The headline was short, sweet, and complete with an overt attempt at irony.
"Gay-rights luncheon draws GOP," the headline blared from the Denver Post Friday.
You mean not all Republicans hate gay people? Get it out on the wire asap!
"Want proof that the times they are a-changin?" reporter Lynn Bartels quipped. "A lawmaker who once worked for U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave attended a gay-rights luncheon Thursday."
Must have been a slow news day in the aftermath of state Democrats being forced to concede defeat of a bill that sought to cite two-year-olds, including my own, for failing to wear helmets while speeding down sidewalks on their tricycles at a mere two-miles-per-hour.
Now, a moment of full disclosure, I consider Bartels a good friend and applaud her unwavering willingness to beat up on politicians who deserve such treatment and without consideration of her own political biases. Bartels in an institution, serving as an essential political historian for Denver's otherwise lethargic media industry. And she's not entirely wrong with her column here.
Indeed, Republicans have had a strained relationship with gay-rights organizations in recent years.
Take a short trip down memory lane to the late 1990s, when the dot-com bubble was incredibly bubbleicious, the housing market appeared unstoppable, and tax coffers overflowed with speculator-infused fool's gold.
This was an especially gleeful time for Republicans, who then controlled not only both houses of the state legislature, but also the governor's mansion. They held five of Colorado's seven Congressional seats, as well as the state's secretary of state and attorney general posts.
Republican lawmakers introduced red meat bills with the cockiness and passion of a high school quarter back. After the 9/11 attacks, they sought to force all public schools to start each day with the Pledge of Allegiance, they boldly equated homosexual acts to spooning with farm animals, and they crassly took on immigration reform without regard or sensitivity to the innocent children caught in the crossfire.
Then things got really crazy. As a handful of more liberal states introduced proposals to recognize gay marriage, conservatives found a leader willing to strike back on the national stage. Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, who then represented northern Colorado's conservative fourth district, became the go-to girl for a federal amendment that would have prohibited the recognition of gay unions.
How quaint it feels now to recall a time when headlines were consumed with anything other than record federal deficits, stagnant unemployment, or medical marijuana.
As fate would have it, Musgrave's crusade was short lived. When the economy began to tank in 2006, few voters had time or interest to contemplate the intimate relationships of others--let alone their own. The Republican Party suffered historic losses. By 2008, and for the first time ever, Democrats swept control of both houses of the legislature, prevailed in five of seven congressional races, and controlled every statewide elected post with the exception of Republican John Suthers, who still serves as attorney general.
So how did it happen?
A handful of very wealthy liberals, including philanthropist and gay-rights activist Tim Gill, struck back with their wallets. Convinced that electing a Democratic majority was the only way to reverse course on gay-rights issues, even the most libertarian Republican was suddenly pegged as Musgrave's best friend.
As my criminal law professor used to frequently recite when explaining conspiracy's treatment under the law: "Birds of a feather, they flock together. They all go down." Indeed, almost no Republicans were immune from the free fall.
But money was only part of the equation. Gill and his friends weren't the only ones upset by the GOP's big government social agenda. Thousands of Colorado Republicans defected from the party, registering as Democrats or Independents. For those who remained, myself included, we began to think more critically about challenging our party's leaders as to the appropriate role of government in our personal lives. With the party left in shambles, they had no choice but to listen.
Today's Republican candidates have been instructed to avoid any suggestion, reference, inference, or whisper about social issues. It's the economy, stupid.
But in the end, marriage isn't just a social institution. It's an economic relationship and one we should reconsider entirely. Forget about banning government-sanctioned gay marriage. Let's ban it for everyone. If it's all about applying some moral stamp of societal approval, we've failed as nearly one in two Colorado marriages still end in divorce. Marriage should be between two people, their families, and their God. The government should but out. With an entire legal structure already in operation that accommodates common law spouses who never sign up for state approval of their union, licensing marriage formally through the state is, at best, antiquated.
While it's true that the majority of Americans still believe marriage should be limited to heterosexual unions, this doesn't necessarily mean they are anti-gay. Musgrave's 2008 defeat to a liberal Democrat came just a few years after the district had handed Republicans victory margins of more than 70 percent.
Just because a voter is pro-family and pro-religion doesn't necessarily mean he or she is anti-gay. Similarly, showing up at a pro-gay event shouldn't be seen as an ideological awakening by conservative lawmakers who have previously opposed gay-marriage legislation.
At Thursday's lunch, hosted by the pro-gay One Colorado, Bartles approached Musgrave's aforementioned former aid, state Rep. B.J. Nikkel of Loveland, and asked her to comment on her attendance. Nikkel shrugged. "Why shouldn't I be there? They're all Coloradans and I think it's important to understand their issues."
Nikkel was far from the only conservative face in the crowd. Senate Republican leader Josh Penry was joined by several other prominent conservative legislators, including Sen. Nancy Spence and Sen. Shawn Mitchell, who as Bartels pointed out, sponsored a 2003 bill that would have established state guidelines for classroom conversations concerning homosexuality. While Bartels' contrast between Mitchell's bill sponsorship and his lunch attendance years later suggests that Mitchell must have undergone some ideological awakening, it would be shortsighted to assume that Mitchell's attempt to restrict classroom curriculum to age-appropriate and academically-essential subjects was the byproduct of any anti-gay sentiment.
While Rep. Mark Ferrandino, a gay Denver Democrat, told Bartels he was shocked by the strong GOP turnout Thursday, he should see it for what it was. Many Republicans can and do support gay rights without believing that expanding government intervention or mandates into our personal lives is the most effective way to fight discrimination or achieve equality.
With apologies to my birth state of Virginia for ripping off its ingenious decades-old marketing campaign, I've thought of a new party logo for Colorado Republicans: "The GOP Is For Lovers."
As a libertarian Republican who has resisted repeated temptations to divorce my party over the last few elections, I believe in a new GOP that cares, respects, and believes in the right of every adult to make personal decisions outside government's intrusive reach. Instead of expanding government's power to control marriage for a new population, let's get bureaucrats out of the marriage business altogether.
Jessica P. Corry (www.JessicaCorry.com) is a Denver attorney serving as special counsel to Hoban & Feola, LLC, and as a policy analyst with the Independence Institute.