At least the snow spared us another Valentine’s Day gimmick. A little over an hour ago the Judicary Committee raised as a “concept bill” the same-sex “marriage” bill, a bill recognizing out-of-state same-sex unions and other bills that will conflict with religious liberty. Ironically, I was live with Dan Lovallo predicting the committee chairmen would raise these bills on or near Valentine’s Day at precisely the moment they were doing it.

I’ll be on the Talk of the Town program with Ed Flynn tomorrow at 11 a.m. to discuss today’s developments and FIC Action’s Feb. 21 Rally for Marriage and Lobby Day.


13 Responses to “Breaking…Same Sex “Marriage” Bill Raised”

  1. on 14 Feb 2007 at 6:43 amchele

    I’m not quite understanding this “religous liberty” thing as it pertains to same sex marriage.

    Will churches be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples?

    Will a marriage equality law force any non-homosexuals to marry people of the same sex?

    How EXACTLY will a marriage equality law deny “religious liberty” to anyone?

  2. on 14 Feb 2007 at 11:02 amChris

    The law as it stands says that no religious institution can be forced to marry anyone they do not want to marry, no matter who they are.

    That is why most religions interview couples before they marry them. They can decide based on whatever qualifications whether they want to marry someone.

    There is a difference between religious marriage and civil marriage.

    If a same-sex marriage law passes, churches will not be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples.

  3. on 14 Feb 2007 at 12:23 pmchele

    So how is same sex marriage a “religious liberty” thing? Whose liberty is being harmed, and how?

  4. on 14 Feb 2007 at 4:49 pmLisa

    I believe Peter is referring to the liberty of telling other people what they can and cannot do with their own lives. You know, because everyone should have the right to tell other people how to live.

  5. on 14 Feb 2007 at 6:38 pmDave

    I believe Peter wrote “other bills that will conflict with religious liberty”, suggesting other bills besides the one called “An Act Concerning Marriage Equality”. Let’s give him a chance to clarify. After all, there were 26 bills slated to be raised at the 02/13/07 meeting, including several aimed at the practice of medicine by Catholic hospitals.

    You’re all so quick to jump to conclusions. He described this report as “breaking news” implying more details would follow.

    However, Lisa’s sarcasm echoes frighteningly close to what would be a worrisome future outcome, if we were to follow in the footsteps of Canada and Sweden … where priests have been jailed for preaching the Bible, because newly adopted laws categorized their remarks as “hate speech”. Isn’t freedom of speech supposed to be a 2-way street? Sometimes it seeems like the Left would prefer “freedom of speech, as long as you mean speech in support of our agenda” … and “freedom of religion, as long as you mean freedom FROM religion”. I think Jefferson and Madison are probably rolling in their graves with how our nation has twisted their original inent in the last 216 years.

  6. on 14 Feb 2007 at 7:52 pmLisa


    It’s awfully ironic how in one post Dave tells everyone not to put words in Peter’s mouth, but then he goes and puts words into MY mouth.

    It’s a two way street, Dave… a two way street.

  7. on 15 Feb 2007 at 7:34 amchele

    Dave and Peter haven’t clarified how this is a religious liberty issue.

    Dave starts referring to jailed priests in China, apropos of what, I’m not sure. How does China come into it? Does China have legal same sex marriage? I think Dave is trying to stir up fear in the base, I guess, in lieu of having an answer to our questions here. It’s kind of a knee-jerk reaction these guys have.

    But let’s try to stay on topic:

    We’re not talking about preaching the Bible in China. We’re simply trying to understand exactly how same sex marriage is going to take away Dave and Peter’s religious liberty if churches are not going to be forced to perform same sex marriages and people are not going to be forced to marry people of the same sex if they don’t want to.

    And since we’re talking two way streets, aren’t Dave and Peter’s attempts to force us all to live by THEIR particular set of beliefs taking away OUR religious liberty?

  8. on 15 Feb 2007 at 10:10 amAnnie Banno

    chele, you have time today to drive-by and post several comments here and to the earlier post while ignoring all my responses to you in all the earlier posts?

    This is disingenuous at best and at worst discredits anything you put forth on any subject here from this point on. You’re not coming here to learn or to understand anything. You’re coming here merely to be confrontational, a burr under the saddle, to simply be oppositional and apparently, as above, purposely obtuse (something you accuse one of us here of being, ironically).

    This is what is known to all in blogdom as “being a troll.” I don’t know about the owners of this blog, but once someone is determined to be a troll on most other blogs, it’s standard practice to “not feed the trolls.”

    It’s so easy to be a sniper, chele, isn’t it (and gabe and trueblueCT for that matter), and then never respond to the truth when it is shown to you. Your collective credibilities on any topic are now wholly suspect since you’ve all proven you’re just here to snipe and be contrary whatever way you can. You have no intention, sadly, of learning anything.

    “Let’s do try to stay on topic,” chele et. al. Practice what you preach so snidely to us, then. Go back and “stay on the various topics” you confronted us on here in those earlier posts. For your convenience, I listed the major points in that post yesterday:

    But then you already know that and are ignoring it.

  9. on 15 Feb 2007 at 11:37 amDave

    chele, to turn your own words back at you, do you want us to believe you’re really this obtuse?

    Where did I say China? I didn’t. Surely you are aware of Swedish Pentecostal minister, Ake Green, who was jailed in 2004 for a sermon that he preached that discussed homosexuality. If not, then do a little googling to educate yourself. And as for our friends up north, eh, take a look at what Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. has to say about it in his article “The End of Religious Liberty in Canada” –

    Quite a lot is happening throughout the world, with respect to the impairment of religious liberty as a consequence of the homosexual agenda. This month’s article in the National Catholic Reporter by John L Allen Jr. covers the topic quite extensively –

    And I believe it is fair to say that if we don’t voice our concerns, Connecticut is likely to join this ignominious roster of states and nations where religious liberty is curtailed.

    As I wrote eariler, there were numerous bills brought forward in the 02/13/07 judiciary committee meeting –

    Once the full details of these bills are printed and posted online, I am sure we’ll all have a lot more to say about them!

  10. on 15 Feb 2007 at 12:30 pmPeter

    Dave is right about my referencing something else entirely–a contracting reform bill that could drive some religious non-profits out of business (happily, the bill didn’t pop up after all and, in fairness, it’s more of a union thing against non-profits in general than religious entities in particular).

    On same-sex “marriage” and religious liberty Dave’s already provided some great resources, but off the top of my head:

    1) A doctor has filed a complaint of bias with a government agency against St. Mary’s hospital in Waterbury for adhering to their beliefs by not covering his same-sex civil union partner.

    2) After 100 years of providing adoptions for needy children in Boston, Catholic Charities had to stop–it was either that or be forced by the state to violate their beliefs and place some of the kids in homes with same-sex couples.

    3) Also in Boston, evangelical Christian dad David Parker spent a night in prison for trying to protect his 5 year old son from a same-sex “marriage” book being taught in the child’s kindergarten class. Parker carried on a fruitless e-mail and phone exchange with school officials for the better part of a year, simply asking that he be notified when the book will be taught so he can pull his son out for that lesson. Finally, he went down to the school and said he wasn’t leaving until they agree to his common sense request. Instead, they had him arrested.

    4) In Canada, the Knights of Columbus were sued for not allowing a lesbian “wedding” reception to be held in their hall.

    5) The Archbishop of Vancouver was hauled before a governmental human rights commission for preaching the Catholic view that homosexual acts are immoral.

    6) In a case mentioned by Dave, Swedish Pentecostal minister Ake Green was sentenced to 30 days in prison for preaching against homosexual activity. The case had to go all the way up to Sweden’s highest court before the conviction was overturned.

    And, again, that’s just what I can think of at the moment. Dave’s articles have more info and, also, Maggie Gallagher wrote a Weekly Standard piece last May quoting pro same-sex “marriage” legal scholars who are themselves saying that, yes, there is a coming conflict between same-sex “marriage” and relgious liberty and that it is religious liberty that must give way.

  11. on 15 Feb 2007 at 3:04 pmchele

    For God’s sake Annie, if you didn’t write reams and reams of nonsense and post it multiple times, it could perhaps be dealt with or answered. When you can manage to make your point in a clear and succint way, I’ll get around to refuting your sources.

  12. on 15 Feb 2007 at 3:17 pmDave

    The article Peter cited, by Maggie Gallagher, can be found here –

  13. on 19 Feb 2007 at 6:53 pmAnnie Banno

    Chele, you’re saying that doctors at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, respected medical journals such as The Annals of Neurology and The New England Journal of Medicine, and multiple patients and doctors testifying in sworn statements before the U.S. Senate are “nonsense.”

    I don’t present nonsense. What I present are facts, hard cold scientific facts, in direct response to many pieces of misinformation you posted as well as others, here and elsewhere.

    And again all you can respond with is to flog me with the accident of my multiple postings which, in all posts but especially this last one, the stem cell post, was as a result of some technical glitch in the blog that was beyond my control. I’d even written to the blogmasters indicating there was a problem, that the posts didn’t “take,” and they told me that the comments hadn’t appeared even in their to-be-moderated queue so that’s why they posted them! THEY were blindsided by the glitches too, yet that’s all you can focus in on.

    You expect the benefit of the doubt given to you for something that was beyond your control (saying you had an ill relative to care for and couldn’t get back right away to posting comments awhile back) yet you won’t give it to me for something else that is beyond my control.

    Pretty lousy double standard, chele.

    The real facts hurt, chele. You seem to want to find any excuse to not have to read or understand them.

Leave a Reply