Massive Victory for Marriage
May 11th, 2007 by Peter
Pro-family forces have won the same-sex “marriage” legislative battle of 2007:
Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, and Rep. Mike Lawlor, D-East Haven, said Friday afternoon they do not intend to push for a vote on same-sex marriage this legislative session, saying the bill does not have enough votes to win…
Opponents of the bill were cheered by Lawlor and McDonald’s decision. “The Family Institute of Connecticut is thrilled that the legislature has heeded the majority of voters in the state who do not want to see marriage radically redefined,” said Peter Wolfgang, the institute’s public policy director.
Our opponents worked for weeks to get a vote on the bill–passed through a committee heavily stacked in favor of same-sex “marriage”–and failed. Why?
It is partly because some legislators don’t want to put it on the line for something as red-hot controversial as same-sex “marriage” in the face of a threatened veto–a veto Gov. Rell never hedged on in any of her remarks.
It is partly because the Democratic caucus itself opposed a vote on the bill. Recall Speaker Amann’s quotes to the CT Post and the New London Day the day after the committee vote: he would call the bill only if his caucus wanted it called.
But it is largely because of you: the pro-family citizens of Connecticut who heeded FIC’s call to make your voices heard at our state capitol. Thanks to you, our Feb. 21st lobby day was a tremendous success, turning out twice as many people as our opponents on a day picked by them (see here and here). Thanks to you, FIC provided the outstanding testimony of Maggie Gallagher, Dawn Stefanowicz, Brian Brown–and over 40 pro-family activists like you–for the most successful public hearing on same-sex “marriage” we have ever had. (The real intended audience of our testimony was not Lawlor and McDonald’s committee but, rather, the whole legislature and the wider public. Today’s news shows we hit our mark.) And thanks to your phone calls and e-mails–whose effectiveness was grudgingly acknowledged in an e-mail alert by our opponents–we have today’s massive victory for marriage protection.
Today’s victory came about because of your hard work. But our opponents have vowed to fight another day, which is why we need your support to continue to defend marriage from their attacks.
Our May 23rd Rally and Lobby Day for Marriage will go forward–beginning at 10 a.m. on the steps of the state capitol in Hartford. We need as many pro-family state residents as possible to attend.
And, even for this year, a radical redefinition of marriage is still possible. The state Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments Monday in a case brought by activists seeking a judicial imposition of same-sex “marriage.” FIC and other pro-family groups have filed friend-of-the-court briefs. And I will be appearing with pro same-sex “marriage” Rep. Mike Lawlor the following morning (May 15th at 9:00 a.m.) to discuss the case on WNPR’s “Where We Live” program.
Congratulations to all of you who stood with us and helped bring about today’s marvelous victory for families and children. May there be many more.
Loading ...
Enjoy your gloating, you won’t have much longer to do so. Justice is inevitable, freedom is for all in this country not just those who practice a certain religion.
I’m curious, since it’s such a red-hot issue, if any civil union supporter from 05 lost their seat in 06.
This is a great victory. Those House Dems simply didn’t want to spend the fall of ‘08 dealing with this issue during re-election.
Pro-family folks have a tremendous amount of work to do, however, to change the make-up of the legislature. (I was actually looking forward to getting all of them on record with a roll call vote.)
“I’m curious, since it’s such a red-hot issue, if any civil union supporter from 05 lost their seat in 06.”
No, nobody who supported civil unions lost in the election.
But actually, the exact opposite happened. A couple of people who voted against civil unions lost.
It’s very telling that your opponents don’t wish to see a general vote put to the people of CT and they don’t want to show a “flaming” loss in the legislature.. so they avoided both.
They need to face it …Gay Marriage is not what the people want, no matter what your religious background is.
I don’t understand why those who have marriage and families are so threatened by equality for all. That is all we want. How do you think your mothers felt when fighting for equality in the workplace?
You don’t deserve any “congratulations”. Making sure that all families have equal recognition and rights under the law is so fundamental that I have a hard time believing that are not just bigots at heart, and not the loving families you pretend to be.
I agree with David above. Equality is inevitable. Too bad you make us fight for it.
“Flaming” loss. Nice. How did that one make it past moderation?
David & Glenn,
You don’t want REAL equality for the children brought into families headed by same-sex couples, because you are for denying them the opportunity to be raised by both a mother and a father.
As to Glenn’s “I have a hard time believing that are not just bigots at heart, and not the loving families you pretend to be.” (And David’s similar statement about reigious bigotry)—
Note that judges in New York state, and liberal California (as well as many other states) have found that society has a vested interest in preserving marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Even the vaunted, progressive French, through their National Assembly last year rejected SSM, “based on secular and not religion-based research, that marriage is a vital social institution and that children’s rights to be raised in a family with a married mother and father outweigh the right of adults to engage in alternate relationship structures that affect their children.” (www.deseretnews.com May 13, 2007 “Warsaw forum promotes ‘natural family’)
(I left the l out of religious in the 2nd paragraph. Also the closing ” at the end of the Deseret News article citation.)
Breeder is a bad word, but flaming isn’t? What could the difference between the two be………
Quick, Gabe, you’re needed in the other thread! Chele is calling NaCN “cyanide” and I know you’ll want to call her on it for her lack of manners. Otherwise, your concern for proper blogging decorum would come across as a ruse, an issue you only raise against opponents and never your own side because your real concern isn’t hypocrisy or manners but, rather, just taking digs and…oh. Never mind.
Gabe is a flaming breeder.
In a word, yes: (1) Meaning matters, and (2) context matters.
As to point #1, the American Heritage dictionary defines “breeder” as being offensive slang, in as much as it is a derogatory reference to heterosexuals. Using the same reference source, there is no such categorization of “flaming” as being offensive. Moreover, the meaning that you seem to infer is not among any of the dictionary definitions of the word. And the writer of the comment above used the word “flaming” in the proper sense, which implies an intense, passionate and zealous pursuit of a goal - burning with strong emotion, anger and indignation - as in a “heated” debate. It is also rightfully evocative of the visual metaphor wherein a WWI biplane “goes down in flames” after losing a dogfight.
As to point #2, in the previous incident where we deleted a posted comment which contained the offensive usage of “breeder”, the word was used in a context that could only be meant to offend. It was a single sentence posting that as I recall read “Better get breeding, breeder” without any supporting context to understand the message as being other than a direct and inflammatory attack on a person.
Everyone tends to perceive language through the lens of their own personal life experiences, but measuring offensiveness needs to be considered relative to objective third-party standards. Some folks might take it as a badge of honor to be labeled a flaming liberal, because it suitably reflects the intensity and passion of their political opinions!
Otherwise, your concern for proper blogging decorum would come across as a ruse, an issue you only raise against opponents and never your own side because your real concern isn’t hypocrisy or manners
You mean exactly what you just did? I learned it by watching you, Dad…
And, if I’m not mistaken, NaCN, is the chemical symbol for the compound Sodium Cyanide, commonly known as Cyanide. She didn’t name him.
This debate is getting to be quite boring. Since there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage, I don’t see why the push to redefine marriage is beneficial to society. It’s just for the sake of a select group of people who have a real, big, fat, sense of entitlement. I believe there are some 1400 State and Federal benefits to be gotten. And if they were truly interested in equality, then I believe they would also ush to have benefits included for all those couples who are common law, in addition to the thousands of parents that live with their children and are supported by their children or relationships such as living arrangements as brothers/sisters who create what is today the definition of family as opposed to the tradtional family.
Gabe, if I was playing your game, half the comments posted on this blog by opponents would have never appeared here.
It doesn’t seem appropriate for those who claim to be good, moral people to rejoice in “victory” in this case. Why would a person with a good heart and soul want to be “victorious” in a quest to deny rights to others who happen to love in a different way.
You are HATING the way some people LOVE. Does that not seem ironic and small-minded?
I don’t think this show of bigotry shows much moral fiber. It’s very sad.
I’m a little confused. What’s my game exactly?
Dave - Can I borrow a pair of boots? Because if it gets any deeper…
Dear Jennifer,
I always love it when the only response people get on the FIC side, is that we hate. Isn’t that stereotyping and doing exactly what you accuse us of doing?
Many of us who oppose the idea of same sex marriage have gay friends and family whom we do not hate. We just happen to disagree with them.
Opal
Gabe,
RE chele’s reference to me as cyanide:
Oh, come on! So when she first called me that and said she wouldn’t “drink your koolaid,” she didn’t intend to offend?! You are losing credibility quick.
I’m not aware that the compound sodium cyanide is commonly known, let alone “commonly known as Cyanide.” I’m curious where you came up with that notion, especially given that the two are chemically different and primarily used for different purposes. (Quick. Get the search engine going.)
Full disclosure warning: I have some expertise in this area so my B.S. detector is very sensitive.
JWC, (& others to whom this applies),
We who are DEFENDING the traditional definition of marriage are NOT seeking to be “’victorious’ in a **quest** to deny rights to others who happen to love in a different way.”
WE DID NOT PICK THIS FIGHT!! We have simply responded DEFENSIVELY to those who want to radically redefine society’s most basic, bedrock institutions of “marriage” and family. We are NOT doing this because we are “HATING the way some people LOVE.” We are standing up for marriage as it has ALWAYS been defined and understood across millennia and practically EVERY CULTURE, around the world, as “the union of a man and a woman.”
We must take this stand in defense of the rights of future children to have both a mother and a father, because the radical activists consider these vulnerable children’s rights, and the future of society as a whole, far SECONDARY (if they consider them at all) to their own selfish need for validation of their lifestyle choices.
My question is how can you have same sex marriage fidelity when 2 gay researchers discovered this, “the cheating ratio of ‘married’ gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%.” (Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen’s After The Ball: How American Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s)
O
NCN -
I got it from wiki and I linked it in the first comment. Believe it or not, I don’t actually log on to read the collected works of NaCN, so I have no idea what she originally said or when she originally said it.
Tricia,
Dear you really must learn to read before you respond. I never mentioned children. Please try harder to stick to the topic. As to your comments later on: Yes you did choose to fight against us, just as you chose to fight against racial minorities and you chose and some still choose to fight against equal treatment of women. You are ALWAYS fighting against people, you are ALWAYS defending your view of what is right and the rest of us can rot in hell. Sorry lady, that time is over. Open up some REAL history books and you will see that your statement about “traditional” marriage is total hogwash. There have been MANY different forms for marriage and family structure and given the dismal state of the world today you certainly have NO BASIS to claim that what you support is the best. The ONLY thing you stand in defense of is your power over the western world - the smoke screen of concern for the children is one of the biggest lies you fanatics tell. Hate is what you are, hate is what you do. And not one tiny shred of it has ANYTHING to do with Jesus Christ.
Clearly this is an issue where emotions run deep on both sides of the question, and whatever the ultimate outcome may be – as yet to be determined by future judicial and legislative action – there are going to be a lot of people disappointed with it.
I do not agree with the characterization of FIC supporters as hateful people. We merely disagree with those who would seek to change the law, and it is our right as citizens to speak out on this subject. Labeling us as bigoted and hateful is just a tactic of the Left to undermine our willpower in standing up for our beliefs and values.
It is surprising – and encouraging - to see that this comments thread has been running steady at about a 50-50 split on opinions for and against SSM. In the past our regular “contributors” from the Left would typically have overwhelmed the comments so thoroughly, and with such vigor, that many of our own supporters would refrain from posting due to the inflammatory and insulting nature of the debate. Instead of dealing honestly with differences of opinion, so often the Left has chosen to follow the road of insults and name calling. When you factor in the understandably passionate views of those whose homosexual lifestyle is in the crosshairs of this debate, it is easy to see why their voices are frequently raised in disproportionate numbers. I think we are now beginning to see a more accurate representation of the divergent opinions on the SSM issue within the comments being posted. The “silent majority” is starting to emerge and take root in the blogosphere.
We are sure to see a continued outpouring of anger from the Left in the weeks and months to come. Don’t let it rattle you. They wouldn’t be so vocal unless they felt we were a threat to their revisionist agenda. The nature and tone of their postings actually confirms how worried they are that this issue isn’t going to break in their favor when we reach the final outcome.
It looks like we may even have another paid professional journalist entering the fray on behalf of LMF, if that’s the same Jennifer Warner Cooper we read in the Hartford Courant and hear on the radio with WTIC News/Talk 1080. Although posting the same claims – twice verbatim – hardly makes what you say any more true. FIC supporters would be wise to observe this is yet another technique of obfuscation used by our opponents – to keep repeating false claims in the hope that eventually they will be believed, or at least cause us to lose hope.
We’re all going to have to patient and wait upon the court to rule in Kerrigan. Keep the judiciary panel in your prayers, that they may be guided in wisdom and truth. Except for the parties to the case and the amici curiae, it’s all that most of us can do at this point. Leave the rest to God, and be ready to pick up again when it returns – as it likely will in the future – to the legislative arena.
Gabe, I just followed your link. The write up is pretty good. It misses a few things. But I couldn’t find anything there indicating that NaCN is commonly known as cyanide, as you claim.
chele first referred to me as cyanide on Feb. 25. See here. Guess who posted comments several times in the midst of our exchange. That’s right. Gabe.
No, I don’t expect you to read everything chele (not me) has written. I don’t even expect you to remember the conversations you have had yourself. I do expect you to manifest some integrity and not defend others incivility by stating it doesn’t exist.
Sometimes it is better to just say “my bad” and take your licks. I have done so myself on several occasions; once following cajoling from you. As it is, your credibility is tanking.
Link missing from my post: (http://www.ctfamily.org/blog/2007/02/24/amazing-grace-the-untold-story-of-faith-and-politics/#comment-2279)
NaCN –
The name calling by the Left is just a technique they use to get under your skin, and they wouldn’t bother to harass you so much unless they felt threatened by your rational and persistent stand against SSM. Clearly you have hit a nerve and they are lashing out in anger.
It was actually Phil who first started the name calling against you on February 22nd (in the infamous “Granny Angst” thread), but it’s most often been Chele using the cyanide moniker in reference to your postings. They both ought to apologize, but I suspect neither will.
Gabe –
For the record, a cyanide is any chemical compound with the cyano group (C=N) as part of its structure. It’s actually the CN-minus ion that is associated with toxicity. But non-chemists are probably less precise in their usage. It is actually KCN – potassium cyanide – that was used by folks like Goering and Himmler to commit suicide; by the folks in Jonestown, Guyana who drank the kool-aid; and which is typically featured in murder mystery novels. There’s also HCN – which made its appearance under the name “Zyklon B” in the Nazi death camps. Hopefully that will satiate your interest in the subject.
NaCN,
Honestly. Are you really trying to imply that sodium cyanide is something exotic that anyone who has taken a chemistry class, read a detective novel, encountered pesticides or simply lived a somewhat intellectually curious life wouldn’t know about? Of course the compound sodium cyanide is commonly known. And of course it is commonly referred to simply as “cyanide.” Now, if you’d like to tell us something different based on your expertise, please feel free. There’s always a chance that all the reference materials are wrong.
cy·a·nide (s-nd)
n. also cy·a·nid (-nd)
Any of various salts or esters of hydrogen cyanide containing a CN group, especially the extremely poisonous compounds potassium cyanide and sodium cyanide
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cyanide
cyanide (sī’ənīd’) , chemical compound containing the cyano group, [sbond]CN. Cyanides are salts or esters of hydrogen cyanide (hydrocyanic acid, HCN) formed by replacing the hydrogen with a metal (e.g., sodium or potassium) or a radical (e.g., ammonium or ethyl). The most common and widely used cyanides are those of sodium and potassium; they are often referred to simply as “cyanide.”
Columbia Encyclopedia via http://www.answers.com/topic/cyanide
cyanide
Any chemical compound containing the combining group CN. Ionic (see ion; ionic bond) and organic cyanide compounds differ in chemical properties, but both are toxic, especially the ionic ones. Cyanide poisoning inhibits cells’ oxidative (see oxidation-reduction) processes; its action is extremely rapid, and an antidote must be given promptly. Cyanides occur naturally in certain seeds (e.g., apple seeds, wild cherry pits). Cyanides, including hydrogen cyanide (HCN, or hydrocyanic acid), are used industrially in the production of acrylic fibres, synthetic rubbers, and plastics as well as in electroplating, case-hardening of iron and steel, fumigation, and concentration of ores.
For more information on cyanide, visit Britannica.com.
Definition of Cyanide
Cyanide: Poisoning with cyanide, a rapidly acting, potentially deadly chemical that can exist as a colorless gas, such as hydrogen cyanide (HCN) or cyanogen chloride (CNCl), or a crystal form such as sodium cyanide (NaCN) or potassium cyanide (KCN)…. Cyanide is also known by the military designations AN (for hydrogen cyanide) and CK (for cyanogen chloride).
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=23451
Cyanide
any compound containing the monovalent combining group CN. In inorganic cyanides, such as sodium cyanide, NaCN, this group is present as the negatively charged cyanide ion; these compounds, which are regarded as salts of hydrocyanic acid, are highly toxic. Organic cyanides are usually called nitriles; in these, the CN group is linked by a covalent bond to a carbon-containing…
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9028361/cyanide
Dave:
chele:
Shorter Dave
A perfect microcosm of the marriage equality debate.
Dave,
Thank you for reading my words, albeit twice. That was a posting accident. I am unfamiliar with this blog and thought that I was merely proof-reading my comment the first time. Apologies!
Yes, I am in fact a self-employed freelance writer who does occasional radio on WTIC.
I am not a staff reporter, and thus am more free to meld my own beliefs with my work. The cost is that I am paid very little in dollars. The benefit is that I am able to speak out for what I believe is social justice. Ah well, the trade-off, you know?
For the record, I am a Christian, heterosexual, married mother of two, but I cannot fathom how my marriage, or yours, if you have one, needs to be “defended” against the inclusion of others.
Happily married same-sex couples would pose no threat to my marriage. But then again, mine is pretty secure…
I won’t comment often, and please dont take that as a sign of being battle-weary or something like that…I’m just a busy writer who visits blogs of all kinds to see what the pulse of the community is.
The celebratory “major victory” stuff just got to me and I was compelled, out of sadness, to comment. And, sure, well, semantics are semantics. I’m sure none of you “hate” your gay friends; you just “hate” what they do. Hmmmm.
If by this you mean the tendency of the Left to evade true debate, and to engage in childish techniques of distraction and obfuscation, I agree!
Dave,
You are correct. Clearly I am getting under their skin. Failing any ability to respond to me on the issues, some (chele) are reduced to name calling. Others offer tacit support by claiming it isn’t name calling. Not unexpected, but still disappointing. I do thank Peter for pointing out the hypocrisy and you for defending that notion.
You know, I had forgotten that it was Phil who first called me that. I was giving chele too much intellectual credit.
Gabe,
chele has been working overtime trying to support your claim that NaCN is commonly known as cyanide and, I must admit, she has found some compelling citations. They are quite different from the one that you cited. They also differ from my professional experience. Nevertheless, they support your statement. My bad.
See. It really is easy.
Having said that, it is still clear that chele’s intent is to insult.
Matt,
We’re still waiting for your long list of citations. You know, the ones showing that SSM will NOT harm marriage and children.
And waiting.
And waiting.
chele,
It is a big leap from stating that most people have no clue what NaCN is (including, apparently, you . . . until you saw what Phil had written) to your assertion that I’m “trying to imply [it] is something exotic.” I’m not surprised by your assertion given your propensity for leaps of logic.
I congratulate you on your finding support for Gabe’s statement. Actually, I find the lengths to which you will go humorous. (I visualize you bent over the keyboard researching obscure chemical nomenclature, pencil in hand, muttering “I’m gonna get that sucker.”) Well, you got me. I’m nursing a deep wound.
None of your research, however, changes the fact that your intent was, and is, to insult. NaCN and CN are different. Don’t call me CN. Thanks.
I wrote a long comment responding to the comments above that was witty and insightful. Unfortunately, it got eaten by teh interntets tubes.
Jennifer — you know what you need? A paid astroturf lobbying gig. You’d still get your ideas into the news, no matter how nutty, and a fat paycheck and company car to boot.
Dave — I think that’s an example of “the left” answering the fictional charges of ill-informed fringe agitators with a detailed rebuttal, then getting told that their facts are meaningless in the face of pre-existing beliefs.
Though JWC’s double posting was an accident, her points bear repeating. It makes sense to me why you’re celebrating now, because when Connecticut eventually has full marriage equality, I doubt you’ll throw a party.
On a technical note, I run my blog on a WordPress platform (it’s what the FIC Blog and Spazeboy.net have in common, for all you trivia buffs). If someone double posts a comment, I typically approve one and delete the other. If I approved them both, I certainly wouldn’t point to the double-posting and say that it’s an obfuscation technique used “to keep repeating false claims in the hope that eventually they will be believed”
That in itself is an obfuscation technique, no?
Spaze is right about Wordpress; I had to moderate in a rush and the double posting is my fault. Will fix it momentarily.
JWC wrote:
Can you relate to how printing counterfeit $20 bills would devalue what you have in your own wallet/purse, even if you personally never came into possession of that counterfeit money? Counterfeit marriage hurts children by imposing motherlessness or fatherlessness, and it weakens our society as a whole. Indirectly it affects us all.
Is there something up with the platform in general? I just answered NaCN again, but my comment just disappeared (rather than appearing as awaiting for moderation). Are they getting caught in the spam filter because I used multiple links?
Anyway, NaCN, I linked an quoted the places from the wiki articles on Sodium Cyanide and Cyanide where I came by my statement that Sodium Cyanide is commonly called cyanide, but I can’t seem to share them for some reason.
Marriage as currency: now there’s a fun metaphor.
If your marriage loses value if the state fails to prevent counterfeit marriages, wouldn’t it lose an equal amount of value if more marriages are rushed into production by the state? That would strike right at the heart of the Bush admin’s faith based initiatives?
Can anyone tell me what marriage is exchanged for? Like, if marriage-currency buys tickets to salvation, does its devaluation cause all of us to spend additional time in purgatory? If our government doesn’t declare these false marriages to be invalid under the full faith and credit clause, does that mean we’ll default on God’s investment in America — and *all of us* will be left behind when the rapture comes? That’d be like a “great marriage depression,” wouldn’t it?
Seriously, am I on the right track here?
I think you can trade 2 failed marriages for one midlife crisis and a porsche, but only in the suburbs.
Dave,
You do not “merely disagree” - you condemn our lives, you denigrate our relationships, you say we are a threat to childrent and our marriages are counterfeit. That is not disagreeing, that is attacking. Your “opinion” is dangerous and violent. The Klan and other white power groups are of the “opinion” that nonwhite races are inferiour and certainly shouldn’t be allowed to marry whites. The Nazis were of the “opinion” that the Jews were dangerous and to allow their blood to mix with their own would weaken the race. The Al Qaeda is of the “opinion” that the west is decadent and should be defeated. Conservative Muslims are of the “opinion” that women should be covered head to toe and not allowed basic freedoms that animals enjoy in their countries. To merely disagree is to argue over what is better steak or shrimp, to prefer one flavor of ice cream over another etc. What you do is no different than all the others I listed above - you argue for the inferiority of another group of people and advocate that the government contol their lives. In plain and simple terms - you are hateful bigots and don’t have the cojones to admit it like all the other groups I mentioned. Shameless cowards who hide behind your “god”, you should learn to act civilized.
The bottom line, no matter what your view on this question of SSM, is that you can’t coerce people into accepting your lifestyle and your point of view. Legislation one way or the other will not change people’s hearts and minds. Given enough time, dialogue and peaceful coexistence might make a difference. Prayer might make a difference. Sadly this issue has become so intensely polarized that it would seem virtually impossible to bridge the gap.
Well, I’ve spent a day here.
I seem to be one of the only commenters who will share my name, identity, and occupation, and that puzzles me, but I’m not going to stick around to ask why.
Also, it seems that while some ask for dialogue and discourse (I applaud that in you!!), others are just plain mean to others.
An example: I don’t even know what it would mean to be an “astroturf lobbyist” and I never said I was looking for a “fatter paycheck” or “company car.” That seemed incongruently angry and caustic. Why? Because I admit to being poorly paid by main stream media? Why attack me for that?
I tried this blog out, and sadly, found mean-spirited people. That’s too bad.
The nightly prayer in this house has this phrase:
“Help me to be good, and kind, and nice.” I think its a good thing to ask help with.
Peace to all–
JWC
JWC –
I have to admit I may have misjudged your motives, and I would like to apologize for chiding you about double posting. If that added to your first-day experience as being “mean spirited”, please understand that my reaction was born of the feeling that we are bombarded every day by nasty comments such as you experienced, and consequently a degree of wariness about newcomers advocating on behalf of SSM. The other person who commented about “astroturf lobbying”, “fat paycheck”, and “company car”, was in fact a left-wing heckler who snipes at us incessantly. It is quite typical of what Brian, Peter, and I have been dealing with steadily.
Yours at least was a voice of civility and respectful disagreement, and I appreciate that.
Thanks for sharing that prayer. Those are words we should all take to heart.
JWC, I second everything Dave said. Your presence here is welcome and I hope you won’t disappear from this site. Opponents who can criticize us in a charitable manner are too rare. You could fill a big gap on this blog and your absence would be our loss.
David,
I was responding to comments of both you and Glenn. Sorry if that offends you. Glenn mentioned “families,” which to me includes children. As for your “Yes you did choose to fight against us, just as you chose to fight against racial minorities and you chose and some still choose to fight against equal treatment of women.” On counts 2 and 3 I have never and will never “fight against” either of those issues.
On count 1 (”fighting against us,” which I assume you to mean the gay activists)—you believe that just because you want what you want (and are totally oblivious to negative future consequences to anyone else, or to society as a whole) that nobody with dissenting opinions should be allowed to exercise their First Amendment Rights on the subject? We as dissenters to your agenda are just supposed to roll over and play dead, while you contort and radically redefine society’s most crucial, foundational institution?
Other than instances of polygamy (which ALSO INVOLVES the union of MAN and WOMEN), please cite significant societies which have included and upheld “MANY different forms for marriage and family structure.”
David, I don’t know what you were drinking or otherwise partaking of when you wrote your vitriolic post to me, but I have absolutely no “power over the western world.” I believe I can safely state that FIC also has no “power over the western world,” or the “fight” to defend against a redefinition of “marriage” would have been won by now.
One final question, David—if you choose to answer, or even just ponder it. I assume you were raised by a father and mother who were married to and loved each other, and also loved you. (If not, I’m sorry you did not have that blessing in life.) If you were raised in such a family, how would feel about giving up those parents to be replaced by two of the same gender?
David,
Another question for you to at least ponder:
Do you “hate” those of your (gay & lesbian) cohort who do NOT want or advocate for SSM?
According to the New York Times, those who do not want it (for I assume various reasons) constitute about half the homosexual population. One prominent person of such view is commentator Tammy Bruce.
Tricia,
When I used “you” to the “conservative christian” community which has been at the forefront of fighting every single step of progress that the USA has made towards becoming a country where all truly are equal. The “negative future consequences ” you speak of are simply hallucinations of a group that simply does not want to give up it’s power. This group has proven that there is nothing they will not do to enforce their will (oh, and Dave, the struggle for same sex marriage is forcing NO ONE to do something they don’t want to). “society’s most crucial, foundational institution” is in no danger from same sex marriage, any more than Germany was in danger from Jews marrying Germans. Yet you choose to follow the same path as the Nazis despite the well known results of their beliefs. Forget what you imagine in the future and learn from what has already happened in human history. Certainly you should not roll over and play dead, but you must learn to act civilized and at least attempt to use the truth in your crusade - not the garbage pile of pseudoscience and fabricated “studies” that are currently used by the sadochristian right.
What a foolish question to ask me to answer about my parents. Had you asked that when I was 17 I probably would have said sure, I’ll trade them in. But most 17 year olds might say that. Since there are multitudes of extremely dysfunctional children and adults that were raised by opposite sex parents I really think y’all should rethink that whole argument. Perhaps when homosexual unions have produced as much mayhem I’ll listen to your point, until then we can do no worse than you have for centuries.
As far as those in the gay communities who do not support gay marriage that’s their business. Unless they are actively fighting against us like you folks then I don’t care. Those who actively support your crusade or support politicians who are part of it are a different story, I feel nothing but disgust for them, perhaps mixed with pity because only those who hate themselves deeply will fight against their own people and no one should live that way. A big thank you to “the church” for the damage they have suffered. Yes there are a number of reasons LGBT people might oppose marriage - in fact it’s the radicals who mostly take that stance, believing that marriage is a heterosexual institution and for us to participate in it is “assimilating”. Quite funny actually because while y’all whine about the “activists” trying to “redefine marriage” , they are actually the more conservative among us.
One thing, I don’t “hate” you, would be foolish since I don’t know you. Your stand against innocent people is repulsive and the tactics you folks use are despicable, so yeah, I hate your actions and your attitudes, because I have seen first hand the wreckage that it produces. NO ONE who is willing to cause such pain and destruction (and death) can legitimately claim to be Christian or say one word about concern for the children.
oh, and all societies are “significant” to those who belong to them, I’ll not buy into your western superiority nonsense.
Dave,
People’s minds and hearts ARE changing over time, but not in the direction of your own views a/e/b the direction of young peoples’ responses to recent polls. Asking you to allow others to follow their own beliefs about (gay) marriage by legalizing their unions does not equate with them “coercing” you into accepting their POV or forcing their lifestyle on you. They/we are not asking you to become gay, or enter into a same sex marriage. I hope you will be able to coexist peacefully with all the same sex couples in this state when this legislation is finally passed, or when the Supreme Court find sthat those marriages are protected by Connecticut’s constitution.