Connecticut Local Politics

52 responses so far ↓

• 1 gmr // Mar 20, 2007 at 12:03 pm ·     +0

  I don’t believe that it is true that gay marriage will weaken the “institution” of marriage. I have not seen a single shred of evidence from either Massachusetts or the many Western nations that allow gay couples to marry that this is the case, and I fail to see how allowing more people to get married will lead to fewer or weaker marriages.

  I suggest reading Jane Galt’s long post on gay marriage. She doesn’t take a stand for or against it, but she does make some good points:

  My only request is that people try to be a leeetle more humble about their ability to imagine the subtle results of big policy changes. The argument that gay marriage will not change the institution of marriage because you can’t imagine it changing your personal reaction is pretty arrogant. It imagines, first of all, that your behavior is a guide for the behavior of everyone else in society, when in fact, as you may have noticed, all sorts of different people react to all sorts of different things in all sorts of different ways, which is why we have to have elections and stuff. And second, the unwavering belief that the only reason that marriage, always and everywhere, is a male-female institution (I exclude rare ritual behaviors), is just some sort of bizarre historical coincidence, and that you know better, needs examining. If you think you know why marriage is male-female, and why that’s either outdated because of all the ways in which reproduction has lately changed, or was a bad reason to start with, then you are in a good place to advocate reform. If you think that marriage is just that way because our ancestors were all a bunch of repressed bastards with dark Freudian complexes that made them homophobic bigots, I’m a little leery of letting you muck around with it.

  It’s not that gay marriage has the potential to make the institution less attractive for you, as Jane Galt says: “you–highly educated, firmly socialised, upper middle class you–may not be the marginal marriage candidate; it may be some high school dropout in Tuscaloosa. That doesn’t mean that the institution of marriage won’t be weakened in America just the same.”

  Stanley Kurtz explores out-of-wedlock births in the Netherlands after that country allowed gay marriage. I think he may be a bit overreaching on his conclusions, as there are so many variables in place. He tries to explain them, and I think his article is an interesting read, but I’m not entirely convinced.

• 2 sandy // Mar 20, 2007 at 12:17 pm ·     +0

  Well said Genghis The real question is, do we as citizens have the courage to demand and hold accoutable our elected leaders to do the right thing. As long as they think it’s more “popular” to prohibit equal rights…they will.

  As a suggestion, what about a running list of where our elected Senate & House leaders stand on the issue? Are they for,against or not sure? If they don’t support equal rights I can’t support them regardless of what party they are with.

• 3 Rightyright // Mar 20, 2007 at 12:21 pm ·     +0

  FIC publishes a list of pro family legislatures.

• 4 Genghis Conn // Mar 20, 2007 at 12:32 pm ·     +0

  I think Galt has an interesting point when she says that marriage is far too big for her to really get a handle on. I think that’s the case for most of us–marriage is a big, squishy, changeable concept, and it’s hard to know what the effects of messing with it will be. I believe it’s strong enough to endure, and I’d rather see us err on the side of extending rights and equality rather than the reverse.

• 5 TrueBlueCT // Mar 20, 2007 at 12:35 pm ·     +0

  RightyRight–

  FIC, “Pro-family”? Unless you happen to be gay!

  Those wingnuts could care less about the Mary Cheneys of this world, (and their kids). But what do you expect of people who think being gay is a choice? Then they promote their junk science suggesting homosexuality cab be cured!

• 6 Don Pesci // Mar 20, 2007 at 1:12 pm ·     +0

  “It’s also said that gay marriage will eventually lead to polygamy and worse. This argument is without even the barest shred of merit.”

  The point most people are making is a little more subtle than that. There may no causative connection between gay marriage and polygamy such that allowing one will permit or encourage the other. Here’s the problem: Polygamy is a legitimate – and even religiously honored – social arrangement. Some Mormons used to practice polygamy before Christians got all in a twit about it and managed to convince legislators to criminalize the practice. But that was in the long ago, before all of us became multiculturalists, a multiculturalist being defined as one who is convinced that all useful and practical social arrangements are equally acceptable. Polygamy is practiced, and accepted, in Islam. Now, the arguments in favor of polygamy are very convincing: 1) In a society in which two working spouses have problems in making ends meet, the addition to the traditional arrangement of extra partners makes a lot of economic sense; 2) If we are willing to accept unorthodox familial arrangements – two dads and children, two moms and children – upon what grounds should we forbid a like arrangement for polygamist groupings; aren’t more dads and moms better for the children than fewer dads and moms?; 3) isn’t every argument in favor of gay marriage also an argument in favor of polygamy? If for petty prejudicial reasons we wish not to allow polygamy – say, we just don’t like polygamists – what other practical reasons can we offer to assure that the practice remains illegal? Most of the practical reasons, it may seem to some, have already been debunked.

• 7 Gems // Mar 20, 2007 at 1:14 pm ·     +0

  TrueBlue–I honestly do not understand why Mary Cheney is always brought into this debate. And I say that as someone who feels very passionately that this marriage bill needs to be passed, as someone who will be submitting written testimony in favor of it, as someone who will be at the hearing the second I get out of work next Monday. Just leave Mary Cheney alone. We’re talking about the citizens of CT here.

• 8 Gems // Mar 20, 2007 at 1:19 pm ·     +0

  And Don–there are a few ways to look at that issue, and I agree that at least in terms of the law, it’s not as meritless as Genghis says it is. The easiest way to look at it, at least for CT, is to say that under our state constitution and the laws that have been enacted by our legislature, sexual orientation is a protected class. Which is a perfectly legitimate argument at this point in our state’s history; we have legislation against discrimination on that basis, against hate crimes, etc. If sexual orientation is a protected class (like race), any legislation imposing restrictions based on sexual orientation are therefore subject to strict scrutiny by courts, under which most legislation fails as violative of constitutional rights. That’s not an argument that would work in all states, b/c each state has a different history with regards to the rights of gays and lesbians. But it would work in our state, and that argument is not a slippery slope into allowing polygamy.

• 9 YoungDem // Mar 20, 2007 at 1:23 pm ·     +0

  Marriage may be far too big of a concept for one politico-blogger to comprehend. But who are we to say that marriage is sacred when there are so many divorces in our society?

  Straight people can buy a $100 wedding in Vegas, and two weeks later they can call 1800-DIVORCE (don’t believe me? try calling. They advertise on the NYC subway). Is that not ‘’damaging'’ to society? Not to mention the damage done to children of marriages that end in divorce.

  If you want to argue about the unraveling of society due to gay marriage, you´d better outlaw divorce too.

  Not that the leading Republican candidate for the Presidency would agree with you, since he´s been married three times.

• 10 Tony Starks // Mar 20, 2007 at 1:24 pm ·     +0

  This is all very interesting. I think that there are very good arguments on both sides of the debate - really. I think I would support this bill, but I would oppose any attempt to impose gay marriage by judicial fiat. That, in fact, does open the door for polygamy, etc. From a constitutional perspective, if you create a constitutional right to marriage, it is tough to say that one form of marriage is o.k. and another isn’t. It really only works from a legislative standpoint.

  I actually think the better alternative to all of this talk is for the legislature to repeal all of their marriage laws and grabnt civil unions to everyone who wants them. Then, if you want to be married by your proest, rabbi, imam, etc. you can and if you just want a civil union you can do that too.

  I think the real point of this is that marriage, for ever, has meant the same thing to governments and religions. Now, the word will have two different meanings. The law may call marriage one thing, but it will mean something completely different to a priest. In other words you’ll have religious marriage and civil marriage. I think I am o.k. with that.

• 11 famillionaire // Mar 20, 2007 at 1:37 pm ·     +0

  I actually think the better alternative to all of this talk is for the legislature to repeal all of their marriage laws and grabnt civil unions to everyone who wants them. Then, if you want to be married by your proest, rabbi, imam, etc. you can and if you just want a civil union you can do that too.

  I agree

• 12 Gems // Mar 20, 2007 at 1:42 pm ·     +0

  I agree, Tony. Civil marriage for all, religious marriage for those who choose them and are accepted by their respective churches, and I see no infringement on religious beliefs if that’s the case. I think we’ve always had religious marriage and civil marriage, and that’s one of the reasons I have always felt so strongly about this issue.

• 13 toucan // Mar 20, 2007 at 1:44 pm ·     +0

  Snore…………. bring this to a vote, make everybody equal and then go on to take care of the poor and underpriviliged in CT as well as the roads that are in poor condidtion. You know, do the stuff government is supposed to do instead of always taking care of themselves and thier moneyed supporters.

• 14 Don Pesci // Mar 20, 2007 at 1:53 pm ·     +0

  “…each state has a different history with regards to the rights of gays and lesbians. But it would work in our state, and that argument is not a slippery slope into allowing polygamy.”

  Gems

  Forgive me, but the notion of a “slippery slope” is a polite fiction. Polygamy, religiously sanctioned, already exists in a multicultural world. The question is not: Do gay rights lead to polygamy? I do not believe there is a necessary connection. But in a permissive and multi-cultural society, it will not be long before polygamist – very nice people, but different – will want to claim their rights, religious or secular. They will be advancing arguments very much like those I see here in favor of gay rights. If we decide not to allow polygamy, how shall we prevent them from extending the social franchise to polygamists? It seems to me that an answer to this question will do much to relieve the anxiety of people who oppose gay rights. So, what’s the answer to my question? Silence and shifting the question to other subjects will not be allowed.

• 15 Tony Starks // Mar 20, 2007 at 1:59 pm ·     +0

  Don, if gay marriage the product of judicial fiat then there is no way to stop polygamy from being made legal. If it is by legislative fiat then there is no problem: the legislature draws lines all the time.

• 16 Genghis Conn // Mar 20, 2007 at 2:08 pm ·     +0

  The bill in no way mandates what religions must do–only what the state does. Better that way, by far.

• 17 Gems // Mar 20, 2007 at 2:28 pm ·     +0

  If we decide not to allow polygamy, how shall we prevent them from extending the social franchise to polygamists? . . . Silence and shifting the question to other subjects will not be allowed.

  Thanks for laying out the ground rules, Don. Nice. Anyway, I think you prevent it from being extended by having this be a legislative action, as Tony says. The legislature is there to represent the views of the people of this state. Say what you want about whether the legislature is one the right or wrong side of this issue–the legislative process is working here. Legislators are meeting with constituents on both sides of the issue, they’re sitting through public hearings, and they’re voting on the bills relevant to the rights of same-sex couples, up to and including marriage. I agree with Lawlor’s statement that gay marriage is inevitable, b/c it’s becoming more and more accepted by the younger generation, so when we’re in our 40s and 50s and make up the government of this state, the laws will reflect our views. Perhaps my children will think polygamy is acceptable, because 50 years from now, polygamy will have gained widespread support. That’s OK with me. The laws of a state are supposed to change with the people of the state, and people’s views on issues change with the times. Maybe polygamy won’t ever be acceptable to the people of this state–in that case, the issue would never gain traction in the legislature. That’s the legislative process, and again, I’m OK with that. And now I have to get back to work, so silence beyond this post will just have to be allowed, Don.

• 18 Republitarian // Mar 20, 2007 at 3:07 pm ·     +0

  It never ceases to amaze me how this legislature wastes time. We have so many more pressing issues rather than giving the label “marriage” to people who ALREADY HAVE the same legal rights as heterosexual marriage in CT. This is merely a step for the gay lobby to bring the issue to the federal level. No one in CT will be getting any new rights or privileges… meanwhile businesses leave CT and taxes continue to soar, energy costs are out of control because we aren’t producing energy here, and the list of unanswered and unaddressed REAL issues goes on.
  I personally don’t give a whit about what a small percentage of gay people want to be called - I want to see the problems that affect EVERYONE in this state to be addressed already! I am so sick and tired of these gay state legislators jockeying to make national news,and a name for themselves, instead of tackling the important issues that affect ALL CT citizens. It is most probably because, just as their heterosexual counterparts in the legislature, they don’t have the vision, inventiveness, guts or the backbone to deal with the issue of taxation, energy and the economy.

• 19 TrueBlueCT // Mar 20, 2007 at 3:15 pm ·     +0

  GEMS–

  Let me tell you why I bring Mary Cheney into this debate. (and it’s not just the delicious irony of it!) The fact is that the people affected by the anti-gay efforts of the GOP aren’t abstractions. They are very real people, with lovers and often kids.

  Now it would be great to use a well-known celebrity as my real life example of how gay people and their families are hurt by the Rabid Right agenda. But if I did, I’d be laughed out of the park. So in comes Miss Cheney, who is exceedinlgy well known, and just happens to be the V-P’s daughter. If Mary Cheney weren’t “out”, I’d never bring up her and her child. But she is, and I don’t see why it’s an issue to make reference to her.

  What kills me is that the “pro-family” ideologues want to deprive Mary’s child from the rights that all children in America are meant to enjoy. They also think Mary’s homosexuality is a choice, and all she needs is to be brainwashed/cured….

• 20 theeble // Mar 20, 2007 at 3:51 pm ·     +0

  Yes, Republitarian, the legislature should only pass laws that deal with white, heterosexual men. Why waste time with everyone else?

• 21 fire153k // Mar 20, 2007 at 6:10 pm ·     +0

  I hope it never comes to a vote. There are far too many important issues for Hartford to be wasting this time and energy on this subject. Just think— Sullivan and Zarella out and gay marriage being proposed (no pun intended). No connection????? Lawlor and McDonald couldn’t be happier with the chance that a liberal CJ is on the bench. I know, I know Mikey and Andy will say no, no , no — but who would be dumb enough to believe it?

• 22 adamcs95 // Mar 20, 2007 at 7:44 pm ·     +0

  Polygamy and Gay marriage, as issues in regards to marriage, are completely different. For the Judiciary to grant Gay Marriage they would simply have to strike they would simply have to strike “between a man and woman” from the law. The ability to strike down parts of law has been a clear judicial power since Marbary v. Madison. There is no additional governing case law that has to be created. For polygamy to work, you would have to define such legal issues as how divorces are handled in plural marriages, what percentage is each spouse entitled to, how many marriages may one engage in, what responsibility one would have to each spouse. This could not be done by simply striking down language. The only way to define this would be through legislation, because it would require the rewriting of all marriage law. Since Gay marriage is still between two equal partners, nothing needs to changed except 5 words. That being said, it would be best if the legislature did this. It is always best when the Legislature chooses to follow the states constitution, instead of being forced by the courts.

  As for the decline in marriages in European countries, I believe that was a trend well before Gay Marriage was instituted. Without facts to back me up, I would suspect it has more to do with the younger generation fearing marriage due to the increase in divorce than anything else. I know that fear has made more extremely cautious in approaching the issue.

• 23 adamcs95 // Mar 20, 2007 at 7:47 pm ·     +0

  Also to those that are complaining about this taking up too much time, its not like the legislature is not addressing other issues, they are. The legislature is a dynamic institution. Though it works slowly, by constitutional design, it is able to do a great many things slowly.

  Fire153k,
  I fail to see what your getting at. What does a new CJ, which no one is sure how liberal she will be, have to do with the introduction of Gay Marriage into the legislature.

• 24 Don Pesci // Mar 20, 2007 at 8:01 pm ·     +0

  Gems

  Something to ponder after work: Given the tendency here in the United States for the courts to meddle in legislative affairs, particularly when an aggrieved party claims a violation of constitutional rights, the possibility of the question at issue being decided legislatively is, shall we say, remote. A legislature may constitutionally remove certain jurisdictions from the courts, or it may propose a constitutional amendment that protects an issue from judicial meddling – but all that is very difficult and probably impractical. What this means is that if we wish to prohibit an activity, we shall have to do it by writing pretty ironclad legislative prohibitions. The question I am trying to raise is: If an activity is so abhorrent to a community that the community is resolved to prohibit it, what convincing arguments can it use that are unassailable? That is an important question. I am listening to the arguments on both sides of the gay marriage issue here, and I am coming away from it with the feeling that every argument used to advance the cause of gay marriage – and many of the arguments are plausible – may also be used to advance the cause of polygamy, a respectable social arrangement in some parts of the world, and incest, which is legal in France among children under a certain age and consenting adults. I just want someone to develop a legislative or judicial strategy that would allay fears that we are helpless in the face of “inevitable” social change of a kind that even honorable progressive would object to.

• 25 Don Pesci // Mar 20, 2007 at 8:16 pm ·     +0

  adamcs95

  The rule in law is that if an activity is not specifically prohibited in statutory or constitutional law, it is allowed. What the lawmaker has given, the lawmaker may take away; the reverse is also true. To allow an activity previously prohibited, one need only amend the law to strike out the prohibited activity. That is what is being proposed in the bill allowing marriage for gays now wending its way through the legislature. Occasionally, the courts also change legislative law through judicial interpretation. It is will, rather than some fictitious doctrine of inevitability, that determines the destiny of states and nations.

• 26 adamcs95 // Mar 20, 2007 at 8:20 pm ·     +0

  Don,
  Let me put this some other way. You can form a sole proprietorship, which is a business entity of just you. There are certain rules and laws that govern this formation, and those rules are written in a certain way as to pertain to a single person. If you wish to add more people to the mix, that is a completely separate institution with different rules. Marriage is the same way. Such a complete over haul would be needed to facilitate polygamists that the institution could no longer be considered marriage, a separate institution with separate rules would have to be created, which is a role the Judiciary has never claimed.
  Furthermore, discrimination does not come into play on this issue, while in the Gay Marriage debate it does. Marriage, as far as the government is concerned, is a civil matter. Any demand for polygamy to be accepted on religious grounds would be thrown out of court, because no marriage is accepted on religious grounds.

• 27 Republitarian // Mar 20, 2007 at 8:44 pm ·     +0

  Theeble You said:
  Yes, Republitarian, the legislature should only pass laws that deal with white, heterosexual men. Why waste time with everyone else?

  LOL - That is not what I said - I just love the way you like to twist around what people say - I just thought perhaps the legislature should deal with issues that affect EVERYONE - or am I mistaken that gays and lesbians don’t pay taxes or high energy costs or own businesses? I guess the whining minority who already have civil unions and the rights that come with it have priority over everyone else who have to deal with the piss poor management of this state and its results.

  and for adamcs95 - Oh yes -I forgot - the legislature IS addressing other pressing issues - like whether we should ban incandescent lightbulbs or smoke in the car when kids are present, or call the department of mental retardation something else. Screw the miserable masses who can’t afford to live here as well as their kids who cannot afford to settle here after we’ve spent gobs of money to educate them. The legislature is a dynamic institution alright, and slow or not they don’t seem to get anything of substance accomplished - Come to think of it they didn’t accomplish much last year or the year prior either. Eminent domain abuse, Jessica’s Law, tax reform, energy issues, fixing transportation, - oh screw that let’s just pass a bunch of feel good legislation that doesn’t require much thought. In fact let’s make it a full time legislature so they can pass a lot more of the same crap so we can pay legislators more money to boot, and continue to rape the taxpayer.

  Rome is burning folks and all you care about is whether gay couple can be labeled married. CT legislators wouldn’t know a priority issue if they fell over it.

• 28 Don Pesci // Mar 20, 2007 at 8:47 pm ·     +0

  adamcs95

  I agree that the construction of legislation allowing polygamy would be a delicate process, and, of course, traditionally courts have not engaged in the writing of such legislation. The role of the court usually ends in declaring a law unconstitutional; the patching up process is left to legislators who feel the point of the judicial gun at their temples. Upon what grounds would you object to a polygamist agitating for an extension of civil rights to allow him the same freedom enjoyed by non-polygamists? Courts usually frown upon the argument you advance once the court has decided that the petitioner is being denied a constitutional right. Difficulties may always be overcome – at some cost, to be sure, to our traditions. Sole proprietorships mutate into multi-proprietorships all the time.

• 29 ctkeith // Mar 20, 2007 at 8:56 pm ·     +0

  Don,

  Why not take this conversation over to your blog where noone will see it?

  Your Rovian tactic of printing the word Polygomy on a thread about Gay marriage a thousand times is kind of annoying and quite transparent by now.

• 30 adamcs95 // Mar 20, 2007 at 9:02 pm ·     +0

  Don,
  Let me start last first. Yes they may start as sole proprietorships and turn into an LLC, that doesn’t stop the fact that it has become a separate institution. What civil rights do you believe are being violated by the state refusing to issue multiple marriage contracts to one person?

• 31 adamcs95 // Mar 20, 2007 at 9:08 pm ·     +0

  Republitarian,
  I tried to fight the urge to respond to that but, the energy committee has recently reported out several bills, on an issue that no everyone realized was problem two years ago. Transportation has recently received a large influx of money in the last two years, problems aren’t solved over night. Eminent Domain inaction is inexcusable. No one except the Republicans supported Jessica’s Law, not prosecutors, not victim counselors, not victim advocates, not parent groups. Anyone who is actually aware the legal proceedings involved were against it.

• 32 Don Pesci // Mar 20, 2007 at 9:22 pm ·     +0

  CtKeith

  Should I be mentioning incest then?

• 33 Don Pesci // Mar 20, 2007 at 9:25 pm ·     +0

  What civil rights do you believe are being violated by the state refusing to issue multiple marriage contracts to one person?

  The same rights that are being denied to gays.

• 34 adamcs95 // Mar 20, 2007 at 9:32 pm ·     +0

  21st Amendment to the State Constitution:
  No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law nor be subjected to segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of his or her civil or political rights because of religion, race, color, ancestry, national origin, sex or physical or mental disability.

  I clearly see sex in that Amendment, I don’t see any mention of polygamists, or those who engage in incest.

• 35 adamcs95 // Mar 20, 2007 at 9:42 pm ·     +0

  Furthermore, Polygamy appears to be expressly prohibited by Section 3 of the Constitution

• 36 Don Pesci // Mar 20, 2007 at 9:58 pm ·     +0

  The thread I am developing is not entirely theoretical. Shortly after the Vietnam War, a cousin from New York – Fordham graduate – went to Saudi Arabia and, like T.E Lawrence, became infatuated with the culture and went native. He now has three wives. If he resettled in the United States, his marital arrangements would be frowned upon by the same sort of narrow-minded bigots that seek to deprive gays of their rights. Why shouldn’t the social franchise be extended to polygamists? adamcs95 says that accommodating my cousin, who holds duel citizenship, would be legislatively difficult. So what? Difficulties can be overcome. I am mentioning polygamy too often to suit CTKeith’s delicate taste. Hey, get over it, man. An authority on marriage and the Bible, writing recently in the Hartford Courant, reminds us that polygamy is part of the biblical culture. Practitioners of Islam here in the United States can hardly be expected to rest content with a religious rather than a civil right so long as the police are under the bed restricting what should be their civil rights. Polygamy will not affect non-polygamist marital arrangements. So what’s the problem?

• 37 ctkeith // Mar 20, 2007 at 10:42 pm ·     +0

  I think you answered your own question.Civil rights have nothing to do with any religion.If in the future we decide through our legislature or our courts that polygamous marriages are within our legal realm then they wil be.

• 38 Don Pesci // Mar 21, 2007 at 4:37 am ·     +0

  ctkeith

  Not so sure that civil rights have NOTHING to do with religion since religion is one of the counsitutional rights mentioned in the US constitution. But you can have the last word. Glad you’re down with polygamy.

• 39 ACR // Mar 21, 2007 at 5:55 am ·     +0

  >>Civil rights have nothing to do with any religion

  Can we quote you on that?

• 40 Al // Mar 21, 2007 at 8:45 am ·     +0

  Republitarian,

  Your post #27 last night says it all for me as well…….. I have no interest in weighing in with my thoughts on gay marriage, civil unions, or any other of these social issues. Certainly attitudes on issues like these continue to evolve over time. What was or was not acceptable to our parents/grandparents 25/50 years ago, probably will not be how our kids view things now or in 25 years. I can easily live with that. We are who we are.

  However your last comment that “Rome is burning” is close to my feelings as well. It just amazes me that so many here in CT can get so focused on these social issues, they cannot see this place going bankrupt.

  We urgently need to get our fiscal house in order here. Clearly you see and understand the same issues I see. Maybe in 25 years we will have all our social issues solved, and will have come up with a new economy that allows for endless continued spending with no results, but somehow problems get solved. Sounds a bit like Star Trek to me. I am however, shall we say, not convinced.

  Our General Assembly and Governor(s) must be forced into being honest about the fiscal mess they have created, and still are creating here, and are silently leaving to our kids to deal with. They can only do this if we continue to allow them to.

  I know when I was younger I didn’t care, fixing all the social problems was what all us college age people had as a first priority. Now that I am older, man how I wish I paid more attention to all the problems, and how they were being addressed.

  I guess simply put what was important to me when I didn’t have kids, became far more important after I had them. I guess the good news is we are really out of money, in debt beyond imagination, and have very few places left to find the money to pay the bills. Sooner or later that will get everyone’s attention. I hope in time to allow my kids to be able to afford to live here if they so chose. I hope before Rome has completly burned.

• 41 WSCoughin // Mar 21, 2007 at 8:56 am ·     +0

  I support the proposed bill that will include same-sex couples within Connecticut’s definition of marriage. The primary posting above ably states why this is a positive step.

  What amazes me are the 39 posted comments that follow. We need to get Don Pesci a day job so he can focus on something other than polygamy.

  Passage of the marriage equality bill would indicate that lesbians and gay men are social equals to nongays. Even more signifiant, same-sex marriage will imply that the SEXES are deeply and fundamentally equal. This brings to mind the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention passage of 2 closely linked rules: that a wife must “submit” to her husband and that homosexuality must be opposed by every possible means.

  EJ Graff reminds us that these two ideas are “twin sides of the same coin. If a woman marries another woman, who’s in charge? Restricting marriage to husband/wife pairs is an essential symbol of MALE supremacy–just as restricting marriage to one race was an essential symbol of WHITE supremacy. . . .Same-sex marriage reveals that marriage need not be hierarchial at all, that biology is not destiny, that marriage can be about not obedience but love.”

  As to the history of polygamy, it has been an instrument of male domination–one husband and multiple wives. The inclusion of same-sex couples within our marriage framework is a step forward for those who value egalitarinism in our state’s institutions. I would hope that Mr. Pesci can see the difference between “domination” and “egalitarianism.”

  I note that Stanley Kurtz is cited in a comment above. Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. It was established in 1976 to “apply the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy.” My experience with the writings of Stanley Kurtz is that he comes from that wing of the Judeo-Christian tradition that allies itself with the Empire rather than the Hebrew prophets. He would do well to read John Dominic Crossan’s new book God & Empire.

  Christian theologian Walter Wink edited an evenhanded book on gay issues within religion. It is titled Homosexuality and the Christian Faith.

  More recently Professor David Myers co-authored the book What God Has Joined Together? A Christian Case for Gay Marriage. He writes from his mid-western campus in Michigan and from an evangelical perspective. He supports the move toward marriage equality.

  So I suggest that social commenter Stanley Kurtz is one voice that claims Judeo-Christian roots. A focused analysis reveals, however, that his position is built on premises of hierarchy and power, rather than love and commitment.

• 42 Don Pesci // Mar 21, 2007 at 6:45 pm ·     +0

  WSCoughin — “As to the history of polygamy, it has been an instrument of male domination–one husband and multiple wives. The inclusion of same-sex couples within our marriage framework is a step forward for those who value egalitarianism in our state’s institutions. I would hope that Mr. Pesci can see the difference between ‘domination’ and ‘egalitarianism.’”

  According to most feminists, the history of marriage is a history of males dominating females. Surely we can agree that, at least in Western society, this is no longer the case. In most instances, there is a rough equality in marriages, as in all else. Going forward, why should the same not be true in polygamous marriages? In a perfectly equalitarian society women, in polygamous marriages, would be able to have as many or few husbands as men would have wives. An equalitarian could have no objection to that. Besides, my own personal objections or approval are unimportant; so are yours. The question is: If you don’t like polygamy and wish to prevent your sons and daughters from engaging in it, what are the laws and social conventions you may appeal to in order to effect your aim? According to you, those laws and social convention must not offend the principle of equality. Beyond this, I’m not clear what they might be.

• 43 Don Pesci // Mar 21, 2007 at 7:21 pm ·     +0

  WSCoughin: Then too, in the kind of marriage of which you approve — male, male and female, female — the kind of non-equalitarianism of which you disapprove could not occur. In a polygamous same sex marriage, there could be no gender inequality. If you must object, you must do so on other grounds.

• 44 adamcs95 // Mar 21, 2007 at 7:55 pm ·     +0

  One more time, Using religion to change marriage would go against everything we know to be true about a civil contract. It is a civil contract. Changing it based upon religious justification would make it a religious document. It being a religious document, expressly endorsing a religion that has plural marriages, would be unconstitutional under the first amendment. Discriminating based on gender is expressly prohibited, but so is endorsing religious practices, making this a non-issue.
  Homosexuals only have said rights because a prohibition on gender discrimination is enshrined in the state’s constitution, and under the equal protection clause, the US Constitution. Until polygamists are recognized as a seperate group, having characteristics that are inherent at birth, or at least beyond there control, then no civil rights are violated. No move could be made in the courts.

• 45 adamcs95 // Mar 21, 2007 at 7:58 pm ·     +0

  You know what, I’m just treading over the same ground again and again, hoping I can break through somehow. When I do, you ignore it (see the lack of responce to 34 and 35). If you feel so strongly about this argument, the public hearing on this bill is on Monday. Go and make a DeLuca out of yourself.

• 46 fire153k // Mar 21, 2007 at 9:40 pm ·     +0

  Adamcs95—–

  I think there are more than a few people that feel the timing of the gay bill being proposed has a lot to do with the CJ position. This will never pass on its own and will at some point go to the courts. Lawlor and McDonald might have felt that they needed Sullivan and Zarella out of the way if there was any chance of it passing a court challange (but who’s to say how they, Sullivan and Zarella, would have voted).

  While everyone else in Hartford was quiet, these two and the Courant carried on as if it was the end of the world. They twisted a nothing into something. Somehow, Dewy, Cheatem and Howe JUST HAPPENED to be on their side and the rest is history. Adam, given your other comments and your obvious position on this issue, I am shocked you would ask the question you are asking— as you just screwing with me?

  I think the supporters of this bill are really reaching on the consitutional question. The consitution protects sex as in man and woman but I don’t see anything or even suggesting the he’n and he’n and she’n and she’n protection being claimed. All this long winded consitutional talk is moot. It comes down to the will of the people and I can’t believe the people of CT will stand by and support this mess. I don’t know much but, in my humble opinion, he’n and he’n and she’n and she’n is far worse than anything that happened at the court. Just think— he’n and he’n—- holding a decision— as Lewis Black would say–” don’t think about that for more than a second or your head will explode”

• 47 Don Pesci // Mar 22, 2007 at 5:32 am ·     +0

  Okay, adamcs95. Well take it bit by bit.

  “One more time, Using religion to change marriage would go against everything we know to be true about a civil contract.”

  No one is proposing “using religion to change marriage.” In fact, no changes are proposed. In a civil society that recognizes polygamy – as it does in law recognize more traditional arrangements – religion would not be used to change marriage. Presently, polygamy is recognized in much of the world as a traditional marriage arrangement, and the civil law protects and does not change it. The same holds true with traditional marriage. The law here in the United States recognizes traditional marriage ALSO as a civil right. Indeed, the present legislation before the Connecticut legislature contemplates extending the same civil protections – marriage is a civil right but a religious privilege – to the less traditional marital arrangements aproved by gay couples. I am asking you to tell me why the same protections cannot be extended to those who practice polygamy. The extension of the protections of civil law to polygamous arrangements very likely will produce here in the United States a bumper crop of non-religious polygamists. What about them? Suppose a gay couple wishes to engage in a polygamous marriage in which there would be no sex differences; would you allow that? By the way, believe me – Delucca would not favor polygamous marriage. He might be able to develop a reasonable argument against my proposal, but it would be one, I fear, that would not find favor in your eyes.

• 48 Don Pesci // Mar 22, 2007 at 6:54 am ·     +0

  Adamcs95

  A comprehensive answer to 34 and 35 would take me very far from the thread I am developing. Briefly, let me say that correct constitutional interpretation is no longer a bar to the pretensions of the Supreme Court. Any court that deduces rights not specifically mentioned in the constitution – a right to privacy, for instance – from the “aura of rights surrounding the constitution” has effectively freed itself from contextual interpretation. And that means that a previous commentator may be right in supposing that an extension of rights to groups not covered in the plain text of statutory or constitutional law is purely a matter of will: “All this long winded consitutional talk is moot. It comes down to the will of the people.” I have little doubt that a court liberated from textual analysis is capable of deducing a “right” to polygamy from the aura surrounding a grapefruit.

• 49 Don Pesci // Mar 22, 2007 at 7:15 am ·     +0

  adamcs95

  Or, to put it another way: The Supreme Court having extruded a “privacy right” from the “aura of rights surrounding the constitution” that it then used to void statutory state laws governing sexual behavior, what is to prevent the same court from applying the same privacy rights to legalize, so to speak, the sexual behaviors of polygamists?

• 50 adamcs95 // Mar 22, 2007 at 4:59 pm ·     +0

  Your claim seem to suggest that this right is being claimed is somehow extra constitutional, that it takes an activist judiciary to create it. In fact, It has been reaffirmed several times that the government may not discriminate on the basis of gender. Despite what you may think the whole basis for this argument is solidly grounded in the constitution and judicial precedent. So yes, my constitutional arguments come into play, because I believe it is the clear that any judge that can look at the constitution and judicial precedent and not find favorable for Gay Marriage is being activist Even a quick reading of the decisions in New York and Washington against gay marriage will show a judiciary that is being truly activist. They ignore the wording of the State’s Constitution, deny themselves a role that the Judiciary has claimed almost since the founding of the republic, and ignore at least 50 years of Judicial precedent to come to their decision denying marriage equality. That is activism
  As for the right of privacy, marriage is inherently public, since what we are talking about is recognition in the public sphere. If there is any right to privacy related to polygamy, it is only when a marriage license is not applied for. That is why the government doesn’t go into the FLDS compound and arrest everyone for polygamy.
  Marriage is most of all a contractual commitment to another person. I know this example is crude, but when you sign a contract selling your house, it would be illegal for you to sign another contract selling to another person. Though I am not comparing marriage to selling yourself, it was the best example I could think of.
  As for the “make a DeLuca out of yourself” comment, I was referring to how the Senator made an ass of himself at the Plan B public hearing by being ill informed on the issue, and failing even to read to bill. Therefore what I was suggesting you that you should testify at the public hearing, which I’m sure would be a great embarrassment, even if you don’t realize it.

• 51 zamrs // Apr 4, 2007 at 7:30 pm ·     +0

  The opponents of equality are against civil union as well as marriage, as shown by the anti-gay amendments being pushed state by state and in Congress by right-wing groups. These attack measures would deny the freedom to marry, but also civil union, domestic partnership, and any other bit of protection, large or small. Separate and unequal “compromises” satisfy no one, and legislators who capitulate on questions of fundamental fairness and basic rights buy no one off, gain no peace, spare the state no debate, avoid no primary challenges, but rather just fall short on all sides.

  If we are going to have to fight anyway, why not fight for what we fully deserve? In fact, authenticity and leadership actually help politicians guide the public to the right result. Consider: In Vermont, where legislators created civil union rather than ending marriage discrimination, a right-wing firestorm followed anyway, with hateful attack ads across the state, primary challenges, and electoral turbulence. By contrast, in Massachusetts, every single legislator who supported marriage equality won reelection, and some of the loudest opponents were defeated, because the public had a chance to see leadership, hear the case, and, most importantly, see with their own eyes that when same-sex couples married, they didn’t use up the marriage licenses and the sky didn’t fall.

  Q. Isn’t marriage a religious matter?
  A. The issue before the government is equality in the right to marry. Furthermore, any given faith should, and will, retain the right to decide which couples it will or will not marry in its own religious rites.

  Q. Isn’t marriage about procreation?
  A. People have many reasons for wanting to marry—love, commitment, security—and there has never been a legal requirement that married couples have children (in fact many married heterosexual couples never do, while many gay parents want the freedom to marry precisely because they are raising kids and want to do so within marriage).

  Q. What about the children of gay marriages? Won’t they be confused at best?
  A. Those who argue for discrimination in marriage are harming children more by denying them the best legal protections and economic safety-net that marriage would bring their family. All children should enjoy the tangible and intangible benefits that marriage can bring.

  Q. Why not call same-sex unions something other than “marriages”?
  A. Only marriage can assure full equality under the law, as well as full security and protection for families. Creating a “parallel, non-marriage marital status” falls far short of the full equal rights the Constitution guarantees to all Americans, including gay Americans. There is no other system of legal protection; civil unions are currently available only in a few states and legal protection for families should not “sputter in and out like cell phone service.”

• 52 zamrs // Apr 4, 2007 at 7:32 pm ·     +0

  “[M]arriage came to be seen as an institution bringing together two individuals based on mutual affection and equality, without regard to rigidly defined gender roles or the ability to procreate… If you don’t like these changes in the institution, blame your grandparents, not the gay and lesbian couples seeking entry into this new model of marriage.”

  — Stephanie Coontz, who teaches history at The Evergreen State College, in Olympia, WA & wrote “Marriage, A History: How Love Conquered Marriage” (Viking, 2006)

You must log in to post a comment.