Blue State Battler on Lovallo Show Today
May 22nd, 2007 by Peter
Tell us about the harsh treatment you received testifying recently before the state Judiciary Committee on same-sex “marriage.”
I’m a public figure, and am used to the way the Legislature works. That means being used to the blatant bias of the committee chairs. What went on at the last hearing, unfortunately, isn’t anything new. Many more people than usual saw it, thanks to [Catholic League President] Bill Donohue, who publicized it. I received e-mails of encouragement, support and outrage not only from Connecticut but from all over the country supporting and encouraging me.
It’s ironic that the hearing has become a focal point for questions about religious liberty, because my arguments were not strictly based in Scripture but were based upon the social reasons why marriage can only be a union between a man and a woman. Orthodox Jews, Protestants, people of no particular faith hold this.
I didn’t bring up my Catholicism because the Family Institute doesn’t represent any particular religion. But they quoted from the Catechism and tried to get me to say something the Church doesn’t believe, that homosexuals as persons are intrinsically evil and objectively disordered. I said that isn’t what the Church teaches. It isn’t singling out homosexuals. I tried to make clear the Church’s teaching is about acts and inclinations. [Committee chairman Michael Lawlor] continued to mischaracterize and misquote the Church’s position on this. It quickly became about my religion.
Brian will be on the Dan Lovallo show shortly after 5:00 p.m. today to discuss tomorrow’s Rally for Marriage.
I am glad that you posted the footage. To me, it was clear that once a question was asked about faith, Brian played the “How dare you” card, even though the questions were, I thought, appropriate, in an effort to make this an issue that would be fodder for the press.
I really watched the footage with an open mind because I would truly be troubled if the Committee went Catholic bashing. I just didn’t see it, and Brian’s reaction was pretty transparent, imho.
That’s funny, Simon.
Many would disagree that you “really watched the footage with an open mind.” and that you “would truly be troubled if the Committee went Catholic bashing.”
Those of us who were at the public hearing at the Judiciary in Hartford on the SSM bill, and watched the **inquisition** that Brian Brown, Maggie Gallagher, and several priests patiently endured—truly witnessed “Catholic bashing.” It was appalling and so blatant as to be unarguable by anyone without their own radical agenda.
BTW, I am not Catholic.
How anyone could possibly argue that I am wrong about the state of mind I had when I viewed the testimony is baffling, and not at all surprising. But, to be clear …
1. I do not have a radical agenda. I am a Catholic and I love the Catholic Church and would bet that I give more of my time to the Church than most people who visit this site.
2. I was commenting only on the Brian Brown testimony. I did not watch the others you reference. I, therefore, have no comment or opinion on whether it was Catholic bashing.
3. I did watch with interest the testimony of Brian Brown. I would have been very disturbed and disappointed if he had been the subject of an “inquisition.” What I witnessed was totally different. It was appropriate to ask Brown about his faith. He is taking a position on a matter of public policy that, if adopted, would affect many people. It is appropriate to understand where Brown is coming from. I agree that Lawler misstated the Catholic Church’s position (intentionally or unintentionally). The Church doesn’t condemn homosexuals, but it is not a friend of the practice of homosexuality. To understand if Brown’s efforts to impact tons of non-Catholic homosexuals was informed by his Church’s teachings which are (rightly or wrongly) hostile to homosexuality (not homosexuals) is not only a valdi line of inquiry but an important one.
4. I was disappointed when the questions came up, though, when I saw Brown’s reactions. It was the worst and most transparent type of opportunism. He tried to make it look like an attack on Catholocism, in order to garner more support and to raise the outrage meter. Sadly, he cheapened the whole thing.
So, if anyone disagrees that I watched that part of the footage with an open mind, that is their problem, not mine.
I was also at the hearing and was so very proud of the way Brain handled the prodding he received at the hands of Mr. Lawlor and Sen. Gomes. I was plainly shocked that Lawlor would dare to come down so viciously on the Catholic faith and distort Brian’s responses. I am a Catholic and was proud to have my faith represented by Brian Brown at that hearing, even though Brian made it clear that his defense of marriage as between one man and one woman was based on ethical, sociological as well as theological evidence. Good for you, Brian! Well said and in a clear, gentlemanly fashion. Couldn’t have asked for more from you!
Simon,
There are many more comments which could be made in response to your last post, but here a just a few:
1. A person who has a particular perspective on an issue is not always in the best position to accurately declare his/her own “state of mind” or objectivity in any given incident’s observation. Not to say this is the same thing—but how many drunks declare they are sober when stopped for DUI?
2. You admit that you watched ONLY a portion of Brian Brown’s responses under questioning at the Judiciary public hearing on SSM. So, you are apparently unwilling to consider the overall context, including (again I will say it, because it WAS, to any objective person who watched the whole–or even most of) the **inquisition** of not only Brian Brown, but Maggie Gallagher and several priests who took their time to be there and speak at the hearing. Still, you seem convinced there was no “Catholic bashing” in Hartford at the hearing that day, a pattern of which was evident to many, many people who were THERE.
To me your assessment seems suspect, since you are unwilling to consider the whole **context**. In my view, there is no way that anything Brian Brown had to say could have “cheapened the whole thing,” since the performances of Mr. Lawlor, Mr. Gomes and some others were conspicuously tawdry that day.
3. Maybe I misunderstand your meaning in your point 3. about “a valdi [sic] line of inquiry,” but it almost sounds as if you believe anyone with religious convictions should be precluded from speaking in a government sponsored forum, or at least that their views could reasonably be discounted.
Well, Gomes and Lawlor may have had their day in the sun with their interrogation of Brian Brown, but the tables will be turned when they stand before the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and try to explain their advocacy of a lifestyle to will lead to more suffering. Isnt it interesting that a nation that once honored the Christian lifestyle as the preeminent norm for society, is dominated by humanists and agnostics who despite legal standards of right and wrong. Truly we are becoming a nation without a soul, a rudderless ship sailing into moral oblivion.