5-year-old's Dad Winds Up in Jail over School's Indoctrination on Homosexuality

From the Boston Globe: Arrested father had point to make:

Parker and his wife, Tonia, 34, who was also in court yesterday, said the dispute arose because they asked school officials to notify them about classroom discussions about same-sex marriage and what they called other adult themes. They also wanted the option to exclude their boy, now 6, from those talks.

Parker said he met with school officials to gain those assurances and then refused to leave until he got them. Parker stayed at Estabrook School for more than two hours, according to Superintendent William J. Hurley, as officials and Lexington police urged him to leave. Finally, they arrested him for trespassing.

Parker, who refused to bail himself out of jail Wednesday night, said he spent the night in custody to prove a point.

''I chose to stay, which I'm not sure was a wise move,' he said. ''But I wanted to see how far they would go for asking something simple.' Parker said he wanted to control ''the timing and manner' in which his son learned about ''adult themes.'

''This is not about creating a forum for hate . . . for any segment of society,' Parker said after his arraignment. ''I'm just trying to be a good dad.'

The email exchanges between the Parkers and school officials have been posted here. Most significant is the Principal's assertion that the school is free not to inform parents about the educational programs of the school re: families.

I have confirmed with our Assistant Superintendent and our Director of Health Education that discussion of differing families, including gay-headed families, is not included in the parental notification policy.

Once again, who is imposing moral views on whom?

Dave attended the anti-bias meeting on 4/11/05. They informed Dave that books with homosexual issues/families will be placed in every classroom in our school.

These are 5- and 6-year olds!

John Owen Site

Here's a new site dedicated to one of my heroes: John Owen.

It's been more than 25 years since I worked my way through The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. In my view, only Jonathan Edwards's On Free Will is a more important read.

I have since read volumes 1-7 of his complete works and sampled portions of volumes 8, 9, 13 16, and his commentary on Hebrews. It can be tough going, but much easier if you read him aloud, and worth it. Volumes 3 and 4 are on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Volume 4, surprisingly to those who adhere to the stereotypes of Puritans, is an analysis of spiritual gifts.

Breaking News from ScrappleFace

Scrappleface has another good one:

Republicans Redefine 'Majority' to Fit Current Usage

"Republicans in the House and Senate today introduced bills which would redefine the word 'majority' to mean 'a group compelled to do the will of a smaller group.'

The change in definition is designed to bring the word back in line with current usage and practice, according to an unnamed Senate source.

Read the whole thing. And, check out the Day by Day cartoon while you're at it.

Editorial Fiction

The New York Times is actually getting worse. Today's editorial concludes with the following paragraph:

The only plausible reason for keeping American troops in Iraq is to protect the democratic transformation that President Bush seized upon as a rationale for the invasion after his claims about weapons of mass destruction turned out to be fictitious. If that transformation is now allowed to run off the rails, the new rationale could prove to be as hollow as the original one.

Glenn Reynolds and commenters on his site did a pretty good job of debunking this myth a couple weeks ago on Instapundit.com.

I remember the 2003 State of the Union vividly:

Different threats require different strategies. In Iran we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction and supports terror.

We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government, and determine their own destiny, and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom. . . .

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.

And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. . . .

Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity.

I'm constantly amazed by people who either deny that Bush said this, or claim that he didn't really mean it. His actions prove he meant it; the record proves he said it. The NYT is lying!

Baloney!

The New York Times continues its anti-Christian crusade with an editorial filled with half-truths and non-truths.

The Disappearing Wall

Love's Language Lost

The debates in Connecticut over same-sex civil unions were about language as much as anything. And, the proponents of this bill won by a preemptive appropriation of words and phrases; e.g., "civil rights" and "love." I have yet to count up the number of references there were to Websters Dictionary. It was many. Rep. Toni Walker appealed to the dictionary as her legislative authority. Sen. Finch referred to the dictionary yesterday in his silly, silly speech, distinguishing "r i t e s" from "r i g h t s."

The Claremont Institute has an interesting article on nominalist and realist philosophies of language, and their application in this issue.

The Claremont Institute: Love's Language Lost

Good Op-Ed from NYT's Brooks on Roe v. Wade

The New York Times: Roe's Birth, and Death:

Justice Harry Blackmun did more inadvertent damage to our democracy than any other 20th-century American.

When Blackmun wrote the Roe decision, it took the abortion issue out of the legislatures and put it into the courts. If it had remained in the legislatures, we would have seen a series of state-by-state compromises reflecting the views of the centrist majority that's always existed on this issue.

Instead, Blackmun and his concurring colleagues invented a right to abortion, and imposed a solution more extreme than the policies of just about any other comparable nation.

Religious conservatives became alienated from their own government, feeling that their democratic rights had been usurped by robed elitists. Liberals lost touch with working-class Americans because they never had to have a conversation about values with those voters; they could just rely on the courts to impose their views.

Brooks argues against the "Constitutional option" on filibusters, but deals with the root cause of lack of comity in the senate.

Civil Unions Signed into Law

Hartford Courant: Civil Unions Approved

Gov. Jodi Rell signed the same-sex civil unions bill at close of business today.

Despite all the self-congratulation about this bill -- "the legislature acted without a threat from the courts" -- we will have to see what happens now to the seven cases pending in the court. The fact that there's been no imminent threat from the courts on this has been propagandist genius. The new law will alter the argument in these cases, adding force to the idea that civil unions, as opposed to marriage, are discriminatory.

The legislature should have addressed the issue of same-sex marriage directly. Better yet, there should have been a straight-forward non-binding citizens' referendum on marriage.

This is historic. As a resident of Connecticut I have seen the arguments from the inside, as it were. It will be interesting to see what happens now in other states.

Most of the arguments evangelical Christians used to persuade their legislators to oppose this bill were completely ineffective. More than that, they were theologicaly incorrect.

1)They denied the doctrine of original sin. We believe that we are all born sinners. Therefore, whether homosexuality is a choice or something we are born with is the wrong question. It owes more to Pelagianism than to biblical theology.

2)They denied the psychosomatic unity of human beings. The resurrection is crucial. It teaches us that we are not souls housed in bodies, not ghosts in machines. The dissolution of soul and body is temporary and unnatural. We therefore should not be surprised if there are biological markers for behavior.

3)They were unclear about the relationship between church and state, conceding too much ground irretrievably from the outset.

I am not saying Christians should have argued with legislators over the doctrine of original sin, etc. But their thinking should have been so shaped by these doctrines that they never would have offered such naive, and wrong, arguments to begin with.

The Spineless Sit Up (or, Biden Borks Bolton)

Have you ever wondered how it would be possible to sit up without a spine? If you watched the Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting yesterday, you actually saw it happening. Several Republicans are able to do it.

What a mess! Sen. Joe Biden, who did a masterful job orchestrating the smear on Bork way back when, is doing it again. He has wrested control over this committee from its chairman.

Voinovich is uncomfortable voting. Why? Because he hasn't attended any of the meetings, says he, and isn't up to speed. I can't believe his fellow senators let him get away with this. Then, Chafee jumps on this as though Voinovich has presented some new insight into the process.

The result is that Biden, Boxer, et. al. have more time to cut propagandist tapes and find whiny State Department employees to complain that Bolton once raised his voice.

Addition:

National Review Online Editorial: "In the key allegation against Bolton, he is said to have intimidated a State Department intelligence analyst who objected to Bolton's supposedly too-dire assessment of Cuba's bioweapons program. But Bolton aide Fred Fleitz has testified that the analyst in question, Christian Westerman, wasn't straight with Bolton or his staff — giving Bolton plenty of reason to be upset. At issue was language in a speech Bolton was to deliver about Cuba. It was Westerman's responsibility to run the proposed language by the CIA, but when he did so he attached his own prejudicial language dissenting from Bolton's views. When Fleitz learned this, Westerman falsely denied having done it, leading to the infamous confrontation in Bolton's office. Two of Westerman's supervisors subsequently apologized for how he handled the matter. That Bolton is now the one being pilloried for this spat — Sen. Chris Dodd said his conduct should be 'indictable' — is absurd. In any case, as Lugar pointed out in a statement earlier this week, in an environment characterized by contentious policy disputes — as Bush's foreign policy team was in the first term — you can expect some personal contention."

Law Review Article

David L. Chambers, professor at University of Michigan Law School, in Hofstra University School of Law's Law Review:

During the hearings and debates that led to the Defense of Marriage Act, many members of Congress and many witnesses drew comparisons between polygamy and same-sex marriage. Most of the comparisons were shallow and sarcastic, but, taken as a group, they offer interesting insights into conceptions of marriage and family in this country.

...

In a society with as heterogeneous a population as ours, the wisest role for the state in its relationship to families is one of supportive tolerance: The state should identify the patterns of family arrangements that actually exist and that endure throughout time. It should then perform a facilitative role to help these families prosper, unless strong reasons exist for believing that the arrangements cause significant harms. Under this view, the state would regard its decision to permit a certain group to marry (or its decision to provide a benefit to some family configuration), not as an endorsement of the group's worthiness, but as a simple recognition of their ongoing, nondestructive presence in the community and as a recognition of the group's need for access to the benefits and responsibilities that attach to various legal constructs, including marriage.

Thus, if there were a move to legalize plural marriages, I would encourage the state to permit them unless they genuinely posed significant harms.

Hofstra University School of Law Law Review - David L. Chambers

This is precisely the logic employed by many in Connecticut -- without his conclusion on plural marriages. The civil unions' bill was carefully crafted to avoid the stigma attached to Chambers' conclusion, but that's just an expedient to make civil unions parallel existing marriage laws. There's no good reason to start where he does and not end up in the same place.

Much of the rhetoric in the debate was "an endorsement of the group's worthiness." There's no other way to interpret such statements as Sen. McDonald's repeated assertion that same-sex relationships "Deserve! Deserve! Deserve!" the respect and honor of the citizens of this state. This is a claim of merit.

But the legislative middle ground in this debate adopted Chambers' lowest-common-denominator approach to the state's interest in marriage: it is a recognition of relationships as they exist in fact; as long as no one is hurt why not recognize them.

But how does this LCD approach work in combination with the assertion of "basic human rights"? Does every relationship that exists carry an entitlement, a right, to official, supportive recognition by the state and access to benefits, as long as it's already present and is nondestructive?

Chambers' article is very interesting and eye-opening.

Another Contrarian Book Coming from Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell has another new book coming, sure to be dismissed quickly because of its politically incorrect views, Black Rednecks And White Liberals: And Other Cultural And Ethnic Issues

I once sent him an email and received a timely, personal, and gracious reply. I'm a big fan!

He was on CSPAN last night. To the question, "What's the difference between a white redneck and a black redneck?" his quick answer, "Color!" Without embarrassment the interviewer followed up within a couple minutes, "What's the difference between a black liberal and a white liberal?" Again, "Color!"

Not too many are so willing to state the obvious; intellectuals generally shun it. But that is the main thesis in many of his books. He is determined to present facts, and asserts that is one of the major challenges of the day. Unfriendly facts are too readily beaten down.

The Irony of Quoting Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists

During the debate on same-sex civil unions some of the state legislators alluded with pride to Thomas Jefferson's famous Letter to the Danbury Baptists. The concept of a "wall of separation between church and state" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution but in this letter. The state's legislators obviously felt their actions would yet again confirm Connecticut's preeminence in dealing with such issues and that they were somehow acting in continuity with the citizens of Danbury, CT, in 1802.

What irony! The arguments offered in the debate were much closer to what this letter opposed than to what it established. The Connecticut state legislature is on the wrong side of this today, as it was back then.

Jefferson's letter was a response to a petition by the Baptist citizens of Danbury, CT, protesting the de facto establishment of Congregationalism as the state-endorsed religion.

The Baptist complaint was that the Connecticut state constitution did not prohibit the state from legislating about religious matters. As a consequence, they argued, "...what religious privileges we [Baptists] enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen."

The "degrading acknowledgements" referenced here refers to a system of religious taxation that forced many Connecticut Baptists to support the established Congregationalist church. According to church/state scholar Derek Davis, Connecticut law allowed the Baptists to rout (sic) their religious taxes to their own churches, but this involved locating and filling out an exemption certificate, and many Connecticut communities either made it difficult to obtain the certificates, or refused to approve the exemptions once submitted (see, "What Jefferson's Metaphor Really Means," Liberty, Jan/Feb, 1997, p. 13). Beyond this, the Baptists found the law unjust and discriminatory in that it favored Congregationalism over other denominations.

from: Separation of Church and State web site

The final version of Jefferson's reply is very short,

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Where's the irony?

1) The supreme irony, of course, is that this debate featured alot of religious argument, and the denomination whose arguments were endorsed by the proponents of this legislation is the historic descendant of the Congregationalism the Danbury Baptists complained about.

In spite of their assertion that "this is not a religious issue," one of the most common themes in the legislators' speeches was disparagement of religion; that is, certain forms of religion. A complete catalogue of arguments used by proponents of this legislation would have to include the bitter-former-practicing-Catholic argument and the my-small-minded-religious-relative story. The debate was very long on personal anecdote. The anti-unenlightened-religion anecdote was much more common than the emotionally cloying stigma-of-homsexuality story, though the latter was used to open the debate in both the state Senate and House. It seems that those who spoke most about separation of church and state also spoke the most about religion.

The only religious denomination that was cited favorably was the United Church of Christ, which joined with Love Makes a Family and the ACLU in lobbying for same-sex marriage. The fact that the UCC endorses same-sex marriage was used to argue that there is no consensus among people of faith on this issue, and, therefore, the religiously-informed opinion of Connecticut's citizens, unless they hold to the views of the UCC, are automatically disqualified.

Once again, the Congregationalists are endorsed by the state of Connecticut, and the rest of us are disparaged. (By Congregationalist, of course, I'm talking about those churches that remain in the UCC. Those Congregationalist churches that have left the UCC over this issue get the same treatment as the rest of us unenlightened types.)

2) It is ironic that the petition of the Danbury Baptists involved the unfairness of requiring an exemption for the free practice of religion, while the current state legislature denied an exemption for those religious organizations for whom recognizing same-sex marriages is "contrary to the bona fide religious tenets" of the organization. Once again, Lawlor, "Religious organizations should not be exempt from recognizing, respecting and honoring same-sex civil unions."

3) It is ironic that the main intent of Jefferson's response was to assert that religion is an inalienable right, a "natural right," not a mere concession of the Connecticut state legislature. Jefferson asserted the rights of conscience of religious people, "Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights ..."

Yet the Connecticut state legislature, in voting against an exemption for religious organizations, trampled all over the rights of religious conscience, which though actually enumerated in the Constitution is apparently expendable while the right to sodomy is not. Their arguments disenfranchised religion, especially when they claimed that "civil rights" and "religion" are mutually exclusive, forgetting that religious expression and freedom of conscience are a constitutionally guaranteed civil right.

4) It is ironic that Jefferson said, "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions." But the purpose of Connecticut's recent legislation is precisely to regulate opinion.

The goal of this legislation is to confer social acceptance on homosexual relationships. Rep. Michael Lawlor, "This was a discussion about ... private attitudes towards homosexuality. That is really what is at the heart of this … That’s what it is all about. And recognition of same-sex marriage is the most symbolic acknowledgement that homosexuality simply appears to be a normally ocurring phenomenon in nature." This legislation is mere symbol, what it's really all about is private attitude and social opinion.

5) Finally, it is ironic that Jefferson signed his letter, "I ... tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem."

The legislators' accusations of hatred, bigotry, ignorance, extremism, propensity toward violence, and so on, was offensive and insulting, very different from the high respect and esteem Jefferson affirmed, and much more blatantly "degrading acknowledgments" than the Danbury Baptists complained about.

Loss of Freedom of Religious Conscience in Connecticut

Here is the proposed ammendment that was resoundingly defeated by the House.

"No religious employer or business will be required to recognize a civil union if it is contrary to the bona fide religious tenets of such religious employer or business. As used in this section, "religious employer or business" means an employer or business that is a qualified church-controlled organization, as defined in 26 USC 3121, or a church affiliated organization. "

Lawlor said, "Religious organizations should not be exempt from recognizing, respecting and honoring same-sex civil unions."

So, religious people are losing their freedom of conscience in Connecticut.

Connecticut House Debates Same-Sex Civil Unions

The Connecticut State House of Representatives is debating the same-sex civil unions bill right now. Estimates are that the debate will continue till about 7:00pm.

They are currently debating a proposed ammendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Connecticut's current statues, I believe, are deliberately ambiguous on this issue. Proponents of the bill claim that this ammendment is completely unnecessary, "gratuitous" according to Lawlor, because that is already the law in Connecticut.

But their vociferousness in opposing a reiteration of what they claim is clear is enough to cast suspicion on their arguments. Lawlor does not want current ambiguity cleared up.

Addition:

Here is a copy of the current statute in Connecticut defining marriage:

Sec.45a-727a. State policy re best interests of child; public policy re marriage. The General Assembly finds that:

(4) It is further found that the current public policy of the state of Connecticut is now limited to a marriage between a man and a woman.

This is clearly time-bound. The current policy as of 5 years ago. Now as of 5 years ago. It's very reasonable for representatives to suspect that the current civil-unions bill will make this statement even more ambiguous than it already is, especially since it says that "wherever in the general statutes ... the term 'marriage' is used or defined, a civil union shall be included in such use or definition."

For Lawlor to make his "just trust me" argument is completely disingenuous.

Opponents of the ammendment have labeled it "offensive" and "insulting", and proponents "extremist." Kind of puts the lie to their claim that it's not needed because it just restates existing state law. Do they regard existing law as extremist?

5:35 pm The ammendment passed 80-67. May make passage of the underlying bill more likely. Some who spoke in favor of it thought it made the bill more palatable.

5:40 pm Current speaker is saying that this is a debate between science and religion. A vote for same-sex civil unions is a vote for science. Perhaps asexual reproduction among hydras and yeast is the new paradigm for marriage. Because an amoeba splits we need civil unions. What conclusion do we draw from reptilian cannibalism? (Sorry, it's hard not to get at least a little sarcastic.) In general, I've been impressed with the debate in the House.

6:25 pm Rep. Klarides. Relative who married outside the Greek Orthodox faith rejected by family. Apparently, the view that marriage is just between a man and a woman is equivalent.

6:41 pm Starting to see celebration among proponents of the bill. They obviously think that all obstacles to this bill have been eliminated as a result of passing the DOMA-lite ammendment.

6:47 Current speaker is asking questions about custody and support implications of bill. He is also arguing that state employees who enter into civil unions will get greater benefits than those who are married. He has raised a series of unintended consequences of the bill.

Finally, someone who asserts that this is sneaky. Ought to address the issue of same-sex marriage, not civil unions. ... Also takes offense at the stories of violent, physical gay bashing, as though everyone who opposes same-sex civil unions is liable to physically assault gays and as though passing this bill will stop all gay bashing.

7:05 pm Can inmates in a prison enter into a civil union with each other?

If churches rent out their facilities for public use, they will be compelled to permit performance of same-sex civil unions in their facilities. Ammendment to protect religious organizations being offered. Lawlor is opposed! Remember this is the man who wants to legislate private attitudes about homosexuality. Says religious organizations shouldn't be exempt from honoring and respecting same-sex civil unions.

The ammendment was overwhelmingly rejected. Religious organizations are compelled recognize, honor, and respect same-sex civil unions!

7:30 Lesbian representative announces that she will vote against the bill because of addition of DOMA-lite ammendment.

8:02 One of the repeated arguments for the bill is that it is necessary to bring order into an area that requires it. The status of adopted children of same-sex couples is often not clear, for example, in those cases where same-sex couples split up. At the same time, those who make this argument characterize their previous votes as progressive.

So, the logic is this: "We've created chaos with all our previous votes on this issue. Now we need to clean up the mess we made." Real compelling argument.

8:11 Brendan Sharkey basically on an anti-Catholic rant. Opposition to the bill all based on fear and ignorance. Claims that "many" Christian denominations are favoring the bill. I doubt it. The UCC only had 4 people show up at their press conference.

8:31 The bill passed 85 to 63.

Outrageous Statements in the Hartford Courant

GOP Plots Values War: "As Republicans fight for relevance in the General Assembly, where they hold barely one-third of the seats, they see a potential ally in serial killer Michael Ross."

This is a new low, even for the Hartford Courant!

Basketball Movie

B-ball Cool!

More on Sex Differences

More on sex differences, thanks to Chuberto.

Edge: THE ASSORTATIVE MATING THEORY: A Talk with Simon Baron-Cohen

State Senate Votes

The state Senate just completed its vote. The bill recognizing same-sex civil unions passed 27-9, no abstentions.

I will try to transcribe portions of the video.

As is typical with this body, they congratulated themselves on their high level of debate and civility. I guess what they mean by that is that no one was shouting. There were plenty of accusations of bigotry and hatred.

The low point came when Sen. John Fonfara told about rereading Arthur Miller's The Crucible. The hanging of the Proctors reminded him that there is no essential difference between those who oppose same-sex civil unions and those who killed the Proctors. His religiously motivated constituents are just like the witch-hunting reverend John Hale.

Sen. Bill Finch stated "we are not to be deluded by religious argument" contrasting all religious faith and reason. He also congratulated the Senate on "expanding democracy" in the direction of "natural rights" consistent with both the state's and country's constitutions.

Again, how is this an expansion of democracy? Are we giving people a right to vote they did not have before? If his interest is in the expansion of democracy why is he so reluctant to submit this to a vote by the state's citizens?

Why Post on Civil Unions?

The accusation that opponents of same-sex civil unions want to impose their morality on the citizens of Connecticut while its advocates do not is sheer hypocrisy. Every earnest, heart-felt exhortation to right the wrong of denying recognition to these same-sex couples is an appeal to moral obligation. Every appeal to “civil rights,” especially a right that has never been previously recognized, is an appeal to morality. When McDonald and others say it is “wrong” to require same-sex couples to “justify to the outside world the love they have in their hearts” they are making a moral argument.

If this isn’t a moral appeal what is it? They certainly aren’t appealing to legal obligation. If a legal obligation already existed there would be no reason for a bill. No, advocates are looking to create a new law based on an alternate morality. To pretend anything else is the propagandist’s big lie.

At least Lawlor is more honest, “This was a discussion about public attitudes and private attitudes towards homosexuality. That is really what is at the heart of this … That’s what it is all about. And recognition of same-sex marriage is the most symbolic acknowledgement that homosexuality simply appears to be a normally ocurring phenomenon in nature.” Lawlor is seeking to regulate private attitudes toward homosexuality. He is imposing his views on the morality of homosexuality without apology.

Now, I want to be clear on my position. I am not complaining about the effort to legislate morality, though legislating private attitudes is out of bounds. Morality-free legislation is a myth. It is the hypocritical accusation that one side is imposing morality while the other is not that angers me. The “imposing morality” shibboleth is really about alternate moralities: invalidating a religiously-informed, natural-law-based, or objective morality in favor of an evolving, sentimental, culture-response morality. The latter is no less imposed than the former, in this case its enactment is the culmination of a long, politically sneaky manipulation.

Let’s be very clear what happened here in Connecticut. An openly gay chairman of the state Senate Judiciary Committee, with his allies, forced this issue on the state, congratulating himself that “the people” were acting while at the same time ensuring that the people have no opportunity to express their opinion in a non-binding citizens’ referendum.

The citizens of Connecticut have not been clamoring for a civil unions bill. In fact, the best analysis of previous polls is that most have responded to this issue with a big yawn. We have been apathetic, never believing that it would become a priority for the state. Yet, McDonald and other lobbying groups have made it so. And, today the state Senate is voting on McDonald’s bill.

Democrats accused President Bush of using a marriage and family ammendment as a wedge issue to divide Americans and to energize his base. It ought to be blatantly clear to everyone that the wedge is in the hands of McDonald and his allies.

He has made me respond. Me and many others who have been stirred to flood the legislature with phone calls, emails, and letters.

Drawing The Line At Gay Marriage

The Hartford Courant has finally run an article acknowledging that the majority of this state's citizens are opposed to same-sex marriage. But they continue to try to claim that most of the state's citizens are open to civil unions -- as though there's a difference.

Some Republicans, such as Governor Jodi Rell, are still trying to have it both ways. ctnow.com: Drawing The Line At Gay Marriage:

William A. Hamzy, chairman of the state Republican Party, touched off a dispute within the ranks of the GOP recently when he dismissed those who support civil unions but oppose gay marriage as 'parsing words.'

The problem was that Hamzy's declaration ran directly counter to the position adopted by two of the state's top Republicans: Gov. M. Jodi Rell and House Minority Leader Robert M. Ward, R-North Branford.

Rell and Ward, like many people, are far more willing to extend rights in the form of civil unions than they are to accept a new definition of marriage.

Hamzy, of course, is right. No one could watch any of the legislative hearings on this bill and be fooled. Proponents of the bill invariably argued for conferring "marriage rights and benefits" on same-sex couples. And, state senator McDonald is very clear that the intent of the bill is to confer the state's recognition and respect on same-sex couples equivalent to the state's interest in encouraging marriage.

The state senate votes today on the same-sex civil unions bill. It is expected to pass. But the latest betting is that it will fail in the house.

David Brooks on The Strength of Conservatives

David Brooks's column in the New York times is always interesting. Today he argues that conservatives have become so strong because they're so divided. Very much a contrarian view.

A House Divided, and Strong: "Nobody joins a movement because of admiration for its entitlement reform plan. People join up because they think that movement's views about human nature and society are true."

Intelligent Design Blog

As part of my seminary studies I am beginning to look into issues with regard to faith and science. One of Phil Johnson's books is assigned reading. I've never really spent much time on this before, and still don't have formulated opinions on many issues. However, today I discovered a new cooperative blog maintained by key thinkers in Intelligent Design.

Here's the link: Intelligent Design the Future

Hopeful Signs

We are beginning to see signs that same-sex civil unions may not prevail in Connecticut after all. It certainly won't pass overwhelmingly without opposition as its self-congratulating advocates were predicting just a month ago.

Governor Rell now says she wants an ammendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. She will sign the civil unions bill but only if the one-man/one-woman uniqueness of marriage is upheld, too. This is a cowardly compromise, preserving only a label. The civil unions bill is a "marriage equality" bill conferring on same-sex couples all the recognition and benefits a state can confer. But, at least she's finally acknowledging the concerns of the majority of this state's citizens.

And, the Family Institute of Connecticut is reporting that the Speaker of Connecticut's House of Representatives, Rep. Jim Amann, predicts the bill will fail in the House. I don't know if that's true, but no one was even suggesting this as a possibility before.