Radiofree West Hartford - A Response to Representative Lawlor from One of Those "Out of Town Extremists" by Doug Wrenn

A Response to Representative Lawlor

from One of Those "Out of Town Extremists"

By Doug Wrenn

October 25, 2004

In a recent WTNH TV interview, state Representative Mike Lawlor of the 99th District in East Haven called all members of The Family Institute of Connecticut "Out of town Extremists." Lawlor was lamenting about recent signs and billboards posted in that town by the FIC, indicating that a vote for Lawlor was a vote for same sex marriage. Lawlor has been one of the driving forces behind allowing and recognizing same sex marriage in Connecticut. The proposed legislation was recently (and narrowly) defeated in the state legislature. Nevertheless, one same sex couple has already since exchanged vows in the state anyway. I always had the naive impression that legislators are supposed to be objective (and respectful) to all of their constituents. Lawlor's remarks were unprofessional and inappropriate to say the least. He willfully and flagrantly insulted the very same tax payers who pay his salary and whom he supposedly represents. For his dishonorable actions, Lawlor should either resign or be impeached. I don't see either happening anytime soon, so this "out of town extremist," who is a Connecticut citizen, taxpayer, voter and FIC member who supported that project to post those signs is now going to have his say. There is more to this issue than what meets the eye. To fully grasp where Lawlor is coming from, we must first understand the history of his (Democrat) party, then Lawlor himself, and then, the issue of gay marriage.

As a legislator, Lawlor should be embracing free speech, not attacking those who exercise it. Tolerance, right? Isn't that what liberal Democrats always preach? And what about free speech? The radical leftists like Lawlor and his minions only seem to uphold free speech when it protects flag burning or pornography. When it involves matters of disagreement or publicly displaying Christian symbols, it isn't so free any more. These free speech folks are the same ones who shut off the microphone of Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey at one of their own Democrat National Conventions because Casey was pro life. These are the same folks fighting to prevent Ralph Nader from obtaining ballot access. These are the same types who steal conservative newspapers from college campuses, ban conservative speakers, or in the case (specifically) of John Kerry et al, threaten civil litigation against book distributors for trying to publish John O'Neill's book, "Unfit For Command," which condemned and exposed Kerry's Viet Nam experiences, and used the same strong arm tactics against the Sinclair production company to stop the showing of a similar film called, "Stolen Honor." Theresa Heinz-Kerry has learned her lessons well, too. She recently told a reporter to "Shove it!" when asked a question that she didn't like. The long history and list continues, but trust me, these modern day Democrats (breeds apart from those Democrats of 40 or so years ago) only see free speech as a tool to manipulate for the purpose of forwarding their agenda, and a threat by anyone else who dares to try to use it. Lawlor is just one more empty suit puppet on a string, blindly following protocol and talking points, like the good little robotic Democrat soldier that he is.

To read Lawlor's bio on his General Assembly web site, many questions are answered. He spent much time studying language and economic reform in Russia and Hungary and also studied Slavic and Eastern European studies in the Iron Curtain days. For me, this poses the question of the chicken vs. the egg. That is to say, did Lawlor study such fields because he already was of that ideology, or did those studies influence his way of thinking later on? Lawlor has consistently shown a preference for the bad guys over the good guys, and little regard for the cherished liberties of America. He politicized the Malik Jones case, in which a recidivist felon who lead police on a pursuit through New Haven and East Haven was shot by an East Haven police officer after Jones tried to run him down with his car. This was a favorite game of Jones in the past. Lawlor was among those who tried to make a racial profiling issue of the event. The fact remains that had Jones stopped when so signaled by the police, and also not tried to kill a police officer, Black or White, he would still be alive today. Lawlor's interference in that matter further divided and embroiled the community. He was also an advocate later on of making statewide legislative policy of police pursuits, which are always with individual circumstances and tend not to do well in cookie cutter legislation, which is why each police department has a pursuit policy to fit its own community. Lawlor was also one of the whiners when Connecticut inmates were sent to Virginia to relieve overcrowding, particularly when one inmate committed suicide in Virginia, which just as easily could have happened in Connecticut. Suicide is always a factor to watch among incarcerated inmates, regardless of location, but that incident was yet more hay for Lawlor's agenda. It was also Lawlor's doing to successfully write a bill (now law) in which based on two statements from citizens, police can enter your home and confiscate your guns, without a warrant, without probable cause, and without even having to effect an arrest. Currently, Connecticut is the only state to have this dubious legislative atrocity on our books. It was also Mike Lawlor's vote that gave us the state income tax, by one vote. More liberty robbed from us, courtesy of "Iron Curtain Mike." There is a conspicuous pattern here, which clearly shows Mike Lawlor's sympathies, priorities and ideology.

Bearing all this background in mind, we now arrive at the gay marriage issue. Mike Lawlor tries to portray himself as the warm and fuzzy uniter, not a divider. We have already seen some of the divisions caused or exacerbated by Lawlor's meddling. The gay marriage issue is another disaster in that regard. Many in the gay community don't even desire to be married. This "tolerance" is beyond tolerance. It is embracement of this issue and forcing it down our throats. Many of the rights gay couples claim to be able to obtain through gay marriage and civil unions, like hospital visitation and becoming beneficiaries already exist, regardless of the status of their relationships. The dark little secret that everyone so conveniently ignores (like the elephant in the middle of the room) is that homosexuality was removed from the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (a reference text of mental health disorders for those in the psychiatric field) as a sexual deviancy in 1973 under pressure from pro gay advocates. Much of the reasoning for removing that entry was based on the work of Dr. Alfred Kinsey, who was a zoologist studying human sexuality at Indiana University in the 1940s. Since then, much of Kinsey's data has been refuted, and Kinsey himself has since been discovered to be a sadomasochistic homosexual and pedophile. Hence, homosexuality is not an "alternative life style" as some would like us to believe. Representative Lawlor should also read some of Stanley Kurtz's research. Kurtz is a Hoover Institute fellow, who writes for The Weekly Standard. In August of 2003, Kurtz wrote an extensive article about gay marriage and how other groups favoring polygamy and polyamory are just waiting for the door to open for gay marriage so that they can get their sick agenda's allowed also. There are also groups advocating for pedophilia as well, which are already being defended by the American Civil Liberties Union. Should that depravity also be allowed? Republican Senator Rick Santorum was all but crucified last year when commenting on the Lawrence vs. Texas case before the US Supreme Court. In that case, state anti-sodomy laws were challenged. Santorum predicted that if that case was upheld, it was a matter of time before acts such as polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality, etc.. would be allowed. He was criticized and ridiculed and raked over the coals for weeks after that remark. Then the court upheld the case, and very shortly thereafter, a man in Utah filed a motion in a court there to allow him to marry more than one wife, based on the Lawrence vs. Texas decision. Santorum, (much to his chagrin, I am sure), was vindicated. Anyone who has followed politics and government knows that no cause is ever completely won all at once. More often than not, victories are won incrementally and over time. Kurtz also wrote another article for The Weekly Standard in February of this year that shows since becoming legalized throughout most of Scandinavia in the 1990s, gay marriage has further deteriorated the already threatened nuclear family because of the promiscuity and lack of commitment among many gay couples. In both articles, it is the children who suffer from gay marriage, as they are in Scandinavia now. Gay marriage now needs to be addressed both on the state and federal level because the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 is being repeatedly and blatantly ignored nationwide by activist judges in the courts and activist mayors in several cities, all ignoring the rule of law for purposes of political agenda. That is what Mike Lawlor stands for. Lawlor wishes to defy not only the rule of law, and the core of our civilization, but over 2,000 years of nature. Even animals know enough not to intermingle within the same gender. It is anti-productive to the species, as we can attest to, as we see that western culture has now so under reproduced that we are actually past the point of return to infinitely maintain our population and society. We are killing our own civilization through hedonism and perversity, and declaring a special right and victim class to do so. Who is the "extremist" now, Mr. Lawlor?

For any citizens of East Haven's 99th district, I hope I have made my point. And, I hope you vote for Republican Dan McCann, a true supporter of family values on November 2nd. Regarding the Family Institute of Connecticut, I stand by them, and I am proud to be a member. In spite of that however, I must say that FIC's billboards are incomplete in their message. The signs state that a vote for Mike Lawlor is a vote for same sex marriage. That is true, but what is most important, based on Mike Lawlor's history, twisted views, disregard for decency, liberty, the rule of law, and the views of his insulted constituents, is that a vote for Mike Lawlor is a vote for anarchy as well. Come Election Day, I hope and pray that the voters of the 99th district can and will distinguish the difference and vote accordingly.