Clarity on the Con Con

FIC sent an e-mail alert to our membership Tuesday morning urging them to support the con con campaign. We got a call from the AP five minutes later and the result is the article that appeared yesterday in several state papers:

Hartford – Tens of thousands of dollars are being raised in an effort to persuade Connecticut voters to reject a proposal on the November ballot to reopen the state constitution.

The state’s largest teachers union, the Connecticut Education Association, has contributed $40,000 to the group “Vote No: Protect Our Constitution.” Planned Parenthood of Connecticut has given $5,000 to the same cause, according to filings with the State Elections Enforcement Commission…

”They’re being outspent 10 to 1. That’s pretty serious,” said Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut. He sent an urgent e-mail to members Tuesday, telling them the campaign “is in trouble and needs our help.”

The article was met with predictable reactions from same-sex “marriage” proponents:

I’ve been disappointed with the campaign for constitutional change…Naturally, the loathsome “Family” Institute of Connecticut is involved. They, of course, want to pass an initiative banning gay marriage, because that’s all they care about.

But the blogger quoted above should pay careful attention to the comments in his own thread:

Genghis, the media might present this issue as driven by anti-gay people, but you’re 100% wrong to believe the media’s presentation of this subject.

What the state’s liberal bloggers don’t know about what’s really happening in CT politics and media could fill a library. (Quick semi-relevant side-note: Our defeat on the 2007 Plan B bill had the unexpected and totally bizarre effect of enhancing FIC Action’s credibility at the state Capitol. How? Ah, but that would be telling…) Early on, FIC Blog made an effort to fill in the blanks for the lefty bloggers but we soon discovered it’s more effective (and fun!) to let them spout assertions that are totally off base.

This time, however, it may be worth it to dish a small amount of inside info.

But first: make no mistake, FIC’s interest in the con con is, of course, to let the people be heard on whether marriage will be protected as between a man and a woman. Our opponents don’t want the people to be heard on this because in some 40 or so states where the people were allowed to vote on it, the pro same-sex “marriage” side lost (and they usually lost by a lot).

No, our opponents would rather have the CT Supreme Court impose same-sex “marriage” by undemocratic fiat–something that may happen any day now–because it’s the only way they can win. It’s funny that they’re quoted in the AP story saying the pro-family side won’t get what it wants from the legislature. On marriage, the truth is almost entirely the reverse: it is pro same-sex “marriage” activists who have lost every year at the legislature, even in a legislature as liberal as ours.

Indeed, even the one year they did make a gain–the 2005 civil union law–was really a defeat for them. Or have all our opponents forgotten how Love Makes a Family came roaring into that session demanding “same-sex ‘marriage’ or nothing,” how even Betty Gallo and Mike Lawlor made a very public break with them and how, in the end, they had to settle for a civil union law with an amendment attached to it defining marriage as between a man and a woman? (But that’s a silly question. Of course our opponents forgot all this. Facts that inconvenience those walking lockstep with a liberal media toward “progress” can easily be dropped down the memory hole, never to be heard from again.)

And yet, despite all of the above, the blogger who said “you’re 100% wrong to believe the media’s presentation” of the con con is correct. The media has in fact played up–and overplayed–FIC’s role in the vote yes coalition. We are just one member (and we’ve been voted down on occasion) along with the Federation of CT Taxpayer Organizations, the eminent domain folks, “three strikes” folks, folks with no issue other than they like direct initiative and even some lefty groups that I won’t name because I don’t want to be the one to get them in trouble. There are also several groups who have attended or are attending coalition meetings but have not yet taken a position.

It’s in the nature of a coalition that there will be differing–even conflicting–reasons for joining, and the con con coalition is no exception. There are even some who support con con/direct initiative on the theory that state residents will vote in favor of same-sex “marriage.”

And yet, to hear the media tell it, the con con is all FIC and same-sex “marriage.” Why?

Well, the immediate assumption is that the liberal media is against the con con and thinks it can generate a “no” vote by making it all about same-sex “marriage.” To be sure, the media does have biases that are real and usually unacknowledged. But not all of those biases are political and not all of them are unacknowledged.

The truth is that I have noticed the media slant on the con con and I have questioned reporters about it. They tell me that Family Institute’s issue is “sexier.” I happen to agree. But then, I am the head of the Family Institute.

FIC aside, yesterday’s headlines got a key fact out to the public: that there are “Thousands spent to prevent constitutional rewrite” as the Rep-Am had it, or as the subheading in the Courant put it, “Pricey Effort Waged Against Direct Initiative.” Our opponents claim con con/direct initiative would be bad because big money would then control CT politics. But the present financial facts prove the opposite: big money ALREADY controls CT politics and is being spent to stop anything that empowers citizens and lessens the power of well-healed special interests. The $45,000 our opponents are already spending to prevent direct initiative is probably peanuts compared to what they will spend by Election Day.

The “Vote No” coalition does not want you to know this. That is why they are already making “push poll” phone calls around the state providing false information to scare you into voting no. That is why the usually congenial head of Love Makes a Family sounded unusually testy in yesterday’s story. The article exposed the lopsided financial advantage of the “Vote No” campaign.  

Nothing has ever threatened the privileged place of “the powers that be” in Connecticut like the prospect of a con con and direct initiative. Direct initiative will not mean that big-monied special interests will control CT politics. Rather, it will give the average citizen a voice against the big-monied special interests who already do.

17 Responses to “Clarity on the Con Con”

  1. on 21 Aug 2008 at 2:35 pmJudy Aron

    And what the opponents of Initiative and Referendum also do not want anyone to know is that there is not just the gay marriage issue – but the issues of eminent domain abuse and binding arbitration reform and real ethics reform that have gone unanswered by our elected representatives in this state!

    If they make it just an FIC and gay marriage issue they think that it’s going to push people to vote against a constitutional convention.

    There are in fact a whole lot of other issues out there as to why we need to vote “Yes” on this question.

  2. on 22 Aug 2008 at 7:12 pmtommi

    I find it quite interesting that you always refer to “lefty bloggers.” Would you say then that you are a Right Wing blogger, primarily?

    These terms denote political outlook, not morality or religious belief.

  3. on 23 Aug 2008 at 11:24 amDoug

    All issues aside, those who are exercising their right to free speech, including with their money, to oppose the Constitutional Convention certainly may do so, but their actions are utterly reprehensible, and apparently steeped not just in disagreement, but also in the malicious and tyrannical intention to suppress the same right of free speech that is intended to be equally enjoyed and exercised by their fellow citizens who support the convention. If these folks are so confident that their issues are so noble, just, and popular, what exactly is it about public debating and voting that they are so obviously afraid of?


  4. on 23 Aug 2008 at 10:36 pmmarlys

    Some groups are working to suppress your right to change the constitution. Just as you suppress their right to change the constitution.

    It’s an interesting twist of fate — just as the large majority of heterosexuals have been able to deny gay couples the right to marry in most states, Connecticut’s majority of liberals is going to deny FIC and friends the constitutional convention that they seek.

    Tyranny of the majority sucks when you’re in the minority — and there’s no procedural tool to get around that simple truth.

  5. on 24 Aug 2008 at 7:14 pmDoug

    Members of both the majority and the minority can vote in a Constitutional Convention. And “majority” and “minority” of what? Do you really think the convention will be all about one issue? Delegates can bring up any issue, and rest assured, if this thing does get off the ground, they will.

    You also first have to have a right before it can be suppressed. In a nation founded on Judeo/Christian principles, albeit a nation rightly of no specific religious denomination, we recognize the truth that our rights come from our creator (as articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the preamble to the Constitution), not from government. And unlike moral relativism, truth is an absolute that still stands despite how many people believe or disbelieve it. It’s not intended to be a popularity contest. That same creator also opposes the homosexual act and any sexual act outside of the bonds of legitimate marriage, as per His intention and design.

    Even if institutionalized same-sex marriage was a right, your so-called “right” to same sex marriage is not being “suppressed” now. You also have a right to vote. Furthermore, that convention, if it comes to fruition, will inevitably involve many issues that will impact any and all citizens, regardless of sexual inclination or group affiliation.

    “The States,” as you coined the term, are actually people, and those people, of both the majority and minority, did vote. The majority of them also did not seek to usurp the separation of powers by legislating from the judicial bench when they didn’t get their way, or presumed they wouldn’t get their way, as the minority has done.

    Yet, the “tyrants,” as you appropriately called them, in Connecticut’s majority still obviously fear, and are vehemently fighting against an open and public debate and vote for all citizens, and on all of these issues. Yet they are also being zealously supported and defended in that, yes, tyrannical endeavor, by the very same people who ironically view themselves as victims of tyranny, and thus are prophetically giving illustrated credence to what Lenin aptly called “useful idiots.” Very interesting. And indeed, as Santayana said, those who have not learned from history (and, I might add, civics) are doomed to repeat it.


  6. on 25 Aug 2008 at 10:41 amAdam

    “That same creator also opposes the homosexual act and any sexual act outside of the bonds of legitimate marriage, as per His intention and design.”

    How can you presume to speak for the Creator of Jefferson’s Declaration? Jefferson, as well as most of the most important founding father’s, were most certainly Deist.

  7. on 25 Aug 2008 at 1:49 pmTricia

    Well DONE, Peter!

    We are so blessed to have you and the Federation of CT Taxpayer Organizations, Susan Kniep, and others standing up for the “rights” of ALL nutmeggers to have an input into our government *after* the elections are over.

    You are always so good at reminding us of the “facts” that the secular progressives and the liberal media want the rest of us to forget/ignore. Got a good chuckle out of the clever way you expressed it:

    Facts that inconvenience those walking lockstep with a liberal media toward ‘progress’ can easily be dropped down the memory hole, never to be heard from again.

    (Hmmm—I know this isn’t a partisan presidential campaign thread—but that sure sounds *relevant* to the current presidential contest. I won’t mention names, but I can think of MANY inconvenient “facts” about a certain candidate, his votes and past statements, and those of his VP pick, that the liberal msm would like to keep buried in “the memory hole.”)

    Back to the topic at hand, Peter summed up succinctly why CT citizens need a Constitutional Convention:

    Nothing has ever threatened the privileged place of ‘the powers that be’ in Connecticut like the prospect of a con con and direct initiative. Direct initiative will not mean that big-monied special interests will control CT politics. Rather, it will give the average citizen a voice against the big-monied special interests who already do.

  8. on 26 Aug 2008 at 11:36 amTricia

    Adam, I look forward to Doug’s usual very reasoned and cogent response to your specious query.

    In the meantime, I just have to say that many of us in no way felt that Doug was “presum[ing] to speak for the Creator.” There are several Bible scriptures which make clear God’s views—through the words of His prophets and apostles—as I am sure you are well aware.

    You and your activist friends just want everyone else to ignore everything which contradicts your own agenda. You are also using another favorite tactic of *trying to change the subject* when you cannot adequately counter arguments for the topic at hand, which is *the need for a Constitutional Convention and direct initiative.*

  9. on 26 Aug 2008 at 4:40 pmDoug

    Actually, I don’t presume to speak for the Creator of Jefferson’s Declaration. That would actually be John Adams, contrary to popular belief. Jefferson did most of the writing, and Adams provided much, if not most of what Jefferson wrote. And Adams supposedly wavered between deism and Christianity. For that matter, there has been some speculation as to what extent some of the founding fathers even were deist, if at all. Deists are not atheists. Those same deists thought enough of religion to protect it in one of the amendments to the bill of rights. Which amendment? The first amendment, so obviously they thought the matter was of some significance.

    There is only one creator. We, or at least, some of us, believe that He is still active in our lives after creating us. That is a truth, as seen by the life, death and resurrection of His son, Jesus Christ, to grant us salvation. The deists believed that after creating man, God sat back and let them take over with the reason he gave them.

    But if you believe in the short-term/deist version of God, “reason” would not allow body parts to be used in the opposite mechanical way in which were designed and intended. Reason would also not allow a species to endanger its own procreation. Reason would not redefine an institution and staple of mankind that is literally centuries old. If the founding fathers in even their deist reason (which still ultimately gave us a country founded on Judeo/Christian principles because of their great fear for a return to the tyranny they left behind) thought same sex marriage was a “self evident truth,” it would have been added to the list.

    And if you believe in the long-term (Judeo/Christian) version of God, His feelings for lust, sodomy, homosexuality, adultery, and the human body as being His temple, etc.. are hardly secrets in several passages of the Bible, as Tricia already correctly pointed out.


  10. on 27 Aug 2008 at 5:07 amDamian

    Some “anti God”groups are working to suppress your right to “explain and adhere to ” the constitution. Just as you suppress their right to change/destroy the constitution.

    It’s an interesting twist of fate — just as the large majority of heterosexuals(normal people) have been able to deny(keep them from perverting the law) gay couples the right (its not a right)to marry in most states, Connecticut’s majority of liberals(deviants) is going to deny(violate) FIC and friends the constitutional convention that they seek.

    Tyranny of the majority sucks when you’re in the minority — and there’s no procedural tool to get around that simple truth
    A moral King or a public that disciminates against evil.
    Tyranny of God is better than tyranny of evil.

  11. on 27 Aug 2008 at 7:38 amAdam

    My point being, as you have seemed to have missed it, is that there can be no authoritative or agreed upon interpretation of the will of “the creator.” Even within Christianity there is a wide range of interpretations on the matter (ex. Episcopal and UCC). That being the case, it is the height of absurdity to use the deist Jefferson’s Creator as somehow the authoritative argument against SSM (while parts of the Declaration were revised in committee, and Adams helped with general themes, I have seen no authoritative text to suggest that anyone wrote the opening lines besides Jefferson). Jefferson, like many of the most important founding fathers, was a man of reason, a man of the enlightenment, and a secularist, he would not have allowed religion to come into play in his thinking on the matter.

    “Reason would also not allow a species to endanger its own procreation.”

    True, but SSM would do no such thing. Do you honestly think people would stop having sex if this is passed? If procreation and large families is your main concern, there are far greater threats to it, such as high per capita income.

    I’m well schooled in deism, I didn’t need your crash course.

  12. on 27 Aug 2008 at 11:47 amDoug

    No, I understood your point, but I think you missed mine.

    There is, only has been, and ever will be one Creator, and He is the same one who created all of us, you, me, and yes, Jefferson, and all the other founding fathers as well, despite the arrogant thinking of mortals, past and present, who believe they are the tail wagging the dog. His will is “authoritative,” and known, and was and is intended to be known, and has been well documented in the Bible. Truth, once again, is absolute, regardless of how many people choose to believe as such, or choose to disbelieve it and consider it “absurdity,” as if they are in a position to know better.

    Jesus Christ if of that same God, and He founded one Church, and several others later broke from it to tailor a more comfortable one to their whims, as if it were a suit of clothes, and by doing so, they chose this world over the next one by their own ignorance and peril, as proven by their embrace and advocacy of fornication, lust, homosexuality, abortion, etc.. There is far more to being a Christian than just sporting the name.

    And no, I am not so naïve to think that the rejection of institutionalizing ssm and homosexuality in Connecticut will necessarily stop individuals from partaking in it, but that also does not mean that society should embrace (as opposed to “tolerate”) a sexual dysfunction, bullied out of clinical texts by the dysfunctional themselves, as an accepted and encouraged institution of culture. And before you go down the next usual road you folks typically follow, no, I don’t approve of heterosexuals shacking up or engaging in premarital sex, or contraception, or abortion, either, and those customs are also detrimental to society and its procreation. And regarding large families, I think large families are great, but my biggest concern, quite frankly, is the survival of our already dwindling populace by a rash of hedonism, narcissism and simply bad decisions. As for high per capita income, that is an inane and elitist, class-divisive argument. High income is not conducive to selfish decisions, but letting that high income go to one’s head is very much the culprit. Money is a mere object without a soul or a reasoning mind. As with the equally moronic argument that “guns kill people,” or the typical news article that “an SUV” was involved in a crash. You are falling into the same type of myopic and deceptive trap of substituting an inanimate object for personal accountability. I have no problem whatsoever with someone who has lots of money any more than I do with someone who owns a gun, or an SUV. I have a big problem, however, with a person who abuses money, a gun, or an SUV.

    Neither perversity nor scandal should ever be accepted. And before you go down the other often-favored road by those of your mindset in this type of argument, no, I am not chastising the people, but rather, their actions. And those actions should be professionally and compassionately treated when appropriate, and publicly and vehemently scorned when appropriate. And like it or not, or believe it or not, such responses to perversity and scandal are true acts of love. Even a reasoned deist should be able to realize that truth.

    Nevertheless, as to your claim of you being “well schooled” in deism… I believe you.

    And, as a livelong practicing and “well schooled” Christian, I don’t need any “crash courses” in Christianity from you either, Adam.

    My regards to Eve.

  13. on 27 Aug 2008 at 3:43 pmTricia

    Okay, Adam—if you keep insisting on taking this thread away from the *subject,* which is the CON CON, and need for Direct Initiative—then consider THIS:

    The “Creator” was NOT created by Jefferson (whether “deist” or true Christian), nor by any other human being, or philosophy. So your whole argument here has been irrelevant to the issue of the CON CON, or even SSM, for that matter. (May I remind you, also, that we are talking on this thread about the STATE Constitution, NOT the federal, btw.)

    It was an essential part of “The Creator’s” PLAN for mankind, His children, that they come to earth through the joining of A MAN AND A WOMAN, in what has been defined as “marriage,” through all of the millennia of mankind’s existence.

    Most of us are also SURE, btw, that our Founding Fathers are figuratively ‘rolling over in their graves’ over the point this nation has come to—of having SSM foisted upon us by unelected judges. Those Founding Fathers had no *inkling* that this nation—which has been so blessed by (and its founding documents inspired by) God—could have “judges” so WRONGHEADED as to foist this TRAVESTY upon its people.

    If Adams, Jefferson et al had had any such appalling thought enter their minds, I am absolutely certain that those Founding Fathers would have been 100% unanimous in encoding language directly into The Constitution, defining our nation’s most basic institution as the family, headed by a married mother and father. (I am equally sure that those FF are ‘rolling over in their graves’ because of the callous murder of millions consequent to Roe v. Wade.)

    Those same founding fathers would be TOTALLY in favor of the citizens of Connecticut holding a Constitutional Convention, and having the Right of Direct Initiative, imo.

  14. on 27 Aug 2008 at 6:24 pmDave

    Such silliness, Adam. It is neither Jefferson’s Declaration nor Adams’ Declaration. It is, as the text of the document says, “the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America”. The document draws its legitimacy and effectiveness not from the individual signers, but from the people at large within states that they represented.

    To whom did the signers appeal within the concluding paragraph for affirmation of the rightness of the cause of independence? It was “the Supreme Judge of the world”, by which of course is meant our God in the Judeo-Christian heritage by whatever name He may be called – Jehovah, Yahweh, etc. And by which is meant the selfsame “Creator” of the second paragraph, and “Nature’s God” of the first paragraph. Could it simply be that neutral language was chosen so as not to offend the diverse communities of faith throughout the colonies, each with its own specific style of worship and nomenclature for referring to the Almighty? I believe this is the most reasonable explanation, given that colonists included Puritans, Quakers, Catholics, Anglicans, Jews, Anabaptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Mennonites, and various other Christian denominations. Since making the Declaration involved finding “common ground” for people in all the states, it served a good purpose to choose such neutral language.

    Now by whose authority was the Declaration made? Again as it says in the concluding paragraph, it is by “Authority of the good People of these Colonies” … not by the merits of the individual signers, however notable or influential they may have been.

    Whether any particular signer of the Declaration can be properly characterized as “Deist”, the more salient point is that our nation was at its origin (and remains today) overwhelmingly composed of believers in faiths that draw upon a shared Judeo-Christian heritage.

    I’m not going to take the bait and get drawn into a rehash of the SSM debate, although I believe that may have been your purpose in posting.

    But this discussion is very relevant to the proposed Constitutional Convention for the State of Connecticut, because we are talking about the source of our government’s authority. And that source is, and must always properly be, the people. Creating the voters’ right of initiative will provide us with an important tool in safeguarding ourselves from a legislature that does not heed the will of the people, but which shrewdly maintains itself in power through careful manipulation of the electioneering process. Moreover, it isn’t an unprecedented concept in the United States, since there are already 24 states with some form of voters’ initiative. I do agree it is a power that should be used sparingly, as the people do have more important business to attend on a daily basis (i.e. keeping the economy of our state moving along through everyday commerce); and in most circumstances we should rely upon representative government to do its job. Nevertheless we need an exception process on occasion, when dealing with an intransigent legislature. Certainly if the source of authority is the people, they ought to have the right to make law directly, even while they also routinely permit it to be accomplished indirectly via their representatives for the sake of expediency. The legislature, after all, does not have the authority on its own merit.

  15. on 28 Aug 2008 at 7:02 amAdam

    “His will is “authoritative,” and known, and was and is intended to be known, and has been well documented in the Bible.”

    Even assuming there was unanimous agreement amongst the Christian community about the issue, I don’t see what that has to do with the Public Policy of a secular state.

    “As for high per capita income, that is an inane and elitist, class-divisive argument”

    How so? If you look at many of the countries with the highest per capita income, they are also the countries with the lowest birth rates.

    ‘”guns kill people”‘
    I didn’t say that, nor would I suggest that we have inanimate objects coming to life and killing people. However, guns do allow those that would do harm to do much greater harm. Thousands of lives would be saved each year if the most destructive object criminals had at in their arsenal were knives and cross bows.

    “I don’t need any “crash courses” in Christianity”
    I didn’t realize I was trying to give you one, but if it came off as such I apologize.

  16. on 28 Aug 2008 at 7:03 amAdam

    Oh, and Eve says Hi.

  17. on 14 Sep 2008 at 9:37 pmStopp Planned Parenthood of Connecticut

    My personal take on why the Teachers Association Union donated $40,000K and Planned Parenthoohood of Connecticut $5,000K against a yes vote on the November’s Ballet to a petioning initiative state constitutional covention concerning petitioning is that of a parent in the public school system back in 2002. When I was denied my first ammendment rights to do an optional abstinence-only presentation to the local Board of Education for an informed group concience before the vote and the school officials were allowed to do their PPC approved Comprehensive Health presentation at a regular BOE meeting I should have taken it as a complaint all the way to the state’s Department of Education Committee.
    PPC and the TAU know that going through the liberal legislature is a wrap for them and their abortion lobby agenda. Government of, by and for the people through petitioning may not be. It’s as simple as that.

Leave a Reply