Most of the money from denver comes from Tim Gill- and the Gill foundation.
I don't know- maybe LJ sent in a few bucks, but these gay marriage bills are mostly being funded by Tim Gill and his butt buddies. They keep bringing um up over and over- and the gay community keeps getting sucked in and fleeced out of their money.
Whatever.
One of these days they will realize they are being used by the politicians - and unfortunatly the taxpayer and the insurance consumer is going to pay more for everything.
I think they should start publishing the cost that this bill will impose on the "normal" people in Colorado.
And you are an asshole. Just because I don't fit your narrow bigoted opinion of who is or isn't a conservative... bull crap. Get out of your pew and learn something, the world doesn't revolve around Bear.
BearMtnHIB wrote: I think they should start publishing the cost that this bill will impose on the "normal" people in Colorado.
You mean the normal people like you who are screwing 2 or 3 girlfriends at the same time? You admitted that you have 3 girlfriends, I suspect they are not nuns in chastity belts. What morals? You have no morals. You're a joke.
Actually if people in civil unions have the access to the healthcare benefits of their "spouses" employers health care insurance it might be cheaper than them going to the emergency room etc. Preventive care tends to be a lot cheaper than emergency rooms, ask me how I know.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
And one day, these Neanderthals will be replaced with people who believe in civil rights for ALL of Colorado's citizens... It's not "if"--but "when"...And Gill's money will have been well-spent.
LadyJazzer wrote: And one day, these Neanderthals will be replaced with people who believe in civil rights for ALL of Colorado's citizens... It's not "if"--but "when"...And Gill's money will have been well-spent.
(For once I agree with Lady Jazzer's point... other than that... feh)
Marriage is not a right, never has been. It is, and always has always been, a restricted privilege. There have always been laws which restrict who may marry - some of them good, some of them not so good, but civil society has always restricted access to marriage for a variety of reasons and it will continue to do so.
Bear is right here. The very same arguments used to claim that rights are being denied if homosexuals aren't allowed to be married are valid to claim that rights are being denied if polygamy isn't allowed. If I indeed have a basic human right to marry the person of my choosing and have it recognized by the government for the purposes of property rights and government benefits, then denying me the ability to choose to whom, or to how many, I am married to, for any reason, is a violation of that basic human right. I can make an argument that denying access to marriage for more than two people violates the constitutional prohibition against laws which restrict the free exercise of religion given the historical reality that certain sects within the Mormon religion and the Islamic religion, not to mention numerous Native American Tribes, have included polygamy within what the religion or the culture allows within its canon and traditions.
This is not a matter of civil rights - marriage has never been a right, it has always been a restricted privilege in our laws, customs and traditions. Saying that one has a fundamental human right to be married to the person of their choosing means that there is a basic human right to marry one's sibling, or their parent or their first cousin if that is what they desire to do that would also have to be allowed. The logic isn't there folks, nor is the history of the law - marriage is, and always has been, a restricted privilege, not a right.
(For once I agree with Lady Jazzer's point... other than that... feh)
