Tag Archives: christianity

Praying for peace in the Middle East

Posted on by
Reply

middle_east_geographic-300x268

It’s out of fashion to say it out loud but nonetheless true that there will be no permanent peace in the Middle East (or anywhere else) until we have the actual presence of the Prince of Peace with us. We believe that a king, Messiah Jesus, will reign in righteousness and that this reign will be personal, literal, and physical. (Acts 1:11) Having said this, I want to be quick to say that Christians are called to be at peace with others (Romans 12:18) and to make peace. Christians should imitate God by upholding and working for justice for all people. This being the case, how should we assess the current conflict between Israel and the Palestinians of Gaza?

In Connecticut, we have a blog, which I won’t dignify with a link, which refers to Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni as Israel’s “Blond Bitch of Belsen.” Besides being crude, the moral equation between the Holocaust and Israel’s own right of self-defense is offensive in the extreme.

The Arab-Israeli wars have long been a David-and-Goliath scenario, but the Left has skillfully transformed the public’s perception such that Israel, vastly outmanned and tiny in territory has been transformed into the Goliath. The issues are of course complex, but the simplistic thinking is not to be found among Biblical Christians, as the media would have us believe.

How should we begin to think about Gaza?

First, it would be irrational to separate this conflict from the larger context of the Jihad which is being waged against Israel and other Western nations by Muslim radicals. To say this is not to agree with or support everything that the Bush Administration has done, but it would be foolhardy not to take the statements of the jihadists at face value – something the U. S. has seldom done, at least publicly. Christians must recognize that radical Muslims do not believe their own apocalyptic vision can unfold properly until there is effective war against the Jews. Not enough people understand that Muslims are expecting their own Messiah, called the Mahdi, whom they believe will subjugate the world with the help of none other than Jesus, called Isa by Muslims. Many are now noting that the Muslim “end times” seems to present us with a dark mirror of the biblical apocalypse in which their Messiah seems to fulfill the deeds and functions of the Biblical Antichrist. In any event, there can be little doubt of coordination between Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and others.

Second, the world’s prejudices are never more on display than when Israel makes a military move. Someone has cleverly pointed out that if Israel were to make a “proportional response,” it would have to fire off 2,000 rockets unannounced into Gaza and rejoice by handing out candies when there were casualties. Only Israel is held to such a standard, which is designed solely to hamstring it, pure and simple. When Jews are killed for being Jews, no one cares.

Third, Christians are no longer in agreement that the land of Israel belongs to Israel by Divine grant. The persistent, malicious name-calling of the Left has ensured that anyone holding such a position is referred to as a “Christian Zionist” and his opinions are therefore to be dismissed out of hand. Yet Christians do well to remember the anger of God against those who divide the land, and would deny Israel even a sliver of the Middle East.

If ever in doubt as to how to pray, Christians should pray for his Kingdom to come, and His Will to be done!

One man, one woman – unless that offends you, of course!

Posted on by
1

The Church’s failure to compete in the spheres of vocabulary and language has brought our society to the place where it is about to get hit by a train.  It’s time for Christians to ask for, even insist upon, several things.  The Church needs to: (1) reclaim the true biblical concept of tolerance; (2) reclaim the vocabulary of civil rights; (3) explain biblical teaching on family issues; and (4) refuse to be browbeaten by comical, trendoid explanations of biblical concepts – as if the Church and Israel before it have been wrong or confused about homosexuality for 4,000 years.  American Christians must (preferably before tomorrow morning) cease to be intimidated by the possibility that someone may claim they are motivated by “hate.”

I was annoyed when I saw a clip of the pro-homosexual marriage video in which Jack Black appears as Jesus, castigating Christians by reminding them that shellfish, like gay sex, is an abomination in the Bible.  Is this really the best that supporters of gay marriage can do?  And have Christians become so utterly crippled in biblical knowledge and their ability to articulate it that hearing the phrase “God hates shrimp” paralyzes them?

Some time ago Christianity Today ran an excellent article by Edith Humphrey, a seminary professor, who explained for the confused what the Bible teaches: God is opposed to homosexuality.  This shouldn’t come as a newsflash, but in our day we have many who are deceiving themselves or are being deceived.  In her article, “What God Hath Not Joined,” Ms. Humphrey explains:

Leviticus 18:22 says bluntly: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Some within the church argue that such prohibitions concern only cultic practices in ancient Israel and so are no longer binding on Christians. But some Levitical proscriptions concern immoral behavior, not simply ritual uncleanness. We need to ask, How does the general pattern of the Scriptures direct us to understand this prohibition?

The answer is that homoerotic behavior contradicts God’s purpose for all his creatures. It is not in the same category as the cultic or cultural prohibitions regarding non-kosher foods and the twining together of two types of thread. Like the prohibition of incest (Lev. 18:6-18), the prohibition of homoerotic acts addresses every age.

As the New Testament epistles show, the early church did not discard what the Hebrew Bible said about sexual ethics. When Corinthian Christians thought that their spiritual sophistication gave them license to sin, Paul challenged them (1 Cor. 6:9ff.): “Do you not know that evildoers will not inherit God’s kingdom?” Then he offered as examples those who steal, get drunk, scorn what is holy, pursue sexual immorality, and practice two modes of male homoerotic behavior.

Some argue that we cannot understand Paul’s reference to these two behaviors (malakoi and arsenokoitai, as in and ) in terms of homoeroticism. But arsenokoitai is in fact a compound word derived from the Greek version of Leviticus 20:13 for those men “who lie with a male.” Malakoi means literally “soft ones” and in Greek writings frequently identified the passive homoerotic partner. It is a mistake to limit the term’s meaning, as do some, to masturbation, or as the NRSV does, to male prostitution.

The Genesis narratives, because they are stories, and the Levitical passages, because they are part of a code given to Israel in particular, must be considered in light of the whole biblical narrative. When we do this, the lists of immoral behavior in and show that the early Christian communities held firm to Old Testament views of sexual immorality…

Of course.  But it’s worth thinking about these things in a little more depth than what we get in sound bites, which are more often than not pure sophistry.  It’s important we do so because the press is not going to let up, and is forever seeking to teach people of good will that the Bible can be read to support gay marriage.

This week, Newsweek’s Lisa Miller sticks her finger in the eye of everyone who has read the Bible, saying:

Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.

Is this for real?  The Jesus who said “go and sin no more” now wants two girls to marry each other?

Christians need to respond to this drivel every time it appears in print, for when we let these things go unanswered, others over time may accept them by default.

Albert Mohler, never afraid of a fight, takes Newsweek to task:

Disappointingly, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham offers an editorial note that broadens Newsweek’s responsibility for this atrocity of an article and reveals even more of the agenda: “No matter what one thinks about gay rights –- for, against or somewhere in between –- this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism,” Meacham writes. “Given the history of the making of the Scriptures and the millennia of critical attention scholars and others have given to the stories and injunctions that come to us in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt –- it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition.”

Well, that statement sets the issue clearly before us. He insists that “to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt.” No serious student of the Bible can deny the challenge of responsible biblical interpretation, but the purpose of legitimate biblical interpretation is to determine, as faithfully as possible, what the Bible actually teaches — and then to accept, teach, apply and obey.

It’s time to focus on teaching and proclaiming the truths that virtually all societies have taken for granted across those millennia, whether they had a Bible or not, and without being ashamed to do so.

Turmoil in Episcopal Church seen as a positive by some

Posted on by
Reply

Connecticut has a number of Episcopal churches which are more conservative in their outlook and have been left, if not holding the bag, “holding the Bible,” so to speak.  Notable among them has been Bishop Seabury Church in Groton, whose minister views the impending schism and changes in the Episcopal Church as a plus:

”It’s very positive, bringing together all these groups,” said the church’s priest, the Rev. Ronald Gauss.

Bishop Seabury parishioners earlier this year voted themselves out of the U.S. Episcopal Church, which is part of the 77 million-member Anglican Communion, a global fellowship of churches that trace their roots to the Church of England.

Bishop Seabury instead chose to affiliate with the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, which is based on more conservative beliefs, including opposition to the ordination of an openly gay bishop.

But now, for the first time, there could be a second conservative province in America – the Anglican Church in North America….

The Episcopal Church may see churches like Bishop Seabury as defectors, but the way Gauss sees it, the church left him with what he considers liberal theology.

Referring to the day he was ordained, Gauss said, “I haven’t changed since 36 years ago.”

Read the rest in today’s New London Day.

The Twelve Days of Christmas myth

Posted on by
Reply

It’s that time of year, when the world falls in love (so sang Frank Sinatra) and when the world also sends bogus urban legend emails about all things Christmas.  Is it true that the song “The Twelve Days Of Christmas” was actually an underground catechism sung by Catholics who were being persecuted by English Protestants?  The popular myth-busting website Snopes says no, and yet I get this email every year.  It’s already running on the Web and in newspapers here and there and yet there’s precious little evidence to support it.

See this myth busted here.  And don’t send me this email this year. :)

The aftermath of the Lakeland Revival

Posted on by
1

Columnist Lee Grady of Charisma isn’t afraid to slaughter the sacred cows of the charismatic movement.  This week he has revisited the controversy arising out of the Lakeland Revival, featuring the ministry of Todd Bentley.  What lessons should we be drawing from the unfortunate spectacle surrounding Bentley’s difficulties?

Lesson #1: Accountability. Accountability. Accountability.

I wish just saying the word over and over could impress the concept in our minds. Leaders must live according to biblical standards. Period. Bentley’s board admitted in their statement that after the Lakeland meetings went into full swing, Bentley developed troubling behavior patterns. That would have been the right time for someone with apostolic courage to demand that Bentley step down for a season until he got his spiritual life in order. If we really want New Testament miracles and New Testament impact, maybe we should embrace New Testament discipline.

This is an article worth reading but, more importantly, it’s an article worth doing!  Read it all.

Christmas is coming – get ready for those dinner table atheists!

Posted on by
Reply
Is that secular enough for ya?

Is that secular enough for ya?

The joyous crowds of rosy-cheeked, Andy-Williams-listening shoppers have given us our first trampling of the year, thus marking the official start of the “holiday season.”

But what about those slightly less perilous hazards you are likely to encounter this Christmastide, namely your atheist brother-in-law and his smart aleck son, who’s completed one whole semester of college and is wearing his newfound agnosticism with a little too much confidence for your liking?  How about the major news magazines or the TV networks, always ready to debunk the historical accuracy of the Christmas narrative? And what about those helpful souls who are against all Christmas traditions?  (As if we didn’t know He wasn’t born on December 25th.)  Be of good cheer!  There’s help available.

God, The Bible and all that

A nice free e-book is available for you here from the Why Faith? website.  It’s a 44-page PDF on the historical reliability of the New Testament.  It will give you some good ammunition.  Got more time to read, or got an atheist who’s more intellectually honest?  Try F. F. Bruce‘s venerable but still very valuable The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?.  Or perhaps his The Canon of Scripture for all the people who read Dan Brown.  Timothy Keller, described as the most successful evangelist in New York City, has a well-received and well-selling book called The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism.

Darwin, blah, blah, blah

They didn’t know a lot about biology back in the 1860′s.  For crying out loud – they were just learning to wash their hands before surgery.  Have you ever read anything that shows what we now know about the complexity of biological systems or the unique conditions on our busy little earth that make it all possible?  Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution will help you drive atheists nuts.

Other religions – which usually translates to: Christianity is awful!

Gosh, we’ve never heard this one before, either.  You mean there are other religions?  People who don’t know about Christ?  Come on!  Anyway, you may want to tell your friend that it so happens not all of these religions actually are the same or think the same thing about God and humankind.  Did you know that?  Maybe your workmate doesn’t.  Christianity is special, it seems (no jihad commanded by founder of religion for example), and has been a great boon to people.  Get someone a copy of Dinesh D’Souza’s What’s So Great About Christianity.

What about people who are more kindly disposed?

Have a friend who wants to know more and has no real ax to grind?  You may want to try Rick Warren‘s new book The Purpose of Christmas.

How about Christian spoilsports?

There’s always one guy ready to call your tree a Babylonian Bush, or remind you that the Puritans (who were smarter than we are and prayed a lot ) banned the whole thing altogether.  <sigh>  When it comes to this I can refer you to two sources your believing friend may see as a tad secular. First, give him a copy of the 1951 version of Dickens‘s A Christmas Carol. If that won’t work, then by all means go for the big guns and make him watch Charles Schulz‘s A Charlie Brown Christmas.  We can all see so much of ourselves in it.

It’s good to have a reason for the hope that lies within us – and we’re commanded to in any event.  But the best advertisement for Christ at Christmas is a real Christian.


Is Verichip making the Mark of the Beast?

Posted on by
2
Verichip Implantable RFID Chip

Verichip Implantable RFID Chip

The Verichip Corporation has created a stir of late through its marketing of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) chips which can be implanted into animal tissue, even human beings.  On its website, the company markets these wireless services as helpful with “patient identification, infant protection, wander prevention, and asset tracking.” Its VeriMed system is a poster child for the benefits of RFID implantation:

Unlike traditional forms of identification, the VeriChip can’t be lost, stolen, misplaced, or counterfeited. Because it’s inserted under the skin, it’s always there when you need it regardless of where other kinds of identification might be.

Using a handheld reader, healthcare professionals are able to securely access a patient’s unique VeriChip ID number which can be looked up in a designated secure healthcare information database, allowing them to immediately take the safest course of action.

Indeed, the potential of RFID technologies in business and many other fields is enormous – and so is the controversy.  The idea of being implanted with computer technology is a step too far for many.  Many  privacy advocates and Christian prophecy students alike see the RFID chip as, well, creepy and sinister.  There’s no shortage of theories linking the chip to world dictatorship and even the Mark of the Beast. Take a peek:

But is this the real “Mark of the Beast” prophesied in Revelation 13? For those who may be unfamiliar with the language or even the and topics the Bible predicts a mark associated with a “beast,” language which is commonly thought to be symbolic of a world dictator called the Antichrist, a title meaning one who stands in opposition to Christ.

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six (666). (Revelation 13:16-18, KJV)

There are several things here which should prevent undue panic among Christians that RFID is the Mark of the Beast, at least in its current form.  First, the Mark of the Beast is something that the Antichrist causes people to receive or at least offers to them.  It is therefore connected to a particular person, the Antichrist.  Thus: no Antichrist, no mark.

Second, no one is allowed to buy or sell without having the Mark.  Thus, this mark will supersede existing currencies.

Third, the Mark is also connected and is perhaps an additional option along with the name of the Antichrist or the number 666.

Finally, the word “mark” comes from the Greek charagma, a word which has to do with etching or carving.  Some Bible scholars therefore would deny that something implanted under the skin meets the qualifications.  It could be something more like a tattoo, perhaps with magnetically readable ink, if you will.

In any event, if there’s no beast on the scene, you can’t have a mark of the beast.  So until there is a real, live Antichrist it’s probably premature to say that RFID is the mark, or anything like it.

I would also add that in my opinion the Mark will be very overt and visible, as people will be all too happy to flaunt their devotion to the Antichrist and his reign.  Scriptural passages such as Psalm 2, Rev. 6:15-17, and others demonstrate that at the end of days there is a very conscious and very willful rejection of the God of the Bible.

Of course, that’s just my opinion. What do you think?

More follies of atheism

Posted on by
Reply

Dinesh D’Souza continues to hammer away at the pretensions of atheism. The author of What’s So Great about Christianity is wondering what happens “When Science Points To God:”

If you want to know why atheists seem to have given up the scientific card, the current issue of Discover magazine provides part of the answer. The magazine has an interesting story by Tim Folger which is titled “Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator.” The article begins by noting “an extraordinary fact about the universe: its basic properties are uncannily suited for life.” As physicist Andrei Linde puts it, “We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible.”

Too many “coincidences,” however, imply a plot. Folger’s article shows that if the numerical values of the universe, from the speed of light to the strength of gravity, were even slightly different, there would be no universe and no life. Recently scientists have discovered that most of the matter and energy in the universe is made up of so-called “dark” matter and “dark” energy. It turns out that the quantity of dark energy seems precisely calibrated to make possible not only our universe but observers like us who can comprehend that universe.

Even Steven Weinberg, the Nobel laureate in physics and an outspoken atheist, remarks that “this is fine-tuning that seems to be extreme, far beyond what you could imagine just having to accept as a mere accident.” And physicist Freeman Dyson draws the appropriate conclusion from the scientific evidence to date: “The universe in some sense knew we were coming.”

Oddly enough (another coincidence?) the Bible speaks of those who would in the last times unrighteously suppress the truth of the Creator.  We’re well on our way there.  How rational or “scientific” is it admit that there is something there in the make-up of the universe that points to God and yet deny the obvious conclusions because they are unpalatable?  With apologies to Al Gore, it’s God Himself Who is the inconvenient truth.

Read the rest here.

Connecticut Supreme Court Justice says gay marriage “not going away”

Posted on by
Reply

A very interesting article in the Yale Herald explored the response of Christians to the recent decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, establishing a right to gay marriage in our State.  Writer Dennis Howe says Christians have sat silent but his article is also noteworthy for the revealing glimpses it gives of some of the participants at the center of the Kerrigan drama, particularly State Supreme Court Justice Richard Palmer.

The court issued its decision on Oct. 10, and, unsurprisingly, initiated an immediate backlash from opponents of gay marriage. Social conservatives and the religious right formed the Connecticut Constitution Convention Campaign to encourage voters to vote “yes” on a ballot proposal to call a constitutional convention that could reexamine the Supreme Court decision and potentially propose a constitutional amendment to overturn it. Supporters included Republican governor Jodi Rell, the Family Institute of Connecticut, and the state’s Roman Catholic bishops, who called on Catholic voters to vote “yes” on the convention. This was no small matter—46 percent of the state is Catholic, placing Connecticut second among the 50 states.

But in the weeks leading up to Election Day, this initially fervent conservative reaction began to steadily decline. In California, religious conservatives were busy raising $35 million in support of Proposition 8, and their amendment banning gay marriage in the state passed by four percentage points. In the closing days of the Connecticut campaign, however, proponents of the constitutional convention were being outspent 83 to 1 by their opponents, and despite polls that suggested that the majority of Connecticut citizens were opposed to same-sex marriages, the anti-gay marriage camp was conspicuously subdued. The convention failed by an overwhelming margin—almost 20 percentage points—and Kerrigan and Mock received their marriage license just one week later.

“People don’t seem to have a lot of energy to spend time undoing our decision,” said Justice Palmer when asked in a Trumbull College Master’s Tea on Mon., Nov. 20. “We can say with certainty that there is going to be gay marriage in this state for the foreseeable future. Unlike in California, it’s not going away.”

Justice Palmer has taken the spiritual temperature of the State’s Catholics and Evangelicals and found us to be as cold as ice. Time alone will tell but for the moment he is probably correct.

The piece also contains an in-depth profile of Evangelicals working at Yale and their response to the culture as a whole on these issues, which is well worth your time.

Read the rest here.

Connecticut after same-sex marriage: now what?

Posted on by
Reply

A reader writes with some concern asking what options pro-family forces have in Connecticut in the wake of the Kerrigan decision legalizing same-sex marriage:

Is there going to be an amendment or a vote that the public can make like in California to ban the same sex marriage here in Connecticut?  How do we ban it here as well?  Is it too late?

This is an important question: is it possible to overturn the Kerrigan decision by electoral or some other means?  There are indeed options, none of which, I hasten to say, has any chance of success absent divine intervention.  However, before we even begin to explore political or legal options, we do well to take stock of the new realities.  Do we really understand the place at which we have arrived?

In Connecticut, gay marriage will mean a mandatory and total acceptance of homosexuality in all spheres of life.  Make no mistake: this represents the true end of the long and deliberate process of divorcing society from its Christian underpinnings.  We must realize that there is no longer any sense at all in which we can say that Christianity is the animating principle of government or society in Connecticut, or any other place where there is homosexual marriage.

Think about it: in half a lifetime, homosexuality has gone from being an aberration and a psychiatric disorder not frequently discussed in polite society to being on a par with heterosexual marriage. Indeed, a new form of tolerance demands that we view it as such, but this new “tolerance” is not tolerance at all; it is intolerance of all who dare question the new orthodoxy.  Thus the crafters of the new orthodoxy have become the intolerant bigots they accused Christians of being.  If recent events are any guide, homosexual activists will not be willing to surrender what they have gained over the last 40 years.   Indeed, the acceptance of homosexuality will now be enforced with all the machinery that the State has at its disposal.  Religious conscience will be steamrolled in nearly all cases, as we are already seeing in the case of justices of the peace.

The full effects of this have not been seen yet in Connecticut, as they have in Massachusetts.  The language of civil rights, now just as fully applicable to homosexuality as it is to matters of race, will mandate indoctrination of children and trump all rights of parents to guide their children’s education.  Exaggeration?  Not at all. In Massachusetts, the schools openly promote homosexuality and parents can neither opt out nor even be notified!

Christians are now a minority in matters of morality despite whatever numerical majority they may still enjoy.  The court system, having severed itself from our Constitution, has become inimical to the faith.  The sooner we will simply grow up and face this the better off we will be.  Notice I did not say that there is no Christian influence, or remnant of Christians in the region.  However, it is past time that we woke up.  Just this month we have seen that even Californians, famously liberal, voted against homosexual marriage when they had a chance.  Perhaps their familiarity with in-your-face homosexual activism pushed them over the edge.  So is there hope?  Yes.  Will it require new approaches, new  mindsets, and new tools?  Absolutely.

Having said all of that, what options do we have?

Connecticut does not have any right of initiative such as Californians have to propose and create amendments to the Constitution or State laws.  So scratch that option right at the outset.

One option would be for the Connecticut Supreme Court to overturn its own decision in Kerrigan.  While anything is possible, this seems highly unlikely given the deference that judges give to their own precedents.  The Court would have to adopt the reasoning of the dissenting justices over time and acknowledge some error, some change in society’s views, etc.

Could someone appeal from this decision to the Federal Courts?  Extremely unlikely, as the Federal Courts do not like to interfere with decisions from the highest court of a State which interpret that State’s Constitution.  They taught us in law school that States can always recognize more rights than the Federal government, and this is one of those cases.  Incidentally, this means that even if a Federal Defense of Marriage Amendment were passed Connecticut might still have gay marriage, depending on how it was worded.

Another option is a convention which could amend the Constitution. There are two ways to call for a Constitutional Convention.  First, as we saw this year, the voters must be presented every twenty years with the option to vote for a Constitutional Convention. Since we’ve just seen this question go down in flames, we will not get another chance at this one until 2028!   A second way would be for the Legislature to vote for a Convention.  This requires a 2/3 vote of each house of the Legislature and cannot take place less than ten years after a previous Convention.  Again, this option is only to have a Convention, and does not guarantee what would take place at the Convention.  See Article Thirteen of the State Constitution here.

Yet another option, by far the quickest and easiest in some ways, would be for the Legislature to simply pass a Constitutional Amendment.  However, in our current political climate (and Connecticut being the State with the lowest percentage of Evangelicals), this would pose great difficulties.  The Sixth Amendment to the State Constitution provides:

Amendments to this constitution may be proposed by any member of the senate or house of representatives. An amendment so proposed, approved upon roll call by a yea vote of at least a majority, but by less than three-fourths, of the total membership of each house, shall be published with the laws which may have been passed at the same session and be continued to the regular session of the general assembly elected at the next general election to be held on the Tuesday after the first Monday of November in an even-numbered year. An amendment so proposed, approved upon roll call by a yea vote of at least three-fourths of the total membership of each house, or any amendment which, having been continued from the previous general assembly, is again approved upon roll call by a yea vote of at least a majority of the total membership of each house, shall, by the secretary of the state, be transmitted to the town clerk in each town in the state, whose duty it shall be to present the same to the electors thereof for their consideration at the next general election to be held on the Tuesday after the first Monday of November in an even-numbered year. If it shall appear, in a manner to be provided by law, that a majority of the electors present and voting on such amendment at such election shall have approved such amendment, the same shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of this constitution. Electors voting by absentee ballot under the provisions of the statutes shall be considered to be present and voting.

Let me put my lawyer glasses on.  As I read it, this is potentially a multi-year process, approved by 3/4 of the Legislators (or at least 1/2 of them and then 1/2 of the Legislators from the next session) and then submitted to the voters afterwards.

Is it really possible that Connecticut voters can apply enough pressure on their State Legislators, some of whom are openly gay, to make this last possibility become a reality?  There’s only one way to know, and that’s to try it.  In California this squeaked by.  What would happen here?