MARRIAGE PROTECTION THIS WEEK
July 25th, 2006 by Peter
With all of the Courant’s free advertising for same-sex “marriage” under the guise of news stories, it’s amazing that anti-family activists would bother to pay for today’s full page ad. But their recent legal losses have them spooked.
One of those losses occurred here in Connecticut, where a judge said what FIC has said all along: civil unions are same-sex “marriage” by a different name. The Republican-American had also been saying the same thing. An excerpt from yesterday’s “we told you so” editorial:
For pointing out that civil unions are marriage by another name, we were savaged (mostly via the usual flurry of anonymous e-mails from the homosexual mob’s Internet-monitoring intimidation squad) as bigots, homophobes, etc.
Well, we hate to say we told you so, but Superior Court Judge Patty Jenkins Pittman has dismissed a lawsuit brought by eight same-sex couples demanding marriage licenses. The judge said civil unions and marriage are indistinguishable: “(T)he Connecticut Constitution requires that there be equal protection and due process of law, not that there be equivalent nomenclature for such protection and process.”…
Homosexual agitators will not rest until they get what they want, but since they have been unable to achieve their goal through the constitutionally prescribed legislative process, they feel compelled to coerce society through judicial fiat. Recent court rulings in New York, Georgia and elsewhere have turned back similar attempts to crush the rule of law. The state Supreme Court should do likewise when it is asked to rule on this case.
The ruling in Connecticut’s same-sex “marriage” case means the pro-family cause has won an important battle—but not the war. While Judge Pittman reached the right conclusion, she based it on the flawed belief that there was a lack of due process and equal protection for same-sex couples that had supposedly been remedied by the legislature’s legalization of same-sex unions. By not grounding her decision in the rational basis of a child’s need for both a mother and a father—as New York’s highest court did—Pittman may have left the door open for Connecticut’s Supreme Court to impose full same-sex “marriage” on our state.
The pro same-sex “marriage” plaintiffs will now appeal their loss to the state Supreme Court, which still has not ruled on FIC’s motion to intervene. And anti-family activists plan to launch their biggest push yet for same-sex “marriage” in next year’s legislative session.
The coming push for same-sex “marriage” in both the Supreme Court and the legislature reminds us once again that the only way for the state’s pro-family majority to have their say is to hold a referendum on a Marriage Protection Amendment. Watch for further information from FIC on what you can do to protect marriage and to Let the People Decide.
