NOM BLOG

Video: CO Civil Union Author Sen. Steadman Claims that Christians "Want Separate Water Fountains" for Gays

 

State Senator Pat Steadman (D-Denver), co-sponsor of the Colorado same-sex civil union bill SB11, went to the floor of the Colorado Senate this week and lashed out at people of faith, claiming they want to "establish separate water fountains" for gay people and straight people in their churches and believe "My religion says I can't help [gays]. God told me to hate [gays]."

At another point he says people of faith "don't want gay people sitting on the bus next to them, they'd rather the gays stayed far to the back of the bus, far far away."

Steadman also argues that any person of faith with pro-marriage views should be forced to violate their conscience if they choose to continue operating their business (flower shops, bakeries, restaurants, photographers, banquet halls, etc) after the passage of same-sex civil unions. (He's right about one thing -- this civil unions bill poses a grave threat to religious freedom!)

Here is the transcript -- it is interesting to note how in the first paragraph Steadman claims his bill protects religious liberty (we see this claim made time and time again) and yet it is clear by the end how much he holds religion in contempt (and completely misunderstands it):

"We've written Senate Bill 11 to make sure this separation between religious belief and what's happening here in our state code, in our statutes, in our civil laws are kept separate. For Senate Bill 11 respects religious freedom, this bill does not reach into anyone's church or mosque or synagogue, you can have all the free exercise there that you want. Exercise it as you see fit. But don't let your free exercise run my life. Don't claim religion as a reason the law should discriminate. We have laws against discrimination. Discrimination is banned in employment, and housing, and public accommodations, and so bakeries that serve the public, aren't supposed to look down their noses and one particular class of persons and say "we don't sell cakes to you."  It's troubling, this discrimination. And it's already illegal.

So, what to say to those who claim that religion requires them to discriminate? I'll tell you what I'd say: "Get thee to a nunnery!" And live there then. Go live a monastic life away from modern society, away from people you can't see as equals to yourself. Away from the stream of commerce where you may have to serve them or employ them or rent banquet halls to them. Go some place and be as judgmental as you like. Go inside your church, establish separate water fountains in there if you want, but don't claim that free exercise of religion requires the state of Colorado to establish separate water fountains for her citizens. That's not what we're doing here."

Watch the video for yourself:

Please continue to take action and urge your state representatives to oppose same-sex civil unions by opposing SB11!

26 Comments

  1. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted February 21, 2013 at 11:07 am | Permalink

    Lacking a cogent argument, Senator Steadman must instead engage in inflammatory rhetoric. Nothing he said has anything to do with the matter at hand. He's overly fond of the sound of his own voice. Unfortunately, we're hearing a lot of this.

  2. Randy E King
    Posted February 21, 2013 at 11:07 am | Permalink

    This full frontal assault on the right of conscience must be met head on. The Church of SSM firmly believes that any system of belief that is counter to their system of belief is a religion; that religion is illegal in these United States.

    "It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins." Benjamin Franklin

    "The worship of God is a duty...Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature. I never doubted the existence of the Deity, that he made the world, and governed it by His Providence...The pleasures of this world are rather from God's goodness than our own merit... Whoever shall introduce into the public affairs the principles of primitive (essential) Christianity will change the face of the world... Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." . Benjamin Franklin

  3. Erica
    Posted February 21, 2013 at 11:48 am | Permalink

    How on earth did this guy get elected?

  4. Mc
    Posted February 21, 2013 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    This is really, really getting out of hand. If an atheist sign painter doesn't have to paint a sign for a church saying "repent" then a Christian baker shouldn't have to bake a rainbow cake for a gay wedding - simple as that! A conscience must be something that secular society can't relate to anymore! This is so sad and terrifying as well. Sex is a behavior that has many, many risks associated with it - why is it becoming the same as "race"?

  5. Clark Herlin
    Posted February 21, 2013 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

    This man is a fool and does not understand Religious Freedom. The point of Religious Freedom is for people - believers in a Deity or not - to have the freedom to say what their conscience tells them. For this man to say I cannot ever opine "gay marriage and all forms of homosexuality are wrong because Mormonism says so" is wrong. Religion has a right in public debate - the same as irreligion does.

  6. Randy E King
    Posted February 21, 2013 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    Point one:

    A religion is a system of belief; any system of belief.

    Point Two:

    There is no such thing as no system of belief; unless you are dead.

    SSM supporters insist that any system of belief that opposes their system of belief is unconstitutional regardless of what is written in the very 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

  7. Janice Kelley
    Posted February 21, 2013 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

    The problem is not that gays should have the same legal rights as straight people. The problem is with their definition of marriage. A marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman. If they want to have legal rights they should have a civil union. Two people of the same sex can not have a marriage!

  8. zack
    Posted February 21, 2013 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

    This lawmaker is a moron who understands nothing of the real civil rights struggle.

  9. Chairm
    Posted February 21, 2013 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    He is merely declaring what the SSM campaign teaches. The SSM advocate, based on his own rhetoric and stated standards, is the racist analogue.

    The SSM idea is not worth the costs he demands to have society pay. The gay emphasis with which the SSM idea is promoted does not justify the imposition of the SSM idea. He is wrong on every point.

  10. Shaun
    Posted February 21, 2013 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    We need to stop talking about "religion" and start talking about "people imposing their worldview on others." That's what this is really about. A baker who says "I don't make gay wedding cakes" isn't imposing anything on anyone, but a government who says, "You are required by law to make gay wedding cakes," is definitely imposing their values on the baker.

    *Irrelevant, but thought I'd just point out that this guy doesn't know his Shakespeare. In the, "Get thee to a nunnery," line from Hamlet, Hamlet is being satirical. By "nunnery" he actually means "brothel." Basically he's calling a woman a whore.

  11. Posted February 21, 2013 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    But, . . . if this is about legislating civil unions in the State of CO, then it is about setting up "separate drinking fountains" for same-sex civil unions and opposite-sex marriages. Ups!

    Sen. Steadman is using argumentation which tries to pitch the matter as religious denominations trying to dictate discrimination laws. But where does that leave the 1st Amendment to the Constitution?

    And where does it leave the votes of religious citizens, who don't really have something to gain as profound as the recognition of homosexual marriage, and automatically that of homosexual behavior in the entire State of Colorado?

    It's just very bothersome for him to have such a blatant, not law, but actually part of the US Constitution, protecting religious conscience, and prohibiting government to institute favoritism towards a certain religion. Well, the ideology of SSm or homosexual partnership is itself another religion, an opposing philosophy, which the government(s) are supposed to be "separate" from.

    So, when he argues against "separate drinking fountains" (which is a statement never made by his opposition), he goes on to say:

    " That's not what we're doing here." :

    Obviously, a self-contradiction. But people buy into absolute separation of religious people from the State, thinking it's separation of Church and State, when the 1st Amendment plainly says it's the State that is supposed to stay out of inhibiting the exercise of religion. Therefore, people, religious or not, inside their churches or not, can vote against same-sex civil unions, as their Constitutional right.

    Colorado recently passed a State Constitutional Amendment invalidating higher-scrutiny court procedures for so-called homosexuals. This was reversed by SCOTUS; but nevertheless it shows they have a lot of votes to go against same-sex civil unions.

    So, the call is against anti-religionists, who would dare to defend their right to vote, not only their right to freedom of conscience. Will be interesting. This Senator just put it in its true light. . .

  12. Randy E King
    Posted February 21, 2013 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

    Religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

    Religious: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity

    So, as you can see, SSM supporters are opposed to reality because it shows them for who the really are.

    The Emperor has no clothes!

    "It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins" Little Benji Franklin

  13. scragsma
    Posted February 21, 2013 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

    The man is incorrect. Discrimination as such is NOT forbidden by law. In fact, it CAN'T be! What is against the law is UNJUST discrimination, that is, discrimination based on factors not relevant to the decision to be made. In reference to marriage, it is proper to discriminate between, on the one hand, the permanent mutual relationship between a man and a woman to form a family, which is the bedrock of civilized society, and on the other hand, the relationship between two people of the same gender, which inherently cannot form a natural family to benefit society. The two types of relationship are inherently different, and can never be the same, so to treat them as the same under the law is to legislate a lie.

  14. P. Edward Murray
    Posted February 21, 2013 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

    Thank God I do not live in Colorado!

  15. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted February 21, 2013 at 9:27 pm | Permalink

    Incidentally, the CO House just passed the most draconian anti-gun legislation in recent history. Now that CA is destroyed, a lot of the anti-American folks are fleeing to CO. Colorado needs to secure its borders.

  16. Bobby
    Posted February 22, 2013 at 12:03 am | Permalink

    Barb - Good for CO. It only took close to 14 years after Columbine.

  17. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted February 22, 2013 at 12:28 am | Permalink

    Enjoy your Obamaphone, Bobbie.

  18. Bobby
    Posted February 22, 2013 at 2:07 am | Permalink

    Obamaphone, Barb? What are you talking about? I pay taxes on both the land line and mobile phones I own. I can more than afford my own phones. I live in NYC - one of the safest big cities in the country thanks to strong gun legislation.

  19. Posted February 22, 2013 at 10:32 am | Permalink

    Seems like Colorado is infiltrated by Democrats fleeing bad economies in Democrat controlled States, so SSm is 'coming to a town neary you'. This is a very crucial current migration that is going to affect USA politics. Forget illegal immigration.

    Well, this comment thread went off onto Gun-Control in Colorado, etc.

    Ha!
    N.Y. C. as one of the safest cities in the country? Safest does not mean safe :) How did they calculate safety levels? Chicago has even stronger gun regulation and is much more dangerous than Mexico City. Gun control is Democrat, and so is SSm. They are social experiments. Why experiment knowing it will fail?

    Here's how Bobbie calculates relative safety. Take ultra dangerous (big) cities (5). Sort them by the number of murders per year. Find NYC as the 4th in that order. Conclusion, NYC is one of the safest big cities in the country :) Bad mathematics. Democrat math :(

    Nevertheless, all those big cities are dangerous. The calculation doesn't count how many murder attempts or people injured by crime. The reason only 'big' cities are included is those cities have large populations and therefore, per capita, it makes the murders look less. But the people are just a dead. And that's the tip of the iceberg. Democrats are fleeing the bad economies of their States, starting to influence elections in non-Democrat States.

    Two of my cousins got mugged in NYC, while they were being taken advantage, legally, by astute businesses, with false promises. Thanks, but no thanks. It's a dirty city, compared to Honolulu, and there's nothing "New" about it. And it will get drowned as sea level rises. What a dumb place to build a city.

  20. Sheryl
    Posted February 22, 2013 at 11:31 am | Permalink

    Are they really putting in separate water fountains? Has this happened somewhere? Anywhere? Or are they just taking the comparison to race on as their mantra? This sounds so false.

  21. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted February 22, 2013 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

    Thanks, Little Man. The socialists have a scorched earth policy. They destroy one place then move to greener pastures, like Colorado.

  22. Bobby
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 12:12 am | Permalink

    Barb - What makes you think NYC is full of socialists - a term you love to toss around when you have no argument to make? There are plenty of millionaires like myself living in this great city. I really could not see myself living anywhere else.

  23. Randy E King
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 9:29 am | Permalink

    "There are plenty of millionaires like myself living in this great city."

    That would make you a member of the politburo; the ruling elites who deem their decadence to be acceptable because they oversea socialisms front guard.

    In reality that would mean that you are a parasite,

  24. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

    Cool, Bobbie. Tell your buddy Nanny Mike that all his bans on personal choice haven't made him any taller.

  25. Posted February 24, 2013 at 5:56 am | Permalink

    What's so 'new' about NY City?

    Though a stronghold of SSm, and breaking their own Senate rules, there's also a lot of good people there in NYC.

    I've never been curious about NYC. I think they make their own publicity, not showing the worse areas. Why live there if we can watch the crime on TV?

  26. John Noe
    Posted February 24, 2013 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

    Very subly, what this guy, the ruling elites, and the Democrats are trying to impose on the USA is religion as it was practiced in the old USSR and currently in China.
    They are trying to replace freedom of religion with freedom of worship. You can have a belief in a church controlled by the state but you may not practice it outside of your church.
    Even your churches and homes will no longer be safe. In Sweden ministers cannot preach against homosexuality as it is a hate crime and in Canada the state wants to go after home schoolers.