Although we defenders of traditional family values remain steadfastly opposed to the agenda of the Left in redefining marriage to encompass same-sex couples, one can hardly blame the revisionists for making an attempt to change the status quo. Those who believe they are unfairly being denied certain rights and privileges are likely to be very passionate (dare I say, zealous) in their pursuit of redress. Yet as tempting as it may be to excoriate them, such “dialogue” is unlikely to change anyone’s mind on this polarizing subject.

Consequently, I am left to wonder – to whom are we attempting to direct our comments in this blog when we discuss this issue? I believe the answer is twofold.

First, we intend to inform and educate those who remain undecided on this very important question of social values and policy. Towards this end, we ought rightly to deconstruct the arguments of the Left and reveal flaws in their reasoning – not with malice, but with deliberate and resolute purpose. If freedom of speech is to be respected, then we have just as much right to make our case as they do in making theirs. This is neither bigotry nor hatred; it is simply a heartfelt (and probably irreconcilable) difference of opinion about what is best for our society as a whole.

Second, we intend to provide encouragement and support for like-minded people so that we may stand together in strength. In this age of political correctness and media bias, it can be difficult to find the courage to step forward and declare your convictions in defense of traditional values – particularly if you feel as if you are standing alone against the storm. Know this, if you hold dear the principles of natural family values: you are not alone. We need only to band together in unified opposition to withstand this assault. For as Mahatma Gandhi said,

A ‘No’ uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a ‘Yes’ merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.

Our opponents in this debate are highly motivated to press for change, and we must be equally motivated in our defense. Do not be afraid to take action, merely because other people may disagree! There is a broad spectrum of actions you might take:

  • Contacting the government officials who represent you in Hartford
  • Contacting the government officials who represent you in Washington
  • Financial contributions to groups that organize on your behalf
  • Speaking about this issue among like-minded people
  • Taking a leap of faith, and speaking about this issue among people where you can’t guarantee a positive reception
  • Sharing copies of articles and online resources with other people
  • Writing about the issue in a forum where your comments remain anonymous (e.g. blogging)
  • Writing about the issue in a forum where your comments are attributed to you by name (e.g. newspaper letters to the editor)
  • Taking part in a public assembly or rally

How far will the courage of your convictions take you?

10 Responses to “The Courage of Your Convictions”

  1. on 23 Mar 2007 at 6:19 amTrueBlueCT

    Why do you all sound like white Southerners did in the face of the Civil Rights movement? Oh, it was going to be the end of civilization…

  2. on 24 Mar 2007 at 4:30 pmAlison

    the question is not, should we allow same-sex union versus family values. the question to me is this: if two people want to commit themselves to one another as a family, be it the same or opposite sex, why is this ever a bad thing? it seems that in this era of quick relationships followed by divorces, the idea of fighting for te priviledge of commitment to another is refreshing. i’m hoping that those who venture into civil unions might be able to tell us why these frequently divorcing couples can’t stick together.

    I believe commitments of human beings to one another, whether in friendship or in love, might just help stabilize our society. but then again, i’m an idealist who works at her marriage to her husband each and every day. i don’t feel threatened by same-sex unions, but i do feel threatened by the spectre of divorce which is often sold as an attractive option for people who want to find a way to behave like they’re in their ywenties again in spite of the fact that they’re facing their fifties.

  3. on 27 Mar 2007 at 8:59 amF.A. Malkin


    I don’t think the same-sex marriage lobby is fighting for commitment. They claim they have that already. What they want, as was made clear from the public hearing yesterday, is the word “marriage.” They argue that they are being treated unequally, and therefore, are being discriminated against.

    What they really want is to criminalise any kind of opposition. In Massachusetts, for example, where same-sex marriage is legal, parents are being forced to allow their children be indoctrinated by pro-same-sex marriage zealots.

    TrueBlue has happily illustrated my point. In his view, those who oppose same-sex marriage should be treated like racists. Funny thing though, the black community is overwhelmingly opposed to same-sex marriage, and does not welcome the comparison to the civil rights movement.

    What is obvious to the black community, should be obvious to the rest of us: race has nothing to do with the definition of marriage, the differentiation of the sexes, on the other hand, does.

    The gay and lesbian community is not being discriminated against because marriage is what it is. The civil rights argument in favor of same-sex marriage is being used as a tool to curtail the free speech and dissent of those who defend traditional marriage. The state should think twice before it engages in social engineering at the expense of those who believe in an institution that is thousands of years old.

  4. on 27 Mar 2007 at 9:56 amchele

    The African American legislators on the Judiciary Committee were quite clear in their belief that this is indeed discrimination and indeed a civil rights issue. In fact, it was explained quite clearly to Brian, in hopes he’d finally get it.

  5. on 27 Mar 2007 at 10:24 amGenghis Conn

    F.A. Malkin,

    That is insane, and I suggest you watch what Rep. Toni Walker has to say about it.

  6. on 27 Mar 2007 at 11:28 amopal

    True Blue and others,

    I say again why is it that anyone who disagrees with same sex marriage is automatically painted with the same brush. Just because you oppose a persons’ actions doesn’t mean that you hate them. I opposed the war in Iraq (because Pope John Paul II, prophesized exactly what would happen) but I don’t hate the soldiers who are there or the politicians who stand for the war. I oppose abortion and contraception and sterilization but I don’t hate my friends or family who have made those choices. And I oppose gay marriage but I don’t hate my gay friends, or family. I do have a right, just as FIC does to speak my mind and express why I believe as I do.

    Maybe the reason that so many of you are inclined to paint us with the brush of hatred and intolerance is because you hate anyone who disagrees with you and therefore you assume that we feel the same. Standing up and speaking against gay marriage and standing outside a gay bar with a sign that says, “F-gs go to H—.” is absolutely not the same thing. One is expressing an opinion that someTHing is wrong, the other is a statement condemning someones’ soul and person and actions to the abyss for all eternity. Speaking out against gay marriage is not the equivalent of standing up screaming hate filled invectives at the gay community. However, standing up and writing hatefilled blogs about devout Catholics or Christians is the equivalent of those who carry the awful signs.


  7. on 27 Mar 2007 at 11:47 amDave


    The purpose of the judiciary committee hearing was for legislators to listen to input from the citizenry, not vice-versa.

    In fact, many African-Americans are deeply insulted by the comparison between their struggle for civil rights and the present-day campaign for gay rights. This is among the reasons why same-sex marriage is opposed even more vehemently by blacks than by whites. Even the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press has concluded through its surveys that blacks tend to be significantly more conservative than whites. You can read more about this within their August 2006 report, “Pragmatic Americans Liberal and Conservative on Social Issues”, especially the statistical table “Who is Conservative on Social and Cultural Issues”. And these are hardly isolated findings. They have been replicated over and over in numerous surveys, not only by the Pew Research Center, but also by mainstream media like CNN and USA Today with their own independent polling. By a whopping margin, blacks oppose same-sex marriage even more than the national average.

    Legislators are elected to represent their constituents, not to rule by fiat. Maybe it’s time they started talking less, and listening more!

  8. on 27 Mar 2007 at 12:44 pmF.A. Malkin


    Another sign that legislators are out of touch with their constituents on this issue. Let the people decide.

  9. on 27 Mar 2007 at 8:16 pmsteph

    The African American legislators you refer to were emotionally projecting their own personal tragedies onto Brian. I don’t think you heard F.A. Malkin clearly,

    Funny thing though, the black community is overwhelmingly opposed to same-sex marriage, and does not welcome the comparison to the civil rights movement.

    To reiterate: Two or three African American legislators do not compose the “black community”.
    Also, again, choosing to be in a same sex relationship is NOT a civil rights issue, it is a personal choice. Comparing same sex marriage to the civil rights issues of the sixties is ridiculous.

  10. on 28 Mar 2007 at 7:23 pmknight errant

    They also indicated that they would not go to Hell for voting for same sex marriage. They were wrong then also.

Leave a Reply