Tag Archives: society

Danbury takes crown as state’s safest city

Posted on by
Reply

Good news for Danburians – you live in Connecticut’s safest city:

Danbury tops the list of the safest cities in the state, according to a ranking of the safest — and most dangerous — cities in the nation.

The rankings of cities with populations greater than 75,000 were recently released as part of the “City Crime Ratings” book published annually by CQ Press. Danbury came in at No. 55 of all cities in the nation and first in Connecticut.

“Danbury is fortunate to employ some of the best police officers in our area, who show a deep commitment to the safety of our city’s citizens and visitors,” Mayor Mark Boughton said.

“Our city is proud of this ranking, and we will continue focusing our efforts and commitment to our officers and their needs.”

Stamford came in second of Connecticut cities and No. 71 in the nation. Hartford brought up the rear as the most dangerous city in the state; its national rank is 359 of 385.

Police Chief Al Baker said Danbury has consistently done well on the rankings over the years and often fell in one of the top two spots for the state. Stamford, however, has come out ahead of Danbury in past years.

Read more here.  Continue to pray for Hartford and New Haven, which reportedly was not ranked because it does not report certain categories of crime to the FBI.

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?

Can you refuse to marry a gay couple in Connecticut?

Posted on by
Reply

If you are a public official, the answer is clearly “no.”  Attorney-General Blumenthal has issued an opinion which recognizes gay marriage as being on a par with other civil rights, pursuant to the recent Supreme Court decision in the Kerrigan case.  Says Mr. Blumenthal:

Section 46b-22 does not impose a duty on persons authorized to perform marriages to perform a marriage for any particular couple or establish a right for couples seeking to marry to have the ceremony performed by a particular authorized person.  However, as is currently the case, public officials who have been authorized to perform marriages may not refuse to perform a marriage for discriminatory reasons, in violation of the Connecticut Constitution.

 

As I read this, clergy may refuse to marry anyone, but public officials who are authorized to solemnize marriages may not, as it would be a violation of those persons’ state constitutional rights.

The Greenwich Time ran an interesting piece last week about the impact of our new situation upon justices of the peace.

In the wake of his expanded duties, one justice of the peace was thinking about stepping down.

“I haven’t had to face that issue, thank God,” said justice Forbes Delany, asked if he would be willing to perform gay marriages. “I can turn down anyone.”

Three days after the release of Blumenthal’s legal opinion, Delany said he was no longer interested in being a justice of the peace. Asked if his decision was influenced by Blumenthal’s statement that justices may not refuse to marry gays, Delany said only, “I think I have to take my name off the list.”

Reactions from other justices range from disappointment to celebration.

Byram Republican Emil Smeriglio, a justice for 25 years and born-again Christian, said last week, “Frankly, it’s against my religion.”

“It’s a discretionary call, I thought,” he said.

 

I’m afraid that Mr. Delany and Mr. Smeriglio will have to make a call based on conscience in our Brave New State.  Indeed, this is only the beginning of a soft expulsion of committed Christians and other traditionalists from public life.

Gay marriage comes to Connecticut

Posted on by
Reply

Today was the first day of homosexual marriage in Connecticut, in case you missed it… the press is having a field day and there are reactions aplenty. An AP report brought us down to New Haven City Hall:

Outside City Hall in New Haven, bubbles and white balloons bounced in the chilly autumn air as well-wishers cheered the marriage of Peg Oliveira and Jennifer Vickery .

Despite the roaring traffic and clicking cameras, “it was surprisingly quiet,” Oliveira said after the brief ceremony. “Everything else dissolved, and it was just the two of us. It was so much more personal and powerful in us committing to one another, and so much less about the people around us.”

According to the state public health department, 2,032 civil union licenses were issued in Connecticut between October 2005 and July 2008.

But there was no comparison between civil unions and marriage for Robin Levine-Ritterman and Barbara Levine-Ritterman, who obtained a civil union in 2005 and were among eight same-sex couples who sued for the right to marry.

“We didn’t do it with pride or joy,” Barbara Levine-Ritterman said of getting the civil-union license. “It felt gritty to be in a separate line.”

On Wednesday, however, she proudly held up the first same-sex marriage license issued in New Haven as about 100 people applauded outside City Hall. She and her betrothed, who held red roses, plan to marry in May.

“It’s thrilling today,” Barbara Levine-Ritterman said. “We are all in one line for one form. Love is love, and the state recognizes it.”

Manchester Town Clerk Joseph Camposeo, president of the Connecticut Town Clerks Association, said clerks in the state’s 169 communities were advised by e-mail shortly after 9:30 a.m. that they could start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.

The health department had new marriage applications printed that reflect the change. Instead of putting one name under “bride” and the other under “groom,” couples will see two boxes marked “bride/groom/spouse.”

Love is love! I assume that by this Ms. Levine-Ritterman means that as long as two people “love each other” they should be permitted to marry.  We have been brought to this point by the false equations and false dichotomies put forward by a movement which has taken every advantage of society’s lack of moral courage and inability to perform critical thinking.

The result will be mass confusion in our society, particularly among the young – a confusion fostered by their elders, as evidenced by the new boxes marked “bride/groom/spouse.”

Online advertising cleaning up its act

Posted on by
Reply

We applaud Connecticut State Attorney-General Blumenthal for his role in making popular site Craigslist see the light when it comes to advertising for illicit sex.

Craigslist, the classifieds website, said Thursday that it was taking steps to prevent people from posting classified ads for prostitution and other illegal activities after reaching a pact with more than 40 states and U.S. territories.

“It’s profoundly significant as a model to track down and crack down on illicit sex and other illegal activities,” said Connecticut Atty. Gen. Richard Blumenthal, who has criticized the site for some of the ads it allows and spearheaded the deal. “Craigslist has been very cooperative about acknowledging the problem and addressing it.”

Read more here.

Proposition 8 and Connecticut

Posted on by
2

As mentioned earlier, Connecticut voters refused to approve a Constitutional Convention which could have overturned gay marriage in our State.  California voters, dare I say owing to their greater familiarity with both the style and the substance of the homosexual activist movement, appear to have handed a tremendous victory to pro-family forces across the nations.  Today’s Wall Street Journal says:

Proposition 8, which would establish marriage as a union between a man and a woman, passed with 52.1% of the vote, against 47.9% opposed, with 94.6% of precincts reporting. The approval marks a stunning upset in a $70 million campaign that just weeks ago looked to be running in favor of preserving gay marriage rights.

The passage of Prop 8, as it is known, would be a major victory for religious conservatives seeking to ban gay marriage in other states, and a crippling setback for the gay rights movement nationwide.

Indeed.  But what to do in States such as ours or Massachusetts, in which the right to gay marriage has been enshrined as a matter of State Constitutional law?  When the highest judges in the land, elected by none and accountable to none, can create such a right as God made the world – out of nothing – and the people have no remedy available to them, what can pro-family forces do?

The fact that a “liberal” State like California, known for its large and very influential gay population, has spoken against gay marriage speaks volumes.  As the FIC Blog points out today, some 30 states have already voted to protect marriage as it has been traditionally understood.

And what’s wrong with that?