On the October 24 broadcast of his Newsradio 850 KOA show, host Mike Rosen and his guest, Focus on the Family Bioethics Senior Policy Analyst Carrie Gordon Earll, misleadingly cited a Denver Post article to distort Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill Ritter's stated position regarding same-sex marriage. Apparently basing her comments on a single September 3 Post article by staff writers Mark P. Couch and Chris Frates, Earll claimed that if elected governor, Ritter would sign a bill “allow[ing] same-sex marriage.” Later, Rosen apparently found the same Post article referenced by Earll on the Internet and agreed with her characterization of Ritter's position on same-sex marriage. However, neither Rosen nor Earll informed listeners of another Post article, also from September 3*, noting that Ritter “clarified his position” on gay marriage and that Ritter said he “would keep the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman but consider adding recognition of civil unions to the statute.”

Ritter's stance on gay marriage came up during a discussion of November ballot initiatives that deal with gay marriage and domestic partnerships. Amendment 43 would, as summarized by the Colorado Blue Book, “amend[] the state constitution by defining marriage in Colorado as only a union between one man and one woman.” As summarized by the Colorado Blue Book, Referendum I would “extend to same-sex couples in a domestic partnership the benefits, protections, and responsibilities that are granted by Colorado law to spouses.” Referendum I also states, “domestic partnership is not a marriage, which consists of the union of one man and one woman.”

The September 3 Post article by Couch and Frates regarding a September 1 Post editorial board interview with Ritter reported that “Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill Ritter said Friday that he would support legislation to change Colorado's ban on same-sex marriage” and that “Ritter said that he opposes the proposed constitutional amendment [Amendment 43] and that he would accept changes to the existing law.” The article noted that Ritter did not say what such changes might be. According to the September 3 Post article by Couch and Frates:

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill Ritter said Friday that he would support legislation to change Colorado's ban on same-sex marriage.

[...]

In a meeting Friday with The Denver Post's editorial board, Ritter said that he opposes the proposed constitutional amendment and that he would accept changes to the existing law.

The statute says marriage is between a man and a woman," Ritter said. “You know, if a bill came to my desk to change that statute, though, I would sign it. ...

”I'm just in a different place on this issue than the congressman is," Ritter said in reference to his Republican opponent, U.S. Rep. Bob Beauprez.

[...]

Ritter did not say what changes to the law he would support. When asked whether the definition of marriage should be changed to include the union of one man and another man, Ritter avoided a direct answer.

“It depends on what the bill says,” Ritter said. “I know it is a hypothetical, and I'm trying to avoid answering hypotheticals. I would entertain changing it, is what I'm saying.”

When asked later to explain more specifically what changes he would entertain, Ritter spokesman Evan Dreyer said the candidate would not be more specific.

Apparently referring to the September 3 Post article by reporters Couch and Frates, Earll claimed during Rosen's show, "[W]e already know that Bill Ritter has said that if he's elected governor and a bill comes to his desk to redefine marriage and [Amendment] 43 doesn't pass, that he'd sign it." Earll stated that her understanding of Ritter's stance on gay marriage came from “either a Post or a [Rocky Mountain] News article; I'm sorry, I don't have that with me, but yes. My recollection of reading that article was that he said if a bill that would allow same-sex marriage would come to his desk that yes, he would sign it.” Later in the broadcast, Rosen claimed to have found the article Earll cited on the Internet. According to Rosen:

ROSEN: Point of information; we just checked -- isn't the Internet wonderful? This was in a Denver Post story on September 3rd referring to a meeting between The Denver Post editorial board and Bill Ritter, the Democratic candidate for governor. Ritter said in this Denver Post story that he opposes the proposed constitutional amendment, Amendment 43, and that he would accept changes to the existing law. Ritter said, “The statute says marriage is between a man and a woman, you know, if a bill came to my desk to change that statute, though, I would sign it. I'm just in a different place on this issue than congressman Bob Beauprez is.”

Rosen then told Earll, “Your memory is accurate.”

But both Rosen and Earll failed to note that in a different September 3 Post article, apparently written after the article by Couch and Frates, staff writer Karen E. Crummy noted that Ritter subsequently “clarified” his position on the issue of same-sex marriage. Crummy's article stated that Ritter said “in a statement that he would keep the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman but consider adding recognition of civil unions to the statute”:

“The statute says marriage is between a man and a woman,” Ritter said Friday to The Denver Post's editorial board. “You know, if a bill came to my desk to change that statute, though, I would sign it -- that changes the definition of it.”

When asked whether the definition should include marriage between two men, Ritter said he didn't want to answer a hypothetical question.

“It depends on what the bill says,” he said. “I would entertain changing it, is what I'm saying.”

Referring to his Republican opponent, U.S. Rep. Bob Beauprez, Ritter said: “I'm just in a different place on this issue than the congressman is.”

On Saturday, however, Ritter clarified his position, saying in a statement that he would keep the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman but consider adding recognition of civil unions to the statute.

The September 3 Post article by Crummy also reported that "[i]n July 2005, Ritter said in a question and answer session on Coloradopols.com that he supported 'existing state law that defined marriage as being between a man and woman.' "

From the October 24 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's The Mike Rosen Show:

EARLL: Well, I'd like to add that we already know that Bill Ritter has said that if he's elected governor and a bill comes to his desk to redefine marriage and [Amendment] 43 doesn't pass, that he'd sign it. So most certainly, you have members of the state legislature, many of whom put forth Referendum I, who would want to redefine marriage and look at that. When it comes to Tim Gill, one of his lieutenants, Rodger McFarland, was quoted earlier this year in an article called “Marital Bliss” as saying absolutely, quote marriage equality -- same-sex marriage -- is what they're working for. There's no question that the Gill campaign is going to do that.

ROSEN: All right, so if Bill Ritter is on record, should he be elected governor, with a Democrat majority, I should note, in both houses of the state legislature --

EARLL: Possibly --

ROSEN: -- which seems a very likely outcome after the election, then the current Colorado statute that defines marriage as a union only between a man and a woman could well be repealed and be replaced with a statute that recognizes same-sex marriage. Amendment 43, by putting it in the Constitution, would trump that.

EARLL: That's correct. By putting it in the Constitution, it takes it out of the hands of the legislature and state courts. Again, in the states that have passed -- 20 states have passed marriage-protection amendments -- there has not been one state court after those marriage-protection amendments have been passed that have tinkered with the definition of marriage.

[...]

ROSEN: Hey, Carrie; are you sure that Bill Ritter said he would sign a bill recognizing same-sex marriages?

EARLL: There -- it's either a Post or a News article; I'm sorry, I don't have that with me, but yes. My recollection of reading that article was that he said if a bill that would allow same-sex marriage would come to his desk that yes, he would sign it. Now, I'd be willing to stand corrected if someone has the article, but that's my recollection.

ROSEN: If that's true, Michael [Brewer, Director of Public Policy at The Center], why would someone who's regarded as a somewhat moderate Democrat candidate for governor make a statement like that while he's running for election if, as you say, it would be such an outrageous, unimaginable position?

BREWER: Well, you'd have to ask Bill Ritter that.

ROSEN: I think it's a rhetorical question.

[...]

ROSEN: Point of information; we just checked -- isn't the Internet wonderful? This was in a Denver Post story on September 3rd referring to a meeting between the Denver Post editorial board and Bill Ritter, the Democratic candidate for governor. Ritter said in this Denver Post story that he opposes the proposed constitutional amendment, Amendment 43, and that he would accept changes to the existing law. Ritter said, “The statute says marriage is between a man and a woman, you know, if a bill came to my desk to change that statute, though, I would sign it. I'm just in a different place on this issue than congressman Bob Beauprez is.”

EARLL: So my memory is not as bad as I take credit for.

ROSEN: Your memory is accurate.

[...]

EARLL: This is a simple codification of the current statute, 20 words -- marriage shall be between a man and a woman. And the only reason you would vote against it would be if, like we've just heard from candidate Ritter, you want to consider gay marriage, you want to have that legal. Increasingly in this country there are people who think that they have a right to redefine marriage, and that may not be at our footstep tomorrow in Colorado, but it's certainly coming. It's coming through the Gill Foundation and people who've made statements that they will not stop until they have gay marriage. And this state is ground zero for the Gill Foundation.

* Article originally was posted to the Post website on September 3 and updated on October 20 according to the Post. The text in the updated version is identical to the September 3 version.