Hearing on 2008 Same-Sex “Marriage” Bill
March 24th, 2008 by Peter
Last week the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on a bill to force Connecticut to recognize out-of-state same-sex “marriages.” The bill would also begin a process for granting a tax credit that would go only to same-sex couples in civil unions, an expensive subsidy that would be borne by all the state’s taxpayers.
FIC Action opposed the bill because it would allow out-of-state same-sex “marriages” to automatically trigger legal incidients in CT law, thus undermining the 2005 DOMA. Just three years ago our state legislature made explicit that state policy recognizes that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. By giving legal significance to same-sex “marriage” in CT law, this bill seeks to erode that policy. We also noted that state taxpayers should not have to bear the burden of pro same-sex “marriage” activists’ disagreement with federal tax policy.
You can read my comments in the New Haven Independent here and the Meriden Record Journal here. I testified before Michael Lawlor’s Judiciary Committee for about a half hour on the evening of St. Patrick’s Day. Though the hearing had been going for about six hours at that point, I was the first to bring up the taxpayer-funded subsidy to same-sex couples–a point Chairman Lawlor conceded. I have been told that my testimony may have moved a few votes our way. Even so, the Committee is heavily stacked against us and will likely pass the bill. Watch your in-boxes for more information on what you can do to stop it.
I want to thank all of you who responded to our messages and came to the hearing last week to oppose this bill. We were particularly touched by an e-mail FIC member Stephen Cardone sent to Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher and copied to me:
About a year ago, I watched the 2 of you and others make the case for marriage in front of the Connecticut Judiciary Committee. I was both impressed and inspired. Plus, I was more than a little bit perturbed at the hostility shown toward those for traditional marriage. I made a little promise to myself to let my voice be heard in the future. This Monday, I had a small opportunity and I took it. I testified against Raised Bill 5925 in Hartford. As you know, this would automatically recognize other states’ marriage or civil union as civil union in CT. Clearly an attempt to push us further toward same sex marriage.
Though I felt I could have done a better job if I had prepared more thoroughly, I handed this over to God and said what was on my heart. God certainly gave me the strength to do this. As it turned out, the ConnPost ended up quoting me…in, I would say, a positive light.
I say all of this to say thank you for your hard work and dedication. If it were not for you and the efforts of Peter Wolfgang, I don’t know where our state would be. Please keep up the good fight and know that you have inspired another like-minded individual. May God have His mighty hand on the mission.
I was there at the hearing one week ago in Hartford, and heard Peter and Stephen Cardone testify on negative consequences if SB 5925 were to be passed. I heard several others’ testimony, also–but was especially impressed with how cogently as well as compassionately Cardone expressed his beliefs and stand against the bill, and SSM. I’m so grateful for all who took the time away from work to be there, and to prepare comments and stand up and participate in “the good fight.”
In his speech at CPAC last month, Mitt Romney used the phrase “culture killing,” when speaking about the ills of fostering dependency. It seems to me that there are far too many groups (including some in CT’s Judiciary Committee) advocating, or defending, MANY things (and legislation, judicial rulings, etc.) which are “culture killers,” both in Connecticut and the nation as a whole.
In my view, the Family Institute (and similar groups in other states), NOM, and many pro-life groups and organizations which defend religious liberties are all engaged in a WAR against “CULTURE KILLERS.”
“granting a tax credit that would go only to same-sex couples in civil unions”
Peter, your wording here is a bit deceptive. I haven’t read the bill so I know nothing about the credit you speak of. But is it not true that there are tax credits for married couples? And don’t parents receive tax credits for every child that they have? If so, that represents a far larger taxpayer funded subsidy than a break for those in civil unions could ever be. I’m not saying that any of those tax breaks are bad but you make it sound like those in civil unions will get something nobody else has. Is it really the potential tax break that bothers you? Or isn’t what’s upsetting is the fact that same sex couples will be a step closer to equality. The tax argument is as ridiculous as the one I hear thrown around often about how insuring domestic partners increases the burden on everyone. If anyone should be complaining about such breaks it is those of us are single and have no children.
Tricia, in many cases your “war” is against real flesh and blood human beings just trying survive, not against some cute little sound bite that came from someone running for office. Your religious liberties are only in danger to the extent that you use them as a weapon against others. Some Christians have no problem playing the victim when they claim that their rights are being infringed upon but they refuse to look at how their words and actions are infringing on heck of a lot more in the lives of the ones they are fighting the “good fight” against. Worth remembering every time you wonder why those of us caught in your war are so angry.
Hi, David–how’s the job situation?
I don’t have time right now to respond in detail. And, although this thread is about the SSM Bill–I was making some very GENERAL comments in my usage of the terms “religious liberties” and “war” against “CULTURE KILLERS.”
I was referring to “religious liberties” in a very general sense as equivalent to First Amendment Rights to BELIEVE as we wish, and SPEAK about, IN PUBLIC, those beliefs. In Massachusetts, for instance, since the SSM law was imposed by unelected judges, it has become very evident that First Amendment Rights of those who DON’T AGREE WITH the SSM agenda, have been RESTRICTED, in schools and elsewhere in MA.
As for the “war” or “good fight”–FIC and many other organizations are engaged in a ‘battle,’ if you will, with MANY “culture killing” forces (NOT INDIVIDUALS) such as abortion, easy divorce, legislation which restricts parental rights, sexual promiscuity IN GENERAL–regardless of “orientation”–and rampant FATHERLESSNESS, to name just a few.
p.s. I suggest you DO READ these bills (or at least the highlights) before commenting on them. It’s not that difficult or time consuming. Just go to ct.gov, link on “legislative” and put in the bill number at the top of the page.
Hi Tricia, it looks like I’m safe until the end of March 09, maybe even longer because a major part of my job will be staying with the company. Thanks for asking!
It wasn’t really the bill I was commenting on but the way Peter described part of it. All discussions of politics by “opposing” sides contain a generous amount of wordplay to make one’s case look better. At times though that simply renders the whole statement false. Most readers, no matter where they are on the political spectrum, will not take the time to look into something that is written on a site they agree with. It’s a dangerous game because if the tactic is used too much it becomes obvious. Whatever the merits of the bill, I am dissapointed that obviously some of the politicians took the statements I object to at face value. This is the same complaint I have about voters in the states that have put discrimination in their constitutions (yes, that’s obvious word play). I believe a large number of people would never have voted for it if they truly thought out the implications and the impact that many of them have well beyond SSM. I’m certainly not denying that there are many people who totally support every aspect of the amendments. Some states are starting to see the negative results of what they did but what’s done is done, it’s a lot harder to remove an amendment than it is to remove it. Of course, in my opinion, this could have positive results as people realize they have bought a lie and will be less inclined to be influence by those who advocated it.
But it is also a bad thing because there are issues that FIC and some other groups are concerned about that are truly dangerous to society as a whole and need to be seriously thought about by all of us. The problem is that if people get turned off by what they have heard coming from your groups then anything else you say becomes suspect. I’m not sure I’m saying it correctly. For example there are some organizations that share your beliefs on the issues you mentioned Tricia but they are so absurd (that’s a polite way of saying it) in their words and actions that they are viewed as a bad joke by many people, hence losing the opportunity to have the validity of what they believe considered. This is not just an issue on the conservative side, how many conservatives will even entertain the thought anything that comes from Kos or MoveOn is true and not Anti-American or pro-socialist ? I guess a perfect example currently is Rev. Wright. Many of his statements are very outrageous and offensive, especially for conservatives (at least from what I read). So how many have taken the time to look beyond the rhetoric and read or listened to complete sermons he has given, how many have taken the time to explore the things that church has done to help the community? I don’t say this as an endorsement simply as an example.
You might be surprised how many of your concerns I fully agree with and others I share your concern but disagree with the solutions. Anyway, congrats on your win on this one. Whether or not I agree with the results I accept that that is how it works sometimes the system moves for you, sometimes against. I’ll take our system of gov’t over any other. Sorry, too wordy again
David,
I acknowledge the general point of what you wrote in your post # 4. However, if you read the actual bill 5925, you would recognize the validity of Peter’s and Stephen Cardone’s points that 5925 is “Clearly an attempt to push us further toward same sex marriage.” (You no doubt think that’s a good thing to do.)
I have two additional criticisms of 5925, which has 3 parts. As to the section which “would also begin a process for granting a tax credit that would go only to same-sex couples in civil unions, an expensive subsidy that would be borne by all the state’s taxpayers:”
I submit that it is not the proper role of a state to create a “state” tax credit (which only a few would be eligible for), specifically as a STATEMENT in opposition to a “national” tax policy.
Also, one part of the bill is ridiculously unnecessary–because the 2005 Civil Unions law already gives all the authority required to enforce the law. They don’t need another law to require state agencies and others to obey the 2005 law. This whole bill (and hearing) is just an excuse to give homosexual couples a stage upon which to complain that “Civil Unions are not equal to marriage”–even though the benefits of marriage, within the power of the state to grant, are all provided by “civil unions.”
David,
Did you happen to see the Barbara Walters program (20/20 I think) last night which explored the subject of people living longer–possibly as long as to the age of 150 years?
In the program, there was a segment with an interview of a doctor, talking about the increased numbers of older widowed/single women–leaving not enough men to be their companions. He said (speculated?) that he foresees many older women becoming lesbians due to that fact.
This doctor apparently believes that homosexuality (or at least becoming a lesbian) is a CHOICE, rather than innate.
I think the doctor’s statement is a bit bizarre actually. I can see two (or more) women sharing a home for companionship, support and as time goes on assistance with medical issues, same has happens in a marriage. And I could accept him saying they will love each other, there are many kinds of love. But to develop sexual relations, that I don’t believe. No doubt in this theoretical scenario some would but I think most heterosexual people have an innate aversion, or even revulsion at the thought of same sex sexual contact. I just don’t see too many choosing to overide that or being very succesful at it. I’m not one that denies there is no choice involved when it comes to sexual relations. I totally believe that cannot become an “ex-gay”, but absolutely with time, prayer and an incredible amount of desire to do so one can choose to not act on same sex attractions and live happily. Of course saying that could get me thrown out of the vast homosexual army 🙂 Some even go a step further and marry, produce children and all the things that you consider “normal”. But as far as I’m concerned none of that has anything to do with changing ones sexual orientation. It is a behavioral change which certainly at times is exactly what the person need to live a productive, happy life. But other times it simply makes them miserable, guilt ridden, depressed and suicdal. For that reason it MUST be a personal decision not something forced by another, or by public opinion.
As far as marriage/civil unions, to me it’s semantics. If they provide the same benefits and responsibilities in the legal aspect then I don’t see the difference and it’s a waste of all our time to fight about it. The religious aspects are different and I fully support any church’s decision to not support same sex unions. I know that many conservatives cringe and deny the concept of state and church being separate, but it is the only thing that protects the church from gov’t control and vice versa.
David,
I agree with you on “the doctor’s statement is a bit bizarre,” and SOME other things in your post # 7. (Parts of it–I do disagree with.)
I’m glad to read that you’re not an insister for SSM, and that you “support any church’s decision to not support same sex unions.”
However, I believe you are overly sanguine about “separation of church and state” providing adequate protection of religious freedoms. That has NOT proved to be the case in Massachusetts and elsewhere in recent years, since the SSM issue has become such a prominent part of legislation, lawsuits, and in the news media.
To see examples of religious freedoms being denied, read this article at the http://www.marriagedebate.com blog, which you can link to under the “National” links from the top of this page–or here:
http://www.examiner.com/a-1324540~Roger_Severino__Legalizing_gay_marriage_will_spark_lawsuits_against_churches.html
There is another very interesting one at marriagedebate.com from a Jewish scholar named David (who must have been homosexual, but for 7 years has been celibate and is now an Orthodox Jew)–who is totally against SSM, and compares the notion to “Civil Bar Mitzvah.”
The comparison to a “civil bar mitzvah” is cute but flawed. It has the same problem that Roger Severino’s piece has.
Under the law (and this is a great protection of religious freedom), if, for example, a Jew wanted to marry a Methodist, they would be entitled to do so. They could not, however, force a Catholic priest to officiate.
On the other hand, a city clerk cannot refuse to marry people over issues of religious belief.
That state has to treat everyone equally.
If after becoming a bar mitzvah, a 13-year old Jewish boy asserted the rights of adulthood and tried to buy alcohol, he would be refused. A bar mitzvah has no legal implications.
Marriage has plenty of legal implications. In protecting religious freedom, we need to be aware that some religions will exercise their rights not hold same-sex marriages. At the same time, we have to be aware that other denominations and people who are in any religion, deserve the equal protections of the laws concerning marriage and equal access to its benefits.
In a free and just society, religions who do not wish to perform same-sex marriages must be allowed to do as they wish. They may not force this on others, just as the willingness of other groups to perform same-sex marriages must not be forced on them.
Yes, the state does have to treat everyone equally. And it does. No state has ever stopped gay people from getting married. I know several gay and lesbian people who are married, most happily. I was gay-identified for more than a dozen years, and I hope to marry someday. But marriage is, by definition, a union between a man and a woman.
Under Roe v. Wade, women have a constitutional right to an abortion. If a woman practices the religion of the Todas of South India, who believe in female infanticide, went to court and argued that in her religion “abortion” is acceptable even after the baby is born, would anyone say, “Oh, certainly, now we have to redefine ‘abortion’ so we don’t deny the right to people who practice any religion”?
And there are thousands of Americans who practice religions that accept multiple marriages as licit and even encouraged. Yet we don’t pretend that the First Amendment requires us to redefine marriage to accommodate those religions.
So why does the fact that a few liberal churches approve of same-sex marriage mean that we have to redefine marriage for the whole society?
David B, you bring up one of the most ludicrous statements about marriage that I’ve heard. And every time I’m just astounded that anyone can actually believe it. First off, I fully support your desire and that of other LGBT people (formerly or otherwise) to marry people of the opposite sex and I to have known those who have and are happy. BUT, that was there decision, and had they wanted to marry someone of the same sex they would not have been able to and your statement to the opposite is pure nonsense. Marriage by SOME definitions is one man/one woman. It never has been the ONLY definition and it never will be. The family structure that is considered “traditional” today is not what has been “traditional” in the past or in other cultures today. The polygamist religion in this country was FORCED to change their practice in order to join the US so if you want to make accusations of redefining marriage look to the past and see who actually did it.
I can’t even politely address the abortion paragraph and what kind of mind it takes to compare that to people wanting to commit to each other.
The issues has NOTHING to do with what a few churches did but what is right and just for all.
David-
Same-sex “marriage” is not about “people wanting to commit to each other.” Gay and lesbian couples have been committing to each other for decades. They continue to do so even in states with no legal status for same-sex partnerships. Same-sex “marriage” is about gay couples asking the wider society to celebrate their partnership, as if it had the same intrinsic value and importance to society as real marriages do. Given that the best environment to raise a child involves both a mother and a father, and given that many, many people’s belief systems (including mine) consider gay sex to be immoral, it is perfectly appropriate for the wider society (as so many voters in so many states have done) to continue to make a distinction between true marriages – which it honors and gives privileges to – and same-sex commitments, which are perfectly legal but do not deserve societal or governmental celebration and elevation.
As for the first part of your post, you seem to have misunderstood me. Gay people can and do marry, and no one has ever stopped them. But they cannot marry a member of the same sex, just as they cannot marry a tomato. Both actions are contrary to the essence of what marriage is to the vast majority of Americans. Don’t like what Americans think of same-sex marriage? Think we’re “prejudiced”? Well, I hear Canada is lovely this time of year.
David Benkof expresses so well the basic issues of this argument. I, for one, am very glad to read your comments here and at marriagedebate.com. Welcome! (“they cannot marry a member of the same sex, just as they cannot marry a tomato” had my husband and me LOL!)
Anyone who thinks SSM is a great idea should read David B’s post at marriagedebate.com today referencing a National Post (Canada) op-ed “suggesting that same-sex marriage in that nation was a mistake.”
http://www.marriagedebate.com/mdblog.php
from the op-ed:
“the central argument…is not about the rights of a sexual minority but the status and meaning of marriage.”
and from David Benkof:
“One of the most frustrating aspects of the same-sex marriage debate in the United States is the accusation among proponents that opponents are ‘taking away rights.’ Any honest look at the history of this debate has to acknowledge that traditional people did not seek out this fight. It was the gay community and their allies – and a few judges in Massachusetts – who thrust this debate upon the nation.”
Exactly! The SSM activists accuse us (who defend the millennia old, natural definition of “marriage”) of acting aggressively and seeking to “take away rights” which have NEVER EXISTED! How can we be trying to “take away rights,” when SSM is something that had never existed, in thousands of years—or even been contemplated around the globe—until the last decade or so?
Marry a tomato hahahahaha. Sick joke that shows once again that the people involved mean no more to you than something you shovel out of a stall. You have absolutely no respect for us and expect that we will sit quietly while you attack. I don’t accuse you of trying to take anything away, you are aggressively and hostilely trying to defend something that never has existed the way you say it has, and is not yours to give or take away. You have a built a false idol and cannot bear the thought that someone would view it differently and think that legally speaking their relationships should be treated the same. Nothing need be redefined and certainly nothing need be destroyed for all the varying kinds of families to be supported. I don’t include such groups as the Manson “family” or traditions that allow young girls to be violated. SSM has never existed, that must be true because you typed it in all caps, and we all know that rudely shouting is the way to get the truth across. Unfortuneatly for you, no matter how loud you say it, it will never be a correct statement.
David B, you are a sad example of just the reason I became so disillusioned with the “ex-gay” movement. You can’t be content with being able to define yourself and your life as you think is proper within the context of your faith or other defining beliefs. No, you have to go a step further, follow the whole “gay is garbage” mentality, swallow their toxic rhetoric hook, line and sinker, and go on the offensive. That’s a dangerous game you are playing and I’ve seen too many get hurt by it. Look to your own life sir, and leave others to theirs. Save your strength, you’re going to need it.