Same-Sex Marriage Good for the Nation?
Greetings in the love of the Lord.
Same-Sex Marriage Debate Continues in the Connecticut Legislature
As most of you are aware, I worked hard as part of a statewide coalition here in Connecticut to stop the prospect of same-sex marriage two years in a row. Connecticut is in the cross-hairs of the national same-sex marriage movement that produced "civil unions" in Vermont. We have thus far succeeded. Much of my work has been one-on-one with legislators, as well as public testimony, where my argument was a positive one -- to underscore true marriage as the foundation for a healthy society, rooted in the God of the Bible who gives us unalienable rights.
Next year the same-sex advocates will return to the Legislature with their agenda. They will have one item they were able to come away with this year -- the Judiciary Committee has commissioned a report by January 1 concerning same-sex marriage. The Committee is chaired by Representative Michael Lawlor, the driving force in the Legislature behind same-sex marriage. So the report's conclusion is known ahead of time. Thus, there is much work to do in the meantime, and I will keep you apprised. I am in consistent communication with Mr. Lawlor in the process. He knows the theological and constitutional substance of my position, has not dislodged any of it, and he knows that I treat him with full respect.
The Hartford Courant Reveals Its Bias, Its Fear of Hearing Both Sides
Earlier this year, I wrote an editorial for the Hartford Courant, laying out part of my argument against same-sex marriage. They accepted the article, then at the last moment rejected it -- and refused to answer my specific questions as to why. The newspaper is in favor of same-sex marriage -- I knew that, but tried nonetheless. Then I tried again. They accepted it again, then for two weeks nit-picked at it, and finally rejected it for spurious reasons. They fear the reporting of a position that graciously and intelligently opposes homosexuality -- they only want a caricature they can dismiss out of hand.
Here are some portions of my final email to the editor, who said that we did not see things "eye-to-eye" on how to write the column:
"On the one hand you said I was too religious, on the other hand you wanted me to include Bible quotes I had no need or desire to include. You put me through the ringer of minutiae before that, and I believe you have done so in a manner inconsistent with the Courant's (policy for opinion columns)...
"I can only conclude that the 'eye-to-eye" issue is a matter where the Courant's definition of 'general-interest' does not include religion, unless it is in support of homosexuality and cognate sympathies. You publish Gloria Mengual's undocumented opinion that God looks with favor on her lesbian nature...
"After the first time around with you, I thought it would not be worth submitting another article. But I tried nonetheless. I challenge you to find better ethics for civility in the face of public policy disputes anywhere in the nation. Of such ethics, the Courant apparently has little interest.
"Finally, you never answered my final questions about your reversal on the first article I submitted you. Your position was inconsistent then as it is now. I do not expect any answer here..."
And indeed, no answer came. Here below is the article in question. I am glad for your thoughts.
Same-Sex Marriage and Honest Debate
John C. Rankin
Is it possible
to have civil dialogue over contentious issues - for example, same-sex
John C. Rankin is president of the Theological Education Institute, 750 Main Street, Suite 1300, Hartford, CT 06103 860/246-0099 www.teinetwork.com