Click the link below to
view PDF Document
New York Defeat,
Last week, pro same-sex "marriage" activists accomplished something
in New York that they were never able to accomplish in Connecticut. They
redefined marriage through the state legislature.
These same forces repeatedly tried and failed to redefine marriage at the Connecticut General Assembly, eventually achieving their goal in our state only by court order. Family Institute of Connecticut defeated same-sex "marriage" at the legislature every year prior to the court's ruling and even defeated our opponents after the ruling, when we won the strongest religious liberty exemptions against same-sex "marriage" in the nation.
The media will not tell you the true history of how marriage was redefined in Connecticut, choosing instead to play down the court's ruling and play up a supposed legislative "sign off" on the ruling. The truth is that our legislature explicitly defined marriage as between a man and a woman in the 2005 civil unions law, let a same-sex "marriage" bill die in 2007 and only acquiesced to same-sex "marriage" in 2009 after the court had already redefined marriage in 2008.
FIC saw an opportunity in the 2009 codification vote and we seized it. What was supposed to be a pro forma legislative "sign off" of the court's redefinition of marriage became instead the vehicle through which we enacted some of the strongest religious liberty exemptions against same-sex "marriage" in the nation.
Because of our work, same-sex "marriage" never came to Connecticut through the legislative process and could only be imposed by a 4-3 vote of our state Supreme Court. Because of our work, same-sex "marriage" will never have the democratic legitimacy in Connecticut that it unfortunately now has in New York.
FIC's Point Was Made
Below is a newspaper article on
Judge Lubbie Harper's confirmation, which we are reprinting with the
publisher's permission. Without FIC, Harper would have faced no
resistance for his outrageous decision to redefine marriage. We are very
grateful to all of you who contacted your legislators about this
Judge confirmed despite objections to ruling
BY PAUL HUGHES
HARTFORD — State Rep. Alfred C. Adinolfi suspects a spot on the Supreme
Court is a “political reward” for Appellate Judge Lubbie Harper Jr. for
voting to legalize same-sex marriage.
Adinolfi, R-Cheshire, was among 20 representatives and senators who voted against Harper’s appointment to the state’s highest court on Wednesday. The nomination passed overwhelmingly.
Harper was tapped to hear the appeal that led to the Supreme Court’s landmark 4-3 ruling in 2008 that legalized same-sex marriage. He was called up from the Appellate Court after two justices recused themselves.
Harper proved to be the swing vote in the case, and that bothered a number of the 20 dissenting lawmakers Tuesday.
Harper is Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s first nominee to the Supreme Court.
“Governor Malloy respects that there will be differing opinions on issues like these, but believes that Lubbie Harper is the right man for the job,” said Colleen Flanagan, a Malloy spokeswoman.
On the Senate floor, Sen. Kevin D. Witkos, R-Canton, said he could not support a nominee whom he considers to be an activist judge.
Sen. Joan V. Hartley, D-15th District, had objections along the same line. The Waterbury lawmaker was the only Democratic senator to vote against Harper.
Hartley said the Supreme Court overstepped in legalizing same-sex marriage. The dissenting justices in the case said the decision should have been left to elected lawmakers.
“It was absolutely an issue within the purview of the legislature,” Hartley said.
A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution prohibits the state government from denying same-sex couples the right to marry.
The three dissenting judges concluded no such fundamental right exists.
Adinolfi said the Supreme Court appointment smacks of payback for the gay marriage ruling because the 68-year-old Harper is close to retirement age. He will turn 69 on Nov. 30. Under state law, judges must retire at age 70.
Adinolfi said the promotion assures Harper will retire with a higher pension. Judges on the Appellate Court now earn a salary of $152,637 a year. A justice on the Supreme Court makes $162,520 annually.
“A lot of us looked at it as a political reward where he would get the
higher pension in year and a half,” Adinolfi said.
Sen. Robert J. Kane, R-Watertown, said he shared the concerns about Harper’s age. He also said he voted against him because of the same-sex marriage ruling.
Kane said it did not make sense to vote to appoint a Supreme Court
justice who would serve 18 months. He said he would have opposed the
Harper nomination on that basis alone, regardless of the same-sex
Reps. Anthony J. D’Amelio, R-71st District, and Selim G. Noujaim, R-74th District, also voted against the Harper nomination. The two Waterbury lawmakers said Harper’s age and his role in legalizing gay marriage colored their decision.
“Many of my constituents called me regarding his stance on the same-sex marriage vote. That was one of the issues that weighed on me,” D’Amelio said. Noujaim said he also had concerns about Harper’s constitutional views based on his responses to questions posed during his confirmation hearing.
The House voted 124-16 to confirm
Harper’s appointment, and then Senate followed with a 24-7 vote. Three
Democrats and 13 Republicans opposed Harper in the House. Hartley and a
half dozen Republican senators voted against him.
Fighting for you! Please donate to the Family Institute of Connecticut!