriage=man+woman also want to see fairness in the health care realm? And just because my boyfriend (for example) works for the state isn’t enough to “encourage” a same-sex relationship with him for me. Gotta be more than that.

   “Since the dawn of time” (spare me the cliche) “marriage has been between a man and a woman…Always should be.” According to whom? You? Your church? Since when does your church’s dogma dictate to the state? Marriage is a civil ceremony, a legal contract recognized by the state and (optionally!) sanctioned by a church. Being “married” has nothing to do with any authority making a “should be” pronouncement.

   “Forcing taxpayers to ‘put in’ to a system they do not feel is correct is wrong.” So do we now allow Libertarians to keep their tax dollars because they feel it’s “wrong”?

   “There is a right was of doing things, and a wrong way.” Again, according to whom? And why is it wrong to make workplace benefits more fair?

   Comment by TomFromTheNews — March 23, 2009 @ 5:15 am

4. I don’t think that anyone who views genitalia as a more important qualification for marriage than love, commitment and fidelity has any understanding of what marriage really is. I don’t believe such people value marriage properly, and I believe they denigrate the institution.
   Therefore, I don’t want my taxes to support your marriage. Please divorce your “wife” immediately, or if not married, refrain from entering into what you call a “marriage.” (Marriage should only be between two people who have a proper understanding of and value for the institution, after all.) I shouldn’t have to “put in” to a system I think is wrong.
   Oh, what’s that? You don’t think I should have any say over your personal choice of spouse, and you think you deserve the same benefits as anyone else who chooses to marry, even though your choice is wrong and perverted in my eyes?
   Well, maybe gay people are of the same mind in that. And maybe they have just about as much justice on their side as you do.

   Comment by Katja — March 23, 2009 @ 6:01 am

5. “Forcing taxpayers to “put in” to a system they do not feel is correct is wrong.”

   Based upon this logic, gays should not be forced to pay property and other taxes used to fund schools, and subsidize other benefits afforded married, straight couples.

   Comment by LJ — March 23, 2009 @ 6:17 am

6. More uninformed, regurgitated rhetoric to defend an elitist attitude that excludes fellow citizens from equality.

   “It’s always been done this way”, is no more an excuse to explain a stand on an issue than ignorance of the law is an excuse for breaking it.

   Contrary to Mr. Hudson’s unoriginal, and again uninformed assertion, same sex relationships have been recognized in various cultures and eras through human history.

   Marriage has been in a constant state of evolution throughout that history.

   For most of it, marriage was primarily a arrangement to create political and/or financial alliances between families.

   It’s only been in the last 150 years or so that marriage for love became more common. Even then the same societal prejudices that gays face today played a role in excluding certain people from entering into marriage because they were different races, different social classes, etc.

   Mr. Hudson and people who believe as he do are on the wrong side of history and humanity on this issue. Right now he believes that he walks the moral high ground on this issue but some day in the not too distant future people, perhaps his own children, will wonder how he and people like him could ever think they had the right to vote upon or deny equality to their fellow citizens.

   Look at how many of us today wonder how our parents and grandparents abided by or particapated in forcing black Americans to ride in the backs of buses, women being denied educations and jobs because they were women, and entire families being incarcerated in internment camps because they were of Japanese ancestry.

   Their response was “well, that’s just the way things were then and how it had always been done”.

   Fortunately there were enough people who refused to accept that injustices and inequities were just a way of life…and there still are today.

   Mr. Hudson obviously isn’t one of them.

   Comment by zivo24 — March 23, 2009 @ 7:17 am

7. You should really check your facts. Until christians forcibly destroyed and suppressed all other western religions, polyamory was the norm. The greeks even had special provisions (especially the spartans) that men could marry men. In the course of human history, the idea of one man and one woman is relatively recent, and goes against the genetic nature of the beast. But, I’ll bet that you are also a young earth creationist, and belive that human kind, and the earth, are only 6000 years old, so all paleo anthropology and archeology is just a waste of time.

   Comment by lyle — March 23, 2009 @ 7:34 am

8. A few things to address on this one:

   1. Could it be that the “taxpayers” referenced here include (drumroll, please) those same people who seek the benefits?

   2. Would it be reasonable to say that, if not everyone can benefit from the benefits, no one should?

   3. Mr. Hudson doesn’t himself bring it up, but what is the reason for excluding these couples from the benefits? Is it because it would create an undue burden on the system, or — sadly — because a certain religious segment of the population is so concerned about its own marriages, it must find a scapegoat to share the misery? What is it, exactly, that makes you think you’re entitled to marriage/benefits when others aren’t?

   If your reasoning behind denying these benefits to same-sex couples is religious-based, it has no place in the state’s discussions around whether to pass this bill or not. Period. And if you’re thinking marriage — and the related benefits — are defined by religious tenents, think again. Your marriage may be sanctioned in a church, but almost all of us still head down to the county clerk for a license.

   Mr. Hudson’s letter is a prime example of what’s wrong with religious cultism. That’s it’s exclusionary to the detriment of others is no surprise, but that makes it no less shameful. Reminds me of a letter I read here maybe five years ago, from an elderly woman who was upset about the prospect of her social security dollars being paid out to homosexual partners who wanted their benefits to go to those partners. With no sense of irony, the elderly woman completely ignored that those same homosexuals pay into social security just like everybody else, and yet…when they die, they have no say about their benefits.

   That goes beyond scapegoating. You’re turning an entire group into your own personal pack mules. Shameful.

   Comment by Charlie Walsh — March 23, 2009 @ 7:35 am

9. “The point is, since the dawn of time, marriage has been between a man and a woman”

   Since the dawn of time? Does that include all the polygamous relationships that are so revered in the bible?

   Comment by Bob Wigwam — March 23, 2009 @ 7:43 am

10. I’m fairly certain that Mr. Hudson has no personal knowledge of how sexual relationships were since the dawn of time. But it seems as if, for him, the dawn of time is probably around 6000 years or less when God created it; so my argument here may be useless. But I’ll try.

    Homosexuality and bisexuality are much more common in the animal kingdom than the human world. In bonobos, for instance, over 50% of all sexual relationship are between two females. If greater apes engage in homosexuality, then it’s highly possible that their ancestors did. Thus, so did human ancestors. So humans have not been heterogamous since the dawn of time. And there’s no reason to assume that we should be now.

    Comment by Lucanor — March 23, 2009 @ 9:14 am

11. Belle, Belle, Belle..

    Do you not understand that human anatomy and marriage are two very different things?

    Yes, it takes the donations of both a male and female to create a baby, but babies were being conceivedlong before anyone ever concieved of the idea of marriage.

    As I and other posters have pointed out above, it has taken thousands of years for us to get to where we are today where marriage..at least in western civilization..is a union between two individuals who choose to be together

    For most of human history marriage has not been available or a even choice or option for most of the people who have lived. In many countries and cultures throughout the world today women, and even men, do not have the right to choose who they want to marry. Their marriages are arranged, their spouses chosen for them.

    Marriage should be about what two people have in their hearts and not what they have between their legs.

    And with regards to your remark, “But a small group of radical homosexual activists keep trying to take society down the dangerous road of other experimentations”…

    You might want to remember that in his day and time there were alot of people..and leaders…saying the same type of thing about Jesus Christ.

    He was a radical activist who was executed for daring to challenge the status quo.

    Comment by zivo24 — March 23, 2009 @ 9:40 am

12. Here is the deal, humans invented marriage. We can change it to be anything we want at any time.

    Think about this, humans also invented clothing. Yet we act as if nudity is a great sin. We don’t use our heads folks, we use our emotions.

    When folks find someone to love and marry, we should all be happy for them. What difference does it make to you who oppose this? Can you tell if your neighbors are married or living together? Who made your opinions so important? You did!

    Comment by sharon blackburn — March 23, 2009 @ 9:45 am

13. Bellle’s logic is a hoot. “It is obvious by looking at the design of man and woman’s bodies that marriage is intended to be between only a man and a woman.” Nice comic relief, bellle. Why not try using your brain once in a while instead of pounding your bible?

    Comment by Romulus — March 23, 2009 @ 9:51 am

14. Don’t forget, the Bible also sanctioned child brides, arranged marriages, and forcing rape victims to marry their attsacker. And, you guys, Hudson and Belle, think we homosexuals are disgusting?

    Comment by Anonymous — March 23, 2009 @ 12:13 pm

15. Ok…so you didnt like it. But consider these facts.

    The key to our future is our children.They must be taught and instructed in the right way. Being a parent is not easy, there are no parental handbooks for every situation…if there is, it weighs 2000 pounds. Children learn what they live. That means whether you realize it or not, in every action your children are learning from you, especially if they are real young.. What you bring home from work, the football game, you name it. What ever affects you, effects them. It also means if the live with the TV set, they will learn from that as well. Tv is not a parental substitute, it offers one sided points of view………inaccurate,immoral,…. fot the most point,too much here to list. I would say that of the internet as well.
    don’t wan’t to preach, but some of the hardships in our country are explained when parents are not parental in their chlidrens lives, every step of the way. Our job in life is not keep and shelter our children forever, but to prepare them for the day that they will leave us, for a life of their own. The education system in our country ,leaves a lot to be desired, with almost a brainwashing of secularism, being taught at younger ages. To me that robs children of their innocence, one of the biggest crimes against our children in this day and age. A child needs both a Mother and a Father image to keep them balanced, and lead a Balanced life.

    Regards

    Comment by Jason H — March 23, 2009 @ 12:27 pm

16. I applaud all you on your knowledge of the Bible and pointing out the details that you see fit, that perhaps may not be accurate. Maybe you should try reading it and compare the real results. You have gone out on a limb to “portray” me as some kind of right wing, holy roller kook in your own minds (narrow). So you must be correct ….right? And yet I still put my pants one one leg at a time and use foul language just like the rest of you.

    Bottom line is, You can go thru life telling the truth, or being a liar. There is good in this world, and there is evil. A right and a wrong. If you do not know the difference between the two…so be it, at least admit to that.
    REMEMBER…I did not ram this”It’s the end of the world” you must repent or die message down your throat. I do not judge you … I am no better that anyone else, it’s your choice. I will leave the judging up to you.

    Comment by Jason H — March 24, 2009 @ 5:47 am