(AgapePress) - Maybe it has something to do with being a New England state. In 2000, Vermont legalized same-sex "civil unions." Massachusetts followed that up by legalizing homosexual "marriage" last May. Now, apparently, Connecticut wants to hop on the bandwagon. The authors of a pro-homosexual Senate bill in that state are making their intentions perfectly clear: "to authorize persons of the same sex to enter into marriage."

The measure is called "An Act Concerning Marriage Equality" (S.B. 963). If approved, it would remove the words "bride and groom" from the current statute governing marriage, and replace them with "both persons." Further, it would require that statutes using such terms as "husband," "wife," "groom," "bride," "widow," or "widower" be deemed to include one partner to a marriage between two persons of the same sex. The measure asks that the changes be effective October 1, 2005.

Brian Brown is executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, based in Hartford. In an action alert to his group's supporters, he describes S.B. 963 as "the most radical same-sex 'marriage' bill ever before our General Assembly."

"This is real, folks!" Brown states in the alert. "It is, in short, the most 'in-your-face' pro same-sex 'marriage' bill ever devised by Connecticut's radical anti-family elites."

The Family Institute suggests specific steps that can be taken to head off the measure, which is scheduled for a hearing before the state Judiciary Committee on Monday, February 7. "Call the Judiciary Committee and urge them to vote no on same-sex marriage," Brown says, noting that the FIC website provides a phone list of the committee members. "Only a grassroots fire is going to stop the march toward the redefinition of marriage in Connecticut."

He also urges those who oppose the proposed legislation to send e-mails and letters to the committee members. That information, he notes, is also available at the FIC website.

Brown says legislation has been introduced (H.J. 29) that would amend the state constitution and define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Such an amendment, he says, would allow the citizens of the state to directly decide the future of marriage. But he says legislators who favor same-sex marriage have thus far refused to give the bill a hearing.

California Marriage Rallies
Pro-family activists in California are waging a similar battle against legislation that would legalize homosexual marriage in that state. AB 19, says one pro-family group in the Golden State, would "push San Francisco-style 'homosexual marriage licenses' in every community" and "trash" the people's March 2000 vote on Proposition 22, a measure that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Randy Thomasson

The Campaign for Children and Families (CCF), a Sacramento-based group, has called for two rallies this month in support of traditional marriage and in opposition to AB 19. The "California Rallies to Protect Marriage" will take place in Madera on February 5, and in Sacramento on February 14. CCF president Randy Thomasson says if pro-marriage advocates do not show up at the rallies, their message will not be heard.

"The media and politicians won't know that you care about protecting the sacred institution of marriage," Thomasson says in a press release. "Please interrupt your schedule and show the media that you really care about marriage staying between a man and a woman."

The Madera rally is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. at Madera Courthouse Park, and the Sacramento rally for noon on the north steps of the State Capitol.

Senator Sam Brownback

'Playing It Soft'
While individual states haggle over constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage, many pro-family groups have expressed their concern over the apparent lack of enthusiastic White House support for a federal marriage amendment. A coalition of those groups recently voiced that concern in a letter to White House counsel Karl Rove. But one pro-family senator on Capitol Hill says those concerns are unfounded.

According to Republican Sam Brownback of Kansas, the president is solidly behind the amendment effort. "I am not concerned about the White House support. They support the amendment; they have backed it. They backed it during the campaign; they will back it now," the senator says. "I think they're just trying to play it a little softer and let the issue set up more."

Brownback, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, says a series of hearings on the amendment are scheduled for this session Congress. The White House, he says, is "going to be there -- and they're going to be there strongly."

© 2005 AgapePress all rights reserved.

E-mail this page to a friend

Printer-Friendly Version

Read all of our current headlines