State Rep. Al Adinolfi R-Cheshire, left, and State Rep. David Aldarondo D-Waterbury, wait as seated the House is in recess during a special session of the Connecticut General Assembly at the Capitol in Harford, Conn., Wednesday, Oct. 26, 2011. (AP Photo/Jessica Hill)
Time flies when you are an elected official whose statements are part of the public record. One of the more quotable lawmakers in the State Capitol over the years has been Rep. Al Adinolfi, R-Cheshire, who once spoke in opposition to medical marijuana by announcing that it caused a person’s ear to fall off.
Be that as it may, the Blogster notices that Adinolfi’s legislative aides have issued a news release that he and his wife, Lillian, are observing their 60th wedding anniversary. Adinolfi, who lost his seat to Democrat Elizabeth Esty in 2008, won it back in 2010.
“The couple met over half a century ago, just before Rep. Adinolfi joined the United States Air Force during the Korean War era,” the release states. “They were married in 1955 in Brooklyn, New York where they soon established a family and had their first daughter, Debbie. In 1956 Rep. Adinolfi was released from the Air Force, after four years of service, only to begin a career with the Air Force reserve. Rep. Adinolfi concluded his eight year military career in 1960. Shortly thereafter, the Adinolfi’s second daughter, Joann, was born. Lillian and Al Adinolfi now have six grandchildren and seven great grandchildren and are enjoying retirement in their hometown of Cheshire.”
Great news. The release puts the lie, however, to Adinolfi’s dire predictions back in February of 2003, when he testified in favor of a defense-of-marriage proposal and against gay-rights legislation. Here is an edited transcript of the hearing:
Judiciary Committee of Feb 24, 2003
REP. ADINOLFI: …For the record, I’m Al Adinolfi, the State Representative of the 137th district. That’s Cheshire, Wallingford, and Hamden. And I appear before you today to support the proposed bill, H.B. 5356, AN ACT CONCERNING MARRIAGE.
This legislation would amend Chapter 815a of the General Statutes to provide that valid marriage shall be recognized by the State of Connecticut as a union between one man and one woman. It limits the rights and privilege to marriages which are so defined. And this allows the recognition of other relationships where they are not a union of one man and one woman from being granted such recognition or being afforded such rights and benefits.
Passage of this bill by the General Assembly will reaffirm the State’s commitment to recognize marriage as a longstanding institution that dates back to the dawning of civilization.
The social, anthropologic and historical need for an exclusive bond between a man and a woman and the gender distinctions reflected in the institution are not an artificial construct of society. They are intrinsic in the basic foundation of our society, the family.
There are a number of people here today who will suggest to you that the time has come to recognize alternative families, but I can tell you that when it comes to the family, there is no alternative. There could be no adequate replacement for children being raised under the necessary balance of having a mother and a father. While marriage may have religious origins and foundations, the institution has long been recognized for its societal benefit…
Proponents of same sex marriage assert that marriage’s meaning should be expanded to incorporate recognition of same gender relationships, but marriage is not an American invention. It is not something that we, as residents of Connecticut, can whimsically redefine radically in its meaning. Same gender marriage proponents also make the claim that restricting marriage to one man and one woman is imposing on our personal beliefs on homosexuals. However, the reality is that by attempting to redefine a centuries old tradition that does not know the boundary of time or nation, it is these advocates who are imposing their benefits on society.
By affirming that marriage is a sacred bond between one man and one woman, we are not discriminating against homosexuals. Homosexual men and women currently enjoy all the rights of every citizen in this country enjoys. Yet by attempting to alter the requirements for the institution of marriage, these activists are seeking to deliver a set of special rights. They may profess to have and possess love for one another, and I believe they do, but they simply do not meet the criteria for the institution of marriage.
I don’t want to go into the definitions in the dictionary of marriage, but I will say this and I will conclude.
Is that I’ve been married for 47 years to the same woman. I have two children, six grandchildren and I don’t tell anybody this because you’ll catch onto my age, but I have one great grandchild. And I say going through, as you get older, you have to prepare for the things that are going to happen in the past and I didn’t receive any special rights because I’m married. I still had to create a will. I still had to go through attorneys and pay them to make my wife my POA. I still had to appoint her my health care agent and pay for it. It wasn’t automatic. And I still, if I ever need a conservator or my mind goes, I had to appoint my wife as my conservator in the future.
But why am I any different than anyone else in this room? They would have to do the same thing that I, as a married person, to a female, would have to do.
So I don’t understand what benefits we would get from a civil union of what benefits we would have by same sex marriage. It’s only destroying what we know and we have cherished all our lives. I didn’t want to go and I won’t go into the religious aspects of it because that’s not why I’m here.
REP. ADINOLFI: Good afternoon.
REP. LAWLOR: You said you’re married, right?
REP. ADINOLFI: Yes.
REP. LAWLOR: If we passed the civil union law or the same sex marriage law, how would this change effect your marriage?
REP. ADINOLFI: It would effect me. It would — my wife and I would feel that the relationship we’ve had for the past 47 years has just been torn apart. We’ve struggled to keep together for 45 years — 47 years, I’m sorry. There’s not many people, probably in this room that could say that.
But I think by taking it, you’re demeaning the real meaning of marriage of a union of a man and a woman and I would feel very hurt as a married person and who has gone through the tribulations of life as a parent and there are those who aren’t parents and have adopted children and that’s fine too. But I’ve experienced in my own family, both sides of the aisle and I will say that some in my family who are on the other side of the aisle, (inaudible) and I was very close to them, professed that they wanted to get married. They just wanted to leave their lifestyle. They left alone. Take advantage of whatever is available within the law.