Questions involving pornography, gays and abortion are part of a survey the political arm of Focus on the Family sent to all the candidates seeking office in the April 5 election.
Other questions involved Memorial Health System, FREX and the newly revived Human Relations Commission.
Each of the nine men running for mayor answered the survey, revealing more about where they stand on social issues.
For example, the candidates were asked whether they would support a proclamation in support of PrideFest, which Mayor Lionel Rivera has declined to do.
Only two of the candidates – Dave Munger and Richard Skorman – said they would.
“Traditional marriage and families are the cornerstone of society,” wrote Brian Bahr, who wouldn’t issue such a proclamation if elected mayor. “If we are to survive as a society, we must strengthen marriages & families.”
Mitch Christiansen called “any gay exhibition” a “detriment” to the city.
“My wife and myself made many trips to (San Francisco) in past years. Due to vulgar display of homosexual behavior we have not nor will we return for a visit,” he wrote. “Our friends come to visit us as we will not travel there.”
Although the question was whether or not the mayor should issue such a proclamation, the candidates running for City Council got the same question, too.
“Sodomy should not be ‘celebrated’ by public officials speaking on behalf of the city,” wrote Douglas Bruce, who is running as part of a slate. “The city must avoid pushing controversial issues that endorse or force on us distasteful, unhealthy, and aberrant behavior know as the ‘gay agenda.’”
All the candidates were also asked if they supported health benefits that included the same-sex domestic partners of city employees.
Of those running for mayor, only Munger said he did.
The rest said no, including Skorman, a former councilman who supported the idea in the past.
“I supported originally, but I actually favor an employee plus one benefit if it can be cost neutral,” wrote Skorman, a former board member of the Gill Foundation.
“That would allow any true partner of an (employee) to buy into the city’s insurance as long as they shared a bank account and a lease or mortgage,” he wrote.
David Jensen stated he supported health benefits that included the same-sex domestic partners of city employees.
“At their own expense” is the key part of this proposal. Everyone should have health insurance available to them. Making it available to same-sex couples, unmarried heterosexual partners or an employee’s parent or child should be acceptable. If they do not have insurance we will someday indirectly pay for them when they show up in the ER with no insurance.
So, David, you want city employees to pay directly now instead of the general public to pay later? Fine, then the city should look at providing health insurance for everyone, gay, straight, bi, bigamists, swingers, mortgage holder, renter, homeless, retired, the military, and all dependents, in-laws, out of state visitors, private business owners, etc.
With health care costs rising, the ObamaCare trend is to eliminate dependent health insurance for all working adults. Instead, it’s everyone for themselves; partners need health insurance? Tell them to get their own job with benefits.
No you missed the point. I said that anyone who has a relationship with an eligable employee that has been outlined should be able to purchase insurance. The city employees statatus or payment to the the health plan would not change. It would be great if they could find there own jobs with benefits. Are you been in the job market now? Slim to no chance there.
What do you think our unemployement rate is?
I just had to put in my two cents worth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm20vB3eiz4
(click here to watch)
Skorman has obviously been reading Wayne’s editorials about employee plus one health insurance. Sounds like more candidates should, too.
jensen4council writes: “The city employees statatus” missing apostrophe), “… could find there (sic) own jobs …”, “Are you been in the job market now?” “unemployement”
Did someone steal your sign-on, just to make you look like an incoherent candidate? What do you think city employees’ literacy rate is, and shouldn’t council members be better examples??
add a missing “(” to my response above.
@jensen4council, whatever your point was, you ignored the reality that providing city health insurance to less than a handful of domestic partners has no relationship with – nor any significant impact on- the thousands of non-city employees who are already uninsured health liabilities.
[...] Porn, gays and abortion part of Focus on the Family candidate survey Questions involving pornography, gays and abortion are part of a survey the political arm of Focus on the… Read more on Colorado Springs Gazette [...]
I don’t see anything wrong with a special interest group asking the candidates where they stand – as their followers would like to know who to support.
As for me, here’s the survey I’d ask them to take:
1. Do you favor or oppose legalizing marijuana?
2. Would you support or oppose city growth controls?
3. Do you favor or oppose red light and speed cameras?
4. Would you favor or oppose tax breaks for seniors?
Mitch Christiansen for Mayor
sex…
[...]Porn, gays and abortion part of Focus on the Family candidate survey – City Desk : Colorado Springs Gazette, CO[...]…
when is spring break…
[...]Porn, gays and abortion part of Focus on the Family candidate survey – City Desk : Colorado Springs Gazette, CO[...]…
monthly household expenses…
[...]Porn, gays and abortion part of Focus on the Family candidate survey – City Desk : Colorado Springs Gazette, CO[...]…
Maintenance…
[...]Porn, gays and abortion part of Focus on the Family candidate survey – City Desk : Colorado Springs Gazette, CO[...]…