KREX Weather
Grand Junction
Montrose
Glenwood Springs
Grand Junction
70.0 °
Montrose
68.0 °
Glenwood Springs
54.0 °
Senate to Vote on Civil Unions Bill by
KREX News Room
|
This content requires the latest Adobe Flash Player and a browser with JavaScript enabled.
Click here for a free download of the latest Adobe Flash Player.
 |
You have indicated this comment should be removed.
The comment has been submitted for review. Thank you .
Floyd said on Friday, Feb 8 at 4:27 PM
The dems have proven time after time they don't care what the voters want, it all boils down to what "they", want, and they don't care about the consequences.
Scott said on Friday, Feb 8 at 5:10 PM
No, they care about what's right. Discrimination is wrong, no matter what.
Floyd said on Friday, Feb 8 at 11:15 PM
You are right Scott, discrimination is wrong, but civil unions or marriage between same sex couples will "never", be equal to marriage between a man and a woman. No matter how much legislation is passed.
Discrimination BS said on Saturday, Feb 9 at 8:47 AM
We discriminate every day: the word means " to discern a difference". Non-discrimination doesn't mean that we must accept every possible tangent of human behavior. The voters spoke and the legislature has decided to ignore them. There is a price to be paid for that.
Scott said on Saturday, Feb 9 at 10:06 AM
As long as they are equal in the eyes of the state, that is all anyone is asking. Marriage is first and foremost a civil contract, and keeping two qualified people from entering into such a contract for religious reasons is a violation of the first amendment. If churches decide not to consider those marriages valid, they have that right but don't expect anyone else to care.
Upset said on Saturday, Feb 9 at 5:15 PM
Things like this is sadly the beginning of society being destroyed.
Floyd said on Saturday, Feb 9 at 5:40 PM
You are wrong Scott, the state, is, the people, not the politicions. The people voted against it and the politicians ignored the people. There are consequences that will involve the children of those who voted against it as well as those who voted for it. The politicians are going against the will of the people, as is the whole liberal agenda. The idea that "evil is good and good is evil", "natural is unnatural and unnatural is natural", "truth is a lie and the lie is the truth". These are all part of the liberal agenda, and every time there is a majority of dems in the government, state and federal. This is what we get, and that is wrong. "Tolerance" has been vastly abused by the gay crowd, and when the people finally get enough, the consequences of what they do to finally make the people say, "enough", the closet crowd will probably be pushed back to where they came from for a few hundred years, again.
Scott said on Saturday, Feb 9 at 7:16 PM
Civil rights are not subject to voter approval.
Floyd said on Saturday, Feb 9 at 11:05 PM
Scott, the abuse of civil rights by select few will eventually be dealt with by the people. Those dealings, will be done without the approval of the politicians. And you can bet your sweet bippy, the politicians will be hiding as far from wherever the action will take place as they can get. They don't like having to follow the same rules they dole out to the people. In case you haven't noticed, the people are getting extremely tired of the nonsense coming out of Denver and Washington these days.
Scott said on Saturday, Feb 9 at 11:10 PM
Its the voters that are trying to suppress the civil rights. The politicians are the ones defending them. You're on the wrong side.
Floyd said on Sunday, Feb 10 at 6:47 AM
The definition of civil rights is all in who makes the definition. The gay crowd defines civil rights the way they want those rights to read as long as they read in their favor. And they want those civil rights to take away from the majority any right to oppose the agenda of the gay crowd. So who is trying to suppress the rights of the people? The people will make the final decision in the end, they always have.
Scott said on Sunday, Feb 10 at 10:30 AM
No, the definition of civil rights is in the constitution. So where does it say civil unions are unconstitutional? Nowhere. It does say that congress cannot make laws establishing religion, so unless you have a non-religious reason for not allowing civil unions, your argument fails.
Floyd said on Sunday, Feb 10 at 8:49 PM
Scott, where does it say they are constitutional? exactly where, does the Constitution define civil unions? It doesn't, and you know it. But if the liberals get what they want, I'm sure there will be a new amendment to the Constitution within the term of this administration defining in every lurid detail what homosexual unions consist of. They wouldn't want anyone to be in doubt about what is meant by "civil unions", would they.
Add a comment
Most Popular