The Last Stand
Advertisement
DNC 2008
Stay tuned to www.steamboatpilot.com throughout the week for extended coverage of the Democratic National Convention.
Pilot & Today City Editor Mike Lawrence and reporter Brandon Gee are covering the convention from Denver. They will report on issues pertinent to Northwest Colorado, touch base with Colorado Democratic leaders and chronicle Denver’s convention buzz in articles, photos and audio interviews.
Two police officers discuss a contentious crowd developing on the 16th Street Mall. Photo by Brandon Gee
DNC 2008
The city of Denver transformed for the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Aug. 25-28, as people of all backgrounds and intentions filled the city with colorful political passion. See images here.
DNC by the numbers
75,000: People who will witness Sen. Obama’s acceptance speech at Invesco Field
26,000: Convention volunteers
17,000: Hotel rooms for delegates and official convention guests in the Denver metro area
15,000: Local, national and international journalists at the convention
5,000: Seats removed from the Pepsi Center to make room for the stage, podium and camera stands
4,440: Credentialed delegates as of Aug. 12
3,300: Miles of fiber installed to connect telecommunications throughout the Pepsi Center
134: Countries represented by media organizations at the convention
100: Years since Denver hosted its first Democratic National Convention
91: Age of the oldest delegate
17: Age of the youngest delegate
Source: Democratic National Convention Committee
Denver — The 2008 Democratic National Convention hadn’t even started, and Lacey Ely received a hard lesson on the zoo that Denver has become.
“I really didn’t plan it out good enough,” said Ely, who expected a hassle-free weekend trip to Denver with two other Steamboat Springs residents. “In reality, I barely got a hotel room, and I spent way too much money.”
Ely and her friends hope to score tickets to a Rage Against the Machine concert Wednesday that is part of protest group Tent State University’s schedule of events. The three drove down Saturday and visited five or six hotels before finding a room. On Sunday, Ely also dealt with traffic headaches and a few scares from rowdy protestors before eventually managing to enter a free lottery for the tickets. But the stresses weren’t enough to keep Ely from catching the same infectious enthusiasm sweeping through the city this week.
“It’s an important time in our history,” Ely said. “To go to the DNC and see Rage, I would go again two more times to sign up.”
That same enthusiasm, in a more hostile form, also was on display on the 16th Street Mall on Monday afternoon. That’s where dozens of police officers in full riot gear surrounded a contentious encounter between a group of men calling themselves Open Air Preachers and those offended by their anti-gay views and signs.
“You, as a homosexual, are an abomination before God,” Ruben Israel, of Los Angeles, shouted at a gay man he was arguing with.
Molly Grady confronted another of the men, Timmy Schultheis. While acknowledging the sidewalk preachers’ First Amendment rights, Grady couldn’t help but be frustrated.
“I just find these messages so hypocritical,” said Grady, a national Barack Obama delegate from Iowa. “It just upsets me because people come to them with respectful opinions, and they totally disrespect them.”
Schultheis denied that the group was being disrespectful or hateful.
“We’re here to do one thing and one thing only: ask people to consider God,” said Schultheis, of New Jersey. “There is a higher issue than the political issue, and that’s the moral issue.”
The officers that ringed the area were members of an omnipresent police force assembled in Denver this week. Officers from Aurora, Colorado Springs and other communities across the state are augmenting Denver’s force. They can be seen traveling in large packs via foot, bike, horseback or automobile, sometimes in full riot or SWAT team gear, checking flower pots and newspaper boxes for bombs and flashing peace signs off the back of a Hummer.
Other Denver natives reveled in the injection of energy to their city, such as a man at the Rock Bottom Brewery who promised convention goers, “I’ll vote for Obama if you buy me a beer.”
Willie Theaker, 17, and Lucy Piccochi, 23, drove all the way from Connecticut to “have their voices heard” in Denver this week. They spent Sunday night in the “Freedom Cage,” the sarcastic moniker protestors have applied to the city’s barricaded free speech/protest zone outside the Pepsi Center.
“We’re just tired of the way things are being done in this country,” Piccochi said. “All talk and no action. We’re here taking responsibility for our lives in this country.”
RSS
Community comments
Note: The Steamboat Pilot & Today doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy.
Steve Lewis
August 26, 2008 at 11:26 a.m.
› Suggest removal
Brandon,
Great photo journalism. Worth a thousand words.
Enlarging your photo, the sign says “The wages of sin is ____”. Is that last word death?
Brandon Gee
August 26, 2008 at 1:44 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Steve,
Yes, the final word is “death.” That was probably the tamest of all the Open Air Preachers' signs. For example, Ruben Israel's sign read, “Homo-sex is a threat to national security.” As he argued with Israel, Grant Bennett of Los Angeles held up a sign of his own that read, “God doesn't hate. You do.”
For more observations from the DNC, check out http://steamboatpilot.com/weblogs/dnc/. This blog will include additional news and notes, lighthearted commentary and other observations that will compliment our traditional coverage.
-Brandon Gee
Matthew Stoddard
August 27, 2008 at 8:34 a.m.
› Suggest removal
“Homo-sex is a threat to national security.” Must be from the “compassionate conservative” side of the tracks. LOL! I like the “God doesn't hate. You do,” though. Very true.
Steve Lewis
August 27, 2008 at 10:46 a.m.
› Suggest removal
I know our country has been politically “split” many times in our past, but I can't imagine its seen so many fractures at the same time.
Perhaps the internet has opened our eyes to so many competing ideas. Certainly the wedge politics of recent years played a part. What's the import of homosexuality compared to the pain of war?
Its unfortunate that we come together only after a crisis. You would think religion could guide us together, but it instead seems to divide us.
Duke_bets
August 27, 2008 at 3:33 p.m.
› Suggest removal
So, kids nowadays have nothing better to do than blow a bunch of money and protest against the government?
That makes as much sense as religious fanatics condemning those that aren't so spiritual.
In my book of morality, protestors, homosexuals, and the majority of religious groups rank right up there with mudhens and the mudhens primary food source from the bottom of the pond.
Matthew Stoddard
August 27, 2008 at 4:35 p.m.
› Suggest removal
The great thing about this country is that we are allowed to protest, though. Unfortunately, it's people like the above sign holder that make the most noise. Signs like that one above and from what Brandon mentioned don't seem to coincide with religion…just fanaticism.
playa46
August 27, 2008 at 5 p.m.
› Suggest removal
I am shocked to see people protests against gay rights. It's a life choice, and a choice you yourself can only make, not others. I am christian, but I just don't see God hating a gay person. I agree with “God doesn't hate, you do”.
Steve makes a good point also, this is just the same as discrimination against non-whites. Are we going to go through another 200 years of struggling to get what people agree with? Why must people continue to be afraid of what to them is not normal? I believe that we should all accept what a human is regardless of color or beliefs or choices that they make.
Steve Lewis
August 27, 2008 at 5:23 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Protesters, in my book of morality, rank higher than anonymous bloggers. Big minus score in either category for making insults.
Its not always easy to put your face behind your values. Its always easy to type an anonymous blog.
Matt is right. Women and blacks protested to win the right to vote. In their day they were viewed as troublemakers. But their courage made us a more inclusive nation that many now strive to emulate.
Steve Lewis
August 28, 2008 at 8:13 a.m.
› Suggest removal
Right on, Playa.
Matthew Stoddard
August 28, 2008 at 8:28 a.m.
› Suggest removal
Playa- sexual preference diversity is a lot more open now than it was 30yrs ago. I'd say it's progress. Remember- dinosaurs didn't die out all at the same time to make way for the future; it took time.
Society will always move forward even with far-right/left trying to hold it back. All we can do is have patience and as the Jamaicans say, “Soon come.”
Duke_bets
August 28, 2008 at 10:01 a.m.
› Suggest removal
Steve - 'Women and blacks protested for the right to vote'………Tell me how the current protests in Denver compare.
The protests back in the day were for a cause called protecting constitutional rights.
These current protests are a joke and led by the bottom feeders of today's society.
Matthew Stoddard
August 28, 2008 at 10:17 a.m.
› Suggest removal
Duke- I think Steve may have meant people protesting FOR gay rights. The one in the picture and his ilk are the ones protesting GIVING rights to others. Is that who you are talking about?
Duke_bets
August 28, 2008 at 10:25 a.m.
› Suggest removal
Matt - I was referring to both protestors in the picture. For or Against…………Those current protests have no true cause.
Gay rights…………..What's the cause? What rights don't gays receive that straight people do? And, don't give me the marriage thing……………
Steve Lewis
August 28, 2008 at 10:30 a.m.
› Suggest removal
Duke,
I lived in the South when the signs said “Colored fountain out back”. Their protest was for eqaul rights. They wanted to vote, yes. They also wanted seats at the front of the bus.
So I disagree their cause fell neatly into a constitutional right. They fought to sit at the front of the bus - is that a constitutional right any more than a gay's rights?
People should be able to protest whatever their message. The important messages will rise from the “bottom” to affect your world and mine.
I'll disagree with many protest messages, but NEVER their complete right to stand up and speak.
Matthew Stoddard
August 28, 2008 at 10:52 a.m.
› Suggest removal
Duke- Why not bring up the marriage thing? That's one of the main rights they are being denied. Also, not being able to live in the open in the military. The military doesn't care if you are a certain gender, political background or race, as long as you are able. Why should they care about your sexual preference? The military doesn't specifically need to know a sexual preference, but they shouldn't deny it, either.
That's where I think Clinton screwed up on the “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” policy. It was basically already what was happening…it just wasn't policy until he put it there. It's okay for the military guys or gals to go to the bar and pick up a “payday ho” as we used to call them when I was in, and express their feelings in public, but not okay for 2 guys or 2 ladies to express their feelings for each other in the same situation.
Duke_bets
August 28, 2008 at 11 a.m.
› Suggest removal
Matt - Not a good argument. Your first point was marriage and I said I wasn't going to go there. Your second point is pointless and you affirmed that by saying 'they don't specifically need to know'. That translates into something you made up.
Matthew Stoddard
August 28, 2008 at 12:02 p.m.
› Suggest removal
No, the military point was based on they shouldn't have to hide it, either. If they mention they are homosexual (even as a passing remark) or exhibit any tendencies then they get booted.
“Sexual orientation will not be a bar to service unless manifested by homosexual conduct. The military will discharge members who engage in homosexual conduct, which is defined as a homosexual act, a statement that the member is homosexual or bisexual, or a marriage or attempted marriage to someone of the same gender.
– quoted in “The Pentagon's New Policy Guidelines on Homosexuals in the Military”, The New York Times (July 20, 1993), p.A14.
And yet, it's okay and readily discussed among troops when I was in, who went home and did what with which woman, pertaining to men.
If a heterosexual person can discuss this out in the open in the military, I see no reason a homosexual couldn't, also. Just because a talking point comes across as “We discourage PDA's from everyone!” you'll still see a hetero couple kiss as one goes off to Iraq. Why is it not okay for a homosexual to do the same?
If you don't want to go into the marriage part, that's fine, but it's still a right I believe is desereved. It's not going to affect me in the slightest whether 2 men or 2 women get married, so I have no problem with it, personally.
playa46
August 28, 2008 at 8:58 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Yes, I think that is a big problem that people that are gay or lesbian cannot be married. Duke, your posts have good arguements in them, but don't you think that we all deserve to have rights in America and should be able to choose for ourselves? Or, do you simply believe that homosexuals should not have the same rights that people who are not homosexuals have? (Not saying that you believe this.) I am simply wondering on your thoughts and reasons for your arguments.
Duke_bets
August 29, 2008 at 7:40 a.m.
› Suggest removal
playa - The difference in all of our posts is how an individual intreprets the word “rights”.
Is it a right to own a home? Is it a right to have a paying job? Is it a right to be married?
The answer to me would be no on all of the above. Certain standards, rules and qualifications apply in all 3 cases.
Have a Great Day All…………
Matthew Stoddard
August 29, 2008 at 8:40 a.m.
› Suggest removal
It's not a right to be married? What prevents a man and woman from getting married as a right?
To make it clear, I'm not saying that just because a person is born, they must automatically be handed a spouse. That takes courtship, etc. But, is there any law that refuses to recognize a marriage for a man and woman as a couple, if they decide to get married and are of legal consenting age?
Let's also make it clear that defining legal consenting age to me, means 18yrs old, when people in the USA are considered legally an adult. That's not a hinderance in most cases for marriage. All one has to do it wait, in that case. A gay couple can't just wait until they are hetero to become married.
With a right to own a home- it is a right, if you can pay for it. It's a possession; not a spouse.
Getting a drivers license isn't a right, but a privilege. How does being gay negate being able to drive a vehicle properly?
For a job- it is your right to find work that you qualify for, in order to make a living. There are already laws against discrimination of sexual preference, gender and race. None of those things keep you from being a good lawyer, burger flipper or soldier. If you had no arms, you might not be able to fight or flip burgers, but as a lawyer, you could probably still argue a case. Being gay doesn't automatically hinder those things.
So why should it hinder marriage and having those rights?
And this is where I feel the RNC has lost touch. Why not champion this cause and take it away from the DNC? Make it a non-factor in politics. Gays don't need special privileges…just the same ones we all get. The Right always says the Left want to give special privileges, but how is marriage a special privilege?
Marriage could be redefined as between 2 consenting adults of legal age, without regard to gender. It keeps it “traditional” to monogamy that way. Remember- less than 50yrs ago, people thought mixed race marriages would tear down the country, also. Personally, I haven't seen that happen yet.
Matthew Stoddard
August 29, 2008 at 10:21 a.m.
› Suggest removal
On another subject, looks like this Presidential Race will be history making no matter what.
We either get our first Black President or our first Woman Vice-President.
Duke_bets
August 29, 2008 at 12:17 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Matt - You're blowing smoke up the wrong tree. It is not a right to own a home if you can pay for it. Many people can afford house payments, but can't qualify for loans. There are many other factors in the mortgage approval process. You blew the whole marriage thing by stating that you have to be 18. And, you stated that 'marriage could be redefined'……..So, you acknowledge that certain requirements have to be met. It is not a right to be married. There are certain qualifications. The church, bible and I think the constitution all state man and woman. So, man and man or woman and woman doesn't work.
You don't make the rules and laws, but you are required to follow them.
Simple enough. You aren't going to win this debate……….In fact, you are losing ground with every post.
Matthew Stoddard
August 29, 2008 at 1:40 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Duke-
1) 18 is the general age of adult consent in the US. Looking at this site, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageabl…
tells us that there are age waivers. Fine, we'll take that off the table. Thanks! One less reason to put up.
Age, as I said, is not a mitigating factor since all you have to do is wait.
2) There is no constitutional law that marriage must be religious. A civil marriage by judge is recognized the same as a church wedding in the eyes of the law. I was married by a judge in an outdoor setting. Even have a valid marriage license.
3) Each state has different requirements for marriage. Hey- Colorado even allows cousins to marry! Did you know that??
http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/uni…
Plus, out of all the general preconditions of marriage, the only one that absolutely can't be met if it's a gay couple is being a man and woman. All other preconditions have a reasoning behind them such as not in full possession of their right mind, disease, in-breeding (to a point it's allowed, at least) and age. Those condition are explained as to why they are in effect.
Is it because a gay couple can't conceive? I know plenty of hetero couples that can't conceive, so that argument doens't work.
Being an man and a woman…is only just for that purpose. There is no explanation as to WHY it MUST be a man and woman. It just…is. Well, things that just…were…in the past have been changed with no bad consequences. It was against the law for women and blacks to vote at one time…just because it was “the rules,” like you state about gay marriage.
http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/
4) There is currently no US Constituion Amendment on defining marriage. There is a Resolution that has been sitting in the House since 2003, though.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/usconstitu…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_…
Their is the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) which is being challenged in California, though. This will probably go on for years anyway, but then lets look at rights since you brought up what is and isn't a right.
We have the right of Free Speech but certain types of speech are limited. You can't just yell “Fire” in a movie theater falsely. You can't speak of assassinating the President. Well, you can do these things, but you will be held accountable.
You must “qualify” to own a weapon. 2nd Amendment, is a right with a precondition.
Give me one rational reason why gays should not marry and how it will harm our society as a whole. That means no just because it's the law or not, or because the Bible says so or not. I'm looking for a rational reason as to how allowing gay marriage will bring down society.
Duke_bets
August 29, 2008 at 2:09 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Matt - There are many irrational laws…………….
Matthew Stoddard
August 29, 2008 at 2:28 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Good! Thank you! So does this mean you admit that prohibiting gay marriage is irrational?
When a law is irrational, it should be struck down. There is no instance I have heard where being gay caused impact on societal breakdown.
In fact, I put forth that Marriage is a Right as defined by the First Amendment. I believe it falls under Free Speech, by saying one person has the right to express their love for another by getting married, should both parties be consensual. There are no qualifiers in the First Amendment with regards to gender, race, age, or sexual preference.
Also- in the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble states,
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Note how the didn't say specifically God. The left that to individual interpretation, I believe. Maybe they didn't expect gay marriage in general, but they left Creator open so as not to rule out nor specify any particular religion.
Doesn't marrying the one you love fall under Pursuit of Happiness? I know it did for me!
playa46
August 29, 2008 at 6:38 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Duke- Your posts are repetitive and lack a thesis. You countinue to throw the fact that “Matt is losing the debate!” I would like to see at least a reason besides declaring yourself the winner.
Matt- I don't quite think your post saying how “The pursuit of happiness helps strenghten my thesis” actually support you. Last year, my class studied the Constitution and the Declaration, so I know what I am saying: The Declaration's purpose was to free ourselves from the British correct? They way I see it, The Pursuit of Happiness was what America's belief was and that the British were incorrect on what they thought was good. Stay with me now…The Constitution was based upon what our rights (Duke, I saw this in your post) would be. So what I am thinking is that the Declaration was, America wants a different “Pursuit of Happiness” than what the British wanted and the Constitution was how our rights would work out.
I think I will do some more research now…
Matthew Stoddard
August 29, 2008 at 7:26 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Well put, playa, but to me, the Preamble is a statement on the whole of America. It's open to interpretation, just like the Constitution. It's holds the reason for even writing the Declaration in just that simple part: to be free to choose our destiny because it is our right by simple existence.
Homosexuality isn't something that's new. It's been around since history started being written. It's just more out in the open now. And I still don't see any possible way that a gay couple marrying will bring down society.
Duke just might have been brought up this way. Lord knows being a military brat, an enlistee myself, and having old fashioned parents- I should feel that same way, but I don't. It don't see the logic in supressing gay marriage for the simple fact that “it's just the way it is.”
playa46
August 29, 2008 at 8:12 p.m.
› Suggest removal
And one more thing Duke:
You replied to one of my posts saying “It depends on what you call a 'right'”. That's incorrect, the constitution garuntees us all of our rights, you can't simply say that marrige is not a right because you may not believe in it. The constitution holds our rights, no more, no less. (Excpet for amendments)
Post a comment (Requires free registration)
Posting comments requires a free account and verification.