Thank you for checking out my blog. To submit comments, click on "COMMENTS" at the end of each post. To email a post to a friend, click the white envelope also at the end of each post. Contact Me

TO ADD YOUR BLOG HERE - Click the "Follow This Blog" on the right.

TO SUBSCRIBE - Click a subscription option on the right.

TO READ PAST POSTINGS - Scroll down to my "Blog Archives" on the right or enter a search word or phrase in the search box above.

April 24, 2009


Following last year's mandate from the Connecticut Supreme Court, lawmakers officially wrote gay marriage into the laws of the state.

Wednesday's vote, which passed 28-7 in the senate and 100-44 in the house, officially redefines marriage as being "the legal union of two people" instead of the previous definition of "a union between a man and a woman."

According to an article in The Advocate yesterday, Republican Governor M. Jodi Rell will sign the bill even though she stands by her personal belief that marriage should be between opposite-sex partners.

Interestingly, there were last minute amendments approved and adopted that defined the constitutional rights of religions to, among other things, reserve recognition of those marriages only to those of which they approve. All of the rights that were approved are already guaranteed under the US Constitution and not contested by any gay marriage proponent. None the less, it was seized upon by the National Organization for Marriage (the group that brought you the infamous "A Gathering Storm") as a victory for their side.

Apparently, after the tsunami of ridicule over that video, NOM is so desperate to regain their credibility that they'll latch onto anything and try claiming it as a victory for themselves. Even if that so-called victory was never in contention to begin with.

As Timothy Kincaid of Box Turtle Bulletin explained it:

The language adopted by the State of Connecticut seems reasonable to me. It exempts churches, religious societies and other religious non-profits from “services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges” if the refusal is based on their objection to a marriage which is “in violation of their religious beliefs and faith”. It also exempts religious fraternal benefit societies (eg. the Knights of Columbus) to deny membership and insurance benefits. The third provision would exempt religious organizations from recognizing marriages for purposes of adoption, foster care and other social services provided that they don’t receive public funds for those services.

I have no objection to these provisions and I dare say that most gay folk are just fine with them as well.

Contrary to giving them back any credibility, NOM's hollow claim of victory makes them look even more pathetic and impotent.