Courant Up to Its Old Tricks

Predictably, the Family Institute will be engaging in some live-action trolling, showing up to try and get into the paper by taking advantage of Love Makes a Family’s quality advance work. If FIC showed up alone, the only need reporters would have to attend would be to document Lou DeLuca’s antics: the report would otherwise file itself.

–Matt W, manning his “FIC Watch” duties among the nutroots


We now know the results of LMF’s “quality advance work”: they turned out roughly half the number of people we did. But the other point frequenty made at his site–that FIC is the actual beneficiary of media bias–also proved bogus.

Other than the Rep-Am, we have not seen the disparity between the FIC and LMF crowds reported anywhere. The Courant, in fact, could not even be bothered to file a story on the dueling lobby days. Instead they ran a photo that, naturally, had no picture of the crowd and no mention of the numbers in the caption.

This comes just as we were beginning to hope that things might be getting better at our local paper of record. The Courant’s reader representative took note of our praise for their series on marriage. But even that otherwise commendable effort was marred by its final installment, a typically slanted look at same-sex “marriage:”

This legislative session, Connecticut is considering whether to legalize same-sex marriages. Throughout the debate, voters can expect to hear many of the same questions – some heated and impassioned – that arose during the discussions about civil unions. At a Hartford meeting on Wednesday where marriage-equality supporters gathered to lobby legislators, the crowd laughed when Love Makes a Family executive director Anne Stanback asked that supporters be “civil” to people who oppose marriage equality.

But too many of them were not civil. We received complaints from supporters who were harrassed by LMF activists. Not that you will ever read about it in the Courant.

And you certainly will not read about it if Susan Campbell is writing the article, as she did this one. True to form, Campbell did not interview a single person who disagrees with same-sex “marriage,” even though there were hundreds at the Capitol yesterday. Campbell’s bias on same-sex “marriage” is well known; she displays it in every column she writes on the topic. And yet, a Courant editor still assigned the same-sex “marriage” segment of the “state of our unions” series to her.


20 Responses to “Courant Up to Its Old Tricks”

  1. on 22 Feb 2007 at 9:31 pmYawn

    I wonder that you will still be talking, Signior Benedict: nobody marks you.
    -Much Ado About Nothing, Act I, Scene 1

  2. on 22 Feb 2007 at 9:57 pmmatt

    Oh I think your story’s running in tomorrow’s Courant… the headline “CT Group Still Dislikes Homosexuals” is running just below “Dog Bites Man” on page D16.

  3. on 23 Feb 2007 at 9:49 amBill

    This twisting of the story and discounting 200+ pro family advocates showing up at the Capitol by the Hartford Courant is trully OBSCENE! The Courant has such a problem on reporting what they hate: traditional marriage and its advocates. The tide of LUST engulfing our culture is becoming ubiquitous.

  4. on 23 Feb 2007 at 10:51 amTrueBlueCT

    You’ve got your headline wrong. It should read “Heroic CT Group Fights to Save Civilization”…

  5. on 23 Feb 2007 at 11:04 amSteve

    Much Ado About Nothing

    Me wonders if these folks would think as such if there was such a line in the dailys, “Traditional Marriage Supporters Outnumber Homosexual Activists 2:1 at Rally”?

    But the again, perhaps it is a yawner. We’ve come to expect such blatant bias from the Courant. I can predict the reaction from both sides if they printed the truth of the matter… Spin from the left, shock from the right.

  6. on 23 Feb 2007 at 12:54 pmProgressive Catholic

    Speaking of civility…is the term “nutroots” civil?

  7. on 23 Feb 2007 at 1:39 pmDave

    Considering that “nutroots” is merely a variation on the term “netroots”, which first gained popularity among Howard Dean supporters in 2002, it doesn’t seem to be a truly offensive nickname. Perhaps you thought the term implied something else? Actually, it seems rather appropriate for the silly (dare I say, nutty) ideas that we keep hearing from the Left, especially in the Nutmeg state!

  8. on 23 Feb 2007 at 2:02 pmSimon


    Just so you know, it is not just “Homosexual Activists” that support gay marriage. I am Catholic, and married in a traditional (your word) sense, and I support gay marriage.

    I am so tired of this whole debate. The premise that all of the shrill conservative alarmists rely on is that (i) gay marriage does something to undermine “traditional” marriage and (ii) gay people are not suitable to raise children, or some corrollaries of the above. This is all nonsense.

    The first premise is just silly and I have yet to see a piece of evidence or a coherent argument in its favor. With respect to the second, Yeah, I am sure there are studies that point one way just as there studies that point the other. We could get into some pissing match about who has a better study. But, really, the bottom line is that there are millions of kids raised in truly horrible situations, most in hetero households. If two people love each other and are committed to love their children and raise them the best they can and teach them to love and be tolerant of others, I’ll roll my dice with them.

  9. on 23 Feb 2007 at 3:34 pmDave


    Regarding the first premise, that same-sex marriage in some way undermines traditional marriage, a credible argument is made by Prof. Margaret Somerville in an article I’ve already cited on another thread – see my post at

    If you actually read through it, you will find that it is very thoughtfully considered and in no way bigoted or homophobic. Indeed, she actually advocates on behalf of some type of civil partnership to be legally recognized, as long as it is not equivalent to marriage itself. If you have an open-mind on this subject you should at least give her remarks a fair hearing.

  10. on 24 Feb 2007 at 11:53 pmNaCN


    In your drive-by postings you never fail to take pot shots and then run away from challenges. Now you have the audacity to claim “I am so tired of this whole debate,” while again taking cheap shots. Forgive me if I feel no sympathy.

    You claim that the premise that same-sex ‘marriage’ undermines marriage is “just silly” and that you “have yet to see a piece of evidence or a coherent argument in its favor.” This goes more to your unwillingness to engage in debate than to the evidence or the arguments. (I suspect it also indicates limited reading or a closed mind on your part.) Every time I have challenged you to put out your rationale for debate, as I have mine, you evade. As I have already said at, if your rationale cannot stand scrutiny you do yourself no favor by clinging to it. If you have the intellectual integrity to meet the challenge, kindly step up to the plate. At the very least, spare us your “I’m so tired” story.

  11. on 25 Feb 2007 at 6:52 ammatt

    NACN, don’t be so dour.

    Simon isn’t here to have some sort of male-appendage-waving contest with you, he’s coming here because it’s a bit of fun.

    I know you expect that everyone’s memorized everything you’ve said and that we’re all being intellectually dishonest by not “engaging” in whatever demand you’re making in this or that thread, but to be frank I can’t even keep you guys straight in my mind, except for Annie ‘cos she had an abortion.

    Take it in stride, homeboy. Peter posts, the kids all react, and then a new day starts the process all over. Frankly very little of my day is spent thinking about gay marriage and abortion, and I think I can speak for the progressives who make up 75% of the blog’s readership that your prior requests to duel or whatever it was are long forgotten before you can even warm up the outrage machine for another round.

    [Last two sentences removed by moderator]

  12. on 25 Feb 2007 at 8:42 amPeter


    I’ve let hundreds of critical comments get posted without edit and some of the humorous ones are among my favorites. But I draw the line at pornographic imagery.

    Note to our opponents: Debate us to your heart’s content but keep it clean. Thanks.

  13. on 25 Feb 2007 at 9:08 ammatt

    No worries, Peter 🙂

    For those curious, it was an homage to Pastor Ted Haggard, before his recent “re-certification.” And it probably did go somewhat over the line.

  14. on 25 Feb 2007 at 10:11 amGabe

    Peter –

    Is that a precedent?

  15. on 25 Feb 2007 at 12:10 pmPeter

    Yes, it’s the first time I’ve ever edited someone’s comment. I’ll post some general commenting guidelines later this week.

  16. on 25 Feb 2007 at 1:07 pmGabe

    Peter – That was snark. See the post(s) about non-binding referenda…

  17. on 26 Feb 2007 at 11:07 pmNaCN


    I agree that most of the posts from your side of the aisle generally are innocuous and do not merit much effort in response. However, from time to time one of your cohort (like Simon) posts something that actually attempts to persuade the reader. If they are persuasive writers (and some few are), them I engage them to point out their sophistry, their malformed logic, their omission of key facts, and so forth. I do this for two reasons. First, there is always the possibility, however remote, that I can actually get them to think about things in a new way and, if they do not fully agree, at least acknowledge that they may not be absolutely correct. Second, I don’t like to see falsehoods go unchallenged because they could mislead that rare reader who has not made up his or her mind.

    No, I don’t expect “that everyone’s memorized everything [I’ve] said,” but I do expect that Simon remembers the thumpin’ he got. No, I don’t believe that your cohort are “all being intellectually dishonest by not ‘engaging,'” but I do believe that of Simon.

    PS: You refer to me as “homeboy” and as engaging in a “male-appendage-waving contest.” I have never specified my gender in my posts. What makes you think I am a male? Seriously, what?

  18. on 27 Feb 2007 at 3:32 pmSimon

    No disrespect, but I find it comical that you actually think you gave me a “thumpin.'”

    I suspect that you mistake my silence as a concession or an unwillingness to engage in debate. Honestly, I don’t know where you guys find the time. Are you in staff? You post these comments with 15 points to respond to that direct me to papers to read. I have a time consuming job, two children and more responsibilities in my church and community than I can handle.

    I come here and post when I can. I am glad that I make you feel smart for outing my “sophistry” (which by the way is an absurd claim).

    Bottom line, I believe strongly in a lot of the things I post about – like tolerance, the right for all people to marry, the absurdity of the claim that gay marriage undermines the strength of the institution of marriage, etc. But, at my core, I am very open minded. I read the paper that Dave commended to me that was authored by Mrs. Somerville. Frankly, I found it overly simplistic, self serving and not surprisingly devoid of any evidence supporting the conclusion that marriage is somehow being undermined by gay marriage.

    Do I have the time to go blow by blow through the article – no. Do I think I am right, I am pretty damn confident. Will I read a well thought and well supported document that discusses the topic – absolutely. Would I change my opinion – I guess it depends on the evidence.

    Anyway, I just had to respond because I didn’t want you to worry that I was off somewhere licking my wounds. I ain’t.

  19. on 27 Feb 2007 at 6:51 pmDave


    Thanks for expressing your willingness to keep an open mind, and to at least consider additional arguments on the question of same-sex marriage. While disagreements are a certainty on such a polarizing issue, it is a welcome respite when debate occurs in the sphere of ideas, rather than in a flurry of name-calling (as has been the case with some other regulars).

    My goal in posting is not to prove that I’m smarter than others, but merely to inform and promote thoughtful consideration of the issues. Obviously those with strongly-held viewpoints are unlikely to be swayed by even the most persuasive expostulation, but we all have an opportunity to learn through our continued dialogue.

    For example, it may surprise you to learn that I do not feel the relationships between same-sex couples ought to be excluded entirely from being recognized in some sense by government. After studying the model of “reciprocal beneficiaries”, I believe that this would be an appropriate way for government to meet the needs of such couples – without unduly compromising the traditional concept and value of marriage. Indeed, since the reciprocal beneficiary arrangement would also meet the needs of other situations between two persons (e.g. elderly sisters who choose to enter into a pact of mutual support, or an adult child and parent who for some unusual circumstances desire such a legal arrangement) … such a law would actually be less discriminatory than other alternatives, because it would be open to any two persons without regard for any sexual aspect (or lack thereof) within the relationship.

    Marriage should retain its uniquely separate and valued status within society, because it alone provides the framework to ensure the continuance of each successive generation. But having said that, it is nevertheless true that every human being is worthy of respect. While I personally still hold true to my religious beliefs, it is likely that others may hold different beliefs; and each person has the right to determine for themselves how they will relate to God.

    I understand that there is now an effort being made in Massachusetts to create such a category for reciprocal beneficiaries, through the “Benefits Fairness Act”, in conjunction with the efforts of the people to repeal same-sex marriage through the “Protection of Marriage Amendment”. So often this issue has been seen as an all-or-nothing choice, but I feel we ought to consider the potential utility of such alternative legislation. Yes, utility – in the sense of utilitarian ethics; in other words, finding a solution that is conducive to the happiness and well-being of the greatest number. Same-sex marriage (or its near equivalent in our present-day civil unions law) goes too far in harming the traditional institution of marriage. But the prior lack of recognition for other types of partnerships is likewise a suboptimal solution with respect to the happiness and well-being of our society as a whole. Knowing that every potential solution will leave certain individuals unsatisfied, perhaps a middle-ground solution (via reciprocal beneficiaries legislation) can at least find the best attainable level of happiness and well-being for our society at large.

  20. on 28 Feb 2007 at 6:15 amNaCN


    Good to hear from you. I thought that “thumpin'” line might coax you out of the woodwork. My life is just as busy as yours and, no, I’m not part of the staff so, yes, I did take your silence as a concession or an unwillingness to engage in debate. After all, you had no problem responding at first.

    Earlier you admitted that there is a slippery slope but refused to discuss whether or not you had gone over it. I guess you are so “damn confident” in your rationale that you refuse to discuss it. I keep waiting for ANY debate on your part in, as Dave terms it, the sphere of ideas. Well, I’ve seen no evidence or cogent argument that same-sex ‘marriage’ will NOT undermine marriage. I would certainly appreciate your trying to defend that notion so that all can see whether it is sustainable.

    Take your time. Just start.

    PS: For anyone interested in seeing where Simon first started lobbing firebombs, start reading here:

Leave a Reply