FIC Blog

The lead op-ed on the front page of the Courant’s April 27th Sunday Commentary section was, of course, yet another article for same-sex “marriage“:

Their anecdotes revealed common problems. For example, same-sex couples are often denied health benefits because of a provision in the federal Defense of Marriage Act. In numerous situations, hospital or social services personnel either don’t know that they should — or simply refuse to — provide important information or assistance to a spouse in a civil union.

Even before the passage of civil unions, there were remedies for these situations that did not require a redefinition of marriage (a proxy for Mayor Perez admitted as much during his testimony before the judiciary committee last year). And passing same-sex “marriage” in Connecticut will not get same-sex couples “rights” they do not already have. More:

Based on the way I read the Bible — which may not be the way other Christians read it — I could not accept a same-sex couple as being married in the eyes of God. But the Bible also tells me not to mix religion and government. Matthew 22:21 says: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”

But this is begging the question. Whether opposition to same-sex “marriage” amounts to nothing more than a desire “to mix religion and government” is precisely a point upon which the two sides in this debate disagree. By arguing this way the author will win kudos from like-minded supporters who consider themselves similarly “enlightened” but he won’t persuade a single opponent. Was this silly syndicated piece the best pro same-sex “marriage” op-ed the Courant could find?

For government, marriage represents a contract between two adults who have agreed to share a household and attendant responsibilities. There’s nothing particularly holy about having a justice of the peace in a courthouse tie the knot. It’s a legal proceeding that’s called marriage.

Actually, for government, marriage is a way of increasing the liklihood that its citizens will be born into natural, stable environments and grow up to be productive members of society. That’s why tampering with the key institution connecting sex, procreation and child rearing is a bad thing to do.

Neither I nor my church would recognize them as married under God, but they don’t care about us. They care about getting the taxation, insurance and government services benefits of being a legal pair.

Oh, good. If that’s all pro same-sex “marriage” activists care about, they can end their campaign in Connecticut…since changing the definition of marriage in our state will not alter their ability to get any of those things.

The op-ed appearing in the Apr. 27th Courant is by an editor for the Philadelphia Inquirer, where it first appeared. Perhaps it is harder for the Courant to obtain the right to run pro-family op-eds from other newspapers and that is why we have seen so few in its pages. But, somehow, I doubt it.