Judging by the Courant’s news sections, you would never guess that Connecticut may be on the verge of a court-ordered radical re-definition of marriage. For months now the paper has made no mention of the Kerrigan case. And, of course, it ignored FIC’s Rally for Liberty, which brought 300 people to the state Capitol on a Wednesday morning last September to defend marriage and self-government.

But that’s the news sections. The Courant’s Life section has had plenty to say about the Kerrigan case lately–all of it blatantly pro same-sex “marriage.” On Dec. 17th it ran a front page above-the-fold article promoting sales of a T-shirt whose proceeds will go to fund the state’s pro same-sex “marriage” lobbying group. (It even encouraged parents of young children to buy a “onesie” emblazoned with the T-shirt’s pro same-sex “marriage” slogan, “marriage is so gay.”)

And this past Sunday’s Life section carried yet another pro same-sex “marriage” column by Susan Campbell:

Kerrigan and Mock are lead plaintiffs in a landmark marriage-equality case argued in front of the state Supreme Court last May. The woman and other same-sex couples are part of a lawsuit filed in 2004 by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) of Boston, after the couples were denied marriage licenses.

The court has yet to hand down a verdict, which Mock takes as a good sign. If the answer was no, wouldn’t the justices have said so already? Mock thinks the court is simply looking for the right time to say yes.

At issue is whether marriage applies to all citizens, or if it’s an institution reserved strictly for heterosexuals. The state of Connecticut currently offers civil unions — marriage lite — but civil unions don’t go far enough, and separate is never equal. GLAD’s attorney, Bennett H. Klein, says he’s looking forward to the verdict, as are the people at Love Makes a Family, the state’s marriage-equality organization. On verdict day, that group plans a press conference, a rally, and a party — the latter if the decision is the right one.

In the comments thread of Campbell’s column someone calling himself “in the know” has posted the following:

It’s pretty well known that the SP’s on the Ct. Supreme Ct.-Katz, Palmer, Norcott have put together a majority opinion in favor of gay marriage.

Lawlor and McDonald have been chortiling for months and the gay community has been holding back on civil unions in anticipation…

Expect the decision Friday, Jan. 11.

[Update, posted on Jan. 11th] From a comment I just posted in this thread:

The Supreme Court’s web site lists three decisions scheduled to be released today…and Kerrigan isn’t one of them. The AG just this week submitted the Dec. 7th RI case as supplemental authority to the CT Supremes, which may have pushed back the Kerrigan decision if it was indeed scheduled for today. On the other hand, one would hope the law clerks had already made the Justices aware of the RI ruling. So it may simply be that “in the know” wasn’t.

38 Responses to “Court to Impose Same-Sex “Marriage” on Jan. 11th?”

  1. on 02 Jan 2008 at 11:36 pmMiddletownPete

    it will be a sad day, but i doubt if even this will wake up the churches …. often the Sunday before the election, I hear more talk about Football in the Sunday sermon and no mention of these urgent matters.

    No, your pastor will not wake up, even after gay marriage comes to Conn.

  2. on 03 Jan 2008 at 5:55 amLynn

    If the court forces same-sex marriage on the state, what would be the strategy at that point for those of us who are against it? It seems to be there needs to be some form of protest and legislation to protect those whose religious or common sense convictions oppose same-sex marriage.

    In other words, if this court decision goes against us, and I hope it doesn’t, we shouldn’t be caught flat-footed. Pro-family legislators should be lined up to propose legislation to protect religious liberty in this state. Lawyers should be lined up to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court. In addition, publicity should be given to the Hatch Act, which I believe (I’m not a lawyer), allows parents the ability to have their children opt out of any education in the public schools which they object to, such as homosexuality, the occult, etc. Maybe another mass rally would helpful, as well.

    I also think the Hartford Courant’s role in pushing same-sex marriage should be emphasized. For example, The Courant (and the state of Connecticut for that matter) have a history of anti-Catholicism, so The Courant –a member of a corporate media empire– should have that exposed. According to Janice Law Trecher in her book “Preachers, Rebels, and Traders Connecticut 1818-1865″ (published by the Pequot Press) writes: “By the 1850′s, religious prejudice was becoming an important factor in state politics. At the height of antiforeign feeling in 1856, the Courant editorialized: Here is a mass of ignorant foreigners, marched to the polls in a body, under the guidance of a band of priests who, in turn, are mere puppets in the hands of their bishops, who in turn, have all sworn allegiance to a foreign power!” I don’t think the Courant’s views today are much different then in the 1850′s.

    The state of Connecticut’s history of bigotry against Catholics include the election of a Know-Nothing governor in 1855 and 1866, William T. Minor. In 1855 Connecticut adopted the first literacy test for voting in the nation. Its purpose was to discriminate against Irish-Catholic immigrants. The anti-Catholic bigotry in history will be nothing compared to the anti-religious (and anti-natural law) effect of the court supporting same-sex marriage.

    At the least, I would be in favor of not allowing The Courant to sell its newspapers on Catholic property such as in Catholic hospitals. Encouraging a boycott of the paper would be better.

    I hope a plan of action is being developed should the court decide in favor of same sex marriage.

  3. on 03 Jan 2008 at 11:46 amGems

    FYI, Lynn: The CT Supreme Court’s decisions can only be appealed to the US Supreme Court if they are based on federal law. If our court comes down in favor of same-sex marriage, the decision would be based on our state constitution. The US Supreme Court would have no jurisdiction over an appeal of that decision.

  4. on 03 Jan 2008 at 5:58 pmGary47

    I’m still waiting for a rational explanation from the opponents of equality why your religion based arguments are relevant to civil marriage (a legal construct in secular law).

    You aren’t pushing to ban divorce and many other secular issues that are far clearer violations of traditional Biblical rules.

    Why the hypocrisy on allowing same-sex couples the protections of civil marriage?

  5. on 03 Jan 2008 at 7:41 pmMike from Essex

    Gary- those of us who oppose the redefinition of marriage because we believe that marriage needs to be defined in order to exist, and that the most rational place to define it is as the union of male-female. Gay people are not banned from marriage- technically, a gay man could marry a woman. Our objection is to a redefiniton of marriage to align with everyone’s preferences.

    In that vein, let me ask: what is it that puts the homosexual preference over the polyamorist preference? Is it that homosexuals have an innate biological cause for causing them to be gay, and polyamorists don’t? That is the best reply I have heard. If we are going by what is natural, I can tell you, monogamy is not natural at all. If you are going to support gay marriage, at least concede that once the current model falls (as you hope it does, in the name of progress), there is nothing in the way of a newer definition, which would include multiple-person marriages. Mike from Essex

  6. on 03 Jan 2008 at 9:09 pmSassed enough

    The answers you seek are in the Bible. If you read it you will have all the answers you look for. The church will recognize a marriage between one man and one woman. The church does not recognize divorce. This is also in the Bible. “What God binds together let no man disvole” Those who have a Christian marriage and a secular divorce are breaking all the rules. All all of our laws before the secularist took over power were based on Bibllical teachings. The purposeful dumbing of our society has led to the break down of this understanding. If you had a clue of our true history you’d know what I was talking about. If we are so wicked with religion, how wicked will we be without it?

  7. on 03 Jan 2008 at 9:23 pmSassed enough

    John Adams
    Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States

    [I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

    (Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

    [W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Quincy Adams
    Sixth President of the United States

    The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws.

    (Source: John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams, to His Son, on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), p. 61.)

    There are three points of doctrine the belief of which forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either of these three articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark. The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy.

    (Source: John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), pp. 22-23.)

    Samuel Adams
    Signer of the Declaration of Independence

    [N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.

    (Source: William V. Wells, The Life and Public Service of Samuel Adams (Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1865), Vol. I, p. 22, quoting from a political essay by Samuel Adams published in The Public Advertiser, 1749.)

    Fisher Ames
    Framer of the First Amendment

    Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers.

    (Source: Fisher Ames, An Oration on the Sublime Virtues of General George Washington (Boston: Young & Minns, 1800), p. 23.)

    Charles Carroll of Carrollton
    Signer of the Declaration of Independence

    Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.

    (Source: Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1907), p. 475. In a letter from Charles Carroll to James McHenry of November 4, 1800.)

    Oliver Ellsworth
    Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court

    [T]he primary objects of government are the peace, order, and prosperity of society. . . . To the promotion of these objects, particularly in a republican government, good morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of good morals are therefore objects of legislative provision and support: and among these . . . religious institutions are eminently useful and important. . . . [T]he legislature, charged with the great interests of the community, may, and ought to countenance, aid and protect religious institutions—institutions wisely calculated to direct men to the performance of all the duties arising from their connection with each other, and to prevent or repress those evils which flow from unrestrained passion.

    (Source: Connecticut Courant, June 7, 1802, p. 3, Oliver Ellsworth, to the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut)

    Nuff said?

  8. on 03 Jan 2008 at 9:43 pmSassed enough

    We have grown accustomed to hearing that we are a democracy; such was never the intent. The form of government entrusted to us by our Founders was a republic, not a democracy.1 Our Founders had an opportunity to establish a democracy in America and chose not to. In fact, the Founders made clear that we were not, and were never to become, a democracy:
    [D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.2 James Madison

    Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.3 John Adams

    A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way.4 The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness [excessive license] which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.5 Fisher Ames, Author of the House Language for the First Amendment

    We have seen the tumult of democracy terminate . . . as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism. . . . Democracy! savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtuous and wise to thy level of folly and guilt.6 Gouverneur Morris, Signer and Penman of the Constitution

    [T]he experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.7 John Quincy Adams

    A simple democracy . . . is one of the greatest of evils.8 Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration

    In democracy . . . there are commonly tumults and disorders. . . . Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.9 Noah Webster

    Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state, it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.10 John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration

    It may generally be remarked that the more a government resembles a pure democracy the more they abound with disorder and confusion.11 Zephaniah Swift, Author of America’s First Legal Text
    Many Americans today seem to be unable to define the difference between the two, but there is a difference, a big difference. That difference rests in the source of authority.

    Still not enough?

  9. on 03 Jan 2008 at 9:45 pmSassed enough

    A pure democracy operates by direct majority vote of the people. When an issue is to be decided, the entire population votes on it; the majority wins and rules. A republic differs in that the general population elects representatives who then pass laws to govern the nation. A democracy is the rule by majority feeling (what the Founders described as a “mobocracy” 12); a republic is rule by law. If the source of law for a democracy is the popular feeling of the people, then what is the source of law for the American republic? According to Founder Noah Webster:

    [O]ur citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion.13
    The transcendent values of Biblical natural law were the foundation of the American republic. Consider the stability this provides: in our republic, murder will always be a crime, for it is always a crime according to the Word of God. however, in a democracy, if majority of the people decide that murder is no longer a crime, murder will no longer be a crime.

    America’s immutable principles of right and wrong were not based on the rapidly fluctuating feelings and emotions of the people but rather on what Montesquieu identified as the “principles that do not change.”14 Benjamin Rush similarly observed:

    [W]here there is no law, there is no liberty; and nothing deserves the name of law but that which is certain and universal in its operation upon all the members of the community.15

    In the American republic, the “principles which did not change” and which were “certain and universal in their operation upon all the members of the community” were the principles of Biblical natural law. In fact, so firmly were these principles ensconced in the American republic that early law books taught that government was free to set its own policy only if God had not ruled in an area. For example, Blackstone’s Commentaries explained:

    To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the Divine. . . . If any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it we are bound to transgress that human law. . . .

    But, with regard to matters that are . . . not commanded or forbidden by those superior laws such, for instance, as exporting of wool into foreign countries; here the . . . legislature has scope and opportunity to interpose.16
    The Founders echoed that theme:
    All [laws], however, may be arranged in two different classes.

    1) Divine. 2) Human. . . . But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God. . . . Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine.17 James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice

    [T]he law . . . dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this.18 Alexander Hamilton, Signer of the Constitution

    [T]he . . . law established by the Creator . . . extends over the whole globe, is everywhere and at all times binding upon mankind. . . . [This] is the law of God by which he makes his way known to man and is paramount to all human control.19 Rufus King, Signer of the Constitution
    The Founders understood that Biblical values formed the basis of the republic and that the republic would be destroyed if the people’s knowledge of those values should ever be lost.

    Note that “natural laws” are emphasized. Need more?

  10. on 03 Jan 2008 at 9:49 pmSassed enough

    A republic is the highest form of government devised by man, but it also requires the greatest amount of human care and maintenance. If neglected, it can deteriorate into a variety of lesser forms, including a democracy (a government conducted by popular feeling); anarchy (a system in which each person determines his own rules and standards); oligarchy (a government run by a small council or a group of elite individuals): or dictatorship (a government run by a single individual). As John Adams explained:

    [D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable [abominable] cruelty of one or a very few.20

    Understanding the foundation of the American republic is a vital key toward protecting it.

    The founders knew what would deteriorate our republic, and I am afraid that is where we have headed in the last 50 years.

    Maybe our schools should actually teach the true history of our country so that we may understand what we are and where we came from, and where we receive our rights.

  11. on 04 Jan 2008 at 12:29 amNaCN

    Gary47– To borrow your words, I’m still waiting for a rational explanation from the proponents of same sex ‘marriage’ why your own faith-based (read, no scientific evidence) arguments are relevant to civil marriage. Proponents of same-sex ‘marriage’ posit that it will do no harm but fail to provide any rational arguments (“because I think so” does not persuade) or show any research supporting their position. Proponents of same-sex ‘marriage’ posit that it is a matter of equality but fail to provide any evidence that the relationships are equivalent in their nature or benefits to families or society.

    You must be new here not to have noticed that the FIC also is working to reduce divorce. Your logic is faulty, however, to assume that banning all divorce is a prerequisite to taking a pro-marriage position. You also are incorrect in your assertion that divorce is a “far clearer violation of Biblical rules” than the blessing of relationships that the Bible specifically forbids.

    If you want to claim that the FIC and other defenders of marriage are guilty of hypocrisy, you’ll first have to provide a reasoned argument.

    You might start by asking yourself, “do I support mandatory seatbelt laws,” and if so, “why?” After all, how can someone else’s private behavior possibly affect you, your family, or society? What could the legislators have been thinking? Hmm. Worth pondering.

  12. on 04 Jan 2008 at 7:26 amRosalie Maimone

    When will the Courts understand that they do not have the right to redefine society? This is precisely what the activists look for – liberal judges who do not intepret the law but create laws to the detriment of the people. If they render such a decision and remove the right of the people, they should be impeached. It’s time for the people to put the Court in its place.

  13. on 04 Jan 2008 at 10:02 pmDavid

    Some of the responses to this post are hysterical – in both meanings of the word, funny and way over the top out of control mania. Technically a gay man can marry a woman? So you are advocating marriages that are 1) based on a lie or 2) based on the claim that someone has “changed” which often but certainly not always, is the same as 1 and 3) most likely will end in divorce resulting in pain for all involved, moreso if there are children. This is not to say that some people are not able to make the decision to live a heterosexual lifestyle, in fact I have friends who quite happily did so. But that is their decision to make not anyone else’s. Homosexual preference? That means what toilet paper we choose to buy or whether to have fries or baked potato with dinner, not sexual orientation. Allowing same sex marriage is not admitting that or wishing that the current “model” will fail. And it’s not the end of the world as we know it or the first step in the end of the family, the sky is not falling. Oh, and it’s most definitely not an attack on anyone’s practice of their chosen religion, no one is saying you have to marry a person of the same sex. Actually, the Bible says nothing about marriages between members of the same sex, though it is quite clearly stated that certain misuses of homosexual sex are wrong, as it is about heterosexual sex.

    “fail to provide any evidence that the relationships are equivalent in their nature or benefits to families or society” um number one I or any other homosexual do not have to prove ANYTHING to you about the “equivalence” of our relationships. The same lame arguments were used against interracial marriage, inter-faith marriage. The “end of the world” scenario was used against freeing the slaves, integrating schools, allowing women to wear pants or enter the work force in any management or high salaried level, allowing women to serve in leadership roles in the church etc. etc. etc. So far, not one of those has ended the world or destroyed the family. Will there be sick homosexual marriages and harm to children? Absolutely, we are human, I think even most of you would agree to that point. There are sick interracial marriages and sick inter-faith marriages that result in harm to children and adults both. Is that any reason to outlaw them? If so, then you’d best hurry up and outlaw marriage completely, take a look at the divorce and child abuse rates in heterosexual marriages. Obviously marriage shouldn’t be allowed. By your logic anyway. Belittling gay marriages by comparing them to seat belt laws only shows a lack of understanding of what really is at issue here. As far as prejudice against and persecution of members of the Roman church, it’s a blight on our history, just another example of the cruelty of humans against those who are “different” And we should guard against such always. But if you’re going to make lists of persecution should you not also consider those acted out by the Roman church over the centuries. And, when the leader of a foreign entity proclaims that all politicians who are part of his domain MUST vote as the church dictates and travels around to different countries to bully the gov’ts there into submitting to his will, aren’t those of us who enjoy our freedom allowed to be a little concerned? Lastly, no matter which way the courts go on this they will be doing exactly what they are supposed to – examine the constitutionality of the law. They would not be making a law and the rights of the people are still firmly in place – we elect the legislators and the governor by majority vote, the governors appoint judges and the legislators approve or disapprove their choices, the judges then do what they are being asked to in this case – rule on whether the current law adheres to constitutional standards. Because they may rule against what you believe is right certainly doesn’t mean they should be impeached any more than it does if they rule against what I believe. If you don’t like our system of government here in the US I imagine there are other places you could live where you would be happier. Majority rules is simply another name for anarchy.

  14. on 05 Jan 2008 at 1:13 pmDoug


    The only Biblical prohibitions I have ever read about divorce are against marrying a divorced man or woman, or remarrying someone after being divorced, and that is because divorce is a man-made, not a God-made institution. Divorce, while cited in scripture, is not recognized by God, as if it doesn’t exist, so anyone remarrying after divorce, or marrying a divorced person, commits adultery, and adultery, like sodomy, is prohibited by God.


  15. on 07 Jan 2008 at 11:15 amDavid

    I want to clarify my comments on the Roman church. I am in no way bigotted, biased or prejudiced against members of that church or their freedom to practice what the church teaches. And I fully realize that politicians and individuals will and actually should vote as their conscience leads them based on the teachings of the church. What I am opposed to is the political structure that is the Vatican and it’s centuries old tradition of meddling in the affairs of other countries and it’s centuries old tradition of oppressing, abusing and at times killing those who do not submit to it’s will. Certainly there have been many atrocities commited by some of the Protestant churches and by those with no particular religion, I am not singling out one church. To gloss over true history and to portray the Church as victim alone is intellectual dishonesty. My brother is currently in the process of converting, which I totally do not understand but I do support his decision. It is not religion that I am opposed to but the misuse of it.

  16. on 07 Jan 2008 at 3:58 pmDoug


    I won’t defend the history of the Catholic Church. Yes, it has some blood on its hands. But I hope you mean to refer to the old days of the Church, and even then, I certainly would not call some dark incidents in history “centuries old tradition.” Offhand, I can come up with the Spanish Inquisition, Mary, Queen of Scots, and (maybe) the Crusades.

    Certainly, the Catholic Church is not oppressing, abusing or killing any of its dissenters now, and to my knowledge not even for several centuries back. As a matter of fact, it is Catholics, among other Christians, who are currently being oppressed, abused and killed by dissenters in various locations around the globe, and yet in turn, Catholics and Christians are continually responding to the purveyors of that bloodshed with peace, prayer and faith.

    For that matter, our faith was founded by a peaceful and the only known perfect man, who was barbarically tortured and murdered because he dared dissent for even the salvation of those who persecuted Him.

    The early days of Connecticut state history saw a time when Catholics were discriminated against as a matter of official public policy. But to my knowledge, we didn’t collectively kill anyone for it then.

    On a lesser scale, any semblance of our faith is perpetually banned from the public square, and when such displays are exhibited, be it on public or private property, they are vandalized and/or stolen. Our religious icons are desecrated in human and animal waste materials in publicly funded museums and dubbed “art.” Our faith is continually desecrated, mocked and ridiculed in movies, books and on television, but when we make a religious movie, people suddenly become “offended” and complain. The 1st Amendment states that Congress shall simply make no law establishing religion, while not prohibiting free exercise of religion. Yet the 1st Amendment is now so bastardized that any “speech” of any kind with even a modicum of God (never mind “Christianity”) attached to it in our nation founded on Judeo/Christian principles is about as welcome and allowed anywhere today as a festering leper. Do you see us out rioting and looting in the streets?

    Furthermore, just like with behind the steering wheel of a car or the trigger of a gun, any good or bad that occurs occurs because of fallible people. You may disagree with and/or dislike the structure of the Church, but any structure within any organization is only as good (or bad) as the people who occupy positions within that structure at any given time.

    Remember that Judas Iscariot was once an apostle, Benedict Arnold was once a loyal, brave patriot, one of our best generals ever, and one of George Washington’s closest friends, and that the Catholic Church, the “rock,” which Christ, Himself, instructed Peter (our first Pope, who was also murdered) to build upon, like any other institution or organization, is still made up of people.


  17. on 07 Jan 2008 at 7:47 pmMike from Essex

    David- my point about gay men being allowed to marry women is perfectly legit. If gay men were banned from marriage (man-woman) because they were gay, THAT would be discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, if a gay man wanted to engage in marriage, he could do so (there are many infamous cases of this). Reply to the question I asked- what privileges the rights of gay men or women over the rights of polyamorists? Mike from Essex

  18. on 08 Jan 2008 at 1:46 amNaCN

    David– Sigh. You post just serves to illustrate my point. Your
    “homosexual do not have to prove ANYTHING” argument is, as I said, nothing more than ”because I think so.” It does not persuade. (By the way, interracial and inter-faith marriages can objectively be shown to be equivalent to heterosexual marriages because, well, um, let’s see . . . because they ARE heterosexual marriages.) Then you regurgitate the old canard that defending marriage is equivalent to defending slavery. And you call us hysterical?

    It is easy to deconstruct your argumentation-by-false-analogy diatribe, but rather than add more distraction I will just second Mike from Essex’s request. Please explain what privileges the rights of gay men or women have over the rights of polyamorists?

  19. on 08 Jan 2008 at 6:45 amDavid

    Mike, I can cut my arm off is I want to, but why would I. The simple fact is if I wanted to marry my significant other (if I had one that is) I couldn’t, which is discrimination based on sexual orientation. So sure, I’m free to marry and I’m free to harm my body but as an argument against SSM it’s a ridiculous concept. I do concede that polyamorists rights are no less important than mine and in fact they probably can make a stronger historical case than LGBT people can. And if one looks at legal marriage as a way of protecting spouses and children then it’s tough to argue against. I know I just opened the door to a whole new set of arguments :) and I don’t plan on stepping through it.

    Doug, certainly the events I refer to are in the past, as far as violent actions go. And I have said many times (I guess mostly in responses you have not been allowed to read) that I acknowledge what Roman Catholics have faced in this country and others in the way of bigotry. And yes, there is a growing amount of violence against Christians in countries where another religion(s) is dominant. And all that is wrong, it never should have happened and it absolutely shouldn’t be happening now. Though I think that the extremes that some are going to now against religious displays and/or speech is unecessary and over the top. I also don’t see it as being as bad as you portray it and much of it is simply backlash against the efforts of some claiming to be Christian to dominate and deny there are other valid religions (to the people practicing them anyway). I’ve never heard complaints against religous movies unless you are referring to Gibson’s but I’ve seen plenty of protests against movies that some claim were “blasphemous”.

    To borrow your car/gun argument – if the leadership is aiming at a group of people meaning to harm should not those being led to something to try and stop it? Or at the very least stop supporting such leadership until they change their behavior? If Jesus Christ was a man of peace (which I agree with) why do those who claim to be his followers act and speak just the opposite? If the Church has face oppression and bigotry why to do some turn around and practice the same? You are correct, the Church is made of people and so are the LGBT communities. Why do any of us deserve to be the object of derision and lies and legal action because we want to be free?

  20. on 08 Jan 2008 at 7:49 pmalis

    Any word on where your prognosticator “in the know” got his information? And why, in the apparent absence of confirmation, did FIC decide to publish that date?

    My prognosticators say there’s absolutely no way there will be a decision on Jan. 11, 2008.

    We shall see.

  21. on 09 Jan 2008 at 7:43 amPeter

    He’s not “my” prognosticator and if there’s a rule that you can’t post items you’ve read on another blog until they’ve been confirmed, well, this is the first I’ve heard of it. (Do note the question mark in the subject title.)

    That said, I thank Alis for getting us back on topic. Anyone have any other “prognosticators”? What are you all hearing about when the decision might be announced, what the ruling will be, etc?

  22. on 09 Jan 2008 at 3:47 pmDoug


    Correct me if I am wrong, but by those who you claim to supposedly be within the Church practicing oppression and bigotry, I presume you are referring to the Westboro Baptist Church and similar minions. If so, we have beaten that debate to death. Yes, they are fringe, evil and whacko. I don’t approve of them either and they do not represent any sizeable semblance of true Christians. On that matter, I will elaborate no further.

    Yes, Christ was peaceful. You are speaking in generalities again, though. Specifically, what “lies” has the Church forwarded regarding the gay community?

    The legal action part I get, but regarding the “freedom,” of which you speak and seek, that is not “freedom.” It is license, which is the abuse of freedom. We are a nation founded on Judeo/Christian principles by our Creator. The truth is still the truth, as Bishop Fulton Sheehan once correctly said, regardless if everybody believes it, only some people believe it, or nobody believes it.

    The gay lifestyle is counterproductive to sex being used for its intended purpose, for reproduction and for an expression of love between one man and one woman in the union of matrimony.

    Besides the fact that homosexuality itself is a disorder, it also creates bodily damage because human body parts are being used in a manner not conducive to their mechanical structure. It also further increases risk of sexually transmitted disease and various types of infections, and it is also often a response of inappropriate self medication and/or a breeding ground for other harmful human conditions such as depression, anxiety, dysfunctional relationships, substance abuse, suicide, poor self esteem, etc.. And generally speaking, it is usually more of a selfish, rather than a giving act that demeans the humanity of both (or more) participants.

    I have beaten this statement into the ground as well, but the vast majority of Christianity (myself included) vehemently opposes homosexuality, but not homosexuals. Our disagreement (and that of God) is with the behavior, not the people.

    I understand why you emotionally feel or perceive that the Church targets the gay community, but factually, such is not the case.

    By the way, Christ wasn’t so peaceful when he physically ejected the moneychangers from His temple. Didn’t the moneychangers have that “freedom” to set up shop in the temple? Were they “oppressed” by Christ?

    Even a free society must have rules and laws. Such is the difference between order and anarchy. How would a baseball or football be played without lines, boundaries and markings? Yet don’t pitchers and quarterbacks have “freedom” to decide which pitch to throw or play to call?

    The meaning of life is to be holy by loving God and our neighbor. This life is a testing ground for eternity. Our bodies don’t belong to us. They belong to God. Just like you don’t own your driver license and car registration. They belong to the DMV. You don’t own your credit card. That belongs to the bank. Your failure to abide the terms of those privileges can result in the owning institution recalling them. Likewise, our bodies are short-term gifts from God, intended to give glory to Him, and not to us. Our bodies are God’s temples. He dictates the terms. It is our duty to lovingly obey His will. That means no moneychangers in the constructed temple, and no gay sex in the created (human) temple.

    Just because you dislike or disapprove of that situation, it doesn’t mean that it is instead something else to fit the mold of your preferred agenda, which is moral relativism and pragmatitism. Faith is intended to have a higher standard. It isn’t meant to be evolving or convenient, like the rest of this deteriorating world.

    It is what it is.


  23. on 09 Jan 2008 at 6:13 pmDavid

    Well I hope it’s not Friday, it’s supposed to rain and whatever the results I’m sure both sides will be at the capitol to celebrate, or protest. Unless of course the court does what others have done and bounce it back to the legislators to handle. Not a bad result for anyone.

    NaCN, we do not have to defend ourselves because by right of birth our lives have no less value than yours. That is not debatable. Of course you miss the point I made about marriages in the past, the fact is that AT THE TIME the same lame arguments were used that are being used today. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. If marriage was actually threatened then I could see defending it. But, speaking of regurgitating, that is a warn out argument simply used because it makes a good sound bite and it makes you feel like you are doing something righteous so you don’t have to look at the reality of the lives you are attacking. There is only one valid argument you folks can ever present and that is “because it’s against God’s will”. Which is certainly an opinion that you can have and teach but it has no bearing on anyone else except those who practice your religion. The simple fact is that gays marry in churches and gays do have children and gays do adopt children (quite often those who are cast off and/or unacceptable to “proper” moms and dads) and more of us are doing all three. To withold legal protection for our spouses or children is not the “rational” choice and it is not the civilized choice. If you are going to our relationships and our families on hold and scrutinize them until it is “proven” that they do no harm then then the only “rational” thing is to do the same with all heterosexuals also. If a couple cannot prove that they can raise “acceptable” children with a minimum of harm then they should not be allowed to marry or produce them. Wouldn’t that be equal protection under the law?

  24. on 10 Jan 2008 at 8:47 amCourt Watcher

    How’s this for a look into a crystal ball – no one, even (especially!) an anonymous comment on the Hartford Courant Message Board (!), has the slightest idea on the date of the decision or who is in the majority…

  25. on 10 Jan 2008 at 1:05 pmPeter

    In an apparent response to Sassed enough, Dune has posted to the moderation queue a long string of quotes essentially re-stating the argument he made here:

    But, Dune, you should know that Dave engaged your argument at the time you made it:

    You might want to respond to Dave in that thread instead of repeating yourself in this one.

  26. on 10 Jan 2008 at 1:57 pmDavid

    Doug, from the paragraph that starts with “The legal action” through the one that ends with “particpants” what you say is not fact. It is your opinion, and much of it is downright false. The oft repeated and much exagerrated health ills that we supposedly are prone to is fiction. It is a gross generalization blown way out of proportion by those against us. If you truly stand for “truth” you would do some real research – outside of evangelical and Roman propaganda. These are among the lies I speak of, the nonexistent threat to the “traditional” family is another, that we are “disordered” is yet another. That we are outside God’s will is opinion, that what we do is license, is opinion. The use of the words “gay lifestyle” is nonsense and as I’ve said multiple times, offensive. And I have to ask what “behaviour”? I am single, not sexually active, I don’t drink, I don’t smoke, I don’t hang out at clubs, frequent “adult bookstores”, march in parades with my butt hanging out of my pants, dress in flowers and feathers etc. but that does not make me any less “homosexual” than if I did all those things. If the situation were different and I had a partner then our actions towards each other would be an expression of love in the union of matrimony. You won’t believe that, and likely never will, so you stand in the way of SSM. What you are doing is against me, it impacts my future opportunities, not some behaviour or “lifestyle”. If it makes you feel better to say you’re not against homosexuals, feel free but it’s simply a comforting lie. We are good enough to cut your hair, write your music, design your clothes, decorate your houses, design your yard, produce, direct and star in your musicals, direct your church choirs (have I covered all the stereotypes?) plus we are among those who police your streets, fight your fires, attend you when you are sick and all the other things that everyone else does, yet you we are supposed to keep our outside lives in the dark, not acknowledge our significant other, don’t “flaunt our lifestyle” and most of all don’t have the audacity to ask for legal protections for your spouse and children through marriage. Certainly you are nothing like Westboro and if I implied that it was unintentionally but practically speaking aren’t your positions similar? When it comes down to our day to day lives the message is the same “don’t be who you are”, the difference is in the style of your actions and the fact that, I assume anyway, you believe that people can change. Westboro does not.

    Indeed, Jesus cast out the moneychangers but they were part of the “religious” culture that had built up at the time and were interfering with the ability of the poor to enter the temple to worship. If you read the Bible carefully, the ONLY people that He had harsh and angry words for were those who claimed to be the guardians of God and the temple, who knew more than others (in their own minds) what was correct behaviour and who/what was right in God’s eyes. You represent God as you see Him and apply His Word as you see fit, which is just fine for your own life not mine. And there is nothing for you to legitmately stand on and judge particular aspects in my life. Your second to the last paragraph is excellent, until you get to the last line. And yes, faith is intended to have a higher standard, I am not challenging that at all. But the standard is not yours to set even if you are completely convinced that it is the same as God’s. Denominational structures and traditions are manmade based on different understandings of the Bible. Our faith in God, is not that different, how we live that out often is and that part certainly is evolving even in the church you belong to. If I want to join your church, I accept what it teaches about life and faith. I’m not planning on doing that and I don’t accept that the laws of my country need comply to those rules either.

    Pretty much we’re both just repeating ourselves and there’s little likelihood that we’re going to change the other’s mind. Perhaps there will be a time and place where we find a topic that is less contentious but this certainly isn’t it. Be well Doug and thanks for the dialogue.

  27. on 10 Jan 2008 at 6:50 pmTricia


    It is probably quite futile to expect that you and those of us on the other side of the SSM argument are ever going to come to a consensus. You state that: “There is only one valid argument you folks can ever present and that is ‘because it’s against God’s will.’”

    That is one of MANY “valid arguments” against SSM. Since they have been posted many times and detailed, in much research by qualified social scientists, and are available in archives here as well as in many other places, such as–I will not rehash them.

    However–following are a couple of quick points if you truly have *any desire* to honestly know where we are coming from on this issue:

    1. It is NOT “attacking” to deny someone (or groups) something they *want* (ie SSM), but which is *not GOOD* for them, or for society as a whole. To characterize us this way is similar to characterizing parents who won’t give their children all the candy they want as “mean parents” who are *denying* their children what they want.

    2. More importantly, if “marriage” is changed to include same-sex couples, then the “marriage” institution which my husband and I (and billions of other men and women) entered into NO LONGER EXISTS. “Marriage” would be thus forever *changed for EVERYONE,” not just for the same-sex couples now “allowed in.”

    I’m sure you are saying that that would be a “good thing,” just as children think that candy is “good.” Don’t reply that you are insulted that I would compare you and other homosexuals to “children.” I DON’T think that you are just like children, but you ARE *refusing* to look at the *total picture,* just as children who want candy don’t want to hear about how it will rot their teeth and make them fat, contributes to the diabetes and obesity that are so endemic in this country, etc.

    Anyway, an attorney named Monte Stewart wrote a very clear explanation of my point number 2. You can google him and probably find it if you care to–or if not I will try to look it up.

  28. on 10 Jan 2008 at 8:36 pmMax

    When are people going to understand that the U.S. constitution mandates the separation of Church and State? And it must work both ways! The Churches are protected from State’s intrusion… The State must be protected from the churches’ intrusion. That simple!

  29. on 10 Jan 2008 at 8:56 pmDave


    You are grossly oversimplifying the debate. Marriage between a man and woman can hardly be called a uniquely Judeo-Christian institution. It has existed across numerous ancient cultures which share nothing in common with this faith – Ancient Rome, Greece, Egypt, China, India, etc. Native Americans celebrated marriage between a man and woman before any Western man set foot upon these shores. Marriage between a man and woman existed in Ancient Mesopotamia, one of the earliest recorded developments of civilization by mankind. By extrapolation, it is reasonable to assume that marriage between a man and woman existed in some form even among pre-civilized societies before the development of written language. Many believe that it is this social structure, the family unit, which provided the underpinnings of our earliest civilizations. And it doesn’t take much of an intellectual stretch to figure out why. The procreative and nurturing elements of the relationship between husband and wife are essential to any society’s ability to grow and prosper from one generation to the next.

    Now, when are people going to understand that – and stop their mistaken babbling about this being an exclusively religious issue!

  30. on 10 Jan 2008 at 9:54 pmDave


    Admittedly this is a sidebar to the main focus of this discussion thread, but I simply cannot let your remark slide by unchallenged about “the ONLY people that He had harsh and angry words for were those who claimed to be the guardians of God and the temple”. Jesus repeatedly had harsh words for us all, everyone of us, to warn us of the imperative to repent. As He said in Luke 13, “Unless you repent, you too will all perish.” And again in John 15, “If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.” And yet again in the Olivet discourse, found in Matthew 25, where He gives the parable of the sheep and the goats, and says, “’Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” These words were not only for the moneychangers and Pharisees. Nor were they for the Jews alone. They are for all mankind, Jew and Gentile alike, who do not hear and repent. Each one of us is in peril if we do not repent. And if these words seem not to be a sufficiently harsh and stern warning given by Christ, then we are probably not paying close enough attention to His words. Too often people in liberal churches hear only the words “God is Love” and miss the totality of Christ’s message.

    To be completely clear on this, I’m questioning what you said on a purely theological basis and I object to your mischaracterization that Jesus only spoke harshly about religious hypocrites. I’m not trying to say anything about whether you personally are, or are not, saved. And in the context of this particular rebuttal, I’m not even trying to saying anything about the issue of homosexuality. What I am saying is that your remark is not consistent with the Bible, because it so glaringly ignores an essential part of the message of Christ. If “away from me ye evildoers” isn’t a harsh and angry remark, I don’t know what is!

  31. on 11 Jan 2008 at 9:29 amPeter

    Speaking of the “main focus” of this thread…the Supreme Court’s web site lists three decisions scheduled to be released today…and Kerrigan isn’t one of them. The AG just this week submitted the Dec. 7th RI case as supplemental authority to the CT Supremes, which may have pushed back the Kerrigan decision if it was indeed scheduled for today. On the other hand, one would hope the law clerks had already made the Justices aware of the RI ruling. So it may simply be that “in the know” wasn’t.

  32. on 11 Jan 2008 at 12:35 pmDavid

    Tricia, thanks for posting the website, I will take a look. But you do know that one can find experts and “scientists” who can publish a well written and convincing argument for most anything that one might want justified. Such experts have been able to initiate and add amunition to multiple feeding frenzies in the past that are blights on the history of humanity. Do we need another example of man’s cruelty to man to add to the list?

    Your point number two doesn’t make any sense to me. Your marriage, the covenant between you, your husband and God cannot be impacted at all by what another couple does. How can the importance and the holiness of your bond possibly be lessened by someone elses? My question is much the same for Dave about this statement:

    “The procreative and nurturing elements of the relationship between husband and wife are essential to any society’s ability to grow and prosper from one generation to the next.”

    How is that going to change, are there going to be less heterosexuals that want to marry and produce children? Are you predicting that if SSM marriage is legalized there will be a rash of “conversions”? While there are some from all sexual orientations who question the value of any marriage, in fact a frightening high percent in a recent study, most of the arguments for SSM marriage are not saying M/F marriage is wrong and should be torn down. Adding value to SSM marriages does not take it away from what already exists.

    Tricia, your claim that SSM is not good for us or society is a baseless statement. As I said to Doug, same sex relationships, families etc. already exist, all denying legal protection does is make it harder to hold them together. How can you possibly say that doing that is good for anyone. Denying legal protection is not going to make us go away or change. Whether you choose to accept our relationships or not we are here, and any impact we have on society is not going to become increasingly negative if SSM is legalized and in fact it has the potential to have a postive impact. I’m not refusing to see the “big picture”, I’m saying that your “big picture” is based on false analysis of the factors. Your candy analogy is flawed. One would assume that the “mean” parent is not only denying the candy to the child but also modelling the correct amount of consumption. If a parent is denying while sitting in front of the child and enjoying as much of the candy as he/she wants that would be hypcritical wouldn’t it? And don’t worry about the comparison, you have made far more offensive and insulting statements about us than this one. I truly will investigate the sources you have suggested.

    Dave, I agree mostly with post 30. I misworded my point. I do believe that hypocritical religious leaders were clearly singled out for correction I am not at all denying Jesus’ message about repentance. And I agree it’s important that we all hear it. I would say that if the liberal churches are too caught up on “God is Love” and need to learn the corrective nature of God’s Word, that conservative churches are too set on “God is judgement” and would do well to look up the words Grace and Mercy.

  33. on 11 Jan 2008 at 12:50 pmAdam

    If one uses the logic that it is not discrimination because neither sex can marry a person of the same sex, then the Supreme Court wouldn’t have ruled to allow interracial marriage, because neither race could marry a person of the other race.

    As for those that suggest this will lead to plural marriage, I suggest gay marriage would be the only thing stopping it. The main policy argument that has been made by many on your side is that Marriage encourages procreation. While not getting into the absurdities of that statement (do you really think people will stop having sex, and therefore kids, if there is no marriage?), let’s say marriage remains as it is, with the procreation argument winning out. Since procreation had thus been determined to be the main function of marriage, the most effective way to do that is to allow polygamy. A binary relationship would so hinder the main function of marriage, that no reasonable policy argument could then made to keep it.

    By allowing gay marriage, it becomes enshrined in law and public policy that the two person relationship is best for society and children (gay people have children you know). Since that had been determined to be the main public policy function, instead of procreation, polygamy could not be allowed.

  34. on 11 Jan 2008 at 3:19 pmDoug


    The statements I have made are not just from religious sources, as you erroneously presumed.

    By “gay lifestyle,” I don’t know why you take offense to that term, and I intended no offense.

    Yes, in some cases, it does include some of the descriptions you cited, but my definition/meaning of “gay lifestyle” and “behavior” was specifically homosexual acts and homosexual relationships.

    Regarding my erroneous presumption that you are sexually active, I apologize.

    Yes, some parts of the Bible can be interpreted differntly, but in several parts of the Bible, it speaks against acts of sodomy, adultery (which also included sex outside of marriage), lust, and homosexuality (“man lying with man”), etc.. Those citations are fairly clear.

    That all said, you are probably correct in that neither of us will persuade the other, so I will end here. I thank you for the dialogue as well, and I wish you well, also.


  35. on 11 Jan 2008 at 4:12 pmDoug


    Read the Constitution and you will see no reference to any articulated mandate of “separation of Church and State.” The common erroneous (and sometimes intended) interpretation forwarded is simply false. As a matter of fact, the real story is based right here, in Connecticut.

    In Connecticut’s early history, several religious faiths were being officially discriminated against as a matter of public policy by the ruling Congregationalists.

    Members of the Danbury Baptist Church wrote to then newly inaugurated President Thomas Jefferson to ask for his assistance.

    Jefferson spoke of a “wall between church and state” (more on that later) and offered no federal assistance to the Danbury Baptists, as he deemed their plight to be a state matter, but he did promise that the federal government would not bother them, either.

    In the 1950’s a liberal US Supreme Court Justice stretched the meaning from Jefferson’s letter in deciding on a case involving use of public funds in a New Jersey school district to provide bus transportation for students of a Catholic school. The snowball has been rolling downhill and growing larger ever since.

    The Constitution does not specifically mention gay marriage because it doesn’t have to. Gay marriages did not occur then because it was understood that they would not, and marriage was as recognized as a secular institution then as it was a religious institution.

    The mistake that many of the original 13 colonies, including Connecticut made is that one of the reasons they wished independence from England was for religious, as well as fiscal freedom. They no longer wished their government to be intertwined with the Anglican Church as they were then. So instead, the colonists came here and began to persecute each other instead.

    The 1st Amendment reflects their thought at that time. It says that “Congress” shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Many forms of religious discrimination occur today in the public sector because those in positions of decision-making have lost sight of that codicil. Religion can be publicly displayed, and even on government property, but the Congress will not make a law that respects establishing a religion. The prohibition of gay marriage is not creating a religion. The amendment also goes on to say that Congress shall also not make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, either, which also explains why there is no federal law banning prayer in public schools, although some public schools have also misinterpreted (or deliberately manipulated) the so-called “separation of Church and faith.” They key in the amendment is to not make a law that is in any way conducive to creating or joining an organized religion, while discriminating against no religion.

    Our country was founded on Judeo/Christian values and beliefs, the formal organization of religion as side. That is why Congress opens each daily session with a prayer, “In God we trust” appears on our currency, and the Declaration of Independence specifically refers to God. While Congress cannot legislate religion, it also cannot deny it. Acknowledging God, however, is not necessarily synonymous with creating or merging with any specific denomination or organized Church. For that matter, plenty of people believe in God, but belong to no organized Church or practice any specific faith. President Reagan was on such prominent example of that fact. He strongly believed in and revered God but was not a church going man.

    The Bible belongs to no one religion, yet the Bible does prohibit sodomy, lust, adultery, etc in several places.

    Even some primitive cultures believe in and practice monogamous, heterosexual matrimony. Traditional marriage in this country and most of the world has, until recently, and only by a miniscule minority, been the accepted norm, not just from a religious perspective, but also from a societal and survival one as well.

    Humans are the only species that seeks to endanger, if not end, our own procreation. The mechanical formation and applied use of male and female genitalia in the sexual act should speak volumes of the natural and intended function and purpose of those respective body parts. To break the subject down to its core, would you ever buy a jigsaw puzzle made up of pieces that are all corners only? Would you only seek to buy electrical appliances with three pronged cords, knowing that all the outlets in your chouse only accommodated two pronged cords?

    The separation of church and state is a legal interpretation. There is no such constitutional mandate, and even if such a mandate did exist in writing, it would not be relevant to this subject.


  36. on 13 Jan 2008 at 12:55 amalis

    From what I’ve heard, there won’t be a decision until mid- or late summer — at the earliest. “In the know” sure wasn’t.

  37. on 19 Jan 2008 at 11:10 amTricia

    David (& Adam),

    I hope you saw the article titled “Why Gay Marriage Can’t Work” about the messy dispute between a gay man and the lesbian couple (in CT) to whom he had donated his sperm to create a child. The article is from Thursday Jan. 17 on the blog, to which you can link from the FIC page (near the top of this page under “National”).

    These gay people were not young enough at the time –they were at least in their late 30′s–to have any excuse for being so foolish and irresponsible that they executed CONTRADICTORY legal forms (the birth certificate and IVF facility donor “give up all rights and claims” document), and thus created legal CHAOS. The IVF facility personnel specifically *told* Mr. Browne and Ms. D’alleva that they should see an attorney and execute legal documents concerning the child to be created from the IVF.

    However, “neither of them sought legal advice as part of the procedure.”

    Instead, they just had a “verbal agreement between the man and the couple” that the lesbian’s partner would adopt the child, and Mr. Browne and his partner “would have a role as secondary or ‘fun parents’ and that the defendant [D’Alleva] and Ms. Bochain would be the primary parents.” “Fun parents”–now isn’t that SPECIAL? Except nobody is having any fun now, and judges and attorneys are left to try to sort out the legal mess.

    It reminds me of children playing “you be the mommy, and I’ll be the daddy, and Timmy can be the baby–.” Only here it’s NOT A GAME. These “parents” have deliberately created legal chaos, and there is a *real child* suffering the consequences.

  38. on 19 Jan 2008 at 6:35 pmDavid

    Tricia, I haven’t read it but I will make a point to. It’s a sad situation but it really has little to do with the sexual orientation of the adults involved. There is abundance of examples of surregate mother issues, and adoption issues, and custody issues in the heterosexual communities. Indeed it is very sad, especially for the children involved. It is though, in no way evidence that we should not be allowed to marry or raise children. When you can point to something that ONLY happens with LGBT couples then you have something to add to the argument. With all the sadness and brutality in human relationships I doubt you will be able to.

Leave a Reply