Don Pesci and Others on Same-Sex “Marriage”
January 26th, 2007 by Peter
The expected return of the same-sex “marriage” issue next week is already sparking commentary all across the local blogosphere.
Sean at Connecticut Conservative says the renewed push to redefine marriage will backfire on same-sex “marriage” proponents. And a post on the most leftward of local moonbat blogs credits an FIC Action alert with having “declared” the beginning of this year’s same-sex “marriage” battle. Actually, it was our opponents’ press conference that did that–the title of our e-mail simply acknowledged the fact.
In that same moonbat thread the far left feminist blogger CGG–or “Caffeinated Geek Girl”–claims “The FIC endorsed some candidates who had no idea they were even being endorsed.” In fact, our support in the legislature is bigger, not smaller, than our endorsements list. In the course of mailing questionnaires to those running for the General Assembly and following up with phone calls to every single candidate we intended to endorse we discovered several who support our positions but did not yet wish to be publicly identified. Kind of ironic considering the lefties fixated on (of all people!) former FIC board member Gregg Hannan as our supposed “stealth” candidate.
Anyway, the best local blog commentary is, as usual, Don Pesci, who offer a point-by-point rebuttal to arguments put forth by liberal media personality Colin McEnroe. I won’t excerpt it here because I think Pesci’s meticulous attention to logic is best appreciated when read in full.
But I do want to add one observation to Pesci’s discussion of slippery slope arguments: the wierd phenomenon of those who dismiss such predictions while simultaneously working to make those predictions come true. Thus we have the case of local pro same-sex “marriage” activists dismissing concerns about polygamy while their national allies are embracing the concept. The Courant, too, has dismissed slippery slope arguments about same-sex “marriage” and yet, just this week, ran an op-ed celebrating triple parenting:
I’m the biological father of a lesbian couple’s children – two beautiful daughters, born a year apart in the summers of 2004 and 2005…Am I their father or their sperm donor? The labels don’t matter…My daughters have three loving parents and live with two of them.
The apparent hypocrisy of our opponents aside, we should not lose sight of the fact that the increasingly bizarre mutations of the family coming down the pike are directly related to the effort to push same-sex “marriage.” The arrangement celebrated on the Courant’s op-ed page has been anticipated for years by, among others, National Review’s Stanley Kurtz:
And Baby Makes Four [Stanley Kurtz]
Last week, Canada took an important new step toward a radical deconstruction of the family: a court ruled that a child could have three, simultaneous legal parents. (“Boy can have two mothers and a father, Ontario appeal court rules”) I first wrote about this case almost four years ago, in “Heather Has 3 Parents.” I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the court held its ruling until just after Canada’s conservatives failed to reverse judicially imposed same-sex marriage in parliament. Now we know how long after the secure nationalization of same-sex marriage it can take for further radical changes to emerge: about a month.
For more links on this issue, see this article from the International Herald Tribune, “Canada expands definition of who is a parent,” this editorial, “Family Matters,” from the Edmonton Sun, and this Op-Ed, “Family structure takes another hit,” from the Calgary Sun.
We’ve got a clear instantiation of the slippery slope here. But could it happen in America? Of course. As I showed in “The Confession” and “The Confession II,” there is already a movement pushing for triple and quadruple parenting, and the multiple marriage that will follow from this. And as I noted in “NYT Goes Rad,” The New York Times is already busy mainstreaming the idea.
This is an editoral I wrote to the East Haven Courier. I figured I’s share it with all of you as we begin the biggest battle we have faced yet.
Wednesday January 31, 2007 is a pivotal date in East Haven history as well for Connecticut and the United States. Our country, founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs is being consistently attacked by the secular side of society, however they are not called secular, and they’re known as “progressives.” These individuals are a threat to our morality and standards of living because they want us to change our ways of thinking, our ways of living and accept their standards as normal everyday life by accepting Same Sex Marriage as a normal standard of living.
I have been accused of being a right-wing, Mississippi Southern Republican. I’ve been called a bigot, intolerant and anti-gay by my Mike Lawlor and his lobbyist and special interest groups in this fight. To the contrary, I was born and raised right here in the Tri State area, attended liberal based schools and have worked with several types of people of all diverse backgrounds.. I have never once attacked anyone based on their sexual orientation or preference. I say live and let live, however people like Mike Lawlor, your State Representative say that is not enough. He says that I must not only accept his preferred life style but the Government by decree must declare this group has the same rights as heterosexual couples. They even go as far as saying that it’s a civil right to be married and that we must accept.
As I see it and many of you who are reading this editorial think as well is that your personal preference is not a civil right it’s just what it is, a preference. It is insulting to this Irish American-Catholic, who has family and ancestors who fought for over 700 years over in Ireland for the right to exist just as a Catholic and to get out of the Derry slums. It’s an insult to the African American community who were enslaved, killed, tortured and terrorized for over 400 years just to be allowed to vote, exist and be treated as a human being, this among many groups who have been discriminated against. I’m not saying that homosexuals haven’t been discriminated against. They have and that is truly wrong. That’s why we have Federal and State Laws protecting gays. But where do we draw the line?
Allowing homosexuals to marry under the guise of civil rights is an abuse of power perpetrated by Mike Lawlor and Andrew McDonald. These are the facts to consider. Gays and Lesbians are highly educated work forces who are at the very top of educational and economic broker positions around the globe. Look at Andrew McDonald and Mike Lawlor, two of the most powerful men in Hartford are both gay and they completely control the agenda of the Judiciary. In comparison to civil rights of the 1960’s Blacks couldn’t sit in the front of bus, sat in a different section of the restaurant and drank from a different water cooler. Where is there a gay section in the restaurant, a gay section on the bus or a gay water cooler? Gays and Lesbians are a powerful lobbying group who have successfully had their bills and committees heard in several states. Some successful and some not however, they have access to political pundits. Where did the Blacks go? They fought in the streets, protested and demanded that they have access to the very same system the gays say is discriminating against them.
Gays and Lesbians also have used time as a weapon. As gays and lesbians gain more control of the educational system and gain more control of agendas they push their agenda on our children at young ages saying that society must be tolerant and accepting of two dads or two moms. They attack the various religious institutes that some of us embrace, as anti-gay and homophobic, when all they are trying to do is defend the very institutions that created marriage as a union between one man and one woman centuries ago.
So what is the true and fair way to settle this matter? Mike Lawlor’s view is to take his Democratic supermajority in the House and Senate to force law down the throats of the people of Connecticut to accept it. We the people know how we feel about this issue and we know what Mike Lawlor is trying to do. So I declare this, if Mike Lawlor and the rest of the Judiciary feel that the people of Connecticut would vote for Same Sex Marriage then why not affirm it with a vote in a statewide referendum like 33 states have done across the United States. Marriage is clearly a State right and the residents of Connecticut have the right to vote on such dramatic change to their ways of living. Sounds fair? Sounds like the right the thing to do, yes it does, however, Mike Lawlor refuses to even consider it because he knows like in Massachusetts if this vote came to people it would be defeated. Mike Lawlor and Andrew McDonald have crafted the biggest sham ever to face the people of Connecticut and should be ashamed of themselves in comparing their personal cause with the likes of Dr. Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Robert Kennedy and Rosa Parks and the millions of African Americans who suffered. These Americans are the true Civil Rights leaders of our day.
Call Mike Lawlor and let him know how you feel. Tell him you want the opportunity to vote in a Statewide Referendum on the Question of Marriage. Tell him you want to keep our laws on Marriage and it’s one man and one woman. 1-800-842-8267 or by email
MLawlor99@juno.com
Hey Dan – what a great commentary on this issue. Wow, you have have faced Goliath on this issue for the past 3 years and we are sure glad to have you on our side. Yes, Lawlor and company should be ashamed of comparing their effort to sanction a perverse and immoral lifestyle on the electorate with Martin Luther King’s campaign to ensure equal rights to minority Americans. Here is a receive statement by Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe:
“He was a man of faith who didn’t hesitate to mix religion with politics. He believed his moral values should be reflected in US law and legally imposed on those who resisted them. He invoked on those who resisted them. He invoked “God Almighty” in his speeches and compared himself to Moses, the prophet Amos, and other biblical heroes. He condemned public policies he opposed in overtly religious terms – as “a blatant denial of the unity which we all have in Christ,” for example. He shrugged off those who called him an extremist. “Was not Jesus an extremist?” he asked. He wasn’t one to fetishize church-state separation. He stated, “I want it to be known . . . throughout this nation that we are Christian people.” He was what some today might call a religious fanatic, a theocrat, or a “moral ayatollah.” He was, in many circles, decidedly unpopular. He was also a Nobel laureate for peace and a champion of human dignity. He was an American hero. He was Martin Luther King Jr.”