Is there a pro same-sex “marriage” commentator in Connecticut more confused than Susan Campbell? In her latest diatribe she says the “base argument” against same-sex “marriage” is tradition (a point explicitly refuted in Maggie Gallagher’s testimony before the Judiciary Committee), that pro-family activists “seem wont” to rely on scripture (ignoring several years worth of arguments by FIC based entirely on reason) and that anyone quoting Jesus on homosexuality is “making it up” (can she provide a single example of someone doing that?). And this is just for starters. The main point of her column is to hint that Thomas Hooker–yes, that Thomas Hooker, Puritan founder of Connecticut–would have supported same-sex “marriage.” How one goes from making an argument out of Jesus’ silence on homosexuality to hijacking Thomas Hooker–who very likely never gave a thought to same-sex “marriage”–for the cause is a mystery. Consistency and intellectual coherence has never been a hallmark of our opponents–or of Campbell in particular.

If anyone should be annoyed with Campbell’s columns, it’s pro same-sex “marriage” activists. Here they have an ally with one of the most high-profile gigs in Connecticut journalism–a twice-a-week Courant column. And this is the best she can come up with? (Where’s Carole Bass when they need her?)

Nick Uva does the thankless task of rescuing our state’s founder from Campbell’s slur. But who will rescue our opponents from Susan Campbell?

19 Responses to “Hijacking Connecticut’s Founder”

  1. on 22 May 2007 at 6:12 amSteve

    One of my favorite bloggers’ oft remarks is that whenever reading a piece where the MSM comments on religion, it is necessary to consider the fact the writer is most probably “cognitively challenged” (just to keep things pc) in matters of religion. He says that one must automatically deduct 50 IQ points from the writer. For the CT media, I think he’d need to be a bit more generous.

  2. on 22 May 2007 at 7:08 amAllan

    Forget about homosexuals, what would the Puritans of the early 1600’s have thought and said about Roman Catholics? Burned at the stake as heretics maybe?

    1647-1663 Connecticut executed nine or eleven people for witchcraft – more than all the American colonies collectively before 1692!

  3. on 22 May 2007 at 7:12 amAllan

    What is the Origin of the Crime of “Witchcraft?”

    The crime of witchcraft was included in laws enacted by the parliament of England during Queen Elizabeth I’s reign (1558-1603). Witchcraft and its penalty were thought to be the express law of God as stated in Exodus 22: 18 (“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”), Leviticus 20: 27 (“A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them”), and Deuteronomy 18: 10 (“There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch” (quotes from the Holy Bible, King James Version).

    In each of the New England colonies, witchcraft was a capital crime that involved having some type of relationship with or entertaining Satan. The earliest laws of Connecticut and New Haven colonies, the Blue Laws, make it a capital offense for “any man or woman [to] bee a Witch, that is, hath or consulteth with a familiar spirit, they shall bee put to death. ” Although the witchcraft crimes did not require any harm to result from this relationship or entertainment, in practice there had to be harm that warranted the effort and expense of a formal proceeding. In addition to a formal witchcraft charge, allegations of witchcraft were often the bases for civil suits for slander.

  4. on 22 May 2007 at 7:15 amAllan

  5. on 22 May 2007 at 7:22 amAllan

    As the 1630s wore on, Puritans of various kinds pressed for more reformation in doctrine, worship, and church government to eradicate “idolatrous” and “papist” elements (bishops, liturgy, altars, religious icons) while Charles I’s Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud, imposed those elements ever more strictly. When war broke out in 1642, Puritans of all sorts portrayed England as a new Israel whose people would replicate in some ways the experience of that other chosen people. A much-contested issue concerned the duty of the Christian magistrate toward religion: should he establish the “true” church and root out blasphemy and heresy as Church of England bishops and most Presbyterians thought (see Milton’s poem On the New Forcers of Conscience [NAEL 8, 1.1826–27])? Should he offer wide toleration outside an established church, as some sectaries (and Milton) thought? The most far-reaching defense of complete religious liberty and entire separation of church and state is Roger Williams’s Bloody Tenet of Persecution (1644), which draws in interesting ways on his experiences in America. Milton’s Areopagitica, published the same year (NAEL 8, 1.1816–25), argues the tolerationist case on somewhat different grounds.

  6. on 22 May 2007 at 9:29 amDave

    As fascinating as this discussion may be from a historical perspective on witchcraft in New England, I’m not sure that I see the connection to what we started discussing originally. Are you seriously trying to imply a connection between the Roman Catholic faith and witchcraft? Such a claim seems laughable. It seems like you are grasping at straws.

    The whole point seems pretty much irrelevant, anyway. Opponents of SSM are not trying to justify their stance based upon Puritan beliefs! Try engaging on the real issues, such as the nature of marriage as a social contract, and its importance in providing an orderly structure to manage parentage.

  7. on 22 May 2007 at 10:03 amGems

    But who will rescue our opponents from Susan Campbell?

    Perhaps the same people who will rescue FIC and its allies from the dolphin guy?

  8. on 22 May 2007 at 12:00 pmPeter

    A rescue from the “dolphin guy”? But his side won. Maybe you guys should try to recruit him. 🙂

  9. on 22 May 2007 at 1:24 pmSteve

    Allen is upset because homosexual witches are putting spells on catholic dolphins? Or is it the other way around?… I’m confused.

  10. on 22 May 2007 at 3:34 pmPaul

    I believe homosexuality was so offensive to the founding fathers that it was something they wouldn’t even discuss. Actually it was a taboo subject in most American homes until recently. There was never a question of people in the past suppporting it, they wouldn’t even talk about !

  11. on 22 May 2007 at 7:23 pmDavid

    Paul, how often did the “founding fathers” discuss sexual topics or issues of intimate human relationships at all? Wait until you have a point before you try to make one.

    Dave, the connection with the witchcraft discussion is clearly stated in Allan’s first post. The Roman church was suspiciously and met with hostility in the early days of this country. Charges of witchcraft were used against people for many reasons but true witchcraft. Not unlike the charges that are unleashed against innocent LGBT folk today; find something heinous and blame it on an unliked minority. Works every time, that’s why bigots continue to use it. If “christians” had a clue about their religion they wouldn’t be so gullible, but most would rather listen to their corrupt leaders than to actually read the Bible and learn from Jesus Christ. Of course somehow that is the fault of the MSM working together with radical homosexuals right?

  12. on 22 May 2007 at 9:39 pmDave

    In all seriousness, the reason for any dislike of Catholicism in colonial New England had more to do with the “anti-popery” sentiment than any personal animosity towards the individual adherents of that faith. In other words, a dislike based on political qualities, which can trace its roots back to the same sentiment in mother England – and from there back to the original schism between the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. Thank you very much, Henry VIII.

    In particular, I am reminded of the so-called “Popish Plot” of 1678. Or the fireworks of “Guy Fawkes Day. Elected officials in those colonial days would take an oath against “popery” that emphasized they would forswear allegiance to “any foreign prince”. Why? Because the Church and especially its “foreign prince” – the Pope – were perceived as a threat to the authority of the British monarch. Politics, plain and simple.

    But when Thomas Hooker left Massachusetts, it was specifically because he rejected the notion that citizenship was dependent upon membership in the Congregational church. Consequently the right to vote in Connecticut was not limited by one’s religious affiliation. In fact, the history of Connecticut was ultimately a significant factor in the subsequent writing of the “no religious test” clause within the United States Constitution.

    Setting aside all this witchcraft and persecution nonsense, the real lesson that we would all do well to remember can be found in the words that Thomas Hooker spoke on May 31, 1638 – words that led to the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, and subsequently our national Constitution:

    The foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people.

    Just ponder that a while. Particularly if you happen to be sitting beneath the mural at the State Supreme Court.

  13. on 23 May 2007 at 9:06 amDave

    … how often did the “founding fathers” discuss sexual topics or issues of intimate human relationships at all?

    Actually you might be surprised how much they talked about it. Obviously they considered it in establishing their code of laws. Obviously they considered it in adjudicating cases of adultery, rape, child molestation, sodomy, etc., as shown by the historical evidence of trials that were held and punishments that were meted out. Even the supposedly “lewd and unseemly behavior” of kissing your own wife in public on the Sabbath day (as shown by the story of Captain Kimble upon returning home from a 3-year voyage) could earn you some time being shackled in the stocks.

    What would they have thought of the notion of SSM? Contrary to Susan Campbell’s belief that tolerance and inclusion might have reigned supreme, the Puritans of early Connecticut were a very harsh and stern people when it came to issues of morality. According to the “Capital Laws” of the Connecticut colony – The Book of the General Laws for the People Within the Jurisdiction of Connecticut; collected out of the Records of the General Court (Cambridge: Samuel Green, 1673):

    If any man lyeth with Man-kinde as he lyeth with a Woman, both of them have committed abomination, they both shall surely be put to death; except it appear that one of the parties were forced, or under fifteen years of age.

    The laws of colonial Connecticut, and those of neighboring colonies Massachusetts and Rhode Island, were all based upon English law which forbade sodomy.

    Having said that, there were in fact very few recorded cases within New England during the colonial era where such capital punishment was meted out. In most cases, the local courts chose to exercise lenience, in the hope that the sinner might ultimately be brought to redemption. Nevertheless, while the punishment may have been lessened, it was still viewed as wickedness and a crime against society.

    It’s amazing how Susan Campbell would leap to such an opposite conclusion in her article. If nothing else, we’d hope that “The Scarlet Letter” is still on the required reading list within the liberal arts. At the very least, you’d think that Thomas Hooker would have placed the letter ‘S’ upon such an offender, or banished him from the community.

    Of course, none of this is directly relevant in today’s consideration of SSM, in the wake of Lawrence v. Texas. We don’t claim to justify our stance by the history of Puritan moral values! But there remain other good arguments against SSM, not on the basis of trying to impose a specific code of morality, but quite simply on the lack of social value in such an institution. The purposes that marriage serves with society are not mirrored by the SSM, and consequently – in the absence of sufficient justification on its merits to society as a whole – SSM ought not to be established. In her attempt to link the opposition to SSM exclusively to arguments based upon tradition, Susan Campbell deliberately sidesteps many of the other issues and arguments that have been raised throughout the many years of discussion on this question, choosing instead to cloud the debate with caricature and distortion. How typical it is to see such evasion and deception within the Left-leaning media, instead of addressing our differences with the intellectual honesty that is deserved.

  14. on 23 May 2007 at 3:21 pmPaul

    David, I think you need some lessons in common civility, logic and history. Remember this is a forum on tradtional family values. As an observant Jew, Jesus would have believed that sexual immorality of any kind was serious sin and homosexuality was an “abomination”punishable by death. Jesus didn’t have to speak on every possible sin, he didn’t specifically say that we shouldn’t murder our children for example. On marriage though He went right back to creation and gender roles when he said, “Have you not read that He who made them at the begining made them male and female?” you see he is using logic and going to the root issue. This view of marriage and gender roles would coincide with the Puritans and the Pilgrims. I don’t believe though that homosexuality was an issue in Jewish society at the time of Jesus earthly life. It wasn’t until after the Ressurection that the Apostles took the Gospel out to the Gentile Pagan world that Homosexuality was an issue. Paul’s letter to the Romans is clear on homosexuality. Also, Paul wrote to the Corinthian Church that adulters, fornicators and homosexuals etc. would not inherit the kingdom of God. But that those who had accepted Christ as their Savior were to leave all their immorality behind them. Just like today many people have left sexually immoral lifestyles and become Christians by turning to the only One who can forgive sin. I am glad I did.

  15. on 23 May 2007 at 6:49 pmDavid

    Intellectual honesty? Ha, I have yet to see any of that from opponents of same sex marriage. What I see are the same old tired myths and lies that have been thrown around for years. fill in the blank, this time it’s LGBT people. Same bad story, different decade. Insinuations, ludicrous comparisons and out right fabricated “facts” are the only thing you have beside an interpretation of scripture which is by no means universally accepted. Um, actually, there’s little in Christianity that is universally accepted by it’s adherents, but that’s for another discussion. And some whose reading skills are lacking will certainly accuse me of attacking their religion. Anyway, I took the day off to work around my mom’s house and as I enjoyed the sun and the breeze and the total lack of stress involved in yard work I decided I really need to focus my attention on the good things about life, see the positive and get rid of the garbage I’ve been concentrating on. So, that means for a while at least, no more reading toxic, sadochristian blogs and websites. What is said here and on the rest, is simply poison. Sadly there will always be those whose arrogance leads them to believe that they and only they know what is right for the rest of us. And who will sady, stop at nothing to get their way. I can’t change that and I certainly don’t need to let it into my life. So, adios. I hope the day comes that you can see how damaging your attitudes and words are. Frankly, I doubt it but it can’t hurt to hope. It’s been interesting to read what is said here, some of you are certainly less rabid than the norm for these sites, but your goals are the same and you’re not interested in learning about our lives at all so there’s no “dialogue” to be had only words on the screen.

  16. on 24 May 2007 at 10:19 amPaul

    David, have a nice day.. and while you are outside consider who made the the world you are in. Also think about the 600,000 pages of genetic coding that are in one strand of your DNA. How did they get there by a random chance meeting of time and matter? You wouldn’t believe that about a computer. I note the continued nasty attitude that continualy comes from the pro homosexual secular left. When you don’t have a reasonable argument all that’s left is trying to shout down the opposition. I too will enjoy the sunshine..all the more because I know that the God of the BIble who created all things and loves us…even you David.

  17. on 24 May 2007 at 9:23 pmNaCN

    “What is said here and on the rest, is simply poison. Sadly there will always be those whose arrogance leads them to believe that they and only they know what is right for the rest of us. And who will sady, stop at nothing to get their way.”

    David, I hope you are still reading. You need to look at yourself in the mirror . . . while reading your own posts. I could not have written a more appropriate summary of your typical diatribe. Thanks for saving me the trouble.

    I note that you refer, rather obliquely, to seeing here the “same old tired myths and lies that have been thrown around for years.” What specifically are you talking about? Really. It is difficult to respond without knowing to what you are referring, although that probably was your intent in being vague. “Dialogue” is a two way street and I would be happy to walk it with you.

  18. on 28 May 2007 at 5:59 pmDavid

    Paul, in none of my posts have I ever stated one word against God, or made any statements questioning who is ultimatly responsible for my existence. I also have no doubt that God loves me. It is you and people like you who have created a “god” that thinks exactly like you – and love has nothing to do with your words or actions. When the day comes that you stop trying to play a god in the lives of LGBT people and all the others who don’t fit your cult rules, there will be no issue. But you are no more able to than Al Queda can stop what they are doing – driven by fanaticism and the need to control the world. Don’t use God to justify your nonsense. Perhaps you should take a moment to think about your statement about genetic coding and DNS – because it is you who deny the complexity of humanity and boil it down to one thing – make more babies, nothing else matters apparently.

    NaCN, you seem to suffer with the same reading disability that so many of your “conservative” bretheren do. I do not advocate forcing my will, beliefs or “lifestyle” on others. That is the realm of the “churches” and the sadochristian politicians. And I read again today that the attack on families is being renewed by the very same group that runs this blog. YOU are the ones who claim to know what is best for all, YOU know how I should live my life, YOU know how we should raise are children and you will obviously stop at nothing. The blood on the hands of these pseudofamily groups is horrifying, but their “god” apparently loves it.

    As far as the “tired old myths”, I remember you making statements about studies of the lifespan of LGBT people, and a number of other “facts” created by the toxic right. If you are willing to believe and spread that crap then there’s little to be said because you’ve no interest in reality. Find a legitimate study that backs up all the antigay hate and I’ll listen. It will be a long wait though.

  19. on 03 Jun 2007 at 5:35 amDeana


    Seriously, you think Muckle’s side “won” because the legislation was not put to a vote this session? Good try, but no. You guys LOST the proposal for a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage, and you LOST on the referendum issue in committee. As Lawlor so beautifully put it, t makes sense to wait for a consensus in favor of SSM rather than put it to a vote when there are not enough votes in favor…and try to force it on the people of the state when they aren’t quite ready for it…YET.

    The tide of reason and tolerance swelling and as more young people come of age and vote, SSM will be the law of CT eventually. There was no victory this year for either side as the legislation was not put to a vote. Inaction does not equal rejection.

Leave a Reply