Courant on Same-Sex Households
April 9th, 2007 by Peter
The Courant ran a long front page story on Saturday highlighting the case of Becca, a 13 year old pro same-sex “marriage” activist in Windsor and the same-sex household in which she is being raised. (The front page helpfully points the reader to the accompanying Courant-made video, which is so lacking in balance that I thought I had accidentally clicked on our opponents’ website.)
The article does quote Brian and Senator Kissel in opposition to same-sex “marriage” and about halfway down there is this:
Dawn Stefanowicz had a very different experience. Her father took her to a gay nude beach when she was 8 and to meeting places where he hooked up with other men, encounters that left her deeply scarred.
“From the time I was an infant, my father was involved with various men,” said Stefanowicz, a married mother of two in her mid-40s. She lives in Ontario but was in Hartford last week to speak out against the marriage bill.
Although Stefanowicz loved her father, who has since died of AIDS, she felt confused, anxious and isolated by the life he led.
“I felt pressure to protect him and protect his reputation, but at the same time I was deeply burdened carrying around a number of secrets about the kind of household I was growing up in,” Stefanowicz said in a phone interview a few days after the legislative hearing. “I was exposed to diverse sexuality and an emphasis on gender neutrality, which eventually created confusion around my own sexuality.”
On May 27, 2005 the New London Day ran an article on a young activist similar to Becca (this time she was 9). From the quote which appeared in one of our blog postings for that day:
[Peter] Wolfgang [director of public policy for the Family Institute of Connecticut] said the framing of the ongoing debate is itself damning evidence that children of same-sex couples have an emotional disadvantage compared to those of heterosexual households.
“One of our main arguments against same-sex marriage is that children do best in households with both a mom and a dad,” Wolfgang said.
“Is the average 9-year-old really that focused on how their parents’ marriage is doing?” he continued. When children have testified before legislators, he said, “It looks like these kids are coached.”
In our conversations with Dawn Stefanowicz she raised similar concerns about kids being used as political props. She also repeatedly drew our attention to the young, minor-age status of such children and asked how free they really were to speak their mind.
It was not until the children of divorce reached adulthood that its negative effects could be quantified. Will the same prove true of this newest social experiment which our opponents wish to foist on children? And if we offer no opposition until all the evidence is in, will it then be too late?
Was Dawn Stefanowicz paid to testify in Hartford? If so, who paid her fee and / or travel expenses? The diocese? FIC?
Why Dawn Stefanowicz, a non-American? Are there no Americans, or people from Connecticut, who could testify?
Is there anyone who will testify without being paid to do so?
Note: this story also ran at the top of the paper’s early edition on Easter Sunday.
Was this a tweak to Christians who don’t follow the Courant’s line on overthrowing 4,000 years of Judeo-Christian morality?
Happy Easter from The Courant!
I’ve done a little research and apparently Karl Rove sent a check to Halliburton Canada which then purchased an Air Canada ticket sending an alien (albeit legal) to infiltrate CT’s Judiciary Comm. Hearing. I thought those rightists hated non-Americans, how they change their tune when it serves their purposes.
chele, I asked, and apparently the legislators who voted for civil unions each only got one or two letters from actual constituents on the matter. Bringing in a professional hysteric is supposed to frighten some hapless part-time officeholder with visions of gruesome electoral defeat.
It’s a right-wing welfare program of sorts, shuffling supposed “ringers” from state lege to state lege. I hear if you work in the conservative machine you can land a job in all sorts of fun places, diocese offices, GOP campaign jobs, etc etc.
I can hardly believe the heartless, rude comments here from most posters (with the exception of Nick). Also, it was perfectly appropriate for someone from our neigboring Canada, which has already legalized SSM, to testify of her experiences being raised by a gay father—and also as to losses of free speech (and worship) rights which have already occurred in Canada since the legalization of SSM.
Dawn Stefanowicz is an unselfish, courageous woman who went through some horrific childhood and adolescent experiences because of her gay father’s depraved predilections (which he exposed Dawn to).
Do Ann Stanback and other lobbyists for the gay agenda receive compensation for their time and expenses? I’m SURE they do.
Thank you for the kind comments. Is it any wonder children in homosexual households are silenced while they are growing up? Can you see how we are threatened if we don’t tow the party line? If a few of these rude comments were against ‘Becca’ I wonder who would be the first to file a law suit?
Please take time to read other adult children’s stories http://www.dawnstefanowicz.com/ourstories.php .
Also see, Marriage Rights for Homosexual Couples: Not Best for Children
Critique of AAP Special Report
http://www.acpeds.org/index.cgi?CONTEXT=cat&cat=10041
Here is the truth about same-sex parenting studies – A letter to the editor of the American Academy of Pediatrics from the American College of Pediatricians as follows:
PEDIATRICS Vol. 118 No. 5 November 2006, pp. 2261b-2264 (doi:10.1542/peds.2006-2310) This Article
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children: In Reply
Den A. Trumbull, MD
Pediatric Healthcare
Montgomery, AL 36106
Joseph R. Zanga, MD, FAAP
Brody School of Medicine
Greenville, NC 27834
Leah M. Willson, MD, FAAP
Hutchinson Medical Center
Hutchinson, MN 55350-5000
Vicki Tucci, Esq
Executive Director
American College of Pediatricians
Lantana, FL 33465-3532
To the Editor.—
With its release of the July Pediatrics article “Effects of Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children,” the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) officially endorses and advocates for the elevation of civil unions and domestic partnerships to the same legal status of traditional, heterosexual marriage in America.1 The AAP defends this unprecedented move with underwhelming demographics and general statements of benefits for children in these settings. We find this position untenable and, if implemented, detrimental to children and the family at large.
The recent AAP article presents the demographics of homosexual households as compelling evidence for changing federal marriage law. Citing the 2000 US Census and without revealing percentage figures, the authors note a significant increase in the absolute number of same-sex households compared with the 1990 census. However, in a technical note the Census Bureau urged caution in this comparison stating that “[d]ata on unmarried partners from the 1990 census (which were based on data from the sample form) are not comparable with data from Census 2000 because of changes in the editing procedures.”2(p1, footnote 2) Furthermore, the Census Bureau noted that this census count could be an overestimate given the low occurrence of homosexual households in the population.3
Actually, homosexual households comprised
I gather that, matt. I’ve been noticing lately that there seems to be a little job reward loop for the foot soldiers of the right.
Dawn seems to be doing quite well for herself; her website is a marvel of self-promotion and marketing. She only gives her prices on request though.
There should be some way to limit testimony at state hearings to actual residents of the state.
So Dawn. What were you paid to come to Connecticut and testify?
I don’t know why people with crummy parents think their experience gives them the right to go around taking it out on other people.
Perhaps, Dawn, you have relevant testimony to offer about gay adoption, but why you think your personal history is germane to a discussion of gay marriage (even if it were accompanied by evidence showing poor parenting by gay parents to be statistically prevalent) is beyond me. It’d be like me testifying against a farm subsidy because my sister once choked on some corn. It’s really, truly, wildly irrelevant.
And the question from above remains unanswered — were you paid for your testimony? Who paid for your travel expenses and lodging?
Anyone who thinks it’s our side that’s rolling in money needs to scroll down to my April 3rd post titled “Java Puffs LMF Fundraiser Again.” As usual, lefty spin requires ignorance of the public record.
Redirection. The left can’t argue on the merits of the message, so they look for any way to discredit the messenger. Typical.
Redirection indeed. The POINT is not who is “rolling in money” and at no point was that mentioned. Don’t try to change the subject.
The POINT is that FIC is paying non-residents and non-citizens to come to Connecticut to testify before the Connecticut legislature.
So far as I know, LMF is not paying out-of-state and out-of-country speakers to testify at Connecticut hearings.
As for the “merits” of the discussion, after looking at the website of the “American College of Pediatricians” and noting that the ACP was formed in 2002 for the sole purpose of disseminating right wing religious information regarding marriage and contraception, and that it is NOT a world-wide respected physician’s group like the American Academy of Pediatricians… well, there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of merit to argue.
As for Dawn, aside from her being a paid shill, her story boils down to the fact that she had an awful father. Being an awful parent isn’t the sole province of homosexuals. We could certainly flood the debate with thousands of examples of heterosexual fathers (and mothers) who beat and rape and pimp out and murder their children.
If we’re going to use idea of “merits,” we should discuss banning heterosexual marriage too. For that matter, we can discuss the pedophilia of priests and talk about banning the priesthood in Connecticut because it’s bad for children.
As for Maggie Gallagher, your other paid shill — what credibility should anyone give a woman who has turned “marriage” into a money-maker? Remember “journalist” Maggie who took tens of thousands of dollars from the Bush administration to promote W’s marriage initiative — but neglected to tell anyone she was doing paid promotion rather than journalism? Even Michelle Malkin said Gallagher had gone way over the line and had no credibility any longer. When Malkin trashes you, you’ve been trashed.
If the issue at hand were child abuse, I’d love to see statistics of gay adoptive parents vs. straight / birth parents on how they treat children. However, Dawn’s experience is irrelevant to a debate on marriage, as being married does not automatically qualify couples for adoption (perhaps the Catholic charities we hear so much about here could explain the process of qualifying adoptive parents, but it would put the conversation further afield.)
The fact is, there’s no public interest to “protect” in the matter of extending marriage rights to gay couples. It’s interesting that you claim “redirection,” since you drag fitness as parents, polygamy, and even dolphins into your debate, since it just winds up emphasizing that you have no argument against the central assertion being debated, which is this:
Nobody is harmed by allowing gay couples to marry, and there is no legitimate interest served by withholding a civil right from individuals based on their sexual orientation.
You’ve got nothing but redirection on that, friend.
Chele: “The POINT is not who is “rolling in money” and at no point was that mentioned.”
So Matt writes “It’s a right-wing welfare program of sorts, shuffling supposed “ringers” from state lege to state lege. I hear if you work in the conservative machine you can land a job in all sorts of fun places, diocese offices, GOP campaign jobs, etc etc.” and Chele responds “I gather that, matt. I’ve been noticing lately that there seems to be a little job reward loop for the foot soldiers of the right” but you guys aren’t implying anything about FIC’s material circumstances? Hiliarious!
If you really want to know who paid for what you should ask your buddy, the “drinking liberally” sleuth. I understand he’s hot on the trail of FIC’s shadowy connections to the Heritage Foundation and Haliburton. LOL! 🙂
Q-Tips. Maybe that’s the answer. I can only assume that Matt is being honest in his belief that we “have no argument against the central assertion being debated”, so maybe he really hasn’t heard the repeated arguments on this blog, the public hearing and elsewhere. I am tempted to bullet out a few to try to bring you up to speed, Matt – but, really, what’s the point?
LETTER OF APOLOGY TO THE WORLD
April 11, 2007
To the world’s leaders and people,
We, the people of Canada who support marriage solely as the union of a man and a woman, apologize to the people of the world for harm done through Canada’s legalization of homosexual marriage.
We are grieved and troubled as we consider the impact this is having in weakening the fundamental institution of marriage in countries and cultures around the world. We understand that because Canada does not impose citizenship or residency requirements in order for same-sex individuals to be “married” here, couples are coming to Canada to seek legal sanction for their homosexual relationships with the intent of returning to their own countries to challenge those countries’ legal definition of marriage.
We understand that Canada is seen by people around the world as a country in which public policy is developed carefully and judiciously. It would, therefore, be a natural assumption that in legalizing homosexual marriage our government and courts thoroughly considered the implications of this action through proper and extensive study of social sciences and facts. But it is essential that the people of the world understand that this was not the case. Our government and courts only considered adult “rights.” Among other things, the impact on children’s rights, children’s education, parental rights, religious rights, adoption, the economy and family law were never fully considered. Changes were thrust upon us by court actions followed by a vote that did not allow for a free vote of every member of our federal parliament.
Our warning to you, the people of the world, is to learn from our mistakes and avoid repeating them in your own countries.
Forewarned should be forearmed.
Signed,
Canada Family Action Coalition
REAL Women of Canada
United Families Canada
British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life
Alberta REAL Women
Christian Heritage Party of Canada
Third Watch Ministries
United Mothers, Fathers & Friends
Sault Ste. Marie – CFAC
Dawn Stefanowicz – Author
MY Canada Association
Father’s Resting Place
Quotation Errors in AAP Report
A significant portion of the July 2006 Special Report of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is not original work. In February 2002, the AAP released a policy statement, titled “Coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents,” and published in Pediatrics*. This policy, which advocates for homosexual adoption and parenting, was supported by an accompanying Technical Report. An analysis by Dr. Sharon Quick** revealed that over half of the references in this Technical Report were inaccurately quoted. These errors were compounded when large portions from the 2002 Technical Report were copied into the section of the July 2006 Special Report addressing psychosocial characteristics of same-sex parenting; some of the same quotation errors were replicated. In addition, a lack of attention to the quality of studies reviewed in this Special Report is apparent.
Dr. Quick compiled her analysis exposing these flaws in a commentary, titled “Replication of Quotation Errors,” and submitted it to Pediatrics for posting in the Post-Publication Peer Review (P3R) section of the Pediatrics website. It was initially accepted and posted on November 10, but when Dr. Quick noticed an error in a website address in the endnotes she asked that it be replaced by a corrected version. Since its removal, Pediatrics has refused to repost the commentary. To read Dr. Quick’s analysis, click on the title below for an Adobe PDF copy.
Please see this link for the full article:
http://www.acpeds.org/fastmedia/pdf/ErrorsAAP/media/P3RPediatricsNov20066ACPbio.pdf?id=82&type=f&stion=Bocca&slow=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2eacpeds%2eorg%2findex%2ecgi%2fpdf%2fErrorsAAP%2fmedia%2fP3RPediatricsNov20066ACPbio%2epdf%3fBISKIT=3971768985%26CONTEXT=show_media%26id=82%26type=f%26pdf%2fErrorsAAP%2fmedia%2fP3RPediatricsNov20066ACPbio%2epdf&file=P3RPediatricsNov20066ACPbio.pdf
Once again, Peter: Regardless of your bottom line, which I don’t care about, how much did you pay your outside agitators to come to CT to testify?
Why can’t you find people who live here to share their experiences/expertise — and who are willing to do it because it is RIGHT, not because it’s their job?
This is the new comment # 19. The previous one was deleted because of name-calling. My dear friends on the cultural left, I understand your rage over our success at the public hearing and I’ve allowed all sorts of clever and not-so-clever insults on this blog to help you work out your issues. But we draw the line at flat-out name-calling. Try to be better than that. Thanks.
Success? Please tell us what you think was successful about the testimony you presented?
And why do you refuse to answer my questions about whether or not you paid Dawn Stefanowicz, and if you did, why you felt it necessary to go outside the United States to find someone to testify on your behalf.
Did you pay Maggie Gallagher to testify for you? If so, why?
Chele,
Just because you have opinions (which you often express most uncivilly here) and share them with us, whether or not we are interested–does that mean we have the right to know your income, and how you spend the rest of your time (when you are not blogging here)? No?
Then I suggest you quit demanding personal information, income and otherwise, of those who testified at a “public” hearing. I hope I can say this without being a name-caller, but Chele, your posts are thoroughly obnoxious most of the time. I hope that you are not the same in person.
So the answer is “yes, we paid her off”? Or not?
FICers are obviously very touchy about whether or not they’re paying people to testify. Understandably so.
And Trish, you strike me as a most unpleasant and intellectually vapid woman.
I didn’t ask for anyone’s income; I asked whether FIC paid outside agitators to come to Connecticut and testify. As a taxpaying citizen of the state, I have a certain amount of interest in who is coming in to my home state to influence our laws…. and why they’re doing it.
The money doesn’t seem to have been very “successfully” spent, in any event.
Chele,
Either it is all much to do about nothing, or you don’t want Dawn or Maggie to be heard, because they make too much sense. Seems the latter.
F.A. Malkin got it right. Chele, Matt and other trolls here are trying to distract other “taxpaying citizen[s] of the state” from noticing the fact that hundreds of people FROM Connecticut took time off WITHOUT PAY (or using their precious vacation time) to make their voices heard, and/or be a visible witness against redefining “marriage,” in Hartford. They did this not only on March 26th, but also in Feb. 2007 on a weekday, at hearings in 2005, and other times in between.
These same people who give of their own time to stand up for what they believe in, also donate to the cause of defending society’s most basic foundation unit, which is traditional marriage and family.
Chele, if you want disclosure of FIC’s expenditures, please explain why we should not be entitled to disclosure of LMF’s expenditures, and a list of their donors, ESPECIALLY their out of state donors.
Tricia-
You don’t think the amount paid to those lobbying our legislators should be disclosed?
An FIC donor list would be fun to see, but that’s not at issue. The question isn’t whether FIC is being paid by out of state people, but whether (and how much) they’re paying “astroturf” lobbyists to travel to Connecticut in an attempt to influence our laws.
Now Trish. How on earth am I distracting anyone from noticing that a lot of people were in Hartford on various occasions in the past, hoping to affect the outcome of the judiciary and other committees’ votes? Seeing as those occasions happened in the past, I think anyone who was going to notice who was in Hartford on those past occasions already did notice — and anything I say here isn’t going to change that. This is a blog, not a time machine.
I have absolutely no problem with citizens from Connecticut going to Hartford to make their voices heard. More people should do it more often.
I do have a problem with people who make their living as professional rabble-rousers being paid to come in from out of the state or out of the country to influence our legislative process.
And I at no time said I want a listing of FIC’s expenditures. I asked a simple question: Did FIC pay Dawn and Maggie to testify?
What part of that can’t you understand, Trish?? Is there any reason you accuse me of things I haven’t said?
In any event, it seems that the thinking people on the Judiciary Committee weren’t all that impressed with Dawn and Maggie. (Maybe they’re all aware of Maggie’s ethical problems.)
Chele,
Speaking of “ethical problems,” and “the Judiciary Committee,” how “ethical” is it for Michael Lawlor to have maneuvered himself into the co-chair position while being “in the closet” about his homosexuality?
To have BOTH Judiciary co-chair positions occupied by gay men in a state where tremendous lobbying pressure by LMF and probably millions of HRC, GLAD etc. donations are flowing in from
“out of the state or out of the country to influence our legislative process” strikes me as appallingly unethical.
Don’t tell me that this is all coincidence. It’s far more likely part of a well-orchestrated, insidious strategy in place for over a decade.