The Connecticut Supreme Court may foist same-sex marriage on its citizens when it issues its landmark ruling in Kerrigan and Mock v. Commissioner of Public Health, which is expected Jan. 11. The state's largest newspaper, and the oldest in the nation, The Hartford Courant, hasn't covered the case on its news pages since it was argued last May. But that doesn't mean the paper has kept its bias in the closet.
The Family Institute of Connecticut notes on its blog: “For months now the paper has made no mention of the Kerrigan case. And, of course, it ignored FIC's Rally for Liberty, which brought 300 people to the state Capitol on a Wednesday morning last September to defend marriage and self-government.” http://www.ctfamily.org/blog/2008/01/02/court-to-impose-same-sex-marriage-on-jan-11th/ [1]
Just recently, the Courant's Lifestyle section sounded support with a sycophantic slant piece about Elizabeth Kerrigan and Joanne Mock, the lead plaintiffs and their adopted six-year-old twin boys, Fernando and Carlos: “At issue is whether marriage applies to all citizens, or if it's an institution reserved strictly for heterosexuals. The state of
Even the Mansons would have embraced
Despite
The Lifestyle section also carried a fund raising ad for a same-sex marriage lobbying group last Dec. 17, offering T-shirts touting, “marriage is so gay.”
What Campbell's paean to “gay” marriage does well is expose the phony claim by advocates of same-sex marriage that it's all about benefits and rights.
Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether derived from the general statutes, administrative regulations or court rules, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage, which is defined as the union of one man and one woman. Conn Gen. Stats. § 46b-38nn (2007).
The fact that the law doesn't include heterosexuals escapes
The FIC further notes that a reader calling himself “in the know” posted this comment following
Thus far, only four judges on the
But anxiety abounds when marriage is in the hands of a court shameless enough to rule that “a fetus constitutes a part of the mother's body and, therefore, is a member of her body,” akin to her “ear, tongue and skin.” State v. Sandoval (2003).
Lest anyone criticize their biological buffoonery, they actually said, “we interpret statutes to avoid bizarre or nonsensical results.” Thanks so much for clearing that up.
Still, I'm compelled to ask: If the fetus is like skin, does a woman go into labor or just exfoliate? When the baby kicks, does mom get a ringing in the ear? During the delivery, does the doc say “Stick out your fetus” as if it was a tongue?
Five members of the Sandoval court remain. We can only hope they have greater regard for the biological realities that permit only a man and a woman to unite in marriage.
May the Kerrigan court redeem itself by showing due deference to the Connecticut Constitution and “the Supreme Being, the Great Creator and Preserver of the Universe” it acknowledges.
Jan LaRue is a member of the Advisory Board of the Culture and Media Institute. [3]