If you had followed Monday’s hearing via the bizarro world of liberal blogdom you’d have thought the day belonged to our opponents. But those who were there–or who watched it for themselves via CTN rather than relying on Mike Lawlor’s favorite propagandists–know differently. The Judiciary Committee’s March 26th public hearing on the bill to redefine marriage was an outstanding day for Connecticut’s pro-family movement in general and FIC in particular.

Our 11 AM press conference was overflowing with supporters. For the first time ever we outnumbered our opponents at a public hearing–and by a huge margin. For much of the day about 3/4 of the public seating in the hearing room was occupied by pro-family voters and only about 1/4 of the seats were held by pro same-sex “marriage” activists.

This lopsided difference was ignored by the MSM–though the New Haven Register did hint at it in noting pro-family voters “turned out in force” and the Connecticut Post did report that “about 46” people signed up to speak for traditional marriage vs. only “more than 31” signing up to speak for same-sex “marriage.” (You can also read the Courant’s account here and the AP story here.) This is the second time in as many months that we broke precedents by turning out far more people at the legislature than our opponents on a weekday.

Here is an excerpt from an e-mail alert sent by Brian the day after the hearing:

The hearing room was a sea of white Marriage: One Man, One Woman stickers and we also helped pack out the overflow room.  A strong and clear message was sent to our legislators.  We want to sincerely thank each and every one of you that attended.  We also want to thank Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and Dawn Stefanowicz for their amazing testimony.  Maggie is one of the nation’s leading experts on the threat of same-sex “marriage” and her testimony was electrifying.

Maggie generously traveled to Hartford, even though there was no guarantee she would be able to speak early in the day.  By the grace of God, Maggie gave the first testimony.  Dawn came later, giving her personal story of the problems of being raised by a same-sex parent.  Dawn traveled all the way from Ontario, Canana and we are so thankful for her testimony.

In addition to Maggie and Dawn, Brian also offered outstanding testimony in response to about an hour and a half of hostile questions from certain legislators. One of those legislators–one of our most vociferous opponents, in fact–made it a point to come out into the hallway following Brian’s testimony in order to congratulate him on what a great job he did.

In another e-mail alert Brian provided a link to video of Monday’s hearing and emphasized some key moments:

[Y]ou can simply click here to view the entire video and move your slider to one of these points to find key areas in the video:

00:58: Maggie Gallagher Lays Out Rational Foundation of Marriage

2:25: Dawn Stefanowicz, Raised by Gay Father, Speaks Against Same-Sex “Marriage”

4:41: Brian Brown’s Testimony

5:51: Mike Lawlor Questions Brian Brown’s Faith

00:47:  Edith Prague’s Adam and Adam, Eve and Eve Comments (Later she equates opponents of same-sex “marriage” to anti-Semites. You really have to see to believe.)

Other highlights:

A representative of Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez testified for same-sex “marriage”–but noted that even before civil unions he could think of “crafty” ways–as a lawyer–to protect the rights of himself and his partner. That he had just confirmed as true one of FIC’s key arguments against civil unions went unnoticed.

As noted by Brian–and our great new front page blogger, Dave–Maggie Gallagher did an outstanding job. Maggie informed opponent legislators of what they were really trying to do: create a new marriage morality. The marriage idea, she said, boils down to three things: sex makes babies, society needs babies and babies need a mom and a dad. But the other idea pushed by our opponents is that there is nothing unique about opposite sex couples and anyone who disagrees is a bigot. Maggie patiently explained how equating opposition to same-sex “marriage” with bigotry is no small thing. It is a very big thing that will change our marriage culture and will require any person or entity adhering to traditional moral views to face the serious repercussions of being treated as the legal equivalent of a racist.

Same-sex “marriage” will not confer a single new right on same-sex couples. So why this bill? According to testimony by Love Makes a Family’s Anne Stanback, they want to be “able to use the vocabulary of marriage.” For that and that alone our opponents are willing to kick up all this Sturm und Drang and risk the things Maggie and others warned about.

In his testimony Brian fleshed out what Maggie was getting at: the Catholic Church being forced out of providing adoptions in Boston, the coming “train wreck” between religious liberty and same-sex “marriage” that even the New York Times sees ahead and so forth. Liberal bloggers especially enjoyed Brian’s exchange with several legislators on the wrongness of equating the civil rights movement with same-sex “marriage”–and misled their readers to believe the African-American legislators were in unanimous disagreement with Brian.

Following opponent legislators’ “you don’t know what it’s like to feel discriminated against” line of attack Brian was subjected to what he rightly described as “a show trial” of his Catholicism. But in all the years I’ve heard Rep. Lawlor ask variations of his “You’re really motivated by a religiously-based hatred of gay people, aren’t you?” question, I don’t think I’ve ever seen it backfire on him the way it did when he tried it on Brian. All I can say is scroll up to that video link and watch it for yourself; a quick synopsis wouldn’t do it justice.

We may have more to say about that exchange in the future. For now, though, we must remember that–despite a great public hearing–the odds are against us in any committee co-chaired by Rep. Lawlor and Sen. McDonald. Watch for further information on what more needs to be done to defeat the same-sex “marriage” bill. 

7 Responses to “Hearing on Same-Sex “Marriage” Bill”

  1. on 29 Mar 2007 at 8:20 pmLisa

    Talk about spin! You’ve made me so dizzy just from reading that, Peter.

    You might want to tone it down a little. Nobody is going to believe you when you spin that hard.

  2. on 30 Mar 2007 at 8:33 amGems

    Just out of curiosity, where were you when your name got called to testify? I realize it was later at night, but aren’t you paid to lobby for FIC and maintain this blog? Shouldn’t you have been there until the bitter end of this hearing?

  3. on 30 Mar 2007 at 11:55 amPeter

    I did notice the concern of liberal bloggers over my comings and goings the day of the Plan B hearing and wrote up a response at the time. But before I posted it I was reminded by someone whose opinion actually matters that it’s not up to us to let the opposition know what we’re up to. A wise fellow, that one.

    Rest assured, though, that if you knew what I was doing that day and the day of Monday’s hearing you would be satisfied that I am earning my pay. 🙂

  4. on 30 Mar 2007 at 6:26 pmsteph

    You all were excellant at the hearing, Kudos to you.

  5. on 01 Apr 2007 at 6:38 amKathy

    I dont think the legislators’ line of questioning to Brian was out of line at all.

    Brian was there to talk about his beliefs. The legislators can’t in turn ask him to explain further what he means?

    Their line of quetioning makes sense to me.

  6. on 02 Apr 2007 at 10:59 pmchele

    Your “anarchy” player isn’t working on my Mac. Does your video show Bill Tong’s questioning of Brian? Does it include Rep. Toni Walker explaining to Brian just what bigotry is, and how she experienced it first hand as practiced by men just like Brian?

  7. on 07 Apr 2007 at 11:19 amCaroline

    But how many of the “pro-family” speakers were from out of state and have no voting interest in this bill? I saw a LOT of Massachusetts license plates, and your “expert” speaker wasn’t even from New England. I felt they really had no business speaking since this is an issue for the citizens of CT to decide. Also, I think the numbers of supporters in the overflow rooms that were in favor of the legislation FAR outnumbered people with white stickers. Just because they didn’t all want to take up people’s time by repeating the same points doesn’t mean that there were fewer of them who turned out in support.

Leave a Reply