In what was a foregone conclusion–given the makeup of the Committee–the Judiciary Committee voted in favor of the same-sex “marriage” bill by 27-15.

Pro-same sex “marriage” co-chairmen Mike Lawlor and Andrew McDonald surprised the public by not putting the bill on today’s agenda until late last night. Even some major media outlets were kept in the dark as to when the vote would be and had to find out from FIC this morning.

What a travesty that the Judiciary Committee chairmen–who claim to be on the side of civil rights–would not provide the public at least 24 hours notice regarding today’s agenda. Pro-family citizens must do all we can to stop this undemocratic assault on marriage!

In the days ahead we will post more information on what happened in today’s hearing and what you can do next to stop this reckless effort to redefine our most precious social institution.

34 Responses to “Same-Sex “Marriage” Bill Passes Judiciary Committee”

  1. on 12 Apr 2007 at 3:12 pmDave

    And equally unsuprising (but nevertheless disappointing) was the 13-28 vote that rejected T.R. Rowe’s amendment, which would have enabled the people to speak directly on the question of SSM via referendum.

    It seems that we just have to keep pressing forward on the constitutional amendment process, in order to enable the people to decide on this issue.

  2. on 12 Apr 2007 at 4:02 pmmatt

    In the days ahead we will post more information on what happened in today’s hearing and what you can do next to stop this reckless effort to redefine our most precious social institution.

  3. on 13 Apr 2007 at 4:31 amModernFemme

    Please don’t post personal portraits, matt. Why FIC lets “trolls” onto it’s blog, I will never understand.

  4. on 13 Apr 2007 at 7:20 amPaul

    The big problem here, is that once you tear down the traditional Judeo-Christian institution of marriage then you have opened up the pandora’s box of anything goes Hedonism. For the last two thousand years the family has been built upon the lifelong commitment of one man and one women. This Biblical institution was instituted by God and supported by government for the good of mankind, to keep the human race from some type of sexual free-for-all. Just as an open fire needs to be contained in your fireplace or else you would burn your house down. If the government of Connecticut chooses to falsely redefine Homosexual relationships as a “marriage” then logically and truthfully any form of sexual relationship with any number of people or animals can be called a “family” or a “marriage”. If two men or women can “marry” then why not three men, or three men and three women, or all the members of a Gay bar? Following that logic why couldn’t a man , his sister and a goat all get “married”. I am not saying this as a joke but to simply point out where this is headed and the obvious logical pathway of what the homosexual marriage advocates are pushing for. If you think depression, suicide and drug use are high now, this is only the indicator of what is going to happen if the “eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die” crowd has their way in this country.

  5. on 13 Apr 2007 at 9:13 amGabe

    Help! Paul pushed me down the slippery slope!

  6. on 13 Apr 2007 at 9:38 amopal

    When will it stop…will they want to go the path of England next and ban Catholic and Christian teaching as hate speech? When will the average population of Connecticut wake up and see the truth? 17 years ago while I was in school at Indiana University (home of the second largest population of gay men at that time) I was at a meeting in GBLT student union. And there were postings on the wall for the wish list-gay marriage, and complete acceptance of homosexual behaviour. At the time all my friends were gay and I didn’t care but I thought the list was hysterical. Now I regret not getting a copy. Ultimately, the plan was to enshrine speaking out at all against homosexuality as hate speech punishable by jail time in a federal prison…guess we are not so far from that point in time….Lord forgive me for any part I had in bringing this day closer…


  7. on 13 Apr 2007 at 10:36 amConcernedMom

    Paul couldn’t have said better! Even Webster’s definition states what marriage is: c: the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family. My voice may not be loud but I can pray…pray that people will come to their senses.

  8. on 13 Apr 2007 at 12:03 pmkevin

    Marriage as we know it has nothing to do with religion. You can be wed in a church, and a church can independently decide to marry whomever it pleases, but marriage is an institution of the state. You need a licence to get married, just like a driver’s license or a hunting license or a library card. Marriage is social contract with economic benefits. Religion has no place in a debate such as gay marriage. In fact, it shouldn’t even be called “gay marriage.” It should just be marriage for everyone. The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution provides equal protection under the law for all US citizens, gay or not. To restrict any state controlled institution from someone who is gay is a clear violation of civil rights. If your religion, your mosque or temple or congregation, decides it’s not going to perform weddings for same sex couples, that’s your choice. But keep religion out of the civil rights of protected US citizens.

    All this rhetoric about a slippery slope is nonsense. There are already laws against polygamy, bestiality and relationships with minors. Those will not be overturned, nor is anyone in the gay community seeking this. Your assertions reveal to me an irrational fear and misunderstanding of same sex couples. I hate to break it to you, but same sex couples have existed, monogamously and otherwise, just like heterosexual couples for thousands of years.

    50 years from now the struggle for full civil protection for the gay community will be seen just as Jim Crow is seen today – as a national embarrassment. Which side of history do you want to be on? The liberators or the segregationists?

  9. on 13 Apr 2007 at 1:47 pmSteve

    50 years from now the struggle for full civil protection for the gay community will be seen just as Jim Crow is seen today – as a national embarrassment. Which side of history do you want to be on? The liberators or the segregationists?

    Rather, 50 years from now homosexual marriage will be viewed as worse than the sexual revolution, no-fault divorce and the disentigration of the family since the 60’s is viewed today. The dope smokin’, free lovin’ hippies were wrong then, and you’re just as wrong now.

  10. on 13 Apr 2007 at 1:58 pmPaul

    I have to disagree with Kevin, that religion has nothing to do with marriage. The U.S. Constitution and this country was founded on Judeo/Christian Biblical principles, and the Ten Commandments. If some one was not sure of this They only have to read the”Federalist Papers” which were written by the authors and sent to the States to sell them on the Constitution. At the time of it’s writting all forms of Homosexuality were illegal in every civilized country in the world. Indeed in most countries it was a capital offence. The 14th amanedment has NOTHING to do with homosexuality. It is illogical to think that the authors of the constitution were trying to protect behavior that was illegal and repugnant to them. You can not remove God from the Government and law or you will only have moral anarchy. (or Nazi Germany or Stalins Russia). This argument that says that Homosexuality is the same as race is totaly false and unscientific. Homosexual behavior is a choice. There is no “Gay” gene and nobody is born “Gay”. Human biology shows us that genetically there are males and females. This hold true in the animal world as well. There are no Gay animals. If you were to look across Conecticut right now you would see male wild turkeys strutting to attract the female hens inorder to mate with them and make polts. The Gobblers are trying to attract other gobblers! The argument that the affects of SSM are “no big deal” is simply not true. I for one do not want children in the public schools taught that sodomy is a fine lifestyle choice.
    If anyone doubts what the goals of homosexuals are they neeed only look up “The Gay Manifesto”. I believe it starts by saying “WE will sodomize your sons”! 50 years from now different races will still exist and sodomy will still be a unnatural sin.
    In 1986 supreme Court Justice Burgher wrote: “…the proscriptions against sodomy have very ‘ancient roots.’ Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeao-Christian moral and ethical standards. Homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law….During the English Reformation when powers of the ecclesiastical courts were transferred to the King’s Courts, the first English statute criminalizing sodomy was passed. Blackstone described ‘the infamous crime against nature’ as an offense of ‘deeper malignity’ than rape, a heinous act ‘the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature,’ and ‘a crime not fit to be named.” …To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.”

  11. on 13 Apr 2007 at 5:21 pmDave

    Let’s not get off track with the question of “gay animals”. In fact there are documented cases of homosexuality evident within quite a number of species in the animal kingdom. But it’s irrelevant. Some animals also eat their young. Does that mean we should consider cannibalism acceptable? Of course not.

    Whether or not homosexuality occurs naturally (the born vs. learned debate) is also irrelevant. The point is that the behavior is not normative within society, and it is not ordered towards the furtherance of the species.

    I agree with your contention that homosexual behavior is a choice, in the same way that heterosexual behavior is a choice. The underlying tendency may be innate, but the outward expression through action is not.

    Some people are born with a natural inclination / vulnerability towards becoming an alcoholic, or becoming addicted to drugs. Does that mean we should redefine social norms to accomodate their unhealthy behaviors? By no means.

    Man has the unique ability to reason and make value judgements about his behavior. This ability for introspection sets us apart from other creatures. We have conscience, the understanding of right and wrong. And it is this characteristic that ought to drive our thinking in social policy.

  12. on 13 Apr 2007 at 5:30 pmkevin

    One of the things the founders feared most was the imposition of the Church of England on American affairs. Plus comparing modern day America to colonial America does not really support your argument. Only rich, property owning men could vote. Women were basically chattel for their husbands (who were legally subject to any kind of physical or sexual treatment at the hands of their husbands, remember the rule of thumb?), and this supposed “sacred” institution of marriage of which you speak was largely pre-arranged by parents who wanted to merge their economic might. Let’s not forget that slavery was still a legally sanctioned driving force of the early American economy, in the south AND the north.

    As for the lack of precedent for homosexual relationships, it was a symbol of status and was quite common in ancient Greece. And the contributions of that society and culture still resonate in our society – in particular the liberal democratic notion that the rights of individuals matter in a civil society.

    As for sodomy laws, technically, oral sex is sodomy as well. But few people seem that concerned about it. What two consenting adults do in privacy is no business of the government’s.

    The Gay Manifesto was part of early gay liberation movements, and many writers of that time chose to use abrupt techniques and explicit in-your-face writing such as the quote above as a way to be confrontational.

    The bottom line is that you are free to have your bigotry, and your hatred toward homosexuals. But those personal feelings should not be the basis of policy. Unless you are prepared to de-secularize marriage altogether or make gay people non-citizens (maybe we can have a gay guest worker program!), then save the anti-gay marriage arguments for your congregations.

  13. on 13 Apr 2007 at 7:10 pmmatt


    Is it the Christian Conservative position that our government should make homosexuality punishable by death? Is that your ideal set of laws?

    Doesn’t seem very Christian to me.

  14. on 13 Apr 2007 at 8:06 pmchele

    I wonder if Paul is going to have to disappear like Bryce did.

  15. on 13 Apr 2007 at 8:45 pmGabe

    Paul – re: the Burger quote above –

    That case was overturned and is, along with that quote, no longer good law.

  16. on 13 Apr 2007 at 10:22 pmMiddletown Pete

    The link below is the “Tally Sheet” for the 27 to15 Judiciary Committee vote of April 12th. (It is the roll call.)

  17. on 13 Apr 2007 at 10:47 pmPaul

    I was only pointing out the historical facts that show the fallacy of using the 14th amendment as an argument for homosexual behavior. Having moral standards does not make one a bigot nor do I hate any one. Unfortunately anyone who takes a stand against the radical homosexual agenda is immediately called a “bigot” and a “hater”. This is the next step in the agenda to try and silence all opposition. Look what is happening in Canada and England. The behavior stands on it’s own. As to the question of the order of nature, the fact is there are no homosexual animals, this is another myth propagated by homosexual extremists. I see no one can answer Chief Justice Burgers arguments. We do not live in ancient Greece but in a country founded by Christians
    and based upon Biblical principles. While Greece and Rome left us many good things they both self distructed due to moral corruption, hardly a good role to follow. “The Gay Manifesto” says what it says. I would advise any one interested to look it up and see what the plan is. To say ” oh, it was only deliberaltely confrontational” is bogus. Personally I feel that marriage was instituted by God, to be between a man and a women as a lifetime commitment with the view toward procreating children. Once you say you can redifine marriage to suit “new ideas” you can logically make it anything you want to. That seems like a logical inference to me.

  18. on 13 Apr 2007 at 10:49 pmMiddletown Pete

    I believe that this link will get you a pdf version of the Committee vote I mentioned above (so you can download it).

  19. on 13 Apr 2007 at 10:54 pmTricia


    You are totally wrong about at least one point in your “All this rhetoric about a slippery slope is nonsense. There are already laws against polygamy, bestiality and relationships with minors. Those will not be overturned, nor is anyone in the gay community seeking this.”

    I guess you have not read the “Beyond Marriage Manifesto” which was published last July, and signed by over 300 signatories—many of them “in the gay community.” You can read it at I have not heard of many of the signatories other than Gloria Steinem, but you will probably recognize many of them, and be somewhat enlightened regarding the TRUE nature of this “slippery slope.”

    This document specifically demands, among other things, all the rights given to married couples for all sorts of relationships, including those with “more than two conjugal partners,” and “regardless of citizenship status.”

  20. on 14 Apr 2007 at 6:54 amDave


    You are of course correct in pointing out that the Bowers v. Hardwick decision was overturned by Lawrence v. Texas. So to save you the trouble of answering the claim “I see no one can answer Chief Justice Burgers arguments” … they have already been answered by Justices Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer.

    However the real problem here is that we are no longer considering just the private actions of consenting adults, but the larger impact to society as a whole – what we teach our children, and what social values we impart by example to the next generation. Far beyond the privacy of one’s bedroom, marriage is a public act with broad reaching consequences. These questions require an entirely separate judicial and legal consideration. Lawrence v. Texas sets the stage, but it does not automatically bring us to same-sex marriage.

    The decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are only as good as the 9 men and women in robes. And the court has proven historically that it is both capable of errors in judgment, and empowered to correct such past errors. You might console yourself in thinking that a particular decision – such as Rowe v. Wade – is beyond the reach of a future court’s corrective power, but it really all depends upon the political landscape that unfolds with the passage of time. In truth, judicial precedent only has whatever power that the Justices choose to acknowledge. That’s the beauty of being the “court of last resort”.

  21. on 14 Apr 2007 at 7:34 amDave


    Normally I try to avoid the religious angle of this debate, but since you asked about the Christian position on punishment for homosexuality, let me briefly quote what Jesus said:

    – He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone (John 8:7)
    – Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. (John 8:11)
    – Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment (John 7:24)
    – In the same way you judge others, you will be judged (Matthew 7:2)

    Nobody here is claiming that homosexuality is deserving of capital punishment, any more than we should consider that penalty appropriate for adultery, or any other immoral acts that the Levitical Code prohibits. Nevertheless, even though we have been saved from such condemnation through grace – unmerited favor, a forgiveness that we did not deserve – we are still guilty of the wrongdoing that we bring about. We ought not to enshrine such behavior as righteous, or to uphold it as worthy of a privileged status.

    God’s plan for humanity was made plain from Creation:

    So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.” (Genesis 1:27-28)

    Regardless of your personal religious beliefs, this nature of man is evident to all in human biology, and as a species our existence depends upon the procreative aspect that is made possible only through the union of male and female elements. And even while we as a society may choose to leave the private exercise of one’s sexual orientation as a matter to be reconciled with your own conscience, without legal restraint, it is a completely different thing to ask for such behavior to be elevated to a privileged status as is being done with the notion of SSM.

    Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. (Hebrews 13:4)

  22. on 16 Apr 2007 at 12:07 amCaroline

    Hate to break it to you Paul but that Burger court opinion you quote from 1986 (Bowers v. Hardwick) was overturned by the Rehnquist court a few years back, and only stood for about 17 years, which is not long at all given how long challenges to SC decisions take to wend their way up the line. Forgot to add that little detail, huh?

  23. on 16 Apr 2007 at 12:11 amCaroline

    Also, Paul, your omission of the fact that Bowers was overturned is why I (and many others) do not trust the statistics put forth by anti-equality advocates like yourself. This kind of half-truth really suggests that folks like yourself are intellectually dishonest and perhaps even deliberately deceptive.

  24. on 16 Apr 2007 at 12:14 amCaroline

    To Gabe – Bowers was NEVER good law, even when it stood.

  25. on 16 Apr 2007 at 12:22 amCaroline


    What do you mean there are no homosexual animals? My family raised doves when I was growing up and we absolutely had a bonded pair of males who went through the courtship and mating rituals with each other, not the female birds. They would lure the females to their nest box, the females would lay eggs in their nest, then the two boys would incubate, hatch, feed, and raise the babies. I learned very early on in life that this is a normal variation in nature. You can quote all the statistics you want, but I saw it with my own eyes.

  26. on 16 Apr 2007 at 6:29 amPaul

    Caroline, obviously Burger’s discion was overturned, I thought that was obvious. That doesn’t negate his argument as being a good one. I wasn’t trying to deceive anyone. We are not just looking at what the law of the land is but what is morally right. For the majority of the history of western civ. things like abortion and homosexuality were outlawed, a recent change in law doesn’t change morality and when such basic laws are changed we have to ask ourselves what the real reason pushing the change is. I think what you have here is that two groups have two completely different “world views”.
    As to your gay doves story two doves confused by some anamoly of instinct doesn’t prove gay animals it’s just an oddity. Also they can’t reproduce which doesn’t help them be among the “survival of the fittest group”. The whole animal kingdom is driven by opposite sex mating rituals. That is deep in nature. For example in the fall during the “rut” the bucks are seeking to mate with the does not other bucks. Turkeys, finches, squirrels you name it. They are not an example for humans in a lot of ways but I was just trying to show that deep in nature is the difference of the sexes. Obviosly this applies to the genetic coding in every persons dna.
    For me it still comes down to this; you cannot redefine something as basic as marriage for once you start doing that you can redefine it anyway you want because you are not using anything but the latest fad ( in this case SSM) as your guide. Also seeing how the radical homosexual people are the next step is to teach the gay agenda in the public schools, label anyone who disagrees as a “bigot and a hater” and then have them prosecuted under some new “hate law”. SO I am firmly against the whole idea.

  27. on 16 Apr 2007 at 8:48 ammatt

    Caroline, obviously Burger’s discion was overturned, I thought that was obvious. That doesn’t negate his argument as being a good one.

    It’s not obvious if you don’t mention it.

    And of course it negates his argument, since we’re talking about the law. You can’t use an overturned ruling as precedent.

  28. on 16 Apr 2007 at 10:00 amPaul

    I guess I assumed that it was common knowledge that there are no longer anti-sodomy laws in the U.S. I was simply showing the moral argument, that a respected intillectual person ( Supreme Court Judge TOO !) used only 20 short years ago. His thoughts on the subject are still valid arguments for people to consider in this issue. He spoke of “natural law”, civilization etc…. The Apostle Paul has some good arguments against sexual immorality also. Are they the law of the land? No, however people should consider them as they decide their personal laws of living and deciding on larger social issues. The laws of the land are important , however, sometimes like Hebrew National Hot Dog CO. we have to answer to an even higher authority. Check out the heading on the top of this page, it says “Defending , Faith, Family, Freedom”. What if the courts rulings are morally wrong ? There are many things in this country that might be legal because of change in the law, but that doesn’t make them right or the “end of the story”.

  29. on 16 Apr 2007 at 10:12 amDave

    How interesting that Caroline emphasizes the perspective that Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) only stood as precedent for 17 years, because it was overturned by Lawrence v. Texas (2003). Another way of looking at these same facts is that nowhere during the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, from 1789 to 2003, did there previously exist any recognition for the specific rights that were so recently discovered by 6 of the 9 men (and women) in robes. That’s 214 years, folks – more than 98% of the court’s history would not so conveniently reconcile with the gay agenda.

    Let’s also keep in mind from whence all of this originally flows … the alleged right to privacy that was discovered, not through being written into the Constitution, but through Justice Douglas’ creative reasoning based upon “penumbras, formed by emanations” back in 1965.

    None of this will matter if the court returns to strict constructionist interpretation. Where past courts have erred, new courts can correct to remedy those mistakes. All it takes is the right people on the bench.

  30. on 16 Apr 2007 at 3:21 pmTricia


    Millions of Americans are praying that what you have said: “Where past courts have erred, new courts can correct to remedy those mistakes. All it takes is the right people on the bench.”–will be fulfilled.

  31. on 16 Apr 2007 at 3:47 pmTricia


    Re your (#26) comment that “seeing how the radical homosexual people are the next step is to teach the gay agenda in the public schools, label anyone who disagrees as a “bigot and a hater” and then have them prosecuted under some new “hate law”. SO I am firmly against the whole idea.”

    I totally agree. Did you happen to see the news item a couple of weeks ago (was in the CT Post) about (raciallly motivated) hate speech charges being brought against teenagers (I think from Stamford) for leaving threatening voicemails for a teenage girl?

    Apparently Connecticut law stipulates that such a crime is a FELONY, and allows for punishment of up to 5 years in Prison, and a fine of up to $5,000. Can you believe it? I was shocked!

    Granted, no such threats should be condoned or overlooked, but the punishment and label of “Felony” seem more than a little disproportionate to me. After all, drunk drivers often commit vehicular homicide and spend less than 5 years in prison.

    With such “hate speech” laws already on the books in Connecticut, if SSM marriage is legalized, it might not even take another new law to bring about prosecutions against anyone the gay activists want to accuse of ‘looking at them cross-eyed.’

    Also, people in Massachusetts and Maryland have been fired from jobs for simply signing a Marriage Protection Constitutional Amendment petition, or stating a belief in the Bible (and that according to it homosexual BEHAVIOR is deviant).

  32. on 16 Apr 2007 at 7:04 pmPaul

    Tricia, yes I did see that in the news. I think you will continue to see radical homosexuals will not tolerate dissent but have to resort to name calling and shouting people down. Did you see the recent medical evidence from Scandinavia that shows that “married” homosexuals have a much shorter life expectancy then heterosexual married couples ? As a matter of fact their life expectancy is shorter then smokers. Also the life expectancy of Homosexual men is amazingly short due to their lifestyle? You would think that the public schools would be concerned about the health issues in order to warn the children about unhealthy lifestyle choices.

  33. on 16 Apr 2007 at 7:25 pmGabe

    Paul –

    In fairness, you didn’t present the quote with the context of a “respected intillectual person ( Supreme Court Judge TOO !)”, you presented it with the context of “In 1986 supreme Court Justice Burgher wrote:”. Also, without the context that the decision was overturned, or even the name of the case in which the quote appeared. Don’t act so surprised that no one knew that you didn’t mean that the quote identified as by the former Chief Justice of the SCOTUS was the law of the land.

    Dave –

    However the real problem here is that we are no longer considering just the private actions of consenting adults, but the larger impact to society as a whole – what we teach our children, and what social values we impart by example to the next generation.

    A very good reason to keep both Bowers and Lawrence in their proper context – obviously there isn’t a straight line between Lawrence and Gay Marriage, but better legal scholars than I will draw one between Romer v. Evans, Loving v. Virginia, Lawrence, and Gay Marriage and try to make it stick in front of the Supreme Court. Random quotes from opinions in overturned cases presented without context don’t exactly help anyone to marshall their arguments, for or against.

  34. on 16 May 2008 at 10:25 pmF. Flores

    Do sisters qualify as same sex?
    How about brothers can they obtain a same sex marriage?
    Does this open the box for a mother and a daughter?
    How about a father and son?
    What are the limits? We may not like what is in the box we opened. What’s next, multiple wives and husbands? Equal protection under the law! God is coming and he is pissed!

Leave a Reply