• Front page
• Receive this content on your RSS reader

This Speakout has not been edited

By Ryan Morgan, Arvada

Democrats in Colorado are attacking traditional family. Oh, they might have good intentions, but a quick glance at a few bills reveals that the Democrats' views of family and morality are far from mainstream.

House Bill 1330 is a bill regarding second parent adoption. It would allow any adult to become a child's second parent if the child's first (and sole) legal parent agrees. By allowing same-sex parent adoption this bill backstabs the standard definition of the family. It defies the obviously natural structure for the family (male and female).

Perhaps some would argue that children will do better with sort-of parents than with one parent. I disagree. Attacking the long-term definition of family to allow kids a non-family is not constructive. Do we use the means to damage the very end the means should promote (family)? Democrats have emphasized the apparent good in this bill, yet it is obvious that same-sex adoption is a major objective. After all the bill's senate sponsor is, this paper has informed us, the only openly gay member of the state legislature.

It is interesting to note that Referendum C, a proposal that raised spending caps, passed by 52%, the same margin that Referendum I, a same-sex domestic partnership proposal that included adoption rights, was defeated by a year later. However, the passage of Referendum C was hailed as the voice of the people, while the defeat of Referendum I is being disregarded and Democrats are passing a piece of Referendum I (which could become a legislative jigsaw puzzle) while most voters are oblivious.

Another bill, Senate Bill 25, adds sexual orientation to the list of things that employers are not allowed to discriminate against in Colorado . This bill is a step to put this wrongful lifestyle into a protected position (and yes some of us do see it as an issue of right and wrong). House Bill 1292, concerning standards for sex education, further drains the health of the family.

This bill would, with an exception explained below, make school districts, family resource centers, and teen pregnancy prevention programs use universal standards for sex education.

Considering that the new standards require instruction in emergency contraceptives and the effective use of condoms, these mandates will violate the beliefs of some of the above-mentioned groups (not to mention parents). The only recourse is for individuals to opt out, or for organizations to discontinue sex education. If sex education is so important, why should organizations or individuals have to stand aside due to personal convictions that could be accommodated?

Because it requires training in contraceptives, this bill could disqualify public schools from getting federal monies for abstinence education. Without that money, abstinence education may stop in some schools. Although those currently receiving the federal abstinence money are exempt, the bill could indirectly result in pressure even on them to adopt a standard sex-education curriculum (contraceptives included). House Bill 1292 may bring an end to normal abstinence education in many of Colorado's public schools.

Democrats doubtless claim they favor the family and are working to make things better and more fair. I suggest most Coloradans think mandated condom education is worse, not better. They don't think fairness demands accommodating a wrongful lifestyle and changing the family structure to the detriment of children, as in the case of same-sex adoption.

Liberal politicians will obviously push limits. Hopefully the Governor's veto will be more favorable to families than his legislative colleagues have been. As they legislate liberalism, Democrats should remember this: you cannot tamper with the family, the basic fiber of society, without damaging your state and nation.

READER COMMENTS

The "same" parant adoption was defeated in the last election BY THE PEOPLE OF COLORADO- why does this arrogant Gov and his band of legislators think they are so much smarter than the people??? This is a good example of why people say " I don't vote if won't count aanyhow. The elected officials are supposed to be working for the people of COLO RADO or at least that's what they say prior ro getting elected. After they are in office their promises fade and their self=interests take over..

It always astounds me to realize that there's an entire generation who genuinely believes "Ozzie and Harriet" was a reality show and "Father Knows Best" was a documentary. Their panic--"Help! Help! The traditional family is under attack!"--is actually rather touching, if a bit embarrassing.

The trouble is that the so-called traditional family unit, which Ryan Morgan calls "the basic fiber of society," is actually quite frayed at the edges: its own members cannot live up to its own standards. And it's all Society's fault, right? And what Mr. Morgan terms a "wrongful lifestyle." (What can he be talking about, do you suppose?)

Mr. Morgan suggests he speaks for "most Coloradans," who presumably think exactly the way he does. So why isn't abstinence education being taught in the home? Why should "mandated condom education" necessarily compromise "personal convictions" if "most Coloradans" are shining examples of the traditional family unit? If all those nice clean heterosexuals out there were tending to their own born-in-wedlock children, regardless of what was going on in the big bad outside world, there wouldn't be any children for same-sex couples to adopt in the first place.

I suggest you clean your own house before judging anybody else's. And consider the likelihood that there's more myth than fiber to the traditional family.

Ryan, how exactly do these bills threaten your family or anyone else's? I'm kind of tired of the word "family" being used as code for "fundamentalist Christian."
While I don't know the bills you name in detail, a cursory glance makes it appear that many have to do with basic rights. There used to be laws in some parts of the country against interracial marriages. I'm sure when these laws were struck down, many people argued the eliminating the laws were a threat to the "family," that it would lead to people marrying animals, etc. ... Let's keep some perspetive. The liberals/Democrats are not the boogeymen, Ryan.

The nuclear family and the very idea of marriage seems to be on the decline. Men can feed themselves and do laundry and women can support themselves without men. My family is filled with old unmarried men and single parent households. This fairly recent form of marriage, the nuclear family, is not the basic fiber of society, the extended family is.

POST A COMMENT

• Why so much turnover in mayor's office?
• Hearing on the Ruby Hill towers
• Let freedom ring
• Promoting socialized medicine
• Immigration Laws or Lack Thereof
• Atheist Diversionary Tactics
• The "Melting Pot" is unique to America
• Many mighty hearts covering the world