Denver Post columnist Al Knight has a fine piece today stating the arguments why the Colorado legislature should reject Senate Bill 88, the mandate to provide health-insurance benefits to same-sex couples: it embroils the state in legal battles, it violates the will of state voters, it has a negative impact on a tight budget, etc.
No, instead, Republican state senator Scott Renfroe opened his mouth during the SB 88 debate, and played right into the hands of the Left.
Explicitly biblical arguments may persuade on a personal level. But they do not directly inform the basis of our state policy, so using these arguments on the floor of the legislature at best requires an extraordinary deal of care, because they almost certainly will across as an imposition of less-than-informed personal opinion and values. In the end, the kind of rhetoric Senator Renfroe regrettably used is counterproductive: it lost votes to oppose SB 88, and it helped to tarnish the Republican brand by feeding into the Left’s narrative.
No doubt Senator Renfroe meant well when he delivered his speech. But if there’s a theme I have addressed numerous times here, it’s the shortcoming of the liberal philosophy of good intentions often falls short of good policy.
There is a time and a place to have an honest and compassionate discussion about the morality of homosexuality. In this case, the context and the rhetoric were poorly chosen.
I am not asking Renfroe or any other legislator to forfeit their deeply-held views, nor am I saying that these views ought not inform their actions in an official capacity. But greater deference has to be given to the setting, and greater consideration given to the consequences.
A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver. (Proverbs 25:11)