Rep-Am Rebukes Roraback

Sen. Andrew Roraback, who voted for same-sex “marriage” in the Judiciary Committee last month, has won an award from a family organization. The Republican-American’s editorial page notes the contradiction:

That Sen. Roraback paid for this award with other people’s money bothers us less than having an organization as worthy and respected as the Connecticut Council of Family Service Agencies single out a supporter of same-sex marriage as its champion of children and families.

Much of the social carnage that its member agencies deal with every day results from the culture’s degradation of marriage. It began with liberalized divorce, and continued with social acceptance of cohabitation and other “family” forms. Homosexuals now seek the right to “marry” to gain the government’s acceptance for their immoral and unnatural relationships, the consequences to children, family and marriage be damned.

Sen. Roraback recently voted in committee for a bill that would permit same-sex marriages. Someone who abets the undermining of civilization’s bedrock institution for the nurturing of children deserves rebuke, not flattery.

55 Responses to “Rep-Am Rebukes Roraback”

  1. on 25 May 2007 at 1:53 pmDave

    First of all, as interesting as debating the bible can be, FIC’s stance upon the issues is not based upon adherence to any specific religion. Its positions are based upon social policy considerations, and upon the right of the people to have a voice in their government. As Thomas Hooker said, “The foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people.” Consequently the points you raise about differences of religious belief are, at best, a sidebar to the main discussion.

    As to my point about having a mentality of “free speech” entitlement, my cautionary remark was meant to advise that while this blog may seem to have an “open door” policy on accepting comments from a multitude of viewpoints, that is a matter of administrative discretion and not a requirement for equal access. In the same sense that you cannot force a newspaper to print your “letter to the editor”, you ought not to expect an unlimited right to speak in opposition while standing upon our turf. Like so many constitutional rights which are interpreted backwards by the Left, this is such an example. The first amendment guarantees a publisher the freedom to print what he deems appropriate, and exclude what he deems inappropriate. It does not entitle you to place demands upon the publisher, or to burden them with a mandate to carry your speech.

    It says somewhere in the Bible that Jesus experienced everything any of us has or will experience in our lives.


    They use the phrase that is somewhere in the Bible stating that everything you need is in the Book.


    I know there’s a passage somewhere in there …

    “Somewhere”. Perhaps you can let us know when you’ve researched it a bit more, and have something specific to say on these claims. It sounds to me like you are paraphrasing based on a fuzzy memory, rather than backing it up with firm evidence.

    The bible does explain (in Hebrews 4:14-15) that Jesus was tempted in every way, as we are, and yet was without sin. It also explains (in Hebrews 2:14-18) the reasons that he shared in our humanity.

    You spoke of Jesus chasing the moneychangers from the temple courts, and cited that as an example of sinful behavior. But you are mistaken, because righteous anger is not a sin. If sin is action contrary to God’s will, can God sin? Yet the bible tells us “God is angry with the wicked every day” (Psalms 7:11)

    Again you falsely claim that we are not to judge. Yet the bible says, “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” (John 7:24)

    You claim that Jesus did not keep all the commandments and laws of the Old Testament, because he did not marry. Yet marriage was not a requirement of God’s law. Perhaps it might have been a tradition of the local culture in His day, but that’s an entirely different matter. I’d invite you to show me where in the Old Testament it requires an adult man to marry. An appeal to the 5th commandment, “Honor thy mother and father”, as the underpinning of your claim is really stretching. Honor (“kabed”) is a wide-ranging verb; no one specific behavior is implied or commanded by this word. You haven’t even shown that His parents asked him to marry. And even so, honoring is about treating others with dignity, respect, and seriousness; it is an over-simplification to suggest that it necessarily means blind obedience.

    About the passage in Matthew 5:17-19, the operative phrase is that the law will remain unchanged “until everything is accomplished”. By which Jesus implies His death, burial, and resurrection. Your claim is that eating pork in modern times ought still to be considered as a violation of the law. But we are no longer under this law. Many of the letters in the New Testament affirm this principle: we are no longer under the law, but under grace. For example, Romans 6:12-14 teaches:

    Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.

    Moreover, the ceremonial laws pertaining to foods were specifically discussed in Jesus’ teachings (Mark 7:1-23; Matthew 15:1-20) and in the visions from God to the apostle Peter (Acts 10:9-23).

    Regarding the “fifty shekels for rape” passage (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), see also Exodus 22:16-17. Essentially by law the minimum bride-price (“mohar” in Hebrew), or what we might call a dowry, was fifty shekels. You so easily claim that it’s the same as $50 US, when in reality the sum of fifty shekels was exceedingly large – equivalent to nearly an entire year’s wages. And let’s not forget that the man who seduced the un-betrothed woman was still required to marry her, never to divorce her, and to support her for the rest of her life. But again this is a Hebraic (pre-resurrection) law. We are held to a higher standard, as explained by Jesus in Matthew 5:27-28.

    This posting is already long enough without attempting to deal with your claims on the bible and slavery, so let me just point you to our earlier discussions on William Wilberforce where we touched upon this very question. See

    And while you’re there, be sure to read about the distinction between the purity code and the ceremonial laws within Mosaic law. If you believe that all of the purity code has been abrogated, then why do we still prohibit marriage between close relatives? And bestiality? Could it be that despite our superficial differences in religious belief, there is a universal understanding spanning across many cultures of certain things being absolutely right and wrong?

    Your claim that only 144,000 people will be saved, presumably based upon Revelation 7:1-8, is yet another example of selective reading. Keep pressing onward to the very next verse and you will find “…a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb” who are also saved. Of course, a reasonable person would also have to admit that the number given here is meant in a figurative rather than a literal sense. After all, Jesus placed no specific numerical limit when he said:

    For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:40)

    Finally, with respect to the non-canonical (e.g. gnostic) texts you are citing, the church doesn’t recognize false teachings, so it doesn’t matter what might be written on a parchment that is dated to the same time period. Anyone can write anything. The vintage of a document does nothing to support it as being authoritative and trustworthy. The early church was plagued by false prophets, much as we continue to be today!

  2. on 26 May 2007 at 5:33 pmPhil

    On at least one point, though, I agree with you. “Leave it up to the voters”. I agree, let the people decide.

    Why not simply let the people decide if they want to get married or not? That’s even more democratic and grass-roots than voting against something. Or don’t you trust individual people to decide what’s in their best interests?

  3. on 31 May 2007 at 6:50 pmadam smith

    Wow, I posted all of that and the only retort you have is that I spelled hypocrite wrong? That’s a powerful response. How licentious of you to point out that one should always first type their reply into word, followed by the correct spelling and grammar. I believe it was Pope who said “To err is human, to forgive divine”, so, forgive me, please, for not having used spell-check. So, now that the English teacher has had her fun for the day, does anyone have a response to my previous post not having to do with spell-check or grammar?

  4. on 05 Jun 2007 at 9:11 amDave


    It sounds like you’re arguing for something much more radical than SSM. As you’ve described it, by letting all people decide for themselves if they are eligible to marry, you’re essentially suggesting that government has no business whatsoever in marriage. And if marriage is just a choice among individuals, without any societal meaning, then we have no basis for objecting to anyone’s individual freedom of choice. For example, what’s magic about the number 2 – nothing. If individual liberty trumps all else, we would have no valid basis for objecting to polygamous marriage. And we would have no valid basis for objecting to group marriage for bisexuals – M/M/F or F/F/M – because as you suggest this is a matter of personal choice and freedom. If someone loves both men and women, who are we to stand in the way of their happiness?

    The reality is that marriage is a societal structure, not just a matter of personal choice. We need to gauge not only the “best interests” of individuals, but also the “best interests” of the whole society. Many things could arguably be viewed as being in the best interest of an individual and yet be completely at odds with society. For example, a counterfeiter believes that creating a vast supply of fake money is in his best interest to support a lifestyle of extravagance and luxury, but that hardly justifies his actions.

  5. on 05 Jun 2007 at 9:11 amDave

    … does anyone have a response to my previous post not having to do with spell-check or grammar?

    Actually I had quite a lot to say in response to your post, if you look back at item 51 above. It’s just that these comments were stuck in the “pending” queue, while the moderator was away on vacation.

Leave a Reply