CT Churches Targeted By Pro Same-Sex “Marriage” Millionaire
February 15th, 2008 by Peter
Two months ago The Hartford Courant ran a story promoting t-shirts and onesies with the slogan “marriage is so gay,” the sales of which helped fund Love Makes a Family. Yet supporting the pro same-sex “marriage” group’s year-end fundraising was just the start for The Courant. Now the newspaper is trying to help Love Makes a Family fill a new job opening.
Love Makes a Family, the state’s marriage equality organization, has a new job opening for a religious-organizing project coordinator.
The position, funded by a grant from the Gill Foundation, a Colorado-based human rights organization, may come as a surprise to some. An organization some religious types deem satanic – pushing, as it is, for gay marriage – is actually reaching out to religious types itself.
In fact, the marriage equality movement has long had the support of members of a variety of faith groups. The group’s list of supporting clergy gets longer every day, and about a year and a half ago, the list evolved into Connecticut Clergy for Marriage Equality…
The time for quiet support is past. Certainly, people who oppose gay marriage haven’t been quiet, and they’ve been adept at marshaling the Lord’s army against what they see as a threat to a foundation of our society, marriage…
The new hire will need to attend religious services most every week and be present at coffee hours and social-action committees. The new hire must also be willing to look for new support. A bachelor’s degree is required; preference will be given to anyone with a seminary degree or involvement in religious organizing.
You see what we face. Unlike our opponents, the Family Institute of Connecticut can not count on Connecticut’s largest newspaper to do our fundraising for us or help us to staff our office. And Love Makes a Family gets funding from the national “gay rights” movement.
The Hartford Courant says we’ve “been adept at marshalling the Lord’s army”–but we don’t owe our accomplishments to the bottomless well of support from elite institutions and out-of-state organizations that our opponents can draw from.
Pro same-sex “marriage” activists blame the churches for the defeats they have suffered–and they are now targeting those churches with help from an out-of-state pro same-sex “marriage” multimillionaire.
Readers of our e-mail alerts know that we have already begun a project to counter the anti-family targeting of Connecticut’s churches. Watch your in-box for more information.
Actually she had a lot more to say in that column, but that wouldn’t fit in with complaint would it? I remember a column not to many years ago, from another columnist who is totally against marriage equality and had no problem writing rude and somewhat offensive words about it. He also wrote a glowing commentary on a country in Africa which is at the forefront of anti-gay violence and implementing laws that if they were against any other group of people would cause a major world wide uproar. Was the Courant then accused of being anti-gay? Probably not because most of us understand that though certainly a columnist’s work must be approved by the paper it is their opinion not that of the Courant. And who is the millionaire – Cambell? I’ve never seen your financial statements and wouldn’t want to, so perhaps you are being truthful about not receiving money from out-of-state organizations but that is hardly true of “pro-family” groups in general, how many millions pass through FOTF alone to support smaller groups. How much out-of-state money flowed into MA during for the recent attempt to warp the state Constitution – I realize that was on both sides and maybe that’s my point, you present it as if it only happens to LGBT organizations. Prehaps the reason many papers don’t print more supporting the conservative church is because your words and actions are not for anyone, they are against a specific group of people. I don’t think that is true for all issues but this one in particular.
The excerpt that Peter quoted from The Courant made it quite clear who the “millionaire” is – and it would be obvious to you too, if you did more than skim the article before spouting off your usual drivel. It’s Tim Gill, of the Gill Foundation. Look him up on Google or Wikipedia sometime. He has spent more than $110 million in support of LGBT activism.
You really do throw around a lot of unfounded accusations and insinuations. FIC has not kept its own financial records secret. You can find the IRS 990 filings, if you are willing to spend more than a few seconds searching for them online. We do what we can, with considerably less than $1 million. Nevertheless, as I’ve heard Mike Huckabee say recently, “It isn’t the size of the dog in the fight. It’s the size of the fight in the dog.”
Dave, I accused no one and insinuated nothing. I am not a donor so the FIC’s financial status is of no interest to me but thank you for the suggestion. Since the many of the statements of the anti-gay movement are based on half-truths I don’t take anything at face value, so sorry. Perhaps when the “movement” starts to operate more truthfully that will change. I am well aware of who Tim Gill is and the money he gives to causes he supports. And it pains me greatly that I missed that paragraph in the quote that was used. It changes nothing though, the simple fact is that there are plenty of millionaires all along the political spectrum who donate massive amounts of money to the causes they support. There is nothing wrong with that is there?
“Pro same-sex “marriage” activists blame the churches for the defeats they have suffered–and they are now targeting those churches with help from an out-of-state pro same-sex “marriage” multimillionaire”
Actually, the original article says nothing about “targeting” churches that are actively anti-gay. The newly hired person would be networking with potentially supportive churches. Big difference. And, specific churches have not been blamed so much for spreading the propaganda against us, it is the purely political groups that hide under the cover of “Christian” ministries that are the guilty parties. The majority of churches, even the most conservative ones are more interested in preaching the Gospel of Christ, not attacking innocent groups of people.
David,
It’s nice to see that you are least consistent. You try the same tactics on Dave that you so often also try on me. First, you make an outlandish statement, and then when you are called on it, you deny it and accuse the respondent of taking what you said out of context. I’m sorry, David. Perhaps you are right and all the rest of us are wrong. And I am equally sure that tomorrow, I will win the Lottery, and retire early, too.
I also didn’t see the Hartford Courant ever cite the high rate of AIDS in Africa, either. There. “Tit,” “tat,” and now it’s your serve again. Help me out here, how exactly does this work? Do we just keep playing this game back and forth until one of us eventually drops, or does some third party blow a whistle first?
By the way, here’s some food for thought: churches aren’t “anti-gay.” Gays are “anti-God.” And don’t give me your buffet-style, moral relativist, self-defined take on “faith” again. Scripture in both Testaments as well as the Ten Commandments (not “suggestions”) make your willingly carried out, unrepentant MORTAL SINS quite well defined. In the same Gospels you quote, Christ told the young man who questioned Him to obey all of God’s commandments. He also said that anyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery in his heart. Does that mean He gives gay men a pass? Where does Christ DEFEND homosexuality in scripture? Is there a 5th Gospel of “David,” that in my many years of Catholic education failed to teach me? David, may God have mercy on your soul. You are as deeply steeped in homosexuality as you are in HERECY!
Furthermore, you made an incomplete sentence (or was that another quintessential liberal sound bite, intended, as per the template, to drown logic with emotion?); “anti-gay” WHAT? Person? Activity? Cause? Agenda? Widget? What exactly are you trying to say (or not say)? The whole idea of a pro-noun is that it foretells the coming of a noun. Which was that an example of, bad grammar, or shallow strategy? Your sentence kind of ended like the last season of “The Sopranos.” But then again, your hanging, incomplete, “fade to black” comment might then lack some of that famous “David verbal wild fire,” that we have all so come to know and love, wouldn’t it?
Doug