CA’s Court Redefines Marriage…Is CT Next?
May 27th, 2008 by Peter
The best article so far on what the judicial tyranny in California may mean for Connecticut appeared in last week’s Hartford Advocate:
Of course, what the right thing to do is depends on your perspective. Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Hartford-based Family Institute of Connecticut, decried the decision of the California court, even while acknowledging it could influence the decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court.
“There’s no way to know for sure what the Connecticut Supreme Court will do, but I think it’s likely the decision of the California justices to usurp the will of the people will probably embolden the justices here to act in a similar fashion, as a sort of a super legislature,” said Wolfgang…
In California, Wolfgang said, opponents of gay marriage have gathered 1.1 million signatures to put a measure on the ballot this fall to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage and overturn the Supreme Court decision. The opposition began gathering the signatures — which still have to be verified — months ago, according to Wolfgang, in anticipation of the justices taking the action they took.
Connecticut has no similar mechanism to force a referendum on same-sex marriages if the Supreme Court should legalize them. Opponents here would have to convene a constitutional convention, where they could push to create a mechanism for referendums, said Wolfgang…
As it happens, the question of whether to convene a constitutional convention in Connecticut, which comes up only once every 20 years, is on the ballot this fall, but even Wolfgang acknowledges it’s a long shot.
“They don’t call Connecticut the land of steady habits for nothing,” he said. “I think that attitude makes it less likely that we’d get a constitutional convention, but ironically a Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex marriage could help us get it.”
The interesting thing about the article is that pro same-sex “marriage” activists were less willing than I was to say publicly that the CT Supreme Court will probably follow the California Court and re-define marriage by judicial fiat. Even our opponents know that court mandates are their worst avenue for victory and the one most likely to spark a pro-family response.
Whether that response happens in Connecticut will depend on all of us who care about constitutional democracy, religious liberty and the protection of marriage. Watch for more information in the days ahead.
My husband and I have started calling in to talk radio shows to *respectfully* state our objections when hosts or guests use the phrases “gay-bashing,” “gay marriage BAN” and the like. The voters’ initiatives and amendments in California and elsewhere are properly referred to as “marriage PROTECTION” measures. (And of course they are intended to protect the “rights” of children.)
We find that even on conservative talk shows, the terminology of the gay activists has insidiously sneaked in, blurring the fact that we traditionalists are only trying to DEFEND, rather than seeking to *deny* something.
We hope that others will do likewise, and send letters to the editor—to counteract at least SOME of the activists’ successful strategy USING the mainstream media to control the discussion. So far they have successfully INTIMIDATED and cowed most who object to SSM from stating so in public forums, for fear of being considered bigoted or unenlightened.
This silence should not be, and need not be, the case.
I was very interested to read on the marriagedebate.com blog, which can be linked to from this page, an entry from Tuesday May 27th entitled “Gay Mom Against Gay Marriage.”
Apparently the Post-Dispatch would not print Kate Martin’s letter, but she sent it to Maggie Gallagher, who put it on their blog.
Here are a couple of excerpts:
“It is not only heterosexuals who are against two men or two women legally marrying. The impression too often given is that all gay men and lesbians are in favor of changing the
definition of marriage. This just is not true.
“If one views the issue of same-sex marriage in very tight boundaries – as people who are in love and want to share benefits – it would indeed seem very small and petty to object. But it is not a simple “love and benefits” issue.
“Same-sex marriage is a radical leftist concept pushed by gay leftists elites who themselves sneer at the instituiton of marriage and monogamy.”…
“Not all gay people, just as not all heterosexuals, have fully considered the impact of the issue, the monumental cultural shift, and the use of incrementalism as a means of changing insitutions to suit whatever activist judges and group-think self-apppointed leaders can conjure up in order to be front and center on the cutting edge of whatever.
“After same-sex marriage is legalized, as sure as night follows day, there will be three or more people ready to challenge the idea of only two people being allowed to marry. And the same innocent sounding “love and benefits” premise will be used.
“Change the definition of marriage just once and there will be continuous change from here on out until it is completely unrecognizable and meaningless. And that is the goal.”