Big Decline in State’s Same-Sex Unions
December 3rd, 2007 by Peter
Another front page above-the-fold story in today’s New Haven Register:
HARTFORD — The number of same-sex couples in this state entering into civil unions has declined dramatically over the past year, according to the latest state records.
But advocates and opponents of gay marriage differ sharply about the reasons for the drop in civil unions.
Civil unions for gay couples became legal in Connecticut on Oct. 1, 2005, and records show there was a rush of 649 civil unions during the last three months of that year. In 2006, there were 729 civil unions reported to the state.
But just 372 civil unions were recorded in Connecticut as of the end of October , officials with the state Department of Public Health said…
But Peter Wolfgang, a spokesman for the anti-gay marriage group, Family Institute of Connecticut, said the fact that only 1,750 civil unions have been entered into since October 2005 demonstrates that the ongoing debate “is about a very, very tiny portion of our population.”
“In part, the novelty has worn off,” Wolfgang said. “Same sex couples in Connecticut already have most of the rights they claim they were being denied (by being unable to marry).”
Wolfgang said he believes the gay community “lost interest” in civil unions “because that wasn’t changing the definition of marriage.”
“This is really about politics,” Wolfgang said, “and changing how marriage is defined in our society.”
Speaking of politics, the response to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision imposing same-sex “marriage” on that state in 2003 played no small part in President Bush’s re-election in 2004. A pro-SSM decision from our own state’s Justices would also likely boost GOP presidential fortunes for 2008 by once again putting the issue of court ordered-redefinitions of marriage front and center in our nation’s politics. That may be why even some of our opponents don’t want the Court to do it. Whether the liberals on our state Supreme Court are wise enough to do the same math is something we will soon know.
Peter,
Before I even got down to reading that line where you were quoted, I already had the same verbatim thought, “The novelty wore off.”
And in many cases where novelty was not involved, I am sure money was. That seems to be the crux of the cause, not love or committment. I hear more gays complaining about supposedly being cut out of the financial perks as opposed to being denied their mockery, intrusion and defilment of the institution of marriage itself.
And let’s face it, for many gays, and from what I have heard and read, especially gay men, who are reputed to be more promiscuous than gay women, most of them don’t want the burden of committment. They just want to incessantly fornicate like….gosh, I can’t even say animals. After all, they only do it for procreation. Well, fill in the blank. “Mutually consenting human sex toys”? (But they want “respect”!)
And regarding “committment,” the officials in Massachusetts and Vermont are already seeing “gay divorces.” Why am I not surprised?
You gotta love the New Haven “RAG”-ister. Besides being woefully inept and an abysmal example of a metropolitan newspaper, it is much more befitting of a rural local-yokal weekly….and with all the slant that’s fit to stink! If FIC is “the anti-gay marriage group,” then I suppose Love Makes A Family is the “pro- clinically sexually deviant people in denial group.” And Planned Parenthood must then be the “pro-baby mutilation group.” Newsflash to the liberal, so-called “mainstream” press and all their lefty minions whom they so often protect: Those who hide behind sugar-coated euphamisms do so for good reason and thus can’t be trusted, and those who are up front about who they are and what they represent don’t need to hide behind anything, and what you see is what you get. While we’re at it, I also highly recommend New Haven’s alleged journal of record for lining bird cages and cat boxes, wrapping dead fish and for kindling in fireplaces. Let those small town reporters at that alleged big city paper stick to what they do best: car crashs with graphic photos, fluffy, mindless human interest pieces, and an unhealthy excess of highly charged testosterone enriched sports obsession where at least some of the real news would otherwise be for thinking adults with an IQ slightly above that of a potato. They’re obviously out of their league on this story.
Meanwhile, back to the (by “popular demand”) civil union/gay marriage issue……referendum, anybody?????
Doug
Doug, it’s interesting that you mention the difference between male and female homosexuals on committment. I actually called the Register reporter back after our interview to ask him if he knew the male/female breakdown for the state’s civil unions. But it turns out the state isn’t keeping that statistic.
I noticed the “anti-gay marriage” label too. The Register does seem to write stories in accordance with an MSM-liberal-bias style manual. The headline for the Nov. 23rd story could have been written by our opponents: “Court to rule on gay marriage ban.” There is no “ban” on something that never existed in the first place.
Still, the MSM’s slant looks downright mild when compared to the fever swamps of leftist blogs. From the “Liberals are bitter” file comes this reaction to my post:
http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=B78B0FC25093C641CBF4007203BC3402?diaryId=8640
I warn the Left of the unintended effects of a pro-SSM ruling and it means FIC has been “reduced” to doing that and nothing more? No reasonable person could reach that conclusion. But then, the most leftward of our opponents threw reason out the window a long time ago.
Peter,
Wow! I thought some of my posts were a bit fiery! These guys make me look tame! I also like to think though, that even with my passionate manner of expression, it is more targeted and less personal.
I could be subject to correction on this point, but I don’t belive we have yet even arrived at the year when a potential Constitutional Convention is even due.
And Brian did not “ride off into the sunset,” unless perhaps that is how Matt defines leading a larger organization.
Also, coming from someone immersed in moral relativism, who is he to accuse anyone of “moral bankruptcy”?
Lots of adolescent ridicule, sheer and personalized vitriol, exaggeration and questionable “facts,” in short, all the necessary ingredients to form a liberal viewpoint; all emotion and little if any substance. Children in grown up bodies. Consider the source. Besides, if they are that fired up, we gotta be doing something right!
Despite my own tirades, I genuinely feel sympathy for these people and hope and pray they wake up and repent before it is too late. Between the apparitions of Our Blessed Mother at Fatima in 1917, and at Garabandal, Spain in the early-mid 1960’s, we know that Benedict XVI is our last Pope before the warning and/or chastisment of the end times, to be seen most likely in our lifetime and worldwide.
But from one “homobigot” to another, I think another “Matthew” once said it best: “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.” (5:10)
Keep up the faith, and the good fight.
Doug
Wow Doug, you’ve never met a stereotype that you didn’t believe eh? Such a contrast between your allegedly loving invitation for me to “come home” and the venomous posts you have added to various threads in the past couple days. I’m glad you did that though, it saves me the time I would have wasted responding to the one that was rational. Every thing that you have condemned me and other liberals for writing is represented in your posts. You shouldn’t kid yourself that you are being “persecuted for righteousness sake” because 1) you are not being persecuted and 2) I see little that is righteous in your writing, except perhaps self-righteous. I disagree with the blogger linked above, I don’t think that your “movement” can be written off as dead or even dying. I think that as a symptom of a greater sickness in this world, that of “my way or the highway” religious frenzy, you are extremely dangerous to the survival of the human race. And we have yet to see the truly revolting depths that you will be willing to go to achieve victory. If the end truly is near then you folks should spend the remaining time congratulating yourselves on how loving and righteous you are because with the nonsense represented here and on other blogs there’s not a chance in heaven that you could possibly convince anyone to “come home”. PS, FYI I never left.
David,
It’s not my way, it’s God’s way. As for leaving or not leaving, your actions define that in God’s eyes, not your agenda through your eyes.
As for venemous, no, but in several examples, anger? Oh, you betcha. But the two are not the same.
As for victory, David, those whom you oppose are more concerened for your soul than your minions. It’s not about victory. But that does not man that we will not defend our institutions, either.
You seem to think you understand, but you don’t. Someday, I hope you will.
I also don’t think I am self righteous. You think so because peopl don’t say to you what I said. It’s too hard and too politically incorrect. I care little about either obstacle. Yourlifestyle is a wrong now as it was 50 years ago, but our society has weakend now, so most folks go with the flow, and people like you sufer because of it as the walls of that bubble of denial get ever thicker. I have said more than once that I am a sinner with flaws and faults and shortcomings like anyone and everyone else. And I will also repeat this statement yet again, it’s not about the sin, it’s the remorse and the earnest attempt to repent of that sin.
We’re not dangerous to the human race, David. Are we trying to hurt or kill you? No. So stop the nonsense. This is the USA, not Iran. Are we spreading AIDs (and in some cases, deliberately!) and endangering souls with continual unrepentent mortal sin? No. But who is? Who did you say was dangerous to the human race again, David?
Doug
By the way, David, you obviously read my post, yet you still haven’t answered my questions in response to your previous claims:
Which states officially deny physical safety, medical care, and housing to gays, and which states fire gays from their jobs, and how do they even know who is gay?
And which heterosexual groups oppose traditional marriage, and why?
Doug
I had quit a long response written addressing your questions in post number 6 as well as the one above it but I accidentally hit the link in Peter’s original story and lost every thing.
Doug, you make incredible assumptions about my actions and my “lifestyle” that you say results in my isolation from God and causes me to suffer and ultimately end up in hell. The reality of it is, you know nothing about me and how I live my life but because I oppose the attempts of conservatives to jam their beliefs into my life and and I deny that you have the right or even the ability to speak for God you think you have me all figured out and feel free to judge me. It is safe to say that what you assume is 90% incorrect.
You claim that your way is God’s way and what your church teaches is the only truth about God. Problem is that there are other Christians who say that the Roman church is not Christian, that it’s beliefs are false. The Muslims say that their god gave them the only truth, Hindus make the same claim about their gods. So tell me, why should I believe what you say, why should I believe that your god is real and the others are idols and most importantly why should I allow you to enshrine your beliefs in the laws of this country and by doing so take away from me the freedoms that all other citizens of this country have. You say that this is not Iran, I agree that’s true, not yet anyway. But the way I see it this country is moving in that direction. Episcopal churches are aligning themselves with the hate filled “bishops” in Africa some of whom support the enactment of hideous anti-gay laws that basically strip all the human rights of gay people. How long before these churches in the USA absorb that attitude? When I was in Bible school some of the students played a game called “smear the queer”. Now that they are leading churches or you groups that violent way of thinking is being spread. Some evangelical churches view everything as a battle between good and evil and are getting more militant and aggressive in their actions. Those of us who do not conform to their standards are servant of the enemy to be fought and conquered. This world view, this hostility towards others will, if not checked, ultimately lead to violence and perhaps even death. Religion has been used as an excuse for killing before, what’s to stop it from happening again? Has humanity become more civilized? Hardly. The US, which claims to be a champion of justice and freedom, is silent when young gay men are hanged in Iran, when African countries enact laws that include jail or even the death penalty for those thought to be homosexual. Most of the Christian church is silent when these and other horrible uses of religious power happen. Why is that, are our lives cheaper, less important because of who we love? Violence against us is growing and not just in the Middle East or Africa. If you spend some time reading what is written on some “christian” websites you might understand why I think things are going to get worse.
You yourself cannot hide the disdain you have for us, using words like minions and some of the things you said in your “angry” posts. It’s clear that in your mind orgies and “gift giving” parties are the norm in the LGBT communities. You assume that we support them or sit around and do nothing to change those attitudes and confront the ignorance and irresponsibilty of the mindset that leads to such activities. I guess it’s ok to believe and spread false stereotypes about us since we are “unrepentant” sinners.
I truly believe that there is religious fervor that comes from a relationship with Jesus Christ, from a love of God. This kind brings change, freedom and joy to people and it draws people to Christ. Then there is religious fervor that comes from flesh not from spirit, that is filled with laws and punishments and condemnation for all that is different. This kind cannot draw many people in, only those who seek power over others, who hide behind their god and justify their actions and words by claim it is god’s will. This kind seeks to dominate, to control and to force it’s beliefs on others. And what I see in much of the conservative church be it Roman or Protestant, is the second kind. The same can be said about the fanatic Muslims. This man-made “religion” will be the cause of much pain, suffering and death.
Falling asleep, time to quit. I’m not ignoring your question in your last post.
David,
You brought up several points here. I will try to get to all of them as best I can. Currently, I am also fighting the clock.
David, I am not jamming any of my bleiefs into your life. I am expressing them. I have neither the power, nor the desire to jam my beliefs onto anyone.
Yes, granted, many faiths claim there is the only way. But as Jesus said in the Gospels, those you are not against us are for us. That does not mean, however, to ignore the Scriptures and Commandments. I didn’t say “my way,” David, I said “God’s way,” and that is how it is whether you or I like it or not. You are cherrypicking what you want to beleive. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus and passed on to St. Peter, our first Pope. Other faiths have since splintred from Catholicism. Does that mean all other people ar going to Hell? I don’t know, but I have a hard time beleiving that, espescially if they follow Jesus and obey the Commandments and Scriptures.
David, you seem to beleive that all we Christsian conservatives are the same. We are not, and contrary to your claim, I already posted a statement (at least once) that I do not beleive that all gays are of the same mindset, so stop twisting the truth and trying to put words into my mouth. Regarding those angry posts, to tell you the truth, I was kicking myself after I wrote them, but make no mistake about it, those so-called “gift giving parties” still enfuriate me. Maybe I should have been a litle more civil about expressing it, but like I said, I have flaws, too. I’m a Christian, David, but I never claimed to be a saint. And no, I don’t think you are of their mindset, and if you read all that I wrote, and not just what you deem conveient for your agenda, you would know that. Go back and look. If you are going to accuse me, at least get your facts straight first.
There is no middle ground with you. Incidents that have efected you in your past have clearly tainted your vision so that all Christians are violent and hateful. And don’t tell me who or what I distain, David, because you don’t know me, either. We are not to be lumpd into the same group, either, David, but your scars and emotions cloud your perception. I have already told you my feelings about those evil whackos in the Westboro Baptist Church. And as for the “smear the queer” game played in your Bible class, how many people took part in that, and did the teacher condone it? You tend to leave lots of blanks, David, like my qeustion regarding other claims you made that you still have not answered for the third time, for whatever reasons. Let me tell you something, those people who taunted you like that were no Christains, and are just as radical as the those who particiapte in gift giving parties. By the way, David, I never said that you agreed with that practice. And I have some news for you, had I been present in your Bible class, that temper of mine would have been just as expressive to those who taunted you. Do you really think I would approve of that kind of conduct? You’re wrong if you do, David, but while you seem to want to diferentiate the radicals from the moderates in the gay comunity, you seem to think very conservative Christian is a KKK member or something. Newsflash: we’re all diverse, too, and the radicals are the fringe in our group, just like thy are in yours.
Regarding gays being killed in other parts of the world, no that doesn’t get much press, and that is wrong, I agree. But I don’t hear you losing any sleep over Christains being killed in Palstine and Iraq while our country turns a blind eye, either. So that’s a two way street. Everything has to be an extreme with you. You argue with emotion instead of logic.
Opposing gay marriage/civil unions and killing gays are worlds apart, but the argument is always all or nothing with you.
I resent the fact that you keep lumping conservative Chrsitsians (and me) into those killing gays. If you truly see no difference, then there is little point in me even discussxing this with you.
They act out of hate, David, we act out of love, but you see no difference. They despise you and want you dead bcause your different. We don’t despise you but disagree with you because your lifestyle, like it or not, is a clinical sexual dysfunction, protected only by societal cowardice and political correctness for the past 30+ years. It violartes God’s law and natural law. That has not changed, only society’s gumption to say so. Gays should not be married, and they should not be killed. They should be treated for thier disorder, and not encouragd to forward it. As for the ones exchanging “gifts,” they should b arrested and prosecuted, but obviously such a law would be nearly impossible to enforce.
And no, Im am not “assuming” that members of the gay comunity are doing nothing about gift giving parties. I don’t know if they are or not, but I did say that they should, and that realistically, that is the only posible solution. If that is happening, then good. I am glad.
David, you speak of laws, rules and commandments with distain. Why should God’s law be any diferent that civil or criminal law? Why should we have red traffic lights and posted speed limits? Should children be locked into a canduy store, unsuprvised over night? Can we all do whatver we ant? And if we could, what would the consequences be? Do you really beleive that, David? Have you ever heard of anarchy? David, your mindset in that regard is also refelcted by many liberals in our chucrhs and scoety today. Yes, Jesus is full of love. Does not a loving paernt discipline his child? I’m not sending anyone to Hell, David, again, I don’t have that power, and I’m glad. But unrepentent incessant mortal sin will condemn you to Hell by God, and to ignore that, you are fooling ypourself at your own peril. Despite whatever misconstrued ideas you have of me, I don’t want to see that happen.
Yes, I am judging you. You might otherwise be a very decent person, but like it or not, your gay lifestyle is morally wrong, and that’s just how it is. There is freedom and then there is license. Right and wrong have no gray area, David. I know that offends today’s chic and trendy moral realitivism, but too bad. Look what has happened since people stopped shaming people for bad behavior. You don’t have an alternative lifestyle. You have a problem that you are ignoring. You view me as an enemy. I am not your enemy, David, but that doesn’t man I wil tell you just what you want to hear. That’s the problem. You have heard too much of that already. And I am not jamming anything. You can acccept or deny what I say, but in the end, you will face the consequences, and I will have nothing to do with it.
You blame the various churches, David, but god and evil and Heaven and Hell are very real, no matter how much you deny it, and those churchs only preach what God has already taught us via the Scriptures and the Bible.
OK, now I gotta go.
Doug
David seems to be the archetypal pro-SSM distortionist, constantly attempting to bend the debate into an “all of nothing” question. Dare to disagree with him and you’re quickly mischaracterized as advocating physical persecution of homosexuals. Those who have previously watched this strategy in action will certainly recognize the familiar pattern. In short order, the argument devolves into labeling the pro-family advocate as being equivalent to the Fred Phelps crowd, as being responsible for the death of Matthew Shepard, and as being comparable to Adolf Hitler or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The truth is that Western nations, influenced by Christianity, are among the most compassionate in their treatment of homosexuality under the law. Islamic nations criminalize homosexual acts; in many of them the legal penalty is death, while others impose jail time, fines, and corporal punishment. Not only Iran, but even our allies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, impose harsh penalties upon homosexuals. The communist government of China has a history of punishing homosexuals with long prison terms and sometimes execution. India continues to uphold a strict understanding of marriage being possible only between a man and a woman, and affirms that homosexuality is illegal. Earlier this year, India refused to allow diplomatic status for the SSM partners of two members of Canada’s diplomatic corps. The supreme Sikh religious body, the Akal Takht, has resolutely condemned SSM. Hindu swamis likewise express opposition to SSM, and the law code of that faith includes a range of punishments for homosexuals including fines, public humiliation and physical harm (e.g. having fingers cut off).
In sharp contrast with this view of homosexuality, social conservatives in Western countries must seem very liberal to the rest of the world. We don’t seek to impose such physical persecution, and have long tolerated homosexuality in our midst. We do view it as an “aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle” and feel sympathy for those caught up by and seemingly unable to escape from this affliction. We do firmly oppose those who would seek to elevate homosexual relationships to the same legal standing as the marriage of a man and woman. But upholding traditional views of morality and decency can hardly be equated with advocacy of physical persecution.
Every day we live and work alongside people who privately struggle with addictions. Some people remain in bondage to their same-sex attractions. Some remain in bondage to alcohol or drugs, or any number of other self-destructive behavioral patterns. And yet they all do their best to function in our midst, as they move about in the course of their daily lives. We do of course hope for all these people to break free of whatever holds them in bondage, so that they can receive all the blessings that life has to offer them. Sadly many stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that they need help, or indeed that anything is wrong with them. To the extent that their actions remain private and unknown to us, as long as they do not harm others within society, we must allow that every person will work through their own struggles on the timetable of their own choosing. But tolerance does not imply we should elevate and celebrate such a lifestyle! That is what offends so many people who hold a socially conservative point of view. Yes, live and let live, but don’t ask us to agree with granting special rights and privileges to homosexual relationships. We absolutely have a right to disagree with SSM, and will not be deprived of our voice within the public square. Your bullying and attempts to shout us down as “bigoted” will not intimidate or silence us.
Thanks…we’re going to make that the last comment in the “if you don’t share my politics, it means you’re trying to kill me” strand of this thread.
If you don’t share my politics, I can still wish y’all a Merry Christmas. May we all remember what it’s really about.
David,
Merry Christmas, a bit late, and all good wishes for a wonderful new year. May we all learn the grow in the love of Christ.
David,
Our disagreement on issues aside, belated Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you as well.
Doug