Reality and Same-Sex “Marriage” Collide
January 17th, 2008 by Peter
My wife submitted an op-ed to the Courant last October on the Connecticut Supreme Court’s pending ruling in Kerrigan, the same-sex “marriage” case. “Not newsworthy,” they told her. She re-submitted it after Susan Campbell’s Dec. 30th column on the same topic. No response from the Courant.
Perhaps the Courant meant to say that Kerrigan op-eds are not newsworthy if they come from our side. The paper ran this pro same-sex “marriage” op-ed last Tuesday:
A pending decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court will determine whether Connecticut must recognize same-sex marriage. California’s highest court will address the same issue later in the year. Although these cases look similar to other lawsuits around the country, they could mark the beginning of a much more complicated stage in the shaping of laws concerning same-sex couples.
The first stage of legal developments concerning same-sex marriage is essentially over. The central question so far has been how any given state would define marriage. Four distinct approaches have emerged. One state, Massachusetts, recognizes same-sex marriage. Several others have created new legal regimes for same-sex couples (like civil unions in Connecticut and domestic partnerships in California) that are very much like marriage. A third group has extended only a few of the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples. Finally, many more states have rejected legal recognition for same-sex couples.
But what happens when these different laws collide, for example, when a same-sex couple that married in Massachusetts moves to a state that only recognizes civil unions? Does their legal relationship dissolve at the border? What about custody of children? Inheritance? Divorce? The legal term for these questions is “conflicts of law.” Such conflicts will dominate future legal arguments about same-sex marriage.
The author, of course, advises the courts–that is, “if they are committed to equality”–to resolve these conflicts in ways favorable to the pro same-sex “marriage” cause.
But it was the re-definition of marriage that caused these conflicts to begin with. The best course would have been the full protection of traditional marriage. And the better course in our current situation is to refrain from re-defining marriage even further.
Indeed, a Kerrigan decision in favor of same-sex “marriage” would mislead the state’s same-sex couples into thinking their “marriages” are portable and create even more conflicts of law. The federal government and forty-eight of our forty-nine sister states recognize marriage only as the union of a husband and wife, 26 by state constitutional amendment. Forty-one states have passed DOMAs, which would preclude courts from recognizing same-sex “marriages” performed in Connecticut. And nine states have constitutionally forbidden same-sex “marriage,” but not civil unions.
Connecticut same-sex couples who “marry” and move away could fail to do proper financial, parenting and related legal planning because the “m” word misled them about their situation. Civil unions more accurately reflects the legal reality: legal recognition of same-sex unions is a recent innovation in the law and the way these unions will be treated in other states is not yet well-established.
The argument above is a brief summary of an amici curiae brief–directly on-point to the conflict of laws issues raised by the Courant op-ed–submitted by ten professors of law in Kerrigan. The state is still awaiting the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case.
No one likes having his or her essay rejected for publication. When this happens we like to blame it on the “shortsightedness” or “bias” of the editors.
However, based on my experience as an occasional op-ed contributor to the Courant and other publications, I’d say that it is never advisable to dust-off a previously rejected piece and re-submit it. Perhaps your wife would be better off forgoing the (small) op-ed payment and submitting a letter to the editor instead.
It is truly a shame that many newspapers collectively are, as an institution, pretty much dying.
I would love to see the Courant have some competition in the Hartford market.
I especially would love to see its hypothetical competitor get in the last word just as the Courant gasps its last biased breath as it rightfully withers on the vine.
Doug
The “Courant” is obviously an active adherent to the agenda of the homosexual lobby. There is a thorough article summarizing the history and tactics of this “agenda” in today’s townhall.com.
The article is titled “Unmasking The ‘Gay’ Agenda”
By Matt Barber.
Here is an excerpt:
“In their manuscript, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s (1989, Doubleday/Bantam), Harvard educated marketing experts Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen meticulously laid out the homosexual lobby’s blueprint for success in what is widely regarded as the handbook for the “gay” agenda.
They devised a three-pronged approach that the homosexual lobby has masterfully implemented in subsequent years: Desensitization, Jamming and Conversion.
Kirk and Madsen summarized their approach this way:
• Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.
• Give potential protectors a just cause.
• Make gays look good.
• Make victimizers look bad.”
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MattBarber/2008/02/13/unmasking_the_“gay”_agenda?page=full&comments=true
Susan Campbell and many others at the Courant, as well as at The Connecticut Post, have swallowed the ‘koolade’ of the gay agenda and are now its acolytes.
Matt Barber has never met any tired old anti-gay nonsense he didn’t fall in love with. In the search for justification of their continued attacks on LGBT lives the right has latched on to this book. Guess what, millions of us have never read it! Millions of us couldn’t care less what kind of “plan” TWO people laid out almost 20 years ago. The FACT is the battle for equal treatment started more 30 years before that and has nothing to do with an “agenda” and everything to do with righting an injustice. Before you say anyone is swallowing the “koolade” you need to stop accepting anything that Matt Barber writes and find some reality. The only thing Matt exposes is his own personal problems.
David,
Your ad hominem attacks against Matt Barber say much more about you than about him.
Also, despite your broad generalizations discounting the whole notion of a strategy to achieve a gay “agenda”—this strategy WAS laid out in detail in the Kirk/Madsen book. Their strategy HAS BEEN APPLIED DILIGENTLY by homosexual activists; and has been FULFILLED, in great measure.
Whether or not you (or “millions of us”) “have never read” the book has no bearing upon the existence of and successful application of a “plan” or “agenda.”
Tricia
I challenge you to find any proof of any meetings by “gay activists” where they planned on using the book by Kirk and Madsen.
I am sorry, but the idea that lgbts are following a point by point plan pushed by the two JUST ISN’T TRUE!!
The claim that we are is a tactic known as Conspiracy Theory – weaving unrelated events together as proof of a so-called conspiracy. Usually when this happens, the person making the claim offers no proof of his or her charges, but relies on the ignorance of his or her readers.
The claim made by Barber is no different than the Protocols of the Elders of Zion claim made against people of the Jewish faith.
My webpage goes into more detail about it.
Tricia my words about Matt Barber are based on reading most of his press releases and seeing exactly how vicious and at time untruthful he is about LGBT people in general. Call them “ad hominem” All you want, that doesn’t alter the reality of my words.
As far as the absurd claims of a vast homosexual army marching with a plan book in hand to destroy the nuclear family and steal your children or whatever othe nonsense you believe, there is hardly a more laughable (though unspeakably destructive) myth that is spread without even a second’s amount of research into the truth. Let’s look at this plan:
• Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.
The ACLU and the godless liberals are attacking Christianity at every opportunity they can. They are trying to remove God from public sphere! They want to indoctrinate out children in their evil beliefs
• Give potential protectors a just cause.
America is a Christian nation. It is patriotic (and of course God’s will) to defend it against those who are trying to destroy our heritage. If we don’t stand for Christian principles the nation will fall. Oops, guilty of point 2.
• Make gays look good.
Christians represent Christ’s love, they only want to save people from their sin. They are a force for good here and around the world. **would that this first two were true for all Christians, and I concede that for many they certainly are.** We don’t hate homosexuals only their behaviour and we tell show them their wrongs out of love
• Make victimizers look bad.”
homosexuals hate Christians, they hate the true family structure and want to tear it down, homosexuals make up a higher percentage of child abusers. liberals believe in killing babies and in teenagers having premarital sex and showing porn to kindergartners. they want to overpower our churches and force them to teach blasphemy
GASP!! I’ve just discovered the right wing Christian agenda!!
Tricia, do yourself a favor and go to a website called TheAmericanView. On there you will find an article that says that all the favorite, warn out and unsupportable arguements (my words not his) should be dropped, they aren’t working and they can be torn apart. He says your one argument, no not argument, statement of fact is that God says homosexuality is wrong. It’s an excellent article though of course I disagree with the final statement but still, you should read it and give up the ridiculous myths that you attempt to use to support your attitude towards LGBT people. You may have to search a bit because it’s from 2005 I think but it is still there I found it recently. You simply will NEVER influence any but those who already agree with you with the arsenal you attempt to use. People’s attitudes are changing because they get to know us personally and they realize we’re not the monsters you folks love to portray. That is something that you cannot fight and expect to win.