I give you today—and please hold the applause until everyone has been introduced—your Colorado Senate. In case you missed it, there was a, uh, debate there Monday on Sen. Jennifer Veiga’s bill to offer health benefits to the same-sex partners of gay and lesbian state employees.

Anytime you get a Senate debate that has anything to do with gay rights, you know where it will lead. You might as well hang a full moon on the Dome and pass out the werewolf masks. Some people suddenly begin to lose hold of their senses, and certainly their sensitivity.

You may recall some of our leaders’ great moments in gay-bashing history.

There was Sen. Ron Teck calling homosexuality an “abomination,” and a tearful Sen. Abel Tapia revealing, for the first time publicly, that one of his sons is gay and that his son was not, in any sense, an abomination.

There was, of course, Sen. Jim Welker, in what must be remembered as the ultimate dog-and-pony show, likening gay marriage to, yes, people marrying dogs and horses.(In an unforgettable news conference, Welker said allowing gays to marry was like opening Pandora’s box, which, thinking about it, must have been a pretty big box.) In the same year, lieutenant governor candidate Janet Rowland went for an old standby in the where-will-gay-marriage-lead debate: man vs. sheep. But you can’t blame the Senate for that. Blame Bob Beauprez, who proved he can stand on the wrong side of many animals.

And now, moving ever forward, we get to the latest debate. And this time on the Senate floor, we get homosexual sex offered up as a sin little different from— wait for it—murder.

Yes, murder, he wrote.

The debate began as these debates often do—with, as Sen. Dave “Doc” Schultheis put it, “the usual suspects” coming forward to rail against the bill. The bill was, they said, too costly in a time of economic crisis. The people, they said, had spoken on gay marriage and gay civil unions (not that this bill has any thing to do with either).And, as we know, allowing gay partners to have access to a state health care program is the first slide on the slippery slope toward gay marriage, which, of course, threatens all marriages, although no one can explain exactly why.

Then Scott Renfroe, a Greeley Republican, took the floor. I wish I’d been there. I was at the usual place—working on my resume—when I read about it on ace reporter Lynn Bartels’ legislative blog. I raced to the Capitol, getting there in time to get a CD of the debate. You might want the Renfroe bits for your iPod. I know some Democrats who definitely will. I promise you this isn’t the message to lead state Republicans back to power.

Renfroe would say he opposes the bill because of what it says in the Bible (where, in my reading, there’s very little on same sex health benefits). He explained how God created man and woman to procreate and then said, “Homosexuality is seen as a violation of this natural creative order, and it is an offense to God . . .When we create laws that go against what biblically we are supposed to stand for, I think we. . . are allowing to go forward a sin that should not be treated by government as something that is legal. We are taking sins and making them legally OK.”

That, he said, is “an abomination, according to Scripture.” In other words, the whole idea of a secular law, well, that’s for abomination lovers.

Renfroe quoted a passage from the Bible about homosexual acts being punishable by death, although, fortunately, he didn’t say Colorado ought to be in compliance. He pointed out a few other sins—like murder and adultery. “We don’t make laws making murder legal,” he said. He then said of homosexuality, in words I’m sure Thomas Jefferson would have admired—"that sin . . . is equal to any others in the Bible."

I left a message on Renfroe's cell, hoping to ask where homosexuality ranks on his all-time abominations list—and whether it ranked above people not having health care. But I guess he must not have gotten the call.

Later I asked Veiga, who is openly gay, how she felt about being called an abomination. It was one day after the Oscars, at which screenwriter Dustin Lance Black, winning for Milk, said Harvey Milk would want him to say “to all of the gay and lesbian kids out there tonight who have been told that they are less than by their churches, by the government or by their families, that you are beautiful, wonderful creatures of value and that no matter what anyone tells you, God does love you . . .”

Veiga is, of course, not new to this style of Senate discussion—or of debates about gay marriage in a bill that's not actually about gay marriage. "There's no question that I take offense," she said. "I do take it personally. It's hurtful. I’d hoped we’d moved past that kind of debate."

At points we did. For instance, Sen. Nancy Spence said she disagreed with the reasoning of some of her Republican colleagues but said she'd vote against the bill at a time when state employees are facing furloughs. Veiga said she understand the money issue, even in what is a relatively low-cost bill, but told Spence that there would "never be a right time" for many on this issue.

She then said to Renfroe, "I respect your beliefs. I don’t share your beliefs. I will stand here and tell you God also created me, and the last time I checked, I am who I am. If that doesn't reconcile with how you see the world, I’m sorry." The bill passed on a voice vote. There will be another Senate vote today. Then the bill will go to the House, where we'll have to wait to see if in 2009 it’s possible to have an abomination-free debate.