February 22nd, 2007 by Peter
Super Important to Cover on Blogs (0.00 / 0)
|
With the dueling rallies, I guarantee that the evening news will play video that makes it look as if the numbers in attendance at both are roughly equal.
Anyone who can (my work/school schedule is tighter than my budget guys, sorry) should take a wide shot of the crowd at both rallies and if possible get a rough estimate headcount.
Then, when NBC30, WTNH, WFSB, and Fox61 air their stories about how “the state is still divided on marriage equality” all we have to do is SPOTLIGHT the diary that has the photos and headcount.
I’ll bet my blog that there’s at least 2x as many people show up for the Love Makes a Family rally vs. the FIC rally–and it’s not because bible-bigots have dayjobs and tight schedules, it’s because most xians in CT (and nutmeggers in general) are decent people who prefer to live and let live (I kind of feel bad that these folks let the FIC types claim to represent them…). [emphasis added]
[Spazeboy.net] [posted here]
|
From today’s Republican-American:
Approximately 150 men, women and children answered the Family Institute of Connecticut’s call to rally against same-sex marriage…
The turnout was slightly lower for Love Makes A Family. Between 80 and 90 supporters of gay marriage organized themselves inside the Capitol for a day of lobbying.
“Slightly lower” is the Rep-Am being polite. Pro-family advocates outnumbered same-sex “marriage” supporters by nearly two to one. As for television, WTNH’s video footage did indeed provide a wide shot of our crowd–which they numbered in “the hundreds”–and a shot of the apparently half-empty room where our opponents met (hat tip to Pray Connecticut for noticing this clip).
Spazeboy, let us know when we can come by to collect your blog. We’ll be taking the little fellow with the red helmet too. The FIC logo should fit nicely on his shirt–where the Democrat donkey currently resides.
13 Comments »
Leave a Reply
LOL! Yeah, take his blog…and his little dog, too!
Peter–
I hate to remind you, but the latest despicable Courant poll shows CT folks in favor of civil unions/same-sex marriage out-number you guys 3 to 1. How much of your crowd was people protesting your protest?
P.S. When gay marriage does get through the State Legislature, do you think God will punish us by sending a hurricane??
TB,
I don’t know about the Courant poll that you’re talking about, but the most recent poll that I’ve seen showed that 55% of Conn residents oppose same-sex marriage. Since you’re so confident that the majority support gay marriage, you obviously support a referendum on the issue, right?
I was at the “protest” – and there were no people protesting the protest that I could see or hear. As far as the numbers are concerned, I would have estimated much more than a 2:1 imbalance. The FIC room was literally packed with very little room to even stand – and the overflow was listening from the hallway. Judging from the pictures I’ve seen of the opposition, they didn’t even fill their seats – and they were trickling sporadically in the halls.
And if gay marriage does get though, the greatest tradgedy will be the result of yet another radical social experiment performed on our children.
Dude, supporting civil unions doesn’t mean you oppose gay marriage. Many people chose civil unions in that survey because they’re more familiar with the concept and figure it’s the equivalent of marriage. That doesn’t mean they are opposed to gay marriage.
(But feel free to manipulate reality to serve your political objectives…)
As I understand, the pro-equality attendees were not there for a rally; it was a lobby day. No? Sort of comparing apples to oranges, isn’t it?
Steve–
So the adopted, and natural, children of gay couples are better off when their parents can’t marry each other? (with all the rights and benefits…) I just don’t buy that.
What is it that you are really arguing? That gays are unsuitable to be parents?
At least when a (natural or adoptive) parent remains single, there remains the open-ended possibility that they may ultimately select an opposite-sex partner who might fill the missing gender role in the upbringing of the child.
PC,
Again. Since you’re convinced that the majority support gay marriage, you have no objection and, in fact, support a referendum on the issue, right?
Can you say put up or shut up?
TB,
What is it that you are really arguing? That gays are unsuitable to be parents?
I think that society should be promoting the best environment for children. We know what that is. We’ve learned since the 60’s that alternative novelties cannot substitute for the traditional family. Thrusting children into another novel experiment is risky, to say the least.
Steve,
I agree that “society should be promoting the best environment for children.” But given that this is America, and that the Mary Cheney’s of this world are free to have or adopt children, regardless of what many of us may think or believe, …. well, at some point aren’t we better off saying yes to gay marriage?
Certainly, when you think of the child, if the kid is going to have to go through life with two gay parents, it’d be nice if the parents were at least able to be married to each other. (with the appurtenant rights, responsibilities, and benefits.)
Anyway, that’s where I’m at. I think far too many people are casual about their marriages, and their decisions to have children, but if one is going to truly promote marriage as an ideal, I think you have to apply that ideal to gay people too. If they’re going to have kids, it ought to be in a stable two parent household. (not that single parenting is impossible!)
“We’ll be taking the little fellow with the red helmet too. ”
Now, that’s just perverse.
What if they actually GOT the blog?
I’m thinking of what Jack Nicholson would say:
“They want the BLOG? They can’t HANDLE the blog!”
[…] Peter at the FIC Blog has taken me up on a bet after he would have won it. So, I won’t be giving my blog away. […]
at some point aren’t we better off saying yes to gay marriage?
No. For the simple fact that there is a big difference between tolerating less than ideal situations and promoting them. Are there and are there going to be undesirable familial situations for children? Of course. Should we tolerate such situations? Well, we do – and in many cases we need to because the alternatives are even worse. Should these situations be eagerly endorsed and promoted by society and the state? No way.
Oh, and by the way – civil unions have already given all “the appurtenant rights, responsibilities, and benefits” of marriage. (Civil unions weren’t even necessary to get them either. They could have been easily obtained without hardly a whimper from the right.) The debate isn’t about the benefits of mariage, it’s about changing marriage itself.
Sorry ’bout the italics… My response begins after “at some point aren’t we better off saying yes to gay marriage?”