Welcome To CT

My Left Nutmeg

A community-driven blog featuring news and commentary on local, state, and national politics.

helphaiti

Donate to CT Dems
Enable ActBlue
for CT Races		 $
John Larson
(1st CD)		 $
Joe Courtney
(2nd CD)		 $
Rosa DeLauro
(3rd CD)		 $
Jim Himes
(4th CD)		 $
Chris Murphy
(5th CD)		 $
Ads on My Left Nutmeg
 
 

 
Contact Info
To contact the site admin email ctblogger at ctblogger@yahoo.com

My Left Nutmeg

Judiciary Committee Hearings: Marriage Equality - Open Thread

by: Maura

Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 12:46:45 PM EDT


CGG at Connecticut Local Politics and I had hoped to live-blog in person from the Judiciary Committee Hearings today, but unfortunately both of us had to cancel at the last minute this morning.

Happily, we all can still watch the hearings about marriage equality from home on CT-N.

Watch history being made online today!

Right now, the committee is just wrapping up testimony from legislators and state agencies.  We'll soon launch into testimony from the public, which will surely be interesting.  If you'd like to discuss, join me in the comments (where I'll do a little live-blogging for a bit for those of you who can't watch online.)
Maura :: Judiciary Committee Hearings: Marriage Equality - Open Thread
Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Judiciary Committee Hearings: Marriage Equality - Open Thread | 114 comments
Rep Morris (D) & Edith Prague rough transcript (4.00 / 1)
How would failure to pass this bill prohibit same-sex couples from sharing a life with one another?

Sen. Edith Prague (D):  Why shouldn't same-sex couples have the same respect as everyone else

Rep Morris:  So this is not an issue of sharing lives together, it's an issue of respect?

Prague: A relationship that is so important needs that recognition.  YOu're part of a society, you shouldn't have to feel any less important.  Your marriage shouldn't be any less important.  Each of us as human beings is entitled to that kind of relationship.  I strongly feel that marriage between two people of the same sex is equally important as marriage between two people of the opposite sex....

Rep Morris:  What I'm trying to get clarity on here as we go forward is trying to get clarity here on the religious nature of giving all the rights...what I'm looking for is there some civil benefit that we failed to do in civil unions that we need to rectify?  Other than that, I'm hearing the respect side and the label and whether having this label makes you a better couple or not.

Prague:  I don't think people should just be tolerated.  People deserve that word that's so important to all of us.  That's respect.  I don't think we should single people out and give them second class status.

Video of Edith Prague's testimony (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Rep. O'Neill (R-69) & Edith Prague rough transcript (4.00 / 1)
O'Neill: In the past, just 30 years ago, people were concerned with global cooling, not global warming...I'm concerned with long term consequences here...the consequences of a way that people define marriage may take longer than that to detect

Prague:  Marriage has changed a lot since the times of Adam and Eve, it could  be Adam and Adam, it could be Eve and Eve

(people in the crowd make objection noises)

Senator McDonald breaks in and reminds the crowd that we have strong feelings in the room and to be quiet and respectful

Prague:  There are people here in the room that will never be convinced, but...

O'Neill: We have to think of the long term consequences here...in the past, people supported urbanization and building and development, and now we're concerned with sprawl...and I see this as a major change...you're saying we want these people to feel better and be respected...and yet I wonder about the consequences to the broader society over time

Prague: Sprawl and buildings is a completely different kind of issue than granting human beings the right to marry the person that they love and want to share their life with.  I can't see where one equates with the other.  That's how I feel.  I feel every marriage needs to be on the same level.  I remember not too long ago when I first moved to the town I lived in...there was a man down the street who was anti-Semitic...and he didn't care what kind of person I was, only that I was Jewish...but later I became part of the community and he came to like me...I think this opposition to allowing each other to marry is similar to what I went through, this man had no reason, I hadn't done anything, he just didn't want me there because I was jewish.

Sen Gomes and Sen Prague (4.00 / 1)
Gomes:  Years ago, a black  man was considered only 2/5 of a man, and they changed the law to allow interracial marriage...some people thought we were moving too fast then...would you equate the change in the law then to what we are trying to do today?

Prague:  Absolutely, Senator

Gomes:  Thank you.

Sen Cappiello (R) and Sen Prague (Rough transcript!!!) (4.00 / 1)
Cappiello:  I supported civil unions...can you tell me what civil benefits same sex-couples don't have now that they would have with marriage?

Prague:  I don't have that information to give you...I would ask you to look beyond legal issues and think of your lovely wife and how lucky you are to have someone to share you life with...

Cappiello:  And I do...unfortunately there are some things that we can't control regardless of the law, like what happened to you in your town...you can't change the way people feel.  Here in CT, we've taken a massive step without any courts intervening...if this bill doesn't pass, there is still nothing preventing same-sex couples from enjoying lives and engaging in that love...separating  the issue of what it's called and also what the practical realities are and the differences are for residents of CT, and I do appreciate your answers and I think we agree on much of what you said.

Weak answer by Praque (0.00 / 0)
There are many differences she could have mentioned.

She doesn't seem to be making the strongest possible arguments. I hope she gets help.

[ Parent ]
Public commentary now - very rough transcript (4.00 / 1)
Rep. Lawlor doesn't seem to be here at this point...Sen Mc Donald mentions an overflow room.

Maggie Gallagher is first speaker - she is from the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.

Gallagher: I've spent 20 years in a marriage debate...about our high rates of family fragmentation, divorce...I want to share with you why I think gay marriage is a momentous change and not the right thing to do.  What is marriage?  Marriage exists in virtually every known human society..always about bringing a man and woman into a sexual union and the responsibilities to children they create...why is this true?

...Society needs babies..children need a father...when a child is born, there is bound to be a mother close by.  If we want fathers to be involved, there is a cultural process by which we teach that fathers have an obligation to their children, and that word is marriage...

...mountain of evidence...as persuasive to me is the voice of my own son...I had a baby outside of marriage, and so when I come to this debate about whether children need  mothers and fathers I hear the voice of my 2 year old son saying "Where's my daddy?"

[Members can now ask follow up questions.  Mc Donald asks people to turn phones to silent or vibrate.]

REP LAWLOR:  Hi, Ms. Gallagher...lemme just ask you something...what do you think we should do in terms of same-sex relationships...I understand you think marriage is off the table, but what do you think they should get in terms of recognition?

GALLAGHER:  No problem with civil unions, I'm concerned with marriages...I don't think that gay people are waiting for me to come up with a 10-point plan for them...I only entered this debate because I care about marriages

LAWLOR:  Essentially, we have same-sex marriage here, we just call it civil unions...why wouldn't all of that apply to us doing the exact same thing and just calling it civil unions?

GALLAGHER: I don't actually agree that civil unions are the same as marriage...I see it as a civil solution for practical problems for people who don't want it to be married in the traditional way...there's somethign special about unions of husbands and wives that justifies the unique status in laws, the things that really are different about opposite couples, that only a man and woman can come together to create a child and attach to that child...the opposite idea is irrational bigotry...what will this mean for those of us to see marriage as betwen a man and a woman...what do we do with bigots in our society?...those of you who think people like me are like bigots who oppose interracial marriage ...

LAWLOR:  Let's take the bigotry topic...

GALLAGHER: Marriage is older than the state of CT, it's older than the US Constitution...what the legislature is proposing to do is that this older definition of marriage is wrong and bigoted...for the state to say the congugal vision of marriage is a species of bigotry is a powerful idea to launch...

LAWLOR:  There were people who felt very strongly that doing this [civil unions] would create official sanction for same-sex marriage...when the bigotry topic comes up, it's a bigotry that's about their views on homosexuality...it sounds like you don't believe that, I don't know...but there are some people who think  homosexuality is intrinsicly evil and objectively disordered...one state senator said in helping to make up his mind is this a choice or are you born with it, and if you're born with it, why shouldn't you have equal rights?  When people talk about bigotry, it's about people's feelings about homosexuality, not about opposing gay marriage

GALLAGHER:  I heard powerful arguments here that people who oppose gay marriage are like anti-semites, are like racists....the argument that is being made before the CT Supreme Court is an argument that sees anything that is distinctive between man and wife is either disordered or is based in malice toward homosexuality...it's an argument about justice, and I don't believe marriage is discriminiatory...it's not discrimination any more than social security is about age discrimination.

LAWLOR: So help us undersatnd your views.  Is homosexuality immoral?

GALLAGHER:  I'm Roman Catholic...so  if someone asked me to have gay sex, I'd say no.

LAWLOR: But you'd say no because presumably you're not gay, right?

GALLAGHER: Well, I don't know...

[I'm so stunned by this exchange I stopped typing...]

GALLAGHER: The legislature offered a benefit structure to help these people who aren't likely to get married...but if you believe like I do that marriage is not discriminatory, you might want to do things for our gay and lesbian fellow citizens...I don't believe our marriage laws are an irrational violation of equal protection.

[stepped away for a sec]

LAWLOR: Are you saying public policy should engage gay people to marry opposite sex couples?

GALLAGHER: No...I haven't said anything about gay people, I've only said that this is an important social norm...

[stepped away again]

Holy crap (4.00 / 1)
I knew I should have taken today off to go see this.

Thanks for liveblogging this, Maura. I'm at work, and can't watch!

[ Parent ]
Thanks! (0.00 / 0)
I'm glad somebody's reading!!  My rough transcript is not as great right now because there's a loud phone conversation going on in the same room...
[ Parent ]
Lawlor/Gallagher exchange (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Sen Kissell (R) to Maggie Gallagher (rough) (4.00 / 1)
Kissell:  I find your testimony refreshing...and I agree with your hope to shift the argument...we all have a common notion of what a chair is...there are things that have come down through time and we all have a common notion of what that is...in the one sense, historial concept of a marriage between a man and a woman toward the laudable goal of procreation..and that's important...population of Europe and North America dying out and their position in civilization dying out as well...there's an isolated handful of folks that are bigoted, but those folks are few and far between...I really wish we could set that aside because most of the folks I talk to that are hesitant...fundamental diversity between man and woman can be set aside...so I agree with you, and to allow proponents to somehow raise up the spectre of anti-semitism and racism misses the point....elevating the notion of what a marriage is, is that it allows for procreation...the ideal, what we aspire to...the problem we have in my district, the vast majoriy are going to urge me to say no...and there's a part of this argument that the horse may be out of the barn already...once we allowed same-sex couples through a probate court to adopt a child, we said same-sex couples should be just as good parents as opposite sex couples...we took that step many years ago and there really hasn't come to pass any negative information regaring that.  That is not to say that  the ideal isn't a man and a woman, but we're not living in that ideal society, so we opened up that course of action.  Then we had a law that extended many but not all of the rights of marriage to same sex couples, so there was this creeping kind of progression to where we are today...by passing this law, no substantive rights and responsibilites will change, but the pride and dignity and association of the word "marriage" will be there...and by the way, I don't think this is the last step...I think a critical mass of states will challenge the federal courts on this...so where does that leave us?
Gallagher back to Kissell (rough) (4.00 / 1)
Gallagher: As an American...nothing is inevitable but death or taxes...I think you're making a choice, and it's not an inevitable choice.  I see adoption and marriage as being rather separate issues...adoption is not about the preferred ideal for children...adoption is a wonderful thing, it's a happy ending to something that is either a tragedy or a terrible thing...so adoption is what we do in the most broken of families, and in those cases the ressponsibility of the state is not to promote an ideal, but to take care of the child.  The argument for gay adoption...does not require us to  surrender that there is something significantly important with..the unique  mission of marriage.

KISSEL:  I really do appreciate that and I do think the majority of my constituents will agree with you. ...I appreciate your analogy to Social Security...and your point is that "traditional marriage" has a special role in our society, and before we hand that away -- and by the way, I understand the arguments about more than 2...  [huh?]  I have no inherent dislike of anyone in this room and the way anyone wants to live their life, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you come to the same conclusion about this issue...and so I appreciate you bringing that notion to this discussion...

[ Parent ]
Kissell/Gallagher exchange (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Sen Gomes to Maggie Gallagher (0.00 / 0)
GOMES: [missed the beginning of question]...what we're trying to do here is remedy something that is the fault of a lot of things that have happened in the past...I hear other people mention are we venturing into something new and will have ramifications into the future...almost every law we pass has ramifications into the future...nowadays 56% of marriages end in divorce, and by the way I contributed to 2 of them, but I had children in both of them...if you're going to raise children it's all about beliefs and thoughts that you teach them rather than who you are...

GALLAGHER:  I think that's a pretty clear statement of the differences between us...the point I wanted to make is when you equate the union of a man and wife with anti-semitism and racism...the reality is you're not doing a small thing, you're doing a big thing, and it's going to be a new vision of marriage

GOMES:  I know this is major, it's as major as changing the law for interracial marriage, it's nearly as major as the chaging the law that a black man was 3/5 of a man.

Gomes knocked it out of the park (0.00 / 0)
I'm going to work on posting the videos now and add it to each  transcript.
[ Parent ]
Gomes/Gallagher exchange (4.00 / 1)
Gomes_Gallagher

[ Parent ]
Rep Pat Dillon (D) to Maggie Gallagher (4.00 / 1)
DILLON:  We may disagree you and I, though we come from the same faith tradition, if I haven't been kicked out yet, I'm skating on thin ice there.

GALLAGHER: I'm sure you and I can talk about it in Purgatory together

DILLON: There you go...

GALLAGHER:  One is that sex makes babies, society needs babies, and babies need a father as well as a mother...the two ideas you're being asked to choose between is there's something unique about unions of husband and wives or on the other hand that people are bigots

DILLON: Well, I think that's a straw woman argument, because I don't see this in terms of bigotry...when I supported civil unions, I saw it in grounds of community, sort of a communitarian argument...I have friends who are conservative who argued that same sex marriage is a conservative thing to do because it creates order in a disordered area of the law...I want to discuss the extent to which these institutions are artifacts of law that change.  My grandparents parents came here as a results of a famine and they were considered part of an inferior race...there was a debate about slavery and the whole concept of race has a whole history of being a societal construct, and I think one could argue that marriage, if you look at the disputes betwen Henry 8th and the Vatican that marriage was more about property rights than about love or procreation...generally speaking, I don't think the law should get ahead of the people...can you get to my point that marriage is a social construct that can change?

GALLAGHER:  I want people to take responsibility for these arguments...people here wearing MARRIAGE EQUALITY stickers...I do believe discrimination is the main argument on the table and there are very real consequences...now I blanked on your question

DILLON: I asked about these institutions as social artifacts, number one, and I also mentioned the conservative argument of creating an order in a disordered area of law

GALLAGHER:  I'm not arguing that we've done it this way and so it never can be changed, that's un-American...I've debated Jonathan Rausch who is the architect of the argument that gay marriage could be good for marrriage betwen man and woman as a social norm....I guess we would just disagree then about what it means to endorse gay marriage

MCDONALD:  I really appreciate your testimony...please folks remember that we have 75 people to go...it's very important that everyone have an equal right to have their testimony heard by the committee.

Rob Savosky (sp?), American Academy of Pediatrics (0.00 / 0)
Testifying that American Academy of Pediatrics supports this bill.  Has found that "children who are born to or adopted by one parent of a same-sex couple"...no negative effects due to having 2 same sex parents, what has been proven is that children who grow up in an environment where they are safe, loved, and nurtured grow up better regardless of whether they have same-sex parents.  But children of same-sex parents do not grow up with enough security because the law doesn't provide security for their parents [total paraphrase here]
Ha! (0.00 / 0)
Excellent. That's a very solid argument, and the American Academy of Pediatrics should be commended.

Disappointed in Sen. Kissel. I wonder who will run against him in 2008?

[ Parent ]
from AAP (0.00 / 0)
AAP has supported gay parenting for awhile now

A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children's optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.


The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. --Martin Luther King, Jr.
[ Parent ]
AAP (0.00 / 0)
Always good to see stupid combated with research and evidence.
[ Parent ]
Medicine is good at that (0.00 / 0)
Another recent example would be the Plan B issue.

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. --Martin Luther King, Jr.
[ Parent ]
He voted against Compassionate Care Too... (0.00 / 0)
He's on my list.
[ Parent ]
Kissel (0.00 / 0)
I don't see Bill Kiner making another run at him.

Hmmm... someone call Derek Donnelly.

[ Parent ]
Rep Morris to Savoski (0.00 / 0)
MORRIS: Help me understand how this bill helps provide more security or permanence

ZAVOSKI:  Marriage matters in areas such as health insurance...if we happened to be a same-sex couple, my partner could not give consent for my daughter's treatment.  Second possibility, only one parent of same-sex parents is recognized as the legal parent, if that parent dies, the child could end up in the foster care system.  Unfortunately, the word matters...the current law has broken down some of those barriers, but the barriers would exist

MORRIS: But our current law provides every benefit that a person who's married yets...somehow by calling this now a "marriage", how would we be providing greater security or permanence.  If your argument is from a benefits standpoint, the legislature has already provided the benefits.

ZAVOSKI:  In law that is so, but in practice it is not.

MORRIS: So if we have covered it in law, then your argument is not a reasonable argument or one for our consideration

ZAVOSKI:  It's more the practice.

MORRIS: Thank you.

[ Parent ]
Lawlor provides clarity on health insurance (0.00 / 0)
ERISA law, health insurance, is a federal law, and federal law trumps state law...it's possible that the insurance company won't pay if that parent is not covered under the policy.  If they were married and federal law recognized these things, that would not be a problem.

If they get civil unions, they're taxed for the value of that health insurance policy, and if they were married, they would not be taxed under federal law.

SEN. CAPPIELLO (R): The employers that you're speaking of are employers who have chosen to have self-funded insurance plan...if we were to provide a marriage statute, we still would have no effect on this case because they're under federal ERISA plans, for better or worse.

[ Parent ]
Shirley Pripstein, Greater Hartford Legal Aid (0.00 / 0)
Rep of Family Law section of Connecticut Bar Association...testifying regarding recognition of foreign gay marriages...it is important that you act on 1449 because there is a hole in CT law regarding recognition of foreign same-sex marriages.  As you know, Massachusetts does recognize same sex marrage, as does Canada.  They are, in law, in limbo because we do not recognize their same-sex marriage.

What we need to do is say that a marriage in massachusetts will be considered a civil union in CT.

[No questions for this person.]

Okay, some chriopractor counsel... (0.00 / 0)
...this is one of the tough things about these hearings that I experienced at the Compassionate Care hearing.  The vast majority of members of the public there that day were there to testify on the autism bill and the Plan B bill, but the poor people who wanted to speak on other bills had to wait for hours and hours to testify on the same day as the more incendiary bills.

There's gotta be a better way to handle this.

Barry Clifton, senior pastor at Grace Baptist in Clifton (0.00 / 0)
Speaking in opposition to the bill.

30 years ago if someone suggested we'd be debating gay marriage now you'd be dismissed as a space alien.

...if science truly mattered in this discussion, we'd hear about the significant physical harm that comes from engaging in homosexual relations...repeated thoughts and behaviors literally imprint themselves in the mind...many people are able to change the direction of their sexual orientation...

...sexual detoxification, if I can use that term... [no, dude, you can't!]...

...we are like little children playing with gunpowder...we are told that love makes a family but that doesn't work so smoothly for a woman who has been conceived through a sperm bank...that doesn't work so smoothly for a young man who threw himself into the gay community for three years and emerged with AIDS...[something about Britney Spears?}

...that is because we have removed all the warning labels that have been handed us down for centuries... we need to move to strengthen marriage...

Rep. Walker questions Clifton (0.00 / 0)
WALKER: I was going to just listen...but I have to intervene...AIDS does not come from sexual preference...it is not because of the choice of sex to partner with...we have to be very careful about how we define different paths...then you made a statement about the woman who decides to have a baby through artificial insemination but there are couples, men and women, who decide to have babies this way....in that regard, I respect you totally for your opposition and I think that's perfectly fine but we have to be careful...

CLIFTON:  ...We have to recognize the statistical evidence that suggests that if you embrace this lifestyle you are facing this possibility....

[ Parent ]
This guy, I'm guessing, knows his space aliens (0.00 / 0)
n/t
[ Parent ]
Rep. Minnie Gonzales (D) (0.00 / 0)
GONZALES: As legislators, we have to be careful...we vote for things that maybe will help kids but maybe will also hurt kids...I remember a story 10 years ago that I met a young girl, 14 years old, who kept running away from home....she was crying [about being adopted?]...she was embarrassed and ran away from home and ended up on the street because she wanted to sue the state...kids are cruel sometimes...we have to know when to stop as legislators...we have to understand what is right and what is wrong.

[What the hell was that all about????]

MCDONALD: This is time for hearing from the public.

GONZALES: My question is, what is wrong with civil unions?

CLIFTON: WE're talking about marriage.

GONZALES: Exactly.

[Seriously.  That was the craziest, most completely irrelevant statement I've heard today.  What's up with Gonzales?]

[ Parent ]
Minnie is crazy. (0.00 / 0)
Seriously, you've never watched her in action before? She rambles on at every hearing I've ever watched, and asks the weirdest, most irrelevenat questions. When Sullivan was testifying in front of the committee, she kept asking him how he felt.
[ Parent ]
I'm impressed with Rep. Morris's questions (0.00 / 0)
He's asking some great questions. And thanks for blogging on this, by the way.
[ Parent ]
That was my first intro to her... (0.00 / 0)
...and lemme tell you,  it was memorable.
[ Parent ]
Rep Morris to Rev. Clifton (0.00 / 0)
MORRIS: This is not so much the issue of sexual orientation...let me go into a different direction, since you're a pastor, what does your congregation think about marriage?

[What the hell?]

CLIFTON: The woman who testified at length earlier expressed our feelings well...

MORRIS: Do you have any arguments that are in a faith context?

{??????!!????!}

CLIFTON:  We all have a sense of right and wrong...some get theirs from Oprah...mine is from Judeo-Christian tradition of what is right and wrong...

MORRIS:  In any context, do you as a pastor take ownership to marriage as an institution?

CLIFTON: ...most of what I said didn't make any reference to religion at all...yes, there are deeper levels to this if we were sitting at home around a table that we could get into that would involve scripture

[Dude.  This pastor seems to know better than Morris that arguments about faith and scripture are not really relevant here.]

[ Parent ]
Barry Clifton=part of the problem (0.00 / 0)
I can't believe what I'm hearing from this guy.

"As we learn more about the elasticity of the human brain, we also gain insight into how repeated thoughts and behaviors literally imprint themselves on the mind to the point where behavior comes to be perceived as inescapable...this also explains why some are able to change the direction of their sexual orientation through a variety of "therapeutic methods." The process of "sexual detoxification" if I can call it that, is difficult but it is not impossible."

Unbelievable...this guy is nuts. I can't wait to get his video testimony online.

[ Parent ]
Dawn Stefanowicz - raised by a gay father (0.00 / 0)
testifying against the bill

STEFANOWICZ:  ...my father was involved in active homosexuality...he also was married to my mother and had a heterosexual union first...I was at high risk to exposure to different pathogens including hepatitis due to my father's sexual behaviors...there has not been a lot of research done...my father discarded a number of partners...I was overtly exposed to the subcultures beginning at 8 years old...growing up in a cosmopolitan city like Toronto...we do have concerns and risks that we share, we don't feel like we belong...we struggle withour sexuality...if you legislate  marriage for same sex couples, you are redefining what parent means...

WAIT!!!  This story sounds familiar...she's the FIC poster child for "my gay dad was bad for me!

Rep. Rowe (R) to Stefanowicz (0.00 / 0)
ROWE: [paraphrase] You had a bad experience, but some others haven't had bad experiences...

STEFANOWICZ: ...you carry that burden of your parents sexual preferences...deeper than that,  my identity was influenced personally by my father's sexuality...it toook me 30 years to disconnect from  my father's identity...marriage is crucial and should be fenced in how it's definied...recognizing that children are impacted deeply and long term...

ROWE: Your testimony cites a number of studies which conclude, I think, that children parented by a mother and a father in a stable marriage are better off than those that are not...can you very briefly touch on some of the studies that your testimony cites?

STEFANOWICZ: ...the American College of Pediatricians disagrees with the American Academy of Pediatricians...I really have a problem with the research because from teh reading that I have done it has looked at population samples that have been taken directly from teh gay and lesbian subcultures....some parents may be quieter about how the family form is...there is a wider group of children that are not being interviewed...some studies are in interview format and knew that this particular child came from a heterosexual union or a same-sex marriage union, which builds bias into the studies...small sample too small to base a major decision like this on those small studies. 

ROWE: You grew up in Canada...do you still live there? 

STEFANOWICZ: I live in Canada, and we do not even have freedom to dialogue on this issue.

[Dude, opponents had to fly in another poster child witness again, just like the witness in the Plan B hearing who testifies all over the country about how happy she was to have had the child of her rapist, bringing her daughter and baby granddaughter along to make the point.]

I lost track of her point, but she's now talking about how Canada can't stop polygamy from being legalized...this is ridiculous and totally irrelevant...

ROWE:  When did Canada pass same-sex  marriage?

STEFANOWICZ: 2005...we were waiting for a new government to come in...

ROWE: So was the law passed in 2005?  (Yes)  So the free speech difficulties that you've talked about have arisen in the last year, year and a half?

STEFANOWICZ:  We've had hate crime legislation since 2004...we have marriage commissioners paid for by the state  who have lost their jobs because it was against their beliefs to marry a same-sex couple...Canadians are at great risk of being fined or silenced...some fragments of the media take chances...

Dude, there are  more than 70 people waiting to testify...we have to get into Canadian issues?

[ Parent ]
She got in the plug for her website, though... (0.00 / 0)
Quite smooth...
[ Parent ]
Parents Behaving Badly (0.00 / 0)
Look, here are a lot of really awful heterosexual parents, many worse than Dawn's.

By her argument, we should ban heterosexual marriage, too. 

[ Parent ]
Or a reason to issue parenting licenses... (0.00 / 0)
I agree. She had a bad father, and that's sad. But he was a bad father who was also gay, not a bad father because he was gay.
[ Parent ]
Exactly!!!! n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
That fine argument is lost on fundies. (0.00 / 0)
Because religious fundamentalists have such small brains which goes along with their narrow-mindedness, they can not grasp the sophistication of that argument.

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. --Martin Luther King, Jr.
[ Parent ]
Rep. Klarides (R) to Stefanowicz (0.00 / 0)
[picking up a few minutes in]

KLARIDES:  ...you can have the same problem with heterosexual parents...I don't really draw the line if it's a heterosexual couple doing it versus a homosexual couple doing it...it's bad either way.  [Thank you!!!!]

KLARIDES:  ...there are many studies showing problems with divorce, yet the answer to that is not to get rid of divorce...

STEFANOWICZ:  Gender is really important to childhood sexual development...I was confused about  my own sexuality...we are confused about gender...in my household, women were not valued, and as a daughter my father could not affirm  my own femininity properly because  he could not love a woman the same way he could love a man...I felt that I was not as important...

KLARIDES:  I applaud you...

STEFANOWICZ:  ...when it comes to legislative decisions that will impact society, I believe there needs to be a higher standard...some of the dangers that children are exposed to in the kind of household I grew up in...even with my father, say he was in a monogamous relationship...there are going to be a number of risk factors that wouldn't be in a heterosexual household

KLARIDES:  And there are risks in a heterosexual household that wouldn't be in a homosexual householdss...I work with domestic violence...there are tons of women who say their self esteem is low because their dad didn't respect their mom, and those were purely heterosexual relationships.

MCDONALD: Any quesetion for this witness?

KLARIDES:  This hearing is to discuss going further than civil unions...with the law we already have, there would be the same problems because you're saying living in a homosexual home would not be the same...

STEFANOWICZ: Marriage is an institution that needs to be protected...who's to say you're not goin to have two sisters or two brothers...

Dude....now she's getting into incest?  Well, we have heterosexual marriage now, what's to stop a sister and a brother from wanting to get married heterosexually?  Because it's illegal, silly!!!!

[ Parent ]
OK, I take it back. (0.00 / 0)
Morris is not asking good questions. "Did you ever feel comfortable calling him 'daddy'?"
[ Parent ]
Seriously (0.00 / 0)
He's way off the reservation.
[ Parent ]
Good for Themis. (0.00 / 0)
I'm glad Klarides is not stupid with this issue.

Beyond the illegality of a sibling marriage, that kind of in-breeding opens up a can of biological worms in the form of recessive (yet, undesirable) genes being manifested--producing unhealthy offspring. Oh look, junior has only one eye.

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. --Martin Luther King, Jr.

[ Parent ]
Rep Morris to Stefanowicz - rough rough (4.00 / 1)
[picking up a few minutes in]

MORRIS:  Did you ever feel comfortable calling one of your father's partners "Daddy?"

What??@?!?  Would he ask that about a heterosexual parent who dated a lot of different people???  Why is this relevant to the issue of marriage?  So her father was promiscuous...so are a lot of heterosexual parents.  What does this have to do with marriage equality?

Sorry, I got distracted with annoyance...

STEFANOWICZ: ...in Canada, we do not have the same freedoms you have here...

MORRIS: Do most Canadian gays and lesbians want same-sex marriage?

STEFANOWICZ:  It's a small clique within the subcultures who want this...problem with that is majority of gay and lesbian people do not want to have any restrictions on their sexuality...it is a minority that pursue same sex marriage.

MORRIS:  Any statistics on this?

STEFANOWICZ:  I don't know if our gov't is properly keeping records about how many are citizens and how many are not

MORRIS: That would be helpful

STEFANOWICZ:  1% of the population identifying as gay and lesbian, a tiny percentage of that wanting to be married.

[ Parent ]
Reading along... (4.00 / 6)
Hey guys, its Mike Lawlor, just following along your posts with the hearing.  Im very impressed with your ability to transcribe this stuff in real time, Maura!  I think today's hearing is a great opportunity for folks to hear what people think on this topic, pro and con.  It has always been my opinion that this is one issue where the more people talk about it and the more they think about it, the more they gravitate in the direction of full equality for same sex couples.  To me, this issue has really been more about homosexuality than it has been about marriage.  In general, it seems that who think homosexuality is just a normally occuring phenomenon in nature have little if any concern about marriage equality.  People who think it is a choice, as opposed to just a natural trait randomly assigned, generally seem to oppose this and any other anti discrimination law aimed at protecting gays and lesbians.  Anyway, hope you all stay tuned and help continue this discussion in the weeks and months ahead.
Wow, that's so cool!!! (0.00 / 0)
Thanks for stopping by.  You're the best, Sparky.

(Want to ask her if she is getting paid for her testimony by FIC?  I'm wondering...)

[ Parent ]
BTW... (4.00 / 1)
...Melissa and I are SO sorry we couldn't make it up there today.  I really wish I was there!!!
[ Parent ]
Me Too (0.00 / 0)
but I woke up this morning with a fever.  However Thanks to Maura I can follow this thing between naps.
[ Parent ]
Hope you brought some snacks with you... (0.00 / 0)
Looks like this will be a marathon hearing.
[ Parent ]
written testimony (4.00 / 4)
by the way, you can read scanned copies of all the written submissions here today by clicking here;

http://www.cga.ct.go...

Rick McKinniss, Pastor, Wellspring Church, Kensington (0.00 / 0)
testifying against the bill

McKINNIS:  Court action has already been forward contesting polygamy...direct extension of the reasoning used to forward same-sex marriage...once marriage has been removed from its basic binary unit of man and union, what's to stop [polygamy]...this is not wild speculation on my part, it's a direct result of legalization of same-sex marriage.  There are direct consequences to the actions...there is an advocacy network called "Beyond Marriage" to include households with more than one congugal partner...these steps namely are polygamy and polyamory...Massachusetts...a man by the name of David Parker was horrified when his kindegartener was  subjected to aggressive homosexual indoctrination...????? 

Dude.  I know this case.  "Aggressive homosexual indoctrination?"  It was a children's book that had same sex parents in it.  BFD.  That's not SEXUAL in nature???

Sen Gomes asks for definition of polyamory (0.00 / 0)
Good to know this hearing is at least educational.  :-)
[ Parent ]
Rev. Raymond DuBuque, Methodist Pastor (0.00 / 0)
is this guy testifying about a murder conspiracy...the murder of liberal popes???  This is really priceless!!!
Helpful link to this important web site (0.00 / 0)
Liberals Like Christ...Murdered Popes

Okay, now he's getting into a real poignant story about a guy who didn't get the medals from a solider killed in action...I wish he had skipped the pope murder argument and stuck to this!

[ Parent ]
OMG! (0.00 / 0)
I dropped by daughter's bottle when I heard this priest's testimony...and CTLayurn is not happy about that.

And what's up with everyone offering up their websites like product placements in TV shows?

[ Parent ]
Here's the best part of Rev. Raymond DuBuque's testimony (0.00 / 0)
Rep Lawlor: Rev, Reverend, if you can just...we're trying to keep everyone to as close as three minutes as possible.
[ Parent ]
Rep. Lawlor helpful comments (0.00 / 0)
Mike Lawlor reminds people that all the written testimony as well as transcripts of all the oral testimony will be available online.  Talks about the role of this hearing in the overall lawmaking process, reminds people their words will matter today even if all members of the committee are not here.
Mike Morand, Assoc VP at Yale (0.00 / 0)
testifying in favor of the bill

MORAND: starts off with impressive list of public service that he and his husband have participated in....the status quo remains, separate and unequal.  It is time for our state to complete its work....equality hurts no one...does n=not hurt religion...Frank and I met in Church...the United Church of Christ supports gay marriage unequivocally and enthusiastically...I felt fear and shame as a kid because I was born gay...it took more than a decade to come out to my parents...CT has been a good place for me and Frank to make a home because it has been progressive...as we mark 18 years together...

Sorry, he was a quick talker!  I couldn't keep up, but his testimony was excellent...since the testimony is already online, I'm going to try to focus on the back and forth with questioning from legislators.

Ben Stratford (0.00 / 0)
testifying against the bill

paraphrase:  seems to want this to be a referendum, not decided by legislation

Ann Stanback - Love Makes a Family (rough) (0.00 / 0)
my fingers are tired, so I'm going to focus on a Q&A with Stanback...her testimony is great so far, but we all can read the written testimony online

Some highlights:
"discomfort should not be a barrier to equality"
"I have an 84 year old father and he wants nothing more to see me legally married to my partner of 24 years"

LAWLOR: Glad you've mentioned how much things have changed...it's fascinating to see the difference in how people talk about these issues right now...

Rep. Geragosian to Stanback (0.00 / 0)
GERAGOSIAN:  You maintained support for marriage, not civil unions, right?

STANBACK:  Marriage is the goal of LMF, yes.

GERAGOSIAN: Tell me why "separate but equal" is not appropriate to you?

STANBACK:  when our gov't says you can treat one group of people differently, it gives other people permission to do the same

Darn...I just got a call...gotta hang on

[ Parent ]
Rep. Morris & Stanback (4.00 / 1)
missed the first part

STANBACK: Marriage is more than just a bundle of rights...everyone understands what marriage is

MORRIS: ...there are two separate issue, one side is the benefits argument, the other side is the label of marriage...as a follow up to Rep. Walker, are we putting the cart before the horse

STANBACK:  Are there any additional benefits that would be conferred with this?  Not immediately, no

MORRIS: ...so it's really a respect issue

STANBACK:  It's the harm that's done socially and emotionally as well...the legal rights are surely important, but there are harms other than the legal ones...harms for not being treated equally under the constitution?

MORRIS:  What inequality under the constitution?

STANBACK: Not having access to the vocabulary of marriage

MORRIS:  Inequality is the use of the vocabulary of language?  ...I try to advocate for you ...I'm trying to help you out here if I can

STANBACK:  It's the first step to gaining access to federal rights, but it's about being able to call our relationship a marriage, which is what it is...it sends a message to the thousands of gay youth in our state who are really looking to this state legislature...

MORRIS: ...so it's not a treatment issue...you're looking for validation

STANBACK:  Language is important...look at this in terms of gender equality...if you said okay, we'll let women be judges but not get to use the word "judge", we'll call them "deciders of fact"....  this was a GREAT analogy

MORRIS:  ...this issue has nothing to do with benefits but is strictly about validation due to the name...

STANBACK:  It IS about benefits.  It's true that in the immediate short term we would not have access to those benefits to DOMA, but if we can't get married, we won't be able to challenge that law or have those  benefits when that law is overturned

MORRIS:  ...what is it that we're really trying to accomplish for the gay community...and if the situation right now is that we'll not be able to get one additional federal benefit for you...and I think that is wrong, if I could get you those benefits I would, but since you can not have that...it seems like the discussion we're having today is about validation through the name of an institution that has already been definied socially or through faith communities...

STANBACK:  you cannot underestimate the power of words...our children understand marriage...other couples have been asked by their children "When did you get married?" "Married" is the word they understand.

[ Parent ]
Sen McDonald & Stanback (0.00 / 0)
MCDONALD: Is  it your understanding that every single person that is in a civil union in CT lacks the legal standing to challenge DOMA because they are not currently married?

STANBACK: Right

MCDONALD: in Massachusetts, those citizens have an ability to potentially challenge the federal discrimination in DOMA in their federal courts in MA but similiarly situated citizens in CT would not have that right, right

STANBACK: Right, nor would citizens in VT or NJ.

[ Parent ]
Rep. Beth Bye (D) to Stanback (0.00 / 0)
BYE: Are you in a civil union?

STANBACK: No

BYE: Imagine you are in a civil union...if you met a person...how would you describe your relationship?

STANBACK:  No good word for it...unionized...civilized... (laugh)

BYE: [question about filling out forms, do all forms have Civil Union on them]

STANBACK: some have civil unions, some have just single and married

BYE: The point is the language isn't there for this construct

[ Parent ]
Adinolfi to Stanback (0.00 / 0)
ADINOLFI:  Would it be against the law to add "civil unions" to a form?  Maybe we haven't just caught up...

STANBACK:  I think you're right

ADINOLFI:  Don't you think it would affect heterosexual couples also, I've been married over 50 years, some of these people have pointed out to me it would make our marriage not natural, we were made this way....the point I'm trying to make is that the same emotional effect it would have on homosexual couples it would have on heterosexual couples...

once again I got distracted by being dumbfounded here...I couldn't keep up with this once he started talking about 3-ways and 4-ways...what is up with the opponents' fixation on polyamory?

[ Parent ]
He really needs to go on tour (4.00 / 1)
and share his special brand of crazy with the American public.
[ Parent ]
I loved the part... (4.00 / 1)
...where he expressed disbelief that a large portion of LMF's supporters are heterosexual couples, and would like to see studies or statistics on that. Because his people (I guess his constituents?) are not in that camp. Uh huh. Because Anne would lie about that. I'm straight, and I've been working with LMF holding fundraisers, making phone calls, attending meetings, etc etc etc for over three years.
[ Parent ]
Lawlor to Stanback (0.00 / 0)
Discussion on legal recognition of foreign marriages and recognition of out-of-state marriages...

Aside to Rep. Lawlor:  I love how the St. Patrick's day parade in Dublin welcomes gay groups marching, while ours in NY doesn't!  It surprises me, too, when Ireland turns out to be more progressive on these issues!

[ Parent ]
William Peck, nice older guy (0.00 / 0)
testifying against the bill

PECK:  I'm here to talk about the defense of marriage, one man and one woman...it's where children have love and respect for one another...and where we get together 15 times in the last years for a family reunion...my purpose here today is say I like the kind of marriages we have now...one man and one woman.

[ Parent ]
Bill Brown, random person claiming to be Christian (0.00 / 0)
Wants to express spiritual concerns, many Christians in this state are bible-believing, the bible clearly states of homosexuality as sin, in the book of Leviticus and in the book of Romans it is taught.  I want to put that out on the table because I think it is avoided...that doesn't mean people have animosity toward homosexuals because I don't...I am not here to vilify anyone...I'm just here to say that...homosexual sex and homosexual  marriage is a moral evil.  We here in CT are accountable to God...this all started back with Adam and Eve...we are created in the image of God...this country was founded on many Christian principles and one of those is that our rights come from God...the source of our rights is that we are made in the image of God and that no government should create tyranny...I have to ask in regard to rights, all of our rights come from the Creator...there is no way the Creator granted homosexual rights.  Many in the public consider this a moral and grevious error.

Please, oh, please someone talk about what else is taught in Leviticus!!!!

Maybe Kissel will help you out with that... (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
God hates shrimps, too. (0.00 / 0)
All ye, heathens and sodomites, listen to what else is written in Leviticus:
Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Repent! Repent! For the End is near! Give me a break!

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. --Martin Luther King, Jr.

[ Parent ]
Bomb the Red Lobster!!!! (0.00 / 0)
Or our God-given freedoms will be taken away!  Our nation, under God, will fall!  "In God We Trust" will disappear from our money! 

This is a Christian nation, this cannot stand!

Red Lobster, why do you hate America?

[ Parent ]
Sen Kissell (R) to Bill Brown (4.00 / 1)
[paraphrase]Coming in late...Kissell talks about how his constituents don't support the bill, but once again expresses that the horse might be out of the barn already...I'm distracted by this imagery since that was the term people used when I was a kid when boy's zippers were unzipped..."Close the barn doors before the horse leaves the barn!"

BROWN: Some of us want the horse back in the barn.  Yeah, I'm sure you do!  Some of us think the horse shouldn't have been left out of the barn

KISSELL: Most people in my district do not want to take this next step...I appreciate where you're coming from this issue and I understand.

[ Parent ]
Maybe someone should explain to Bill Brown about the seperation of Church and State (0.00 / 0)
If it was up to him, we'd still believe that the world was flat.

[ Parent ]
Rep. Morris to Brown (4.00 / 1)
MORRIS:  Is there anything as a Christian about the term marriage that you own spiritually that gives you heartburn for other people to use the term?

Man, that question give me heartburn.

BROWN:  [something about sanctity meaning cleanliness]  On the church side there is a sense of spiritual purity in marriage and homosexuality is a defilement of that purity...certain things are good or evil, clean or unclean...in our culture today all we want to be sure of is that no one judges anyone, no one is wrong or rigtht...in the Biblical concept which was involved in the Founding Fathers, you are accountable to God...this is not a purely secular state, the Soviet Union was a secular state

[ Parent ]
Rep Geragosian to Brown - rough paraphrase (4.00 / 1)
GERAGOSIAN:  I can't let that go, I'm a civil leader...if you're looking for a religious solution, you're in the wrong place

GERAGOSIAN:  You want a referendum?

BROWN:  Yes

GERAGOSIAN:  Should civil rights laws have come up for a referendum?

BROWN:  No, racisim is immoral but homosexuality is also immoral. In this case there should be a referendum because most people in CT think this is immoral...the Christian public believes the government is not a free-standing institution

GERAGOSIAN:  ...this is where you lose me...there's a war where thousands of people have died, children are starving, there is genocide...

BROWN:  Is not Christian charity one of the greatest charities coming out of this nation?  There are quite a number of Christian advocates coming to address these things

GERAGOSIAN:  I don't see rooms full of people showing up against those things

BROWN:  That may be true

GERAGOSIAN:  I don't see crowds like this of Christians against the death penality

[ Parent ]
Sen Gomes to Brown (0.00 / 0)
GOMES:  Should an athiest serve in public office?

BROWN:  [Long pause]....if you remove the concept of God from Government...if you destroy that, then you destroy what America is about

GOMES: Then an athiest shouldn't enjoy those freedoms?

BROWN: No, I didn't say that.  They have freedoms, but shouldn't run for public office.

[ Parent ]
Helpful exchange for this witness... (0.00 / 0)
Hey, Jed Bartlett from West Wing should question this witness:

BARTLET: I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an "abomination!"

JACOBS: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.

BARTLET: Yes it does. Leviticus!

JACOBS: 18:22.

BARTLET: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I wanted to sell my youngest daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown Sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?

(Bartlet only waits a second for a response, then plunges on.)

BARTLET: While thinking about that, can I ask another? My chief of staff, Leo McGary, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? Or is it okay to call the police?

(Bartlet barely pauses to take a breath.)

BARTLET: Here's one that's really important, because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?


[ Parent ]
Please oh please someone ask this guy about biblical truth.. (0.00 / 0)
...the Biblical truth of selling your daughter into slavery, executing those of us who work on sundays, etc...

BTW, did this guy really talk about a person marrying a DOLPHIIN???  Oh no he di'int.  He must be buddies with "Box Turtle" Cornyn.

[ Parent ]
Oh yes he DID (0.00 / 0)
And that was followed by yet another mention of brothers marrying sisters...
[ Parent ]
What is up with that? (0.00 / 0)
I don't get the incest slippery slope argument here.  If incest between same-sex siblings were going to happen as a result of same-sex marriage, why don't we see a legislative push for recognizing incest between opposite sex siblings already?  It's such an irrelevant argument.
[ Parent ]
Hooray for Repo Man! (0.00 / 0)
Thanks to him, I got to take a bathroom break.  Hey, since Gerry Fox is taken over the hearing, I wonder where McDonald and Lawlor have gone?

(BTW, Rep. Fox rocks!)

Rev Charles Hudson, New Haven (0.00 / 0)
REV HUDSON:  ...this issue has divided our community...we are commanded to love one another...there is no in-between, there is no gray area, there is only right and wrong...natural, like right, does not promote disorder...whether we subscribe to the theory that God is or not...God is love and not the author of confusion.  I have come to remind us all that we are loved beyond measure...if our elected officials will not protect the sanctity of morality...I am in opposition to same-sex unions.
Rep. Walker to Rev. Hudson (0.00 / 0)
WALKER:  If we took the Bible literally, you and I would not be sitting here now...slavery...women were veiled...our interpretation of the Bible has evolved.  I am so thankful that no one ever stopped that because it was in the Bible that no one would say a Black woman should run for office...my father is a  minister...I guess in my heart I hope you can understand my belief but I guess I'm having a hard time with your definition of immorality in this regard.

HUDSON:  Immorality is defined as going against the will of God.  You're absolutely right that the Bible is an interpretation, but there is an interpretation that goes beyond what we want...the best that I can do is pray that God will give us the wisdom to make the right choices...

WALKER:  You do understand that at one point it was wrong to have inter-religious marriages, inter-racial marriages, right?

HUDSON: Yes, that evolved

WALKER: Why did that evolve?

HUDSON: Because we wanted to be equal...who can define what  is the norm?

[ Parent ]
I don't get that last part. (0.00 / 0)
We as a society decided we wanted to make interracial marriages acceptable and the norm. But we as a society can't decided to make same-sex marriages acceptable and the norm?
[ Parent ]
I know....totally nonsensical n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Rep Morris to Rev. Hudson (0.00 / 0)
MORRIS: Are you a Christian?

HUDSON:  yes

MORRIS: Is there anything in Christianity, not Jewish teaching, but Christianity, a prohibition against inter-cultural marriage?

HUDSON: That is a trick question....

MORRIS:  ...what we are giving you is in an historical, secual contect...is there anything in Christianity that says two people of two different races could not get married?

HUDSON: No

MORRIS: I just wanted to clarify that...

Hello???

[ Parent ]
Brian Brown, Family Institute of CT (0.00 / 0)
(highlights)

BROWN:  Gay marriage was forced upon our neighbors to the North...[says this should be decided by referedum]...

[Brown is totally distorting the results of the UConn poll here...it's equally true to say the majority of respondents supported same sex marriage and civil unions]

[wants a constitutional amendment against same sex marriage, so wants a referendum]

The thing that gets me about this guy (0.00 / 0)
is the way he constantly says "we told you so" about being back here in two years for marriage b/c civil unions wouldn't be enough. At the time the civil union bill passed, LMF said we would be back here for marriage b/c civil unions aren't enough. There was never any ambiguity in the intent to get full marriage. Grr.
[ Parent ]
Brian Brown (FIC) opening statement (0.00 / 0)
BrownFIC


Brown_FIC
Uploaded by ctblogger

[ Parent ]
Oh man... (0.00 / 0)
Andrew McDonald is taking Brown to the woodshed. He called Brown out on cherry-picking the UConn poll.

Beautiful.

[ Parent ]
Sen McDonald to Brown (4.00 / 1)
MCDONALD:  How do you square your position on polls today with the prior position that you opposed civil unions even though 74% of people supported civil unions?

BROWN:  ...polls were very ambiguously worded...this is not a recipe for protecting marriage, there has to be some public meaning or public good to marriage, and marriage is based upon the complimentarity of man and woman...

MCDONALD:  Will you acknowledge at least that there is a difference between religious  marriage and the civil contract of marriage?

BROWN:  No...the state itself regulates marriage, whether it's civil marriage or religious  marriage...the idea that marriage is two separate things is wrong...[something about education and accredidation???]...children will be taught it is the same thing to marry a man as to marry a woman...I think it's important to keep that unique place of  marriage, that status of marriage

MCDONALD:  ...nobody is suggesting that any religious faith tradition would be required to accept gay marriage within that faith tradition...

BROWN:  There are religious liberty implications...in Massachusetts, Catholic Charities would not place children in families of same sex couples...there is going to be a train wreck between religious liberty and marriage equality...the example of David Parker whose son is in a grade school class whose son is being read to from books that say it's the same thing to marry a man as to marry a woman...our curriculum would have to change...we're talking about changing the definition for everyone

MCDONALD:  My recollection is that FIC says civil unions are  just marriage with another name

BROWN: But the name is important

MCDONALD: Looking at the Q-poll, the vast majority of residents are in support of civil unions.  If marriage is just a name....lost track

BROWN: Even proponents of same-sex  marriage say today that the name is critical....we will see attempts to overturn the federal DOMA...this is profoundly undemocratic...we're then saying well, we're going to pass same-sex marriage in Connecticut and move to other states to  overturn other states' laws...the name is more than just a label

MCDONALD: To put your final statement there, you want to continue to deny that status to homosexual couples for the benefits of heterosexual couples

BROWN:  No, just becuase the state says it is so,  it is not marriage.  Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.  Both genders are required.  By the state tomorrow creating same s sex marriage, that isn't going to change marriage...it's not going to affect my marriage...that's a shallow view of public policy...it's because we care about the common good.

[ Parent ]
Brown/McDonald exchange (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Sen Kissel, Rep. Adinolfi (0.00 / 0)
Kissell asks about props, lots of petitions.

Adinolfi asks how many signatures, brown says 100K.

[ Parent ]
Rep. Geragosian to Brown (0.00 / 0)
GERAGOSIAN: Here in Connecticut, we are a representative democracy.

BROWN:  if we have a question that is this contentious, it is better to allow a vote...this has been done before in CT...I've heard arguments that a non-binding referendum is illegal and I don't believe that is true...I'm not aware of anything in legislative history that says we can't have a non-binding referendum

GERAGOSIAN:  I don't cast my votes by polling data, but can we agree that the polls differ by age.  One my concerns by governing by referendum...in 5 or 10 years, if we look at polls, people would be in favor of same sex marriage, right?

BROWN:  Yes, but ...no, that's not right....the idea of framing this as inevitable is wrong

[...]

GERAGOSIAN: Do you believe civil rights laws should have come up for a vote?

BROWN: That begs the question of why I am here...in communities taht have seen true discrimination you have higher opposition to gay marriage among those groups.  I'm not saying that is true of any African American, but to take and co-opt the civil rights movement is wrong.

GERAGOSIAN: Again do you believe that civil rights should have come up for a vote?

BROWN:  No, if it is a true civil right, it would be a constitutional issue...if you believe marriage is between a man and a woman, people are going to compare it with anti-micegenation laws, it is a slap in the face of studnts of history to compare the two

GERAGOSIAN:  If you loook at the history, the arguments are the same...

[ Parent ]
Sen Gomes to Brown (0.00 / 0)
SEN GOMES:  When a class of people are subject to inequality, isn't that a civil rights issue?

BROWN: No, for the same reason I don't believe Social Security is a civil rights issue.

ack, had to step away

MCDONALD: Points out that John Lewis consiers this a civil rights issue.

[ Parent ]
Thanks for all this Maura! (0.00 / 0)
It's great reading it here.
Rep. Tong to Brown (0.00 / 0)
TONG: A lot of alarmist talk about polyamory today...

BROWN: This is not a slippery slope argument, this is a logical argument.  If you say love makes a family, why not?

TONG: We set limits all the time, isn't it right that there's no inevitability?

BROWN:  Why would you yourself set a limit that you yourself agree is an abrogation of civil rights?

TONG: But we set limits all the time, isn't that our job as legislators?  ...we could set a limit on same-sex marriage and not go into polygamy or polyamory, right?

BROWN: But why not?  If you accept the argument of love makes a family, why not?

TONG: ...we made a judgement in this legislature, though, last year, that same sex relationships are fundamentally different between polygamous relationships, relationships between children and adults...we've already made that argument that they could be in a committed harmonoius relationships for life, right?

BROWN:  Well, no, they could have been in harmonious relationships before the law, you gave them benefits under the law...

TONG:  ...the inconvenient analogy...about marriage as a civil right:  [makes a quote about Loving V. Virginia]  [very powerful testimony about Tong's marriage and how Loving V. Virginia would have prevented him from marrying his wife, because she is white]  We teach that now in our schools...has society broken down because of that?

BROWN:  Of course not, Loving v. Virginia was meant to keep races apart, marriage is meant to keep genders together.  You can't compare the two.

TONG:  Do you believe that legislators are required to safeguard equal protection under the law...

BROWN: Yes

TONG:  Are you aware of Plessy V. Ferguson?

BROWN: Separate is not equal, and that's another great decision we made based on race, but that's comparing apples to oranges.  It's basically to say that that majority of Connecticut that believes that marriage is between a man and a woman are bigots.  By doing that, you are essentially saying that we are being bigots.

TONG: I don't believe I called you a bigot, sir, today.  I'm simply trying to apply constitutional jurisprudence...

BROWN:  I'm trying to say marriage is not what you are trying to make it into...you don't need to say the word "bigot", you are saying it is "discrimination"...

TONG:  We've heard a lot of people dismiss the analogy and trivialize the civil rights argument...this is the issue, this is the fundamental issue before us

BROWN: As a group, as a class, opposite couples can have children...that cannot be said of same-sex couples, and on the face of it they are not the exact same thing, so it would be wrong to treat them equally.

Can I just say... (0.00 / 0)
...that Bill Tong rocks?????  Go, our favorite freshman from Stamford!!!!
[ Parent ]
Stamford knows how to pick 'em! (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Tong was amazing but Walker stoled the show (0.00 / 0)
At the end, she was so fed up with Brown, that she just bowed her head, said "she has no more comments" and shut off her mic.

Brown is taking a beating.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, that was amazing (0.00 / 0)
If you can get that clip up ASAP, please add it to the new open thread!  I was creating the open thread while she was talking, so I didn't transcribe it.  It was amazing.
[ Parent ]
I'm on it. (0.00 / 0)
Trying to post the video from earlier today. I'll get her exchange up ASAP...it's by far the best part of the hearing.

Oh Brian Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job...

[ Parent ]
Well, some of 'em anyway. :-) (0.00 / 0)
Bill Tong ran a great door-to-door campaign in an incredibly uphill race.  His election was a huge victory.
[ Parent ]
Tong/Brown exchange (4.00 / 1)
Tong_Brown


[ Parent ]
Coretta Scott King (4.00 / 2)
Coretta Scott King gives her support to gay marriage
POMONA, N.J. (AP) - The widow of Martin Luther King Jr. called gay marriage a civil rights issue, denouncing a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban it.
Constitutional amendments should be used to expand freedom, not restrict it, Coretta Scott King said Tuesday.

"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union," she said. "A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."

Last month, President Bush said he backed an amendment that would ban same-sex unions, calling marriage "the most fundamental institution of civilization."

On Monday, more than two dozen black pastors rallied against gay marriage at a church in Atlanta, attempting to distance the civil rights struggle from the gay rights movement. They signed a declaration outlining their beliefs that marriage should remain a union between a man and a woman.

"To equate a lifestyle choice to racism demeans the work of the entire civil rights movement," the statement said. "People are free in our nation to pursue relationships as they choose. To redefine marriage, however, to suit the preference of those choosing alternative lifestyles is wrong."

King, the widow of the slain civil rights leader, made her comments Tuesday during a speech at The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey.

Rep. Lawlor's Coretta Scott King reference (classic) (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
New open thread (0.00 / 0)
It's getting kinda crowded in here and some of you may be on slow connections, so here's a new open thread to continue our discussion.
Judiciary Committee Hearings: Marriage Equality - Open Thread | 114 comments
 
1 user(s) logged on.
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

Spotlight

Use the Spotlight tool to send a diary to offline journalists, with your feedback or suggestions.
(What is Spotlight?)


Search


   Advanced
My Left Nutmeg Feeds

Links


Connecticut's War Dead

Blogroll
Powered By
- SoapBlox

Connecticut Blogs
- Capitol Watch
- Colin McEnroe
- Connecticut2.com
- Connecticut Bob
- ConnecticutBlog
- CT Blue Blog
- CT Energy Blog
- CT Local Politics
- CT News Junkie
- CT Smart Growth
- CT Voices for Civil Justice
- CT Voters Count
- CT Weblogs
- CT Working Families Party
- CT Young Dems
- Cool Justice Report
- Democracy for CT
- Drinking Liberally (New Milford)
- East Haven Politics
- Emboldened
- Hat City Blog (Danbury)
- The Laurel
- LieberWatch
- NB Politicus (New Britain)
- New Haven Independent
- Nutmeg Grater
- Only In Bridgeport
- Political Capitol (Brian Lockhart)
- A Public Defender
- Rep. David McCluskey
- Rep. Tim O'Brien
- State Sen. Gary Lebeau
- Saramerica
- Stamford Talk
- Spazeboy
- The 40 Year Plan
- The Trough (Ted Mann: New London Day)
- Undercurrents (Hartford IMC)
- Wesleying
- Yale Democrats

CT Sites
- Clean Up CT
- CT Citizen Action Group
- CT Democratic Party
- CT For Lieberman Party
- CT General Assembly
- CT Secretary of State
- CT-N (Connecticut Network)
- Healthcare4every1.org
- Judith Blei Government Relations
- Love Makes A Family CT

CT Candidates
- Chris Murphy for Senate
- Susan Bysiewicz for Senate

- William Tong for Senate


Other State Blogs
- Alabama
- Arizona
- California
- Colorado
- Delaware
- Florida
- Georgia
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Missouri
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New York
- North Carolina
- Ohio
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin


More blogs about connecticut+politics.
Technorati Blog Finder


 
Powered By
MLN is powered by SoapBlox
 
Powered by: SoapBlox