FIC Blog

The court-ordered imposition of same-sex “marriage” on Massachusetts provoked significant political losses for the pro-SSM movement and the Left in general. It seems the new governor is determined to repeat the errors of his state’s high court:

BOSTON — Gov. Deval Patrick has ordered officials to record the marriages of 26 out-of-state gay couples, including two from Connecticut, whose unions were blocked by his Republican predecessor from being registered in the state’s vital records.

Patrick’s decision has the potential to ignite a political response that will make the all-but-unanimous electoral rejection of same-sex “marriage” that has occurred thus far look like a day at the park for our opposition. It may be that if we someday succeed in passing the Federal Marriage Amendment we will look back on the lawsuits sparked by Patrick’s actions today as the catalyst for our victory.

In other news, the Courant on Saturday reported a possible solution to the Plan B impasse:

Lawmakers and church representatives involved in the talks refused to discuss the negotiations, but details of the proposal are outlined in a draft bill obtained by The Courant Friday.

Under the proposal put forward by legislators who favor universal access to Plan B emergency contraception, Catholic hospitals could contract with an independent health care provider to perform rape examinations and offer the pills.

The private provider would be paid by the state, which now routinely reimburses hospitals for the $900 cost of examining a sexual assault victim and collecting evidence.

The article makes it clear that the Church won’t accept any “compromise” that violates its teachings. If our opponents think otherwise they should go back and re-read Barry Feldman’s op-ed with particular attention to his comments about the Connecticut Religious Freedom Act. Imposing a “compromise” that violates religious liberty could be cause for a lawsuit.

The Courant doesn’t post its “town talkback” letters online, but the one by Lynn Leavenworth in the Mar. 26th issue is too good not to mention. She’s agreeing with my article on parental notification and offers this response to my opponent:

According to Planned Parenthood and others, if the problem becomes as big as a teen pregnancy, it is best we parents not know. Susan Lloyd Yolen writes that “many parents admit that they don’t have good skills in talking with their teens about sexuality and values.” Excuse me while I wipe away the stream of drool dripping from my parental slack jaw, but a pregnancy would be a time when a girl would need her parents most. The love a parent has for a child would surely cover any admitted ineptitude.

Finally, I want to note the Mar. 24th post by Nick Uva on the Pray Connecticut blog. Nick cites the bill at our legislature “asking the state to investigate the causes and potential remedies of fatherless families in Connecticut” and responds with “ten reasons why there is so much fatherlessness.” He closes with this observation:

What will the Connecticut Legislature say when they climb this mountain of wisdom and find out that the answers they seek are being put out there every day by the Family Institute of Connecticut and others viewed as reactionaries, “theocrats,” and “Christofascists?”