CT’s Anti-Family Power Brokers Attack FIC!
September 25th, 2008 by Peter
Below is our Tuesday e-mail alert (minus the links), which has since sparked on an online reaction from Courant columnist Rick Green. We’ll have more on this when time allows:
The pro same-sex “marriage”/pro-abortion forces who wield inordinate influence over Connecticut’s politics and culture are legion. And they are coalescing around a campaign to stop the one group they all fear the most: Family Institute of Connecticut.
It’s almost comical. How could FIC’s small two-man office be such a threat to the ridiculously wealthy organizations that call the shots in Connecticut’s halls of power?
And yet, we are. Last week, some of the richest lobbies in our state held a press conference featuring Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to speak against a yes vote for the constitutional convention. Why do they so adamantly oppose it? It is because FIC supports it. Nothing—no other group’s position on the constitution convention—scares them more.
So they’re getting desperate. And dishonest. Just look at Rick Green’s column in today’s Hartford Courant. Here’s an excerpt:
Members [of the Constitution Convention Campaign] kept saying this wasn’t about special interests. So why was the director of the Family Institute of Connecticut (google: Marriage Protection Pledge) up there at the front of the room?…
What [Peter] Wolfgang, [Rep. Arthur] O’Neill, [Campaign Chairman Matthew] Daly and the other faux populists behind this constitutional convention aren’t telling you is that this is all about special interests and handing them the right to ram their various agendas down our throats. They want to bring us endless — and costly — referendums on everything from abortion to gay marriage to eliminating teacher unions to medical marijuana.
Rick Green would have the Courant’s readers believe that FIC’s support for a constitutional convention means the “Vote Yes” side is the one backed by special interests. But what Green isn’t telling you is that the “Vote No” campaign is outspending us by more than ten-to-one! Given our opponents’ lopsided financial advantage, it is shockingly dishonest for Green to mislead the Courant’s readers into believing that a “yes” vote for the constitutional convention would allow “special interests” to “ram” unwanted agendas “down our throats.”
The dirty little secret of this campaign—the one Atty. Gen. Blumenthal, Courant columnist Rick Green, same-sex “marriage” activists and other powers-that-be don’t want the public to know—is that 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.
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 that already do.
We can stop them. We can protect marriage and restore the right to self-government in Connecticut. But to do it we need your help—and we need you at the Rally for Marriage this Sunday!
This Sunday, September 28th at 2:30 p.m. the Family Institute of Connecticut will hold a Rally for Marriage on the steps of the state Capitol in Hartford. This will be Connecticut’s most important marriage protection event yet—but it may not succeed unless thousands of people like you turn out to make their voice heard!
Bishop Jeremiah Torres of the House of Restoration Church, Pastor Brian Simmons of Gateway Christian Fellowship, “CT 6” Pastor Christopher Leighton, Rabbi Joshua Hecht of Beth Israel Synagogue, Fr. Greg Markey of St. Mary’s Church in Norwalk and other major clergy and politicians will join FIC executive director Peter Wolfgang to speak in defense of marriage and the right to Let the People Decide at the Rally. Parking will be available at The Legislative Office Building Parking Garage, Elm St, Market St and the Bushnell Parking Lot. Click here to download our Rally flyer.
News of a “counter-rally” has raised the stakes for the Rally for Marriage. In order for our Rally to be a success, we must turn out substantially more people than our opposition. Please ask your pastor, priest or rabbi to rally fellow believers to attend the September 28th Rally for Marriage. Please arrange to have a bus leave from your church following Sunday services. The success of the rally depends on turnout, and turning out thousands for marriage protection will not happen unless Connecticut’s churches are willing to take a stand. Your willingness to organize your church to attend the rally could make the difference between failure and success. The stakes are that high! For more information, contact FIC at 860-548-0066 and ask for Larry. And please forward this e-mail to every like-minded person you know!
Finally, we are asking for your financial support for the Rally and for FIC’s other projects to support marriage and the family in Connecticut. Our opponents are willing to put their financial resources into stopping FIC. Do Connecticut’s pro-family citizens have the same level of commitment to our beliefs as those who work around-the-clock to attack the family in our state?
You see what a threat FIC is to Connecticut’s anti-family “powers-that-be.” We want to make sure their fears are justified—that is, that FIC really is the one group that can best turn back the pro-abortion/pro same-sex “marriage” stranglehold over our state. But we can’t do it without you.
The Attorney General and the Hartford Courant think FIC is a force to be reckoned with. We want to prove them right…but we need your support to do it!
Thank you and God bless you for all you do for our shared cause. The Rally is just a few days away. Your financial support for our work is more appreciated than we can say.
By the sounds of this, your agenda in this matter is a religious one. All your speakers and supporters were drawn from churches/synagogues.
Can you please explain to me why it would be acceptable to force the people in your state to live by a particular religious standard that may not be their own?
What puzzles me particularly is that you seek to make a law banning same sex marriage when no one is trying to make a law forcing you to marry anyone of the same sex. I don’t really understand your seeming belief that you have the right to impose your will on all citizens.
tommi,
You’re simply wrong, and it’s obviously your own “agenda” that blinds you to what has happened in our state.
First, Al Adinolphi spoke and was NOT representing any “churches/synagogues.” There are plenty of non-religious people who are against SSM, and could have spoken movingly both against SSM being “imposed” upon the unwilling populace of CT by our “robed masters,” as I believe Peter phrased it, and *in favor of* the upcoming Constitutional Convention question on Nov. 4th ballots here.
As to why all the speakers “were drawn from churches/synagogues:”
1. The Rally for Marriage was on *sunday,* which is “the LORD’S DAY,” in case you are not aware.
2. Due to the fact that CT has an overwhelmingly liberal legislature and judiciary—who better to petition for help in our cause than God, and who better to plead on our behalf, to HIM, than pastors and a rabbi?
I mean, it’s pretty clear to this point that *most* of our elected representatives and UNELECTED *judges in black robes* care NOTHING for the values, rights, beliefs, and morals, etc. of the majority of nutmeggers.
I will ignore the obvious red herrings and specious straw man arguments in your post, but you are way over the top when you describe our activities as “belief that [we] have the right to impose our will on all citizens.”
It is the radical SSM activists, who have sued in the courts and repeatedly lobbied our legislators (and relentlessly continue to do so), who are insisting that THEIR WILL be “imposed…on all citizens,” by redefining for ALL the definition of “marriage” as some kind of *genderless* contract!
All WE want is our *right* to “LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE!”
Vote YES for the “CONCON!” That will at least be a *small step* in the right direction.
Tricia,
You apparently have are out of touch with mainstream political thought. If speech has anything to do with religion or morality, you must say, “Separation of church and state”. If the speech is offensive or profane, say, “we cannot have censorship!” Is this clarification helpful?
Tricia? There is more liberal-think that one must train one’s mind to grasp. For example, liberal judges argue (in cases such as United States) that the Congress has the authority to regulate public schools … because schools are part of interstate commerce.
They also argue that towns like New London can take your house if someone needs to build a luxury hotel. This is eminent domain because hotels are sort of like public use.
Schools are “interstate commerce”, but Hilton Hotels is “public use”. Just say it to yourself a few hundred times and you will catch on.
that case on the schools is United States v. Lopez.
It must frustrate the libs that they don’t have a full-blown national school board, not yet. Maybe Bill Ayers can be Secretary of Education. He is an expert on schooling kids.
BTW, I am developing new techniques are combatting the political leftists. Speaking for myself, the old ones aren’t working.
PASS THE CONCON & you can fight eminent domain abuse!
Just stopped by to say hello and see what’s happenin’ here. Actually had a long comment I was going to submit but I’ve decided to let things sit and reread a day or so later to make sure it says what I want correctly to avoid misinterpretation or causing offense – at least any more that is inherent in having differing opinions over emotional issues.
Peter, I think you should be proud of the fact that is known well enough to be “attacked” by the MSM. The word attacked is so subjective though and in such a vicious gutter level political atmosphere we are seeing at a national level this election it is thrown around so much that I’ve become hesitant to use it. Incendiary words and catch phrases designed to fog the real issues are certainly not helpful if the goal is to have an “opponent” consider your arguments. Please understand I’m not saying anyone on here brings it to a gutter level, that’s one of the things I like about this blog. Though I’m sure that it is Peter’s vigilance as a moderator that keeps it that way 🙂
Anyway back to my point, you may be small but you do have an impact. One only need look at the rally to see that you and the people you network with get your people to come out to come out and support your views. Of course since I strongly disagree with one of those views I could wish you were less effective! But all voices should be heard and those who support the same things as you are lucky to have you working on their side. I guess it would be a bit difficult for me to say “keep up the ‘good’ work” because of our difference but I can say keep fighting for what you believe, that is what makes this country strong!
I just read the page on this site that outlines the benefits of marriage. Take a look at it sometime, and you’ll see why gay couples want to be able to marry. How can anyone possibly deny fellow human beings the right to marry and be happy like everyone else? I urge you all to look beyond your own prejudices and into your hearts.
the infamous 4 judges
http://www.newstimes.com/ci_10688776
3 yes votes were Weicker appointees.
3 no votes were Rowland and O’Neill
Lubbie Harper was the deciding factor …
All the folks in the state house who support this … they are likely to be re-elected next month …. with votes from regular people who are appalled by the ruling. The solution would be for many to make an issue of it with their State Rep., but I don’t expect anyone to pull that off successfully.
Rell and the CT GOP are too dimm-witted. Their philosophy is “when you’re losin’ big time, don’t rock the boat!”
http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/supjustices.htm
Bordon has been replaced by Schaller (to the best of my knowledge).
Y’all will recall that Weicker gave us 3 justices who were very very liberal and very very young. His legacy continues.
Robinson & Cole, wonderful organization.
http://www.marriagedebate.com/2007/05/ssm-update-connecticut-chief-justice.htm
Rell gave us Harper, Rogers, and Schaller. Until proven otherwise, assume all 3 support this decision.
Lubbie Harper
http://www.ctbar.org/article/view/774/1/49
On January 5, 2005, Governor M. Jodi Rell nominated Judge Harper for elevation to the Appellate Court
http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/appjudge14.html
I do not recall why Sullivan recused himself.
When you oppose something you are supposed to criticize it, not criticize other people who oppose it.
http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2008/10/rell-statement-on-gay-marriage.html
M. Jodi Rell:
“I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision – either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution – will not meet with success. I will therefore abide by the ruling.”
Yeah, GOP figures keep this issue quiet because to do otherwise will interfere with their goal of losing another 15 House seats.
PATHETIC.
Working within the Democratic party is actually more genuinely rewarding. The Dems who oppose this agenda really mean it and don’t go around apologizing about their opposition. The GOP is down to ~ 49 House seats. Are they really fearful that if they discuss this issue they will lose seats? Yeah, like there is a great silent majority in the Conn. suburbs just waiting to vote out those gay-marriage opponents.
Oh Tricia,
You forget that a judiciary is there to protect the rights of a minority (we gay people), not to impose the will of the majority. This entire conversation will one day seem so backward. And today, we certainly wouldn’t be discussing whether or not we should allow black people into our schools or Jews to join the country club. Gay people are the last group it’s okay to demonize publicly. One day this will not be so. Yay Connecticut, for taking a stand for justice!
Best,
Clark Mitchell
I also wanted to comment that it’s quite misleading to label those in favor of gay marriage as “anti-family” (as I’ve read throughout your website). What about our families? Gay people have relationships and children too. In fact, we make great parents. Oh, and did I mention we pay taxes? We are just as integrated into the fabric of this nation as you are. You should watch your words.
Best,
Clark Mitchell
The following quote from above should tell you just what is important to those who do oppose the Constitutional Convention Campaign.
[“referendums on everything from abortion to gay marriage to eliminating teacher unions to medical marijuana.”]
What the opponents hold as sacred:
•The ability to sacrifice human life by abortion an unborn baby at any month during pregnancy.
•To mandate unjust law homosexual fornication, as an accepted and state sanctioned act.
•To indoctrinate children in our schools (under the pretense of tolerance) teaching them homosexual acts are normal.
•To keep paying teachers Union leaders millions and paying inflated techer salaries and budget breaking retirement benefits to teachers to produce poorly educated students year after year after year.
•To legally Get high smoking pot.
That should tell you what lunacy we are up against. The Constitution Convention Campaign seeks to give the ability to the people of the State of Connecticut the chance to be able to protect and secure their sacred and moral traditions of Marriage, the Sanctity of all human Life and to protect that life from the moment of conception until the moment of natural death, and the right to determine the good, proper and moral education of our children.
Those who oppose the Constitutional Convention Campaign can be compared to thieves who oppose the right of people to put security alarms and locks on the doors of their homes and places of business.
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE
“The next step will be to force other states to recognize same-sex unions solemnized in those jurisdictions. The Defense of Marriage Act protects states that wish to maintain their marriage laws as they are. Senator Obama wants to repeal that act, however, and the Democratic platform comes out for repeal — a position to the left of any previous Democratic presidential candidate. When Obama says that he opposes same-sex marriage, his words mean nothing.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODBlMGFmNzY5ZDI4NDdlMTZmY2JhNGI1ZjMyZGIyY2U=
QUOTE BY:
“Tracy
I just read the page on this site that outlines the benefits of marriage. Take a look at it sometime, and you’ll see why gay couples want to be able to marry. How can anyone possibly deny fellow human beings the right to marry and be happy like everyone else? I urge you all to look beyond your own prejudices and into your hearts.” END QUOTE!
Dear Tracy,
The Right to marry? What is stopping anyone from getting married? As a man, all you have to do is find the right woman and ask her to marry you. As a woman, all you have to do is find the right man and get married. See easy!
NO ONE is denying anyone the abilty to Marry. There is no RIGHT to marry. Marriage is a priveledge.
Marriage of course, is the union of “A” man and “A” woman. You might not like that, you might even have to impose a law that changes that, but it does not change the truth.
The object of the radical homosexual movement is not marriage, but a re-definition of the meaning of marriage. You can call whatever union you want marriage, man+man or woman+woman and define it as marriage, but it aint marriage.
For example, Hydrogen and Oxygen, two unique atoms combine to become water. Water is a life giving element.
No matter how you want to see it, combining only Hydrogen with Hydrogen or Oxygen with Oxygen will not make water no matter how much you want to call it water. While this may not be the ideal comparison, it makes the point.
It is the same with Marriage. The unique and complimentary differance of man and woman make marriage equally unique. One man united to one woman forsaking all others is Marriage. The sexual union of man and woman in marriage, the union of, the combining of, the joining of their sexual reproductinve organs is ……..sexual intercourse. Hey remember Biology? Everyone knows that!
Two men cannot unite their sexual organs nor can two woman have a union of their sexual organs. The pieces of that anotomical puzzle just don’t fit. At the very least, the attempt of two same sex partners to copulate is merely mutual masturbation or at it’s worst is simply and bluntly sodomy.
No matter how many Hydrogen atoms you combine you aint gonna have water. No matter how many unions of Oxygen you try to make, you aint gonna get no water. It’s that same way with Marriage. Only the union of a man with a woman will give you the life giving element of marriage. No redefining will ever change that.
No matter how may children same sex couples will adopt, you are just playing family. Just ask the adoptive child of two homosexual men…”Who is your mommy”. or the adoptive child of two lesbian women…”Where is your daddy?”
i could not decide where to post this.
“A message from Cardinal Egan of NY. It is true that not everyone has given up the fight.
http://www.cny.org/archive/eg/eg102308.htm
Do me a favor. Look at the photograph again. Look and decide with honesty and decency what the Lord expects of you and me as the horror of “legalized” abortion continues to erode the honor of our nation. Look, and do not absolve yourself if you refuse to act. “
Pro-Life Laws Work
“During the 1990s Michigan enacted a partial birth abortion ban, an informed consent law, a parental consent law, a ban on public funding, and abortion clinic regulations.
Abortion rate decline 1992-2000: 21.39%”
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.24_New_Michael%20J._Pro-Life%20Politicians%20Have%20Made%20a%20Difference,%20Pro-Life%20Laws%20Work_.xml
The Bible, is it stating law or merely just an observation?
I love how opponents of gay marriage try to use the bible to state why gay marriage is wrong. They say…“ The bible states that marriage is between a man and woman, etc.” Although I have not looked for this phrase in the bible myself, I do not doubt that it is there. However, I do feel that we are interpreting it wrongly. At the time when the bible was written, the only people trying to get married were heterosexual men and heterosexual women. Homosexuals were not trying to get married. They may not have even existed at this time. If there were homosexuals, I am sure they were exiled and I doubt they were mentioned in the bible. Therefore, I feel that the bible is merely stating an observation, and not stating the law of God.
Jay,
Either you haven’t read much of the Bible, or you’re just trying to lay bait in order to provoke a rehash of the usual debate – on the role of religious viewpoints in the sphere of public policy.
Is the Bible the law of God? Only you can decide for yourself if you believe it. But anyone who has read it will understand that it claims to be the inspired Word of God, and that it includes: God’s laws, the story of His chosen people (Israel), and the larger story of the fall of mankind into sin and our redemption through His Son (Jesus Christ). There are over 1400 references to law within the text of the Bible, including many which are given in first-person narrative from God to Moses. There are also many which are given in first-person narrative directly from Jesus Christ. You say that you personally feel it is merely observation, and it is of course your right to decide to accept or reject the Bible as truth. Everyone who considers the Bible must decide for themselves if it is a true account, or merely fiction. But if it is true, the text itself clearly asserts it includes the pronouncement of God’s law.
Your musings upon what the Bible may or many not have said about homosexuality are plainly out of step with its actual text. The Bible quite clearly affirms that homosexuals existed at the time of its writing. This is why we have the story of God’s wrath poured out on some of them at Sodom & Gomorrah (as told in Genesis 19, and referenced in Jude). This is why the law of God explicitly forbids the perversion of homosexuality among its catalog of sexually immoral acts (Leviticus 18). This law is not merely laid down as a preventative limitation; it is in direct response to actions that were committed by men beforehand, for as it says in Leviticus 18 : 30
Notice also that God essentially signs His law by saying “I am the LORD your God”. It’s not just the law of Moses. It is God’s law as received by His chosen people, through the prophet Moses.
From the very beginning of the Bible, the intentions of God are made clear through the creation of a man and woman, and the command unto them to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1 & 2). This same definition is again referenced by Jesus Christ in the Gospels, as a description of the reason for marriage.
None of this seems to matter, of course, if you consider the Bible to be a work of fiction.
Nevertheless the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman is very much rooted in human biology and social constructs that far predate the Christian faith. Marriage exists as a socially valuable institution precisely because of the need to safeguard and regulate human procreation – the begetting of children – and to provide an orderly framework in which children can be raised and nurtured by their parents. Every human being was brought into existence through the union of elements from the male and female of our species. Whether you attribute this immutable biological fact to a divine Creator, or not, it remains nonetheless true.
The simple fact that there is overlap between God’s law (in the Bible) and our civil law (in local, state and federal statutes) is not in itself a sufficient reason to set aside laws that serve a good and valuable purpose. Some people claim we should set aside the traditional definition of marriage because of its reaffirmation in religious texts, and the notion of “separation of church and state”. But should we likewise set aside our laws as they relate to murder and theft, simply because they overlap with the admonitions of biblical texts? I think we should recognize this false argument for what it is: an attempt to distract and confuse, when the debate should be about the underlying purpose of marriage within society. Whether or not we share the same religious faith, we do share the same human nature which binds us all together from one generation to the next as fathers and mothers, sons and daughters.
This true nature of marriage is not – and never has been – meant as an affront to homosexual persons. Yet one cannot compare apples and oranges as being equal. Whatever it is to be in a committed homosexual relationship, without passing judgment upon it as a noble or ignoble, it is not of the same cloth as marriage between a man and woman. It is something else entirely, and whatever name you might choose to describe it would necessarily be something else besides the word “marriage”. It seems to me that you might consider it an exclusive intimate partnership, and if you want to celebrate it that is your right, but in the absence of any linkage to the socially valuable element of procreation I don’t know you can equate it with marriage.
This is what SSM advocates choose to skip over altogether. Marriage doesn’t exist as a societal institution for the benefit of the spouses alone. It is recognized by society and government because of its importance to us all collectively, since it is through marriage that children can be born and raised in the most orderly way. Otherwise, if two people want to bond together in a committed union of friendship and love, we can just wish them well but we’d have no need of enshrining such a relationship as a societally-recognized structure … because really it’s none of our business, in a nation that values freedom, privacy and personal liberty.
[…] this case, Green is trying to fit the Enfield graduations into his faux-populism narrative of 2008. Unfortunately for him there is overwhelming evidence to show that popular opinion played the […]