My husband Peter, executive director of FIC, was subjected to death threats for being a pro-family leader. You can read The Courant’s front page coverage here and The Courant’s subsequent editorial here. It’s the editorial that I want to say something about.

I appreciate The Hartford Courant defending Peter. I’m sure the editorialist thinks they are being quite reserved by not offering even a vague defense of Mr. Sarno’s actions. However, when they intentionally mis-characterize FIC as having an “anti-gay agenda”, they themselves take away from the “understanding” they implore.

“The institute should expect criticism when it makes the choice to fight on the emotional battleground of values” says the editorial. I’m not sure what cryptic message the editorialist is trying to send. If “values” are an “emotional battleground” then don’t they matter enough to “fight” over? There seems to be some vague criticism of FIC for “choosing” to “fight.” And, believe me, NOBODY takes criticism on the chin, and then turns the other cheek, like the Family Institute of Connecticut Action. Ever try to debate Ed Page Hartford Courant on Facebook? Now that is a lesson on how to be thin-skinned. Also, the issue of “gay marriage” is one that was foisted on society by activists seeking to change society’s view of homosexuality, Christianity and marriage in general. Read their stuff and see for yourself.

How telling that The Courant’s editorialist characterizes FIC as seeking to “deny . . . woman legal medical procedures”. (Catch that rhetorical retreat?) Newsflash – slavery used to be a legal form of ownership too. Just because it’s legal, doesn’t make it right. And definitely . . . something worth fighting over.

5 Responses to “Courant Editorial on Death Threats Against Peter”

  1. on 25 Aug 2012 at 7:59 amPaul G

    And people are so ignorant that they do not even know what the first amendment of the constitution means. Nothing in it separates church and state, prohibits free speech, etc. People, it is time to look up the constitution on-line and read it before it is too late!

  2. on 25 Aug 2012 at 10:50 amSadie

    God bless you and your husband and family! Thank you for your courage

  3. on 25 Aug 2012 at 12:15 pmMichael Miller

    Well said Mrs. Wolfgang! Arguments should be made on principle and calm logical thinking and not on emotion. The ones that resort to threats and violence, are usually the ones with no sound arguments to defend their position.

  4. on 25 Aug 2012 at 5:41 pmRichard

    I appreciate the Courant calling attention to the issue. Had it happened to one of their vocal anti-Catholic reporters it would run on the front page for 6 months :).

    Gallup yearly polls are quite clear on abortion: there’s a national consensus on first term abortion for the big 3 exceptions (rape, incest, and physical health of the Mother). No Second or third Term. None “on-demand”. Over the last 5 years more people identified themselves as pro-life than in any other (only 41% are pro-choice as of May 2012. The smallest such sample ever).

    Ohio LGBT groups were too frightened to bring gay marriage back on the ballot in an election year fearing the high turnout would hand the GOP a victory. North Carolina voters made their case known.

    Given the rise in STDs linked to the “easy access to the Birth Control Pill for kids” crowd, the Courant hasn’t got much to stand on when talking about health. Unless you like your young girls with STDs.

  5. on 26 Aug 2012 at 7:44 pmJohn N

    Thank you to the Hartford Courant for defending Peter Wolfgang as it clearly should. Thank you Leslie for exposing the bias of the Hartford Courant. At the same time it defends FIC, as you point out, it chastises FIC for standing up for traditional marriage and for life. The Courant is to be commended for standing up for FIC, but also shows its true colors in it’s disdain for all that FIC stands for which is nothing new and regularly on display for all to see each day.

Leave a Reply