Category Archives: Colorado

The Double Standard of "Equality"

The rash of bakery-closings on account of charges of "discrimination" has been appalling. Now, same-sex marriage activists have plans to shut down all Chick-fil-A locations in Denver—an act in the same vein as closing bakeries, but on a much larger scale. The Federalist explains the twisted logic behind this movement:

Photo Credit: Chris Potter/Flickr

Photo Credit: Chris Potter/Flickr

Now, in an effort to save everyone some time, the cultural imperialists at the Denver City Council—which, to be fair, have long exhibited authoritarian impulses—have decided to skip the pretense of some trumped-up injustice and jumped right to discriminating against a businesses solely because of the beliefs of its CEO.

The Denver Council’s Business Development Committee has stalled a seven-year deal with Chick-fil-A because CEO Dan Cathy spoke out against gay marriage back in 2012. Cathy, after being flogged for this misconduct, backed off , saying he regretted getting involved. But that won’t do. There are no prisoners in this culture war. So the council will meet in couple of weeks to take up the topic again. Not so the members can take time to chew over the significance of a city punishing its citizens for their thoughts and beliefs, or even to weigh the importance of tolerance in a vibrant city like Denver. They’re waiting to have a closed-door committee hearing with city attorneys, who will brief them on the legal implications and practicality of shutting down apostates.


Denver Councilman Paul Lopez, who is leading the intellectual charge for the ban—a task that meshes poorly with his skill set—says that, in the end, opposition to the chain at DIA is ”really, truly a moral issue.” Now, when the Founders told us that government can make no law respecting an establishment of religion, I took it to mean that the belief system of a union-installed sock puppet on a city council would be completely irrelevant in matters of expression and faith. Really, truly.


Now, everyone is free to boycott and protest whomever they please. Citizens and elected officials have every right to work to cut off taxpayer funding to businesses and institutions they find morally distasteful. But if the city council of Anytown, USA were to concoct reasons to deny permits to gay business owners who supported same-sex marriage, many Americans would find that rightfully appalling. If you’re okay with the idea of a city council denying orthodox Christians who believe in traditional marriage the same freedom, you’re a massive hypocrite—and probably worse.

There is a glaring double-standard when it comes to "equality." When it comes to marriage, the idea of equality only exists for those who agree with a redefined understanding of marriage: those who disagree are to be punished. This is another example of why Congress and the states need to pass the First Amendment Defense Act to protect people from discrimination for supporting marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

See The Federalist for more.

The Thought Police Have Arrived - An Update

In his recent article, Marriage: Where Do We Go From Here?, Ryan T. Anderson reminded marriage champions that we must take the long view in our defense of marriage and "be ready to bear witness to the truth even if law and culture grow increasingly hostile."  Every day, this becomes more apparent.

Yesterday, Ryan and Leslie Ford at the Heritage Foundation wrote an excellent summary of what's happening to the Colorado baker whose religious views conflict with same-sex "marriage."  The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled unanimously last week that Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop must create cakes for same-sex weddings regardless of his religious beliefs:

It all started in 2012, when a same-sex couple received a marriage license in Massachusetts and asked Phillips to bake a cake for a reception back home in Colorado, a state that in 2006 constitutionally defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Phillips declined to create a wedding cake, citing his faith: “I don’t feel like I should participate in their wedding, and when I do a cake, I feel like I am participating in the ceremony or the event or the celebration that the cake is for,” he said. The couple later obtained a wedding cake with rainbow-colored filling (illustrating the expressive nature of event cake-baking) from another bakery.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against Masterpiece Cakeshop with the state, alleging violations of Colorado’s public accommodation law. Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer ruled against the bakery on Dec. 6, 2013, concluding that Phillips violated the law by declining service to the couple, “because of their sexual orientation.”2013-01-22 Colorado Flag

Phillips objected to this characterization and responded that he would happily sell the couple his baked goods for any number of occasions, but creating a wedding cake would force him to express something that he does not believe, thereby violating his freedom to run his business in accordance with his faith.


Indeed, a growing number of incidents demonstrate that the redefinition of marriage and state policies on sexual orientation create a climate of intolerance, intimidation and legal coercion for citizens who believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

It’s time for state and federal policy to respect Americans’ ability to live and work in accordance with their beliefs. Even in states where marriage has been redefined, government should not coerce individuals and organizations to violate their beliefs that marriage is the union of a man and woman. Although Americans are free to live as they choose, no one should demand that government compel others into celebrating their same-sex relationship.


The Thought Police Have Arrived

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Another victim of the supposedly harmless same-sex 'marriage' movement has been hit with official state sanctions for refusing to sacrifice his beliefs in the truth of marriage.

You may recall that Colorado baker Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakeview, declined to bake a "wedding" cake for a gay couple who were 'married' in Massachusetts and wanted to hold a reception in Colorado to celebrate the union. Phillips, a committed Christian, explained that his religious beliefs prevented him from participating in a same-sex ceremony because it is contrary to the biblical definition of marriage. The homosexual couple sued and last week the state came down on the Christian baker.

Not only has the Christian baker been ordered to "cease and desist" from "discrimination" against gay couples, but he and his staff have been ordered to undergo two years of "training" to assure that no further "discrimination" occurs. The baker must report quarterly to the state Civil Right Commission about how it is changing its policies, its "training" progress and the names of any clients it has refused to serve.

The movement to redefine marriage was once said to be about "tolerance and acceptance." Today it is about tyranny.

Anyone who continues to think that redefining marriage won't affect you or your children is just not paying attention. It already affects every American, and this will only continue to get worse. Oh, sure, you'll always be free to hold a belief about marriage, but if that belief ever impacts your actions as a citizen, you can expect the full force of government to come down to crush you.

It's only when citizens stand up to tyranny and speak truth to power, that truth can prevail. Please see the video we released recently promoting the March for Marriage on June 19th, and do your best to spread it wide and far. And if you can join us in Washington on June 19th, we welcome you!


Brian S. Brown

Prager: "In the name of tolerance, the left is eroding liberty in America."

Writing in Human Events, author and radio host Dennis Prager observes that "'Tolerance' Now Means Government-Coerced Celebration."


Prager gives the opinion in reference to the recent Colorado court decision that compels a Christian baker to provide wedding cakes to same-sex 'marriage' ceremonies and other such events which he objects to on religious grounds.

Prager makes many salient arguments for why this ruling is poorly reasoned, as well as dangerous in its implications for the future. For instance, he observes:

[The baker] is not discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation. He readily sells to people he knows to be gay. What he is unwilling to do is to participate in an event that he opposes for legitimate religious reasons. Until, at the most, 10 years ago, no one would have imagined that a person could be forced to provide goods or services for a same-sex wedding.

Read his entire piece today.

Let Them Eat Cake, NOM Marriage News

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Since the age of the French Revolution, the phrase "Let them eat cake" has been used as a symbol of out-of-touch, tyrannical elites or aristocracies. The phrase comes from a popular anecdote that a monarch (often identified as Marie Antoinette), when told that the peasants had no bread to eat and were starving, proposed this as the solution: "Let them eat cake."

Well, ironically in our own day the phrase is once again a fitting a symbol of an out-of-touch, tyrannical government: this time in the form of a Colorado Judge who ruled that a baker in Denver must provide wedding cakes to same-sex couples... or else pay the price.

The decision from Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer in Denver, CO is like a chilling flashback for anyone concerned about the first amendment protections of freedom of religion and expression — a flashback to a similar decision earlier this year in the case of Elane Photography in New Mexico.

Before talking about this new case dealing with a business called Masterpiece Cakeshop, I want to look back on that earlier one, especially since the Colorado decision makes use of and cites the decision issued by the New Mexico Supreme Court.

Flash-back: "The Price of Citizenship"

When Christian photographers Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin declined to photograph a same-sex couple's "commitment ceremony" in 2006, the 'to-be-wed' couple filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission and a legal battle ensued after the Commission ruled against the photographers. The battle made it all the way up the New Mexico Supreme Court which finally brought down its ruling on August 22 of this year.

In his concurring opinion in the ruling against Elane Photography, New Mexico Supreme Court Justice Richard Bosson wrote these chilling words [emphasis added]:

[T]here is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life. In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship.

I would ask the Court this: what price of citizenship does the same-sex couple pay, who surely could have picked any number of capable photographers with no conscientious objection to recording their ceremony? Apparently, in the eyes of the Court, this is a one-way street. The message to people of faith, and really to all Americans, was crystal clear: your deeply held religious beliefs and convictions have no place in the public square anymore.

If you choose to run a business, sure you can still do it according to your values — but only until those values come into conflict with the values of the intelligentsia and opinion makers who happen to be running the show. At that point, the price of your citizenship is that you must be punished.

And that's a message that should trouble all Americans, both liberal and conservative alike.

Fast-forward: "Preparing a Cake is Simply Not 'Speech'"

Now here's another message that should trouble all of us, regardless of background or ideology: the message that the courts have purview to dictate to an artist how he should practice his art.

That is effectively the upshot of the first part of the decision by Colorado Judge Robert Spencer against Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakes.

The Judge dismissed Mr. Phillips' claim that being forced to make a cake for a same-sex wedding would violate his freedom of speech on the grounds that "the act of preparing a cake is simply not 'speech' warranting First Amendment protection."

Had these words arisen in any other context, penned by any other judge in any other case, you can bet your bottom dollar that liberals across the nation would be having a fit! Who is this judge to tell a baker that his trade doesn't constitute artistic expression?

I challenge any same-sex marriage activist to take to their blog or to pen an op-ed doubling down on the opinion that what cake decorators and bakers do isn't a form of artistry and doesn't deserve protections as a form of expression!

And I'd be willing to bet if this case had involved a portrait painter, or a photographer, or a musician, or a florist, the judge would have ruled exactly the same way.

How's that for citizenship 'rights' in America? So that same-sex couples can redefine marriage to suit their own desires, the first amendment rights of all artists — poets and painters, florists and bakers, musicians and photographers — will be delineated by what the courts decide constitutes 'expression.'

Effectively, this judge has said to Mr. Phillips — to every baker in America — and by extension to every kind of artist in America... "It's just a stupid cake. Bake it." "It's just a stupid song. Sing it." "It's just a stupid picture. Take it." "It's just stupid art. Fake it."

We could wait and see whether the champions of freedom on the left raise their voices to cry against this attack on the first amendment. But alas, I fear we'd have to wait a long time...

Don't Wait. ACT NOW.

Instead of waiting for the first amendment to be protected by its supposed champions, therefore, We the People who are its true champions need to stand up and be heard.

You and I have the opportunity to do just that today.


Write to Congress today to urge support for the "Marriage and Religious Freedom Acts" which have been introduced in both the House and the Senate. These bills will help protect churches and people of faith from the kind of judicial tyranny which is becoming such a disturbing trend in the wake of the push to redefine marriage!

The Marriage and Religious Freedom Act authored by Senator Mike Lee already enjoys several Republican co-sponsors, and according to The Washington Examiner, Senator Lee says that some Democrats have expressed willingness to sign on to it as well.

In remarks to the Examiner, Lee said:

Nearly every member of Congress on both ends of the Capitol, on both sides of the aisle, will at least purport to be a strong supporter of religious liberty, and this should be an uncontroversial position to take. [...] I don't think anyone believes that the federal government ought to be making religious doctrinal decisions on behalf of churches and other religious institutions.

Lee's bill is similar in spirit to a House version introduced in September of this year by Representative Raul Labrador (R-Id.), which has a bipartisan coalition of 91 cosponsors.

NOM is very grateful to be working with advocates in both the House of Representatives and the Senate who are standing up and emphasizing the need to protect religious freedom from government overreach and targeting. By having bills in both chambers it provides a greater opportunity for debate and raises the profile of this crucially important issue.

So please click here now to thank both Senator Lee and Representative Labrador for the courageous leadership in defense of marriage and religious liberty, and to urge your members of Congress to support their legislation. These bills are especially important in the wake of the weakening of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by the Supreme Court in the fateful Winsdor decision this past June. Don't delay! Contact Congress right away!

Once again, I express my own personal gratitude, as well as the gratitude of NOM and all its allies, to Senator Mike Lee, Representative Raul Labrador, and so many other heroic members of Congress who are working to ensure that the freedoms we all hold so dear are not trampled underfoot in a bullying mob's rush to redefine marriage.

Proof that Standing in the Truth Can Still Win Hearts

I'll close today by remarking on some charming and edifying news from yesterday: Pope Francis being named TIME's "Person of the Year."

An article in TIME by Managing Editor Nancy Gibbs captures well the enigma that Pope Francis has presented to many over his brief reign thus far:

These days it is bracing to hear a leader say anything that annoys anyone. Now liberals and conservatives alike face a choice as they listen to a new voice of conscience: Which matters more, that this charismatic leader is saying things they think need to be said or that he is also saying things they'd rather not hear?

This challenge of Pope Francis is elaborated upon in the profile piece TIME published along with the cover story:

Francis signals great change while giving the same answers to the uncomfortable questions. On the question of female priests:"We need to work harder to develop a profound theology of the woman." Which means: no. No to abortion, because an individual life begins at conception. No to gay marriage, because the male-female bond is established by God. "The teaching of the church ... is clear," he has said, "and I am a son of the church, but [...] it is not necessary to talk about those issues all the time."

In other words, as the authors quote Pope Francis saying elsewhere: "[W]hen we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context."

This is a good reminder for all of us who work in defending true marriage. While we might seem to"talk about those issues all the time," it's only because our opponents' attacks on marriage never relent. We must never allow it to be in the way Francis criticizes: we cannot speak only about them, out of context, only criticizing the bad and never praising the good.

In fact, we've striven at NOM for years to explain that it's not a matter of being "against" or "anti" anyone or anything. Rather, we are for marriage: for the essential service it provides for the good of humanity, for the role it plays in bringing men and women together and uniting them in love to one another and to their children.

Let us take heart, then, and learn the real lesson that Pope Francis's popularity teaches all of us: the overarching importance of always presenting the truth in love. There will always be those who disagree, but disagreement must never turn to hate or malice. We love every one of God's children and all His good gifts, like the wonderful gift of marriage between husband and wife. May that spirit of love be our banner always.


Brian S. Brown

Colorado Baker Faces Year in Jail for Refusing to Make Cake for Gay Wedding


Baker-JailAccording to attorney Nicolle Martin, the owners of a Colorado bakery could face a year in prison for refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding, Jim Hoft reported at the Gateway Pundit Monday.

“The complainants can sue him civilly in the regular courts system or he can potentially be prosecuted by the district attorney for up to twelve months in jail,” Martin told Hoft.

...The Advocate said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission is set to hear the case in September.

URGENT: Help Stop Dangerous Civil Unions Bill!

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Colorado state senator Pat Steadman, author of the senate version of the civil unions bill, has a message for those who disagree with his views of tolerance and equality because they support marriage:

"[G]et thee to a nunnery, and live there. Go live a monastic life, away from modern society, away from people you can't see as equals to yourself'. . . . Go some place and be as judgmental as you like, go inside your church, establish separate water fountains if you like. But don't tell me that your free exercise of religion requires the state of Colorado to establish separate water fountains."

With Colorado's civil unions bill now headed to the Senate, we have one last chance to stop this dangerous measure.

Consider this:

  1. In 2003, California adopted a civil unions law. Two years later, a California state court judge ruled California's marriage law unconstitutional. By 2008, the state Supreme Court echoed that ruling, finding that civil unions undercut any possible justification for laws recognizing marriage only between a husband and wife.

  2. In 2005 Connecticut adopted a civil unions law. Three years later the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that because of civil unions, Connecticut's marriage laws were now unconstitutional.

  3. In New Jersey, a civil unions law was used to deny tax exempt status to religious organizations that refused to allow use of their property for civil union ceremonies.

And the list goes on . . .

Wherever civil unions are adopted, there is immediate pressure to throw out the "discriminatory" civil unions bill in favor of same-sex marriage. Civil unions aren't a compromise . . . they're a Trojan horse that immediately attacks both marriage and religious liberty.

To make matters even worse, for Senator Steadman religious liberty isn't simply a regrettable casualty in the march for same-sex marriage . . . attacking religious liberty is part of the point!

Gay marriage strategists know that people of faith — people like you and me — are one of the biggest obstacles to a state-imposed same-sex marriage regime. And many of them would like nothing better than to muzzle, isolate, and ultimately silence religious believers — using intimidation and ostracism to closet Biblical views about marriage.

We must draw a line in the sand. I know you understand the stakes. Please take action today. Together we can protect marriage in Colorado, but only if you take action right now.


Please help keep up the pressure with a phone call or email to your state representative today.

  1. Click here to look up the phone number for your state representative.

  2. Use this link to send a short email message to your state representative urging him or her to vote to defend religious liberty and defend marriage, our only civil institution that connects children with parents. Marriage and faith matter!

  3. Finally, forward this email to friends and family throughout the state, or use the buttons below to share on Facebook and Twitter. It's going to take thousands of Coloradans like you working together to preserve marriage in Illinois. Help spread the word today!

    Facebook ThisTweet ThisEmail This

Together we can keep up the pressure and save marriage in Colorado! Now is the moment — please join us!

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!

Marriage Battles Are Heating Up Around the Country in 2013!

Keep checking our Advocacy Center to see what you can do to protect marriage in 2013

AP: Analysis Shows GOP Legislators Who Support SSM Lose Their Seats

An important news story by Patrick Condon in the Associated Press confirms what we have been highlighting for a long time -- Republicans who betray their base on marriage place their political future in serious jeopardy:

As some Republicans in the Minnesota Legislature weigh whether to support legalizing same-sex marriage, an analysis of gay-marriage votes from other states shows that GOP lawmakers who backed it often faced consequences, including loss of their seats.

... Republicans inclined to back gay marriage face risks.

"It was largely responsible for my loss," said Jean White, a former Republican state senator in Colorado whose 2011 vote for civil unions became an issue in a primary challenge by a fellow Republican...

According to roll call votes, in the eight times nationwide that state legislatures voted for gay marriage, just 47 Republicans bucked the party line out of many hundreds who voted against it.

Of those 47 Republicans who voted yes starting in 2009, 21 are in office today.

In New York, one of four Republican senators who supported gay marriage is still in the Legislature. One lost a primary, one retired, and one lost the general election after narrowly winning a bitter primary.

A New Hampshire Republican representative lost a primary after her 2009 vote for gay marriage, and in Maryland the former Senate Republican leader relinquished his leadership post when he started working with Democrats on a gay-marriage bill that passed last year.

"I got a lot of flak, a lot," said that senator, Allan Kittleman. He's planning to leave the Senate this year to run for a county office instead.

In Washington, which passed gay marriage in 2012, two of six Republicans who backed the bill are no longer in office.

CO Senate Approves Same-Sex Civil Unions -- House to Vote Next

Please take action before the weekend and contact your representatives in Colorado demanding the protect marriage and religious freedom:

Civil unions for same-sex Colorado couples have cleared the state Senate for a third and possibly final time.

The Senate approved civil unions 21-14 without debate. All Democrats voted for the legal recognition for gay partners. Republican Sen. Ellen Roberts of Durango joined them. The other 14 Republicans voted no. (AP)

Protect Marriage and Stop "The Great Persecution"!

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Gay marriage activists have introduced a new civil unions bill in Colorado, one that includes no protections for faith-based adoption agencies whatsoever!

Moments ago, the bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on a party line vote, fast-tracking the measure for consideration by the full Senate.

"If this law passes, there is going to be a great persecution of the faithful," said Msgr. Thomas Fryar of the Catholic Archdiocese of Denver. "We cannot allow that."

We completely agree, and so do the people of Colorado, who voted in 2006 to reject same-sex domestic partnerships by six points and voted to affirm marriage between one man and one woman by a margin of 55% to 44%!

Now gay marriage activists are attempting to undermine the clear will of Colorado voters and threaten religious freedom. This civil unions bill is nearly identical to the sort of bill that courts in California and Connecticut used to demonstrate that the state no longer had any justification for marriage — concluding that civil unions were an unconstitutional and discriminatory "separate but equal" status which these activist judges used as an excuse to redefine marriage!

Your legislators need to hear from you right away — click here to oppose S.B. 11!

This bill is a huge threat to religious freedom and pro-marriage individuals like you.

If anyone should have a say on marriage, it should be the people of Colorado who have already so clearly spoken out on this issue when given the chance to vote on it — marriage should not be decided by activist judges or legislators that can be bribed and bullied by powerful interest groups funded by gay millionaires and billionaires.

Marriage belongs to the people because when marriage is redefined it affects everyone.

Just last summer a Christian bakery owner in Lakewood, CO was subjected to thousands of emails and threats from gay marriage activists after they refused to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The owner said at the time: "We would close down that bakery before we closed our beliefs".

And last week over 200 marriage supporters like you rallied at the state capital against this civil unions bill pointing out that this new legislation includes no legal protections for child placement agencies like Catholic Charities and other groups that only place children with married couples, i.e., with a mom AND dad, where kids do best!

Your legislators need to hear from you right away so they know you oppose S.B. 11!

I need you to do two things immediately:

  1. Contact your state senator and representative today! Use this link to send an email to your elected officials, or better still, click here to look up their phone numbers and make a personal phone call to let your senator and representative know: Oppose S.B. 11!Please take action right now. It only takes a minute to send your lawmakers a message, and it is vitally important that they hear your voice today.
  2. Forward this email to friends and family throughout the state, or use the buttons below to share on Facebook and Twitter. It's going to take thousands of Coloradans working together to protect marriage and freedom in Colorado. Help spread the word today!

    Facebook ThisTweet ThisEmail This

I know I can count on your help. Thank you!

Civil Unions Bill to Be Heard in Colorado Today

This report was filed last week:

State legislators will once again debate a bill that would allow for civil unions in Colorado.

State Sen. Pat Steadman (D - Denver) confirmed to 9NEWS political reporter Brandon Rittiman Thursday that he is introducing the Colorado Civil Unions Act. The bill will get its first hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee next Wednesday.

Senate Bill 11 would "authorize any 2 unmarried adults, regardless of gender, to enter into a civil union."

Last year, the Colorado House failed to vote on a civil union bill before the end of a special session of the legislature. (

Denver Post Columnist Accuses Tim Gill and Pat Stryker of "Gutter Politics"

Vincent Carroll doesn't name the ideology Tim Gill and Pat Stryker are pushing -- though we know it is redefining marriage -- but Carroll does point out that Gill and Stryker have a long record of supporting political outfits that specialize in "character assasination":

[Pat Stryker is] still happily sends big checks to groups whose abiding purpose is to smear men and women running for office with outrageous accusations largely unrelated to reality.

She has done this for a number of years without any apparent second thoughts, so why should this election be different?

Americans say they're disgusted by over-the-top political ads, but that's hard to believe. Otherwise the perpetrators' reputations would pay a price. Yet they rarely do.

Stryker is a respected member of the civic establishment in northern Colorado. No one in her social circles would probably dream of calling her out for contributing to the debasement of political discourse — any more than anyone similarly situated in metro Denver would call out Tim Gill, another of Colorado's richest citizens associated with the same ultra-attack outfits.

The single sleaziest political mailer sent to voters in both 2008 and 2010 in Colorado — and several of the sleaziest in 2006 — was produced by groups financed in part by Stryker and Gill.

The one in 2008 falsely claimed a judge had found that a Republican candidate for the state House "posed a threat and imminent danger" to an unnamed "victim." The 2010 mailer was if anything wilder, claiming that an aspiring Republican House candidate "wants to bring all of America's nuclear waste to Colorado" in a scheme so reckless it could blow the state "off the map."

... Meanwhile, mailers against state Rep. Ken Summers, produced by the Stryker- and Gill-backed Coalition for Colorado's Future, portray him as someone with a soft spot for rapists and perpetrators of domestic violence.

Over the past five years, the second- and third-highest individual Colorado donors to political campaigns have been Gill and Stryker (Congressman Jared Polis is No. 1). And more power to them for commitment to their causes.

It's hard to get too starry eyed about this idealism, however, when year after year they consent to the tactics of the gutter.

Gay Protest of Christian Bakery Owner Falls Flat

Colorado Media Trackers:

A cake shop protest organized by local gay groups over the weekend turned out to be a flop, with barely a baker’s dozen worth of individuals showing up to the event.  The protest was organized after it was reported that the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood refused to bake a “rainbow-layered masterpiece” celebrating a gay couple’s upcoming nuptials.  The protest was anticipated to have a “massive” turnout.

After the gay couple described the cake that they wanted to order, bakery owner Jack Phillips told them that it was against his personal faith to supply cakes for gay weddings.  He cited principles laid out in the Bible as his reasons for refusing their request.  Phillips also made it clear that his store would never turn away anyone for being gay or lesbian and that he had no problem baking cakes for other events like birthday parties or graduations.

At the scheduled time of the protest on Saturday, approximately fourteen middle-aged men and women gathered across the street from the bakery with signs and balloons to protest the store. Standing with posters that read “Open Your Heart” and “Gays, Let Them Eat Cake,” the protest lasted for about an hour. Only five people had RSVP’ed to attend the protest on the event’s Facebook page.

... on one of the protest sites, a man named Thom Seehafter called for the use of a modified form of water-boarding to be used against the owners of the bakery.

“These business owners should have their heads held under water in a toilet,” he wrote.

Others resorted to name calling, referring to the owner as “ugly”, “anti-gay and anti-shower”, a “tool”, and claiming that he “looks like a pervert.” Some even called for “his human rights to be taken away.” Harassment techniques were also encouraged, with a plea sent around for everyone to “kick it up a notch” and to call the bakery to yell “shame on you” three times into the phone.

During the protest, a group of nearly fifty individuals, ranging from a two year old to a woman in her nineties, crowded around the store to buy cookies, cakes, and other pastries.

Copyright 2012