Massachusetts Votes to Let the People Decide
January 12th, 2007 by Peter
Connecticut’s anti-family activists have often hoped that our state would follow the example of Massachusetts, the only state to legalize same-sex “marriage.” But that state’s legislature has just taken the first step toward passing a marriage protection amendment and that’s the example our own legislature should look to: letting the people decide! Something as radical as the redefinition of one of society’s most basic social institutions should not be undertaken without allowing the people a voice.
With Sen. Andrew McDonald guaranteed to raise a same-sex “marriage” bill–a bill Gov. Rell has already vowed to veto–as well as a pending court case, there are sure to be battles ahead. The Waterbury Rep-Am’s editorial on Massachusetts is something to keep in mind as we fight to let the people decide in Connecticut too:
But it astounds us that some in Massachusetts believe “democracy is thwarted” when the legislature honors its constitutional obligation to allow its citizens to petition their government…
The state Constitution was silent on same-sex marriage until 2003 when the state Supreme Judicial Court usurped the legislature’s authority and through judicial fiat gave homosexuals the right to “marry.” When the legislature acceded to this power grab, 170,000 people petitioned for a vote on the marriage amendment. Lawmakers would have adjourned their constitutional convention last week without voting on the petition had the high court not reminded them of their duty to act on the petition. More than enough lawmakers voted to place the issue on a statewide ballot; a similar ratification by next January will give voters a chance to make their preferences known in November 2008.
The right to petition dates to the Magna Carta. It is enshrined in the First Amendment and is a pillar of American democracy. The civil-rights movement of the 20th century would have failed without it. Yet those who secured same-sex-marriage rights by trashing the rule of law now hypocritically and unabashedly seek to deprive dissenters of a right expressly protected by the Constitution. Even if the ballot initiative doesn’t pass, a statewide vote would let voters remove some of the stain that homosexual-rights agitators and their co-conspirators have left on the state Constitution.
Connecticut doesn’t have a procedure for state-wide referenda.
Connecticut’s legislature then better listen and watch whats happening in Mass. We have rights to protect our basic institutions and we will stand and fight.
Dan, I’m sure that our legislature is quaking in their boots after passing a civil unions bill and then facing absolutely no reprecussions…
If civil rights was a matter of letting the people decide, we’d still have Jim Crow laws in the South!
Honestly, outside of some people uncomfortableness with homosexuality, how has the Civil Union legislation harmed anyone in this state?
I used to worry that gay marriage might lead to same parent households, and that the latter might have an ill effect on their children. Then I found out that gay couples had been adopting kids for decades, and that studies showed little negative effect.
TrueBlueCT, most black people are highly offended that your side equates the color of their skin with others’ choice to engage in homosexual activity.
You claim that “studies showed little negative effect” from homosexual parenting. Please provide some citations. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals looked at all of the evidence on same-sex parenting and found, in the case of Lofton v. Florida DCF, that there is no competent evidence that same-sex couples are just as effective at parenting and that the state of Florida has a rational basis for preventing adoptions by same-sex couples. Funny how the mainstream media failed to report that.
The fact is that children do best with both a father and mother. Consider that research shows children believe and behave like their parents. For example, female children of lesbians are less chaste, more promiscuous, and over four times more likely to become lesbians themselves! (See Developmental Psychology 31 (1995), p.213; and American Sociological Review 66 (2001), pp.174, 179.)
Also, the following summary of the Cameron and Cameron study on homosexual parenting can be found on PubMed:
“Seventeen of 5,182 randomly obtained adults from six U.S. cities answered questionnaires indicating that they had a homosexual parent. Parental homosexuality may be related to findings that: (1) 5 of the 17 reported sexual relations with their parents; (2) a disproportionate fraction reported sexual relations with other caretakers and relatives; and (3) a disproportionate fraction: (a) claimed a less than exclusively heterosexual orientation (47%); (b) indicated gender dissatisfaction; and (c) reported that their first sexual experience was homosexual. Of 1,388 consecutive obituaries in a major homosexual newspaper, 87 of the gays who died had children and registered a median age of death of 47 (the 1,267 without children had a median age of death of 38); 10 lesbians did and 24 did not have children.”
Homosexual rights activities take exception with the Cameron and Cameron study because of the small sample size of homosexual-parented individuals. I accede that is a problem. But I strongly suspect the same results would occur in a larger sample size and anxiously await some researcher who shares your belief system having the intestinal fortitude to mount a similar study.
Pardon me if I do not share your lack of concern about our children being used as guinea pigs in a grand social experiment that is destined to seriously harm many of them.
The fact that right behind civil union, same sex marriage, are issues surrounding multiple partner marriages being fought/discussed in Canada and in other countries. What will be next ?
The social definition of marriage is crumbling, and that is what is most troubling here. The Left certainly does not seem to care about this and probably does not fully understand why the concept of marriage was adopted by society in the first place.
While I like the idea of government getting out of the marriage business altogether, I do think that we have a huge slippery slope issue to deal with regarding what constitutes a socially acceptable definition of marriage.
Legalized polygamy coming to America, sometime soon? I doubt it.
Polygamists number in the tens of thousands at best. Homosexuals in the tens of millions…
It is so silly that you continue to refer to people who disagree with you on issues concerning gay marriage as “anti-family advocates.” All this does is further marginalize you as a non-critical thinker, which is unfortunate because I know you are a bright person. It also makes you an easy target. You might respond that you don’t mind being a target for such a noble goal, but your choice of language here almost justifies it.
Basically, you accomplish only the following in using inflammatory labels: (1) you ensure that your base gets all fired up, (2) you ensure that your “opponents” are even more angry, (3) you limit yourself, as the most you can hope to do is preach to the choir (a less than noble aspiration we can all agree) and (4) you hurt the chance of a meaningful dialogue.
I don’t get it.
By the way, I am a father of 2 children and very much pro-family while in support of the rights of gay men and women to have their own families.