Family Institute of Connecticut
Connecticut in the Crosshairs
December 30
KOREA'S STEM-CELL FRAUD: COMING SOON TO CONNECTICUT? [Peter Wolfgang]
From a wire story in today's Courant:
SEOUL, South Korea — South
Korea's top university said Thursday that leading researcher Hwang
Woo-suk fabricated all of the stem cells he said were cloned from
individual patients — a shattering blow to the disgraced
scientist's reputation as a medical pioneer.
Korean news outlets also
reported that the ongoing probe into one of the biggest scientific
frauds in memory had broadened to embrace allegations that government
officials — concerned about the shame such revelations could
bring upon their country — may have attempted to bribe scientists
who were considered potential whistle-blowers.
From a Weekly Standard article by the Discovery Institute's Wesley J. Smith, discussing the embryonic stem cell research fraud perpetrated by Hwang:
This debacle raises several
interesting questions: What does it tell us about the thoroughness of
the peer review process? Why were younger South Korean scientists able
to discover Hwang's missteps when the presumably more seasoned peer
reviewers for Science failed? Will the American media take a
cue from their courageous counterparts in South Korea, who pursued this
story until it cracked, and finally bring skepticism to their coverage
of biotechnology? More to the point, will the adult/umbilical cord
blood stem cell successes that have emerged one after the other in
recent years finally receive the attention they deserve in the
mainstream press, which has been so intoxicated with embryonic research
as virtually to ignore nonembryonic breakthroughs?
Don't count on it. The
pro-cloning political forces, and their media allies, recognize the
potential of the Hwang fiasco to damage their cause, so they have
quickly regrouped and begun to furiously spin the story. The same
voices that not long ago railed against President Bush's stem cell
funding policies for supposedly allowing America to fall behind the
cutting-edge research in South Korea, now indignantly blame Bush for
creating a hyper-competitive atmosphere that led to Hwang's failures.
"Ethics can get forgotten as other nations and private companies race
to fill the void left by the president's reluctance to fund stem cell
research," wrote bioethicists Arthur Caplan and Glenn McGee in the
Albany Times Union. "Only a properly funded U.S. stem cell research program will guarantee oversight and the protection of all involved."
The reaction in Connecticut's
pro-cloning media was similar to what is described above. But as Smith
goes on to explain, scientific fraud is just one of several ethical
lapses "associated with the human cloning agenda." Reading Smith's
account, one cannot help but think of Connecticut Right to Life
President Bill O'Brien's report on the dishonesty surrounding our own
state's decision to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to
clone-and-kill human embryos (see my Dec. 15th blog).
Could Connecticut's publicly
funded clone-and-kill research reach the same level of fraud that we
have seen in South Korea? Its proponents would likely say that there
are safeguards in place to prevent that from happening. But consider
the question posed on the front page of the Dec. 17th Fairfield County Catholic:
The process to expend $100
million in State funding on stem-cell research took its first step on
Nov. 29 with the launch of the Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee.
Many of the committee members represent groups that strongly support
embryonic stem-cell research, which kills innocent human life. Two
universities that may seek access to this funding, Yale and UConn, hold
3 of 8 appointed seats. Is this a potential conflict of interest?
Of course it is. This is why
Smith's conclusion on where things stand in the clone-and-kill debate
may eventually prove true in Connecticut as well:
So where are we in the cloning
debate? At this point, we don't know whether human cloning has been
successfully accomplished or not. We don't know whether embryonic stem
cells have been derived from cloned embryos. We don't know to what
depths the dishonesty of the seemingly most successful researcher in
the field actually descended.
We do know that cloning
proponents in this country are avid in their desire for billions in
federal and state money to pay for morally problematic and highly
speculative research that the private sector generally shuns. And we do
know that some advocates of this public policy agenda are more than
willing to play fast and loose with the facts in order to get their
way. In short, the human cloning agenda is falling into public
disrepute-and for that, proponents of the agenda have no one to blame
but themselves.
Posted at 12:40 PM
December 29
HERE COME THE BRIDES [Peter Wolfgang]
On Oct. 11th I blogged about the
low numbers of same-sex couples utilizing Connecticut's new civil union
law, noting that "only one trio has entered into a civil union in the
Netherlands. But in doing so, they have undermined the understanding of
marriage in the Netherlands, just as same-sex civil unions are doing in
Connecticut." Now, in a Weekly Standard article that should be a "must read" for every pro-family activist, the Hudson Institute's Stanley Kurtz shows how the Dutch "polyamorous triad" figures into the global attack on marriage:
While Victor, Bianca, and Mirjam
are joined by a private cohabitation contract rather than a
state-registered partnership or a full-fledged marriage, their union
has already made serious legal, political, and cultural waves in the
Netherlands. To observers on both sides of the Dutch gay marriage
debate, the De Bruijns' triple wedding is an unmistakable step down the
road to legalized group marriage.
More important, the De Bruijn
wedding reveals a heretofore hidden dimension of the gay marriage
phenomenon. The De Bruijns' triple marriage is a bisexual marriage.
And, increasingly, bisexuality is emerging as a reason why legalized
gay marriage is likely to result in legalized group marriage. If every
sexual orientation has a right to construct its own form of marriage,
then more changes are surely due. For what gay marriage is to
homosexuality, group marriage is to bisexuality. The De Bruijn trio is
the tip-off to the fact that a connection between bisexuality and the
drive for multipartner marriage has been developing for some time.
Kurtz discusses a plethora of
cultural indicators to demonstrate the truth of what he is saying. It
is a long article that should be read in its entirety, but I want to
focus on a few key points that are particularly relevant to the battle
in Connecticut.
Our opponents insist that
same-sex "marriage" will not lead to polyamory, that they do not
support polyamory, that religious and civil marriage are separate and
that what is or is not acceptable in one should have no bearing on the
other. But as Kurtz notes, the Unitarian Universalist Church played a
key role in the legalization of same-sex "marriage" in Massachusetts
and are waiting in the wings to do the same thing with polyamory:
In other words, Unitarians
understand that moving too swiftly or openly to legitimize polyamory
could validate the slippery-slope argument against same-sex
marriage...But the clearest statement of strategic intent came from
Valerie White, a lawyer and executive director of the Sexual Freedom
Legal Defense and Education Fund. A founder of [Unitarian Universalists
for Polyamory Awareness] along with her brother, Harlan White, Valerie
White let Bi Magazine know in 2003 that UUPA planned to keep
its quest for recognition on temporary hold: "It would put too much
ammunition in the hands of the opponents of gay marriage. . . . Our
brothers and sisters in the LGBT community are fighting a battle that
they're close to winning, and we don't want to do anything that would
cause that fight to take a step backwards." In short, the Unitarians
are holding the polyamorists at arm's length only until gay marriage
has been safely legalized across the nation. At that point, the
Unitarian campaign for state-recognized polyamorous marriage will
almost certainly begin.
In a letter to the Courant's NE
Magazine last month, Trish Galloway asked why Love Makes A Family never
discusses the "B" in their GLBT constituency, that is, bisexuals. A few
weeks later a self-professed bisexual responded
by saying that it is "often" false to suggest that bisexuals need
multiple partners to be happy and that she personally has "no need or
desire" to see multiple-partner-marriage legalized. In fact, Trish was
right to note the curious silence of the "B" in Love Makes A Family's
GLBT advocacy. Here is Kurtz on the connection between bisexuals and
polyamory:
Yet it is becoming increasingly
clear that the polyamorists themselves are the "missing" bisexual
liberation movement. Of course, not all polyamorists are bisexual.
Victor de Bruijn reminds us that he is "100 percent heterosexual." Yet
Bianca and Mirjam are bisexual. And as in the De Bruijn threesome, the
"connecting" function of bisexuals seems to make a great many
polyamorous arrangements possible. Of all the sexual sub-groups that
participate in polyamory, bisexuals are first among equals. In a
certain sense, the movement is theirs.
Among those cultural indicators discussed by Kurtz is a documentary playing in "art house" movie theaters:
Three of Hearts is the
story of the real-life 13-year relationship of two men and a woman.
Together for several years in a gay relationship, two bisexual-leaning
men meet a woman and create a threesome that produces two children, one
by each man. Although the woman marries one of the men, the entire
threesome has a commitment ceremony. The movie records the trio's
eventual breakup, yet the film's website notes their ongoing commitment
to the view that "family is anything we want to create."
That's "family is anything we want to create" as in "Love Makes A Family."
Few scholars are as articulate as Kurtz on why marriage must be protected. His conclusion, in part:
Yet somehow the idea has taken
hold that tolerance for sexual minorities requires a radical remake of
the institution of marriage. That is a mistake.
The fundamental purpose of
marriage is to encourage mothers and fathers to stay bound as a family
for the sake of their children. Our liberalized modern marriage system
is far from perfect, and certainly doesn't always succeed in keeping
parents together while their children are young. Yet often it does.
Unfortunately, once we radically redefine marriage in an effort to
solve the problems of adults, the institution is destined to be
shattered by a cacophony of grown-up demands...
But let there be no mistake
about what will happen should same-sex marriage be fully legalized in
the United States. At that point, if bisexual activists haven't already
launched a serious campaign for legalized polyamory, they will go
public...Just as we're now continually reminded that not all married
couples have children, we'll someday be endlessly told that not all
marriages are monogamous (nor all monogamists married). For a second
time, the fuzziness and imperfection found in every real-world social
institution will be contorted into a rationale for reforming marriage
out of existence.
The process of "reforming
marriage out of existence" has already begun in Connecticut with the
legalization of same-sex civil unions. Stanley Kurtz marshals the facts
to paint a picture of what the final result will look like—a
picture you will not see in the Courant or the rest of the pro-same sex "marriage" MSM.
The good news is that this grim
future can be prevented and—if recent pro-family court and
electoral victories, as well as opinion polls, are any
indication—it will be. Indeed, for the sake of children
everywhere who have a right to grow up in a home with both a mom and a
dad, it must be.
Posted at 4:47 PM
December 28
A WIN FOR DECENCY: PASTOR FORCES MILFORD PORN SHOP OUT [Peter Wolfgang]
Bishop Jay Ramirez, Pastor of
Kingdom Life Christian Church and a friend of FIC, has won his battle
against the porn shop he was preparing to evict. The "adult" video
store plans to close down this week. What a wonderful Christmas present
for the families of Connecticut! An excerpt from the New Haven Register story:
MILFORD — Looks like Video Pleasures never really had a prayer.
The adults-only video store,
which has operated in a building owned by a church and has been a thorn
in the side of city officials and clergy, will leave the city by the
end of the week, officials said.
That news, which comes amid
threats by Kingdom Life Church to evict the store, is a step in the
right direction for the revitalization of the Devon section, officials
said.
"The preacher will have his building all to himself," Video Pleasures owner Michael Friend said Tuesday afternoon.
Kingdom Life Christian Church
Bishop Jay Ramirez said Video Pleasures on Tuesday began moving its
merchandise out of the building the church owns at 116 Bridgeport Ave.
"I'm thrilled," Ramirez said.
"We're very pleased. We kept our promise to the community. I hope the
building will now be used productively. Devon will now be an adult
(bookstore) and porn-free area to live."
Bishop Ramirez' victory against
porn in Milford is reminiscent of a similar victory secured earlier
this year in Waterbury by Pastor James Lilley and Archbishop Henry J.
Mansell. The events in Milford and Waterbury are a reminder of the key
role that the state's pro-family clergy must play if we are to make
Connecticut as family-friendly as possible. If every clergyman in
Connecticut is as pro-active as Bishop Ramirez was in Milford, we can
reclaim Connecticut just as he reclaimed the Devon section of Milford.
We salute Bishop Ramirez on his outstanding victory.
Posted at 3:53 PM
December 27
CIVIL UNIONS A DUD [Peter Wolfgang]
Carolyn Conrad and Kathleen
Peterson desperately want to be uncivilized. In this age of anti-social
behavior, that may not seem like news. But five years after exchanging
"vows of love and commitment" in Vermont and becoming the nation's
first same-sex "life partners" to be joined in a civil union, their
messy "divorce," complete with restraining order, warrants the
spotlight. Homosexual couples, it seems, aren't always the loving,
devoted, way-better-than-heterosexual people that Hollywood, the news
media and homosexual agitators make them out to be.
Thus begins "Civil Unions a Dud," a Dec. 24th editorial in the Waterbury Republican-American. As Brian did in his Dec. 12th blog, the Rep-Am
notes that a mere 539 same-sex couples in Connecticut (out of the 7,400
counted in the 2000 census) bothered to enter into civil unions in the
first six weeks since the law went into effect. Our state government
undermined one of society's most precious institutions, marriage, by
creating civil unions for a small group of people who don't want it.
Our opponents are spinning that dismal result as a reason to legalize
full same-sex "marriage." But since same-sex "marriage" will not confer
any new rights on the civilly-unioned, their demand shows that what
they are really after is not "rights" but the radical redefining of
marriage itself.
Posted at 10:49 AM
December 22
THE LION, THE STORES, AND THE CULTURE [Peter Wolfgang]
Two of our favorite editorial
pages here in Connecticut are approaching Christmas Day in decidedly
different moods. Certainly, one can't help but feel a sense of gloom
when contemplating the wave of violence gripping Hartford, and the Waterbury Republican-American's editorial diagnosis is bound to resonate with those of us fighting for the family:
As Gov. Rell said, the anarchy
is rooted in "the breakdown of the family, domestic abuse, addiction,
poverty and a simple lack of hope." But these and its other ills are
the consequences of 40 years of government social engineering that have
remade the culture into one that has little use for stable, traditional
families. So many Hartford children grow up in single-parent homes
today because the culture glorifies promiscuity and denigrates
fatherhood; think Archie Bunker, Al Bundy and Peter Griffin.
Boys growing up in fatherless
homes lack critical guidance, structure and self-control. For most,
irresponsibility rules their lives, from their lawlessness to the
children they sire out of wedlock. The offspring they abandon careen
through the same culture that teaches them they're free to do as they
please whenever they please; that addiction to government giveaways and
entitlements is preferable to rugged individualism; that education is
not something one learns in school, but what one picks up on the
streets. They grow up to be victims of the culture and expect to be
treated as such by governments ever eager to oblige them.
The daunting challenge for Gov.
Rell, her agency heads, Hartford officials and community activists,
with their throw-more-money-at-it mentality, is to reverse 40 years of
cultural decay. Good luck.
Reversing cultural decay is
indeed a daunting challenge, but not an impossible one. Modestly
successful attempts at cultural renewal are occurring all across the
nation—even in Connecticut. Consider the following editorial from
the Dec.17th Fairfield County Catholic entitled, appropriately enough, "Advent Hope:"
This certainly has been an
interesting Season of Advent, filled with perhaps a little more hope
than usual. This year, we can thank two unexpected sources: shopping
and Hollywood.
Catholics who spend much of the
year trying (often in vain) to evangelize the horrid secular culture
received a few early Christmas gifts. For one, there seemed to be a
more vociferous—and effective—effort this year to "Keep
Christ in Christmas" and promote the real reason for the season. The
Stamford Advocate, for example, published two inspiring
front-page articles, one on a campaign to encourage outdoor Nativity
displays, another on devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe (making good
mention that she is also patroness of the unborn).
A battle has been
waged—and won—at the checkout. The attempt by "big-box"
retailers to expunge Christmas from advertising and store promotions
backfired after the Family Institute of Connecticut spearheaded a
petition drive. Kohl's, Sears, and Target reversed their ban in the
wake of people power.
Cynics would say the reversal is
insincere, motivated by greed to make money, not a statement. Perhaps
so, perhaps not. Conversion of heart can take many forms. The important
thing is for it to happen, and to take root. And, a change of heart
should be rewarded. You now know where to shop.
Another hopeful sign this Advent is on the big screen. The long-anticipated film adaptation of the The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe,
is here at last, and it is a joy to behold. Can this restrained,
elegant, inspiring movie truly be from Walt Disney Company? It is, and
should be seen by all. It is a film about love, family, betrayal,
forgiveness, and redemption—all good themes to pursue in these
final days of Advent.
Narnia is a big movie,
with eye-popping special effects and action sequences (and a life-like
lion, the mighty Aslan, to boot). But it is also a quiet, intimate film
that challenges the imagination of young and old through a sense of
wonder and awe. The Christian symbols are all there, as subtle or as
explicit as they are on paper. They provoke the viewer into asking big
questions and wanting more answers.
Who knew shopping and going to the movies could be so good for the soul?
Restoring our marriage-based
culture is not something that can be accomplished overnight. It will
take many years of hard work and there will be both wins and losses
along the way. But it can be done. "Conversion of heart can take many forms. The important thing is for it to happen, and to take root."
FIC wishes a blessed Christmas, 2005, to all.
Posted at 3:48 PM
December 21
MARRIAGE PROTECTION AND THE REFERENDUM PROCESS [Brian Brown]
As has occurred in Connecticut and elsewhere, a lawsuit has been filed in Iowa by a handful of same-sex couples seeking an undemocratic imposition of same-sex "marriage." The suit sparked this reaction:
The court case immediately
renewed calls Tuesday to amend the state constitution to include the
heterosexual definition of marriage.
"This lawsuit is an attempt to
circumvent the will of the people," said Chuck Hurley, president of the
Iowa Family Policy Center. "The people of Iowa should decide this
issue, not a handful of unelected judges."
Scores of states have already
passed Marriage Protection Amendments—indeed, in every state
where the people could vote, they voted to protect marriage. But what
is especially interesting about Iowa is that it, like Connecticut, has
no direct referendum process. American Values President Gary Bauer
explains in a recent e-mail:
I have no doubt that the people
of the Hawkeye State overwhelmingly oppose the idea of two men getting
"married," but, unfortunately, the citizens of Iowa are not allowed to
put the issue on the ballot themselves, as has been done in so many
other states.
Only the state legislature can
put a constitutional amendment on the ballot and the Iowa legislature
has deadlocked on this issue. The Republican majority in the Iowa State
House has passed a marriage protection amendment, but the Iowa Senate
is evenly divided and liberals there are blocking the amendment in
committee. Homosexual activists are seizing on this gridlock and hoping
to score a quick win in the courts.
The situation in Iowa shows that
Connecticut is not alone in not having a direct referendum process and
that progress can be made despite this obstacle. Like Gary Bauer, we
trust that Iowa will make its voice heard in defense of
marriage—and that Connecticut, when given the chance, will do
likewise.
Posted at 10:48 AM
December 20
VICTORY ON CORD BLOOD RESEARCH [Brian Brown]
As we continue the fight for
faith and family here in Connecticut we must bear in mind that we are
not alone. Others, too, are fighting the good fight and achieving
important victories. Below is a message we recently received from our
friends at the Family Research Council:
In the midst of frenzied weekend
floor action in Congress, we won a remarkable victory on a bill to fund
research on umbilical cord blood stem cells. Cord blood stem cells can
be used to treat some 70 diseases—including sickle-cell anemia.
The bill was backed by basketball legend Julius "Dr. J" Erving and Rep.
Artur Davis (D-AL). Rep. Davis was joined by others from the
Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). Here is our chance to pursue ethical
stem cell research with all its life-affirming possibilities. This was
truly a bipartisan effort—in the best sense of that term.
Our great thanks also go to Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) and to our
Senate champions—Sam Brownback (R-KS), Bill Frist (R-TN), and
Orrin Hatch (R-UT). The only downside of this amazing story is that
this good news was buried in a flurry of press accounts of other
end-of-session stories. President Bush has a great opportunity here to
highlight his own success on this bill. A White House signing ceremony
would spotlight a badly-needed administration win. Let me also praise
our dedicated FRC lobbying team. They were tenacious in appealing for
this measure. Good work!
Posted at 2:48 PM
December 15
MARRIAGE VICTORY—IN NEW YORK STATE! [Brian Brown]
A strong decision for marriage has been handed down in New York State. The case of Hernandez v. Robles
resulted in a 4-1 ruling for marriage in a mid-level state court. It is
reputedly the Empire State's most liberal judicial panel. Even The New York Times called the win "a ringing defense of heterosexual marriage." The Times
said the court "portrayed [marriage] as an important way of ensuring
child welfare and social stability." This is a huge victory. The Family
Research Council partnered with the Alliance Defense Fund by submitting
a "friend of the court" brief in the case. Not only did that court rule
appropriately, but it applied the strongest rationale for marriage,
which is the proper care of children.
The outcome was not welcomed by
New York City's Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg, who was re-elected
last month on the Liberal and Republican lines, said: "If today's
decision is affirmed by the Court of Appeals [New York's highest
court], I will urge the Legislature to change the Domestic Relations
Law to permit gay marriage." Bad move, Mr. Mayor. The fact that
traditional marriage could win in a liberal court in a liberal state
shows how truly radical and dangerous is the plan to create counterfeit
marriages.
Posted at 4:23 PM
STEM-CELL MEASURE DOES NOT PROHIBIT HUMAN CLONING [Peter Wolfgang]
The Courant has a piece today
on a UConn graduate student's petition drive against the school's
"cruel" experimentation on monkeys. But the MSM is not covering a far
greater cruelty, funded by our tax dollars, which may soon be occurring
at UConn and Yale. Bill O'Brien, president of the Connecticut Right to
Life Corp, writes in today's Republican-American:
I've been going to the
legislature in Hartford for more than 30 years, and I've seen, and
excused, a lot of misrepresentation, mistakes and incompetence. But I
don't like lies. And when the lies continue, the truth needs to be told.
In September, the Republican-American
printed a letter I wrote after I received a constituent newsletter from
one of my legislators, Rep. John "Corky" Mazurek, D-Wolcott. In the
newsletter, Rep. Mazurek said the stem-cell research legislation that
became law this year "bans human cloning."
I wrote that the bill actually
allows human cloning and provides up to $100 million in taxpayer funds
to pay for it. I wrote that Rep. Mazurek should understand this, since
he voted for the bill. I have yet to see him defend or retract his
statement.
This week, I got a constituent
newsletter from my other legislator, Sen. Christopher Murphy,
D-Cheshire, co-chairman of the Public Health Committee. More than
anyone, he should understand what the bill does.
But he states in his newsletter, "a bill I authored took action to ban human cloning."
Before the vote last spring, I
testified at a hearing that this is a "clone-and-kill" bill. These
legislators knew, or certainly should have known, that the stem-cell
bill they voted for allows human cloning. If they are so proud of
voting for this new law, why do they keep misrepresenting it?
If the new law bans human
cloning in Connecticut, then why has University of Connecticut
researcher Xiangzhong "Jerry" Yang publicly announced plans to clone a
human being by next spring? Dr. Yang recently was appointed to the
Connecticut Stem Cell Advisory Committee, the agency created by the
stem-cell law to dole out the $100 million for cloning and stem-cell
research. Dr. Yang will be voting on whom to give the money to, and, I
would be willing to bet some of it will go to his own human-cloning
program.
When this committee had its
first meeting recently, Gov. M. Jodi Rell's office issued a news
release that stated, "the law established a ban on human cloning...'We
are committed to doing this research in the safest and most ethical
manner possible.'" Ethical? Is lying about the research ethical?
If Dr. Yang is going to use this
new law and the funding it appropriated to clone a human being, why are
the governor, Sen. Murphy and Rep. Mazurek still claiming just the
opposite?
I think the people of Waterbury,
Wolcott, Cheshire and Southington, and of the whole state, whether they
support human cloning, deserve to be told the truth about what the law
does.
If the Stem Cell Advisory
Committee votes to give Dr. Yang money for human cloning, and the
governor and these legislators don't object and stop him, I think their
constituents will be justified in concluding they are being lied to,
and I'll be writing another letter to the editor.
FIC will continue to keep our
members updated on this story and any possible steps we can take in the
future to halt this attack on human life. In the meantime, we recommend
joining with our friends at Pray Connecticut in praying for the future of our state.
Posted at 10:30 AM
December 14
ONE SMALL STEP FOR DECENCY IN CONNECTICUT [Peter Wolfgang]
In the war on family life in
Connecticut, it is the proverbial "800 pound gorilla" that no one is
talking about. I am referring to the plethora of porn shop advertising
that has popped up on billboards all over the state in recent years.
Does this trend represent an increase in sexually-explicit businesses
in our state or in the advertising for the ones that already existed?
Either way, it is bad for Connecticut's families—and our economy.
A wise demographer who was
appearing regularly on the Brad Davis radio program made an interesting
observation a few months ago. Unimpressed by a recent state tourist
campaign targeted at professional women (presumably singles) in New
York, he felt that Connecticut's real tourist appeal was to families.
He noted that there are large numbers of out-of-state families that
drive through Connecticut on their way to vacation in Cape Cod and
elsewhere who could be persuaded to spend their tourist dollars here.
But on their way through, they are likely to see the large number of
"adult" billboards on our roads and conclude that Connecticut is not a
family-friendly place. It is those families that our state's tourist
policy should be targeting, he concluded, and those billboards are
preventing them from spending their money here.
Fortunately, Bishop Jay Ramirez—one of the state's leading pro-family clergymen—has taken one small step to restore decency in Connecticut. His church became the landlord for an "adult" shop and they have begun the eviction process:
"Were trying to have a little
bit of grace," Ramirez told the New Haven Register. "We want to do
things in a responsible business manner. One way or another, they will
be gone before next December. I hope they choose to leave before we
throw them out."
We need more of the kind of creative thinking displayed by Bishop Ramirez to end this plague on our state.
Posted at 9:59 AM
December 13
MATCHING GRANT UPDATE! [Brian Brown]
God bless all of you who have
contributed to our $50,000 Year-End Matching Grant. We have received a
number of $50, $100, and even a few $1,000 donations. We have raised
$18,200 as we enter the second week of our campaign.
While this is a great start, we still have a long way to go!
Click here to have your tax-deductible contribution to the Family Institute of Connecticut matched!
We have been working harder than
ever to be your voice for faith and family. Our Stop the Ban on
Christmas Campaign has been a great success. Three major retailers
heard our concerns and restored Christmas in their stores!
As the largest pro-family
activist organization in the state we rely entirely upon you for our
support. We are asking you in this time of giving to consider all that
we do to be your voice for faith and family. If you believe in our work
please double our ability to fight for you by giving today to our
year-end matching campaign drive.
CLICK HERE TO MAKE YOUR TAX-DEDUCTIBLE DONATION ONLINE ON OUR SECURE SERVER!
I will keep you up-to-date on the
status of our matching grant campaign in the coming weeks. We only have
until January 1st to meet our goal. Thank you again for your generous
support!
Click here to have your tax-deductible contribution to the Family Institute of Connecticut matched!
Yours for the family,
Brian S. Brown
Executive Director
Posted at 2:07 PM
December 12
NO DELUGE OF CIVIL UNIONS IN CONNECTICUT [Brian Brown]
The legalization of same-sex
civil unions undermines our shared public understanding of marriage on
behalf of a small group of people who do not want it. That is
what FIC said prior to the law's passage and now that it has gone into
effect there is already evidence suggesting we were right. From today's New Haven Register:
Data from the group Love Makes a
Family indicates just 539 gay couples sought civil unions in
Connecticut in the first six weeks after the law took effect, compared
with more than 3,000 couples in Massachusetts who got marriage licenses
in the same period. Though the population of Massachusetts is roughly
double that of Connecticut, nearly six times more gay couples were
married there than entered civil unions in Connecticut.
As is common with civil union coverage in the MSM, the Register
piece is loaded down with the usual misleading anecdotes and
propaganda. It opens with a same-sex couple saying they will enter into
a civil union in part so they can have hospital visitation
rights—rights they already had without civil unions. It quotes
LMF's head saying that their push to trade civil unions for same-sex
"marriage" is "an issue of basic human rights"—when, in truth, it
would not confer any new "rights." The push for same-sex "marriage" is
clearly about restructuring one of society's most important
institutions, not securing "rights." The Register notes that
the federal government does not recognize civil unions but neglects to
mention that it does not recognize same-sex "marriage" either.
Underneath all the usual nonsense is the key point in the excerpt above: there is, as the Register
headline has it, "no deluge" of same-sex civil unions. And for this our
state government was willing to undermine one of society's most
important institutions.
Posted at 3:56 PM
December 8
MERRY CHRISTMAS, WITHOUT APOLOGY [Peter Wolfgang]
FIC sent an e-mail alert
yesterday calling on our members to help stop the ban on Christmas by
e-mailing a message to the top seven offending companies that operate
in Connecticut. We were amazed by the response. FIC members e-mailed
over 1,600 messages in just the first 24 hours and two companies
responded so positively that we have already removed them from our list.
Those who holler loudest that
there is no war on Christmas frequently help to prove otherwise. It is
not unusual for anti-Christian Courant columnist Susan Campbell to substitute a sneer for an argument, but even we were surprised by the disdain dripping from her Sunday column:
Every year for the last five or
so, someone publicly bemoans that store employees are replacing the
standard greeting of "Merry Christmas" with the more generic "Happy
Holidays." Couple that with towns' refusal to display manger scenes on
the green, and a certain breed of Christian starts to get nervous. This
year, as he so often does, Brother Bill O'Reilly led the charge,
bolstered by sacred texts like the book "The War on Christmas: How the
Liberal Plot To Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You
Thought," which I would read, but I think it's all in pictures.
Frankly, all these soldiers of
the cross wear on me. They've reduced their religion to the wearing of
a small gold token around their necks or the display of religious
artifacts in public. They worry that not allowing a creche on the green
is akin to attacking the season.
Actually, we worry that not
allowing a creche on the green is an example of governmental hostility
toward Christianity masquerading as "tolerance." As the Rev. Richard
John Neuhaus once put it:
The public expunging of the
religious particularity of those who are not privileged to be in a
minority is no simple matter... As culture is derived from cultus, so
multiculturalism requires many cults. Whatever is sacred in public
rituals that are, in the words of the Times, "secular yet sacred" must
not be permitted to refer to anything so transcendently sacred as to be
capable of constituting a culture. Shards of many sacred stories may be
cherished for the pleasures of diversity, but we cannot allow one story
to be privileged, lest it attain hegemony and lead simple folk to think
that we are, after all, participants in a culture with a definite
history and even a name. The Christian West has become the culture that
dare not speak its name.
Not only does Campbell get us wrong, she gets the season wrong too:
How lightly they take the
season. How little regard they have for the spirit of it, when people
who won't darken a church door crowd into the pew for the mystery of
Midnight Mass. Where the grumpy old guy down the street volunteers
— volunteers, yet! — to play the part of a wise man in the
church pageant. Where people who otherwise don't think of it write a
check for charity because they know that's right and doing right feels good during the holidays [emphasis added].
Many people do not do good deeds
this time of year because of a generic sense of "doing right feels good
during the holidays" but because they are motivated by the specific
content of the holiday: the angel appearing to Mary, no room at the
inn, her Child born in a stable, a heavenly host appearing to
shepherds, wise men from the east, all of it. They are motivated by the
story of God's great love for us.
To be sure, it is intriguing to
read such comments from Campbell as "[Christmas] has nothing to do with
symbols. In faith, we don't need a tree, creche or greeting to remind
us of the event that got the ball rolling," or "if someone can find a
Biblical reference that encourages Christians to display a Christmas
tree, I'll eat tinsel." It is a religious opinion of Christmas still
held by some people today and, centuries ago, held by many in New
England.
In fact, it was the opinion held
by our Puritan founders. Despite the constant digs at the faith of her
childhood, Campbell remains to this day more influenced by it than she
realizes.
However much Campbell may distort
the matter it is worth remembering that, yes, our faith must be about
more than symbols. Fr. Neuhaus again:
...the best way for Christians
to put Christ back into Christmas is to observe Christmas Christianly.
Forget about the culture wars for a moment, and fix your attention on
God Incarnate. In churches, homes, and, yes, public squares, gather to
hear it again. "In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus .
. ." This truth is the very heart of the cultus that gave birth to this
culture. And when this culture dies, as every culture does —
whether by the treason of those who had the charge of transmitting it
to another generation or simply by exhaustion — this truth will
go on to give birth again.
"She wrapped him in swaddling
cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in
the inn." If there is no longer a place for them in the American public
square, there will be other places, for all places are His. Meanwhile,
it is within our power, personally and collectively, to let Happy
Holidays be again the holy days that they are. For the sake of our
souls more than for the sake of our culture, but for the sake of our
culture, too.
Posted at 5:11 PM
December 7
HYPOCRISY IN HARTFORD [Brian Brown]
So I'm driving into work one
morning last week (Wednesday the 30th, to be precise) and there is this
car—with the obligatory "Kerry-Edwards" bumper sticker, of
course—driving erratically in front of me. As I get closer I see
the license plate: "legislative district 6." Sure enough, it was Rep.
Art Feltman (D-Hartford) behind the wheel and talking into his cell
phone, which he was holding. (The legislature earlier this year
outlawed talking on a hand-held cell phone while driving.)
I confirmed it was Rep. Feltman
as I was passing him. In fact, he was in the process of pulling in
somewhere to make an illegal u-turn while still talking on his cell.
It would have been bad enough for
Rep. Feltman to break the law in a non-governmental car. But he
apparently feels free to flout the rules he and his fellow legislators
set for everyone else while driving a state vehicle. Given this kind of
legislative hypocrisy in Hartford, how seriously do our lawmakers
expect us to take the new campaign finance reform law being signed by
Gov. Rell today?
Posted at 10:58 AM
December 6
SAME-SEX "MARRIAGE" LOBBY HITS ROADBLOCK [Brian Brown]
Where things stand in the fight to protect marriage, as viewed by the Republican-American in today's editorial:
Other than their successes in
Massachusetts, Connecticut and Vermont, homosexual activists have found
few states sympathetic to their quest to enact laws sanctioning
same-sex marriages or civil unions. They ran into a stone wall in 2004
when 13 states voted for constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex
marriages and reserving marriage for a man and a woman. One of the
states that approved an amendment was Oregon, widely regarded a liberal
state.
As 2005 draws to a close, the
news for homosexual activists isn't improving. In Massachusetts, the
first and only state to allow homosexuals to marry, the Massachusetts
Family Institute has gathered 120,000 petition signatures — twice
the number needed — to move a constitutional ban of same-sex
marriages through the referendum process. Adoption would reverse a
Supreme Judicial Court ruling allowing same-sex couples to marry. The
process is tedious, however; the petition has to be approved in two
successive sittings of the legislature. But just 25 percent, not a
majority, of the members must vote favorably for it to continue. A
referendum could come as soon as 2008.
More negative news came with the
disclosure by Tony Soltani, chairman of New Hampshire's commission on
same-sex marriages, that a recommendation will be forthcoming
restricting marriage to heterosexuals. The only concessions made to
homosexuals is a proposal to extend official recognition to their
unions and a provision for limited rights, such as hospital
visitations. No rights would be provided that involve expenditures,
such as health coverage for partners.
Some activists dismiss the
setbacks, claiming most people support partnership rights for
homosexuals through marriage or civil unions. This may be wishful
thinking, considering 38 states have acted to curb such rights, either
by statute or constitutional amendment.
Finally, the Vatican is readying
an instruction to seminaries to bar admission to candidates for the
priesthood who practice homosexuality, have deeply rooted homosexual
tendencies or support that culture. Exceptions may be made for
homosexuals who have practiced celibacy for three years or more.
These developments suggest the
homosexual lobby has an inflated perception of its public support and
may be harming its own cause by persisting in a quest to refashion
society's most venerable institutions.
In his Sept. 12th post on this
blog, Peter noted that the media was falsely portraying recent events
in Massachusetts as a setback for the pro-family cause. But the truth
about the state of the issue in Massachusetts and elsewhere has now
come to light. And so, too, will the truth about Connecticut: same-sex
unions were not legalized here because people were "sympathetic" to it
but because our unaccountable state government imposed it.
Posted at 12:57 PM
December 5
THEY JUST DON'T GET IT [Brian Brown]
Just how clueless are the pro same-sex civil union legislators at our state capitol? Consider Journal Inquirer editor Chris Powell's fine column this past weekend on the "worsening social disintegration" in Connecticut's cities:
It was just another weekend in
Hartford last month when five teen-age boys were shot in several
incidents believed related to high school feuds. People throughout
Connecticut were talking about it but from the state's political
leadership there was not a peep of concern...
Many of the legislators surveyed
[by the JI] offered only the cliches of burgeoning but ineffectual
government — more job-training programs, more after-school
activities, more college scholarships, and so on. Only a few
legislators seemed to have a clue about the cause of the
disintegration, childbearing outside marriage.
"Boys are in fatherless homes
that aren't functioning," state Rep. Robert Farr, R-West Hartford,
said. "When you have an unstable home life, it's very difficult for
school to overcome that."
In fact, it is Rep. Farr's "clue" that demonstrates how clueless he is. Rep. Farr voted for the same-sex civil unions bill—a law guaranteed to produce more
fatherless homes. Indeed, while there is always the possibility of
fatherlessness as an unfortunate instance of falling short of an ideal,
Rep. Farr voted for the first law in state history to uphold
fatherlessness as a deliberately chosen good! And yet, here he
is lamenting the chaos caused by fatherless homes. Other pro civil
union legislators are quoted saying similar things, completely unaware
of their role in helping to bring about more of the very thing they
lament. Talk about a failure to connect the dots!
What are needed first and what
always have been lacking from state government are the capacity for
outrage and the resolve that essentially abandoned children from racial
minorities are more important than convention centers and other
amusements for suburbanites and featherbedding for public employee
unions... Then the governor or legislative leaders could summon the
General Assembly to examine how government policy has subsidized or
otherwise encouraged fatherlessness and how policy could be brought to
bear dramatically in the other direction.
Powell is right. The problem is
that, far from reversing direction, the state government has greatly
increased its encouragement of fatherlessness with the new civil union
law. Passing a Marriage Protection Amendment is the most important
thing we can do to show resolve that "essentially abandoned children"
of all backgrounds will have a state government that supports their right to grow up in a home with both a mom and a dad.
Posted at 2:57 PM
December 2
CONNECTICUT POST SMEARS METHODIST DENOMINATION [Peter Wolfgang]
An article in today's CT Post begins with this sentence:
By openly welcoming homosexuals
as members of the Mary Taylor United Methodist Church in Milford, the
congregation is putting itself somewhat at odds with its denomination's
hierarchy.
Really? The United Methodist Church does not "openly welcome" homosexuals as members?
Yes, according to the Post:
[Mary Taylor United Methodist]
Church members recently voted overwhelmingly to adopt a new mission
statement welcoming homosexuals to full membership. The vote comes on
the heels of the United Methodists' Judicial Council ruling that upheld
a Virginia pastor who refused membership to a gay man. The council
ruling established that local pastors have authority to bar such
members.
Really? The United Methodist
denomination has ruled that pastors may refuse membership to someone
simply because he is homosexual?
No. Here is how the decision describes the facts of the case:
During the latter part of 2004,
an associate pastor in a local church in the Virginia Annual Conference
advised the district superintendent that the senior pastor refused to
receive into membership in the local church an individual who admitted to living a homosexual lifestyle...
He further advised that he would continue to meet with him and be in
ministry with him but that he could not receive him into membership of
the church since the individual would neither repent nor seek to live a different lifestyle...
After additional meetings and communicating with the district
superintendent, the Elder informed the district superintendent that he
could not receive the individual into membership of the church given his admittance of continuing the practice of homosexuality and that his intent not to discontinue the practice [emphases added].
Exactly one year ago today on
this blog, Brian wrote: "There's a difference between faithfully
upholding the scriptural prohibitions against homosexual activity and
forbidding those with such inclinations from entering your church. No
pro-family church does the latter. The UCC ad [claiming otherwise] is a
slur."
And so is today's Connecticut Post article.
Posted at 12:14 PM
December 1
PROTECT CHILDREN: STOP SAME-SEX "MARRIAGE" [Brian Brown]
"As voters see that civil unions
don't bring fire, floods or mayhem, perhaps they'll become more
amenable to full [same-sex] marriage [in 2007]," is how the New Haven Advocate
describes Love Makes A Family's strategy. But pro-family advocates have
never claimed that the negative effects of same-sex "marriage"/civil
unions would be evident overnight. The full tragic effects of a
redefinition of marriage on children will not be known for
decades—as was the case with no-fault divorce.
Liberalizing our nation's divorce
laws was sold to the public as a reform that would be good for adults
and children. It is only now that the awful truth is coming to light.
Here is an excerpt from a profile appearing in yesterday's Courant of Elizabeth Marquadt, one of the scholars who recently produced the first national study of children of divorce:
But beneath the veneer,
Marquardt says she and other young adults who grew up in the divorce
explosion of the '70s and '80s are still dealing with wounds they could
never talk about with their parents...
The key findings of the study by Marquardt and Glenn are these:
The grown children of divorce say there is no such thing as a good divorce.
Children of divorce say they
spent a lot of time alone and, as a result, found some emotional
distance between themselves and their parents.
Even in an amicable split,
divorce makes children grow up between the two distinct worlds of their
parents, who often have different values and priorities.
Children internalize the
conflict between these two worlds. They say they feel they have to grow
up too soon, act like different people around their parents and keep
secrets to preserve the peace.
"Too many people have
unrealistic ideas about divorce," Marquardt said. "They think if you do
it right, it won't be so hard on the kids. And that's where this `good
divorce' idea is so damaging and so seductive, because it basically
tells parents a lie.
It is a lie that was sold to our
nation some thirty years ago, just as Connecticut is now being sold the
lie that children do not need both a mother and a father. We cannot
wait another thirty years for studies to reveal what should have been
obvious from the beginning. The redefinition of marriage—and the
harm it causes children—must be stopped now.
Posted at 10:56 AM
November 30
CLERGY SEX-ABUSE: WHAT THE COURANT ISN'T REPORTING [Peter Wolfgang]
The Vatican this week released a
new document reiterating Church teaching that men "who are actively
homosexual or show deeply seated homosexual tendencies" should be
banned from Catholic seminaries and the priesthood. "Seminary Ban
Angers Gay Leaders" is the predictable headline in today's Courant. An excerpt:
"God is neither sexist nor
homophobic," said Frank O'Gorman of People of Faith for Gay and Lesbian
Civil Rights. "Sexual maturity, not sexual orientation, should be the
criteria...
O'Gorman said the Vatican's new
policy is rooted in a belief that homosexuality is a disorder and
called the instructions "a pogrom" against gays.
"The hierarchy is beginning with
a false premise regarding homosexuality and the conclusions it reaches
are also false," O'Gorman said. He said he believed that the Vatican
issued the instructions now because it fears the gains that gays have
made in recent years. "People are marrying; they are `out,' and the
hierarchy is very frightened of that."
Actually, no, they are frightened of this:
After an exhaustive review of
sex abuse in the priesthood, among the John Jay [College of Criminal
Justice in New York] study's findings was the revelation that the
majority of sexual abuse by clergy took place during the 1960s and
'70s, with 81% of the victims being males between the ages of 11 and 17.
[National Review] Board [for the
Protection of Children and Young People] member Dr. Paul McHugh, former
psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, described that finding
as "remarkable."
"I'm amazed that this
fundamental bombshell has not been the subject of greater interest and
discussion," he told the Register. "I'm astonished that people
throughout America are not talking about it, thinking about it, and
wondering about what the mechanisms were that set this alight.
"If you collect all of the
seminary graduates between 1970 and 1973, 10-11% of them abused
children," said McHugh. "That's an amazing fact. This behavior was
homosexual predation on American Catholic youth, yet it's not being
discussed."
The above quote does not, of course, come from the Courant. In fact, it is precisely because of the refusal of mainstream media outlets like the Courant to report on the true nature of the clergy sex-abuse scandals that the true nature of those scandals are not being discussed.
Click here to read the Connecticut-based National Catholic Register's coverage of things you are not hearing about in the Courant.
Posted at 10:51 AM
November 29
COMMON SENSE IN SOUTH WINDSOR [Peter Wolfgang]
If, as Brian suggests in
the previous post, LMF's strategy depends on eroding the common sense
of Connecticut's pro-family citizenry, they could be waiting a very
long time. As this letter in today's Courant
demonstrates, our state's pro-family citizens know what is and is not
good for their children and they are not about to trade common sense
for the condescending advice of their "intellectual superiors." In
fact, this letter is so good that we are posting the full text:
Doll Boycott Is Common Sense
There is a reason President Bush
won the last election: A majority of Americans hold traditional values.
Mona Gable [Other Opinion, Nov. 27, "Christian Right Sets Sights On
Doll"] may not like that, but the last election offered proof.
Gable's article lamented the
controversy surrounding the American Girl doll company and its
financial support of an organization that promotes abortion and
lesbianism to young girls.
Gable's article contained many
derogatory comments that we "on the right" have come to expect such as
"I think you're afraid of your daughters being exposed to other points
of view," and "my biggest objection with the realistic-looking dolls
... was their `stories,' all of which lacked narrative ambiguity.
Perhaps that's why Christian conservatives seemed [before the boycott]
to deem the dolls sacred."
Excuse me, but if Gable is going
to call conservatives dimwits, she could have at least supported her
commentary with some facts rather than resorting to name-calling that's
reminiscent of elementary school.
It's clear that the majority of
Americans don't want their daughters encouraged to engage in sexual
activity before marriage (even though contraceptive-based sex education
programs teach such activity). They don't want their daughters taught
about alternative lifestyles by schools. And they don't want their
money paying for programs that are contrary to what they believe to be
right. Call me stupid (well, I guess Gable already did that), but this
is all pretty much common sense. Maybe Ms. Gable's intellectual
superiority has usurped her common sense.
Jessemyn E. Pekari
South Windsor
Posted at 12:09 PM
LMF AND THE "RUDDY-FACED" MAN [Brian Brown]
Love Makes A Family had
volunteers at several polling places on Election Day as part of their
strategy to redefine marriage in Connecticut. The pro same-sex
"marriage" New Haven Advocate reports:
There was nothing gay-marriage-
related on the ballot this month, in Milford or anywhere else in the
state. There were no legislative seats up for grabs that could
influence the fate of a same-sex marriage bill; legislative elections
are a year away. And there are no plans to introduce a gay-marriage
bill in the legislative session that begins in February. That will wait
until 2007. So it's a longer-term strategy that Love Makes a Family is
pursuing. The past year brought bitter setbacks for the gay-marriage
movement in many parts of the country, but great success here. In the
2004 legislative elections, Love Makes a Family backed 26 candidates
and saw 21 of them win. Partly as a result of those electoral
victories, Connecticut this year became the first state in the country
to pass a civil union law—which confers all the rights and
responsibilities of marriage, but not the name—without a court
order.
In fact—as even some of the
state's pro same-sex "marriage" bloggers acknowledge—the results
of the 2004 legislative elections were mostly a side-effect of
Connecticut's preference in the presidential race.
Our opponents also make much of
Connecticut being the first state to legalize same-sex civil unions
"without a court order." The truth is that there is a case pending and
Gov. Rell has said in interviews that this was one of the reasons she
decided to sign the bill.
Indeed, as Pray Connecticut notes, the threat of that case still looms:
Although the legislature is not
in session, persons opposed to maintaining the traditional family
structure continue to work. The case of Kerrigan v. State of
Connecticut is still active and seeks the redefinition of marriage in
Connecticut, so as to include same-sex couples. The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has now filed a friend of the court brief asking the Superior Court to dismiss the case...
Read the ACLJ press release here.
Meanwhile, in the Advocate story, pro same-sex "marriage" forces lay out their strategy:
Gay-marriage boosters have
decided not to introduce legislation in 2006. Facing re-election in the
fall, politicians aren't likely to budge from their pro-civil-union,
anti-gay-marriage positions. And with civil unions so new, the strategy
calls for letting people get used to the changed landscape. As voters
see that civil unions don't bring fire, floods or mayhem, perhaps
they'll become more amenable to full marriage.
But it's not just a wait-it-out
strategy. Love Makes a Family knows that it needs to "build power," as
political director Adam Nicholson puts it.
A "wait-it-out" strategy is
exactly what it is. Otherwise, why wait until 2007—after the
elections—to push a pro same-sex "marriage" bill at the state
capitol? Nicholson only tells half the story. The full LMF strategy
could more aptly be described as "Build Power, Ignore Voters."
Otherwise, why don't our
opponents put the redefinition of marriage they seek up for a
referendum? They like to claim the people are on their side with civil
unions, so why did they oppose Letting the People Decide? They claim
the public will support their goal of full same-sex "marriage" so why
do they, even now, still refuse to Let the People Decide?
Because they know that this man speaks for the average Connecticut voter:
"Being a family man, I'm not
real sure," said a ruddy-faced man in a yellow windbreaker. "We have to
maintain family values. Children today are growing up like wild people.
Go into the school system—you'll see. They've got enough on them,
with divorce and all." He didn't sign [the pro same-sex "marriage"
pledge].
Most state voters, like the Advocate's
nameless "ruddy-faced man," know that same-sex "marriage" is wrong,
that it is bad for children and even that the push for it is related to
other societal ills plaguing the family, like divorce.
And therein lies the question
that is at the heart of LMF's true strategy: How long will it take them
to erode the "ruddy-faced" man's intuitive understanding of the truth
about marriage and his basic common sense?
Posted at 10:48 AM
November 23
A CONNECTICUT THANKSGIVING PROCLAMATION [Peter Wolfgang]
In 1936 Connecticut Governor
Wilbur Cross, noting that "it has seemed good to our people to join
together in praising the Creator and Preserver," issued the following Thanksgiving Proclamation.
A Connecticut Thanksgiving Proclamation
State of Connecticut
By His Excellency WILBUR L. CROSS, Governor
Proclamation
Time out of mind at this turn of
the seasons when the hardy oak leaves rustle in the wind and the frost
gives a tang to the air and the dusk falls early and the friendly
evenings lengthen under the heel of Orion, it has seemed good to our
people to join together in praising the Creator and Preserver, who has
brought us by a way that we did not know to the end of another year. In
observance of this custom, I appoint Thursday, the twenty-sixth of
November, as a day of
Public Thanksgiving
for the blessings that have been
our common lot and have placed our beloved State with the favored
regions of earth — for all the creature comforts: the yield of
the soil that has fed us and the richer yield from labor of every kind
that has sustained our lives — and for all those things, as dear
as breath to the body, that quicken man's faith in his manhood, that
nourish and strengthen his spirit to do the great work still before
him: for the brotherly word and act; for honor held above price; for
steadfast courage and zeal in the long, long search after truth; for
liberty and for justice freely granted by each to his fellow and so as
freely enjoyed; and for the crowning glory and mercy of peace upon our
land; — that we may humbly take heart of these blessings as we
gather once again with solemn and festive rites to keep our Harvest
Home.
Given under my hand and seal
of the State at the Capitol, in Hartford, this twelfth day of November,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty six and of
the independence of the United States the one hundred and sixty-first.
Wilbur L. Cross
By His Excellency's Command:
C. John Satti Secretary
The Family Institute of
Connecticut thanks God for our many blessings over the course of our
organization's existence and especially in this last year. We are
especially grateful to you, our supporters, donors and volunteers.
Without you, we would not exist. It is because of your generosity and
God's blessings that FIC can fight to preserve the Connecticut heritage
of reverence for faith and family that is so evident in Gov. Cross'
proclamation and that is under so much attack by the anti-family elites
of today.
Posted at 11:26 AM
November 21
COURANT POLL DODGES THE ISSUE [Peter Wolfgang]
Pro same-sex "marriage" activists often claim that Connecticut voters support the civil union law. But in a recent Courant/UConn poll on issues of top concern to state residents, the Courant
did not even bother to include a question about civil unions—even
though the paper itself considers the new law to be one of the biggest
things to come out of the last legislative session.
Why? Was the Courant
afraid it might find a significant number of state residents who oppose
civil unions, thus discrediting the liberal narrative of increasing
state support for same-sex "marriage"? Or was the Courant's oversight a result of the built-in bias that I wrote about in my Oct. 5th post—that is, since the Courant itself supports civil unions it did not even occur to the paper to ask in its poll whether anyone opposes it?
Either way, while the Courant
neglects to ask state residents what they think about the legislature's
decision to undermine marriage, evidence is piling up regarding the
answer: the people of Connecticut don't like it.
According to an article appearing Friday on the New London Day's website, Most Stonington Justices Refuse to Perform Civil Unions:
Out of 50 justices of the peace
in Stonington, all fully qualified to perform civil unions, only 17
agreed to perform the ceremony, a rift that parallels the nationwide
opposition to gay marriage.
According to a 2004 Gallup Poll,
the nation opposes legally recognizing same-sex marriages 2-1. Last
year, 11 states outlawed same-sex marriage; Texas joined them on
Election Day this year.
Actually, Texas brings to 42 the
number of states that have passed some type of law banning same-sex
"marriage" since four judges imposed it on Massachusetts (see our Oct.
27th post). The article also falsely implies that the legalization of
same-sex "marriage" by Connecticut would be recognized
elsewhere—except for Massachusetts, it would not.
Still, the article scoops the Courant
by providing a window into the true bipartisan state sentiment
regarding civil unions. It quotes two justices of the peace (JPs), both
Democrats:
Selectman Peter Balestracci
opposes civil unions, and while eligible to perform marriages he has
opted out of performing civil unions.
"I don't believe in it," said Balestracci, a Democrat. "I'm a Catholic and that's the way I was raised."
Former Democratic First Selectman Donald Maranell agrees.
"It's a religious decision,"
Maranell, also a justice of the peace, said. "Marriage is a sacrament
and until I'm comfortable with the institution I have that choice."
It was a small-but-significant
victory for the pro-family cause that the final version of the state's
civil union law allows conscientious objection for JPs like the ones
quoted above—an option the JPs in Vermont do not have. But the
big victory will be the story the Courant won't cover until it
has to: how true public sentiment regarding civil unions leads to its
repeal and to the restoration of traditional marriage to its proper
place of respect in our laws.
Posted at 9:43 AM
November 18
THE PROBLEM WITH THE COURANT [Brian Brown]
The Courant plans to show 25 employees the door, according to the AP:
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — The
Hartford Courant is eliminating about 25 positions through attrition,
voluntary buyouts, layoffs and leaving open jobs unfilled, according to
a memo distributed Thursday.
In an e-mail to Courant staff,
publisher Jack Davis said a similar step toward reducing expenses for
2006 was taken in early October. Fourteen employees were affected.
"However, given ongoing
competitive media pressure and disappointing financial results, we need
to achieve additional expense reductions if we are to remain as strong
as possible in 2006 and beyond," Davis said in the e-mail.
Last December, the Courant
eliminated 10 newsroom positions in Washington and Hartford, citing a
budget crunch. Those layoffs came on the heels of the newspaper's
reduction of 19 newsroom positions through attrition since June 2003.
Tribune [the Courant's parent
company] reported this week that its consolidated revenues for the
period ending Oct. 23 were down 3.5 percent, from $455 million to $439
million.
That's a total of 68 positions eliminated at the Courant in just the last two and a half years because of declining revenue. So, what is the problem? The problem is that the Courant is very far from being a family-friendly paper.
True, the paper did publish an outstanding op-ed yesterday, No Such Thing As A Good Divorce,
by Elizabeth Marquardt of the Institute for American Values. But
articles like Marquardt's—that support, rather than attack, the
family—are few and far between in the pages of the Courant.
Instead, when Connecticut's families gather around their breakfast tables and open their copy of the Courant,
it is more likely that they will be exposed to the kind of values on
display in Pat Seremet's Nov. 8th Java column (WARNING: OBJECTIONABLE
MATERIAL INCLUDED IN EXCERPT BELOW):
You know something is going to
be different at a party when you see a man in a tuxedo and two other
men dressed in evening gowns and wigs—all leaving the same men's
room at the Hartford Marriott in Farmington (which for this night was
renamed "Trans-Inclusive Restroom")...
Never saw anyone in a tiara before at a urinal? Believe it!
There's always an extra element
of the fun and the unexpected at parties given by the Hartford Gay
& Lesbian Health Collective, and the Saturday night bash called the
1 Big Event ranks with the best of them.
[Noted performer and darling of
the gay and lesbian scene Varla Jean Merman, also known as Jeffrey
Roberson] was in high gear, curvaceous in a lime-green sparkling gown
and matching elegant evening gloves, and characteristically outrageous.
"I've performed on countless pool tables from here to Northampton,' she told the crowd of 375...
Merman brought the house down
when she perched herself on the piano and sang "Talk to the Animals"
from Dr. Doolittle,—except in her version, the lyrics were: "If I
Could Talk To the Genitals."
Hers was more like a trip down
mammary lane, with lots of assonance. No body part, male or female,
went uncelebrated. Merman wished that she could give an "ovation to the
ovum," "go screaming to the scrotum," "argue with an anus" and "have
lunch with a testicle."
It was so wildly naughty and funny that there was nearly a stampede to the Trans-Inclusive Restroom after her performance.
Sexually-explicit versions of
children's songs sung by "drag queens" may pass for humor in certain
circles but it is not what most people want to read about in a family
newspaper. It is because of the steady stream of anti-family items like
the one above that business has been so bad for the Courant
that the paper has been forced to eliminate 68 positions in the last
two and a half years. Connecticut families will not continue to buy a
paper that repeatedly insults and offends their
values—particularly when new technologies like the internet make
it so easy for them to get their news elsewhere.
When will the "powers that be" at the Courant—and throughout the liberal media, most of whom face the same slump as the Courant—realize this and clean up their act?
Posted at 3:53 PM
November 15
IN BRIDGEPORT: A LOSS...AND PROGRESS [Brian Brown]
Edna Garcia, the pro-family
petitioning Democrat candidate, lost her bid to succeed disgraced state
senator Ernie Newton in last night's special election in Bridgeport.
But while she did not win, the
election points to hopeful signs for the future of the pro-family cause
and lessons we can learn to make those hopes a reality.
In a 6-way race, Edna soundly
outpolled a sitting state representative as well as the endorsed
Republican Joseph Borges and Michael Singh.
Edna's vote tally represents a
respectable showing, especially in light of the Democratic party
machine apparatus that she was up against in the person of Ed Gomes,
the endorsed candidate and last night's winner.
One big lesson from this race is
that the pro-family vote must not be split. If pro-family Rep. Lydia
Martinez had not chosen to enter the race late in the game, Edna's vote
total would have been much higher.
We know what unity can bring.
Rep. David Aldarando's defeat of pro-same-sex "marriage"/pro abortion
Democrat Americo Santiago is but one example of what we can do if we
are united. More recently (and we will have more to say about this in
another post) pro-family forces narrowly failed to defeat Dan Malloy as
Mayor of Stamford. Malloy, a vocal supporter of same-sex "marriage",
only managed to get 51% of the vote, throwing his gubernatorial hopes
into jeopardy.
The volunteers who did so much to
help Edna Garcia's race were outstanding. You all went above-and-beyond
the call of duty. Indeed, that Edna ran as outstanding a race as she
did—even outpolling a state rep. who has had Edna's old seat for
the last five years—is a victory in itself.
Connecticut is heavily populated
by adherents of pro-family churches. But unless the pro-family citizens
of this state are willing to put the same money and manpower behind
their beliefs as those working to undermine the family, we will end up
with same-sex "marriage" and further attacks on life, marriage, faith
and family. It is that simple.
Connecticut's pro-family movement
has had some great victories and some defeats, but one thing is clear.
For too long, we have not been in the fight at all. We have now begun
to organize and fight and we are dedicated to being there and
increasing our unity in the years to come. We are in this for the long
haul.
Posted at 1:22 PM
November 9
VICTORY FOR WATERBURY...AND THE PRO-LIFE CAUSE [Peter Wolfgang]
Waterbury Mayor Michael J.
Jarjura was re-elected last night through a historic write-in campaign
after having lost the Democratic primary. Jarjura's defeat in the
September primary was good for the pro-life cause. But so was his
victory last night.
Two months ago there was much
media speculation as to why, despite the advantages of incumbency and
plenty of campaign cash, Jarjura lost the primary to Democrat Karen
Mulcahy. FIC Action Committee—a legally separate
entity—responded by noting in an e-mail alert one reason that had
not been covered by the media: Jarjura's own pro-life base had turned
on him.
As a state representative,
Jarjura had been an outstanding pro-life Democrat; in fact, he was one
of FIC's two legislative liaisons. But as mayor he endorsed
pro-abortion candidates over pro-lifers in some key races. Those
endorsements caused a rift between Jarjura and his pro-life base,
leading many of them to provide Mulcahy with her slim margin of victory
over Jarjura in the primary.
After a version of the e-mail alert appeared as an op-ed in the Waterbury Republican-American,
Jarjura asked an intermediary to set up a meeting between himself and
Waterbury's pro-life leaders—and specifically requested my
presence (I was the author of the e-mail/op-ed and am also a Waterbury
resident). The mayor had begun a write-in campaign and wanted to
address the issues raised by my op-ed article.
Both the pro-life
candidates—Jarjura and Mulcahy—addressed the pro-life
activists present at the Oct. 28th meeting and took questions. Jarjura
reminded the audience of his strong pro-life/pro-family record in the
legislature and said that he considered himself "on the cutting edge"
of pro-life advocacy. "What matters is legislation," he said. Both
candidates disavowed support for their fellow Democrat, Rep. Chris
Murphy, who played a key role in passing the law spending $100 million
to clone and kill human embryos.
Following the meeting, many of
the Brass City's longtime pro-life activists remained firmly committed
to Mulcahy. But other Waterbury pro-lifers—including my wife and
me, as well as a group of Catholic homeschoolers—eventually
decided to vote for Jarjura.
Either way, Mayor Jarjura's
request to hold this meeting was a victory for the pro-life cause in
Connecticut. I am not aware of another big city in the state where the
top candidates for mayor would request a meeting with local pro-lifers
in order to seek their support.
Waterbury's election was also a
victory for the pro-life cause. The top two vote-getters, Jarjura with
38% and Mulcahy with 27%, were both pro-life. This means that in a
six-way race for mayor, 65% of Waterbury voters chose a pro-life
candidate.
And Independent Alderman Frank
Caiazzo—who made national news earlier this year with his effort
to pass a proposal declaring Waterbury an "abortion-free
zone"—received more votes than any member of his party. According
to today's Republican-American, Alderman Caiazzo even outpolled his party's pro-abortion mayoral candidate.
Yesterday's election was good for
the pro-life cause and good for Waterbury. In the course of his
write-in campaign Mayor Jarjura reaffirmed his commitment to the
pro-life/pro-family cause. And now, thanks to his historic win, he has
a mandate to continue the good work he has done to put the city on a
sound financial footing.
Posted at 2:33 PM
November 7
RECOMMENDED READING: COURANT PROFILE OF FIC [Peter Wolfgang]
A major cover story profiling the
Family Institute of Connecticut and our executive director, Brian
Brown, appeared yesterday in "NE," the Sunday magazine of the Hartford Courant.
Courant reporter Joel Lang
spent several hours interviewing Brian on the need to protect marriage
in Connecticut and attended recent public events where Brian was a
featured speaker. We are pleasantly surprised by the result: the best,
most even-handed story about FIC ever to appear in a mainstream media
outlet.
Joel Lang reported on FIC's views accurately and fairly:
Over and over, Brown said the
point of marriage is to guarantee children both a "mom and a dad," an
impossibility in same-sex marriage. "Why do we even have a binary
structure of marriage?" he asked. "To have a child you need a man and a
woman. [Throughout history] you're not going to find parenthood being
divorced from marriage. That's something we are doing in this
generation."
The dangerous shift is fostered
by ideas of "modernity" that treat truth as a construct rather than an
absolute and that put individual relationships ahead of marriage. Just
as the ideal of romantic love justifies divorce of heterosexual
couples, it also, Brown said, "leads to the attitude that `I'm a man
and I love a man and therefore I should have that love fulfilled in
marriage.' " The mistake, he said, is treating marriage "as something
that we create subjectively."
The core question to be asked
about same sex couples marrying is not whether their civil rights are
being violated, but rather "is there a right to redefine marriage?" he
said. "Viewing marriage as a bundle of rights for the state to confer
at will is not what marriage is."
The other side's attempt to
frame the debate as a fight for equality, he said, is part of a
strategy to make gay rights a civil rights movement. "They want to make
the issue about equality and not homosexual acts," he said. "Their goal
is to achieve not tolerance but approbation. Tolerance is not enough,
so their strategy is to make opposition unthinkable."
To read the whole article, click here.
In another surprise, the story also plugged this blog, with specific reference to our criticism of the Courant:
On its website,
archive.ctfamily.org, the institute maintains a blog called Connecticut in
the Crosshairs that frequently counter-attacks media bias. A top
offender is the Hartford Courant. After the spate of coverage that
accompanied the arrival of the civil-union law, Peter Wolfgang, the
institute's public policy director, posted an extended critique of the
Courant. (It's recommended reading for anyone dissatisfied with the
paper.)
Critiquing the mainstream media
(MSM) is one of the main purposes of blogs. Having one of your MSM
subjects mention the critique—and recommend it—is a
significant breakthrough. You can read the critique of the Courant recommended by the paper itself by scrolling down to my Oct. 5th post.
Posted at 12:55 PM
November 4
LIEBERMAN'S "LIKELY" LITMUS TEST [Peter Wolfgang]
Connecticut's own Sen. Joseph
Lieberman may be the key swing vote in deciding whether Judge Alito
will have a fair up-or-down vote or be filibustered by the Senate's
pro-abortion minority. According to today's Connecticut Post
Lieberman and other centrists
who spoke with reporters said they affirmed their agreement to allow an
up-or-down vote on Alito unless extraordinary circumstances are found
to warrant a filibuster.
But what qualifies as "extraordinary circumstances?" The Post reports:
Lieberman would likely join a
filibuster if he were convinced Alito would vote to overturn the
Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.
Did Sen. Lieberman actually say
this or is the reporter making assumptions? It's not clear from the
article. But if Sen. Lieberman does have a pro-abortion litmus test for
deciding whether or not to filibuster, it would be a betrayal of his
earlier promises to support up-or-down votes for qualified judicial
nominees.
Sen. Lieberman's pro-family constituents will be following his role in the Alito confirmation closely.
Posted at 12:25 PM
November 3
BLOGOSPHERE UPDATE [Peter Wolfgang]
This site is now among the 125-plus state blogs that can be found at Connecticut Weblogs.
By providing a single free site for viewing the latest posts from
Connecticut's blogs, CT Weblogs is performing a wonderful public
service for our state.
Blogs can be a great source for
information and commentary that you won't find in the mainstream media.
Recent posts from some of our favorite state blogs include Blogmeister
USA's take on liberal crank Molly Ivins' talk at the Shubert Theater, Connecticut Conservative's advise for New Haven mayoral candidate Gary Jenkins, Connecticut Commentary: Red Notes from a Blue State's thoughts on the political demise of Lt. Gov. Kevin Sullivan and Pray Connecticut—a site designed to promote prayer—wondering aloud if there is any point in praying for the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut.
Our own blog is now over a year
old and big changes are in the works—including a possible name
change and new URL. We will keep our readers updated. Those wishing to
suggest changes—including a new name for our blog—may do so
by clicking on the "feedback" button above.
Posted at 1:55 PM
November 1
BILL HAMZY RESIGNS [Peter Wolfgang]
With President Bush's choice of
Judge Samuel Alito for Supreme Court Justice, the national GOP
has—virtually overnight—reversed its declining fortunes
among its pro-family base. The state GOP, alas, continues its trend in the opposite direction:
William A. Hamzy resigned Monday
as Republican state chairman, leaving the GOP with a key vacancy to
fill in the early weeks of Gov. M. Jodi Rell's campaign for governor.
Hamzy, 39, a state
representative from Plymouth, said he will step down Dec. 2, less than
a year after Rell installed him in the job...
The party organization showed
some independence under Hamzy, issuing a resolution and a press release
at odds with Rell on civil unions for same-sex couples.
Hamzy and the GOP state central
committee urged lawmakers to define marriage as between a man and a
woman — a position shared by Rell. But Hamzy in a related press
release broke with the governor by equating same-sex marriage with
civil unions.
"We should stop the parsing of words — this is gay marriage pure and simple," Hamzy said.
Rell later signed the civil unions bill into law.
The resignation of its pro-family
chairman is a major loss for state Republicans. Rep. Hamzy, who
struggled mightily to halt his party's headlong plunge into
almost-total political irrelevance, was one of the few state
Republicans who seemed to grasp what FIC's Brian Brown was saying in
his Dec. 6th blog on this site:
[Kevin] Rennie, a former
Republican legislator from South Windsor, writes: "Worrisome for the
GOP is that in the North, Bush increased his share of the vote while
other Republicans were losing." Yes, but why? Rennie doesn't tell us.
That's too bad, because it was
the most important sentence in the entire "Last Word" issue [of
Northeast magazine]. The GOP in New England tends to distance itself
from President Bush's pro-family positions out of the belief that those
positions will hurt them here. But if the main difference between Bush
and the New England GOP is Bush's pro-family stance, and Bush did
better in New England than the local party, what does that say about
local GOP reluctance to embrace the pro-family cause?
Unlike the national party,
Connecticut Republicans suffered significant losses last month. If the
state party had been as firmly committed to protecting marriage as the
national party—and ran explicitly on that commitment—the
results would have been different. Instead, the state GOP has dug
itself into a hole by its reluctance to fully embrace the pro-family
cause. It's time for them to reconsider.
Posted at 7:13 PM
October 29
INTELLIGENT DESIGN "INVADES" CONNECTICUT [Peter Wolfgang]
They finally got their wish. For the last several months, the Courant
has been running an inordinate amount of items attacking "intelligent
design" on its editorial and op-ed pages. This was in spite of the fact
that there was not a single board of education in Connecticut's 169
towns where ID was an issue.
But now there is one. From the Oct. 26th Danbury News-Times:
BROOKFIELD — The national
debate over intelligent design, an alternative to the theory of
evolution in explaining how the universe formed, came to town Monday.
The occasion was a candidates'
forum in the Brookfield High School library for anyone running for
election next month. It was sponsored by the Brookfield League of Women
Voters.
While candidates for the board
of education did not claim to have the answers about how life began,
most have an idea what they want students to be taught.
Candidate Belinda Samuel thinks intelligent design should be considered for the science curriculum.
"It would foster a lot of
creative thinking from students," Samuel said. "Darwin's theory was
first met with being banned. Some are greeting intelligent design the
same way..."
Intelligent design is based on
the belief that DNA molecules and the Earth's structure are too complex
to have simply evolved with time. While it does not argue biblical
creationism, the theory says an intelligent designer had to be
involved. That is contrary to the theory of evolution advanced by
Charles Darwin in 1859...
[Board of Ed candidate Rob]
Gianazza said the theory should be a part of a science class, if it is
taught at all. "It wouldn't work in a theological class," he said.
"It's a point of view about how did cells . . . become human beings?"
Gianazza said since intelligent
design is not part of the current curriculum, considerable community
input would be needed for the board to consider it in the future.
Click here to read all of "Intelligent design theory invades forum among board of education candidates."
Posted at 4:17 PM
October 27
NEW HAVEN ADVOCATE: "WHAT'S WRONG WITH POLYGAMY?" [Brian Brown]
It was bound to come to this. A column in this week's New Haven Advocate
tries to paint the pro-family arguments made by Atty. Mark Dost and me
in a recent debate as "illogical" and "untrue." Instead, he proves our
point:
This is what it has come to for
gay- marriage foes. They're forced to co-opt the opposition's central
argument in a desperate attempt to use it against them. Civil unions
are a threat to civil rights?...
It's no surprise, really;
desperation tactics are common among players on any losing team. And
with Connecticut now permitting civil unions for homosexuals, opponents
are indeed losing. Knowing this, they're grasping at anything that can
halt, even reverse, what panelist Michael Lawlor, a Democratic state
representative from East Haven, called the "inevitable" march toward
the acceptance of gay marriage in the state.
First, same-sex "marriage"/civil
unions as a threat to civil rights is hardly hypothetical. It is
already happening. In Boston, a father of a 5 year old spent a night in
prison because he was trying to protect his son from being taught about
same-sex "marriage" in the child's kindergarten class. In Canada, the
Knights of Columbus are being sued by a lesbian couple for not renting
a hall to them for their "wedding" reception. In Sweden, a Pentecostal
minister was sentenced to thirty days in prison for preaching against
homosexual activity. In Vermont, justices of the peace and others have
been threatened with fines if they do not cooperate with civil unions.
All this and more will be coming to Connecticut unless the people of
this state make their voices heard.
Second, same-sex "marriage" in Connecticut or anywhere else is far from inevitable. Consider this news item which appeared in the Courant on Tuesday:
CONCORD, N.H. — A state commission on same-sex unions dealt a series of defeats Monday to proponents of gay marriage.
The panel voted [by 10-2] to
urge state lawmakers not to allow gays to marry, not to recognize
out-of-state same-sex unions and not to set up a domestic partner
registry for couples who cannot legally marry...
Since Massachusetts last year
became the first state to allow same-sex marriage, 41 others have
passed laws or constitutional amendments banning it.
Third, the Advocate columnist lets the cat out of the bag:
Brown, in his remarks, took
several tacks, including the slippery slope argument: gay marriage
today, polygamy tomorrow. "If you accept that limiting marriage to a
man and woman is de facto discrimination," he says, "and then you turn
around and say, 'Well, of course, we don't want polygamy'" then are not
proponents of same-sex marriage themselves discriminating against those
who want plural marriage?" He cited a civil union granted to a man and
two women in the Netherlands, but never explained why polygamy among
consenting adults is so wrong. Is it just a given [emphasis added]?
To the concern that same-sex
"marriage" will lead to polygamy, this writer essentially responds, "so
what?" Pro same-sex "marriage" activists still claim in public that
they believe a child should have two parents. But it is pro same-sex
"marriage" writers like this Advocate columnist who reveal the logical destination of their movement.
Posted at 3:10 PM
October 24
THE EDGE OF PROGRESSIVE CHRISTIANITY? [Brian Brown]
Like other liberal mainline
communions, the Episcopal Church has lost thousands of members over the
last four decades and has seen its influence shrink proportionately.
The Connecticut Diocese seems determined to accelerate that trend,
according to a news item that appeared over the weekend:
HARTFORD, Conn. — Members
of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut passed a resolution Saturday
urging Bishop Andrew Smith to allow priests in Connecticut to preside
at civil union ceremonies.
The resolution passed overwhelmingly at the diocese annual meeting, church officials said?
There should be "full inclusion"
of all people, said the Rev. James Cooke of Meriden, who serves as a
chaplain at Bridgeport Hospital. "This is what puts us on the edge of
progressive Christianity."
By "progress," the reverend means
"continually jettisoning every last vestige of Christian teaching until
our tiny clique of 'progressives' are the only Episcopalians left."
In fact, if wishing to preside at
civil union ceremonies is "on the edge of progressive Christianity,"
does that mean Bishop Smith—who said in a debate last year that
he "yearned" for the day when same-sex "marriage" liturgies can be
celebrated by his church—has gone off the edge?
Posted at 12:45 PM
October 20
SOCIAL LIBERALISM NO "BOON" TO STATE ECONOMY [Peter Wolfgang]
In last year's elections,
pro-family candidates enjoyed significant victories on the national
level while suffering setbacks here in Connecticut. Dan Haar, the Courant's
liberal business columnist, wrote a piece back then claiming that "the
nation lurched to the right on Election Day" while "Connecticut moved
hard the other way," and predicting that this would be good for the
state's economy:
Eventually, progressive-minded
folks would settle or choose to stay in Connecticut and other
like-minded states. Since socially liberal people tend to be well
educated, the ranks of technology workers and creative types could
swell here.. And, that, clearly, would be a boon for the state's
vibrancy and prosperity.
It has been almost a year since
Harr's column appeared. So, how is the state's social
liberals-generated economic boon going, you ask?
Not well, according to today's Republican-American:
"Connecticut ranks 50th in the
creation of new business establishments," Jeff Blodgett, vice president
of research at the Connecticut Economic Resource Center said, adding,
"it is the only state in the country to post negative growth."
In its benchmark report released
at the State Capitol, the nonprofit research group identified lack of
business and job growth, an aging and shrinking population, and
urban-suburban disparities among the top concerns for the state
economy...
The "bigger picture" economists
use to compare states shines a harsh light on Connecticut's
performance. There has been no net job growth here for the past 15
years, according to the report, titled "Benchmarking Connecticut's
Economy: A Comparative Analysis of Innovation and Technology."
Between 1990 and 2003, the
Northeastern and Midwestern states lost almost 700,000 technology
sector jobs, while Southern and Western states gained 690,000 jobs, the
report states. Over the past 15 years, Connecticut has lost more than
45,000 jobs in the technology sector alone; in the same period, the
aerospace sector lost 29,000 jobs.
Note how much the information
above confirms Brian's initial reaction to Haar's column, which was
posted on this blog on Nov. 15th:
Never mind the bigoted
assumption that religious conservatives lack education and creativity.
If Haar's thesis was true, we would have seen it by now. Yes, the
Republicans gained seats in Congress while losing seats in the
Connecticut General Assembly in 2004. But it also happened in 2002. In
fact, in happened in 1994, the year a pro-family majority took over
Congress.
So by Haar's standards,
Connecticut and the nation have been on opposite ideological tracks for
a decade now. The result? Connecticut's population growth was so slow
that we lost a seat in Congress.
If Dan Haar is the kind of
thinker that the state's business elites turn to for advice, it's no
wonder our local economy isn't in better shape.
Posted at 3:15 PM
October 14
NATIONAL PRO-LIFE LEADER IN SPRINGFIELD ON SUNDAY [Peter Wolfgang]
Rich Kendall, New England
representative of the National Clergy Council and a friend of FIC, has
sent us the message below. We encourage our members to attend this
event and lend their support to our pro-family friends in Massachusetts.
DEAR NEW ENGLANDERS:
Attention friends and supporters of Faith and Action and the National Clergy Council!
FAA/NCC President Rev. Rob
Schenck will be preaching two services this weekend at the dynamic St.
John's Congregational Church in Springfield, Massachusetts this SUNDAY,
October 16. St. John's is the largest inner city Congregational Church
in New England and is ministering in a powerful way the Gospel of Jesus
Christ to the greater Springfield area.
Rev. Schenck will be speaking at
the 8:00 am and 10:00 am services, in which he will discuss the very
latest on the ministry's efforts in Washington, D.C. Please make sure
to invite your friends and family to join Rev. Schenck in one of his
last trips to New England in 2005!
Location: St. John's Congregational Church, 643 Union Street, Springfield, MA 01109-3618
Ph: (413) 734-2283 (Please call for directions).
Time: 8:00 am first service, 10:00 am second service.
Cost: FREE!
*Joining Rev. Schenck will be
NCC New England representative Rich Kendall. Rich Kendall
(203-380-0651) is the NCC's official liaison for the New England states
and has been a part of numerous ministry initiatives and events both in
his home state of Connecticut and Washington, D.C.!
Posted at 12:09 PM
October 13
THE MINDSET OF OUR OPPONENTS [Brian Brown]
On Oct. 6th I took part in a
debate hosted by the Connecticut Historical Society entitled
“Civil Unions in Connecticut: Where Do We Go From Here?”
After the debate I was approached
by Beth Kerrigan, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit filed by several
same-sex couples asking the courts to impose same-sex
“marriage” on the state of Connecticut by judicial fiat.
“How many children do you
have?” she asked me. I answered her question. “Which one is
the boy?” “The two-year-old,” I replied. She then
looked me in the eye and said this: “How would you feel if your
son was gay and he grew up and committed suicide and you knew it was
your fault because you disapproved of his homosexuality?”
I do not mention this exchange to
embarrass Ms. Kerrigan. No doubt, she has been hurt in the course of
her life and we should pray for her.
But it is important that our
supporters know about this exchange because it is indicative of the
mindset of our opponents. Some pro same-sex “marriage”
activists really believe that if anyone disagrees with homosexual
activity it is because they hate homosexuals.
We know this is false, but that is the mindset we are up against. Let us continue to keep our opponents in our prayers.
Posted at 2:05 PM
October 12
STATE RABBINICAL COUNCIL: CIVIL UNIONS UNDERMINE FAMILY VALUES [Peter Wolfgang]
This evening marks the beginning
of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. To honor one of the high holy days
of the Jewish people, we share with you the statement by the President
of the Rabbinical Council of Connecticut on same-sex civil unions. The
statement was issued on Oct. 1st, the day the civil union law went into
effect.
Civil Unions and Public Policy
By Rabbi Yehoshua S. Hecht
President, Rabbinical Council of Connecticut
(The Rabbinic organization of ordained orthodox pulpit rabbis serving Synagogues in the Nutmeg State)
The Rabbinical Council of
Connecticut is deeply pained that Civil Unions are being implemented
and recognized by the State of Connecticut.
We believe it is wrong to have
society encourage the concept of Civil Unions which is being touted by
its supporters as “marriage” with a different name. We
believe as the Family Institute of Connecticut that Civil Unions is but
a step away from the implementation of Same Sex Marriage.
The opinion that we advocate is
not one of personal preference but rather reflects values and morals
that are derived from the Torah which is a higher source of wisdom
revealed to humanity at Mount Sinai by the Creator of heaven and earth
and of all humanity.
It is the Torah (the five books
of Moses) and the traditions recorded in the Talmud that informs us
that all people are created with a soul and with the capacity of free
choice and are responsible to observe the seven Universal Laws given to
Noah. Among these laws is the proscription of homosexual unions. It is
for this reason we find it most objectionable that the documents
offered by municipalities to those entering into Civil Unions are
practically identical to marriage certificates which perforce indicate
the State’s acquiescence to something not condoned by biblical
tradition and universal principles of moral conduct.
With moral clarity comes
blessing and strength to the institution of family and community. Civil
Unions as presently construed undermines society’s criteria of
Family Values.
We hope that society’s
moral compass will not be taken hostage by the gay lobby and their
egocentric desire for power and empowerment to “wholly transform
the definition of family in American culture” thereby allowing
them to play final arbiter of what is moral and ethical.
We appeal to all men and women
of conscience to do the right thing and that is to reinforce the
principles upon which we are not only comfortable with but we are told
to uphold as human beings who are entrusted and empowered with a
knowledge of the will of a Higher Being, the Creator of us all.
Posted at 10:40 AM
October 11
“ACTIVISTS SURPRISED BY LIGHT RESPONSE TO CIVIL-UNION LAW” [Peter Wolfgang]
Brian blogged last week about a New Haven Register report on the low turnout of same-sex couples seeking civil unions in Connecticut. In a column in the Waterbury Sunday Republican (not available online) Lee Grabar noted the same phenomenon:
Considering the long struggle it
took to get civil unions on the books, it was expected lines would form
at city and town halls the day it took effect. In Hartford, city
officials hung a rainbow flag at City Hall entrance and set up a table
with refreshments. They were prepared for hundreds of couples. They got
just 26.
A downstate newspaper’s
check of town halls showed four licenses in Guilford, three in Old
Saybrook, four in West Haven and one in Shelton. Some towns had no
applicants, among them Ansonia, Seymour, Derby and North Haven.
Yesterday’s Republican-American notes the same result in its own part of the state:
Town and city clerks throughout
Greater Waterbury and Northwest Connecticut have not been inundated
with requests for licenses since a new law legalized civil unions nine
days ago.
No one made any predictions
about how many same-sex couples would register for civil unions, but in
the first week 52 licenses were issued in 43 cities and towns surveyed
by the Republican-American.
That surprised some clerks who thought more people would apply as soon as they had the chance.
"We were prepared. I had every
bit of information we could have. We have our computers ready so we
could index them as a separate certificate. We were ready, and then
nothing," said Sheila Sedlack, town clerk in Winsted.
Sedlack was among 21 clerks who
issued no licenses the first week. The busiest was Sheila M. Anson, the
town clerk and registrar of vital statistics in Washington, Conn., who
gave out six.
This result is one of the things
FIC warned about during the civil union hearings. By legalizing civil
unions, the legislature has created a separate structure—a
special status—for a small group of people who don’t want it.
And yet it will be taught in our
schools and forced on unwilling companies. This further undermines our
shared public understanding of what marriage is, on behalf of a small
group of people. To date, only one trio has entered into a civil union
in the Netherlands. But in doing so, they have undermined the
understanding of marriage in the Netherlands, just as same-sex civil
unions are doing in Connecticut.
And those civil unions will
likely lead to still-further redefinitions of the institution of
marriage. In one of the clearest examples of our opponents’
disdain for democracy that I have yet seen, for instance, Anne Stanback
is explicitly cited in the Fairfield County Weekly saying that they are
waiting for the 2006 election year to pass before continuing the push
for same-sex “marriage” in our legislature.
Posted at 11:15 AM
October 7
NATIONAL PORN SUNDAY [Peter Wolfgang]
Today’s Courant has a good piece on an upcoming event designed to combat one of the greatest threats to the family in our time:
Pornography, usually kept in a
brown paper wrapper and away from the pious, will be a topic of sermons
and discussion groups in nearly 100 churches across the country this
weekend. "National Porn Sunday" is intended to bring out into the open
the issue of pornography in people’s lives, even in the lives of
people who regularly attend church.
XXXChurch.com, a Web-based
ministry founded by two youth pastors in California, is devoted full
time to the issue of pornography and is sponsoring National Porn
Sunday. The Internet has made pornography readily accessible, even to
people who would never buy a magazine at a store or rent X-rated adult
videos.
"The churches have been silent
on this for so long — a year ago, you couldn’t have gotten
five churches willing to do this," Craig Gross, a co-founder of
XXXChurch.com, said in a telephone interview. "But churches have been
getting a wake-up call, because we have seen it ripping apart families."
St. Paul’s Collegiate
Church in Storrs will continue its own Porn Sunday program this Sunday
and next Sunday at 6 p.m. in the great room of the Alumni House on
UConn’s campus. For more information, see the web site mentioned
above.
Posted at 12:21 PM
October 6
STANBACK’S “SUCCESS” [Brian Brown]
Hardly anyone bothered to get a civil union on Monday, the first full business day after they were legalized, according to Tuesday’s New Haven Register (“Gay civil unions legal, but towns see few couples”):
There wasn’t a rush on
civil union applications on the first full business day that the
state’s new law recognizing same-sex unions went into effect,
observers said Monday…
Perhaps they have already gone
to Vermont or perhaps they are waiting for full marriage," said Anne
Stanbeck, president of Love Makes a Family, a statewide advocacy group
that has been pushing for gay marriage for five years.
"We’ve had success, because we put a human face on this issue," she said.
Success in achieving what? The
only thing pro same-sex “marriage” activists have
accomplished is to undermine our shared public understanding of
marriage on behalf of a very small group of people. Most of their own
constituents don’t want civil unions and even in jurisdictions
where full same-sex “marriage” has been legalized, only a
minority of homosexuals “marry.”
Not that our opposition cares. According to the Fairfield County Weekly, civil union legalization has emboldened them to fight for more non-success “successes:”
Ann Stanback, feels strongly
that, with the overwhelming support of several Connecticut lawmakers
like state Sen. Andrew McDonald of Stamford and state Rep. Michael
Lawlor of East Haven, they will eventually achieve their goal of seeing
gay marriage become state law. She anticipates that 2007 will be the
year for this to happen. They’re waiting to give Connecticut
residents time to adjust to same-sex unions, and for the election year
to pass.
Posted at 12:13 PM
October 5
MEDIA BIAS, THE COURANT & US [Peter Wolfgang]
In my Oct. 3rd blog, I took issue
with the Courant’s coverage of FIC Action’s Reclaim
Connecticut Protest. In an e-mail to me yesterday, David Funkhouser,
the reporter, politely disagreed with my characterization of his
article.
David makes it clear that he did
not intend to imply any connection between us and a group of white
supremacists who arrived as we were leaving. He says he quoted our
opponents making that connection because he wanted to convey “how
people look at each other and respond to each other.”
I responded to David in an e-mail
this morning. What I want to discuss here are the bigger issues raised
by my exchange with him—specifically, what our thoughts are
regarding the Courant and what we do and don’t mean when we speak
of a liberal bias at the paper.
For starters, we’re not
conspiracy theorists. No one at FIC thinks Courant reporters and
editors work together to deliberately slant news coverage towards the
cultural left. Nor do we think (in most instances) that they
deliberately do so as individuals.
In fact, nearly every personal
experience I’ve ever had with the Courant’s staff has been
positive. In 1998, for instance, I was interviewed for an article on
Feminists for Life that was scheduled to run on the 25th anniversary of
Roe v. Wade. Before the article went to press, Garrett Condon, the
reporter, called and read all my quotes back to me to make sure they
were accurate.
I’ve seen the same level of
professionalism from Frances Grandy Taylor, who has had occasion to
quote me at religious events, and Daniela Altimari, whose reporting on
FIC’s effort to defeat the civil union bill was fair and
balanced. Indeed, I was a recipient of Courant hospitality earlier this
year when my wife was honored for writing one of the year’s best
letters-to-the-editor. The Courant’s writers were gracious and
charming hosts.
Second, we’re not hostile
to the Courant as an institution. It’s the paper I grew up
with—and I come from a family where we take our newspapers pretty
seriously. My grandfather, Reggie Pinto, was a photographer for the old
Manchester Herald for 40 years. Articles, columns and photos in the
morning paper have been known to spark spirited debate around his
kitchen table for hours—but it is out of a love for the medium.
So, if we don’t think the
Courant is a liberal conspiracy, or that individual reporters
deliberately skew their coverage, and we are not hostile to the paper
as such, what is it about the Courant that we find unfair and biased?
About five years ago the Courant
published a letter—oh, how I wish I had saved it!—from a
woman in New Hartford responding to someone who had complained of
liberal bias. Her argument was, basically, that when the news skews
towards the left, it’s not bias. It’s just the truth.
That’s a pretty good
summation of the problem at the Courant. It’s not that
there’s a conspiracy or that writers and editors intentionally
insert their agenda into their reporting. It’s that many of them
come to their jobs with a certain worldview—that they don’t
even realize they have, they think it’s just “the
truth”—and it is reflected in their work: what they choose
to report and not report and how, where the article appears, what the
headline says, what photos run where, what the first few paragraphs of
the article say, what’s buried inside the article, etc.
What are some examples? Just off the top of my head and in no particular order:
- Henry
Foster, President Clinton’s choice to replace Joselyn Elders as
attorney general, was voted down by Congress in 1995 because pro-lifers
objected to his having performed abortions. The Courant ran a front
page David Lightman piece with the ominous headline “Outside
Forces Influence Senate Vote.” But “outside forces”
influence almost every vote in Congress! Yet the Courant only pulls out
the sinister headline for social conservatives. (Much of
Lightman’s reporting, by the way, is symptomatic of the
slanting-the-news-without-realizing-it problem.)
- Mark Pazniokas earlier
this year described Love Makes A Family as “the most visible
opponent” of civil unions. The Courant ran a half-hearted
correction, noting that FIC and the Catholic Church are indeed
opponents of civil unions (the “most visible” thing was
never corrected). At the time I joked that, perhaps in the circles
Courant reporters move in, LMF really is the most visible opponent of
civil unions.
- Just a few days after I
made that joke, Courant gossip columnist Pat Seremet proved my point by
writing about her visit to an LMF fundraiser: “Love may make a
family, but at his grand manse in Bloomfield, which he shares with his
partner, Bill Beeman, a resort financier, Michael van Parys made the
dinner. First, it was an arugula wrap with prosciutto, mushroom
croustada and spinach balls, followed by tenderloin with peppercorn
crust, ravioli with lemon and artichoke sauce, carrots with cilantro,
and the most gorgeous stemware a Cosmopolitan ever had the privilege to
be poured into.” Pat also made it a point to report on the bumper
stickers of cars parked outside a theater on the day The Passion of the
Christ opened, the subtext being: aren’t these people weird?
There was no similar item about the bumper stickers on the cars parked
for the opening of Farenheit 911.
- During the Clinton/Dole
debate in Hartford in 1996 there was a pro-life protest against
President Clinton. The only mention of it in the Courant was a brief
aside in an op-ed by a Courant editor chastising them.
- The anti-death penalty
crowd, a much smaller movement than ours, held several rallies earlier
this year. The Courant’s news articles provided time, date,
location and contact information for those interested in joining. Never
in a million years would the paper do that for us.
- In February, 2004 we
rallied—according to the capitol police—6,000 people at the
state capitol. The Courant said we had “hundreds.” Instead
of a picture of the crowd, the front page had a photo of a couple
people holding a big picture of Jesus.
- In a recent article on
media coverage of Hurricane Katrina, a Courant headline reads
“Even Fox News Ignores Spin Doctors.” No similar headline
hinting of ideological bootlicking has ever been published asbout media
outlets with liberal reputations, even in the wake of scandals like the
one that ended Dan Rather’s career.
The problem at the Courant is not
that they have staff with unacknowledged liberal worldviews. The
problem is that those folks seem to make up the entire staff. There is
no ideological diversity at the Courant. All the columnists are social
liberals (yes, even Larry Cohen). Stan Simpson might not be, but
religion, abortion, same-sex “marriage” and related issues
aren’t really his beat.
Is there any columnist at the
Courant who worships at a conservative evangelical church? Who
homeschools her children? Who is opposed to the legalization of
abortion and same-sex “marriage?” Who is opposed to
contraception and practices natural family planning? Who belongs to a
conservative Catholic lay group like Opus Dei or Regnum Christi? Who
believes sex outside of marriage is sinful and something society ought
to discourage?
The above paragraph describes an
awful lot of people in Connecticut—more than you think. We know,
because we work with them all the time. They form the backbone of the
movement to protect marriage. And their voice is not represented in the
pages of the Hartford Courant.
If the Courant could do one
thing—just one thing!—to address its bias problem, I
recommend this: hire a social conservative columnist, one who can
answer “yes” to the questions I listed above. Break the
liberal monopoly that has a stranglehold over your staff of regular
columnists. I don’t mean someone who will appear occasionally on
the op-ed page. I mean someone who will appear in the paper as often as
Helen Ubinas or Susan Campbell.
There are entire
worlds-within-worlds of the Connecticut experience that readers of the
Courant are not being exposed to. A social conservative columnist
plugged into those worlds would do the paper—and the
state—an immense amount of good.
I know from conversations with
several Courant personnel that the bias is not intentional, but it
exists nonetheless. The paper could go a long way toward ending it by
that one simple step of hiring someone who can shine a light
on—and speak for—those not being heard in its pages.
Posted at 4:35 PM
October 4
HARRIET MIERS: WAIT AND SEE [Brian Brown]
On Monday, President Bush named
White House counsel Harriet E. Miers as his choice to replace
pro-abortion Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the U.S. Supreme
Court.
President Bush has long made it
clear that his choices for the U.S. Supreme Court would be in the mold
of conservative justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. We have no
reason to believe he has abandoned that standard. However, our lack of
knowledge about Harriet Miers, and the absence of a record on the
bench, give us insufficient information from which to assess whether or
not she is indeed in that mold.
Connecticut’s pro-family community can take encouragement from some of the information we do have about Miers:
- Texas Supreme Court
Justice Nathan Hecht, a pro-life hero who knows Miers, is a strong
supporter. “I know what her judicial philosophy will be,”
he told the press, “and when [conservatives] find out what this
president knows about Harriet, they are going to be happy as
clams.”
- Miers has been a member
of a conservative evangelical church in Dallas for 25 years. Hecht, an
elder at the church, said that on abortion “her personal views
are consistent with that of evangelical Christians.”
- As head of the State Bar
of Texas from 1992-1993, Miers led an effort to rescind the American
Bar Association’s pro-abortion stance. Her attempt to get the ABA
to adopt a neutral stance or allow its members to decide by referendum
was ultimately unsuccessful.
- According to a wire service article in today’s Courant, Miers “donated money to an anti-abortion group.”
But Miers’ personal
opposition to abortion and her work to make the ABA abortion-neutral
does not, by itself, assure those of us who do not know her that she
has the conservative judicial philosophy that Justice Hecht says she
has.
In the days to come, Harriet
Miers will have the chance to demonstrate such a philosophy. We will be
watching closely as the confirmation process begins, and we urge
Connecticut’s families to wait and see if the confidence we have
placed in the President’s commitment is justified by this
selection.
Posted at 1:03 PM
October 3
MEDIA AGENDA IN CIVIL UNION COVERAGE [Peter Wolfgang]
Judging by the way it was covered
in our state’s print media, one would think the civil union law
that went into effect on Saturday was met by near-unanimous celebration
throughout Connecticut, except for an FIC Action rally of “about
50” people. Actually—as some TV news shows correctly
noted—we had about 90 attendees, and organizations such as the
Rabbinical Council of Connecticut joined us and many others in
lamenting the anti-family law going into effect that day.
While the AP treated our protest as an afterthought, it did at least allow me this quote:
"We’re here to offer a
public witness against a state-mandated undermining of the institution
of marriage," said Peter Wolfgang, the institute’s director of
public policy. "Oct. 1 is a tragic day because it’s the first day
a law goes into effect that states a legislative belief that children
don’t need both a mom and a dad."
I said the same thing to the Courant’s reporter, but my comment didn’t make his piece.
Perhaps because he was more interested in writing about a group of
white supremacists who showed up just as we were leaving. In fact, he
slowed our departure in order to get a quote from me that he chose not
to run.
I’d like to think it
wasn’t deliberate, but his article, while making sure to quote
Brian saying “We have nothing to do with them,” flowed in
such a way as to give the impression that we do. Here at last, it
seemed, was the storyline that the press had been waiting for. On one
side, pro same-sex “marriage” activists speaking of love
and peace, on the other, white supremacists spewing vitriol and hate.
In fact, it is the pro-family
side that is multicultural and interreligious. Many of our most
supportive members are African-American and Hispanic evangelicals.
As Brian told the Courant, we
have nothing to do with that group that showed up as we were leaving.
(Indeed, at first glance, I thought they were one of the pro same-sex
“marriage” groups that occasionally show up at our rallies
to harass us.) They don’t represent anyone. So why did the
Courant devote such a large amount of its article to them?
By way of comparison, consider
the person who was arrested earlier this year for making a death threat
against CT Catholic Conference executive director Marie Hilliard
because of her work against same-sex civil unions. Imagine if the
Courant wrote a piece quoting Anne Stanback saying “we have
nothing to do with him,” but then devoting much of the article to
that person, quoting his opinions on civil unions—as if he were a
reputable source—and then allowing people on our side un-rebutted
quotes to the effect of “He endorses what we’re against and
we think that’s very telling.”
The Courant would never do that to our opponents. But that’s what the Courant just did to us.
Posted at 2:02 PM
September 30
SAME-SEX CIVIL UNION MEDIA COVERAGE [Peter Wolfgang]
There has been a lot of coverage
in the state media this past week about the civil union law set to go
into effect tomorrow. Two stories deserve special mention. As usual,
the Waterbury Republican-American had the best article on our Wednesday press conference:
HARTFORD — The end of the
traditional family is near, say opponents of the new same-sex civil
union law that goes into effect Saturday, and they are gearing up for a
battle.
In a press conference Wednesday,
members of pro-family organizations said the law passed by the state
legislature in April is the final assault on the institutions of
marriage and family…
Family Institute executive
director Brian Brown said his organization will work for a referendum
for a Constitutional amendment protecting marriage.
"Legislators who voted for this
law thinking it was a compromise that would put an end to the
discussion legalizing marriage between same-sex couples were profoundly
wrong," said Brown.
Acknowledging there is work to
be done to bring about that referendum, Brown also said his group,
through political action committees, would work to have legislators who
supported the law voted out of office during the next election
cycle…
Brown had earlier referred to
Oct. 1, the day the law takes effect, as "tragic," claiming the law is
essentially a legislative belief that children do not need both mother
and father and that the negative impact of the law on children,
schools, parental rights, religious freedom and society itself will be
felt for decades to come.
It was the reporters who wanted
to talk politics and their questions were entirely about the
governor’s race. The focus of FIC’s Action
Committee—a legally separate entity—has been on the General
Assembly races. Also, Ed Dzitko ends his otherwise-excellent article by
noting that we “expect thousands” at tomorrow’s
rally. We don’t. Anything’s possible, of
course—particularly if the Women of Faith turn out in large
numbers during their lunch break. But the aim of tomorrow’s
protest is to offer a public witness against a state-mandated
undermining of marriage similar to the counter-protest FIC held on May
17, 2004—the day same-sex “marriage” became legal in
Massachusetts.
Also of note is the article on civil union employee benefits that ran on the business page of the Sunday Courant
(Sept. 25th). It’s the most informative piece on this topic to be
published so far. As the article notes—and contrary to the
obfuscation of legislators who supported civil unions—small and
medium-size companies are more likely to be covered under state
insurance law rather than the federal ERISA and therefore will have to
pay for the benefits of those who are in same-sex civil unions with
their employees, if they do the same for married couples. Indeed, it is
not even clear if ERISA trumps state anti-discrimination laws. Atty.
Gen. Blumenthal and others are reduced to throwing up their hands and
saying a judge will have to decide the matter—not comforting
words to those fighting the judicial usurping of democracy.
When pro-family forces at the
legislature tried to introduce a conscience clause into the civil union
bill last April to protect religious organizations from being forced to
pay civil union benefits, Rep. Michael Lawlor (D-East Haven) said it
was unnecessary because these issues are covered under ERISA. That is
not necessarily true, as the Courant piece makes clear. But why did the Courant wait until Sept. 25th to let the public know the truth?
Posted at 10:03 AM
September 29
BREAKING…ROBERTS CONFIRMED AS CHIEF JUSTICE [Brian Brown]
Pro-family Judge John G. Roberts
has just been confirmed as the next chief justice of the United States
Supreme Court. We heartily endorse the comment just posted at the National Review blog Bench Memos:
As has been discussed in Bench
Memos, though we’ve known for awhile John Roberts would be
confirmed, it’s no small thing that this supposed "extremist"
"Neanderthal" has been confirmed. Not in Ginsburg numbers — and
there is little doubt she is an extremist. But even in this
insanely heated partisan Senate, he got 78 votes. It’s a real
victory for the Bush administration. And if my good feelings about John
Roberts are right, so I think it’s a victory for America.
It is also a victory for our state’s pro-family movement. As the Courant
reported earlier this week, both Senators Dodd and Lieberman said they
were voting for Roberts. All of our work—all of your e-mails and
phone calls—has paid off. But be prepared: we will have to do it
all over again, and soon, for President Bush’s second nominee.
And if the frustration that is boiling over on the Left is any
indication, the next battle will be considerably more heated.
Posted at 11:58 AM
September 26
PRO-FAMILY DATES TO REMEMBER [Brian Brown]
The same-sex civil union law
passed by the legislature and signed by Gov. Rell last spring will go
into effect on October 1st. As a result this will be one of the Family
Institute of Connecticut’s busiest months ever, standing up for
marriage in Connecticut. Below are the key dates for upcoming events.
We invite as many of our supporters as possible to attend these events.
- On Wednesday, Sept. 28th,
FIC will be holding a press conference to discuss the impact of civil
unions in Connecticut. We will discuss our commitment to vigorously
defending religious liberty and parental rights in the face of attacks
inspired by the legislature’s decision to undermine marriage. The
press conference will be held at 1:00 pm in room 1C of the legislative
office building in Hartford.
- On Saturday, Oct. 1st,
FIC Action will host a Reclaim Connecticut Rally to protest the civil
union law going into effect that day. At this protest, attendees will
receive concrete information on what they can do to hold their
legislators accountable for undermining marriage. The protest will be
held at 12:00 noon on the front steps of the state capitol in Hartford.
- On Thursday, Oct. 6th, I
will take part in a debate hosted by the Connecticut Historical Society
entitled “Civil Unions in Connecticut: Where Do We Go From
Here?” The debate—which will include Ann Stanback of Love
Makes A Family, pro same-sex “marriage” attorney Maureen
Murphy and Evelyn Riley of the Massachusetts Family
Institute—will be held from 6:30 to 8:00 pm at 1 Elizabeth Street
in Hartford. Admission is $10. For more information call (860) 236-5621
ext. 238.
- On Saturday, Oct. 8th, I
will be the keynote speaker at the Respect Life Conference in South
Meriden. The conference will be held from 9:00 am to 3:00 pm at Holy
Angels Parish Center, 585 Main Street. Registration is $10 per person,
which includes hospitality and lunch. For more information, call (203)
235-3822.
- On Saturday, Oct.
22nd, I will be a workshop presenter at the Family Protection
Conference 2005. The conference—whose theme is “Providing a
Safe Home in the Sexualized Culture”—will be held from 8:45
am to 3:00 pm at Valley Community Baptist Church, 590 West Avon Road in
Avon. Admission is $25, which includes lunch and a complimentary CD of
one of the workshops of your choice. Registration is online at www.nationalcoalition.org/regionaloffices/newengland.html
Posted at 3:59 PM
September 23
A MODEST PROPOSAL [Peter Wolfgang]
I hope he’s prepared for
the feminist outrage. At the risk of braving the usual disingenuous
cries of misogyny, humor columnist Bill Dunn says some things that
needed to be said:
Look, I freely admit I’m
an old fogey. I understand there are certain immutable laws of the
universe, one of which states: If you are lucky enough to reach
middle-age, you are required to become a cranky complainer who
regularly uses the phrase, "Kids these days have no respect!"
I understand that’s part
of the deal of life. But come on! Have you seen the way some girls
dress nowadays? The clothing is ridiculously tight and skimpy, leaving
nothing to the imagination. And that’s just while they’re
going up for Communion at church…
Click here to read “Teen girls often dress like tarts.”
Posted at 11:13 AM
“A THINKING PERSON’S HOLY ROLLER” [Peter Wolfgang]
Bishop Jay Ramirez, one of
Connecticut’s most prominent pro-family leaders, is hosting a
convention of thousands in Milford this weekend, according to today’s Conn. Post:
MILFORD — Attendees will begin arriving today for the largest convention the city has ever hosted.
Nearly 2,000 people from Africa,
South America and all over the United States are coming for a three-day
conference convened by the Kingdom Life Christian Church in Milford.
Bishop Jay Ramirez said that as
Kingdom Life and its K-Net network of affiliated churches grows, the
city will see a large economic benefit.
The approaching conference inspired New Haven Advocate writer Carole Bass to investigate Bishop Ramirez and his church. She arrived with some questions:
What brings 2,500 people a week
to this non-denominational house of worship, making it one of
Connecticut’s few megachurches? What moves them to contribute
enough money to enable Kingdom Life to buy roughly 25 properties in the
Devon section of Milford, worth an estimated $20 million? What inspires
them to volunteer hours each week to help run the ever-expanding church?
And found some answers:
Like many megachurches, Kingdom
Life dispenses with traditional liturgy and ritual, aiming instead for
an easy, comfortable experience that’s accessible to people from
a wide range of Christian backgrounds. Unlike some megachurches,
though, Kingdom Life asks a lot from its members. Money, yes. But
Ramirez also asks them to change their lives—and the
world—for the better.
The conservative-crusader
stereotype comes closest to fitting Ramirez. In the past two years, he
has become one of Connecticut’s most visible anti-gay-marriage
clergymen. He has asked the Milford Board of Education to "audit" books
for sexual and occult content and complained about in-school Halloween
celebrations (because of the holiday’s Pagan roots). Most
famously—or infamously—he spurred the church to become
landlord to a neighborhood porn shop, so that it can evict the shop
when its lease expires in December 2006.
At the same time, Ramirez says,
he abhors abuse and harassment of gay people and (reluctantly) accepts
Connecticut’s new civil union law, which gives same-sex couples
all the legal rights and protections of marriage without calling it
that. He also calls himself an environmentalist and a feminist, telling
stories about how he has butted heads with other evangelical ministers
about the way their churches stifle women.
And he sat with me for nearly
four hours in his office, answering tough questions. Never once did he
become hostile. Never once did he criticize the Advocate for promoting
sex, drugs and profanity. Never once did he try to proselytize me.
Call him a thinking person’s holy roller.
There is, of course, some of the
usual back-and-forth between Bishop Ramirez and Bass on same-sex
“marriage,” which Bass supports. But I am struck by how
much Bass “gets it” in her lengthy report on the bishop and
his ministry.
At one point, she wonders aloud
(or in print) whether the bishop is “spinning” her. But
what comes across in her piece is the pastoral nature of the
man—the key to his success—and the willingness of Bass to
convey it honestly.
There are some things on which we
may never see eye-to-eye with Bass, but she has written a solid, fair
profile on a pro-family leader that deserves a wide readership. It can be read by clicking here.
Posted at 10:50 AM
WOMEN OF FAITH: COME TO FIC ACTION’S OCT. 1ST PROTEST! [Brian Brown]
Many of our sisters in faith who are planning to attend the Women of Faith Conference in Hartford on Oct. 1st are asking about FIC Action’s Reclaim Connecticut Protest, also scheduled for Oct. 1st at noon.
It is a brief walk from the civic
center, where the conference is being held, to our protest at the state
capitol. Conference attendees are welcome to join us during their 12:45
lunch.
We would love to see thousands of
godly women descend upon the state capitol to stand firm for the
protection of marriage and the family!
Posted at 9:50 AM
September 22
JOE FITZGERALD’S CIVICS LESSON [Brian Brown]
How often have we heard the
ridiculous claim that believers are violating the separation of church
and state if they dare to act on their faith in the public domain? But
when the state oversteps its proper role, churches must fight for their
faith—not only because it is their right, but because failure to do so actually harms the state!
Boston Herald columnist Joe
Fitzgerald sums up the reasons so well and so succinctly in his recent
column that we are posting it in its entirety, below:
Churches finally find voice on gay marriage
By Joe Fitzgerald
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
The news that churches
throughout the commonwealth are finally planning to flex their muscles
in resistance to gay marriage ought to be welcomed by anyone with an
understanding of civics, to say nothing of American history.
That, of course, leaves out
those activists who, shamefully abetted by lily-livered politicians,
have had remarkable success in squelching opposition by demonizing
anyone who dares to utter a word of disagreement.
Talk about turning the tables: Tolerance was once their rallying cry, remember? Who is intolerant now?
According to this crowd, if you
don’t enthusiastically endorse a lifestyle that flies in the face
of what many faiths hold dear, you’re hateful, ignorant and
unenlightened, all of which is rubbish.
Americans, as a whole, are none
of those things, and yet every time they’ve been given an
opportunity to voice their feelings on the issue, gay marriage has been
soundly rejected. The only reason it exists here in Massachusetts is we
have been prohibited from participating in the process, denied our
right to have a say in how we shall be governed.
Our democracy was hijacked. It’s as simple as that.
But now a broad consortium of
churches, crossing ethnic, racial and denominational lines, is stepping
up to the plate, hoping to mobilize disenfranchised parishioners by
having them sign petitions demanding to have their voices heard at the
ballot box.
They’ve identified Oct. 2
as “Protect Marriage Sunday,” the official kickoff date,
setting a goal of acquiring more than 100,000 signatures.
Not surprisingly, gay marriage
activists are appalled, though they’re quick to welcome the
support of sympathetic churches, which aren’t hard to find.
We’re living in times when you can choose any lifestyle and find
a theology to embrace it.
And those churches certainly have a right to cater to any congregations they choose.
But churches clinging to
traditional values have just as much of a right and perhaps even more
of a responsibility to step into those same streets where these battles
are being fought, especially if they sense a moral vacuum has been
created by an impotent political establishment.
A popular bumper sticker from the ’60s sums it up well: When the people lead, the leaders will follow.
Conservative clergy have too
long abstained from the political process through a fallacious
rationalization that the church has no business in the affairs of the
state.
History begs to differ.
Etched into granite above the
entrance to the Cambridge City Hall annex are these words: “God
has given commandments unto men. From these commandments men have
framed laws by which to be governed. It is honorable and praiseworthy
to faithfully serve the people by helping to administer these laws. If
the laws are not enforced, the people are not well governed.”
Imagine suggesting that in Cambridge today?
But it was once commonly understood.
“Things are different
now,” Dr. Martin Luther King noted in his “Letter from
Birmingham Jail.” “The contemporary church is often a weak,
ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. Far from being disturbed by
the presence of the church, the power structure of the average
community is consoled by the church’s silent sanction of things
as they are.”
He wrote that 43 years ago.
So here’s hoping these
churches, no longer lukewarm but aroused by righteous indignation, will
shake up that structure at last.
It’s late, but better late than never.
Posted at 1:37 PM
September 21
CATCHING UP WITH THE COURANT [Peter Wolfgang]
My list of Courant-related items
that I’ve been meaning to address in this space is getting long,
so it’s time to go through them. In a Jul. 15th blog, Brian made
some observations and offered a suggestion:
Perhaps you saw the recent piece in the Courant’s
“Life” section mocking virginity? No? Well then, did you
catch the article on the joys of wedding-inspired one night stands? The
ditzy “dating” column chronicling one woman’s series
of sexual relationships? How about today’s piece by a male writer
agreeing with a “gay” web site on the physical
attractiveness of a particular movie actor? Or maybe you still recall
the Valentine’s Day “Life” section of a few years ago
that provided a how-to guide on adultery? … If the Courant still considers itself a family paper, it can prove it by cleaning up the dirty joke that is its Life section.
To our surprise, the Courant did
clean it up—or at least, it took a step in that direction.
Without ever mentioning it, the paper seems to have dropped the
“dating” column Brian referred to. Its space—the
bottom of page 3 in the Wednesday Life section—is now filled by
pro-family psychologist John Rosemond’s column (he used to appear toward the back of a Sunday section). Kudos to the Courant.
Speaking of Sunday sections, the Courant’s Northeast magazine on Aug. 28th had a long cover article on the intelligent design debate that was notable for its evenhandedness. And a week earlier it ran a cover article
by Joann Klimkiewicz on the struggle she faced as a Polish-American
reporter covering the story of a Polish priest in New Britain accused
of sexually assaulting a young girl. The facts of that story—the
city’s Polish Catholic community closed ranks around the priest
who, in fact, was guilty—are easy fodder for anyone looking to
take a cheap shot at the Church. But Klimkiewicz never did that.
Instead, she approached a delicate subject with the sensitivity it
required, in the process producing one of the best pieces of writing
I’ve ever seen in the Courant.
The Courant’s editors endorsed
John Roberts for Chief Justice today, saying they hope he will surprise
his critics. We hope—indeed, we are confident—that he
won’t. But we are glad he has the Courant’s endorsement.
Courant reporter Mark Pazniokas
once made the ludicrous error of describing Love Makes A Family as
“the most visible opponent” of civil unions. Perhaps in
reparation for that howler, he ends today’s article
on Atty. Gen. Blumenthal’s legal opinion by noting that
“The Catholic Church and the Family Institute of Connecticut led
the opposition to civil unions.”
The Blumenthal opinion helps
illustrate the principles at stake in the Roberts confirmation. If
Connecticut’s judges stick to their proper role of interpreting
the law, Blumenthal’s opinion should help the state’s
position in Kerrigan because it emphasizes that state law has
explicitly rejected same-sex “marriage.” But if the judges
choose to usurp the law-making power of the legislature, the concerns
Brian raised in yesterday’s blog about the opinion aiding the
plaintiffs comes into play. This is why it is so important, on both the
state and federal level, to have judges who interpret, rather than
make, law.
Posted at 5:26 PM
September 20
BREAKING…ATTY. GEN. BLUMENTHAL SAYS OUT-OF-STATE CIVIL UNIONS LEGAL IN CONNECTICUT [Brian Brown]
This just came in over the wire:
Connecticut will recognize civil
unions and domestic partnerships from other states but not same-sex
marriages from neighboring Massachusetts when a new law allowing civil
unions takes effect here Oct. 1.
Attorney General Richard
Blumenthal said Tuesday that Connecticut will not recognize same-sex
marriages because the legislature has defined marriage as being between
a man and a woman.
“Civil unions performed in
other states are entitled to full faith and credit in Connecticut, and
cannot be repeated here. Out-of-state same-sex marriages have no legal
force and effect here,” Blumenthal wrote in a legal opinion
requested by the state’s Department of Public Health, which
administers marriage licenses.
Atty. Gen. Blumenthal is creating
a legal morass. What if the civil union laws of foreign
jurisdictions—both Vermont and outside the U.S.—are
different than Connecticut’s? In our state, for instance, a
person under 18 cannot enter into a same-sex civil union unless he is
an emancipated minor. What if there are lower age requirements
elsewhere? Blumenthal’s “full faith and credit”
language suggests that he would expect Connecticut to accept the lower
threshold of another jurisdiction.
If other jurisdictions allow for
different “rights” than Connecticut, it will present a
massive legal problem. There will be a multitude of conflict of laws
questions—which will play right into the hands of the plaintiffs
in the Kerrigan case. “Wouldn’t it be easier to
just legalize same-sex ‘marriage?’” they will ask.
“Why the ‘rights,’ but not the name?”
All of this should have been
expected following the legalization of same-sex civil unions by our
legislature. It is further evidence that we need a marriage protection
amendment in our state constitution to limit the courts.
There are essentially two
questions here: the courts and the attorney general’s opinion.
Blumenthal’s opinion is not binding on the courts, but it does
potentially undermine his own position in Kerrigan, which is to defend the state’s law that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
Blumenthal’s opinion makes
clear that Connecticut needs a marriage protection amendment and that
the people need to vote directly on the question, rather than leave it
to a few judges to decide. Especially when civil unions was sold to the
public as a supposed compromise.
Posted at 4:06 PM
NAUGATUCK MAYOR MISLEADS THE YOUNG [Peter Wolfgang]
A popular dodge by pro-abortion
Catholic politicians is the “personally opposed,
but…” position. That is, while they are “personally
opposed” to abortion, they say they cannot “impose”
their personal belief on a pluralist polity that does not share it.
It is an illogical position, but
then it wasn’t designed to make sense. It was designed to help
pro-abortion politicians out of a jam. Their hope is that voters who
are pro-life but otherwise inclined to support them will hear the
“personally opposed” part and be fooled while
“pro-choice” voters will understand the “can’t
impose my personal belief” part for the wink in their direction
that it is.
To be sure, not every moral
belief that a politician holds should be codified into law. But some
issues are bigger than others. Why, for instance, are people
“personally opposed” to abortion? They are opposed because
it is the taking of innocent unborn human life. The “personally
opposed, but” politician, therefore, is saying “I am
personally opposed to killing people, but because my view is not
universally held, it would be wrong of me to stop others from killing
people.”
On no other issue of such
importance is a politician expected to treat his morality as some
quirky religious belief that he must not impose. This double standard
sometimes achieves comical proportions. Such as during the 2004
presidential debates, when Sen. John Kerry—who had spouted the
usual stuff on not “imposing” his religiously-motivated
opposition to abortion—cited his Catholic faith as his motivation
for passing bills to improve the environment and help the poor. Or when
it inspired one wag to note of Ted Kennedy, “He considers his
religion so private that he refuses to impose it on himself.”
But the “personally
opposed, but” position is such a serious matter that the Vatican
is considering a formal policy of denying communion to politicians who
employ it. This makes it all the more disturbing that the mayor of
Naugatuck persuaded a middle school student running for class
representative—in a Catholic school, no less—to adopt it.
Here is an excerpt from the
Republican-American’s Sept. 15th article, “7th-grader puts
San Angelo on spot during school forum” (not available online):
NAUGATUCK—Mayor Ron San
Angelo’s breezy lecture to St. Hedwig School students about the
role of government hit a silent patch Wednesday after seventh-grader
Julia Daubney asked a question that can knock the wind out of any
politician.
“What is your opinion about abortion?”
As 45 Catholic school students
in the fifth through eighth grades squirmed quietly in their metal
chairs in the school’s auditorium, San Angelo paused for about
three seconds. History teacher Luann Dunnuck called out from the back
row that he could just say “no comment.”
Rejecting Ms. Dunnock’s
suggestion that he demonstrate political cowardice to her students,
Mayor San Angelo opted instead for political sophistry, saying that as
“a representative of voters, sometimes a politician’s
private views take a back seat to constituents’ desires.”
“On a personal level, I
don’t believe in abortion,” he said, looking Julia in the
eyes. “When I served in the legislature…more people
supported abortion than were against it….I voted to allow
abortion only in the first trimester.”
Mayor San Angelo’s talk had this effect on the student running for class representative:
“I wouldn’t want to
compromise on something like abortion,” said Chris, who said he
was against its legalization, “but I guess I’d have
to.”
Chris is a young man. There is
still plenty of time for him to recover from the bad example set for
him by the mayor of Naugatuck. In fact, he could begin by listening to
Julia, the 7th grader who asked the mayor the abortion question and saw
right through his answer:
Julia took away a different view than Chris on compromise.
“I learned from the talk
that it’s important to stand up for what you believe in,”
she said, “no matter what other people say.”
Posted at 11:28 AM
September 19
REALITY INTRUDES ON THE SOON-TO-BE CIVILLY UNIONED [Peter Wolfgang]
FIC has said it all along.
Whether the state calls it same-sex “marriage” or civil
unions, it is a redefinition of what has always existed: marriage as an
institution that unites the two sexes. As we approach Oct. 1st, the day
the civil unions law goes into effect, that simple truth is becoming
even more obvious. According to a front-page piece in today’s Republican-American, the new civil union certificate will abolish the words “bride” and “groom”:
Forms for couples seeking
official union used to say “bride” and “groom.”
The new terminology will be “Party 1” and “Party
2,” with a box to check for the proper sex.
The language may lack a certain
romance, but that’s what city and town clerks throughout the
state are being told to expect as they gear up for Oct. 1, the day when
the law allowing civil unions in Connecticut goes into effect…
Connecticut will become the
second state, after Vermont, to allow civil unions between same-sex
couples. The law grants the same rights as marriage without using the
word marriage, because the state has agreed that marriage can only take
place between a man and a woman. Only Massachusetts has a law allowing
marriage between people of the same sex.
To read the whole article, click here.
Posted at 12:54 PM
ATTEND THE RECLAIM CONNECTICUT PROTEST ON OCTOBER 1ST [Brian Brown]
On Saturday, October 1, at 12:00
noon on the steps of the state capitol in Hartford, FIC Action will
hold a Reclaim Connecticut Protest to hold accountable those
legislators who voted to undermine marriage. We invite as many of our
supporters as possible to attend!
Last spring well over 3,000
pro-family citizens from every walk of life united in a rally at the
state capitol to express their outrage over the decision by our
legislature and Gov. Rell to legalize same-sex civil unions. The
Courant’s article on the rally quoted a man who captured well the
sentiment of those present at that time:
“What they [the legislature
and Gov. Rell] did was, they said, ‘We think we know better than
the people of the state,’” said Roger Cropper of Bristol.
“This is supposed to be the Constitution State, not the dictator
state. Let the people decide. I hope the people of Connecticut finally
stand up and say enough is enough.”
That is precisely what we intend
to do. We are rallying on October 1st because that is the day that the
civil union law goes into effect. Like the counter-rally FIC held on
the day same-sex “marriage” was legalized in Massachusetts,
our purpose on Oct. 1st is to provide a public witness against the
government-mandated redefinition of marriage.
The pro-family movement’s
#1 goal leading up to the 2006 election is to Reclaim Connecticut! At
the Oct. 1st protest, we will be letting people know what they can do
politically to take back their state from the anti-family legislators
who voted to undermine marriage.
While passage of same-sex civil
unions is bad enough in itself, the next step of same-sex
“marriage” proponents is clear—use the courts to
force same-sex “marriage,” name and all, on our state.
Without a state constitutional amendment protecting marriage, the
courts may likely do exactly that. We need legislators who understand
the importance of this issue and a public that knows where their
legislators stand.
The battle to protect marriage in
Connecticut has reached a pivotal moment. Either we get active and
organize now or we face full same-sex “marriage.”
Posted at 12:30 PM
DANBURY NEWS-TIMES PROFILES MOPS [Peter Wolfgang]
It’s the sort of thing you
don’t forget. My wife, in addition to her normal daily routine of
caring for our two daughters—just shy of 2 and 4 years
old—had just given birth to our son. Upon hearing of it, an old
friend from Manchester —not someone we see regularly—took
the hour-long drive to our home just to cook us a nice meal.
She was a member of MOPS, a group dedicated to help Mothers of Preschoolers. Today’s News-Times has a nice profile on this wonderful group:
MOPS International is a non-profit organization that provides support to mothers of preschoolers.
Brookfield resident Linda Frame has been a member of the Ridgefield chapter for 10 years.
During the early and cold months
of 2005, she received nonstop support from many of the group’s
members when she broke her leg after falling in a parking lot. She was
in a wheelchair for six weeks.
“They all came to my
house. They took me to the doctor, they brought me meals, and they
watched my kids,” Frame said.
That’s the kind of group it is, said Mary Borges of Brookfield , a mother to three young boys….
MOPS groups are communities that strive to meet the needs of every mom with children from birth through kindergarten.
To read the whole article, click here.
Posted at 12:23 PM
September 16
WHY DID MAYOR JARJURA LOSE? [Peter Wolfgang]
That is the question being
explored all morning—even as I type this—by radio host Brad
Davis. The Waterbury Republican-American offered its own answer yesterday:
Mayor Jarjura did not lose the
primary because he proposed a forthright, controversial approach to the
pension problem. He lost because he had plenty of campaign cash but
apparently did not take Mrs. Mulcahy as seriously as he should have,
given his failure to exploit his war chest and the advantages of
incumbency. He angered residents of the Town Plot and Country Club
neighborhoods by supporting development projects many residents
opposed. There also was a perception, never proved, that he was taking
advantage of his position to advance his own development projects.
I share Brad’s high opinion
of Mayor Jarjura and the work he has done to put Waterbury on the right
path. Indeed, the mayor has been one of two “legislative
liaisons” FIC has proudly listed on our letterhead since his days
as state representative.
But while Jarjura’s
pro-life, pro-family record in the legislature is unassailable, as
mayor he has made some endorsements that have raised eyebrows among
those who share his commitment to the protection of marriage and of the
unborn.
In 2002, he not only endorsed but
campaigned vigorously for pro-abortion candidate Chris Murphy against
pro-life Rep. Ann Dandrow for an open senate seat in a district
encompassing parts of Waterbury, Cheshire and Southington. After
defeating Dandrow, Sen. Murphy played a key role in passing the bill
that will use $100 million of our tax money to clone and kill human
embryos.
Now, in fairness, Jarjura was a
Democrat backing a fellow Democrat against a Republican. One might say
“That’s politics.”
But then, what about
Waterbury’s 75th district? In 2002, Jarjura backed a
pro-abortion, pro same-sex “marriage” challenger—who
was not even from Waterbury—in a primary against his pro-life
Democratic colleague, incumbent Rep. Tom Conway. Conway narrowly won,
thanks to the strong support of pro-life Catholics who came out for one
of their own.
But why did Jarjura back an
out-of-town challenger whose views were the opposite of his own against
a Democratic incumbent who shared his pro-life convictions? Why would
the most prominent pro-life Democrat in Connecticut work to make
himself even more of a minority in his own party?
And it happened again in 2004.
That same candidate—with the backing of both Love Makes A Family
and Mayor Jarjura—ran against David Aldarondo. Aldarondo defeated
him, becoming the first Hispanic state representative from Waterbury
and one of the last pro-life Democrats still in the legislature.
Indeed, Aldarondo spoke before a crowd of more than 3,000 people at our
April 24th rally in defense of the family.
But Aldarondo’s supporters
never forgot Jarjura’s opposition. As far back as eight months
ago, they expressed their anger to me, saying that there will be a
primary and that they were organizing to defeat the mayor.
To be sure, other
factors—including the ones listed above by the
Republican-American—had something to do with the primary results.
But a sense of abandonment by the Brass City’s pro-lifers played
a key role in Jarjura’s defeat. Not only did Aldarondo’s
supporters—who are not limited to the 75th district—make
good on their vow, but every pro-lifer I spoke to in
Waterbury—many of them still incensed over Jarjura’s 2002
endorsements—said they were backing Karen Malcahy.
Mayor Jarjura was one of the better politicians in a state not known for producing great public servants. He will be missed.
But his demise should serve as a
cautionary tale for Connecticut’s pro-life, pro-family
politicians. In a state where they are currently a minority and
despised by the political and media elites, pro-life/pro-family
politicians must support each other and work to increase their numbers
in both parties and across party lines —in fact, they can’t
afford not to.
Otherwise, they will have the
unpleasant experience—as Mayor Jarjura did this week—of
rediscovering the truth that Benjamin Franklin expressed to this
nation’s founders: “We must indeed all hang together, or
most assuredly we will all hang separately.”
Posted at 9:34 AM
September 15
PRO-LIFE SPEAKER AT YALE MONDAY [Peter Wolfgang]
The notice below is from Deborah
Bedolla, the head of Yale’s pro-life student group. Dr. DeMarco,
who teaches at Holy Apostles Seminary in Cromwell and writes columns
for the CT-based National Catholic Register, has been a pro-life leader for decades. This is a great opportunity to hear one of our most eloquent spokesmen.
Dear Mr. Wolfgang,
Eminent philosopher Dr. Donald
DeMarco will be addressing a group of students, faculty and community
members on the question, “When does human life begin?”
DeMarco is being hosted by CLAY: Choose Life At Yale.
The talk is part of the
Women’s Truth Campaign (WTC), a campus-wide initiative to
challenge the accepted notions about abortion. DeMarco will explore the
widely debated issue of human personhood at life’s beginnings on
Monday, September 19th from 7:00 to 8:00 PM in Street Hall, Room 268,
allowing for questions at the end. The abortion issue has been on the
forefront of campus dialogue, both in the recent Yale Party of the
Right abortion debate and in April 2005’s Respect Life Week.
The event promises to be
informative for people of all beliefs and opinions. We hope that you
will be able to share this with members of the Family Institute of
Connecticut and that many will benefit from this opportunity.
Posted at 3:57 PM
September 14
PRO-FAMILY VICTORY IN NEW HAVEN [Brian Brown]
Congratulations to Joyce Chen, a pro-family Democratic New Haven alderman who defeated a challenger in a primary yesterday.
Joyce was one of several aldermen
who voted against a proposal to legalize same-sex “domestic
partnerships”—a watered-down version of civil
unions—in New Haven. Although a majority of aldermen defeated the
proposal, Joyce was the only one to be targeted by anti-family forces
for her opposition to it.
Joyce also faced the full fury of
Mayor DeStefano’s political machine, which came out in force for
her opponent. (Mayor DeStefano supports same-sex
“marriage,” but since he has been out stumping for governor
he has been curiously quiet on the subject.)
As yesterday’s primaries
show, the passage of civil unions has not caused pro-family sentiment
in Connecticut to dissipate. If anything, it is growing and it is
beginning to have an effect at the polls.
Posted at 9:18 PM
September 12
PROGRESS IN MASSACHUSETTS [Peter Wolfgang]
The headline and first few paragraphs of an AP story appearing on the front page of today’s Courant
gives the misleading impression that the pro-family cause has suffered
a recent set-back in the Massachusetts legislature. In fact, I was just
in Boston Thursday for the Pastor’s Breakfast organized by the
Love Won Out conference and morale was high among our pro-family peers
in the Bay State. Not until the 6th paragraph of the AP story does the
reader learn why that is:
A graver threat to gay marriage
may come from a newer and stricter proposed amendment. Because that
measure is on a different procedural path, it requires less support
from the legislature. But the proposal, which has just begun moving
forward, would not reach voters until 2008.
The reasons for the collapse of
the older amendment the legislature narrowly approved last year are
rooted in the language of the measure. It seeks to broker a compromise
between foes of same-sex marriage and supporters of gay rights by
outlawing gay marriage, but enshrining civil unions.
The compromise ultimately had an
opposite effect, alienating foes of gay marriage by creating civil
unions and offending gay rights supporters by banning gay
marriage…
Many foes of gay marriage, who
supported the amendment in the hopes of preventing gay marriages from
happening, are drawn to a second, much stricter alternative amendment
that would ban gay marriage without granting civil unions…
Supporters of that amendment must
still collect the signatures of 65,825 registered voters and win
approval for it in two sittings of the Legislature. But because the
amendment begins with citizens, only a quarter of lawmakers — a
much lower threshold — must approve it before it can go on the
state ballot.
As I drove up to Boston Thursday
morning, the news on the radio reported that the attorney general in
Massachusetts had certified the effort to enact the stronger marriage
protection amendment and the governor of California had said he would
veto his legislature’s attempt to impose same-sex
“marriage” on a public that had already voted to reject it.
It was not a good day for the pro same-sex “marriage” cause.
Posted at 3:15 PM
STATE’S PRO-FAMILY CHURCHES AID KATRINA VICTIMS [Brian Brown]
Many are the organizations and individuals that are doing good work to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Today’s Connecticut Post reports on one effort by our friends at the Bridgeport Rescue Mission and Black Rock Congregational Church:
The church wants nonperishable
foods, coffee, powdered milk, bottled water, diapers and baby wipes,
feminine-hygiene products, bleach, toilet paper, generators, tarps,
shampoo, soap, toothpaste, battery-powered radios, first-aid kits,
nylon rope, matches, cots, flashlights and batteries.
“Many people want to give
us clothing and blankets. We’ve been told specifically not to
collect that,” said Terry Wilcox, mission director.
Items may be dropped off at the Women’s Home of the Bridgeport Rescue Mission, 1150 Fairfield Ave. and Black Rock
You can read the whole article here. We urge our members to support this effort.
Posted at 12:05 PM
September 7
CALIFORNIA PRO SAME-SEX “MARRIAGE” VOTE DEFIES DEMOCRACY [Peter Wolfgang]
As Stanley Kurtz notes in the
post cited by Ken below, yesterday’s vote in the California
legislature sheds light on our opposition’s disdain for
democracy. I would add that it also sheds light on what happened in
Connecticut.
When our own state legislature
legalized same-sex civil unions last April we said that they ignored
the will of the people. Our opponents reacted with derision. “It
was a legislative vote, not a court order,” they said. “How
can you say it was undemocratic?”
Here’s why, from my May 10th blog:
In a poll conducted by Harris
Interactive, 78% of CT voters said that marriage is between one man and
one woman and 76% said they wanted to vote in a referendum on the
issue. The legislature ignored them. Thousands of CT’s pro-family
citizens called their legislators about the bill—so many, in
fact, that we shut down their switchboards for days. But several
senators began their speeches by saying that, while most of their
constituents opposed the bill, they will vote for it anyway. In 2004,
78% of our legislature ran for re-election unopposed or in
gerrymandered districts where they won in a cakewalk. The bill, which
moved through the legislature at an unbelievably quick pace, was signed
hours after it was passed because Gov. Rell asked the senators to
suspend the normal rules of procedure. And the most sweeping change to
hit CT’s family life in decades was signed into law by a governor
who was never elected to the position. In light of all this, how
“democratic,” really, was the passage of civil unions in CT?
If further proof was needed that
a legislative vote for same-sex “marriage”/civil unions
does not represent the will of the people, California provided it
yesterday. As even the New York Times notes,
“Californians voted overwhelmingly in 2000 for a ballot measure,
Proposition 22, that defined marriage as between a man and a
woman” but their legislature, like Connecticut’s, simply
chose to ignore the will of their own constituents:
But several Republicans derided
the parliamentary maneuver to resuscitate the bill and said Democrats
who represented districts where voters approved Proposition 22 had no
moral authority to subvert that vote.
“We damage the moral
fabric of our society, that’s what’s damaged here,”
said Assemblyman Dennis L. Mountjoy, a Republican from Southern
California.
Assemblyman Jay La Suer, a San
Diego Republican, chided his colleagues for sending the wrong message
about same-sex marriage, saying that no matter “how you candy
coat it,” it is wrong.
“You are not leading, you
have gone astray,” Mr. La Suer said. “History will record
that you betrayed your constituents, and their moral and ethical
values.”
History will also record it of
Connecticut’s legislature. In both states, the legislature did
not represent the will of the people. Instead, both the courts and the
legislature are increasing kowtowing to radical anti-family elites and,
in the case of legislators, voting against their own constituents.
Only a marriage protection
amendment to our state and federal constitutions will put a stop to
this attack on the family and on democracy itself.
Posted at 2:31 PM
CALIFORNIA’S LEGISLATURE SURPASSES EVEN CONNECTICUT IN ITS BRAZENNESS [Ken Von Kohorn]
“Power corrupts; absolute
power corrupts absolutely.” We’ve all heard Lord
Acton’s observation many times. The latest evidence of this
timeless truth comes from California which, like Connecticut, suffers
from one party (in both cases the Democrats) too long in the majority.
California’s legislature voted yesterday to allow gay
“marriage,” even though (or because?) the state’s
voters overwhelmingly rejected gay “marriage” in a
statewide referendum. Stanley Kurtz, writing in National Review’s Corner weighs in on the implications of the California vote:
Why do liberals keep pushing
same-sex marriage on a country that clearly doesn’t want it
— especially when this is so obviously disastrous for the
national political prospects of the Democrats? Why would
California’s state legislature blatantly countermand a decision
by the people of California, who expressed themselves by a 61 to 39
percent majority only five years ago? The proximate answer is that the
legislature wants to head off yet another state referendum, this one
likely to write marriage as the union of a man and a woman into
California’s constitution. That measure may still pass, but the
legislature is trying to put facts on the ground now, in hopes that
these will sway the public against a state constitutional amendment.
Of course the deeper reason for
the political madness of California’s Democrats is their belief
that same-sex marriage is a simple question of basic civil rights.
However sincerely this belief is held, it is badly mistaken. For a
brief response on the substantive question, see the first section of my
“Deathblow to Marriage.”
Governor Schwarzenegger now has
a serious no-win political problem on his hands. He’s likely to
veto the bill. But if he signs it, the gay marriage issue will be
supercharged on the national level. In contrast to Massachusetts,
California has no law prohibiting marriage to out-of-state couples if
those marriages would be illegal in their home states. That would
likely mean a flood of marriages of out-of-state couples, and a series
of legal challenges to marriage in states across the nation. The
pressure for state constitutional amendments will escalate massively.
Gay marriage would move to the front burner of the nation’s
politics directly in advance of the next election.
Gay marriage in California would
also highlight the importance of the Supreme Court. Given Anthony
Kennedy’s position, it’s unlikely that even confirmation of
John Roberts and a conservative replacement for Justice Renquist would,
by themselves, prevent the Supreme Court from nationalizing same-sex
marriage in the wake of California induced chaos. Only a Federal
Marriage Amendment would do that. So same-sex marriage in California
would likely supercharge the movement for a Federal Marriage Amendment.
One way or another, sooner or later, like it or not, this country is
headed toward a national showdown on same-sex marriage.
Posted at 12:50 PM
September 6
ROBERTS PICKED TO BE CHIEF JUSTICE [Brian Brown]
With the death of pro-life Chief
Justice William Rehnquist, President Bush has now picked Judge Roberts
to replace him. You can read the New York Times coverage of this development here. The confirmation hearings, originally set to begin today, will start on Monday.
FIC is fighting for Judge Roberts
to be confirmed in a fair and timely manner. You can contact Sen.
Lieberman on behalf of Judge Roberts by clicking here.
Posted at 4:35 PM
September 2
CALIFORNIA’S SENATE VOTE [Brian Brown]
In the wake of the Sept. 11th
terrorist attacks, Planned Parenthood’s New York branch
responded…by offering free abortions. Now, in the wake of the
unprecedented devastation wrought on our nation by Hurricane Katrina,
the California state senate has responded by…voting to legalize same-sex “marriage”:
Opponents decried the vote as a
repudiation of the will of the electorate, which five years ago passed
Proposition 22, declaring that California would recognize only
marriages between men and women. They said that legislators cannot undo
a law passed by 61% of the public without putting it before the
electorate again.
“How can God bless
California when our lawmakers do this?” asked Randy Thomasson,
president of the Campaign for Children and Families, which is
collecting signatures for one of several initiatives that would amend
the state Constitution to outlaw gay marriage. “The
Democrat-controlled Senate has completely overturned the people’s
vote on marriage.”
Even in the midst of some of the
greatest tragedies our nation have ever faced, the attacks on the
family in America—and the disrespect for the will of the
people—continue without the slightest pause.
Posted at 12:35 pm
September 1
“LOVE WON OUT” CONFERENCE IN BOSTON ON OCT. 29TH [Brian Brown]
On October 29th, 2005, Focus on
the Family will be holding a Love Won Out Conference at Tremont Temple
Church, 88 Tremont Street in Boston, MA. A complimentary Pastor’s
Breakfast will be held Sept. 8th from 8 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. at Tremont
Temple Church for clergy wishing to learn more about the conference.
With Connecticut’s same-sex
civil union law going into effect one month from today, pastors,
parents and other concerned citizens will be increasingly forced to
face issues relating to homosexuality. The Family Institute of
Connecticut, therefore, strongly recommends that our members attend
Love Won Out in Boston.
At the conference, you will hear
from nationally known experts who have firsthand experience with the
seldom-told side of the homosexual issue. You’ll learn how to
minister to a loved one who’s dealing with homosexuality, respond
to misinformation in our culture, defend biblical beliefs and prevent
your child from embracing this destructive way of life.
Ministers who attend the Sept.
8th Pastor’s Breakfast will be Focus on the Family’s guests
for a complimentary breakfast and morning seminar that will equip them
to more effectively convey the truth about homosexuality,
compassionately without compromising. Three of Love Won Out’s
keynote speakers will share their testimonies and address specific
topics.
To learn more about Love Won Out conferences, click here. To attend the Sept. 8th Pastor’s Breakfast or the Oct. 29th Love Won Out conference in Boston, contact Linda Allison at linda.allison@fotf.org or by calling (719) 548-5770.
Posted at 3:48 PM
HURRICANE KATRINA [Peter Wolfgang]
Connecticut’s pro-family
community joins with the whole nation in praying for and providing
assistance to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Donations may be sent
through the Red Cross by clicking here and through the Salvation Army by clicking here.
Posted at 3:42 PM
August 25
“CALAMITY DELAYED” [Brian Brown]
Congratulations to all those
working to save the Groton sub base on their hard-earned victory in the
BRAC commission. The loss of thousands of jobs would have been —
and still could be — a calamity for Connecticut families. But as
today’s editorial in the Waterbury Republican-American
reminds us — regardless of whether the President and Congress
will back the BRAC’s decision — the state’s long-term
employment woes remain:
Now that the cataclysmic
prospect of the Groton base closure — 8,000 jobs lost at the base
and up to 31,000 statewide — is in the past, what do lawmakers
plan to do about the state's deeper, more intractable economic
problems?...
Connecticut residents will not,
and should not, forget the exceptional job done by Gov. M. Jodi Rell,
Democratic Sens. Christopher Dodd and Joseph Lieberman, Rep. Rob
Simmons, R-2nd District, and corporate leaders such as Electric Boat
President John Casey. Calling themselves "Team Connecticut," they put
off the state's day of reckoning. One might even say they repelled the
alligators. But the swamp remains.
A Federal Deposit Insurance
Corp. report issued this summer found "Connecticut has the worst job
stagnation in America," as the Connecticut Post paraphrased it in June.
The state has only 19,000 more jobs today than it had in 1990, and the
quality of the state's job market has diminished. Manufacturing jobs,
in particular, have departed the state in large numbers.
To read the whole editorial, click here.
Posted at 1:37 PM
August 24
“YOU GOTTA GO, BABY. YOU GOTTA GO.” [Brian Brown]
In my June 24th blog I described
homeschoolers in Connecticut as possibly “the next target on the
anti-family hit list.” Add to that list the elderly, the infirm,
the terminally ill and those others who will be most at risk thanks to
a rejuvenated push for the “right to die” in Connecticut.
Earlier this year, an assisted
suicide case in Cornwall caused the Judiciary Committee to consider
legislation that could have weakened the penalty for someone convicted
of that crime. The issue is likely to resurface in next year’s
session and its supporters are already pushing their agenda in the
local media. Take, for instance, this letter-to-the-editor in yesterday’s Courant, by 70-something Elaine Wyzga:
I don't want to become
incapacitated like this, but I could. Why do we, with compassion and
with some hesitation, give our vet permission to put our pets to sleep?
Why can't we be that humane to our loved ones who are truly no longer
with us?
I'm Catholic and was brought up
to believe that when we die our souls go to heaven; our bodies are only
the carriers of our souls. I believe that our souls are gone when we
reach this terrible part of our lives. Why is it so hard to put the
body to rest?...
Perhaps you'll feel the way I do
and someday we'll be able to tell our doctor to fill the syringe, and
he'll be able to do it legally.
It’s odd that a woman in
her 70’s — presumably a life-long Catholic — could
describe as Catholic belief something that is actually a form of
Gnosticism. Indeed, at every Sunday Mass, Catholics recite out loud the
Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which includes their belief in
“the resurrection of the body” — something quite
different than the claim that “our bodies are only the carriers
of our souls.”
Regardless, the legalization of a
“right to die” — whether by assisted suicide or
euthanasia — will create a culture of death in Connecticut
greater than the one that already exists. Aside from the fact that it
is wrong on principle, the potential for abuse will be significant.
Elaine Wyzga, meet Dale Curtis:
Mother Says Son Tried To Kill Her
Published on 8/24/2005
Stratford — A 44-year-old
man has been charged with attempted murder, accused of trying to kill
his ailing 80-year-old mother by cutting off her oxygen supply. Dale E.
Curtis, 44, was arrested Sunday evening when his mother called officers
to her home, police said. Curtis is a member of the Republican Town
Committee, the Arts Commission and an alternate member of the Zoning
Board of Appeals. Curtis told officers that he unplugged his mother's
oxygen machine so she could fall asleep and die peacefully, police
said. After the mother tossed away a pizza that he bought for her,
Curtis allegedly told his mother, “You gotta go, baby. You gotta
go,” the mother told officers.
If Curtis did what he is alleged
to have done, and if he had been successful, the police might have
still have found out and arrested him. But what if assisted suicide
were legal? Would they have even investigated? How would they determine
whether or not the victim was a willing accomplice in her own death?
If the charges are true,
vulnerable people like Dale Curtis’ mother will be even more at
risk in a Connecticut where assisted suicide is legal. Something to
bear in mind as we listen to all the pro-assisted suicide propaganda
about “freedom” and “choice” in the months
ahead.
Posted at 8:22 PM
STATE SUES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT [Peter Wolfgang]
All the state is abuzz this week
over Connecticut’s decision to sue the federal government over
funding of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law. The Wall Street Journal
yesterday called the funding issue a “red herring.” The
editorial is not available online (at least to non-subscribers), but
here are some excerpts:
[NCLB] which passed with
bipartisan majorities in 2001, provided the largest increase in
education spending in the nation's history… In fact, the money
complaint is a red herring used by Mr. Blumenthal, Republican Governor
M. Jodi Rell and others to avoid the real issues of accountability and
transparency. In return for federal funds, No Child Left Behind
requires states to develop academic standards and curriculum-based
tests to measure whether students are meeting those standards…
Connecticut wants to go back to the days when it could receive federal
aid without complying with the law.
On the “red herring” question, a front page story in yesterday’s Courant, about opposition to the suit by civil rights leaders, includes this intriguing quote:
A spokeswoman for the U.S.
Department of Education said the lawsuit "sends the wrong message to
students, educators and parents."
"The funds have been provided for testing," said Susan Aspey, "but Connecticut apparently wants to keep those funds without using them as intended” [emphasis added].
If so, that may explain this:
Connecticut is one of many
states that have clashed with the U.S. Department of Education over No
Child Left Behind. Nevertheless, Blumenthal, despite months of effort,
was unable to persuade other states to join the lawsuit.
Posted at 11:14 AM
August 23
“NEW FIND” WILL NOT “COOL” DEBATE [Brian Brown]
“New Stem Cell Find,” blared the headline in the upper right-hand corner of the Courant’s front page yesterday. “Technique May Cool Social, Religious Debate,” said the sub-heading.
When I read the subheading I thought of the Courant’s
presidential endorsement editorial last year, in which they dismissed
abortion and same-sex “marriage” as
“yesterday’s wars.” It was wishful thinking by the Courant’s pro same-sex “marriage” editors: the election was won largely on those issues.
The editors appear to have jumped the gun again, according to the headline on page B7 of today’s Courant, “Catholic Leaders Oppose New Research”:
If Harvard researchers who
created embryonic stem cells without destroying embryos hoped to defuse
some of the ethical controversies surrounding stem cell research, they
did not succeed.
Catholic leaders said Monday
they remain opposed to any research that uses embryonic cells, whether
or not they come from cell lines approved for research by President
Bush.
"It's still creating and
destroying life for the purposes of research," said Marie Hilliard,
executive director of the Connecticut Catholic Conference, the public
policy office of the state's Catholic bishops. "Using parts of a person
that has already been killed is a process that dehumanizes us all."
Reports on what was accomplished at Harvard remain sketchy:
The nature of the entity that
was created by the Harvard team remains unclear. Scientists took a skin
cell and fused it with an embryonic stem cell, which has the potential
to become any cell in the human body.
But as pro-lifers note, even if no new embryos were killed in the process, this latest experiment still involves the crossing of a line:
[Scientists] said they hoped the work would alleviate some of the moral concerns surrounding embryonic stem cell research.
However, preventing destruction
of more embryos does not justify using cells that already have been
taken from other embryos, which are usually obtained from leftover
supplies at fertility clinics, Catholic officials say.
"It makes new cell lines from
old ones, and we don't support that," said Richard Doerflinger, deputy
director of the pro-life office of the U.S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops.
Posted at 2:13 PM
August 22
THE ROBERTS NOMINATION: “TREACHEROUS TURF” FOR THE LEFT [Brian Brown]
Today’s New York Times provides a useful update on the state of things on Capitol Hill. It seems Judge Roberts’ potential opponents have some tough choices to make:
WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 — Two
weeks before senators begin questioning the Supreme Court nominee, John
G. Roberts Jr., the debate over his confirmation is becoming a test of
Senate Democrats as well.
The party's liberal base, whose
contributions during judicial confirmation fights earlier this year
have helped the Senate Democratic campaign fund amass twice as much as
its Republican rival, is pressing for another vigorous fight against
Judge Roberts as documents from the Reagan administration clarify his
conservative credentials…
[But] Several Democratic
senators said the hearings on Judge Roberts were shaping up as a risky
balancing act. Failing to press him could look weak to their liberal
base. But attacking too hard could draw Democrats into a losing battle
on the treacherous turf of abortion, race and religion at a time when
Republicans appear vulnerable on other fronts.
That abortion and religion are
now considered “treacherous turf” for those who attack the
family — instead of those who defend it — is a good sign
for the future of our nation. We look forward to the day when it will
also be true of Connecticut.
But the Left is not going down without a fight:
The pressure from both sides is
expected to increase this week. Many of the major liberal groups have
told Democratic aides that they planned to begin running television
advertisements against confirmation, arguing that a more conservative
court would threaten federal social programs and protections against
discrimination.
Officials of the groups have
warned Democrats that if Judge Roberts becomes a Supreme Court vote
against their causes — for example, in a New Hampshire abortion
rights case expected to be decided before the 2006 elections —
they will hold accountable any senator who votes to confirm him. "I
think it is a big problem for pro-choice senators if they vote to
confirm Judge Roberts and he votes to uphold the New Hampshire law,"
said Kate Michelman, former president of Naral Pro-Choice America.
There is still a long way to go
in the battle to confirm Judge Roberts and anything can happen.
Pro-family advocates must remain vigilant.
Posted at 10:39 AM
August 19
MEANWHILE, IN THE BLOGOSPHERE… [Peter Wolfgang]
As we approach the first
anniversary of this blog (Oct. 20th) a number of possible changes are
being considered. Transitioning to a standard blog format —
comment boxes, RSS feeds that would make the blog more accessible to
readers and search engines, a “blogroll” of regular links
and so on — are all being contemplated. I can’t say yet
what changes will or won’t happen, or when, but keep watching and
you may see some surprises. Readers with suggestions can e-mail me at pwolfgang@ctfamily.org.
Since we don’t currently
have a “blogroll,” I should take this opportunity to note
some local sites that have either been kind enough to link to us, or
are allies in the “culture war,” or both.
In the year since we began
blogging, we have discovered a plethora of conservative blogs in
Connecticut and throughout New England. Mansfield Fox, the blog of Yale Law student Angus Dwyer, and Anchor Rising, the Rhode Island blog run by Justin Katz, are two of the more interesting ones.
Radio Free West Hartford and Your News 2 are not blogs but they are sites that state conservatives should be familiar with.
Connecticut Conservative provides “conservative analysis of state politics and news.” KelliPundit, And Rightly So! and BlogMeister USA are the blogs of conservative women in Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Connecticut, respectively.
Of course, FIC does not
necessarily agree with every statement made on the sites listed above.
There is a lot of overlap between the conservative and pro-family
movements but they are not necessarily identical.
That said, it is worth noting that Pray Connecticut, the blog of the Connecticut House of Prayer, is probably the closest thing to Crosshairs in terms of content and tone.
Posted at 4:08 PM
August 18
FAITH AND THE NUTMEG STATE [Peter Wolfgang]
There is a lot of good stuff in the papers today on people of faith and the state of Connecticut. The best is this letter-to-the-editor in the Courant:
Northeast Bigotry
Sunday's letter "Science Shifted
Into Reverse" presented a credible viewpoint that intelligent design
does not belong in classrooms. I too believe that this is a fair
assessment.
What the writer also made clear,
however, was his bigotry. His closing paragraph stated, "Yep, Jeb, I
think that Copernicus guy was jus makin' it up. OK students, open yer
Bibles to the sceince sektion." What an outrage! This portrays
Southerners and Midwesterners (read "red state conservatives") as
ignorant, uneducated and stupid God-fearing Bible thumpers.
This attitude is routinely
accepted by those who preach tolerance, as well as by the press. It has
been my experience that those who preach tolerance are anything but.
They are tolerant of themselves and those who share their world view,
but of little else.
People in this country have a
right to freely express their beliefs without being demeaned and
demonized by others. Shame on The Courant for sanctioning this attitude
by publishing it.
Steve Davino
Wethersfield
Evolution debates aside, the
bigotry that Steve Davino rightly detects is not aimed just at
“red state” conservatives. Connecticut’s pro-family
citizens are frequently the target of similarly disparaging remarks
from the elites of our own state. Indeed, some Courant
contributors have made a regular sport out of attacking those —
both in-state and out — who adhere to a traditional faith.
And yet, here is Courant columnist Helen Ubinas surprising us with what must be a record for her — her second sensible column in a row:
Teezers [a Hartford “strip
club”] had quite the reputation before neighborhood complaints, a
long list of violations and a fatal shooting of a patron in the parking
lot finally led to its closing in 1999. So when someone told me the
infamous spot was now the House of God Gateway to Heaven Church, I had
to check it out…
Hey, transformations, religious and otherwise, take time.
No one knows that better than
the man who leads this church. By his own estimation, Woodrow Williams
was lost for decades. He was an alcoholic by the age of 13. He did
drugs, and until he stopped running from his calling 15 years ago, he
thought about throwing himself off Avon Mountain. He rose quickly in
the church, from parishioner to pastor after his father-in-law
died…
And at Williams' church, it's
all about faith — faith in a man's ability to go from patronizing
a house of ill repute to attending a house of worship. Faith in turning
this mess of a building into the church's new home…
There's enough material right
there in his church for a pretty powerful service, I tell him. This
kind of sinner-to-saint stuff fills up storefront churches. Triumphant
tales of transformation move hordes to believe that they, too, can find
their way from the concrete step of carnal sin to the path of
righteousness.
To be sure, talk of moving the
“hordes” toward belief smacks of precisely the sort of
condescension that Steve Davino criticized. But for Ubinas to praise a
church for doing something besides promoting same-sex
“marriage” is progress, of a sort.
Progress is precisely what the Cardinal Newman Society is hoping to achieve at Fairfield University, according to the Conn. Post. In this case, it is progress toward helping the school recover its Catholic identity:
FAIRFIELD — A conservative
Catholic organization has asked Fairfield University "not to employ" a
philosophy professor because of his stand several years ago on the
issue of physician-assisted suicide.
Curtis R. Naser, an associate
professor of philosophy, is one of 18 academics at Catholic colleges
across the country who find themselves on a list drawn up by the
Cardinal Newman Society.
In a fund-raising appeal mailed
to 75,000 members between April and last month, the Virginia-based
Catholic watchdog group identifies Naser as someone who joined some 40
other bioethicists in a 1997 amicus brief filed with the U.S. Supreme
Court arguing against bans on physician-assisted suicide in New York
and Washington states.
Dr. Eugene F. Diamond, who wrote
the letter, urged fellow Catholics to "expose the pro-death
infiltration of our Catholic colleges and universities" and "make our
Catholic colleges Catholic again."
Fidelity to the faith seems,
fortunately, not to be a problem for young Connecticut Catholics
attending World Youth Day, according to another piece from the Post:
Elayna Brogis will be standing
on the banks of the Rhine River in Germany today, patiently waiting to
see Pope Benedict XVI ride by in a boat.
The World Youth Day gathering in
Cologne is a first for the new pontiff from Germany, the former
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as well as the first such event attended by
16-year-old high school student from Torrington.
World Youth Day is a Catholic celebration of faith filled with gatherings and religious services…
Brogis is one of 20 young people
who, through the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport, have made the
pilgrimage to Germany to see Benedict in his first international trip.
The most powerful part of the
trip is the unifying force that Catholics gathering in Germany this
week are feeling, according to Brogis.
"It's fascinating to see all those nationalities believing in the same thing," she said.
While the state’s Catholic
youth join with their brethren across the world today, here in Hartford
other Christians united on the steps of the state capitol to pray for
Connecticut. In a moving ceremony, Rev. J. Phillip Epperson of Prayer Across America
led a crowd of about 30 people in praying for God’s mercy and
blessings upon our state. If we are to reclaim Connecticut as a place
where marriage is protected, then the churches, through events like
these, must play a leading role.
Posted at 4:13 PM
August 17
ADVICE FOR CT PARENTS [Brian Brown]
From today’s Courant:
A Connecticut think tank on
children's health has just released a new handbook featuring the latest
advice on how parents and other caregivers can promote emotional and
intellectual development in babies and young children.
And it's free.
The glossy, spiral-bound booklet
details the normal stages of development and offers concrete
suggestions for games and activities that caregivers can try to build
attachment, self-esteem and intellectual curiosity….
"Our new installment takes the
latest research and best practices in child development and makes them
accessible to parents and child care providers with a hands-on,
easy-to-read, colorful reference manual," said Dr. Judith C. Meyers,
president and CEO of the Connecticut Child Health and Development
Institute.
Besides age-by-age and
stage-by-stage information, the booklet, entitled Caring for
Connecticut's Children, Vol. 2: Promoting Healthy Child Development,
includes a list of resources in Connecticut where caregivers can seek
advice.
The Institute’s board of
directors includes Probate Judge Robert Killian, who testified at the
state capitol about how he “overcame” his Irish-Catholic
background to support same-sex “marriage.” Fortunately, the
booklet does not appear to reflect that agenda. It can be downloaded here.
For more advice on parenting, the most popular works by Dr. James
Dobson — founder of Focus on the Family — can be found here.
Posted at 10:32 AM
August 16
AP WIRE RUNS PRO-MARRIAGE ARTICLE [Peter Wolfgang]
An article distributed by the AP and appearing in the “Today’s Woman” section of the Republican-American
provides some key data on the importance of traditional marriage. To be
sure, the piece is a mixed bag. In the very first sentence, for
instance, readers are told “don’t shack up without an
engagement ring,” with no explanation given as to why an
engagement ring will protect the couple from the negative effects of
cohabitation.
Nevertheless, this is about as pro-family an article as we are likely to see from the mainstream media. Some excerpts:
Divorce also is hard on the body
and mind. Divorced people suffer more health problems, are more
depressed and tend to drink and smoke more heavily than people who are
married or have partners. A 2003 study by researchers at San Diego
State University and the University of Pittsburgh found that happily
married women have lower blood pressure and cholesterol levels, and are
thinner than females who are divorced, single, widowed or stuck in
unhappy marriages.
For some people, divorce can be
lethal. Divorced men are twice as likely to kill themselves as men with
spouses or live-in partners, according to a 2000 analysis of U.S.
mortality data by Augustine Kposowa, a sociologist at the University of
California, Riverside…
Contrary to what many people
believe, "test driving" a relationship by living together before
marriage also reduces the odds of success. The exact reasons are
unclear. It may be that couples make riskier picks with a live-in
partner than they would with a potential spouse. Or couples who defer
marriage and opt to live together first may do so because they have
trouble with commitment.
A 2002 analysis by Jay Teachman,
a sociologist at Western Washington University, found that living
together increases the risk of divorce by 35 percent when those couples
eventually marry.
The social science data
demonstrating that the traditional institution of marriage is in the
best interests of society is readily available to anyone who cares to
look. What makes this article unusual is that a mainstream media source
is actually letting the public know that the data exists.
Posted at 12:05 PM
“A CIVIL AFFAIR” [Brian Brown]
The lead editorial in the Aug. 14th Waterbury Sunday Republican discusses yet another consequence of the new civil union law:
In the rush to bring same-sex
marriage to Connecticut, did lawmakers leave open the door to
widespread abuse? Apparently, yes, as a Canadian couple is about to
show the world.
Bill Dalrymple, 56, and Bryan
Pinn, 65, of Toronto, never thought of themselves as "life partners"
until last month when Canada legalized homosexual marriage. With all
the special rights afforded same-sex couples, they decided they'd be
fools not to tie the knot. The kicker, however, is neither man is
homosexual. They are [divorced men] looking for a couple of good women.
But they will "marry" for the many tax breaks otherwise unavailable to
single people...
What's love got to do with it?
Marriage laws used to nurture procreative relationships because society
had an abiding interest in the fruits of matrimony: children. By
removing sex and love from the equation, homosexual groups have reduced
marriage to a bundle of rights. Thanks to civil unions, access to those
rights no longer requires even a token mutual commitment, except for a
shared desire to milk the system for all it's worth.
Click here to read the whole piece.
Posted at 11:22 AM
STATE’S PRO-ABORTIONISTS TO “FIGHT HARD” AGAINST JUDGE ROBERTS [Peter Wolfgang]
A national group supporting Judge Roberts’ confirmation has shifted its focus away from Connecticut, according to today’s Courant. But the state’s pro-abortion movement continues to pressure Sen. Lieberman to vote against Judge Roberts:
Roberts' opponents still plan to
fight hard to convince Lieberman, D-Conn., as well as Sen. Christopher
J. Dodd, D-Conn., to vote against the nominee.
National Organization for Women
members from Connecticut met with Lieberman Aug. 9. Kathleen Sloan,
executive director of NOW's state chapter, is launching a statewide "No
on Roberts Caucus" this week to fight the nomination. Carolyn Treiss,
executive director of National Abortion Rights Action League Pro-Choice
Connecticut, said her group began Monday to coordinate calls to
Lieberman from opinion leaders and policymakers urging him to vote
no…
Sloan's "No on Roberts Caucus,"
for instance, will urge foes to write letters to editors, submit op-ed
articles, talk to friends and neighbors and send e-mails and letters to
senators.
The head of the state’s
pro-abortion coalition was unfazed by Sen. Lieberman’s tentative
statements of support for Judge Roberts:
Sloan replied with a warning.
"Things can change at any time," she said, "and both senators are
sensitive to their constituents."
FIC members will receive an
e-mail alert sometime this morning with an update on where things stand
in this crucial fight to reclaim the Supreme Court.
Posted at 10:10 AM
August 15
LIBERAL HYPOCRITES DU JOUR [Peter Wolfgang]
Among the cultural Left there are
certain stereotypes about conservative Christians, stereotypes that
almost any pro-family activist could describe in his sleep, so often
are we accused of them: we are (it is claimed) judgmental,
self-righteous, hypocritical, putting ourselves in the place of God and
demonizing our opponents, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah. Meanwhile, the
Left — according to its own self-assessment — is where one
finds tolerance, understanding, diversity, and so on.
What is interesting is how the
Left’s strategy of name-calling has helped to produce a reality
that is almost the exact opposite of the one they describe. When making
their case, pro-family activists often choose their words with the
greatest degree of caution — to avoid giving credence to the
liberal caricatures of them as well as to appeal to the largest number
of people possible in a culture whose elites are passionately hostile
to their message. But liberals, convinced of their own righteousness,
say things in public about conservatives that, with few exceptions,
conservatives would never dream of saying about liberals. Indeed, it is
their low opinion of their conservative opponents — and our
cultural elites’ vigorous agreement in that opinion — that
makes liberals think they have a license to say whatever they want
about conservatives.
Take, for instance, Susan Campbell’s column in yesterday’s Courant.
No, I don’t mean her usual shtick about her fundamentalist
Bible-Belt origins which she regularly criticizes for what she believes
to be her highfalutin’ city folk audience in Connecticut.
Campbell’s been writing that same story for so many years that
most of us could write it for her, except that we would pass out from
sheer boredom.
Rather, I am referring to this paragraph:
The event's main organizer, the
Family Research Council, according to its website, "champions marriage
and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue,
and the wellspring of society." (I get giggly when I read the word
"seedbed.") Scheduled to speak are House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who
appears to be taking a break from his many travels funded by shady
characters to appear here; former Georgia Sen. Zell Miller, whose
sermon at the 2004 Republican National Convention held all the
fascination of a train wreck; and Phyllis Schlafly, high priestess of
the Eagle Forum, a career lawyer who has made a second career out of
telling women to stay home and raise their babies. I pray for them all,
because I think they need it.
Note that last sentence: “I pray for them all, because I think they need it.” Can you imagine a similar paragraph by a pro-family writer appearing in the Courant?
Suppose that on a day when some pro same-sex “marriage”
rally was held in Connecticut, FIC’s Brian Brown wrote a Courant
op-ed negatively characterizing their top activists by name — I
won’t even do it in this hypothetical — and then ending
with “I pray for them all, because I think they need it”?
But the same people who would be outraged by that are just fine with
Campbell saying it about us.
This liberal hypocrisy also appeared yesterday in a Waterbury Sunday Republican article
about the recent decision of the nation’s mainline Lutheran
denomination to prohibit active homosexuals from serving as clergy.
Rev. G. Scott Cady, a Lutheran minister in Cornwall who was a delegate
at the convention, is interviewed about a failed proposal that would
have watered down the ban on active homosexual clergy:
Cady voted in favor of it, saying rejecting gays who feel a call to ministry was tantamount to questioning the will of God.
No, they were questioning homosexual activists’ understanding
of the will of the God. But those activists apparently believe that
questioning them is “tantamount to questioning the will of the
God.” Will those who would object to a pro-family minister
speaking this same way now raise their voice against Rev. Cady?
Don’t hold your breath.
Posted at 1:27 PM
August 12
HIGHET’S HYPOCRISY [Peter Wolfgang]
In my July 25th blog, I commented on a Hartford Advocate columnist’s support
for the decision of Connecticut’s pro same-sex
“marriage” Episcopal bishop, Andrew Smith, to suspend a
pro-family Bristol priest with whom the bishop had been at odds
[“Liberal Columnist Supports Authoritarian Bishop”]:
It may strike you as odd that a
writer for a newspaper whose revenue is derived in no small part from
sex ads — and whose cover article this week is designed to
legitimate the seedy underworld from which those ads emerge —
thinks he has something credible to say about the proper workings of a
Christian church. Yet, here is Alistair Highet, thundering about the
obedience priests owe to their bishops…
Highet, too, had some thoughts on his credibility regarding the topic. Here is the first sentence from his column:
It would be unsporting of me to
weigh in on the internal struggles of a religious denomination that I
don't belong to, but, you know, what the hell.
Indeed, Highet returned to the story a few weeks later
to lecture Episcopalians on their misunderstandings of what their own
church teaches. He also complained about those who criticized his first
column:
And second, in the blogosphere,
anything you write about religion is going to be linked to websites run
by people you don't know, for the purposes of fueling their obsessions:
"Look at what that ignorant bastard in Connecticut wrote. Burn him."
Then everyone jumps in to poke the heretic with a stick while
confirming one another in error. It's a lot of fun, though I suspect we
are re-entering the Dark Ages.
Highet’s whining is typical
of those liberals who, having monopolized the media for decades,
suddenly wake up in the internet age and are shocked to find that
conservatives have a public outlet with which to express their
disagreement. And while I cannot imagine what blog Highet is referring
to in his tirade, I do note that he ends his second column making the
same point that inspired my (rather mild) criticism of his first one:
let's leave it at this: The
proof of Bishop Smith's authority over Rev. Hansen's parish is
demonstrated by the fact that he exercised it.
Once again, if the pro-family
Catholic Archbishop of Hartford were to suddenly depose the
“gay-friendly” priests at St. Patrick-St. Anthony Church in
the same high-handed manner Bishop Smith used in Bristol, would
Connecticut’s liberal media be content to simply note that the
proof of Archbishop Mansell’s authority over dissident priests is
that he exercised it? Of course not; the media would practically
declare war on the Archbishop.
Highet, meanwhile, has moved on to other topics. But in his latest column, about Islam, he is careful to offer this qualifier:
To put it bluntly, there is a
growing consensus that these terrorists are not "hijacking" Islam at
all, but are instead expressing a violent and expansionist ideology at
the core of mainstream Islam. Whether this is true or not I am not qualified to say, [emphasis added]
In fact, in the space of a brief 657 word column, he offers that qualifier twice:
It is fast becoming the
consensus that Islam, as a view of the world, provides sufficient
justification for these acts and that too many Muslims are sympathetic
to the bombers' aims and methods. Again, I'm not qualified to say that this is true. [emphasis added]
So Alistair Highet is willing to
“weigh in on the internal struggles of a religious denomination
that [he does not] belong to” when it is the Episcopal Church
— even going so far as to lecture its adherents on what their
Church does and does not teach — but when the topic is Islam, for
some reason, he demurs.
Perhaps it would be unsporting of me to note that Alistair Highet is a hypocrite, but, you know, what the heck.
Posted at 11:56 AM
August 11
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH STEPS INTO THE RING [Peter Wolfgang]
When the Connecticut Knights of
Columbus took part in a defense-of-marriage petition drive a few years
ago, the reaction from pro same-sex “marriage” churches
came fast and furious. The day the story broke, same-sex couples
wearing priest collars appeared on the evening news to denounce the
Church for supposedly violating the separation of church and state.
On Catholic Concerns Day in 2004,
as hundreds of Catholics marched from the Cathedral of St. Joseph to
the state capitol to speak with their legislators, they were greeted
along the way by a protest organized by People of Faith for Gay Civil
Rights. The protesters held banners accusing Catholics of intolerance.
A year later on the same day, a woman — whom even the liberal Courant
columnist Helen Ubinas described as an “infiltrator”
— berated Catholics in the legislative hearing room where they
were meeting with their legislators for their opposition to same-sex
“marriage,” saying they should focus on other issues. (That
nine-tenths of the event involved Catholic advocacy on other issues
apparently escaped her notice.)
When FIC held a rally at the
state capitol in May, 2004 to protest same-sex “marriage”
in neighboring Massachusetts, a liberal minister held a sign that read
“Shame on Catholics.” His web site accuses the Church of
all manner of bigotry because of its opposition to same-sex
“marriage.” The same charge was leveled against Catholics
and other pro-family Christians by a United Church of Christ (UCC) ad
campaign last year.
Despite all these provocations
from pro same-sex “marriage” churches and their allies
— and the ones mentioned above are just the tip of the iceberg
— the Catholic Church in Connecticut has always held its fire. No
matter how far their departures from Christian teaching or how
vociferous their attacks on Catholics and other pro-family Christians
for holding fast to the faith “which was once delivered unto the
saints,” the Catholic Church in Connecticut has never publicly
rebuked another Christian church for supporting same-sex
“marriage.”
Until now.
In an editorial appearing in the August issue of the Catholic Transcript,
the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Hartford, the Church
bluntly admonishes the leadership of the UCC. Appropriately enough, the
title is “Hold Fast.” It is not available online, but here
are some key excerpts:
The United Church of
Christ’s recent resolution (4 July) at a General Synod to endorse
the practice of same-sex marriage is nothing less than a disgraceful
gesture. At worst, it is, of course, a gross rejection of Biblical
truth…the tradition of Congregationalism professes to be
Christian. As such, it purports to acknowledge the Bible as the word of
God, the ultimate norm of authentic wisdom. Historically,
Congregationalism is known for its pastors and laity who held fast to
many Biblical truths through preaching, witness and fellowship…
This prompts the question: What
is a Church (a Christian entity therefore) doing by endorsing or
tolerating in any way a life style contrary to Biblical teaching? Even
more fundamentally, how can a Church espouse anything that runs counter
to the teaching of Scripture? ...
The UCC’s resolution should be reversed without delay.
Posted at 11:58 AM
August 10
SAME-SEX “MARRIAGE” AND THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN CHURCH [Brian Brown]
In an Aug. 8th column which appears in today’s Republican-American,
Star Parker discusses a 10 point resolution produced at a recent
conference on the state of the black family and offers some thoughts on
the strong commitment of African-American churches to the pro-family
cause. An excerpt:
Nine of the 10 points aim
exclusively at an internal re-focusing in communities on education and
mentoring on the importance of traditional moral behavior in matters of
sex and marriage. We are talking here about moral ABCs such as
discouraging pre-marital sex and cohabitation, emphasizing the
importance of marriage fidelity and the role of the community in
providing support, such as male mentoring for our many fatherless
children.
The single point in the
resolution that turned outside and looked toward the political arena
was the endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment…
Why, I sometimes hear, is a
community with such clear and immediate problems with education,
employment and crime so obsessed with this issue? Are there that many
black gay couples wanting wedding vows that black pastors should be
taking valuable time from their daily responsibilities to become
political activists for a federal marriage amendment?
The germane point that these
black pastors understand is that the black community is the most
exposed to and most likely to be injured by the problems of the nation
as a whole. When America gets a cold, the black community gets
pneumonia…
The moral relativism which
increasingly defines American culture is now defining every institution
of our society — our schools, our large corporations and our
media. Our families are our only firewall.
The support of the black community for the federal marriage amendment reduces to one word. Survival.
To read the whole column, click here.
Posted at 3:37 PM
AUGUST 9
CONNECTICUT’S “WAR ON MARRIAGE” [Brian Brown]
The editorial page of the Waterbury Republican-American
is the most pro-family major media outlet in Connecticut. While other
media either downplay — or encourage — Connecticut’s
attack on the family, the Republican-American tackles it head-on. Here is an excerpt from today’s editorial, “War on marriage”:
Even without this context, one
would think civic and especially government leaders would be eager to
do what they can to push divorce rates down further. In Connecticut,
however, the war on marriage goes merrily on.
Last week, Gay & Lesbian
Advocates & Defenders filed a 65-page legal memorandum explaining
why the state courts should uphold its demand that same-sex marriage in
Connecticut be legalized. A GLAD attorney said the civil-unions law
that the legislature passed and Gov. M. Jodi Rell signed this spring
was insufficient, even though it grants homosexual couples every last
statutory right of marriage.
"The civil union law is a
political compromise," the lawyer said. "Courts have an entirely
different role." Yes they do. It's the court's job to interpret laws,
not legislate extraordinary rights that fringe groups were unable to
secure via the constitutionally prescribed process.
For better or worse — our
money's on worse — lawmakers and the governor legalized
homosexual marriage when they made civil unions law. They have codified
an unnatural lifestyle and further trivialized what once was
civilization's most cherished institution, until no-fault divorce came
along. Judicial endorsement of same-sex marriage, then, would be as
unconstitutional as it would be redundant…
Marriage in the United States is
waging something of a comeback. But in Connecticut, it might as well be
a four-letter word for the respect it gets from the legislature and the
governor.
To read the whole editorial, click here.
Posted at 10:25 AM
August 8
THE SOUL OF WATERBURY [Brian Brown]
It’s not everyday that one
of Connecticut’s municipal governments heeds the cries of its
citizens to halt an attack on the family. But that’s exactly what
happened last month in Waterbury, where angry citizens convinced the
city government to back down from a proposal that might have led to
more sexually-oriented businesses in their community. And it’s
not everyday that a state newspaper frets publicly about the soul of
the city in which it is published. But that is exactly what the Waterbury Republican-American
did, in a Jul. 27th editorial (“Residents speak, city officials
listen”) about the city’s pro-family victory that quotes
this blog. The editorial is not available online, but here is an
excerpt:
Contrast Waterbury’s
reaction on this issue to the legislature’s handling of the
homosexual-marriage bill it enacted this year under the guise of
“civil unions.” As Peter Wolfgang of the Family Institute
of Connecticut points out, lawmakers responding to the desires of a
tiny, politically correct minority “moved with lightning speed to
approve the same-sex civil union bill (and) Gov. (M.Jodi) Rell
deliberately had the Senate fast-track the bill. … (They)
flaunted their disregard for the religious convictions of their
constituents. The Senate actually had the gall to vote for a resolution
praising the recently deceased Pope John Paul II on the same day it
approved the most extreme version of the civil union bill, thus
exposing their praise of the late pope for the empty, patronizing
gesture it was.”
Mr. Wolfgang said the courage
and determination displayed by the people of Waterbury on the zoning
amendment have not gone unnoticed. “Despite a reputation for
corruption, the city of Waterbury displayed a spirit of democratic
accountability that has been noticeably absent at our state Capitol
this year, an absence that will cost Connecticut families dearly in the
years ahead.”
Numerous economic-development
strategies for Waterbury have been implemented in recent decades but
have achieved spotty success. The most recent vision sees a downtown
with thriving restaurants as a complement to the Palace Theater, the
University of Connecticut campus and the Waterbury Arts Magnet School
on East Main Street. That won’t necessarily produce the sort of
good, high-paying jobs Waterbury needs, but it would speak better of
the soul of Waterbury than a new batch of adult businesses.
Posted at 10:44 AM
August 5
PRO SAME-SEX “MARRIAGE” COLUMNIST TELLS ALLIES: LEAVE CONNECTICUT ALONE [Brian Brown]
For the last several years FIC
has been telling anyone who will listen that the people of Connecticut
— and the nation — don’t want same-sex
“marriage.” Last weekend, the truth of our position was
confirmed by an unlikely source: Helen Ubinas, the most radical pro
same-sex “marriage” columnist at the Courant.
In a July 31st column
reacting to a press conference held by the plaintiffs in a case asking
the court to undemocratically impose same-sex “marriage” on
Connecticut, Ubinas essentially argues that pro same-sex
“marriage” activists are going too far. While sharing their
desire to redefine marriage, Ubinas, noting that state residents oppose
it, points out that Connecticut has already passed same-sex civil
unions, that “the tide is going the other way” for the
national pro same-sex “marriage” movement and that pro
same-sex “marriage” activists would be best advised to
leave Connecticut alone and put their focus elsewhere. An excerpt:
In April, when Connecticut
became the first state to legally recognize same-sex couples without
court intervention, I considered it cause for celebration. Was it
marriage? No. Would it have been better if it was? Yes. But the civil
union law was an important step on the road to equality for same-sex
couples, I wrote then…
Ubinas expresses sympathy with pro same-sex “marriage” activists who see civil unions as intolerable…
But the tolerable and the
possible don't always overlap. Promoting civil unions is, for now, a
better strategy than what so many others are so determined to do…
But I also don't downplay the
importance of the word [marriage] to significant numbers of state
lawmakers and state residents, who through legislative debate and
public opinion polls made it clear that they support equal legal rights
for gay couples, but draw the line at calling it marriage.
Rather than fight over the name,
however culturally significant, for the hard-won rights same-sex
couples will enjoy come October, wouldn't the effort be better spent
expanding those rights beyond Connecticut, Massachusetts and Vermont?
Instead, the tide is going the
other way. In the last 12 months, four states have adopted
constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriages; 10 more have
banned civil unions as well. That's 14 states where denial of basic
rights to gay couples has become a fundamental governing principle. And
our president would like to make that the law of the land.
Ubinas ends her column by saying
that typing it has left her stomach tied in knots. That only seems
fair, since reading her pro same-sex “marriage”/civil
unions propaganda has probably produced similarly negative effects in
the stomachs of Courant subscribers for the past few years.
Posted at 10:23 AM
August 4
AP PROVIDES COVER FOR ABORTION CLINIC [Brian Brown]
On July 15th the CT Post
broke the story about a man charged with committing rapes inside a
Bridgeport abortion clinic. According to the allegations reported in
the story, the man owned a modeling agency in the same building as the
abortion clinic and told one of his victims that he was part-owner of
the clinic.
The day the story appeared I wrote on this blog:
If these allegations are proven
true, it raises several questions. Did the abortion clinic know this
was happening? If so, for how long did they know? If not,
shouldn’t they have known? How lax is security at their facility?
What is the true relationship of the clinic to the alleged rapist?
It was subsequently reported that
he was the abortion clinic’s janitor, which raises still further
questions. Did the abortion clinic check his background before hiring
him? Were the clinic owners negligent when they gave the man access to
their facility?
If you think pro-abortion bias
will prevent Connecticut’s media from investigating these
questions, you’re right. In a 900 word Aug. 2nd AP article about the case,
the man’s job as a janitor in the abortion clinic gets only one
sentence. The allegation that some of the rapes occurred in the clinic
is not even mentioned. Instead, the article reports that the rape case
shines a spotlight on the sordid side of…the modeling industry.
Posted at 10:03 AM
August 3
SAME-SEX “MARRIAGE”: BAD FOR MARRIAGE, BAD FOR CHILDREN [Peter Wolfgang]
Supporters of same-sex
“marriage” roll their eyes whenever pro-family advocates
argue that it would lead to a restructuring of society’s key
institutions. They ask why we would think that a governmental decision
to equate their relationships with marriage would affect anyone besides
themselves. But pro-family advocates do not have to conjure
hypothetical situations to respond to that question. We can just point
to the arguments of same-sex union supporters, such as Dylan Armstrong,
who, in his letter in today’s Courant
(“Civil Unions For All”), argues that traditional marriage
for all of society should be legally downgraded so that same-sex
couples will feel equal. Or we can point to what is actually happening
in Massachusetts, as Kathleen Parker did in a syndicated column that appeared in yesterday’s Courant:
In Massachusetts this past week,
Gov. Mitt Romney has been butting heads with same-sex couples over
birth certificates for their newborns.
The problem is that birth
certificates reflect archaic notions of procreation. Gay and lesbian
parents have asked the state to replace "mother" and "father" with
Parent A and Parent B.
And we thought Dr. Seuss was just being silly when he created Thing One and Thing Two in his "Cat in the Hat" series.
Romney thus far has prevailed in
declining to eradicate the notion of mother and father from his little
corner of civilization, noting that all children not only have a right
to a mother and a father but, in biological fact, do have a mother and
a father. Records should reflect that reality to the extent possible,
Romney says…
In one case Romney recently had
to entertain, two men — one a sperm donor and the other his
boyfriend — became "parents" when a woman gave birth to the
donor's child. The two men wanted their names on the birth certificate,
with the boyfriend replacing the birth mother. In a bold act of
increasingly rare sanity, Romney said "no."
No doubt the gentlemen-parents
were distressed by this negative intrusion into their familial fantasy,
but Romney appears to understand that effectively codifying the
"family" of two men and a newborn birthed by a uterobot has extensive
implications. Meanwhile, one can't help but feel sorry for the infant
— Baby C, or Thing Three?
"Thing" is used here neither
dismissively nor derisively, but as a term of stunning accuracy.
Throughout our culture, children have become objectified, "thingified,"
created or acquired for the fulfillment of our selves — decor
options, accessories, cute little bundles for our entertainment and
amusement.
Unless, of course, we're not in the mood, in which case we hit the "abort" button, the ultimate expression of "thingification."
As long as children are viewed
as mere extensions of our selves, put here to satisfy some narcissistic
need for self-actualization, it is easy to suppose that our needs and
their needs are complementary. If same-sex marriage is what "I" need,
then two same-sex parents are what "my" child needs.
Dylan Armstrong argues that
everyone else’s marriage should be legally downgraded to make
same-sex couples feel equal. In Massachusetts, same-sex couples argue
that the legal definition of everyone else’s parenthood should be
downgraded to make same-sex couples feel equal. In both instances, the
feeling of equality that same-sex couples and their supporters seek
comes at the cost of a redefinition of society’s most important
institutions.
And, as Parker notes, the
agitation for same-sex “marriage” is based on the perceived
needs of adults. That it is not in the best interests of children is an
inconvenient fact to be ignored or explained away. In a world already
made hostile to children by the liberalizing of our divorce laws,
Connecticut’s legislature and governor have made matters even
worse for our state’s little ones with the passage of same-sex
civil unions. Children do best with both a mom and a dad and the state
has just created a class of children for whom motherlessness or
fatherlessness will be permanent and obligatory.
Posted at 10:11 AM
August 2
THE VICTIMS OF “TOLERANCE” [Brian Brown]
In New England the movement to
legalize same-sex “marriage” has advanced further than
elsewhere in the nation and, consequently, the attacks on anyone who
opposes it have advanced the furthest here as well. Our readers are
familiar with the case of David Parker, the Boston father who spent a
night in prison for trying to protect his 5 year old son from being
taught about same-sex “marriage” against his will, and Mark
Hansen, the Conn. Episcopal priest who has been suspended by his bishop
for opposing that bishop’s support for same-sex
“marriage” and other departures from scripture.
With Connecticut’s same-sex
civil union bill set to go into effect in October, what further attacks
on our freedom can we expect? The answer can be found in places like
Canada, where the attack on marriage is even further advanced than in
New England. There, according to a Jul. 24th article in the CT-based National Catholic Register,
a teacher named Chris Kempling is in danger of losing his job for
writing a letter to the editor expressing a moral objection to
homosexual activity:
Saying Kempling brought the
teaching profession into disrepute through discriminatory comments at
odds with the pluralistic, tolerant values of the college, the body
suspended his teaching license for one month. Kempling, a 49-year-old
father of three, lost two subsequent appeals.
On June 13, the British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision, endorsed the suspension.
“I am now applying for
leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada,” Kempling
remarked. “I’m not giving up.”…
But the British Columbia Supreme
Court and now the Court of Appeal have ruled that the right of
homosexual students to a discrimination-free public-school environment
has been violated by Kempling’s remarks and supersedes his own
rights.
“These statements
demonstrated that Mr. Kempling is committed to fulfilling his public
and professional responsibilities in an intolerant and discriminatory
manner,” the appeal judgment stated. “Proof that he had
actually discriminated against a particular student, or evidence of a
poisoned school environment, was not required to prove that the school
system had sustained harm.”
Kempling’s case is having a chilling effect on freedom in general in Canada:
“It’s a worrisome
development,” admitted Paul Schratz, spokesman for the
Archdiocese of Vancouver, noting several recent human-rights rulings
have turned the movement for homosexual rights from “what was
once a cry for tolerance into the exact opposite.”
In Ontario recently, the courts
forced a Catholic school to allow a homosexual senior to bring his
boyfriend to his graduation dance.
And, of course, the Canadian
Senate is poised to ratify Bill C-38 redefining marriage to include
homosexual “marriage.”
“These decisions all have
an impact,” said Schratz. “Who can say what kind of a
chilling effect they will have on what teachers or priests are willing
to say in public?”…
[Murray] Mollard, [executive
director of British Columbia’s Civil Liberties Association]
believes provisions in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedom
protecting religion would cover Christian schools, which teach
traditional sexual morality. However, only recently (July 11), the
British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal agreed to hear a complaint
against the provincial Ministry of Education that the curriculum
discriminated against homosexuals by ignoring them. Catholic schools in
the province receive half their funding from the ministry in return for
teaching the public school curriculum.
Meanwhile, a Knights of Columbus
council faces a complaint with the same Human Rights Tribunal for
refusing to rent its hall for a lesbian “wedding” reception.
The Register article also mentions cases pending in the U.S.:
In Montpelier, Vt., a Catholic
couple that provides wedding services at their family-run motel has
been the target of a complaint to the state Human Rights Commission.
Their offense: informing a prospective lesbian client that their
religious beliefs would make it difficult to put their hearts into
their event.
And in Northbrook, Ill.,
Allstate Insurance fired J. Matt Barber for writing an online column
attacking same-sex “marriage.” Barber had written the
column on his own time and without mentioning that he was employed by
the insurance company.
“What is happening,”
said Kempling, “is an effective muzzling of any expression of
faith in public school teachers, social workers, pharmacists or any
regulated professional.
Posted at 9:59 AM
July 29
GLAD’S BRIEF IN THE KERRIGAN CASE [Peter Wolfgang and Brian Brown]
The same-sex civil union bill
passed by the legislature and signed by Gov. Rell on April 20th has not
even gone into effect yet and already several of the predictions made
by FIC have come true. As we warned, the civil union law is being used
by the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) to argue that the
courts must impose same-sex “marriage” on Connecticut. You
can click here to read the 65 page brief they filed yesterday. You can read the Courant coverage here and the AP coverage here.
GLAD’s brief asks the court
to grant a summary judgment as a matter of law, claiming there is no
issue of fact to be decided. They’re wrong, of course. In fact,
GLAD gets marriage wrong as early as page 2, when it describes the
institution as a “part of one’s self-definition.”
Those things incidental to marriage may have changed over time, but the
essence of marriage is an objective reality, which has remained the
same throughout the centuries and across a wide variety of cultures.
Footnote 3 makes the usual pro
same-sex “marriage” distinction between “civil”
and “religious” marriage, the intended implication being
that the redefinition of marriage will not harm religious freedom.
Anyone following recent events in Canada knows what a negative impact
same-sex “marriage” is having on religious liberty there
— a topic we will return to on this blog next week.
GLAD’s brief repeatedly
describes the issue as one in which their clients, eight same-sex
couples, are being “denied” a right to marriage. But the
right to marriage, which they in fact are not being denied, is not
their real aim. Their real aim is to persuade the court to invent a
“right” to same-sex “marriage” and to impose
that right on the people of Connecticut, whether the people of
Connecticut want it to happen or not.
In pursuit of their true aim,
GLAD presses into service figures from Connecticut history, some of
whom have been dead a very long time and all of whom would be surprised
to hear that their contributions to the shaping of Connecticut’s
laws are now being used to justify the legalization of same-sex
“marriage.” GLAD quotes speakers at the state’s Third
Constitutional Convention in 1965, for instance, on the importance of
having a state constitution that values human rights. But none of those
speakers imagined that those rights — even the
“unenumerated” ones — would encompass same-sex
“marriage.” The late Ella Grasso, an attendee of the
convention whose “rights” comments are cited by GLAD to
support their claim for same-sex “marriage,” was pro-life.
It is highly unlikely that Connecticut’s legendary former
governor would approve of the way GLAD is abusing her legacy.
As early as page 10 of the brief
we see that FIC’s prediction that the civil union law was a phony
compromise that would be exploited by the pro-same sex
“marriage” movement in their effort to have a court impose
same-sex “marriage” on the state has come true:
“Fourth, the marriage ban [sic] cannot even satisfy the rational
basis test because there is no legitimate public purpose in denying
marriage to gay and lesbian citizens, a fact confirmed by the
state’s mandate that same-sex couples must now have every tangible, legal, right and benefit of civil marriage.” Note that the emphasis is in the original.
GLAD tackles the central fallacy
of its brief head-on, claiming that they are not doing what they are,
in fact, doing: “Plaintiffs thus seek to participate in marriage
as it exists, not create a new right.” But marriage “as it
exists” is the union of one man and one woman. If GLAD’s
clients win their suit, marriage “as it exists” will cease
to be; it will become something different. Footnote 14 says that the
plaintiff couples “seek equal access to a right that already
exists.” This is simply false. They are not seeking access to
“a right that already exists.” They are seeking the
creation of something new.
GLAD says that it is
“anomalous” to think that the right to marriage,
“conclusively established as fundamental under the federal
constitution,” is not found in the state constitution. But there
is no right — fundamental or otherwise — to same-sex
“marriage” under the federal constitution. GLAD’s
claim that the framers of the state constitution would find it
“offensive” that same-sex “marriage” has not
been legalized is ridiculous.
Other authority mustered by GLAD for the legalization of same-sex “marriage” is equally weak. Skinner v. State of Oklahoma,
for instance, is a 1942 case that describes marriage as
“fundamental to the very existence and survival of the
race.” Given that same-sex relationships are, by their very
nature, sterile, the court could not have had same-sex
“marriage” in mind when it decided that case. Indeed,
almost all of the case law cited by GLAD speaks of the right to
marriage as normally understood, not of a right to same-sex
“marriage.”
The two notable exceptions are Goodridge, the 2003 Massachusetts decision that invented same-sex “marriage” and imposed it on that state and Lawrence v. Texas,
the U.S. Supreme Court case that overturned a previous ruling from just
17 years earlier by conjuring a constitutional right to homosexual
sodomy out of thin air. But these are the exceptions that prove the
rule. It is a right to traditional marriage that has deep roots in the
laws and customs of our society. Same-sex “marriage” is a
recent novelty, a departure from the normal understanding of marriage.
The U.S. Supreme Court had to first invent a constitutional right to
homosexual activity for same-sex “marriage” to even become
thinkable. Indeed, Goodridge’s and the GLAD brief’s citing of Lawrence
both prove Justice Scalia right, when he warned in his dissent —
to the howls of liberals accusing him of scare-mongering — that
the ruling could pave the way for same-sex “marriage.”
But GLAD says that the
characterization of the right at issue as one of same-sex
“marriage” is contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court’s
jurisprudence on marriage. Loving, GLAD says, ruled that there was a right to marriage, not “mixed-race” marriage. Zablocki said there was a right to marriage, not “poor people” marriage. Turner
said there was a right to marriage, not “inmate marriage.”
Yes, but all of these cases have something in common that Kerrigan
does not: they all involved a man and a woman. GLAD wants the court to
go somewhere that the court in those three cases never intended to go.
Having begun its argument by
misusing historical figures from the state’s past, GLAD switches
gears about a third of the way through its brief by claiming it
doesn’t matter what they thought. GLAD points to how marriage has
“changed and evolved” in ways the framers of the
state’s 1818 constitution could not have anticipated, listing the
end of coverture and the beginning of no-fault divorce as
“features once deemed essential” to marriage that have
since changed. There are many who would dispute that coverture was ever
essential to marriage. The no-fault divorce revolution, however, did
alter something close to the heart of marriage — its
indissolubility — with results that have been devastating to our
society. Given that history, does the court really want to tamper
further with an institution as necessary and fragile as marriage?
A few pages later, GLAD is back to misusing historical figures. GLAD cites Zephaniah Swift’s A System of the Law of the State of Connecticut
(1795) noting that “Swift saw marriage as a central and enduring
social institution which was so universal that it existed at all times
and in all countries.” Yes, but that surely did not include
same-sex “marriage.” GLAD quotes the Moore case: “[I]n interpreting our state constitution, the statements of [Swift] are entitled to significant weight.”
GLAD might want to re-think that standard. Here is Swift, in that same 1795 treatise, on sodomy:
This crime, tho repugnant to
every sentiment of decency and delicacy, is very prevalent in corrupt
and debauched countries where the low pleasures of sensuality and
luxury have depraved the mind and degraded the appetite below the
brutal creation. Our modest ancestors, it seems by the diction of the
law, had no idea that a man would commit this crime. . . . [H]ere, by
force of common law, [it is] punished with death. . . . [because of]
the disgust and horror with which we treat of this abominable crime.
GLAD bounces back and forth, at
some points saying that they are not attempting to re-define marriage,
while at other times revealing how malleable they believe definitions
to be, such as when they cite Goodridge’s claim that
“the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s
momentous acts of self-definition.” A momentous act it certainly
is, but most people do not describe their marital decisions in terms of
“self-definition.”
“It is undisputed as a
factual matter that [GLAD’s clients’] choice of marital
partner is constrained because of his or her sex,” says GLAD.
Well, yes. The same is true of everyone. Their — and
everyone’s — choice of marital partner is also constrained
by number, blood relation, age and species. It is truly a redefinition
of marriage that GLAD seeks, one that will lead to still-further
redefinitions.
GLAD argues that Connecticut
should follow the jurisprudence of “sister states” like
Massachusetts that have either legalized same-sex
“marriage” or appear to be moving in that direction. One
sister state it does not cite is New Jersey, which in the Lewis case recently had this to say about the Massachusetts decision:
the traditional and still
prevailing religious and societal view of marriage as a union of one
man and one woman that plays a vital role in propagating the species
and provides the ideal setting for raising children…
A Constitution is not simply an
empty receptacle into which judges may pour their own conceptions of
evolving social mores. To yield to the impulse to invalidate
legislation merely because members of the court disapprove of public
policy is to subvert the sensitive interrelationship between the three
branches of government, which is at the heart of democracy.
GLAD cites previous “gay
rights” legislation as proof of discrimination of homosexuals and
the need for same-sex “marriage.” One thinks of Sen. John
Kissel (R-Enfield), who complained bitterly during the civil union
hearings about how he voted for the gay adoption bill in an earlier
session because its supporters assured him it would not be used to push
for same-sex “marriage,” which it now is.
GLAD writes, “It is
difficult to identify any legitimate interest, let alone compelling
interest that justifies the continued exclusion of same-sex couples
from marriage, especially in light of the civil unions law” [emphasis added]. In footnote 52 it cites section 14 of the law, underlining that same-sex couples will have “all the same benefits…as are granted to spouses in a marriage.”
This is precisely what FIC warned the legislature about — that
this line, the heart of the bill, would embolden the plaintiffs in Kerrigan
and potentially weaken the state’s case. The first half of our
prediction came true. In today’s media accounts Atty. Gen.
Blumenthal assures the public that the second half has not come true.
Either way, the passage of civil unions has created one more argument
for the plaintiffs that the state must respond to in order to win its
case.
That is one more headache the
state does not need, considering GLAD’s tendency to obfuscate and
misrepresent the record. In explaining what the legislature intended
when it passed the civil union law, for instance, the first person GLAD
quotes in the House debate is Rep. Powers. But Rep. Powers voted
against the bill! In footnote 56 GLAD takes aim at Sen. Nickerson for
invoking “our Judeo-Christian code’s” adoption of the
one man-one woman definition of marriage “long before the state
of Connecticut existed,” noting that “marriage has been a
purely civil matter from the inception of Connecticut’s colonial
beginnings.” Anyone who does not recognize the Judeo-Christian
influence on our laws “from the inception of Connecticut’s
colonial beginnings” is not being serious.
GLAD attacks what Goodridge
calls “circular reasoning,” that marriage must remain
“a heterosexual institution” because that is what it has
always been. But this is a distortion of the pro-family argument. We do
not say that tradition must be kept because it is tradition. A
tradition is worth keeping not for itself, but because it makes sense.
Traditional marriage — and not same-sex “marriage —
is good for children, marriage, society and religious freedom. It is a
tradition worth protecting because it is based on the wisdom of
generations. Good tradition is, as G.K. Chesterton said, the democracy
of the dead.
In a 65 page brief filled with
weak arguments for same-sex “marriage,” the arguments grow
especially weak toward the end. The “right” to same-sex
“marriage,” GLAD claims, is part of the right to free
speech. It is “analogous” to other rights the court has
protected, such as “wearing shirts with messages.” This
seems to be too much even for some of the drafters of GLAD’s
brief, who delicately note in footnote 63 “a lack of doctrinal
clarity regarding the source of this protection.” Further, in
footnote 71, GLAD cites Sen. McDonald’s complaint that civil
unions will not allow same-sex couples to “apply” for
rights under federal law. But it doesn’t matter because the
federal government does not recognize same-sex “marriage.”
Atty. Gen. Blumenthal and Gov.
Rell assured the public that the passage of civil unions would not lead
the courts to impose same-sex “marriage” on Connecticut.
Either way, by passing civil unions the legislature and Gov. Rell have
created one more hoop that the state must jump through in order to
protect marriage. Doing so was not in the best interests of the state,
the family, children and generations yet unborn.
Posted at 6:21 PM
July 28
PRO-RELL MEDIA BIAS [Brian Brown]
The state’s media is abuzz
this week with new polling data showing Gov. Rell with a 79% approval
rating and beating any of her likely Democratic opponents. Note the
link the Courant’s front-page article draws between the governor’s polls and the paper’s favorite causes:
Rell, who signed into law bills
that encourage embryonic stem-cell research and extend civil unions to
same-sex couples, is seen by 75 percent of voters as having politics
that are "about right."
Nothing in the poll draws the specific link to those issues implied by the Courant.
If the state is so overwhelmingly supportive of Gov. Rell’s April
20th signing of the same-sex civil union bill, why did her approval
rating drop 14 points in the poll that was taken in May?
You probably didn’t hear about that poll. There was no front-page article — or any article — about it in the Courant. Even in today’s piece, the Courant
references previous polls of the governor’s popularity without
making any mention of the first one taken after she legalized same-sex
civil unions. Even the sidebar accompanying today’s Courant article shows the governor’s approval ratings in January, February, April and July, conveniently skipping over May.
To be sure, even in May her
ratings were high. But the media’s downplaying of that post-civil
union 14 point drop in approval is noteworthy. There seems to be a
desire on the part of the state media to create a public perception of
the inevitability of a Rell victory in 2006. Those who would create
— or believe — such a thing would do well to note this
comment, buried in the Courant article:
Roy Occhiogrosso, a Democratic strategist, played down the poll as too early to be significant.
"I think it's about as relevant
as the poll early in the '98 cycle in which Barbara Kennelly led
Rowland by six points," Occhiogrosso said. "We all know how that turned
out."
Rowland won in a landslide.
Posted at 10:23 AM
July 27
TOWN OF BERLIN SURRENDERS TO PRO SAME-SEX “MARRIAGE” BULLIES [Brian Brown]
In a July 18th post on this blog,
FIC saluted the citizens of Waterbury, whose pro-family activism caused
the city government to reverse its support for a zoning amendment that
could have led to more sexually-oriented businesses in the city.
According to an article in today’s Courant, the town of Berlin could use some of Waterbury’s fighting spirit:
BERLIN — By the time civil
unions become state law Oct. 1, town officials intend to make sure
married couples and committed gay and lesbian partners pay the same
amount for a season pass at Timberlin Golf Course.
Discussion of the matter
dominated the town council meeting Tuesday after the town's attorney,
William Weber, said a female couple had threatened to sue Berlin after
they were denied the "family" rate at the municipal course.
This story, like Rep. Toni
Walker’s (D-New Haven) misrepresentation of Webster’s
definition of marriage during the civil unions hearing last February,
illustrates perfectly the central problem with the demand for same-sex
“marriage”/civil unions: it is a demand — literally
— for the redefinition of the family. In fact, the headline for
the print edition of the article is “Civil Union Law Raises
Family-Definition Questions.” The Courant shows how FIC’s prediction of a literal redefinition of the family is now coming true:
The town council discussed implementing definitions of "family" and "household" so the town complies with the new law…
The definition of family —
"two individuals related by marriage, providing appropriate
documentation" — drew no criticism from council members.
But less exact definition of "household" was criticized and was sent back to the planning department to be rewritten.
The suggested definition was
"two adults, with or without dependent children, living in a committed
relationship and sharing assets, consistent with existing Connecticut
civil union criteria and providing appropriate documentation."
Only in a world turned
upside-down by the legalization of same-sex civil unions would a town
government have to twist itself into contortions over the definition of
the family by coming up with the ridiculous distinctions listed above.
The people of Connecticut were
assured by Atty. Gen. Blumenthal and Gov. Rell that the amendment to
the civil union bill defining marriage as the union of one man and one
woman would protect the state from lawsuits by same-sex couples trying
to use the courts to undemocratically force a further redefinition of
marriage upon us. Where are they, now that the mere threat of a suit in
the post-civil union era is enough to make a local government change
its laws? And why does the town government of Berlin not use that
amendment to fight for its pro-family law in court, instead of simply
knuckling under to pro same-sex “marriage” bullies?
FIC calls upon the pro-family
citizens of Berlin to follow the good example set by Waterbury and
oppose their town government’s attack on the traditional family!
Posted at 11:23 AM
July 26
LIEBERMAN MEETS WITH ROBERTS; STATE’S LIBERALS WANTS FILIBUSTER [Peter Wolfgang]
Sen. Lieberman met with President
Bush’s Supreme Court nominee yesterday and was
“encouraged” but noncommittal, according to the AP:
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) —
Sen. Joseph Lieberman said a meeting with Supreme Court nominee John
Roberts on Monday left him satisfied that Roberts is not an ideologue.
Following a meeting with
Roberts, who is President Bush's choice to succeed Associate Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor, Lieberman said he got to know Roberts and his
views "a little better."
"It's too early to reach a conclusion about how I'll vote on his confirmation," Lieberman, D-Conn., told WVIT-TV.
"I'm looking for somebody who
will not come in with an ideological agenda, but will in every case
coming before the Supreme Court try to do what he thinks is right
according to the law and the Constitution, and today Judge Roberts
encouraged me to believe he was that kind of person," he said.
But Connecticut’s liberals
— who last week threatened Sen. Lieberman with electoral
consequences if he does not give in to their demands and oppose Judge
Roberts — are keeping the pressure on, according to a Friday article in the New Haven Register:
NEW HAVEN — The grass-roots battle over President Bush’s Supreme Court pick reached the city Green on Thursday.
The liberal group MoveOn.org
held a lunchtime petition drive, urging passers-by to oppose Supreme
Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr., a federal appeals court judge.
The event was part of
MoveOn’s Supreme Court Rapid Response Petition Drive held at
nationwide Thursday at 239 locations, including Stamford, Norwich and
Willimantic.
New Haven volunteers collected
53 signatures in just over an hour that will be sent to U.S. Sens.
Joseph I. Lieberman and Christopher Dodd, both Democrats…
"I want the Senate to ask tough
questions, dig hard and use the filibuster if they have to," said
Michelle Maitland of New Haven, a local MoveOn team leader.
The Left in this state —
small in numbers but flush with funds — has the ability to bring
enormous pressure to bear on elected officials. FIC is the only
grassroots pro-family organization in Connecticut that can counter the
Left’s pernicious influence! Please click here to make a donation to our efforts to mobilize the state’s pro-family majority on behalf of Judge Roberts.
Sen. Lieberman could be the key
vote to decide whether Judge Roberts has a fair and timely confirmation
process or whether MoveOn gets the filibuster it wants. Help us help
Sen. Lieberman make the right choice! There is too much at stake in
this fight for any pro-family citizen to sit on the sidelines. We need
your help!
Posted at 10:26 AM
July 25
LIBERAL COLUMNIST SUPPORTS AUTHORITARIAN BISHOP [Peter Wolfgang]
A columnist for the left-wing Hartford Advocate has weighed in
on the suspension by the Episcopal bishop of CT, Drew Smith — who
is pro same-sex “marriage” — of one of the six
pro-family priests in the state who oppose the bishop’s
departures from Christian teaching. It may strike you as odd that a
writer for a newspaper whose revenue is derived in no small part from
sex ads — and whose cover article this week is designed to
legitimate the seedy underworld from which those ads emerge —
thinks he has something credible to say about the proper workings of a
Christian church. Yet, here is Alistair Highet, thundering about the
obedience priests owe to their bishops:
What these priests believe as
individuals is, quite honestly, irrelevant with regards to their duty
in obedience to the bishop. Moreover, the churches that they preach in
do not belong to them nor do they belong to the parishioners —
the churches and the property are governed by the diocese, which is
presided over by the bishop. If these six clerics want to make a
principled stand, they are free to do so as people, maybe even as
priests, but they aren't free to run their churches as free-agents,
deciding unilaterally what the line of authority is, who they're going
to listen to and who they aren't going to listen to, as though it was
up to them to decide what is out-of-line, and what isn't.
As I read the paragraph above, I
could not help but think of the priests of St. Patrick-St. Anthony, the
Catholic church in downtown Hartford with a “gay and lesbian
ministry” that opposes the “harsh and negative attitude of
the church hierarchy” and will have a booth at the
“September celebration of gay pride at Bushnell Park”
according to its newsletter.
Two years ago, the priests of St. Patrick-St. Anthony sent a letter to
Rep. Mike Lawlor about his work for the legalization of same-sex
“marriage” in CT, calling it “honorable.”
If the Catholic Archbishop of
Hartford were to suddenly appear, Bishop Smith-style, at St.
Patrick-St. Anthony Church with an entourage from the chancery and
change the locks, hack into the computer, shut down the parish web
site, rifle through the pastor’s personal files, declare that the
pastor is suspended and install a new pastor with a history of advocacy
that is exactly the opposite of the parish’s, would Alistair
Highet still nonchalantly write that the priests “aren’t
free-agents, deciding unilaterally what the line of authority is?”
Of course not; he would flip out.
So would the rest of our state’s media. Where are the breathless
editorials about freedom of conscience, the anguished op-eds about a
diocese that has lost its way, the blazing headlines and sensationalist
news broadcasts that consumers of our state media would be treated to,
day-after-day for weeks on end, if Archbishop Mansell did to St.
Patrick-St. Anthony Church what Bishop Smith has, in fact, done to St.
John’s Episcopal Church in Bristol?
Posted at 1:21 PM
July 21
THE LEFT TO LIEBERMAN: “OPPOSE JUDGE ROBERTS — OR ELSE!” [Brian Brown]
Well, that didn’t take long. The day after President Bush announced his choice for the Supreme Court the Left already declared war on the nominee and made it a point to target Sen. Lieberman, just as FIC predicted:
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) —
They may not agree with President Bush's nominee for the U.S. Supreme
Court, but Connecticut supporters and critics of Judge John Roberts are
taking the same strategy: level political pressure at U.S. Sen. Joe
Lieberman.
Both sides believe the moderate Democrat could be a swing vote when it comes to Roberts' confirmation.
"Knowledgeable observers
consider Connecticut's own Joseph Lieberman to be the most crucial vote
in the U.S. Senate," Brian Brown, executive director of the Family
Institute of Connecticut, wrote to supporters in an e-mail sent
Wednesday.
"Already Lieberman is being
inundated by e-mails and phone calls calling for a filibuster from
left-wing pressure groups," he wrote. "Sen. Lieberman needs to hear
from every single one of his pro-family constituents urging him to
oppose the filibuster and to confirm Judge Roberts."
Meanwhile, a coalition of
Connecticut women's groups, labor unions and other activists, said
although Lieberman has a solid abortion rights voting record, they
worry he'll be influenced by Republicans.
"Sen. Lieberman is a target,"
said Judy Tabor, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of
Connecticut. "He is seen as persuadable."
Kathleen Sloan, executive
director of the Connecticut National Organization for Women, said her
group is scheduled to meet with Lieberman in the coming days. She said
if the senator doesn't take their concerns with Roberts' stance on
abortion and other issues to heart, NOW plans to campaign against
Lieberman next year.
"We need to underscore to him:
He is up for re-election in 2006 and we have a very concerned, very
involved, active base that is ready to move and mobilize," Sloan said.
Connecticut is ground zero in the
battle for the future of the Supreme Court and Sen. Lieberman could go
either way at this point. Click here
to ask him to keep his word by supporting a fair and timely
confirmation process and to ask him to vote for Judge Roberts’
confirmation. Click here
to donate to FIC to help us counter the well-financed pro-abortion
groups who are bringing enormous pressure to bear on Sen. Lieberman.
Posted at 3:24 PM
July 20
BUSH SCORES, FIC CELEBRATES, LIEBERMAN WAFFLES [Brian Brown]
President Bush has nominated an
excellent judge to the Supreme Court, Judge John G. Roberts of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. We are encouraged by Judge
Roberts’ brilliant legal career and by a slight connection to
FIC: Judge Roberts’ wife, Jane, and FIC director of public policy
Peter Wolfgang once served together on the board of directors of Feminists for Life. FIC is confident that Judge Roberts will uphold the Constitution and respect marriage, life, faith and family.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman described Judge Roberts last week
as someone who was “in the ballpark” and would not
“spark a talk-a-thon.” But that was last week. Here is what the Washington Post says about his position today:
Among Democrats, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) may well be the most crucial voice in the Gang of 14
[emphasis added]. Republicans were pointing last night to a statement
he made last week that Roberts was one of several judges "in the
ballpark" who might be able to avoid a filibuster. An aide said last
night that Lieberman was misinterpreted on the question of Roberts.
Lieberman issued a noncommittal statement last night, saying he looks
forward to "a searching review" of Roberts's record before making a
decision.
FIC calls upon Sen. Lieberman to
keep his word by supporting a fair and timely confirmation process. We
further call upon Sen. Lieberman to vote to confirm Judge Roberts to
the U.S. Supreme Court.
Please help us encourage Sen. Lieberman to confirm Judge Roberts by clicking here.
Posted at 3:32 PM
July 19
BREAKING…PRESIDENT BUSH TO ANNOUNCE SCOTUS NOMINEE [Peter Wolfgang]
The AP is reporting that
President Bush will announce his choice to replace Justice
O’Connor on the Supreme Court at 9:00 tonight. On this blog and
in e-mail alerts in the days ahead, FIC Action will be providing
further information on what you can do to help the President confirm a
Justice who will uphold the Constitution and respect our nation’s
Judeo-Christian heritage.
Posted at 1:27 P.M.
July 18
PROGRESS IN WATERBURY [Peter Wolfgang]
Mayor Jarjura has said that he
will oppose a zoning proposal that might have led to an increase in
“sex shops” in Waterbury, according to today’s Republican-American:
WATERBURY — After days of
withering complaints from community and religious leaders, Mayor
Michael J. Jarjura is backing away from a proposed zoning change that
might lead to more sexually oriented businesses in the city.
Jarjura said Sunday that, after
closer review, he will oppose the change, which would loosen the
required buffer zone separating new adult establishments from
residences, schools and other sensitive areas.
Jarjura's administration
initially defended the ordinance last week, before reversing course. He
now says he intends to speak with members of the Zoning Commission to
recommend they vote down the proposal at their Aug. 24 meeting…
Jarjura also said the city would
challenge any court decision striking down the restrictions. "I feel
very confident that the community of the City of Waterbury would want
me to fight that fight, and expend whatever money is necessary to do
that," he said.
The outcry was swift and intense
last week after the City Plan Commission, with no discussion, voted to
recommend that the Zoning Commission approve the new buffer
requirements. The Most Rev. Henry J. Mansell, archbishop of Hartford,
also caught wind of the proposal and expressed concerns to Jarjura in a
telephone call Friday.
The contrasts between this brief
anti-family crisis in Waterbury and the same-sex civil union battle at
our state capitol could not be more obvious.
In Hartford, our state
legislators kowtowed to a small cabal of lobbyists and activists whose
influence was disproportionate to the tiny elite they spoke for.
Ignoring the flood of phone calls and e-mails asking them not to
undermine marriage — as well as the 76% of voters who wanted to
vote on the issue — legislators moved with lightning speed to
approve the same-sex civil union bill. Gov. Rell deliberately had the
Senate fast-track the bill so she could sign it prior to FIC
Action’s April 24th pro-family rally, which drew more than 3,000
people.
Like our state government, the
city government in Waterbury initially tried to sneak through an
anti-family change in the law. But unlike Hartford, when the people
registered their opposition to the change, city officials heeded the
will of the people and reversed course. Despite a reputation for
corruption, the City of Waterbury displayed a spirit of democratic
accountability that has been noticeably absent at our state capitol
this year — an absence that will cost CT families dearly in the
years ahead.
In Hartford, the legislature and
Gov. Rell flaunted their disregard for the religious convictions of
their constituents. The Senate actually had the gall to vote for a
resolution praising the recently-deceased Pope John Paul II on the same
day it approved the most extreme version of the civil union bill
— thus exposing their praise of the late Pope for the empty,
patronizing gesture that it was. During the debate several lawmakers
accused their own constituents of violating the First Amendment simply
by expressing religiously-motivated objections to same-sex unions.
Indeed, the Senate approved — and Gov. Rell actually signed
— the final version of the civil union bill on Catholic Concerns Day!
But in Waterbury, government
officials still respect the moral authority of the clergy. The voice of
courageous pro-family leaders like Archbishop Henry J. Mansell and
Pastor James Lilley helped convince government officials to protect the
family in the “Brass City.”
In Hartford, politicians are only too willing to cede their lawmaking authority to the courts, with Gov. Rell citing the Kerrigan case — which has yet to be ruled on — as one of her reasons for signing same-sex civil unions into law.
But in Waterbury, city officials
still believe that a free people must be a self-governing people, with
Mayor Jarjura declaring that he would fight any court decision that
seeks to prevent our elected representatives from enforcing a law that
protects families from the further encroachment of smut.
FIC salutes the City of Waterbury
— its mayor, its clergy and its active and faithful citizenry
— for setting a pro-family, pro-self government example that is
greatly needed here in blue-state Connecticut.
Posted at 12:57 PM
BISHOP SMITH: A WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING [Brian Brown]
Less than a quarter of the 200
congregants at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Bristol turned out
yesterday for a morning service led by the Rev. Susan J. McCone, the
minister installed by pro same-sex “marriage” Bishop Drew
Smith after he suspended the church’s pro-family pastor,
according to Francis Grandy Taylor’s story in today’s Courant:
McCone acknowledged the turmoil
following a decision by the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut last week
to strip the Rev. Mark Hansen of his priest duties. She now has the
unenviable task of stepping in, with many in the congregation angry at
Bishop Andrew Smith and the Episcopal Church. Some vowed earlier this
week not to return to St. John's.
Francis also reports on a meeting held at the church last night to address Bishop Smith’s actions:
Many members interviewed after
the meeting ended late Sunday were critical of the methods Smith used
in Hansen's removal, including changing the locks on the church
offices. Some members said they were not prepared to accept McCone as
pastor of the mostly conservative congregation.
Hansen is one of six Connecticut
priests embroiled in a dispute with the bishop stemming from Smith's
vote in 2003 to support the consecration of the first openly gay bishop
in the U.S. Episcopal Church.
The controversy has ignited the
passion of conservative Episcopalians who believe the church has
abandoned traditional teachings. The six churches have sought to be
placed under the authority of a different bishop, but discussion on the
matter broke down weeks ago.
Many St. John's parishioners
said Sunday night that they will not return and will instead attend
Trinity Episcopal Church, a conservative congregation that is one of
the six in dispute with the bishop…
"I don't understand why the
bishop is doing this to us," Tammy Vogt, a member of the vestry, said
after the meeting. "We are his flock, and he is supposed to be leading
us with his staff. Instead, he is hitting us over the head with it."
If those leaving St. John’s
Church match the number missing from yesterday’s service, the
church will lose three-fourths of its members because of Bishop
Smith’s actions. Bishop Smith claims that he took the actions he
did, in part, because he was concerned about the church’s
finances. How does Bishop Smith expect the church’s finances to
improve after the church loses 75% of its members?
The bishop’s Bristol
blunder illustrates the fallacy of the “open and affirming”
movement within mainline churches. Those who advocate for the churches
to embrace same-sex “marriage” and other departures from
Christian morality claim that doing so will make those churches more
inclusive and welcoming, thus attracting new members. But the reality
has proved to be just the opposite. The imposition of an anti-Christian
agenda on a Christian church drives out those members who are faithful
to their call to be “in” the world but not “of”
the world. And the supposedly “inclusive” agenda is imposed
with a ruthlessness that defenders of traditional morality — so
often maligned as the “intolerant” ones — can only
marvel at.
Bishop Smith’s action may
very well mean the end of St. John’s Church. But it is apparently
more important to him to be an agent of an “inclusiveness”
that excludes faithful Christians than it is to protect their faith. He
is truly a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Posted at 10:19 AM
July 15
PASTOR LILLEY LEADS CHARGE AGAINST WATERBURY’S SEX SHOPS [Peter Wolfgang]
Pastor James Lilley, one of the
state’s staunchest pro-family ministers and a good friend of FIC,
is leading the fight against an effort to loosen Waterbury’s
restrictions on its sex shops according to today’s Republican-American:
WATERBURY — Community
leaders reacted with outrage on Thursday to news the city is proposing
to loosen zoning restrictions on sexually oriented businesses.
The mayor's office was thrust
onto the defensive as residents called demanding explanations for the
proposal, which the City Plan Commission voted to recommend on
Wednesday.
Many residents said opening more
space to strip clubs, adult stores and other sex-themed businesses, as
the zoning amendment is designed to do, could attract crime and erode
the city's moral foundation…
The Rev. James Lilley, pastor of
First Assembly of God Church, said he feared that opening the door to
more adult establishments could harm families.
"Rape goes up and
violent-natured crime goes up in the areas where those businesses are
run. And healthy families do not want to go near those establishments,"
said Lilley, who was involved in crafting the current year-old zoning
restrictions limiting the placement of adult businesses.
"If I could see any changes, I'd like to see stricter laws passed," he added.
The Zoning Commission will vote
on the proposed change at its Aug. 24th meeting. FIC will update its
members on this situation as more information becomes available.
Posted at 12:23 PM
RAPE ALLEGED AT BRIDGEPORT ABORTION CLINIC [Brian Brown]
From today’s edition of the Connecticut Post:
BRIDGEPORT — The owner of
a local modeling agency was charged Thursday with sexually assaulting
three Norwalk teenagers he recruited to be models.
When one, a 14-year-old girl,
expressed concern that she was pregnant, police said agency owner
Michael Britt took her into the adjacent Summit Women's Center, where
he allegedly had intercourse with her under the guise of giving her an
abortion…
Britt, of Beechmont Avenue, has
operated the modeling business above the abortion clinic at 3787 Main
St. for at least several months…
Tanya Little, administrator for
Summit Women's Center, said Britt is a tenant in the center's building,
but "he has no connection with our patients." Asked if it were possible
for him to gain access to the Summit clinic, she responded: "I have no
knowledge of that."
According to the article, Michael
Britt allegedly raped the 14-year-old inside the abortion clinic on
more than one occasion, telling her that he was
“part-owner” of the clinic.
If these allegations are proven
true, it raises several questions. Did the abortion clinic know this
was happening? If so, for how long did they know? If not,
shouldn’t they have known? How lax is security at their facility?
What is the true relationship of the clinic to the alleged rapist?
Few institutions in Connecticut
appear to be as unregulated and above-the-law as the state’s
abortion clinics. When, a few years ago, a national pro-life group
exposed the practice of Connecticut abortion clinics’ not
reporting — indeed, facilitating — statutory rape, it
caused barely a ripple in local law enforcement and was ignored by most
of the media. FIC calls upon the police to do a better job this time in
finding the answers to the questions raised by this disturbing story.
Posted at 12:10 PM
READER: COURANT’S “LIFE” SECTION NOT FAMILY-FRIENDLY [Brian Brown]
Perhaps you saw the recent piece in the Courant’s
“Life” section mocking virginity? No? Well then, did you
catch the article on the joys of wedding-inspired one night stands? The
ditzy “dating” column chronicling one woman’s series
of sexual relationships? How about today’s piece by a male writer
agreeing with a “gay” web site on the physical
attractiveness of a particular movie actor? Or maybe you still recall
the Valentine’s Day “Life” section of a few years ago
that provided a how-to guide on adultery?
The Courant’s Life section is anything but family-friendly and we’re not the only ones to notice. This letter-to-the-editor, which appeared in yesterday’s Courant, speaks for many readers:
Section Not Fit For Kids' Eyes
The article "Wedding Bliss" [Life section, July 12] should have been R-rated.
In our home, I grab The
Courant's front section, my husband and 10-year-old fight over the
Sports section and my 13-year-old goes straight to the Life section.
The "Wedding Bliss" article was completely inappropriate for a
13-year-old. The first "Dear Amy" letter that day was also
inappropriate for underage readers ["Late-Night Porn Feedings?"].
I want my children to read, and
I am pleased that they read the newspaper, but I found it necessary not
only to bring this section to work to get it out of the house, but also
to call my parents who were watching my children and ask them to also
restrict that section…
“Not In This Family Paper
Will You Read It” says a headline in Pat Seremet’s gossip
column today, referring to a dirty joke. If the Courant still considers itself a family paper, it can prove it by cleaning up the dirty joke that is its Life section.
Posted at 11:29 AM
PRO SAME-SEX “MARRIAGE” BISHOP HAS THE BUILDING, NOT THE CONGREGATION [Peter Wolfgang]
Francis Grandy Taylor reports in today’s Courant
on the reactions of the members of St. John’s Episcopal Church in
Bristol to the suspension of their pro-family pastor by the
state’s pro same-sex “marriage” bishop:
Still reeling with shock a day
after the takeover of their church by the Episcopal Diocese of
Connecticut, members of St. John's Episcopal Church in Bristol are
wondering if their parish has a future.
"People are upset to the point
of tears," Richard Gonneville, senior warden at St. John's, said
Thursday. "They feel like their home has been ripped away from them."
Gonneville said representatives of the diocese changed the locks at the church Wednesday, which has kept vestry members out.
"I feel like I have been
inhibited, just like the rector," Gonneville said, adding that vestry
members plan to meet today to decide what their next step should be in
light of Wednesday's suspension of their rector, the Rev. Mark Hansen.
Connecticut Episcopal Bishop Andrew D. Smith used his power to formally
"inhibit" Hansen, which bars him from performing duties as a priest for
six months.
Hansen, who has led the church
since 1990, could be defrocked if the situation is not resolved. Hansen
and five other Connecticut priests have been embroiled in a dispute
with Smith stemming from Smith's approval of the 2003 consecration of
the U.S. Episcopal Church's first openly gay bishop.
To read the whole article, click here.
Posted at 9:56 AM
July 14
ROVE CONSULTS SEN. LIEBERMAN ON NOMINATION [Peter Wolfgang]
From today’s Courant:
WASHINGTON — Presidential
adviser Karl Rove has consulted with both Connecticut senators on a
Supreme Court nomination…
Lieberman is one of the "Gang of
14," seven Democrats and seven Republicans who in May broke a Senate
deadlock by agreeing not to filibuster judicial nominees except in
"extraordinary circumstances…"
This morning the Gang of 14 will
hold its first meeting since O'Connor's announcement, and although no
names are expected to come up, the topic could involve the standards
for filibustering…
Lieberman offered reporters
Wednesday three names he said could be considered without sparking a
talk-athon. He would not say whether he brought them up to Rove.
He said federal appellate Judges
Michael McConnell and John G. Roberts were "in the ballpark," and that
"people tell me" appeals court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson is "very
similar."
Lieberman emphasized that should they be nominated, they would be carefully scrutinized.
You can contact Sen. Lieberman and ask him to allow President Bush’s nominee to have an up-or-down vote by clicking here.
Although the President has yet to nominate someone, pro-abortion/pro
same-sex “marriage” groups are already contacting Sen.
Lieberman’s office and asking him to oppose whomever the
President chooses. Sen. Lieberman needs to hear from his pro-family
constituents!
For more information see
Brian’s Jul. 5th blog, below, and watch your in-box for e-mail
alerts. If you are not yet on our e-mail list and would like to be, click here.
Posted at 2:52 PM
EPISCOPAL BISHOP OF CT SUSPENDS PRO-FAMILY PRIEST [Brian Brown]
Drew Smith, the pro same-sex
“marriage” Episcopal bishop of Connecticut, has stripped
the Rev. Mark H. Hansen of his duties, claiming that Hansen failed to
notify Bishop Smith that he was on sabbatical and that there were
“concerns” about the church’s finances. Rev. Hansen
is one of the “CT Six” — a handful of state priests
whose fidelity to Biblical morality has led them to oppose Bishop
Smith’s support for the consecration of New Hampshire’s
actively homosexual Episcopal bishop. The CT Six had been trying to
reach an agreement that would have put them under the authority of a
different bishop — an arrangement allowed for by the Episcopal
denomination for priests in their situation — but Bishop Smith
had continually thrown roadblocks in their path.
Now it has come to this. According to the Courant,
Smith arrived at St. John's
about 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, accompanied by McCone; Jack Spaeth III,
diocesan canon for stewardship and administration; and Ed Seibert, an
administrative assistant with the diocese. The diocesan officials
entered the church office and told the administrator that the diocese
was taking control.
The Republican-American adds this detail:
"The parish has rallied here at
the rectory," said Ceil Hansen, the rector's wife. She said the diocese
already has changed the locks at the church and other parish buildings,
effectively barring the parishioners.
What about Bishop Smith’s claims against Rev. Hansen and his parish? The Courant covers their response:
Hansen was out of town when word
of his inhibition and the church takeover reached him, and he
apparently was shocked by the sudden turn of events.
"I'm still trying to digest what
has happened and what is going on," Hansen said from his cellphone as
he drove back to Bristol from New York, where he has been teaching at
an academic institution. "I categorically deny the accusations against
me."
Hansen said he had met with
Suffragan Bishop James Curry as recently as two weeks ago and discussed
a range of issues, including his sabbatical and the interim priests
hired to serve in his absence. Curry reports to Smith, and Curry's
office is in the same building as the bishop's.
Despite being on leave, Hansen
said he had officiated at a wedding and a funeral at the church, and
had a meeting with the church vestry this past weekend…
Hansen said his sabbatical was
allowed under his contract with the parish, and that information about
the agreement had been sent to the diocese, but Hansen said he has
received no response. He also said his sabbatical was related to the
need for more income because of the medical problems of his son, who is
learning disabled and attends a private school. The family continues to
live in the rectory, but also owns a small home in the area because
"our child has need of unique support services."
The Rev. Christopher Leighton,
rector of St. Paul's Church in Darien and one of the other priests
facing inhibition, called Smith's action against Hansen "heavy-handed
and unnecessary."
"I am grieved that Bishop Smith
would take such action against one of his own parishes," Leighton said,
adding that he believed the intent was to "intimidate" the other
priests…
Two St. John's parishioners, Bob
and Peggy Russell of Burlington, rushed to the church Wednesday after
receiving a phone call. "We have done nothing wrong at this church.
Father Mark has done nothing wrong," Bob Russell said. "We are a
conservative church that teaches based on the Bible. The national
church changed the rules and expects us to just fall in line."
Peggy Russell said the couple
had been members of St. John's for 36 years, but they were not sure
they would attend church this weekend or go to the meeting called by
Smith. "We're taking a stand at this church, not just for ourselves,
but for our grandchildren and all the people who come after us."
FIC is not unfamiliar with Bishop
Smith. I debated him at Trinity College last year. He said then that he
“yearned” for the day when his denomination would celebrate
same-sex “marriage” liturgies and he snapped at a member of
the audience for asking a question he did not like. FIC also took part
in a protest march against Bishop Smith’s anti-family theology in
the summer of 2003 and we were present at a rally in support of the CT
Six that was held in front of the state capitol exactly two months ago
yesterday.
What happened to Rev. Hansen is
further evidence that believers in traditional faith and family are up
against intolerant ideologues who are determined to stamp out any and
all resistance to their agenda. Rev. Hansen and the rest of the CT Six
— indeed, faithful Christians of any denomination who suffer
because of their fidelity to truth — will have the prayers and
support of FIC.
For regular updates on the fate
of CT Six — and the health of the Anglican communion in general
— we recommend that you visit the blog www.titusonenine.classicalanglican.net.
Posted at 11:38 AM
July 13
NEW HAVEN ADVOCATE TO LIBERALS: “THE PEOPLE ELECTED PRESIDENT BUSH, AND HE GETS TO PICK HIS JUDGES.” [Peter Wolfgang]
The New Haven Advocate,
one of a chain of left-wing “alternative” weeklies in the
state, occasionally surprises its readers with common sense
observations that deviate from the liberal party line. It will be
interesting, for instance, to see the letters-to-the-editor responding
to editor Mark Oppenheimer’s reaction to Justice O’Connor’s resignation:
Who could have predicted, when
she was nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, that Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor's announcement last week that she was retiring from
the Supreme Court would be most horrifying to liberals?...As
for me, I refuse to join in the caterwauling…I support abortion
rights…But I think that social goods (if one can call legal
abortion a "social good," which is a tricky matter) should generally be
won and guaranteed through the democratic process. We've reversed the
natural order of things. Conservatives should be the ones relying on
royalist fiats, while liberals should be listening for the will of the
people and engaging in open, free-form debates to sway people's
opinions.
Oppenheimer is one of the few
left-wing pundits to publicly criticize his side’s willingness to
rely on “royalist fiats” rather than the “will of the
people” to further the “abortion rights” agenda that
he supports. And then there is this:
Now, it's fair to reply that the
Constitution exists to protect rights so important that we don't want
them left up to the democratic process. I agree. But guess what? The
people elected President Bush, and he gets to pick his judges. We have
to deal with that.
If the Left is no longer in
denial about the fact that “the people elected President
Bush,” that is very likely a good thing for our country. And if
they can join Oppenheimer in making the next leap — “and he
gets to pick his judges” — that would be even better.
Posted at 10:27 AM
July 12
“A DESIRE TO DO THE RIGHT THING” [Peter Wolfgang]
On July 5th Brian blogged about
Sen. Lieberman’s potential to be the swing vote to confirm
President Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court and the key role
FIC Action must play in convincing him to do the right thing. David
Lightman writes about the Senator’s role in a front page article in today’s Courant:
WASHINGTON — Sen. Joseph
I. Lieberman is positioning himself in the middle of the Supreme Court
fight, along with 13 fellow senators who aim to cool the sizzling
rhetoric over President Bush's prospective nominee.
The Connecticut Democrat is one
of the Senate's "Gang of 14" — seven Democratic and seven
Republican centrists who in May broke a Senate deadlock over federal
judges by agreeing not to filibuster them…
But it's the 14, none of whom is
a top Judiciary Committee member, who have the leverage to determine
whether the president's choice is filibustered or glides through the
Senate hitting only a few speed bumps.
Lightman quotes Sen. Lieberman’s thoughts on his role in the process:
Lieberman said he intends to go
through his usual methodical process in assessing the next nominee,
reviewing cases and speeches, though in the end, his decision is
"basically a feeling, a desire to do the right thing."
There are no litmus tests, no
checklists. "None of this process is perfect," Lieberman said. "The
nominee has to protect our constitutional rights and not be swept up in
the political passions of the moment.
"I hope in these intensely
partisan times, this person will resist the pressure. ...We don't want
justices who will pre-judge a case."
And we hope, in these intensely
partisan times, that Sen. Lieberman’s Democratic colleagues will
resist the pressure to ask the nominee to pre-judge cases during his or
her confirmation hearings and that the Senator, having “no litmus
test,” will support an up-or-down vote on the President’s
nominee. That would be the “right thing,” which the Senator
says he has a desire to do.
Watch this space and our e-mail
alerts for further information on what you can do to encourage Sen.
Lieberman to keep his promise to do the right thing.
Posted at 9:47 AM
July 11
CATHOLIC TRANSCRIPT ON DEATH THREAT [Peter Wolfgang]
The July issue of Hartford’s Catholic newspaper, the Catholic Transcript, has a front page article covering the attacks against the family perpetrated by the 2005 legislative session. The Transcript also reports on the death threat made against the Church’s chief representative at the state capitol:
There also was a death threat
against Dr. Marie T. Hilliard, executive director of the Connecticut
Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the state’s
Catholic bishops. Dr. Hilliard received the threat on her life, which
was related to her public stance against same-sex unions on March 7 by
e-mail.
Police acted quickly to ensure
her safety, providing her with armed guards and changing her parking
space to a safer location at the capitol. Dr. Hilliard also had alarms
installed in her home. Police made an arrest on May 5 and the case is
pending.
Press coverage was confined to a brief story on Hartford’s WFSB-TV.
Brian Brown, executive director
of the Family Institute of Connecticut, lashed out in a public bulletin
that if the death threat had been against a supporter of same-sex
marriages, “media coverage would have been endless.” But
because the threat was against a leader on religious issues, it went
virtually ignored — even though some news organizations published
articles “accusing the pro-family movement of being hate-filled
and violent,” he noted.
Concerned but undaunted, Dr.
Hilliard acknowledged that such crimes are a fact of life for those who
speak out in the public arena.
“We’re used to
receiving mail from people who don’t agree with us,” she
said. “We work on very volatile issues, so we have to be aware of
that.
“Because we are countercultural, there will be negative responses that can escalate,” she added.
To read the whole article click here.
Posted at 9:23 AM
July 7
GOODRIDGE, LEWIS AND KERRIGAN [Peter Wolfgang]
A June 14th decision by the New
Jersey Appellate Court helps to illuminate why the future of our
nation’s courts are so important to the pro-family cause. In Lewis v. Harris,
the court ruled against seven same-sex couples seeking the
“right” to “marry.” Recall that in
Massachusetts the Supreme Judicial Court made the opposite decision,
with four judges imposing same-sex “marriage” on
Massachusetts in the Goodridge ruling.
Presiding Judge Steven Skillman took aim at the Goodridge ruling in his Lewis opinion, saying that it conflicted with
the traditional and still
prevailing religious and societal view of marriage as a union of one
man and one woman that plays a vital role in propagating the species
and provides the ideal setting for raising children…
A Constitution is not simply an
empty receptacle into which judges may pour their own conceptions of
evolving social mores. To yield to the impulse to invalidate
legislation merely because members of the court disapprove of public
policy is to subvert the sensitive interrelationship between the three
branches of government, which is at the heart of democracy.
It is not yet known whether New
Jersey’s Supreme Court will follow the honorable example of the
state’s appellate court in not legislating from the bench —
or the disreputable example of the four Massachusetts judges who
undemocratically imposed same-sex “marriage” on that
state’s unwilling public. But the outcome should be of great
concern to the pro-family citizens of Connecticut.
Our focus of late has been the
other two branches of our state government, where an unaccountable
legislature and an unelected governor imposed same-sex civil unions on
Connecticut, rather than heed the 76% of state voters who wanted to
decide the issue by referendum. But throughout that battle — and
the coming battle to reclaim Connecticut — another front has been
looming in the attack on marriage.
One year ago the pro same-sex “marriage” group that won the Goodridge
case in Massachusetts filed suit in Connecticut to achieve the same aim
here — the judicial imposition of same-sex
“marriage.” A ruling in that case, Kerrigan v. State of Conn, is pending and the final judgment may take years. If the plaintiffs win in Kerrigan it will present a large new obstacle in the struggle to protect marriage in Connecticut.
The different same-sex
“marriage” rulings from New Jersey and Massachusetts
— and the looming decision in Connecticut — show how
crucial it is to have judges on the bench who do not view a
Constitution as “an empty receptacle” through which they
can undemocratically impose their anti-family activism on the public.
This is why it is so important to fill Justice O’Connor’s
seat on the U.S. Supreme Court with someone who will not do that.
Watch this space. We will have
more information on President Bush’s nominee — and what you
can do to help the President get him confirmed — as it becomes
available.
Posted at 11:30 AM
July 6
“MORE FRAGMENTING THAN ANY OTHER DECISION” [Brian Brown]
The front page article in today’s Courant
covers the reactions to the United Church of Christ’s endorsement
of same-sex “marriage” that were missing from
yesterday’s New Haven Register piece:
The United Church of Christ
became the first mainline denomination to support same-sex marriage as
a civil right this past weekend. The decision is likely to further
polarize conservative and liberal congregations, church leaders in
Connecticut and elsewhere say.
A resolution supporting same-sex
marriage, which won overwhelming support during the church's General
Synod in Atlanta, could cause a crisis for some churches at the local
level, said the Rev. David Runnion-Bareford, executive director of
Biblical Witness Fellowship, a conservative renewal movement in the UCC.
"The impact on the denomination will be more fragmenting than any other decision they have made…”
Runnion-Bareford called the UCC
resolution a "tragic day in the history of our church that once had a
faithful witness for Jesus Christ…”
At the same time, churches have
left the UCC over this issue in recent years — as recently as
last week, when First Congregational Church in Torrington voted to
leave.
First Church of Christ in
Wethersfield, one of the largest UCC congregations in the country, left
the denomination last year…
The Rev. Peter Smith, pastor of
First Church in Thomaston, a conservative congregation, said the
decision means that funds sent to the UCC by member churches will go
toward legislative efforts that support same-gender marriage.
"I think this vote will further
polarize the denomination and will discourage many biblical Christians
from continuing to participate in the UCC," he said.
When her childhood parish quit
the UCC last November, the pro same-sex “marriage” leader
of the state UCC lashed out against the pro-family adherents of her
denomination, accusing them of a conspiracy. On Nov. 12th I blogged:
[I]f there was a conspiracy of
pro-family UCC pastors, [FIC] would probably know about it. The truth
is that most of our Congregationalist supporters are fiercely loyal to
the UCC and deeply grieved over its direction under people like [Davida
Foy] Crabtree.
FIC respects and supports the
UCC’s loyal pro-family adherents. We join them in hoping that the
UCC will recover “a faithful witness to Jesus Christ” that
it “once had,” as Rev. Runnion-Bareford put it.
But we understand that, for some,
the decision of the UCC General Synod to make theirs “the first
mainline denomination to support same-sex marriage as a civil
right” marks the breaking point.
FIC is in regular contact with
former UCC congregations in the local area. Pro-family members of the
UCC who wish to do so may contact us at info@ctfamily.org or (860) 548-0066 and we will help to connect them with pro-family former UCC churches in the local area.
Posted at 2:40 PM
SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENTS MATTER [Ken Von Kohorn]
FIC Action has announced (see
below) that it intends to lead a drive in Connecticut to support any
Supreme Court nominees whose judicial philosophy respects the plain
language of the Constitution. Too many former court appointees have
willingly invented novel interpretations of the Constitution so as to
produce results that conform to their personal social mores. Today's
syndicated column by Tom Sowell captures our concern so well that it is worth reproducing here in its entirety:
Our era might be described in
the famous phrase used to describe the era of the French Revolution
— "the best of times and the worst of times."
It is the best of times in terms
of life expectancy and a level of economic prosperity exceeding
anything our grandparents would have imagined. It is an era of
technological wonders providing instant interactions by phone, fax or
the Internet with friends in Europe, Africa, or New Zealand, not to
mention worldwide television broadcasts and other scientific
achievements.
Yet, within living memory, there
was a time when we were not afraid to go out at night, even in
low-income neighborhoods, when parents didn't have to fear for their
children's safety in schools, much less teachers have to fear for their
own safety.
There was a time when pornography was not being mass-marketed to adults, much less thrust on children.
There was a time when criminals
had to fear the courts but honest people did not, a time when doctors
did not have to spend tens of thousands of dollars a year for
malpractice insurance to guard against frivolous lawsuits.
When we look at which people and
institutions have produced the best of times and which have produced
the worst, we can see the irony that many of those who have created
economic, technological, and medical advances are less likely to be
lionized and more likely to be sued.
Meanwhile, many of the signs of
social degeneration can be traced to the courts that are supposed to be
upholding law and order but which have too often become places for
judges to indulge their egos and impose fashionable theories as the law
of the land.
Some judges and Supreme Court
justices may flatter themselves that they are helping the poor and the
disadvantaged but their arbitrary notions often hurt the less fortunate
most of all.
Whose homes are going to be
bulldozed to make way for a new shopping mall or hotel complex under
the Supreme Court's expanded notion of eminent domain? Mansions in
Beverly Hills?Condos on Park Avenue? Or working class homes and
apartment buildings?
The fact that the NAACP and the AARP filed briefs on the side of the homeowners should be a clue.
When a handful of hoodlums can
prevent a whole class from learning, as a result of judicial rulings
that make it more dangerous to the school to crack down on classroom
disrupters than to tolerate their destroying all the other children's
education, whose children are most likely to see their whole future
lost this way?
Children whose parents can
afford to put them in private schools? Children in upscale
neighborhoods who get a lot of their education at home anyway? Or poor
children for whom a decent education is likely to be their only ticket
out of poverty?
The civil rights organizations
have not yet come to understand and protest the staggering lifelong
price to be paid by a whole generation of low-income and minority
youngsters when liberal judges create new "rights" for hoodlums in
school.
When such judges find ever more
flimsy and esoteric reasons to turn violent criminals loose, to whose
neighborhoods are these criminals most likely to return and resume
their violence? The upscale neighborhoods where the judges and their
families and friends live? Or the places where people at the other end
of the economic scale live?
Although liberals like to
flatter themselves that they are friends of the poor, promoting
dependency and subsidizing irresponsible behavior helps only that
minority among low-income people who are a plague to the other
low-income people who have to put up with them living in their midst.
People of every income level and
social background are made worse off when the rule of law dissolves
into a fog of uncertainties created by "nuanced" judicial fiats.
Frivolous lawsuits flourish in these uncertainties, crippling
businesses, destroying jobs, and driving up the cost of medical care to
cover both the lawsuits and the defensive medicine to ward off lawsuits.
When it comes to the havoc
created by "mainstream" judicial activists, send not to know for whom
the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.
Posted at 9:05 AM
July 5
SENATOR LIEBERMAN NEEDS TO HEAR FROM YOU [Brian Brown]
On Friday, July 1st, Justice
Sandra Day O’Connor announced that she was resigning from the
U.S. Supreme Court after having served there for 24 years. In his
e-mail alert today, Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council
(FRC), said the following:
The retirement of Justice Sandra
Day O'Connor from the U.S. Supreme Court presents the most important
opportunity we may have for decades to stop the nation's courts from
stripping away our Judeo-Christian heritage. Justice O'Connor MUST be
replaced by a conservative justice who will honor the constitution and
not make laws from the bench. President Bush made a campaign promise to
name justices to the nation's highest court that mirror the judicial
philosophy of Supreme Court conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and
Clarence Thomas. That promise, more than perhaps any other, charged me
and millions of other values voters across the land to vote for Mr.
Bush.
Justice O'Connor was the
deciding vote on many 5-4 decisions of the Court that strike at the
heart of our Judeo-Christian heritage. You know that just a week ago,
Justice O'Conner and four others on the Supreme Court ruled that the
Ten Commandments cannot be displayed on public property if there is a
religious purpose in doing so. Honoring God in the public square is now
banned because of Justice O'Connor's vote. She was part of the 5-4
majority striking down sodomy laws two years ago potentially paving the
way for same-sex marriage. And she also sided with the five-member
majority striking down the Congressional law prohibiting the gruesome
practice of partial-birth-abortion. You can see why Family Research
Council is pouring everything into the fight for her replacement
— for someone who is a conservative and a constitutional strict
constructionist.
The President needs to know that
you will stand with him in what will no doubt be one of the biggest
political battles this city [Washington, D.C.] has ever seen if he
keeps his promise and nominates a candidate like Justice Scalia or
Thomas.
Tony encourages all of us to use
FRC’s resources to contact the President before he makes his
decision, which you can do by clicking here.
As Tony Perkins says, Justice
O’Connor’s resignation “presents the most important
opportunity we may have for decades to stop the nation’s courts
from stripping away our Judeo-Christian heritage.” Indeed, the
struggle to confirm her replacement on the nation’s highest court
may be one of the biggest — and most consequential —
political fights of our lifetime.
Connecticut’s pro-family
residents have a key role to play in that fight — a role so
important that it may well determine whether we are victorious.
Knowledgeable observers consider
Connecticut’s own U.S. Senator, Joseph Lieberman, to be a
“moderate” and one of the few potential swing votes in the
U.S. Senate. If the vote to confirm President Bush’s nominee is
going to be close in the Senate, Sen. Lieberman could well cast the
deciding vote.
Sen. Lieberman needs to hear from every single one of his pro-family Connecticut constituents. Not a single one of us can afford not to contact Sen. Lieberman about this — the stakes are too high.
You can call Sen.
Lieberman’s office in Washington, D.C. at (202) 224-4041 and his
office in Hartford at (860) 549-8463. You can also e-mail Sen.
Lieberman by clicking here.
Remind Sen. Lieberman of his role
in brokering the deal that ended the filibuster of President
Bush’s nominees to the appellate court. Insist that he keep his
commitment to a swift, fair confirmation process by supporting an
up-or-down vote for the President’s Supreme Court nominee and
opposing another filibuster. Tell Sen. Lieberman that the nominee
should not have to pass a pro-abortion litmus test to get his vote.
The U.S. Supreme Court has
enormous power to affect faith and family in our nation. Many of the
societal ills that we are committed to combating were imposed on us by
a Court that went beyond its authority, essentially usurping the
democratic process itself. Returning the Court to its proper,
constitutional role could be the biggest, most important victory the
pro-family movement ever achieves.
We call upon all our supporters to lend their efforts to this urgent task.
Posted at 2:34 PM
MARK AZZARA RETIRES [Brian Brown]
The sad decline of the UCC under
its pro same-sex “marriage” leadership is a story we have
followed on this blog since its inception. It was a job made easier by
the excellent reporting of Mark Azzara. Way back on Oct. 26th I wrote
in this space:
Mark Azzara is the best religion reporter in Connecticut’s secular press and the Waterbury Republican-American
is lucky to have him. In “United Church of Christ an increasingly
divided denomination” — a story on Page D1 last Thursday
— Azarra breaks from the media pack to tell us what’s
really going on inside the UCC…
As the UCC article in today’s New Haven Register
shows, Azarra really did break away from the pack, by regularly
reporting about the pro-family resistance within the UCC that we almost
never heard about from other media sources.
Azarra announced over the weekend that he is retiring. FIC wishes him the best and hopes that his replacement will continue the Republican-American’s tradition of providing the best religion coverage of any secular media outlet in Connecticut.
Posted at 10:40 AM
UCC’S GENERAL SYNOD ENDORSES SAME-SEX “MARRIAGE” [Brian Brown]
The leadership of the United
Church of Christ voted to accelerate the denomination’s downward
spiral at its national meeting over the weekend, according to today’s New Haven Register:
A majority of
Connecticut’s 51 United Church of Christ delegates, taking part
in their biannual national meeting Monday in Atlanta, voted with the
UCC’s rule-making body to approve a resolution endorsing same-sex
marriage.
About 80 percent of the national
representatives on the church’s 884-member General Synod approved
the resolution, a day after it was recommended by a smaller
committee…
The issue was not a new one for
the UCC Connecticut Conference. It has studied it for several years and
in October voted to endorse same-sex marriage on a state level.
Davida Foy Crabtree of Hartford,
minister for the Connecticut Conference, said she only saw two state
delegates oppose the measure when the vote was tallied in Atlanta.
"Our delegates were, overall, very clear that this was the right step to take," she said…
The growing number of former UCC
churches in Connecticut that left the denomination in part because of
its endorsement of same-sex “marriage” would certainly
dispute Crabtree’s claim that this vote was the “right step
to take.” So would anyone who takes Christian morality as it is,
rather than reinventing it to serve an anti-Christian ideology.
Curiously, the Register/AP
article makes no mention of those state churches that have left the UCC
because of similar same-sex “marriage” endorsements.
Posted at 10:11 AM
July 1
CRUSADE FOR LIFE COMES TO WATERBURY [Peter Wolfgang]
FIC has received the following information from Connecticut Right to Life:
Dear pro-life friends,
The American Life League's
CRUSADE FOR LIFE 2005 is marching from Maine to Washington, D.C. This
Sunday, July 3rd, at 3:00 P.M. they will meet in the front of the
Immaculate Conception Church, 74 West Main St (on the Green), in
Waterbury to lead a march to City Hall on Grand St.
A plaque will be presented to
Waterbury alderman Francis J. Caiazzo Jr. for his courage in
introducing a Proposed Ordinance before the Board of Aldermen to make
Waterbury an Abortion Free Zone.
All of our Pro-Life friends and their families are invited to attend. Please mark your calendar. See you on July 3rd.
Posted at 10:40 AM
June 30
“HANDS OFF MY HOME” RALLY IN NEW LONDON [Brian Brown]
We have received the following
information from Rich Kendall, the New England Representative of the
National Clergy Council and a good friend of the Family Institute:
Dear New England Friends of the Family;
A rally in defense of the poor
homeowners in New London Conn is being held on July 5th....The Supreme
Court's decision to allow the seizure of their homes is just another
blatant and unconstitutional decision of the black robed tyrants in
Washington. In the great tradition of our New England forefathers, it
is time to take action with our feet and voices to stop the tyranny of
these UNELECTED, arrogant and ungodly judges. Our founders risked their
lives, property and honor in defense of freedom. Can we do any less?
See you in New London.
The rally will be on July 5th at 6 pm at the New London City Hall, 181 State Street.
Posted at 11:42 AM
GOV. RELL’S LATEST BLUNDER [Peter Wolfgang]
Republican Gov. Jodi Rell, who
signed the bill legalizing same-sex civil unions and the bill
committing $100 million of taxpayer money to the cloning and killing of
human embryos, clearly has no love for her party’s pro-family
majority. According to a front page piece in today’s Courant, the feeling is mutual:
Abortion Issue Roils GOP's Fundraiser
STAMFORD — Internal
divisions over the issues of abortion and increased state taxes on the
wealthy clouded the Connecticut Republican Party's largest annual
fundraising dinner Wednesday, where attendance was the lowest in years [emphasis added].
At the dinner Jennifer Blei
Stockman, a co-chair of the pro-abortion group “Republican
Majority for Choice,” was awarded the state GOP’s highest
honor. The Courant reports that Stockman, who has led the fight
to make the GOP more pro-abortion, “was chosen for the
award” by Gov. Rell. Consistent with the usual disregard for
truth so common among abortion advocates, Stockman comments:
"Gov. Rell has united the Republicans. We hope the national party can take some lessons from what is happening in Connecticut."
What lesson would Stockman like
the national GOP to take from the state GOP? “Abandon the
pro-life/pro-family platform that made the GOP the ruling party in
Washington and embrace the social liberalism that made it a non-entity
in Hartford?”
And if Gov. Rell’s decision
to honor the pro-abortion Stockman has “united the
Republicans,” why did the award dinner have the “lowest
attendance in years?” According to the Courant,
“one Republican insider said the attendance was
‘pathetic,’” with tables being described as
“empty” or only “partially filled.” Refusing to
believe her own eyes, Gov. Rell described the attendance as excellent,
“adding that some people had arrived specifically to see
Stockman.”
But it seems that many more chose
not to attend specifically because of Stockman. It would come as news
to this man, for instance, that Rell’s choice of Stockman has
“united the Republicans:”
But longtime Greenwich
Republican Sam Romeo, who has attended the dinner through the years,
said that he boycotted this year because of Stockman.
"For them to honor Stockman is
an insult. Mrs. Pro-abortion herself," said Romeo, a conservative who
said that he would support [Mass. Gov. Mitt] Romney financially in his
next campaign. "She doesn't represent me and a lot of Republicans on
her stance."
Romeo said that Stockman is
out-of-step with the GOP's national leaders, and that he could not
understand why she was being honored by the state party.
"Doesn't this fly in the face of
George Bush's conservatism?" Romeo asked. "He's definitely a committed,
pro-life president. How could I go, in good conscience, to that dinner?"
The decision to have the state
GOP award its highest honor to “Mrs. Pro-abortion herself”
is just the latest in a series of anti-family, pro-abortion blunders by
a governor who was never elected to the position. Yes, Gov.
Rell’s approval rating was still high the last time the pollsters
checked. But former U.S. Rep. Barbara Kennelly’s margins of
victory were always high, too, until she faced real competition in a
race for governor — then she folded like a house of cards.
A recent interview portrayed Gov.
Rell as believing that a likely opponent in the 2006 governor’s
race, who is considered hard to beat, will turn out to have a
“glass jaw.” But the governor would do well to consider
those empty tables at last night’s dinner. They represent not
just big donors who chose not to attend, but thousands of pro-family
citizens who are deeply offended by the bills she has signed.
If she cannot somehow manage to
reverse the anti-family course that she has put her administration on,
Gov. Rell may discover that she is the one with the glass jaw.
Posted at 11:04 AM
June 29
FIRST CASUALTY OF SAME-SEX “MARRIAGE” IN CANADA: THE TRUTH [Brian Brown]
Today’s Courant has a page A3 article
on yesterday’s vote by Canada’s House of Commons to
legalize same-sex “marriage.” Here is the third paragraph:
"The big peaceable kingdom on
the U.S. border will demonstrate that it is absolutely possible for
religious freedom to coexist with the end of discrimination against gay
and lesbian people," said Alex Munter, a gay rights advocate who
gathered with other supporters at Parliament Hall in Ottawa to watch
the vote.
Will Canada prove that religious
freedom can coexist with the destruction of marriage? That would come
as news to the Knights of Columbus. The Knights, a Catholic fraternal
order, are being sued in Canada by a same-sex couple for refusing to
rent their hall for the couple’s “wedding” reception.
Here in Connecticut — where
the recently passed same-sex civil union law has not even gone into
effect yet — pro same-sex “marriage” Rep. Michael
Lawlor has already said that any similar act of conscience by the state
K of C would be “bigotry” and grounds for a lawsuit.
In a Catholic News Service article published in the June 26th issue of the Connecticut-based National Catholic Register,
the paper provides some details about religious freedom and same-sex
“marriage” in Canada that you won’t read about in the
Courant:
OTTAWA — Calgary Bishop
Fred Henry warned of a growing religious intolerance in Canada when he
appeared as a witness before the legislative committee studying
same-sex “marriage” June 6.
“We’re into a
changed social reality that is hostile to religious belief,”
Bishop Henry said, citing a threatening phone call from Revenue Canada
and two recent human rights complaints against him for his opposition
to homosexual “marriage” as threats to his freedom of
expression and religious belief.
“These complaints are an
attempt to intimidate and silence me, and are without any foundation in
fact,” Bishop Henry said…
The bishop said homosexual
“marriage” legislation would “open Pandora’s
box” and lead to a proliferation of court cases that have already
started to intimidate and shut down dissent from leaders of smaller
religious denominations.
Rep. Lawlor has yet to say
whether he thinks that — like the state’s K of C —
the Catholic bishops and smaller religious denominations of Connecticut
should be made to suffer the same fate as their brethren in Canada.
Regardless, the “gay rights” advocate’s false assertion in today’s Courant makes one thing clear. Wherever same-sex marriage advances, the truth is one of the first casualties.
Posted at 10:41 AM
June 28
TRUTH, POLITICS AND THE TEN COMMANDMENTS [Peter Wolfgang]
In two 5-4 decisions the U.S.
Supreme Court yesterday ruled that a Ten Commandments display in a
Kentucky courthouse was unconstitutional but a similar display on the
Texas state capitol grounds was permissible. Trying to make sense of it
all, news outlets described the Court as saying that displaying the Ten
Commandments on public property is constitutional, as long as you are
not too religious about it. This reminds me of the joke about the Bible
told by law professors to first year students in their Evidence class:
“The Bible is like hearsay — it can be admitted for
anything other than its truth.”
The truth is, in fact, what is at
stake here — namely, the truth of our Judeo-Christian heritage,
which the Court’s secularist majority is determined to drive out
of the public square. The absence of a “consistently applied
principle,” as Justice Scalia put it in his dissent, invites
endless litigation in response to any little hint of the nation’s
religious heritage in a public forum. The truth of the nation’s
founding principles is, therefore, something we must continue to fight
for.
However, for the Courant’s Washington Bureau Chief, David Lightman, the issue is not truth, but politics. Lightman’s front page story
is headlined “Ruling Seen To Aid Right.” Lightman’s
take on the rulings — it “provides a fresh rallying point
for conservatives eager for political gain” — should
frighten the Courant’s liberal readers enough so that
they add a few extra dollars to their next contribution to the ACLU or
Planned Parenthood. But the state’s GOP should pay particular
attention to this part of Lightman’s article:
Some political leaders have
found they can appeal to voters by tucking the Ten Commandments into a
political cocoon — one that snugly fits around other "mainstream
values" such as marriage between a man and woman and the right to pray
at school, said Brad Coker, of Mason-Dixon Research in Jacksonville.
That image is particularly
useful with swing voters who do not necessarily feel comfortable with
Republican economic models, said Coker.
"They think Republicans are
often too close to big business and too much a part of the country club
set," he said. "But these same voters can identify with conservative
social values — opposition to gay marriage or the teaching of
evolution, and support for the Ten Commandments."
In Connecticut we have a
Republican Party that has taken the opposite approach — most
recently, with a governor who signed same-sex civil unions into law and
a party apparatus that held a dinner honoring a major pro-abortion
activist. As a result, the CT GOP has seen its electoral fortunes fall
at the same time that the national party has marched to victory on a
pro-family platform.
The pro-family coalition
described by Lightman’s sources exists here in Connecticut. But a
major political party wise enough to champion our cause does not yet
exist in the state.
Cynical or not, Lightman
correctly sees an opportunity for enterprising politicians willing to
fight for faith and family. Who will seize it?
Posted at 10:44 AM
June 27
WILLOW CREEK LEADERSHIP SUMMIT AUG. 11-13 [Brian Brown]
The announcement on the home page of the Noroton Presbyterian Church in Darien says it all:
The Willow Creek Leadership Summit, August 11-13, 2005
You are invited to "step up to
the next level" by attending the Willow Creek Leadership Summit. Gather
with 50,000 Christian leaders via satellite to recalibrate, recommit,
and renew your passion to “lead with all diligence”.
Featured speakers include: Bill Hybels of Willow Creek Community
Church; Rick Warren, author of The Purpose Driven Life; Ken Blanchard,
author of The One Minute Manager; Colleen Barrett, President of
Southwest Airlines; Jack Groppel, expert on stress and human
performance along with a host of well known pastors and leadership
speakers. To register for this event, click here. For more information go to: click here
Connecticut is fortunate to have
two locations where state residents can participate in this important
event, hosted by the famous Willow Creek Church and featuring some of
the most popular evangelical speakers in the country. In addition to
Noroton Presbyterian, state residents can also attend the Leadership
Summit at First Cathedral in Bloomfield (click here and scroll down to #93 to register for Bloomfield).
With the passage of same-sex
civil unions in Connecticut, leadership from the state’s
pro-family citizens has never been more urgently needed. The Willow
Creek Leadership Summit is a wonderful opportunity for us to
“recalibrate, recommit and renew” our passion for
reclaiming Connecticut. FIC encourages as many of its supporters as
possible to attend this timely event.
Posted at 4:11 PM
FIC SUPPORTER GETS RESULTS [Peter Wolfgang]
On June 17th Brian posted a letter-to-the-editor that I submitted to the Courant
a week earlier in response to a pro same-sex “marriage”
op-ed that appeared in its pages, a letter which the paper had not
published. In an e-mail alert, Brian told you, our supporters, that we
would bring our pro-family message directly to you whenever the Courant censors us.
What happened next is a testament to how important your voice is. An FIC supporter called the editor of the Courant’s
editorial page and complained that there was no response to the
pro-same sex “marriage” opinion piece. The editor told her
none had been received. She e-mailed him proof that my letter had been
received by the Courant. I then received an e-mail from another
editor saying that his supervisor had been contacted by our supporter
about my letter, that he had initially “lost it,” but that
it would be published. The editor kept his word — the letter was published on Saturday.
Never think that you do not make
a difference. It is because of the willingness of that one supporter to
make a few phone calls that the Courant’s readers could
read FIC’s pro-family response. It is because of the work, faith
and generosity of you, our supporters, that the pro-family cause has
made it this far in Connecticut. And whether or not we can reclaim
Connecticut in 2006 for marriage protection — and reverse the
attacks on the family that our state has recently suffered — will
depend on you.
Thank you, to the supporter who called the Courant and to all of you who make our work possible. Let us never forget that the pro-family cause can succeed in Connecticut — if we are willing to do our part to make it happen.
Posted at 3:25 PM
ANOTHER CHURCH QUITS THE UCC [Brian Brown]
Another church has voted to leave
the United Church of Christ, in part, because of the denominational
leadership’s support for same-sex “marriage,”
according to a front-page article in today’s Waterbury Republican-American:
TORRINGTON — First
Congregational Church in West Torrington voted Sunday to quit the
embattled United Church of Christ, citing disagreements with the
denomination's liberal stance on sexuality.
At an hour-long meeting that
followed its Sunday service, church members voted 31 to 4 to leave the
denomination as of Oct. 1, ending months of study and debate…
First Congregational becomes the
fourth parish in the state church's Valley-Northwest District to quit
the denomination in less than a year. The others include Winsted Church
of Christ, Northfield Congregational Church in Litchfield and Beacon
Falls Congregational Church, formerly known as the United Church of
Beacon Falls.
All the churches have left
because of state and national convention votes that endorse same-sex
marriage, ordination of actively gay homosexuals and other liberal
views. Recently the United Church of Christ ran a nationwide series of
television advertisements depicting two bouncers who blocked
minorities, including homosexuals, from worship at other unspecified
churches…
[Tina] Maccalous, [a church
deacon,] said she's not sure how the denomination will react to this
latest defection. "I hope they will realize how the churches feel and
make changes. I'd like to see them turn themselves around," she said.
The four Congregational parishes
in the state’s northwest corner are not the only Connecticut
churches to leave the UCC because of the leadership’s support for
same-sex “marriage.” Other parishes such as First Church of
Wethersfield — one of the largest and oldest churches in New
England — have also quit the denomination.
FIC joins Deacon Maccalous in her
hope that the UCC’s leaders will “turn themselves
around” and return to the bedrock values of faith and family. But
the UCC is one of the most powerful pro same-sex “marriage”
lobbies at our state capitol — and one of the founding members of
the Love Makes A Family coalition. Despite the growing number of
churches that have quit the denomination, the UCC’s leaders are
not likely to cease their attacks on the family any time soon.
Posted at 2:43 PM
INDOCTRINATING KIDS WITH SAME-SEX “MARRIAGE” AGENDA [Peter Wolfgang]
The Danbury News-Times has an article in today’s paper encouraging parents to buy a children’s book promoting same-sex “marriage:”
In 1998, two male penguins from the Central Park Zoo met, became inseparable and showed a desire to become parents.
The penguins, Roy and Silo,
inspired a children's book, "And Tango Makes Three," published by Simon
& Schuster Children's Publishing.
Some local parents and educators think the book could be a valuable tool for teaching children about same-sex couples.
The zoo keeper’s belief
that the penguins “showed a desire to become parents” was
based on the observation that they made a nest and defended it. It is a
sign of the desperation of same-sex “marriage” proponents
that they would seize on evidence as weak as this to support a
redefinition of marriage that runs counter to history, logic, faith,
social science data and common sense.
In the space of about 600 words
the article manages to quote five people that support giving the book
to children. No alternative view — not a single person who would
dispute the wisdom of teaching children that same-sex
“marriage” is a good or morally neutral thing — is
quoted. Instead, the reader sees only comments like this:
Rhonda Woods of New Milford thinks the book could be beneficial to parents in discussing same-sex couples with their children.
"Any book that would bring a sensitive issue down to a child's level I think is a good thing," Woods said.
The issue of same-sex couples is something parents have to deal with, she said.
"My daughter has in her class parents that are of the same sex," Woods said.
Her daughter, 10, has asked her mother about the couple…
Psychologist Irwin Sollinger of
Westport said as children's sexual curiosity peaks earlier and earlier,
questions about sexuality need to be addressed and the book is "a
wonderful way of doing it. It can only be helpful."
“It can only be helpful.” Who would disagree? In fact, almost everyone would disagree. But the Danbury News-Times would prefer that you not know that.
Posted at 12:29 PM
June 24
HOMESCHOOLERS: THE NEXT TARGET ON THE ANTI-FAMILY HIT LIST? [Brian Brown]
Marriage, unborn children,
embryonic human beings, the terminally ill and youth abstinence were
all victims of this year’s legislative session. As if that were
not bad enough, it now seems that the state’s anti-family elites
may have discovered a new target: homeschoolers.
The state’s Commissioner of
Education has asked Atty. Gen. Blumenthal for a legal opinion
“interpreting” Connecticut’s homeschooling law.
Homeschoolers have reason to believe that this is the opening shot in a
campaign by the state to exercise greater control over them. That
— plus concerns over how they are presently treated — are
causing them to get active, according to an article in yesterday’s Connecticut Post:
HARTFORD — The governor's
office fielded about 60 phone calls Wednesday from homeschoolers
unhappy with the way local school officials are treating them.
The call-in, orchestrated by a
national home education association with Connecticut roots, asked Gov.
M. Jodi Rell to direct school districts to stop requiring letters of
intent from homeschoolers and eliminate misleading language in the
state law that allows home schooling.
In typical fashion, the Governor is playing both ends at this early stage in the controversy:
"I can tell you that Gov. Rell
fully supports the rights of parents to home school. The governor also
supports [Commissioner of Education Betty J. Sternberg's] right to seek
an opinion from the attorney general whenever there is a question
regarding this topic," said [Rell’s spokesman]. "We are currently
awaiting the decision of the attorney general."
We have been down this path with Gov. Rell before. Last December she told the New Haven Register
that she did not see the need for civil unions because the concerns of
its proponents had already been addressed by previous legislation.
Then, in April, she signed the civil union bill, after securing an
opinion from the attorney general to provide some political cover.
In light of that history, Gov.
Rell’s claim that she “fully supports” homeschooling,
while waiting on an opinion from the AG, lacks credibility.
Deborah Stevenson, an attorney and the director of National Home Education Legal Defense, offers further reasons for concern:
Stevenson is representing the
parents of Simon Drew, a Bridgeport 10-year-old who has been
homeschooled since his mom sent a certified letter to school officials
on April 12. He has not been officially withdrawn from the school
system because his parents won't sign the notice of intent.
Marie Drew won't sign the form
because it is supposed to be voluntary and because she would be
pledging to attend annual portfolio reviews she believes would be
pointless.
Sternberg [the commissioner of
education] has asked Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to spell out
the rights of parents and responsibilities of school districts in
ensuring instruction is taking place. Blumenthal has promised an
opinion this summer.
Stevenson wonders how objective
Blumenthal can be since, she said, it was his office that represented
the state against an East Hampton home-schooling family this year.
We now live in a world where a
father in Boston can spend a night in prison for trying to protect his
5-year-old son from being taught about same-sex “marriage”
in his kindergarten class and a 9-year-old girl in Norwich is allowed
to give a presentation to her classmates about her mother’s
same-sex relationship. And those are just a few small samples of what
now passes for “education” in too many of our
nation’s public schools.
Given these facts, homeschooling
is a natural response from concerned parents to an educational
bureaucracy that seems increasingly determined to come between them and
their children in order to re-program them with what it deems to be
“progressive” values.
FIC fully supports homeschooling
— in part, to protect those children from the coming attacks on
the family in Connecticut’s public schools that Gov. Rell made
possible when she signed the civil union bill. We will continue to
monitor this situation.
Posted at 12:15 PM
June 23
LEGISLATIVE WRAP UP CONFERENCE [Peter Wolfgang]
“In 43 years on the air in
this town, I have never seen such a mess.” That is how radio host
Brad Davis described this year’s legislative session on June
14th. The occasion was a legislative wrap-up session moderated by Brad
and hosted by the Yankee Institute for Public Policy at Trinity
College, which sought to bring “moderate to conservative”
organizations together to talk about their experiences of the session
that had just ended.
I was one of ten different
speakers to address the conference. We were in unanimous agreement with
Brad’s opinion of the session, with several of the other speakers
seconding my description of it as “the most anti-family session
in recent state history.”
I began my speech by reminding
the audience of all that we had accomplished prior to 2005. Four years
ago, the pro same-sex “marriage” movement deliberately
targeted Connecticut, viewing it as a socially-liberal
“blue” state where victory would come easy. Instead, they
found an energized grassroots pro-family movement made up of thousands
of citizens prepared to give our state’s anti-family elites the
fight of their lives.
Working with the Knights of
Columbus and other groups in 2002, the Family Institute of Connecticut
gathered 70,000 (the number eventually grew to 100,000) signatures
calling upon our elected officials to pass a Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA) defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It was
the largest petition drive in state history.
And it had an impact. In 2003,
Rep. Michael Lawlor (D-East Haven), the leading legislative proponent
of same-sex “marriage,” saw his domestic partnership bill
(same-sex “marriage” by a different name) go down in flames
in his own Judiciary Committee, where he has served as chairman for
years.
From there, the momentum kept
building. In February, 2004, FIC hosted the second-largest rally in
state history on the steps of the state capitol. On a freezing cold
day, 6,000 pro-family state residents came together to demand that the
legislature pass a DOMA. The crowd provided an excellent snapshot of
the diversity of our movement. African-Americans, Hispanics, whites,
Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Democrats and Republicans all united for
one purpose: to protect marriage in Connecticut.
And yet, here we are. It’s
2005 and the same-sex civil union bill has been passed by the
legislature and signed by Gov. Rell. What happened?
The answer, I told the conference
attendees, is the 2004 election. Nationally, “values
voters” were directly responsible for pro-family victories in the
presidential and U.S. Senate. In Connecticut, the results were almost
completely the opposite. Our opponents — who had initially been
surprised by the opposition of most Connecticut residents to their
agenda and the defeats they had suffered because of that opposition
— understood the importance of the 2004 election. They poured an
unheard-of amount of resources into the state’s 2004
races—$200,000 in just one Senate district — to elect
legislators who would kowtow to their agenda.
The result was the most anti-family legislative session in recent state history.
FIC and FIC Action fought hard to
make the new legislature aware of what they should have already known
from the events of the previous years: the majority of state residents
want to protect marriage not redefine it. In February, we commissioned
a poll by Harris Interactive showing that 78% of state voters know that
marriage is between a man and a woman and 76% want to let the people
decide the future of marriage in a statewide referendum, rather than
have it imposed on us by a legislative majority bought and paid for by
the pro same-sex “marriage” lobby.
Our supporters called and
e-mailed their legislators by the thousands, calling on them to let the
people decide. We held several rallies at the state capitol.
The legislature responded by
making a few cosmetic changes. The same-sex “marriage” bill
was changed to a civil union bill and amended to define marriage as the
union of one man and one woman. But it was ultimately a same-sex
“marriage” bill by a different name that was passed by
legislators against the clear wishes of their constituents.
Indeed, in their speeches on the
Senate floor, several Senators made it a point to say that they
received far more correspondence from their constituents against the
bill than for it — and they intend to vote for it anyway!
Sen. Bill Finch (D-Bridgeport) accused his pro-family constituents of
violating the separation of church and state — and claimed that
the Bhagavad Gita and Buddhism are just as important to American government as the Bible!
(“Surely, you’re aware of the Buddhist underpinnings of
American government?” I joked to a friend during his speech.) In
the House, Rep. Brendan Sharkey (D-Hamden) falsely claimed that the
Catholic Church is “equally” opposed to the death penalty
and same-sex “marriage” and implied that his Catholic
constituents who expressed opposition to the latter but not the former
are hypocrites.
I also drew my audience’s attention to the Courant’s
front page photo published the day after the House vote. It showed a
Franciscan Friar — calm, peaceful — reaching out to Rep.
David McCluskey to make the case for marriage protection. Rep.
McCluskey is shown with his arms flailing about, head in the air, eyes
bulging. “I thought the good Friar was performing an
exorcism,” I told them. The photo did, in all seriousness,
capture the disdain with which pro same-sex “marriage”
legislators treated constituents who dared to disagree with them.
That disdain continued after the
vote. At Gov. Rell’s request, the Senate suspended normal
procedures and rushed the bill to her so that she could sign it a few
hours after the vote. The system was deliberately rigged to get the
bill passed prior to our April 24th rally, which drew over 3,000
pro-family citizens to the state capitol.
Now that the bill has passed,
what does the future hold for faith and family in Connecticut? Answers
to that question began arriving almost immediately. Following our April
24th rally, the Courant ratcheted up the rhetoric against
pro-family citizens, accusing anyone who disapproves of homosexual
activity of being hate-filled and violent. The paper, meanwhile, never
published a word about the death threat that was made against Conn.
Catholic Conference executive director Marie Hilliard because of her
opposition to the bill. The legislature refused to take up a conscience
clause protecting the right of religious institutions not to be forced
to endorse same-sex unions, which Rep. Lawlor denounced as
“bigotry.” A school in Norwich allowed a 9-year-old girl to
give a presentation to her class about her mother’s same-sex
relationship and to invite the children to join a pro same-sex
“marriage” group. (The news story covering the presentation
quoted adults who said it was the passage of the civil union bill that
convinced them to allow it.)
I mentioned the case of David
Parker, the father of a 6-year old boy in Boston who spent a night in
prison because he would not leave school grounds until officials
promised to exclude his son from the discussions about same-sex
“marriage” being conducted by the teacher in his
Kindergarten class — a promise they refused to make. How long, I
asked, before this happens in Connecticut?
I ended my speech by describing
our plans to reclaim Connecticut in 2006. I cannot emphasize enough how
important it is to educate voters about the anti-family policies of
this legislature. Unless the state’s voters are as educated about
the threats to the family in 2006 as the nation’s voters were in
2004, it will only get worse. The attacks on faith and family that have
occurred in Connecticut since the signing of the same-sex civil union
bill will only be the beginning.
FIC Action has produced a
voter’s guide which lists every legislator in the state and
whether they voted to protect or destroy marriage in Connecticut. We
intend to deliver that guide into the hands of one million state voters
by Election Day, 2006.
I received a lot of positive
feedback following my speech. As time goes by and civil union-inspired
attacks on faith and family in Connecticut proliferate, more and more
people will come to understand the anti-family nature of the present
legislature and will vote their values in the next election.
Posted at 11:04 AM
June 22
APPROVE THE ABSTINENCE STUDY! [Brian Brown]
You may have heard about the
recent study purporting to show that kids who pledge to remain virgins
until marriage are statistically more likely to contract STDs.
It’s a lie, according to an analysis from the Heritage Foundation
discussed in today’s Republican-American editorial:
The Heritage report said the Ivy
League sociologists "misled the press and public" with
"disinformation." They manipulated the data by using the numbers from
"tiny sub-groups of pledgers with higher risk behaviors. They then
describe(d) the risk behaviors of these tiny groups and let the press
infer that they are talking about pledgers in general."…
As Messrs. Rector and Johnson
note, virginity-pledge programs have succeeded because they teach
"self-restraint to youth awash in a culture of narcissism and sexual
permissiveness. They have been unfairly maligned by two academics who
should know better."
Programs promoting chaste
lifestyles for our youth are working. When our legislature reconvenes
next year it should approve a study — which the public health
committee passed on this year — that might lead to greater
abstinence education in Connecticut’s public schools.
Posted at 3:12 PM
June 20
GINA BARRECA ON FATHERHOOD [Brian Brown]
Is she a bigot? A homophobe? Will her fellow Courant columnists denounce her as hate-filled and violent? I am referring, of course, to Gina Barreca’s heartwarming column on fatherhood in today’s paper, wherein she makes this startling (for the Courant) observation:
Not all families are the same. I
know this all too well, having heard stories of terrible times from
good friends, friends who swear that all they owe their fathers is a
slap in the face. And yet I have come to believe that we learn differently from the mothers and the fathers in our lives, whether we are born to them or choose them in some more deliberate manner. [emphasis added]
Fathers are not the tame
creatures mothers are…If your mother teaches you how to love,
then your father gives you permission to succeed; if you learn from
your mother how to walk carefully around trouble, then it is from your
father that you learn how to face trouble when it comes.
What a common sense observation!
“We learn differently from the mothers and fathers in our
lives.” It’s carefully-worded and surrounded by qualifiers,
but there’s no getting around the simple truth of it.
Yet, Barreca’s oh-so-obvious point is constantly denied in the pages of the Courant
by proponents of the legalization of same-sex “marriage.”
Instead, they claim that what matters is having two parents, not the
parents’ genders.
Why? Because to admit that
children do best with both a mom and a dad is to admit that same-sex
“marriage” — which will create permanent and
obligatory motherlessness and fatherlessness for the children of those
unions — is bad for children. Activists for the redefinition of
marriage are therefore forced to deny what everyone knows to be true.
“We learn differently from
the mothers and fathers in our lives.” It is a sign of the
upside-down world of pro same-sex “marriage” media outlets
like the Courant that Barreca’s simple affirmation of the importance of fatherhood seems so out-of-place in its pages.
Posted at 9:30 AM
June 17
“GIVE DEAR OLD TRADITIONAL DAD HIS DUE” [Peter Wolfgang]
As we head into Father’s Day weekend, National Review
editor Rich Lowry notes the social disaster created by the absence of
the traditional dad, as well as some attempts to address the problem:
The proportion of out-of-wedlock
births rose 600 percent from 1960 to 2000, and the divorce rate more
than doubled between 1965 and 1980. Roughly 24 million children now
live in homes where the biological father is absent — about one
out of every three children. This is a social disaster. Children need
their fathers, and they need them in the home, which, as a practical
matter, means their fathers have to be married to their mothers.
This is a thoroughly
commonsensical notion, but so retrograde that almost no one dared utter
it for a couple of decades. Not anymore. Even left-leaning
intellectuals like Isabel Sawhill of The Brookings Institution and Bill
Galston of the University of Maryland are forthright supporters of
intact married families. But much of the Left still can't muster
enthusiasm for fathers as anything other than the men who should, if
circumstances warrant, be forced to make child-support payments.
To read the whole article, click here. FIC wishes a Happy Father’s Day to all the wonderful fathers who support our work!
Posted at 12:29 PM
COURANT REFUSES TO RUN FIC’S LETTER-TO-THE-EDITOR [Brian Brown]
Last week the Courant ran this op-ed
by Yale law professor and pro same-sex “marriage” activist
Ian Ayres, listing 5 reasons why he thinks Connecticut’s civil
unions law — which has not even gone into effect yet — must
be replaced by a law legalizing same-sex “marriage.”
Ayres’ piece is the opening shot in the effort to destroy what
little support for traditional marriage still remains in CT law. Below
is the letter-to-the-editor Peter submitted to the Courant one week ago, which the paper has apparently decided not to publish:
In his Other Opinion article
("Separate, Unequal How Civil Unions Fall Short Of Marriage"),
Professor Ian Ayres lists five differences between civil unions and
marriages as a reason for changing civil unions to same-sex "marriage."
His reasoning falls short.
Ayres complains that 16- and
17-year olds cannot enter into a same-sex civil union, while boys and
girls of the same age can marry with permission of a judge or parent.
He fails to realize that the distinction in our law has to do with the
problem of teen pregnancy — something that should not arise in a
same-sex relationship. A 16- or 17-year old should marry only for some
compelling reason; there is no compelling reason for a 16- or 17-year
old to enter into a civil union.
Ayres complains that the law
gives justices of the peace and other officials the right to refrain
from officiating at civil union ceremonies. Although I am sure he
understands that there is no shortage of officials or clergy who will
officiate at these ceremonies, he believes the law should require
everyone else to violate their deeply held beliefs and act against
conscience. It seems he has no tolerance for those who do not agree
with his views.
Ayres summarily concludes, and
complains, that the law does not compel employers to provide employees'
same-sex civil-union partner with benefits available to spouses of
married employees. He believes that changing civil unions to
"marriages" under the law would make a difference. Mr. Ayres needs to
reconsider his conclusion, by considering the impact of ERISA, a
federal statute that governs much of the law concerning employee and
spousal benefit plans and that overrides state laws.
Ayres' primary reason for
changing the Connecticut law of marriage is that it would lead to "the
1,138 federal protections afforded married couples." He implies that
the reason the federal government denies these protections is that
State law does not currently authorize same-sex "marriage." Has he not
heard of Massachusetts? Contrary to what Ayres implies, Congress is not
ducking the issue behind some smokescreen, but has already confronted
it directly. In 1996, it voted by six-to-one margins to limit spousal
benefits to opposite-sex couples, because it believed that same-sex
behavior was wrong and that same-sex legal unions would undermine the
institution of marriage.
Finally, Ayres' "back-of-the
bus" comments reveal the real reason underlying the quest for same-sex
"marriage." The movement has little to do with rights and benefits and
everything to do with affirmation — and intolerance. In order to
affirm some, people like Ayres will insist on intolerance for others:
namely, the great majority of people in our culture who, for the sake
of Ayres’ cause, will not easily abandon tradition, faith, or
reason and who will remain committed to preserving the institution of
marriage from attempts to undermine it.
Posted at 11:54 AM
June 16
OUR GOVERNOR TAKES A STAND [Ken Von Kohorn]
With Governor Rell having signed
the same-sex unions bill, and more recently the clone-and- kill bill,
conservatives could be forgiven for wondering if there were any
Republican ideals she might actually stand up for.
It turns out that, with her veto
of the bill banning junk food at the public schools, it is now apparent
that she indeed does have a backbone. The governor took a stand for
local control of schools over state control — despite the
popularity of the issue under consideration. Local school control is,
of course, a thoroughly Republican concept. She should be applauded for
her principled stand.
Unfortunately for Gov. Rell, this
display of principle is a textbook example of too little, too late. Her
betrayals of the institution of marriage and of the sanctity of human
life — bedrock Republican issues — has almost certainly
eviscerated whatever base of support she might have had in her own
party. Meanwhile, the Left, whose allegiance she seems to have spent
the majority of her time courting, doesn't need to vote for a
Republican that supports Democratic issues. In the next election, they
will have the opportunity to vote for the real thing.
Posted at 2:45 PM
PROTESTER “GETS IT”; COURANT COLUMNIST DOESN’T [Brian Brown]
Is Connecticut “nestled
firmly in the great tradition of progressive states, secure in its smug
blue-stateness” or is it “just as blighted as the rest of
the country?” That is how Susan Campbell begins her column in today’s Courant. At least — in so far as Courant columnists are concerned — she gets the “smug” part right.
Campbell is confused by what she
sees as a paradox. On the one hand, there are these “recent
events”: a man opens fire in a Middletown court parking lot
yesterday, killing his ex-wife and wounding her attorney; two men on
Washington Street (not far from FIC’s office) opened fire in
broad daylight yesterday; and Hartford has already experienced a 53%
increase in shooting victims this year, with 79 reports of gun-related
violence.
But on the other hand, our state
legislators just legalized same-sex civil unions “out of a sense
of fairness and what’s right” and they “ignored the
Luddites” by voting to spend $100 million on stem-cell research.
We are progressive.
No, wait a minute. We are
Kansas…in the middle of all this progressiveness, here we are,
shooting and stabbing and punching one another in the streets, in
parking lots, behind restaurants, outside elementary schools.
Campbell’s confusion is a direct result of the ideological blinders worn by so many of the Courant’s
columnists and editors. They are desperate to paint Connecticut as a
“progressive” state that has outgrown moral values and
“the rest of the country” — or the parts where those
values hold sway — as “blighted.”
But there is no contradiction between the success of the Courant’s
favorite causes and the shootings on our streets. Same-sex civil unions
will lead to further fatherlessness — which is already a leading
indicator of youth violence. And funding the cloning and killing of
human embryos for research sends the message that other persons are
objects to be used or disposed of according to our desires.
The Courant likes to
pretend that the work of our unrepresentative legislature reflects the
moral values — or lack thereof — of our
“progressive” state. But if the paper really wants to
understand the message our state’s “progressive”
elites are sending to its citizens, it ought to consider the words of the protester at Gov. Rell’s signing of the clone-and-kill bill yesterday:
FARMINGTON — Gov. M. Jodi
Rell signed legislation committing $100 million to stem cell research
Wednesday before an audience of legislators, university researchers and
one protester who screamed his objections.
"Embryos are human. Embryos are
alive. You cannot kill human life. I oppose this bill," the protester
shouted during the public bill-signing ceremony at the University of
Connecticut Health Center.
"This is a horrible thing. Embryos are alive."…
"Excuse me, this is a travesty.
This is not a happy moment," the man shouted. He left without incident
after briefly speaking with UConn police. As he left, he repeated in a
softer voice, "This is a travesty."
The protester is right. And the
travesties being perpetrated at our state capitol and advocated on the
pages of our local paper are of a piece with the travesties occurring
on our streets.
Instead of condescending to those “red states” whose legislatures defend traditional morality, the Courant’s editors and columnists should try to learn from them. After all, Connecticut’s elites could do worse — and have.
Posted at 1:58 PM
June 15
STUDYING OUR SWEDES [Peter Wolfgang]
The sociologist Peter Berger once
had an interesting observation about the academic study of religion in
America. India, Berger noted, is the most religious country in the
world. Sweden, meanwhile, is the least religious country in the world.
And America, Berger said, is a country of Indians ruled by Swedes
— that is, a country whose population registers high levels of
religious belief but whose elites are deeply hostile to those beliefs.
Why then, Berger asked, does the academic study of religious people
often make them sound like some alien culture? The vast majority of the
country is made up of believers while the secularists are a tiny
minority. Shouldn’t someone conduct studies to explain those
secular professors to the rest of us?
According to today’s Courant, it looks like someone will:
A new program at Trinity
College, the Institute for the Study of Secularism and Culture, will
begin in July to delve into the struggle between religious and secular
values in society. It is believed to be the first academic institute
devoted to the study of the history and development of secular
values…
Secularism demands further
study, [Barry] Kosmin [the institute’s director] said Tuesday,
because it underlies intense public debate, but is not well
understood…
The political and social impact
of secularists is felt in a variety of ways, particularly in the
battles over abortion, stem cell research, teaching of creationism and
right-to-die issues, [Mark] Silk [director of the program overseeing
the institute] said. "One thing we do know is that people who fit this
category tend to be Democratic voters, where people who report frequent
church attendance tend to be Republicans."
The founding of the institute was
partly inspired by a study showing an increase in secularism among the
young and males. We wish it well, though Silk’s closing comment
does not inspire confidence. He mentions the agreement of the
“religious right” that the government should not
“mandate evangelical Protestantism” to illustrate the point
that even “intensely religious people” take secular values
for granted. Maybe or maybe not, but the belief that the government
should not mandate a particular faith originated with the Anabaptist
wing of the Reformation. In other words, Christians believe in
Silk’s supposed “secular principle” not because they
are secular, but because they are Christian.
Posted at 11:01 AM
June 14
THE POPE AND THE PARK; MCGIVNEY AND WATERBURY [Peter Wolfgang]
The recent death of Pope John
Paul II has spurred efforts to name a few public places in his honor.
The ACLU is not happy about it according to an editorial in the Waterbury Sunday Republican (whose online version, unfortunately, is missing the first paragraph). Given the examples cited by the Republican,
it’s hard not to read the ACLU’s opposition as anything but
spite towards the late Pope, an implacable foe of such favorite ACLU
causes as abortion and same-sex “marriage:”
Waterbury has a large statue of
Father Michael J. McGivney in a small park on Grand Street. As much as
the ACLU believes such Christian symbols are coercive, the presence of
Father McGivney's bronze likeness on the same street as City Hall did
little to instill the Christian values of honesty and virtue into the
nefarious mayors who have served since the statue took up residence on
public property in 1957. And where was the ACLU when thousands of
communities across America were naming schools, buildings, streets and
other government-supported infrastructure after the Rev. Dr. Martin
Luther King Jr.? The Rev. Dr. King was a Baptist minister who was
instrumental in reshaping the institutions of government to conform to
Christian values. The same scripture that moved the Rev. Dr. King to
fight racial injustice inspired Father McGivney to found the Knights of
Columbus and countless other clerics to social and political activism.
John Paul II contributed to this
evolution, too. Though his effect on government policy in America may
never be fully known or appreciated, it's clear that a lot of Americans
have no qualms about honoring his memory.
Posted at 9:05 AM
June 13
OLD SCENARIO AT THE CAPITOL [Brian Brown]
The Courant ran a front page story
yesterday reviewing the legislative “accomplishments” of
the session that just ended. The article makes a brief mention of the
legislature’s attacks on the family before quickly moving on to
other topics:
Some of the accomplishments made
national news, such as civil unions for same-sex couples and a $100
million commitment to stem cell research.
Despite opposition from the
Catholic Church and the conservative Family Institute of Connecticut,
Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, endorsed both measures, easing the way
for passage.
One thing that is not a
“new scenario” at the capitol is the state GOP’s
betrayal of the pro-family movement. There are, of course, good people
working within both parties to try to make them more family-friendly
— Democrat Rep. David Aldarondo of Waterbury and Republican Rep.
Bill Hamzy of Bristol come immediately to mind.
But it is the capture of
Connecticut’s Republican Party by the state’s hardcore
social left that is particularly puzzling. Nationally, the GOP supports
the pro-family movement — and that support secured their
presidential and U.S. Senate victories last year. Statewide, the GOP
has a governor who signed the same-sex civil union bill and a party
apparatus that honors a major pro-abortion activist — and their
electoral victories continue to dwindle.
In fact, the state GOP’s
electoral misfortunes make perfect sense. Voters who like the CT
GOP’s support for abortion and civil unions might still vote
Democrat on the not-implausible theory that the Democrats would be even
more supportive. Pro-family voters, meanwhile, might sit home on
Election Day rather than vote for a party that supports killing the
unborn and undermining the institution of marriage.
The CT GOP has a lot to gain by
changing course. Those pro-family supporters sitting out Election Day
are just waiting for someone to appeal to them. The state’s
Republicans, meanwhile, can’t do much worse, politically. So,
what do they have to lose? When are they going to wake up and smell the
votes?
Posted at 11:38 AM
June 10
CT REPUBLICANS AWARD PRO-ABORTION LEADER [Peter Wolfgang]
According to a June 4th article in the Journal Inquirer,
Gov. Rell is “pleased” that the state’s Republicans
are honoring Jennifer Blei Stockman, a co-chair of the pro-abortion
group “Republican Majority for Choice.” Stockman, who will
be given an award named after President Bush’s grandfather,
led a grassroots movement last month to defeat the president's nomination of William Pryor to the federal appeals court.
Her partner in opposing the
Texas judge was Patrick Guerriero, president of the Log Cabin
Republicans, an organization that supports the rights of homosexuals.
Moreover, Stockman, who often is
quoted in national news stories and regularly offers her own news
commentaries, has been a frequent thorn in the side of the religious
right courted by the Bush administration.
Prior to the election that
religious conservatives helped Bush win last year, for example, she
scolded "pragmatic Republican leaders" for allowing "an extreme
religious right fact of the party to play bullyboy within our ranks."
But Gov. Rell is described as
believing that Stockman is “entirely deserving” of the
award. "I just know that Jennifer is one of the hardest-working people
to bring what I would call a more moderate blend to the Republican
Party," the governor said.
The article focuses on whether
the award is an embarrassment to President Bush. The real story,
though, is the embarrassment that Connecticut’s Republican Party
is to Connecticut.
Posted at 3:22 PM
CONSCIENCE CLAUSE FAILS [Peter Wolfgang]
There was one last “capitol
disgrace” as this session came to end. The legislature refused to
pass the conscience clause (see my June 6th and June 8th blogs). Here
is how the Courant reports on our state government’s refusal to protect religious liberty:
The more controversial of the
two [landmark labor bills] — the so-called pay-or-play health
care bill — survived numerous changes and months of committee
meetings. The Catholic Church piggybacked on it as a way to get out
from under Connecticut's civil union legislation. But the bill failed
to garner enough support…
Adding to the bill's woes was a
last-minute amendment aimed at watering down the landmark civil union
legislation passed this year. The amendment, sought by the Connecticut
Catholic Conference, would have exempted religious organizations from
having to extend benefits to the domestic partners of their employees.
"I'm sure we have homosexuals
working in our archdiocese here and around the whole country," said
Deacon David Reynolds, legislative liaison of the Connecticut Catholic
Conference.
"But if we're forced to provide
benefits to people in those relationships, we're being forced
financially to support something we don't believe in. We're looking for
a very clear protection, not out of cruelty to people, but as a
practice of our faith," he said.
The controversy raised by the
domestic-partner amendment, coupled with the opposition from the
business community, put the brakes on the bill.
"People didn't want to bring the
civil union stuff back on the debate floor," explained [Beverly]
Brakeman. "That wasn't the only issue in this bill, but it was a big
one."
Posted at 2:53 PM
WE COULDN’T AGREE MORE [Peter Wolfgang]
“Capitol disgrace” is the title of the Waterbury Republican-American’s lead editorial today, reviewing the wreckage left behind by the 2005 legislative session:
The 2005 legislative session was the most dismal in memory for what lawmakers and Gov. M. Jodi Rell did and didn't do.
It will be remembered most for
sanctioning homosexual marriage with a bill that was so dishonest that
lawmakers had to give it an alias: civil unions. Homosexuals got all
the rights of married couples, while the tatters of civilization's
bedrock institution were meaninglessly reserved for one man and one
woman.
The odor of rotting fish (from
the red herring family) permeated the Capitol when lawmakers earmarked
$100 million for embryonic stem-cell research. Normally, virulently
anti-business and rabidly pro-abortion Democrats tax and regulate
Connecticut companies punitively. But they sounded like Reagan
Republicans in hailing this "pro-business bill" that advances the
culture of death…
Overall, a pretty disgraceful performance by the governor and the legislature.
Posted at 2:27 PM
June 9
ELECTRIC DRUM [Peter Wolfgang]
I had my first debate with Anne
Stanback, head of “Love Makes A Family,” yesterday. Our
conversation will be aired on the radio this Saturday at 9:00 AM on
WYBC, 94.3 FM on a program called “Electric Drum.” The
moderator was fair and balanced and my opponent was friendly and
intelligent — albeit for a bad cause. The station broadcasts out
of New Haven. Do give it a listen, won’t you?
Posted at 3:53 PM
June 8
PRO SAME-SEX “MARRIAGE” LEADER CALLS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY “BIGOTRY” [Peter Wolfgang]
The New Haven Advocate recently ran a story praising the news coverage on some local blogs. I have to concur in the case of www.ctnewsjunkie.com; the blog is covering stories that the state’s mainstream media (MSM) are missing.
True, the blog is run by a former Hartford Advocate
reporter and so the news is, alas, written from the same tired
left-of-center perspective as most of the state’s daily papers.
The story on the effort to pass a conscience clause
to protect the state’s religious institutions from being forced
to endorse same-sex civil unions, for instance, is headlined “A
Last Gasp.” “For Dr. Marie Hilliard, executive director of
the Connecticut Catholic Conference,” writes ctnewsjunkie’s
Dan Levine, “the issue is one of entitlement.” No,
actually, the issue is one of protecting the religious liberty that
Connecticut’s pro-family community enjoyed until the civil union
bill was passed. Levine also makes Marie respond to the usual inane
questions about why the Church “is still devoting time to civil
unions” instead of helping the poor, etc.
But Marie’s response is
excellent and Levine gives it more space than it probably would have
received in one of the state’s dailies. And he covered an
enormously important matter that has been ignored by the state’s
MSM, including the true feelings of pro same-sex “marriage”
leaders who used to say that civil unions would not be used to attack
the churches:
But [Marie] does cite the need
to protect the rights of Knights of Columbus halls, for example, to
refuse their space to same sex marriages. And to [state Rep. Michael]
Lawlor [D-East Haven], that restriction would be legislating
“bigotry.”
“This is a pathetic
attempt to have another discussion about this bigotry. Now this is pure
bigotry,” Lawlor said, “and we don’t want to rent our hall to that.”
And so, thanks to ctnewsjunkie,
the cat is out of the bag. For years, Rep. Lawlor claimed that his only
concern was “civil,” not “religious” marriage
— and that a civil union/same-sex “marriage” bill
would not adversely impact religious freedom. But now, with his civil
union bill passed, Rep. Lawlor comes out in favor of forcing the
Knights of Columbus to rent their halls to same-sex
“weddings” against their will.
And Rep. Lawlor favors this in
the name of “civil rights.” Thanks to the passage of
same-sex civil unions, the “newspeak” of George
Orwell’s 1984 has truly arrived in Connecticut.
Posted at 3:33
June 7
LESLIE’S OP-ED AND JOHN CURRIE’S HYPOCRISY [Peter Wolfgang]
Last week, the Courant published the best op-ed on same-sex civil unions that I have seen in its pages. And I would think so even if the author was not my wife. Here is the excerpt that was posted at marriagedebate.com:
CIVIL UNIONS DISMISS FATHERHOOD: Leslie K. Wolfgang
"Our government is the potent,
the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole
people by its example," Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis
famously wrote in 1928. By creating civil unions, the state now teaches
that families with and without fathers are equally good. There have
always been successful, loving families without fathers, but now the
law tells us that men have nothing unique or special to offer that is
worthy of encouragement, enforcement and protection by our society.
Some may applaud this as
progressive and an example of our Yankee intellectual superiority, but
I think it is a travesty for women and children who are already
financially, physically and mentally struggling without a husband or
father. Motherhood comes naturally, but fatherhood must be nurtured and
supported by society. ...
Not only will there be fewer
fathers if the state succumbs to gender relativism, but replacing
fathers with legions of lesbians is not proved to be good for children.
And "proved to be good for children" is the standard we should have
used before creating civil unions. According to the Institute for
Marriage and Public Policy, the long-term social science research
regarding children raised in same-gender households is nonexistent or
flawed, suffering from misrepresentative samples, non-standard measures
and self-reporting.
The Courant published one letter in response to Leslie,
which appeared in its Sunday edition. “I write as a father and a
lawyer in response to Leslie K. Wolfgang,” claims the author,
John K. Currie. “I also write as a non-gay male.” It is as
a father/lawyer/non-gay male, you see, that Currie falsely accuses
Leslie of misrepresenting a study (“As a lawyer, she should be
ashamed”) and reveals what he believes to be a scoop:
It might be that Leslie
Wolfgang's view is more understandable when we learn that her husband,
Peter Wolfgang, is director of public policy for the Family Institute
of Connecticut.
In fact, Leslie disclosed to the Courant her relationship to me before the paper decided to run her op-ed.
And if there is anyone here who
is not forthcoming about his identity, it is John Currie. Currie is not
merely a “father/lawyer/non-gay male” who just happens to
object to Leslie’s column. He is one of the most active pro
same-sex “marriage” proponents in Connecticut. A member of
Hartford PFLAG, (“Parents and Friends of Lesbians and
Gays”), Currie is frequently quoted in the local press on how his
son’s homosexuality led to his support for same-sex
“marriage.” According to the website of the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union, Currie was present at a meeting that led to a pro-civil union editorial from the Courant in 2002:
At this time, we [the CCLU] went
with Anne Stanback, President of LMF [Love Makes a Family] and John
Currie from Hartford PFLAG, to meet with the Hartford Courant Editorial
Board. They published an editorial in support of civil union.
And it was Currie who filed a
complaint against the Family Institute of Connecticut Action Committee
last year — a bogus complaint that the Elections Enforcement
Commission unanimously voted to dismiss.
It is Currie who “should be
ashamed” — his letter is as bogus as his Elections
complaint. His deception is another example of pro same-sex
“marriage” activists attempting to portray themselves as
mainstream by withholding the truth, suppressing the facts, and
unfairly slandering their opponents.
Posted at 1:44 PM
June 6
BREAKING…LEGISLATURE THREATENS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, CATHOLIC CONFERENCE RECEIVES DEATH THREAT [Peter Wolfgang]
FIC received the following e-mail alert a few hours ago from our friends at the Connecticut Catholic Conference:
Connecticut Catholic Conference ALERT
THE CONNECTICUT LEGISLATURE
WILL FORCE CATHOLIC PARISHIONERS TO PAY FOR BENEFITS OF CIVIL UNION
PARTNERS OF CATHOLIC CHURCH EMPLOYEES; YOUR REPRESENTATIVES VOTED
AGAINST CONSCIENCE PROTECTIONS. ONLY SEVERAL DAYS REMAIN TO RESTORE
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN CONNECTICUT
When the vote for civil unions
occurred key legislators said this is a civil liberties issue. What
about religious civil liberties? Religious employers (such as the
Archdiocese of Hartford or Catholic Charities) would be forced to
recognize civil union partners and provide employee benefits. Halls
would have to be rented to civil union functions.
Key supporters of civil unions stated that opponents were driven by hate and bigotry.
During the vote for legal
recognition of civil unions in the Senate, the Catholic Church's chief
representative was sitting in the Senate gallery being guarded by
authorities due to the death threat she received for opposing legal
recognition of civil unions. Where is the justice?
PLEASE, as soon as possible, call the following key legislators stating:
Religious liberty is why our
ancestors came to America. Church affiliated employers and businesses
have the right to refuse to endorse civil unions through benefit
packages for civil union partners of employees. Religiously affiliated
halls should not have to host civil union ceremonies. State law should
be made clear on this religious freedom issue.
PLEASE CALL THE FOLLOWING LEGISLATORS AND LT GOV SULLIVAN TODAY
Senate President Don Williams
860-774-0164; Majority Leader Sen. Martin Looney 203-468-8829; Senator
Andrew McDonald 203-348-7439.
Speaker Jim Amann 203-783-1910; Minority Leader Rep. Bob Ward 203-484-0339; Rep. Mike Lawlor 203-469-9725.
Lt. Gov. Kevin Sullivan 860-524-7384.
This is just one more prediction
made by FIC about a post-civil unions future coming true. We warned
that if civil union/same-sex “marriage” was passed, it
would impact family life curriculum in public schools in ways that
parents would have little control over — and in the article
mentioned in my May 27th blog, people cited the new law as a reason for
teaching 9-year-olds in Norwich about homosexuality. We warned that if
the bill was passed it would lead to attacks on religious freedom
— and the alert above shows that the legislature voted against an
attempt to protect the rights of religious believers.
Note in particular that the CT Catholic Conference has gone public with this shocking piece of information:
During the vote for legal
recognition of civil unions in the Senate, the Catholic Church's chief
representative was sitting in the Senate gallery being guarded by
authorities due to the death threat she received for opposing legal
recognition of civil unions.
FIC has learned that the threat
was made about two months ago — and that a suspect was arrested.
Being guarded by the authorities was just one of several precautions
that the state had to take in order to protect the Catholic official
who received the death threat. The threat was similar in nature to the
hate mail FIC receives regularly from same-sex “marriage”
supporters.
We have heard that one of the
local network affiliates, most likely Channel 3, ran one brief story
about it. Yet an internet search turned up nothing about the threat or
the arrest. Imagine if it had been reversed — if an opponent of
same-sex “marriage” was suspected of making a death threat
against the chief representative of a pro same-sex
“marriage” group. The media coverage would have been
endless. Instead, the Courant ignores a death threat against
the chief representative of the Catholic Church at the very same time
it was publishing columns accusing the pro-family movement of being
hate-filled and violent.
We are accustomed to the
hypocrisy of our opponents, but familiarity need not breed passivity.
FIC urges all its followers, regardless of denominational affiliation,
to call the legislators listed above and ask them to vote for the
conscience clause. We will keep you updated on the death threat made
against the Catholic official as more information becomes available.
Posted at 3:21 PM
CLONE AND KILL BILL PASSED BY CONNECTICUT LEGISLATURE [Brian Brown]
Last week, the Connecticut
General Assembly passed a bill to spend $100 million of your tax
dollars to clone and kill human embryos in order to experiment on their
stem cells. This is how the Hartford Courant describes the debate in our state’s legislature:
In nearly four hours of debate, the House took up moral and scientific questions about embryonic stem cell research that were ignored by the Senate before its passage of the bill last week [emphasis added].
Many long-time insiders at the
state capitol have privately described the 2005 legislative session as
the worst they have ever experienced. Pro-family advocates can only nod
in agreement, with our goals having borne the brunt of a General
Assembly seemingly hell-bent on bucking the national trend toward
increased support for traditional values: same-sex civil unions,
parental notification for minors’ abortions, abstinence
education, assisted suicide — in each of these instances we faced
a legislature determined to make our state even more hostile to the
traditional family.
And yet, even at this late date,
it shocks the conscience to know that our state Senate voted to clone
and kill human beings in order to experiment on their genetic material
— without even discussing the moral implications! Truly, we have entered a “Brave New Connecticut.”
Why, then, did the legislature
choose to cross this ethical line? It is claimed that the days-old
human embryos whose destruction is required by this research would
otherwise be discarded by fertility clinics. By that logic, it would be
acceptable to experiment on terminally ill children — they are
going to die anyway.
The true motivation for this
travesty is economic. It is not about curing diseases. The only medical
breakthroughs thus far have come from adult, not embryonic stem cell
research — which is why private funding for the latter is hard to
come by. No, this bill is really about “bricks and mortar”
as the president of CURE, an economic development group, stated
repeatedly at the Jan. 31st public hearing.
But as the Courant noted in another article,
“The immediate economic development impact of stem cell research
will be minimal for now.” Instead, those taxpayer-funded
“bricks and mortar” will be going to one of the
nation’s most heavily-endowed universities. According to the Courant,
“Connecticut’s 10-year, $100 million commitment” to
fund the cloning and killing of human embryos “will help Yale
University attract a new director and pay for equipment for its planned
stem cell research program.”
The rationales offered by our
state legislature to defend this travesty — scientific, economic
and moral — are a farce. Scientifically, adult stem cells have
shown more promise than embryonic stem cells. Economically, this bill
is a boondoggle for a few elite universities, not the taxpayers. And if
this legislature cared about morality, it would have heeded the words
of Rep. Selim Noujaim’s daughter, Bridget, who suffers from
myasthenia gravis: “I don’t want you to kill a life to save
my life.”
Posted at 11:51 AM
May 27
USING CHILDREN AS POLITICAL PROPS [Peter Wolfgang]
As Brian notes below, the pro
same-sex “marriage” agenda has made major inroads in our
public schools, in part because — in many schools — the
kids are exposed only to the propaganda of our opponents. And of all
the strategies employed by the pro same-sex “marriage”
movement to further its agenda, their willingness to exploit their own
children in order to score political points is surely among the worst.
Here are the lead paragraphs of an article in the New London Day today:
Norwich — When a student
at John M. Moriarty School addressed her classmates Wednesday morning,
they had questions — lots of questions. Classmates could ask only
three in class, but curiosity about what she said had them following
her into the hallway afterward.
Nine-year-old Victoria had told her classmates that her mother, Heather Ruley, who goes by her maiden name, is homosexual.
“(My classmates) were supporting me, and my teacher said I was very brave to do that,” she said.
In the same breath as her
revelation, she also announced that the two of them are starting a new
chapter of Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere (COLAGE) for
southeastern Connecticut and western Rhode Island communities.
She invited everyone to join
them in celebrating the chapter's grand opening at the United Methodist
Church in Versailles on June 5.
Ruley said she was proud of her daughter for bringing their personal lives into the public sphere.
And here’s my reaction,
representing a point of view those children are unlikely to ever hear
in their public schools, save perhaps as an object of derision:
The welfare of children in
same-sex households is a great cause of concern, especially during the
increased political controversy surrounding civil unions, said Peter
Wolfgang, director of public policy for the Family Institute of
Connecticut.
Wolfgang said the framing of the
ongoing debate is itself damning evidence that children of same-sex
couples have an emotional disadvantage compared to those of
heterosexual households.
“One of our main arguments
against same-sex marriage is that children do best in households with
both a mom and a dad,” Wolfgang said.
“Is the average 9-year-old
really that focused on how their parents' marriage is doing?” he
continued. When children have testified before legislators, he said,
“It looks like these kids are coached.”
Our opponents believe that using
their own children as political props will detract from the fact that
children do best with both a mom and a dad. Instead, they are helping
to prove our point.
Posted at 11:11 AM
DEBATE AT GLASTONBURY HIGH [Brian Brown]
Earlier this week I debated Anne
Stanback, head of Love Makes A Family, before an audience of 450
students at Glastonbury High School. This event marks the beginning of
the Family Institute of Connecticut’s youth outreach program and,
as such, I wanted to share with you some of what I experienced.
You may be familiar with the
intellectual climate at certain college campuses, where the free
exchange of ideas has been stifled by a politically correct elite that
shouts down anyone who dares to disagree with them. That cancer has
also infected our high schools, I discovered, when one girl stood up
and interrupted the debate. “You’re a bigot, Mr.
Brown,” she said. “Why don’t you join the KKK?”
What, you may wonder, had I said
that so provoked the young lady? In fact, her outburst came I was just
starting to speak. My opening statement covers the social science
explaining why children do best with both a mom and dad. And for this,
I was shouted down.
Throughout the debate I laid out
a positive case for marriage between a man and a woman and why the
institution should be protected instead of being redefined. The
reactions to my pro-family message illustrate how far the pro same-sex
“marriage” agenda has advanced in our schools.
After the debate I was approached
by two different groups of students. The first group shared our goal of
protecting the traditional family. They described to me how much they
had been belittled by classmates and teachers for holding traditional
views on issues like homosexuality and marriage. “Our opinion
means nothing here [Glastonbury High],” they told me.
The second group supported the
legalization of same-sex “marriage.” It was a largely civil
discussion. But, while the first group gathered spontaneously because
they agreed with my message, this second group was clearly organized.
The questions they asked me seemed to have been spoon-fed by Love Makes
A Family — it was all their usual lines. It was amazing to see
how deeply their agenda and the language they use to promote it
(“bigotry,” etc.) has taken root in our schools.
And not just among the students.
Even the questions from the teachers showed an anti-Christian bias.
Responding to the bogus accusation of bigotry, I discussed the strong
opposition to same-sex “marriage” among African-Americans
and Hispanics, communities who understand what it means to face true
bigotry. “Isn’t that just because they’re more
religious?” a teacher asked me, as if that somehow means that
their opposition does not count.
We want to continue to do this.
The Family Institute of Connecticut wants to bring its pro-family
message into the schools where we are invited.
We also want to reach our youth in those places where we are not invited. As this article from the Connecticut Post
shows, there are many places in Connecticut where, unlike Glastonbury
High, the youth are only being exposed to one side of the story —
the propaganda of our opponents. Whenever an event like the one
described in the Post article is held, both sides of the issue should
be presented.
The youth are our future and we
have big plans to reach them. But to make it happen, we need your
financial support. You can make a donation to FIC’s youth
outreach program by clicking here.
Bringing the truth of the
pro-family message to our youth is one of the best ways to create a
Connecticut for our children and grandchildren that protects marriage
and the family. We are deeply grateful for your help in this urgent
endeavor.
Posted at 10:44 AM
May 26
BREAKING…STATE SENATE APPROVES CLONE AND KILL BILL [Peter Wolfgang]
The Senate today, by a vote of
31-3, approved a bill to spend $100 million of your tax money over the
next 10 years to clone and kill human embryos in order to experiment on
their stem cells. You can read about it here.
Sources say the Senate may
suspend normal procedures — as they did with the same-sex civil
union bill — in order to speed the bill’s passage. In this
instance, that means the House may vote on the bill as early as
tomorrow. Gov. Rell has been described in media accounts as
“passionately” in favor of the research that would be made
possible by the cloning and killing of human embryos.
Please call your state
Representative (Republicans can be reached at (800) 842-1423 and
Democrats at (800) 842-1902) and ask them to vote NO on S.B. 934. Our
legislature has already made one horrible mistake this session with the
passage of civil unions. We have perhaps just 24 hours or less to stop
them from making another one.
Posted at 4:51 PM
PRO SAME-SEX “MARRIAGE” DENOMINATION LOSES ANOTHER PARISH [Peter Wolfgang]
The leadership of the United
Church of Christ (UCC) and those members who agree with its pro
same-sex “marriage” position describe themselves as
“open and affirming.” Indeed, they are so “open and
affirming” — in their own minds, anyway — that they
thought it was a good idea last Christmas to run TV ads criticizing
churches that they deemed to be less “open and affirming”
than themselves.
Well, it seems another UCC parish
has joined the growing ranks of former members who do not feel affirmed
by the “open and affirming.” Here’s the story, from yesterday’s Waterbury Republican-American:
Beacon Falls Congregational Church on Sunday became the latest parish to quit the United Church of Christ.
Fifty-two of the 68 members
attending a special meeting voted to leave the denomination because of
its liberal political agenda that includes support for same-sex
marriage, partial-birth abortions and a controversial pro-gay
advertising campaign.
In what must surely be an
ecumenical milestone for Connecticut, the Congregational church quit
its denomination, in part, because it was offended by criticism of the
Pope:
"The more we looked into it [UCC
positions approved by the national and state conventions], the more we
didn't like," Woodward said, citing an ad campaign criticizing
denominations that don't endorse homosexuality and derisive remarks by
the denomination's national leader, the Rev. John Thomas, about the
election of Pope Benedict XVI.
Pete Christensen, a deacon and
church spokesman, said many members were so offended by Thomas' remarks
that deacons considered sending a written apology to St. Michael's
Catholic Church in town. "We didn't want anyone thinking, 'Hey, they
don't like us Catholics,'" he said.
But, as FIC knows from its
supporters who are faithful members of the UCC, it really comes down to
just how out-of-touch the pro same-sex “marriage”
leadership is with its members, most of whom are pro-family:
Woodward said many state conference votes also were galling.
"They'd come out with these
weird resolutions and people in our congregation would say, 'Well, just
ignore it,'" Woodward said. "The leadership has been asleep at the
switch. They have a different agenda than the members."…
[Christensen] said the
congregation voted in January to oppose same-sex marriage, which bucked
the statewide conference's endorsement. That vote "woke up the sleeping
beasts. Everybody started going on the Web sites and finding out where
the UCC has been going in the last seven, eight years."
As the pastor of another UCC
church that is considering leaving the denomination noted, the
pro-family UCC churches are merely taking the leadership at their word:
Steven Darr, pastor at First
Congregational in Torrington, said the Beacon Falls church was only
doing what the statewide convention urged all churches to do last
October when it endorsed same-sex marriage.
Part of that resolution urged
churches to study and discuss the issue "and to act upon their
conclusions as each congregation and/or member feels led by the Spirit
so to do."
"I think there are a number of
churches that are doing that," Darr said. "Can they continue to support
an association that has passed this kind of resolution? It is the same
process we are going through."
The former UCC churches have
chosen to be “open” about their pro-family convictions.
Don’t be surprised if the leadership of their former denomination
is less-than-“affirming” about their choice.
Posted at 4:08 PM
May 23
COURANT BIAS CONTINUES [Peter Wolfgang]
In his May 20th blog, Brian gives
a rundown of what has occurred in the month since Gov. Rell signed the
same-sex civil union bill. We wanted to update you on one of the things
he touched on: the Courant’s post-civil unions smear campaign against the state’s pro-family citizens.
Last month, Courant columnist Helen Ubinas smeared
the 3,000 pro-family citizens who attended our rally as hateful bigots
because they applauded speakers who expressed moral disapproval of
homosexual activity. It was Ubinas’ attempt to equate our
movement with the truly hateful Fred Phelps — something even Love
Makes A Family refused to do when his followers visited our state in
2003 — that made her column a new low, and Brian responded in a
letter to the editor (see his May 2nd blog).
The Courant then published a sports column
by Jeff Jacobs making the same tired points Brian had already refuted
— and accusing those who attended our rally of being people who
“really would” hit pro same-sex “marriage”
activists with baseball bats. In a May 6th blog, Brian responded to
this outrageous lie by inviting our supporters to contact Courant reader representative Karen Hunter with their complaints.
Enough of you answered Brian’s call that, in a May 15th column, Ms. Hunter felt it was necessary to respond — by circling the wagons. I responded the next day by e-mailing this letter-to-the-editor:
Karen Hunter notes that
supporters of the Family Institute of Connecticut “objected to
being painted as violent and hate-filled” in columns about our
April 24th rally by Helen Ubinas and Jeff Jacobs. She says that, while
she is not defending those columnists’ views, she does defend the
newspapers’ right to print those views. But she also says that
accuracy is a requirement of Courant columnists. If so, those columns — particularly Jacobs’ — failed to meet the requirement.
In his May 4th sports column
Jeff Jacobs says that pro same-sex “marriage” activist
Marcy MacDonald “felt like someone had hit her with a baseball
bat” after she swam the English Channel. Then, referring to the
speakers at our rally, Jacobs writes this: “Four years later, she
knows there are some people out there who really would do it.”
Where is the evidence for this
outrageous claim? Jacobs offers none, other than that a few speakers
expressed moral disapproval of homosexual activity. And for this they
are accused of being people “who really would” hit Marcy
MacDonald with a baseball bat.
Contrary to Hunter’s
remarks, we do understand the distinction between a news story and a
column — and Jacobs’ and Ubinas’ slurs are still
inexcusable.
Peter J. Wolfgang, Director of Public Policy, Family Institute of Connecticut
A week prior to her column
— the same day Brian invited our supporters to contact her
— I had a phone conversation with Ms. Hunter which lasted about
30 minutes. During that conversation, it became clear that she was
unaware of the letter-to-the-editor which Brian had published in the Courant
and that she was hearing the offensive Jeff Jacobs quote for the first
time. Even after our conversation, the column Ms. Hunter published
never directly quoted the lines from Ubinas and Jacobs that concerned
us. Did she bother to look into our complaints before writing her
column or was her mind already made up?
Because I was trying to keep my letter close to the Courant’s 200-word limit, I omitted any mention of our conversation. Not that it mattered. The day I e-mailed my response to the Courant, Brian made a prediction. “The Courant won’t print your letter,” he told me. “They want Karen Hunter’s exoneration of the Courant to be the last word on the subject.” He was right. The paper never published my letter.
Ms. Hunter made a big deal about
the distinction between news columnists and news staff and cited a
single Stan Simpson column to prove a lack of bias. But stack
Stan’s one or two columns expressing a socially conservative
viewpoint against the scores of columns by Susan Campbell and Helen
Ubinas attacking that viewpoint — an attack that is occasionally
joined even by the paper’s sports and business columnists —
and no reasonable person can fail to see that the vast majority of Courant
commentary is slanted in one direction. (In fact, you can also add to
that indictment the rotating local — not syndicated —
columnists that appear regularly on the op-ed page: a lesbian poet, a
liberal geology professor, etc. Yes, there is Larry Cohen. But
he’s a libertarian, not a social conservative — as he would
be the first to admit.)
Our voice is not represented at the Courant. There simply is no pro-life, pro-family local columnist at the Courant
writing regularly from a traditional viewpoint. If there was, the
paper’s pro-family readers might be less likely to see the
almost-daily attacks on their beliefs as evidence of bias.
But it is this slanted worldview that causes the Courant
to react to complaints of bias by denying it or hiding behind
distinctions that don’t hold up. And we’re not the only
ones to notice it. Here’s a letter that appeared in the Courant’s Northeast magazine yesterday:
Vicious Attack
I just finished a cryptogram in Northeast. The coded message was:
"To fundamentalists, he's king,
Creationists would kiss his ring,
Yes, welcome Holy Father, true,
Who is, of course, George W."
The author, Elliott Sperber, was
quite vicious in his attacks on President Bush during the past
election. That, of course, was his right. However, this new invective,
I believe, crosses the line of just plain old good taste. I realize
that Sperber doesn't work specifically for The Courant. But you are
responsible for the content of what you print. I wonder if it reflects
the attitude of your newspaper. Even though this viciousness was in
coded form, it would be refreshing if your editorial staff condemned
this "message" for the shrill, sanctimonious garbage that it is.
I am not a fundamentalist or a
Christian, but if I was offended while solving this puzzle over my
morning coffee, then I can just imagine how "people of faith" or folks
who are not "left-wing bomb throwers" will react.
Your newspaper should do itself
a favor and find another "cryptologist" before people equate the
opinions of The Hartford Courant with those of Elliott Sperber.
Glenn Guthrie, Suffield
The writer states a simple truth that somehow managed to elude the paper’s reader representative: the Courant is responsible for the content of what it prints.
We don’t expect the Courant’s
habitually hostile columnists to suddenly develop a fair and balanced
viewpoint on pro-family issues. And we now know that the paper’s
own reader representative is unwilling to condemn even their most
inflammatory remarks.
But the Courant could do
itself and its readers a world of good if it published at least one
local columnist who wrote regularly from a pro-family perspective.
Because, when all is said and done, we are not against
Connecticut’s largest and only statewide newspaper — a
paper I have been reading since I was a child. We just think that it
ought to give a fair shake to those of us who dare to hold "politically
incorrect" positions on the most important social questions of our
time. And right now, it doesn’t.
Posted at 1:14 PM
May 20
CIVIL UNIONS: ONE MONTH LATER [Brian Brown]
One month ago today, the
Connecticut General Assembly passed — and Gov. Rell signed
— a bill legalizing same-sex civil unions.
The elitist enemies of the
traditional family thought the battle was over in Connecticut. They
thought their victory was secure and that the state’s pro-family
movement would fade away.
They were wrong. And it’s driving them crazy.
Less than a week after Gov.
Rell’s tragic decision to undermine marriage in Connecticut,
3,000 pro-family citizens rallied against the new law on the steps of
the state capitol. They came together to declare that they would not
forget this attack on marriage.
It was the first shot in the battle to reclaim Connecticut in 2006. And it did not go unnoticed.
The columnists of the Hartford Courant,
in particular, responded by ratcheting up the rhetoric against
pro-family citizens — accusing anyone who dared to express moral
objections to homosexual activity of being motivated by hate and
capable of violence. Those who heard our speakers’ message of
tolerance for those with whom we disagree — and who have been on
the receiving end of pro same-sex “marriage”
activists’ vitriol — could only marvel at the lies being
published by our state’s largest newspaper.
But the Courant’s smear campaign did not slow us down, either.
Last Friday, FIC supporters
joined with hundreds at a rally to support the Connecticut Six —
those brave pro-family Episcopal priests that are standing for truth.
Two days later, we joined with nearly a thousand people at a Solemn
Assembly organized by the Connecticut House of Prayer to ask for
God’s mercy upon our state.
And yesterday in Wilton, I debated Anne Stanback — head of the organization behind the attacks on marriage in Connecticut.
I want to thank all of our
supporters who turned out for our debate last night. And I want all of
you to know that the Wilton debate is just one part of a larger
strategy to meet our opponents wherever they have gained ground in our
state and to reclaim the culture in Connecticut.
This includes the public schools.
Although the event is closed to
the public, FIC supporters should know that I will soon be bringing our
pro-family message to a debate with Love Makes A Family at Glastonbury
High School.
Pro same-sex
“marriage” activists know the youth represent the future
— that’s why they relentlessly target them. FIC will do
everything in its power to make sure the young people of Connecticut
know that their best chance for a happy life depends upon the
protection of marriage and the traditional family.
The battle to reclaim Connecticut
is being fought on so many fronts: in the legislature, the courts, the
media, the churches, schools and elsewhere. FIC will bring the
pro-family message to all those venues.
But to do so, we need your help.
Our operation relies entirely on private donations. And we have now entered the worse time of year for our fundraising.
We proved pro same-sex
“marriage” activists wrong when they said the passage of
civil unions would spell the end of our movement. It would be tragic if
— at this critical time when FIC is most needed — lack of
funding would achieve what the civil union bill could not: the end of
FIC.
As we’ve seen from the Courant’s
recent columns, nothing — not even the passage of civil unions or
same-sex “marriage” — is as dearly desired by the
anti-family movement as an end to the organized resistance to their
agenda.
The only things standing between
the pro same-sex “marriage” movement and the realization of
its fondest wish — an end to FIC — are you, our donors. You
have always come through for us before. At this critical moment in the
history of our movement, we are asking you to help us once again.
Please prayerfully consider
making whatever donation you can afford to help keep the Family
Institute of Connecticut, our state’s foremost protector of the
family, in the fight. You can donate to FIC by clicking here. And as always, we are more grateful for your generosity than we can ever truly express.
Posted at 1:25 PM
May 19
THE BEST LEGISLATURE PRO SAME-SEX “MARRIAGE” $ CAN BUY? [Peter Wolfgang]
Our opponents like to say that
the legalization of civil unions occurred democratically in CT. It is
true that it was not imposed by a court (the imposition of same-sex
“marriage” by the state court hearing the Kerrigan case, however, remains a live possibility).
But how “democratic,”
really, was it? Consider Mary Ann Handley, for instance. Handley, the
Manchester Senator (and a former professor of mine) is so pro
same-sex “marriage” that she initially voted against the
civil unions bill in committee because she believed it did not go far
enough. She was the only member of the committee to vote with Love
Makes A Family’s “all or nothing” strategy.
In an expose yesterday, the Journal Inquirer revealed the enormous extent to which Handley is awash in PAC money:
"When an opponent raises a lot
of money, you really need to rely on the PACs to get the money
flowing," Handley said. "It certainly was an enormous help for me to
get help from our leadership."…
Leadership PACs work primarily
as middlemen, leveraging huge dollars from businesses, lobbyists, and
other PACs and funneling them into candidates' campaigns.
How many of those
“lobbyists and other PACs” were connected to
anti-traditional causes and what effect did that have on Sen.
Handley’s “all or nothing” vote in the Judiciary
Committee? The JI doesn’t say. But in a companion piece
to the Handley article, the paper spells out what all this means for
the health of CT’s representative democracy, namely that
“incumbents are enjoying a 90 percent-plus re-election rate
— and increasingly find themselves facing little or no
opposition”:
A review of election data shows
that 94 percent of incumbents in the House of Representatives who
sought re-election to a two-year term were successful both in 2004 and
in 2002. Ninety-seven percent won in 2000.
The numbers were even better in
the Senate, where incumbents won 97 percent of the time last November,
95 percent in 2002, and 99 percent in 2000…
A more recent trend, however, is the number of legislative races that are effectively over before they even have begun.
This past November, 40 percent
of the 187 legislative races — in 151 House districts and 36
Senate districts — lacked either a Democratic or Republican
candidate. That meant a major-party candidate either ran unopposed or
faced a minor-party opponent.
One of those two scenarios occurred in 75 out of 187 districts in 2004.
As Judge Robert Satter, author of
“Under the Gold Dome: An Insider’s Look at the CT
Legislature,” explained in an op-ed in the Courant last November,
This situation occurred not by
chance but by design…the legislature…has become
particularly adept at designing House and Senate districts so as to
assure the re-election of incumbents…With the use of
sophisticated computer programs, they can practically guarantee that
result. Incumbents don’t just win but win with such large margins
as to eliminate competition.
On the “critical
question” of “what kind of a legislature results from such
elections” Satter wrote last Nov. that the likely prospect
is a legislature catering to
special interests because it has no fear of retribution at the polls.
Legislators raise much of the money for campaigns — as much as
$50,000 for a House race and $200,000 for a Senate race — from
lobbyists and special-interest groups. Legislators not beholden to
their constituency for retaining their seats are peculiarly susceptible
to the blandishments of such lobbyists.
And that is the legislature that
brought same-sex civil unions to CT, along with a governor who was
never elected to the position.
Posted at 11:39 AM
May 18
GETTING “THE REST OF THE STORY” [Peter Wolfgang]
Pro-family citizens in CT know
their voice will not be represented in the state’s mainstream
media. With the notable exceptions of the Brad Davis radio program and the editorial page of the Waterbury Republican-American,
most of the state’s elite opinion-forming institutions seem
determined to push an anti-family agenda and to falsely depict
opponents of that agenda as hateful bigots. This is why recent news
items that reveal the pro same-sex “marriage” cause as the
cultural aggression that it is — the Massachusetts father who
spent a night in jail after school officials refused his request to
remove his 5 year old son from classroom discussions about same-sex
“marriage,” the federal court in Nebraska that struck down
a marriage protection amendment passed by 70% of the voters —
have not been reported in, for instance, the Hartford Courant.
But there are a few
non-mainstream media outlets in CT where you can get “the rest of
the story.” Hartford’s Catholic newspaper, for instance,
the Catholic Transcript, had the best coverage
of FIC Action’s Apr. 24th pro-family rally, including the sort of
quotes by the speakers and eyewitness impressions that you will not see
in the Courant. In light of events occurring since the rally, this quote, in particular, is noteworthy:
“This is not just another
day,” said Dr. Hilliard. Backlash from the legislation will be
felt throughout all areas of public concern such as education and
public health, she said.
“As family life is
restructured, people will have little to say in defense of
family,” she said. “What will be taught in our public
schools will be contrary to what we believe as a society.
I already mentioned the
Massachusetts dad who spent a night in prison for the crime of not
wanting his 5 year old to be taught about same-sex
“marriage” (He refused to leave school premises until
school officials promised that his son would be excused from the
classroom discussion. Officials refused to give him that promise and
instead had him arrested.)
But that’s not all. On Apr.
30th “a hard-core pornographic homosexual ‘how to’
booklet was given to hundreds of kids at Brookline High School”
in Massachusetts. Entitled “The Little Black Book — Queer
in the 21st Century” it was funded by the state’s taxpayers
and several major corporations and charities. The book, aimed at middle
school aged kids and older, is so explicit that we are not posting a
link to it.
Our opponents like to say that
Massachusetts, which legalized same-sex “marriage” one year
ago yesterday, will prove to the rest of the nation that the dire
predictions made by the pro-family movement were wrong. So far, though,
our neighboring state is proving just the opposite. But don’t
expect to read about it in the Courant.
Posted at 11:13 AM
May 17
DEBATE WITH “LOVE MAKES A FAMILY” LEADER ON MAY 19th [Brian Brown]
Last Friday, members of the
Family Institute of Connecticut were proud to rally with others on the
steps of the state capitol in support of the “Connecticut
Six” — that handful of brave Episcopal priests who are
defending Christian faith and order against their heterodox bishop. And
on Sunday FIC supporters put first things first, joining with the
Connecticut House of Prayer for an evening of prayer and penance at
Bloomfield’s First Cathedral.
Prayer is essential and rallies
are necessary. But in order to reclaim Connecticut, we must also engage
the arguments of our opponents. I will be doing that this week and I
would like to invite our supporters to join me.
On Thursday, May 19th at 7:30 PM,
the Wilton League of Women Voters will be hosting a discussion about
same-sex “marriage” and civil unions between Anne Stanback,
head of Love Makes A Family, and me. The event will be held at the
Wilton Library, located at 137 Old Ridgefield Road in Wilton. It is
open to the public and refreshments will be served.
This will be the first debate
between Anne and me since the legislature and Gov. Rell passed the
same-sex civil union bill. I hope as many of you as possible can join
us.
Posted at 10:27 AM
May 16
FEDERAL COURT STRIKES DOWN NEBRASKA MARRIAGE AMENDMENT [Peter Wolfgang]
Pro same-sex
“marriage” activists suddenly became fans of representative
democracy after our state legislature legalized civil unions. But as I
noted in my May 10th blog, it was not quite the
“democratic” victory that they — and others —
think. And, as last week’s events in Nebraska show, democracy is
not really what our opponents are about. Stanley Kurtz is on the case:
Thursday’s decision by a
federal court to overturn Nebraska’s state constitutional
marriage amendment is a landmark moment in the battle over same-sex
marriage. For the first time, a federal court has taken this matter out
of the hands of a state. A constitutional amendment passed with a 70
percent majority of Nebraska’s voters has been voided. There
could be no clearer demonstration of the arrogance of activist judges.
This should remind Republican senators of the urgent need to confirm
the president’s nominees to the bench. And of course this
decision clearly shows that, without a federal marriage amendment,
same-sex marriage is destined to be imposed on the country by the
courts.
To read Kurtz’ entire NRO piece, click here.
Posted at 4:45 PM
May 12
VOTE PENDING ON THE CLONE AND KILL BILL [Brian Brown]
You would think this current
legislature had filled its “wreaking havoc on CT families”
quota after the passage of same-sex civil unions. But you would be
wrong.
According to an alert from the CT
Catholic Conference, legislation endorsing and financing embryonic stem
cell research will soon be voted on by the state legislature. Contrary
to the title of the bill, S.B. 934
does not fully ban human cloning because it allows for the creation and
destruction of human embryos up to at least eight weeks of age through
research and “therapeutic” cloning. The bill also does not
ban the selling of human eggs for research, which will allow for the
exploitation of poor women.
Please call your State
Representative and Senator and urge them to oppose this legislation. In
the Senate, Republicans be reached at (800) 842-1421 and Democrats at
(800) 842-1420. In the House of Representatives, Republicans can be
reached at (800) 842-1423 and Democrats at (800) 842-1902.
Posted at 2:58 PM
May 11
ATTEND CT’S “SACRED ASSEMBLY” ON SUNDAY [Brian Brown]
Earlier this week we told you
about a rally to be held this Friday at 11:00 AM in Hartford’s
Bushnell Park to support the six pro-family Episcopal priests who have
been threatened with suspension — and possible defrocking —
by CT’s pro same-sex “marriage” Episcopal bishop. We
encourage everyone to attend the Friday rally to support these brave
priests.
But while rallies, petition
drives and lobbying are essential for the protection of marriage in CT,
pro-family citizens know that we will not be successful unless we turn
to prayer. And with the recent passage of same-sex civil unions in CT,
prayer has never been more urgently needed.
This Sunday, May 15th, from 7:00
PM to 9:00 PM at the First Cathedral, 1151 Blue Hills Avenue in
Bloomfield, the pro-family movement’s Christian members will
gather for an evening of prayer and penance. The CT Sacred Assembly
will be a time for the state’s Christians “to cross the
lines of geography, race, denomination and tradition to seek
God’s face, to ask Him to restrain His judgment, and, in mercy,
pour out his reviving Spirit upon our land.” At the Sacred
Assembly, people will worship, pray, repent personally and corporately
and rededicate themselves to their faith. The evening is sponsored by
the CT House of Prayer.
Between Friday’s rally to
support the “CT six” and Sunday’s Sacred Assembly,
this weekend marks a significant step on our way toward reclaiming CT.
FIC encourages as many of its supporters as possible to attend both
events.
Posted at 11:55 AM
May 10
ANGUS DWYER HAS A POINT [Peter Wolfgang]
From Mansfield Fox, the blog of Angus Dwyer, a Yale law student (scroll down to the Apr. 22nd posts):
Connecticut and Civil Unions
So my current home state approved same-sex civil unions
on Wednesday, making it the first state to do so not under a court
order of some kind. This is a major, though not unexpected, defeat for
the forces of social conservatism, equal, I think, to the victories we
had at the polls last fall.
What's astonishing, though, is how thin the discourse on this issue has been. The Marriage Debate blog has just one post on the subject, and it's a link to a news article. Ditto Family Scholars. Our conservative friends to the east, Anchor Rising and Dust in the Light mention it not at all. The big dogs in the fight, like the Corner,
have been basically silent on this issue. Indeed, the only blog that
seems to be covering this with any degree of thoroughness is Connecticut in the Crosshairs, the blog of the Family Institute of Connecticut ACTION group.
Now, I'm not a big "tell other
people what to blog about" kind of guy, but I do think the widespread
silence (including, I must say, on my part up until now) is telling of
a couple of things.
Dwyer’s “couple of
things” are: 1) that some conservatives have advocated civil
unions as a compromise and 2) that by tying the pro-family argument
“too tightly to the anti-judicial activism issue”
conservatives were left “flat-footed” when CT’s pro
same-sex “marriage” activists legalized civil unions
through the legislature.
Though we do not share his
despair about the possibility of reversing it, Dwyer is right in
describing the passage of civil unions in CT as a “major
defeat” for the pro-family cause. There has been a strangely
muted reaction from the rest of the nation to events in CT — and
not just from conservative blogs (the New York Times’ article on the passage of civil unions in CT ran on page B5).
It may be that media outlets are
not buying the pro same-sex “marriage” movement’s
claim about the “historical” importance of the first civil
union bill to be passed without court intervention. In fact, there is a
case pending in CT courts — and Gov. Rell mentioned it as one of
the reasons for her unfortunate decision to sign the bill.
It must be said that National Review Online
has run several substantive pieces about same-sex
“marriage.” But there is some evidence for Dwyer’s
concern that some conservatives can be misled by their emphasis on
process. In a brief comment about CT in the May 9th print edition of National Review,
the editors write that, while civil unions is a “bad idea,”
they are “glad” it was enacted democratically and that
“it would probably be impossible and undesirable” for a
federal amendment to undo what CT’s legislators “are
unwisely doing.”
Well, yes. But surely there is
more to be said about what happened in CT than that? In a poll
conducted by Harris Interactive, 78% of CT voters said that marriage is
between one man and one woman and 76% said they wanted to vote in a
referendum on the issue. The legislature ignored them. Thousands of
CT’s pro-family citizens called their legislators about the bill
— so many, in fact, that we shut down their switchboards for
days. But several senators began their speeches by saying that, while
most of their constituents opposed the bill, they will vote for it
anyway. In 2004, 78% of our legislature ran for re-election unopposed
or in gerrymandered districts where they won in a cakewalk. The bill,
which moved through the legislature at an unbelievably quick pace, was
signed hours after it was passed because Gov. Rell asked the senators
to suspend the normal rules of procedure. And the most sweeping change
to hit CT’s family life in decades was signed into law by a
governor who was never elected to the position. In light of all this,
how “democratic,” really, was the passage of civil unions
in CT?
We have our work cut out for us
if we want to reclaim CT, as Dwyer reminds us in a closing comment that
CT’s Catholics, in particular, should take note of:
I was recently at a lecture on Catholic social teaching by one of the heads of the Centesimus Annus Pro Pontifice institute in Rome, and one of the audience members made an interesting point vis a vis
Connecticut: although she's one of the most Catholic states in the
country, she manifests to a remarkable extent many of the ills against
which Catholic social teaching warns. The state features extremes of
wealth and poverty (Greenwich and Bridgeport, for instance). It's
apparently one of the few states with a rising abortion rate. And now
it's hopped onto the train to gay marriage. A reminder, I guess, that
being "Catholic" isn't enough, and of the need for vigorous
re-evangelization within the Church Herself.
Posted at 4:48 PM
May 9
DEFY THE DOUBLE STANDARD — ATTEND FRIDAY’S RALLY! [Peter Wolfgang]
(Note: On Friday at 11 a.m. in
Hartford’s Bushnell Park, there will be a rally to support the
six pro-family CT Episcopal priests who have been threatened by their
pro same-sex “marriage” bishop. We encourage all of our
supporters to attend the rally to lend their support to the hundreds of
faithful Christians who are expected to be there.)
What’s wrong with this picture? In a front page, above-the-fold article in Saturday’s Courant we are told that the editor of the Jesuit magazine, America,
is leaving his job “under apparent pressure from the
Vatican.” The magazine is described as “influential”
(twice) and the editor is credited with its “national
prominence.” The liberal Catholic dissenter Rev. Richard McBrien
is trotted out to assure readers that the departing editor is
“mainstream,” a “centrist” and his replacement
will be — you guessed it — also a “centrist.”
So why, then, was the editor supposedly forced out? It seems America
had “tackled” some “hot-button issues” like
“gay priests, stem cell research and denying communion to
Catholic politicians who support abortion rights.” The departing
editor had also made some comments against denying communion to
pro-abortion politicians that put him “at odds” with
then-Cardinal Ratzinger, “who enforced a hard line on church
doctrine.” Indeed, the Jesuit order as a whole is described as
having “questioned papal pronouncements” on some of those
“hot-button issues.”
The same day this article ran in the Courant there was an article in the Waterbury Republican-American
about the six Episcopal priests who have been threatened with
suspension — and possible defrocking — by the Episcopal
bishop of CT because they “challenged” his “support
for gay clergy, a gay bishop and same-sex unions.” In the Courant article, the Jesuit order opposing orthodox teaching is described as “renowned for its intellectual rigor.” In the Republican-American
article, the Episcopal priests opposing their bishop because of their
Christian orthodoxy are described this way in the headline:
“Rebel priests to display out-of-state support.”
The Republican-American
article is about a Thursday service and Friday rally to support the six
priests. A supporter of CT’s Episcopal bishop accuses the six
priests of “upping the ante” and trying to “provoke a
confrontation” by holding these events. Out-of-state bishops are
expected to be there to show their support for the six priests, which
is described by the supporter of the CT bishop as
“certainly…not a very Episcopal way of behaving.”
Was there no one available to the Courant
who could have pointed out that for a magazine run by Catholic priests
to regularly tear down Catholic teaching is “certainly not a very
Catholic way of behaving?” The media rule seems to be that
liberal priests who challenge conservative authority are heroes, but
conservative priests who challenge liberal authority are insubordinate
rebels.
FIC is a friend to Christian
orthodoxy in any denomination, as well as to those elements in any
religion that support the good of the traditional family. Again, we
encourage all of our supporters to attend the rally on Friday the 13th
at Bushnell Park in Hartford to support the hundreds of faithful
Christians who are expected to be there.
Posted at 11:38 AM
May 6
MORE HATE FROM THE COURANT [Brian Brown]
In a blog earlier this week, The Good the Bad and the Ugly, I wrote that I was pleasantly surprised that the Hartford Courant
accurately reported the numbers at the April 24th rallies and wondered
if this was because the media had moved from denial—pretending we
don't exist—to the next stage: attack. The source of my concern
was an outrageous Courant column by Helen Ubinas
that sought to create in the public's mind the perception that anyone
who merely expresses a moral disapproval of homosexual acts is the
equivalent of Fred Phelps, an anti-gay hate monger who has been
denounced by the pro-family movement. It was an ugly move by Ubinas,
and in a letter-to-the-editor, I called her on it.
But if you think the Courant couldn't get any uglier, think again.
In a column on Wednesday’s Sports page—that's right! The Sports page!—Courant columnist Jeff Jacobs goes Helen Ubinas one better: he smears those who attended FIC ACTION's rally as potential gay-bashers.
The column purports to be a
profile of Marcy MacDonald, a local sports hero and pro same-sex
"marriage" activist. Its real purpose, however, is to publish lines
like this:
After spending nearly a full
earth rotation in the Channel, MacDonald joked that she had felt like
someone had hit her with a baseball bat.
Four years later, she knows there are some people out there who really would do it.
What Jacobs is referring to in
that second sentence are the speakers at our rally who dared to
publicly express disapproval of homosexual acts. Because Bishop Jay
Ramirez of the Kingdom Life Church of Milford and the Rev. Moses
Mercedes of the Greater Bridgeport Clergy Council expressed a view that
Jacobs disagrees with, he published a column accusing them of being
people "who really would" hit Marcy McDonald with a baseball bat for
engaging in homosexual activity. And McDonald agrees, saying in a
discussion of our rally, "Somebody just might hate me enough to hurt
me."
Those who believe in traditional morality know that their voice will not be accurately represented in the pages of the Courant. But even for the Courant, this column is inexcusable.
It is simply an attempt to
demonize those who disagree with the same-sex "marriage" agenda. And
the step after demonizing those of us who wish to protect marriage is
to attack us. We have already seen this occur in Connecticut, with
those claiming to represent the "tolerant" attacking churches
displaying our "Defend Marriage Now!" banners, vandalizing and stealing
property. Frank O'Gorman of People of Faith for Gay Civil Rights
defended the attacks on these churches as "justice actions." There you
have it: because we are against same-sex "marriage," we deserve what we
get.
As Peter mentioned in an earlier
post, last week in Massachusetts, “the father of a 6 year old boy
spent a night in prison after officials refused his demand to remove
his son from classroom discussions about same-sex
‘marriage.’ You can read the Boston Globe article here. According to the chairman of the town's board of education,
"We don't view telling a child
that there is a family out there with two mommies as teaching about
homosexuality, heterosexuality, or any kind of sexuality," he said. "We
are teaching about the realities of where different children come from."
You can see for yourself what the book in question is telling a child by clicking here. An AP article about the father's arrest ran in some state newspapers but not, of course, in the Courant.
Now that same-sex civil unions
are being legalized in CT, how long until something like this happens
here? And when it does, will our opponents concede that we were right?
Or will we be treated to Helen Ubinas' columns accusing imprisoned
fathers who want a say in their children's moral upbringing of being
hateful bigots?”
The Courant's campaign to
create a patently false public perception of pro-family citizens as
hate-mongers capable of violence is actually more than inexcusable, it
is dangerous. If some unhinged individual from our opposition (and they
do exist—for a mild sampling of the mail we get from them, click here)
is led by these media smears to believe that pro-family citizens are a
threat to the civil order, he may choose to retaliate against those
with whom he disagrees. As Frank O'Gorman's comment shows, some of our
opponents are willing to justify illegal activity against us based on
their belief that we deserve it.
Our adversaries in the press are displaying the very intolerance that they falsely attribute to us. It's time to respond.
First, FIC ACTION calls upon all its supporters to call Karen Hunter, the Courant's
reader representative, at 860-241-3902 or from outside the Hartford
area at 800-524-4242, Ext. 3902. She may also be reached by e-mail at readerep@courant.com. It is Ms. Hunter's job to report on the fairness and accuracy of the Courant's
news coverage. Draw her attention to the Ubinas and Jacob's
columns—neither of which appear on the op-ed pages—and
politely express your concern that the Courant's news, and sports!, columnists have breached all standards of fairness and accuracy in their campaign to malign pro-family citizens.
Second, write letters to the editor letting the Courant
and its readers know that the image of the pro-family movement
appearing in its pages is false. You can send your letter to the Courant by clicking here (letters should include an address and day and evening phone number, be exclusive to the Courant and not exceed 200 words for best chance of being published).
Posted at 10:33 AM
May 4
COMING SOON TO CT? [Peter Wolfgang]
FIC has repeatedly stated that if
same-sex “marriage” is legalized it would impact public
school curriculum, with children being taught — against their
parents’ will — about “alternative lifestyles.”
Our opponents’ reactions to this argument ranged from bafflement
to scorn. “Never happen,” they said. Well, in
Massachusetts, it’s happening.
Last week, the father of a 6 year
old boy spent a night in prison because he refused to leave school
property after officials refused his demand to remove his son from
classroom discussions about same-sex “marriage.” You can
read the Boston Globe article here. According to the chairman of the town’s board of education,
"We don't view telling a child
that there is a family out there with two mommies as teaching about
homosexuality, heterosexuality, or any kind of sexuality," he said. "We
are teaching about the realities of where different children come from."
You can see for yourself what the book in question is “telling a child” by clicking here. An AP article about the father’s arrest ran in some state newspapers but not, of course, in the Courant.
Now that same-sex civil unions
are being legalized in CT, how long until something like this happens
here? And when it does, will our opponents concede that we were right?
Or will we be treated to Helen Ubinas columns accusing imprisoned
fathers who want a say in their children’s moral upbringing of
being hateful bigots?
Posted at 11:23 AM
GOV. RELL’S “EGREGIOUS ABUSE OF POWER” [Peter Wolfgang]
Over the last few weeks there
have been some great letters-to-the-editor in our state’s
newspapers by pro-family citizens expressing their outrage over the
passage of the same-sex civil union bill. Here’s my personal
favorite, from the May 1st Waterbury Sunday Republican:
People of state had no voice in new law
Upon the resignation of John G.
Rowland, Gov. M. Jodi Rell came riding into office on a proverbial
white steed, on her high horse of self-righteousness. She decried abuse
of power. She swore to uphold ethical standards.
Now our legislature has forced a
law on all of us we didn’t ask for, and Gov. Rell, in a pompous
gesture, has made it the law of the state. She is the first governor in
the country to sign a bill honoring homosexual relationships [without
court intervention]. Why didn’t the people of Connecticut have a
voice in this matter? Why was this issue not to put to a vote so the
people could be heard?
The people were sold out by our
elected officials, and I beseech every voter not to forget it when
Election Day 2006 comes around. Do your homework and discover how your
senator and representative voted, and if your position was not
represented, kick the bum out. We were denied the opportunity to have
our voice heard, but we can be heard loud and clear from the ballot box
on Election Day. We all know the stand taken by Gov. Rell. Let her know
the stand taken by you!
What more egregious abuse of
power is there in government than when our elected officials use their
position to drastically change the very structure of the foundation of
our society, the family, without even listening to a peep from any of
us? The state, and all of America, have been dealt a severe blow
through an arrogant stroke of the pen. How I wish Gov. Rell
weren’t so “ethical.” A trip to Vegas or a new hot
tub would have done us a lot better.
Joyce Hanson, Waterbury
Posted at 9:48 AM
May 2
IT WAS PRO SAME-SEX “MARRIAGE” BIAS, NOT “BEST PHOTO” BIAS [Peter Wolfgang]
From its inception this blog has expressed concerns about the objectivity of Courant coverage of the same-sex “marriage” issue. Here’s a surprise: the Courant’s own news staff is expressing the same concerns! In her Sunday column, the Courant’s
reader representative, Karen Hunter, took the photo department to task
for running a small photo of the pro-family rally attended by 3,000
people next to a “much larger” front page photo “of a
mock wedding of two women” at the pro same-sex
“marriage” counter-rally, which was attended by only 80
people:
Some might even argue that the
same-sex marriage rally was the more newsworthy image, but the numbers
argued differently. In this case, leading the newspaper with the best
photo wasn't enough. The decision left readers questioning the
newspaper's motives and left some on the news staff asking if it's more
important to win design awards or to provide fair and balanced news.
We appreciate Ms. Hunter’s public acknowledgement that even the Courant’s
news staff is wondering if other priorities take precedence over
providing “fair and balanced” reporting of the same-sex
“marriage” issue. But she exonerates her co-workers of bias
far too easily in accepting their lame “best photo” excuse.
Halfway through writing this post, I phoned Reggie Pinto, the retired photo editor of the old Manchester Herald. With 38 years of experience as a photo journalist, Reggie worked with and trained some of the photographers at the Courant. He also happens to be my grandfather. And it turns out he was already on the case.
“When I saw the use of those two photos, I couldn’t believe it,” he told me.
“The excuses offered in
Karen Hunter’s column made it even worse, so I called her.
I’m not blaming the photo staff. But the comments that [Courant
photo director] John Scanlan made to Karen show a complete ignorance of
the value of photo journalism. They should all be required to take a
course in photo journalism. The way those photos were used was
terrible, misleading, distorted. If the Manchester Herald ever did anything like that, it would run another photo the next day with an apology.
“I know the Courant’s
position on same-sex ‘marriage’ from reading its editorial
pages and that’s fine — that’s where it belongs. But
the Courant’s editorial spin was carried into the
photographic department. The way it was done is propaganda, it’s
no longer legitimate news. They’re pushing their viewpoint on the
front page. They gave the rally of 80 people more news value than the
rally of 3,000 people.
“That ‘a picture is
worth a thousand words’ is as true as when it was first said.
That is what the photo editor is supposed to remember. The power of the
story is in the photos and they misused that — they misled and
distorted the story.”
Posted at 4:29 PM
MORAL VIEWPOINT WAS ATTACKED [Brian Brown]
Here is my response to Helen Ubiñas, which was published in the Saturday Hartford Courant:
Moral Viewpoint Was Attacked
Columnist Helen Ubiñas
claims that at the Family Institute of Connecticut's April 24 rally to
protest the passage of same-sex civil unions, "hateful things" were
said [April 28, "Hate Looms Behind Talk Of Morality"]. But by "hateful
things," she means that a few people expressed moral disapproval of
homosexual acts. And for this, Ubiñas accuses us of the worst
forms of hate, comparing us to the anti-gay hate-monger Fred Phelps?
Memo to Ubiñas: Get a grip.
Ubiñas' attempt to smear
the mere expression of a moral viewpoint as an example of "hate" is
nothing more than an effort to silence anyone who disagrees with her.
The sad irony here is that at the same time Ubiñas is preaching
against hatred, she seems totally consumed by hatred for those who
believe that marriage is and only can be the union of one man and one
woman.
For our supporters, this is not
a new phenomenon. As state Senate Minority Leader Louis DeLuca said at
our rally, many of the expressions of hatred and bigotry in this debate
have come from advocates of same-sex "marriage."
Last year, pro-family churches
across Connecticut were vandalized when they displayed our "Defend
Marriage Now!" banners. Frank O'Gorman of People of Faith for Gay Civil
Rights defended the attacks on these churches as "justice actions." But
when a pro-same-sex marriage activist showed up at our rally with a
sign comparing us to the Taliban and telling children that they were
"little Nazis," he was permitted to roam the crowd unmolested.
Ubiñas accuses us of
"pushing a religious agenda down everyone's throat." Tell it to the
three students in South Windsor who were sent home by their principal
for wearing T-shirts defending traditional morality or the six
Episcopal priests in our state who have been threatened with defrocking
by their bishop for upholding traditional Christian moral teaching. The
only thing being pushed down everyone's throat in Connecticut is what
Pope Benedict XVI rightly calls "the dictatorship of relativism."
The Family Institute of
Connecticut will continue to oppose hatred and bigotry as it has always
done, whether it comes from the likes of Fred Phelps — or Helen
Ubiñas.
Brian S. Brown, Executive Director
Family Institute of Connecticut, Hartford
Posted at 1:27 PM
THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY [Brian Brown]
On April 20th the CT legislature
passed — and Gov. Rell signed — a same sex civil unions
bill. Over 3,000 pro-family citizens responded on April 24th by
converging in front of the state capitol for a rally to reclaim
Connecticut.
At the rally, FIC Action handed out 5,000 voter guides
telling the people of Connecticut how their state senators and
representatives voted on same-sex civil unions. It is crucial that we
let every pro-family voter in this state know how their elected
officials voted on this bill. Below we make it easy for you to e-mail
your thanks to the legislators that voted to protect marriage and your
disappointment to the legislators that voted to radically redefine it.
The Good
Sixty-three representatives and nine senators voted against same-sex civil unions. You can send an e-mail to thank them by clicking here. A few key legislators deserve special mention.
Senate minority leader Louis
DeLuca (R-Woodbury) stood out for his leadership in the fight to
protect marriage and his efforts to convince his fellow senators to
vote on a non-binding referendum to let the people decide. Rep. Al
Adinolfi (R-Cheshire) likewise showed leadership in this fight. These
two men knew they would be personally attacked for taking such a
high-profile position in the fight to protect marriage and it didn't
slow them down one bit.
The first senate debate was
Senator John Kissel's (R-Enfield) finest hour, as he deftly rebutted
Sen. McDonald's accusation that civil union opponents were acting out
of bigotry. Rep. Ray Kalinowski (R-Middletown) spoke for many when he
clearly stated that the normal working people of his district do not
support civil unions.
Rep. Bill Hamzy (R-Plymouth),
head of the GOP state central committee, provided the voice many
Republicans were looking for when he denounced civil unions as same-sex
"marriage" by a different name. His efforts to rejuvenate the state GOP
were unfortunately undermined by his own party's leadership in the
house of representatives — as well as by Gov. Rell.
The Democrats had sturdier house
leadership in Speaker Jim Amann (D-Milford) and showed that there is
hope for the future in legislators like freshman Rep. David Aldarondo
(D-Waterbury), who spoke at our rally.
The Bad
27 senators and 85 representatives voted to legalize same-sex civil unions. You can send them an e-mail expressing your disappointment with their vote by clicking here.
The civil union debate provoked
bizarre behavior from some of the bill's legislative supporters. Rep.
Kalinowski's stand for ordinary working people drew a particularly
whiny response from Rep. Art Feltman (D-Hartford). An interview I gave
to the press after the first senate debate was greeted with maniacal
laughter by Rep. Bob Godfrey (D-Danbury). In a front page photo in the Courant,
Rep. David McCluskey (D-West Hartford) appeared wild-eyed and almost
possessed, arms flailing, as a Franciscan Friar gently tried to engage
him in civil dialogue about his vote. That photo captured well the
treatment many pro-family supporters received at the hands of pro civil
union legislators.
During the Judiciary Committee
vote, Rep. Ryan Barry (D-Manchester) gave perhaps the most
self-indulgent of any speech to be heard at the legislature in the four
years that this issue has been debated. Saying that this is why he went
to law school and ran for office — to fight oppression, feed the
poor, etc. — Rep. Barry left the impression that the committee
had convened not to vote on civil unions but, rather, on what a
virtuous public servant Rep. Barry is. Likewise, Sen. Tom Herlihy's
(R-Simsbury) speech on the senate floor regarding what his research
into the genetic origins of homosexuality supposedly taught him caused
even the pro same-sex "marriage" lobbyists to roll their eyes.
If it had not already been a sure
thing, Sen. Andrew McDonald (D-Stamford) might well have derailed the
Senate's pro civil union vote with an over-the-top opening speech
accusing anyone opposed to his cause of acting out of "hate and
bigotry." Sen. Bill Finch (D-Bridgeport) accused constituents who had
asked him to vote against civil unions of violating "the separation of
church and state" and — as if that were not bad enough —
mangled the history of our nation's founding, which, he claimed, owed
as much to Buddhism and the Bhagavad Gita as it did to the Bible. Rep.
Brendan Sharkey (D-Hamden) stated falsely that the Catholic Church is
"equally" opposed to same-sex "marriage" and the death penalty and
implied that Catholic constituents who called him about the former but
not the latter are hypocrites.
The Ugly
FIC Action was pleasantly surprised when the state media accurately reported
the numbers for the two rallies last Sunday: the pro-family rally had
over 3,000 people and the pro same-sex "marriage" rally had 80 people.
That proportion is about average for whenever the two sides in the
marriage debate hold competing rallies. But it's the first time the
media ever let the public know it.
Perhaps this is because the media has moved from denial — pretending we don't exist — to the next stage: attack. In a column in Thursday's Courant, Helen Ubinas attacks those who would protect marriage as closeted haters.
Ubinas' diatribe accuses us of
hatred and bigotry simply because a few people at the rally expressed
moral disapproval of homosexual acts. By that standard, Pope John Paul
II and Mother Teresa were hateful bigots, too.
Ubinas' column is nothing more
than an attempt to silence anyone who disagrees with her — an
attempt that we have grown accustomed to. FIC Action opposes hate from
any source, including from those who attacked pro-family churches last
year for displaying our banner and from columnists who are trying to
intimidate us into silence.
On Saturday the Courant
published my letter responding to Ubinas, which we will be posting in
this space shortly. You can also send your own letter to the Courant letting them know what you think of the smears against pro-family citizens that it chooses to publish by clicking here
(letters should include an address and day and evening phone number, be
exclusive to the Courant and not exceed 200 words for best chance of
being published).
Posted at 1:20 PM
April 26
RECLAIM CONNECTICUT: THE BATTLE BEGINS [Brian Brown]
On Sunday well over 3,000
pro-family citizens from every walk of life united in a rally at the
state capitol to express their outrage over the decision by our
legislature and Gov. Rell to legalize same-sex civil unions. Religious
leaders such as Bishop LeRoy Bailey of First Cathedral in Bloomfield
and Bishop Daniel Hart of the Catholic Diocese of Norwich joined
political leaders such as Senate Minority Leader Louis DeLuca
(R-Woodbury) and Rep. David Aldarondo (D-Waterbury) in calling upon the
legislature to repeal their decision to undermine marriage and upon
those present to defeat the politicians who supported that decision.
As the Courant correctly noted,
while capitol police put our rally at about 3,000, a counter-rally that
mocked marriage drew only 80 supporters of same-sex
“marriage.” This is further evidence that the decision by
our legislature and Gov. Rell last week to undermine marriage reflects
the power of a tiny, vocal minority, rather than the will of the
people. And the people know it:
"What they [the legislature and
Gov. Rell] did was, they said, `We think we know better than the people
of the state,'" said Roger Cropper of Bristol. "This is supposed to be
the Constitution State, not the dictator state. Let the people decide.
I hope the people of Connecticut finally stand up and say enough is
enough."
That is precisely what we intend
to do. The pro-family movement’s #1 goal for the next eighteen
months leading up to the 2006 election is to Reclaim Connecticut! We
will be working day in and day out to educate the public on how their
representatives voted and encouraging good candidates of both parties
to run for political office in 2006.
Voters must know the name of every legislator that voted to undermine marriage.
That work has already begun. At
yesterday's rally, over 5,000 voter tallies were handed out to
pro-family citizens by FIC Action. You can print out the tally yourself
by clicking here.
Our goal is to provide a voter
guide in the next election to over 1 million voters in the state of
Connecticut. It will be part of a massive, unprecedented effort to
Reclaim Connecticut.
Already, I have made appearances
on all the major television news programs in the state to make the case
for Reclaiming Connecticut. I will be holding a series of meetings with
religious and political leaders to begin the process of holding our
legislators accountable.
While passage of same-sex
civil-unions is bad enough in itself, the next step of same-sex
"marriage" proponents is clear—use the courts to force same-sex
"marriage," name and all, on our state. Without a state constitutional
amendment protecting marriage, the courts may likely do exactly that.
We need legislators that understand the importance of this issue and a
public that knows where their legislators stand.
Our opponents have shown an
ability to raise enormous amounts of money in order to have a decisive
effect on our legislature. That is why 2005 has been the most
anti-family legislative session in memory.
The battle to protect marriage in
Connecticut has reached a pivotal moment. Either we make sure that
voters know where the elected officials stand before the 2006 election
or we face full same-sex "marriage."
Posted at 11:28 AM
TRUTH IS NOT RELL-ATIVE [Peter Wolfgang]
The title of this post is taken
from one of the signs — my personal favorite — to appear at
last Sunday’s pro-family rally. Brian will post something about
that rally in this space some time soon. In the meantime, I thought our
supporters might appreciate this article
eviscerating Gov. Rell’s “pro civil unions/anti same-sex
‘marriage’” logic which appeared in, of all places,
the left-wing New Haven Advocate. Although the author
mischaracterizes our position as “gay couples don’t deserve
legal recognition,” she generally shows more respect for logic
than the governor.
That said, both the author and the governor get the closing point wrong:
... a Quinnipiac poll that
showed Connecticut voters favor civil unions but not gay marriage. No
one ever accused Rell of lacking political logic.
In fact, no poll has ever asked whether CT voters favor civil unions if it gives all the same benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, which is what the bill signed by Gov. Rell does (see section 14). Once voters learn that she signed a bill that legalizes same-sex “marriage” in everything but name, the Advocate may discover that Gov. Rell’s errors of logic also included the political realm.
Posted at 10: 55 AM
April 21
RECLAIM CONNECTICUT! [Brian Brown]
Yesterday was a sad day for the
state of Connecticut. Our legislature and our governor, against the
wishes of the people, voted to pass a same-sex civil unions bill that
grants all of the rights, benefits, and privileges of marriage to
same-sex couples. This vote should be a wake-up call to all of us at
how extreme we have allowed our legislature to become.
I have no doubt that without your
calls and e-mails we would be looking at an even worse bill. The
definition of marriage that was placed within the civil unions bill
would never have passed without your work. This definition may have
some use when same-sex "marriage" proponents attempt to use this bill
in court to force full same-sex "marriage" on our state.
And we know that more court
action is coming to bring full same-sex "marriage" to our state. We
will be there to stand in the gap and protect marriage. This will be
one of our major priorities in the coming year.
One phase in the battle is over,
and another phase has begun. IT IS MORE CRITICAL THAN EVER THAT WE HAVE
A MASSIVE TURNOUT ON SUNDAY, APRIL 24TH, 2:00-4:00 PM AT THE STATE
CAPITOL TO PROTEST THIS ACTION AND TO HOLD OUR LEGISLATORS ACCOUNTABLE.
We must reclaim our state. We
must ensure that our elected officials, Democrat or Republican, listen
to us. We will distribute thousands of vote tallies on Sunday that show
voters exactly who voted to redefine marriage and who did not. We will
let you know what you can do to reclaim Connecticut.
TELL YOUR FRIENDS ABOUT THE
RALLY; BRING YOUR FAMILY. We are expecting thousands from different
faiths and backgrounds to come together in a peaceful protest and show
of unity in the face of our legislature's actions to redefine marriage.
Proponents of this measure are
counting on you being discouraged and giving up the fight. Will you?
These are the times where we must stand up and be counted. We hope to
see you this Sunday from 2:00-4:00 pm at the state capitol.
WILL YOU HELP US RECLAIM CONNECTICUT? CLICK HERE TO DONATE ONLINE!
Posted at 12:52 PM
“THIS VOTE WILL NOT BE FORGOTTEN” [Peter Wolfgang]
The state Senate passed — and Gov. Rell signed — the same-sex civil unions bill yesterday. Here is an excerpt from the Courant:
Rep. Michael Lawlor, another
longtime supporter of gay rights, called the new law "the biggest thing
the Connecticut legislature has done in 50 years."
Opponents don't disagree.
Brian Brown, executive director
of the Family Institute of Connecticut, said Wednesday was "a sad day
for the state of Connecticut."
Brown, whose group is hosting a
major rally against gay marriage Sunday on the grounds of the state
Capitol, criticized both the legislature and Rell for "fast-tracking"
the measure. There will be repercussions when lawmakers run for
re-election in 2006, he said.
"This vote will not be
forgotten," Brown vowed. "If the goal was to push this through in a
non-election year, they were 100 percent wrong."
The pro-family response was also covered in the New York Times:
Peter Wolfgang, a lobbyist and
the public policy director for the Family Institute of Connecticut,
which opposes civil unions, said his group would make them an issue in
next year's election.
He and others said that polls
misrepresent voter sentiment and that lawmakers are being deceived by
lobbyists who support civil unions.
"This is basically the end of one phase and the beginning of another," Mr. Wolfgang said. "It's all about 2006."
Brian will posting a statement in
this space shortly. The key point — as noted in the quotes above
— is that this battle is not over. This Sunday’s rally is
still on. The pro-family movement will make certain that every voter in
CT knows how his or her legislator voted — and Gov. Rell’s
role in fast-tracking the destruction of marriage in CT.
Posted at 12:49 PM
April 19
“BE NOT AFRAID” OF THE “DICTATORSHIP OF RELATIVISM” [Peter Wolfgang]
Between the same-sex civil union
votes in the legislature, our emergency rallies in opposition to those
votes and the big rally scheduled for this Sunday, it has been an
extraordinarily busy time at FIC. Thus the blog has not been as active
as normal — particularly with issues not directly related to the
civil union/same-sex “marriage” battle. We do hope you all
had a wonderful Easter. And our prayers are with the Catholic faithful
as they mourn the death of Pope John Paul II and celebrate the election
of Pope Benedict XVI.
The signature cry of John Paul
II’s pontificate, from the day of his own election in 1978, was
the biblical call to “be not afraid!” Yesterday —
when he was still known as Cardinal Ratzinger — Benedict XVI
preached against the “dictatorship of relativism.” These
two phrases come to mind as I think of recent events in CT. Six
Episcopal priests have been threatened by the pro same-sex
“marriage” Episcopal bishop of CT because of their stand
for traditional morality. In South Windsor, three students were sent
home from the high school because they were wearing t-shirts with
messages that reject the pro same-sex “marriage”
movement’s agenda.
The battle to stop our state
government from destroying the traditional definition of marriage is
not over. The state senate will vote again tomorrow. All FIC supporters
are invited to join the Catholic laity and bishops — who will be
holding Catholic Concerns Day — at the legislative office
building tomorrow. At 11:30 legislators will be meeting with pro-family
constituents: room 1E for the Hartford area, room 1D for the Norwich
region, and room 2D for the Bridgeport area. We still need as many
people as possible to call Gov. Rell at (860) 566-4840 and ask her to
veto the same-sex civil union bill. Finally, we need everyone in
Connecticut who cares about protecting marriage — tens of
thousands — to attend the rally for marriage this Sunday, April
24, from 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm at the state capitol.
Posted at 5:00 PM
April 15
TELL GOV. RELL: VETO! [Brian Brown]
Below we reprint an excellent editorial from the Waterbury Republican-American
urging Govenor Rell to veto the civil-union bill. It is essential that
we call Governor Rell today and urge her to veto the civil-unions bill
at (860) 566-4840.
All who oppose this legislation
should attend the Rally for Marriage, April 24th from 2:00-4:00 pm on
the state capitol steps. Parking is available in the Legislative Office
Building Parking Garage. Bus parking is available on Trinity and Elm
Streets.
Veto civil-unions bill
Gov. M. Jodi Rell is compelled
by her own words to veto the homosexual civil-unions bill lawmakers
will send her because the legislation introduces same-sex marriage to
Connecticut.
For several months, she has been
saying she supports the concept of civil unions but opposes homosexual
marriage. Her position mirrors that of a majority of Connecticut
residents who have lost their moral compass, have bought the
preposterous argument that this is about civil rights, are tired of the
controversy and wish it would just go away, or fear they might be
called a bigot or homophobe.
Needing political cover, Gov.
Rell turned to, of all people, Democratic Attorney General Richard
Blumenthal for advice on whether the bill would permit homosexual
marriage. Doing his best not to soil his own gubernatorial aspirations,
he opined the measure does not change the state's definition of
marriage. Though he never stated unequivocally that the bill would not
bring about same-sex marriage, Gov. Rell came away with the impression
that "(t)his bill in no way permits gay marriage."
And when the House on Wednesday
passed an amended version of that defined marriage as a "union of a man
and a woman," she pledged to sign legislation if the Senate goes along.
If she does that, she will be responsible for introducing same-sex
marriage to Connecticut.
The legislation bestows upon
homosexual couples every one of the 588 rights and privileges that the
state heretofore has reserved for married couples. In much the same way
that an inside-the-park home run in baseball accomplishes the same end
as one hit out of the yard, a Connecticut civil union would be marriage
by another name, and a package of special rights available exclusively
to homosexuals.
Though opponents claim the
amendment was a "huge victory" for marriage and families, they may rue
the day the state codified its marriage definition because it creates a
law for future legislatures to amend and judges to rewrite in any
perverse way they see fit.
Homosexual agitators will not
rest until the state fully endorses their unnatural relationships. The
civil-unions bill does not do that, but it makes judicial intervention
inevitable. With much justification, the courts could declare the
marriage definition unconstitutionally narrow and discriminatory, and
order lawmakers to expand it to include homosexuals. The effect of such
a ruling on Defense of Marriage Act decisions in 39 states could be
devastating.
A simpler route will be for the
agitators to show how the marriage definition — "a union of a man
and a woman" (emphasis ours) — uses the same language as civil
union. Since the laws governing marriage and civil unions already would
be identical, it would be easy for a judge to declare the semantic
difference irrelevant. Either way, homosexual marriage becomes Gov.
Rell's legacy.
Mr. Blumenthal's surreptitious
assurances notwithstanding, this bill is homosexual marriage, and it's
just a matter of time before the courts give it the title it deserves.
To be true to her word to oppose same-sex marriage and to protect the
institution of marriage, Gov. Rell should veto this bill.
Friday, April 15, 2005. Copyright © 2005 Republican-American. Editorial used with the permission of the Waterbury Republican-American.
Posted at 3:30 PM
April 14
KEEP UP THE FIGHT! [Brian Brown]
I want to thank the thousands of
people who stood up to protect marriage in the last few weeks. Almost
every representative who spoke yesterday talked about how they were
inundated with e-mails opposing same sex civil-unions. We had close to
a thousand people come up to the capitol throughout the day. THE FIGHT
IS NOT OVER!
Most analysts thought that this
bill would fly through the house without any amendments or changes.
Your work ensured that our representatives were compelled to amend the
bill with a definition of marriage amendment. Love Makes a Family and other groups believed that they could pass an unamended bill easily; because of your work they were wrong.
Yet this bill is all but a
same-sex "marriage" bill; adding a definition of marriage amendment to
a civil-unions bill is minor recompense. We will continue to oppose
this bill and same sex civil unions with all of our efforts. Those
politicians who think that this "compromise" will satisfy those of us
who know what marriage is and want it protected, are wrong. In
attempting to make everyone happy, they have passed a bill that tries
to please everyone and ends up pleasing no one.
Further, the marriage definition
in this bill will not stop court action to attempt to give Connecticut
same-sex "marriage," name and all. The courts in others states have
shown themselves willing to overturn statutory language when they
decide that it conflicts with a constitutional "right" to same-sex
"marriage." Proponents of same-sex "marriage" are already twisting the
debate to claim that the Connecticut Supreme Court will have a stronger
argument for same-sex marriage should this bill become law.
You can view the final house vote tally here.
Please make sure to thank all of those people who voted against the
amended version of the bill and remember those that voted for it. The
final vote count was 85-63. We will do much more in the coming weeks to
get this information to churches and communities that are interested in
seeing how their representatives represented them.
WE NEED TO CALL THE GOVERNOR AND URGE HER TO VETO THIS BILL (860) 566-4840.
We also must look forward to
April 24th, and all of us who have worked so hard to protect marriage
need to be there. The Governor probably will not yet have signed onto
this bill. On April 24th we will have massive protest rally at the
state capitol from 2:00-4:00 pm to urge her to veto this legislation.
If we allow this legislation to pass without standing up forcefully as
people of faith and speaking our mind only we are to blame for the
direction our state is moving in. We must hold every elected official
accountable who voted for this bill. We must know and remember their
votes. On April 24th we will make clear that we will not forget how
many legislators were willing to deny the people the right to protect
marriage through a referendum.
This bill now must go to the
state senate. You can send an e-mail to the entire state senate and to
the governor by clicking below.
Click the link below to log in and send your message:
http://votervoice.net/target.asp?id=fict:5329585
Posted at 2:11 PM
April 12
NO CAMPAIGN FODDER IN “SIDE ISSUE” [Brian Brown]
“GOP Plots Values War,” an article in last Sunday’s Courant, reports:
And this week, some House
Republicans look forward to the debate on civil unions for same-sex
couples as another opportunity to contrast themselves with
Democrats…
With civil unions supported by
Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell and some GOP lawmakers, the potential for
campaign fodder lies in a side issue this week: a proposed amendment
defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman…
Indeed, six of the 12
Republicans in the Connecticut Senate voted last week for the civil
unions bill, which would extend the equivalent of marriage rights to
gay and lesbian couples.
Connecticut’s pro-family
citizens are grateful for the state GOP’s resolution defending
traditional marriage. But we were particularly pleased with the
press release accompanying the resolution, wherein party chairman Rep.
Bill Hamzy rightly noted that the civil union bill should be opposed
because it legalizes same-sex “marriage” by a different
name.
The state GOP — indeed, both parties — must come to understand what Rep. Hamzy understands: but for the name, this is
a same-sex “marriage” bill. If, during tomorrow’s
debate, legislators should introduce “strike all”
amendments that would replace civil unions with something that will
protect marriage, those amendments will have the full support of FIC
Action.
But if legislators simply add a
definition of marriage amendment without striking the civil union
language — and then vote to legalize civil unions — they
will have betrayed the pro-family cause. Legislators who vote to
legalize civil unions and then seek pro-family support on a “side
issue” will not be viewed as champions of our cause.
1,000 pro-family citizens will
rally on the steps of the state capitol tomorrow at 10:00 am for the
protection of marriage. Perhaps as many as 25,000 pro-family supporters
will rally again on April 24th. Our goal is to protect marriage for
ourselves and our children — not to be cynically manipulated by
legislators who voted to destroy it.
Posted at 1:51 PM
April 8
CALL KEY LEGISLATORS NOW! OUR STATE STANDS AT A CRITICAL JUNCTURE. THE TIME IS NOW TO STAND UP AND ACT! [Brian Brown]
We are facing a very tight vote
in the house on this civil-unions bill. DO NOT LET THE SENATE VOTE FOOL
YOU. Many members of the house are undecided on this bill and are
extremely uncomfortable with the prospect of voting for this bill and
being held accountable for bringing same-sex "marriage" to the state if
a future court uses passage of civil-unions to force full same-sex
"marriage" on us.
We can still stop this bill in
the house if each and every one of us calls our legislators and
encourages others to do the same. Everyone on our e-mail list has
received a phone list in Adobe format of key representatives organized
alphabetically. (If you are not yet on our list, click here,
give us your contact info and request the phone list of key
representatives.) There are two pages and you can either look under
your town or find your representative alphabetically if you know
his/her name. We have left off solid yes or no votes. As you can see,
there are many legislators who can still be influenced to do the right
thing and vote against this bill.
Also, we need everyone to call
the Governor, even if you have called before, and urge her to veto this
bill if it gets out of the house. (She has yet to say whether she will veto the bill.) Her number is: (860) 566-4840.
PASTORS, PRIESTS, AND RABBIS PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THIS LIST TO YOUR CONGREGATIONS!
We need as many people as
possible to attend our rally and lobby day this Wednesday, April 13th
on the state capitol steps at 10:00 am. DO NOT BE DISCOURAGED! THE TIME
IS NOW TO STAND UP AND PROTECT MARRIAGE.
You can click here to be directed to the phone numbers of your representative.
Posted at 12:52 PM
April 7
SENATE APPROVES SAME-SEX UNIONS; FIC RALLY APRIL 13th [Brian Brown]
Yesterday the state Senate voted
27-9 to legalize civil unions — same-sex “marriage”
in everything but name. An amendment supported by Gov. Rell that would
have defined marriage as between a man and a woman was defeated 23-13.
Sen. DeLuca’s amendment to hold a non-binding referendum to let
the people decide was defeated 27-9.
The debate was notable for the
arrogance and condescension displayed by pro same-sex union Senators.
Sen. Andrew McDonald (D-Stamford) set the tone early in the discussion
when he accused the bill’s opponents of “hatred and
bigotry.” He also added this, according to the Republican-American:
…to embolden his
colleagues, Sen. Andrew McDonald, who is gay and introduced the bill,
brought in visual aid to bolster those who might have been struggling
with last-minute jitters. It was an opponent's sign from McDonald's
last election campaign.
The sign read "A vote for Andrew McDonald is a vote for same sex union ... period."
The message, McDonald said later, was that people targeted for supporting gay rights issues survive electoral campaigns.
In fact, those signs were stolen
the day they were put up. For Sen. McDonald to suddenly produce one of
those signs now as a way of suggesting that he “survived” a
campaign on this issue is not only misleading; it gives new meaning to
the word “chutzpah.”
But there was a lot of that going
around. A few Senators announced from the floor of the Senate that they
had received hundreds more e-mails and phone calls from constituents
against the bill than for it — and that they intend to vote for
the bill anyway. One of them, Sen. Bill Finch (D-Bridgeport), went on
to suggest that his Christian constituents should not have a voice in
the public square. Garbling the law on “the separation of church
and state” he claimed that the Bhagavad Gita and Buddhism are
just as important to the founding of our nation as the Bible and
Christianity. (“Surely, you knew about the Buddhist underpinnings
of American government?” a friend joked during Sen. Finch’s
speech.)
Similar comments by Sen.
Finch’s fellow Senators suggested they were as uninformed as he
was. Conservative icon Edmund Burke, Christian martyr Dietrich
Bonhoeffer, Terri Schiavo and even John the Baptist were all cited by
Senators in support of the bill. None of these people would have
supported civil union/same-sex “marriage.” The
Senators’ confusion might be funny if it were not so offensive.
The question of our extreme and
unrepresentative state Senate is one that pro-family citizens will be
returning to in the future. For now, we must focus on what happens next
with the civil union bill and what is to be done about it.
The civil union bill now moves to
the House, where it will in all likelihood be voted on this Wednesday,
April 13th. You can e-mail and call your state Representative to ask
them to vote NO by clicking here.
There is good reason to believe that our state’s Representatives,
unlike the Senators, actually listen to their constituents.
FIC Action will be holding a
Rally/Lobby Day Wednesday, April 13th beginning at 10:00 AM on the
steps of the state capitol. It is urgent that we have as many
supporters as possible at the state capitol and legislative office
building the day of the vote.
Our big April 24th Rally is still on. Watch this space for continuing updates.
Posted at 12:12 PM
April 6
SENATE VOTE TODAY [Peter Wolfgang]
Yesterday, over 50 pastors
representing thousands of people — Protestant and Catholic;
African-American, White and Hispanic; male and female — joined
FIC at a press conference
on the steps of the state capitol to express their opposition to the
same-sex civil union bill that will be voted on in the state Senate
today:
The Family Institute of
Connecticut, which opposes civil unions and gay marriage, said Tuesday
it hopes to turn out 25,000 demonstrators on the state Capitol grounds
on April 24 to persuade Rell to reconsider her endorsement of civil
unions.
"We are going to let her know we
want her to veto the bill if it gets off the House floor," Brian Brown,
the group's executive director, said at a press conference, during
which he was accompanied by clergy opposed to the
legislation…Connecticut's [possible legalization of civil
unions] would run counter to a national trend of prohibiting gay
marriage or civil unions. Kansas voters Tuesday overwhelmingly approved
a ban on gay marriages and civil unions.
Persuading Gov. Rell was not the
only point of the press conference. As several speakers made clear,
pro-family citizens want their lawmakers to vote “no” on
civil unions and “yes” on Sen. DeLuca’s amendment to
allow a referendum to let the people decide. In a speech that was
garbled by the Republican-American and ignored by the Courant,
Sen. DeLuca asked why, if Love Makes a Family believes its own poll
showing majority support for civil unions/same-sex
“marriage,” it opposes a referendum? “Maybe they
don’t really believe their own poll,” he said.
As the Courant reports,
The Rev. Davida Foy Crabtree,
conference minister for the Connecticut Conference of the United Church
of Christ, held a press conference later Tuesday to reiterate that
other clergy support civil unions.
What the Courant neglects
to mention are the numbers. FIC’s press conference — an
idea that originated with pastors who attended last Thursday’s
Lunch — had at least 50 clergy in attendance. Rev.
Crabtree’s press conference “to reiterate that other clergy
support civil unions” had four — and one of them was a
layperson. This is a glaring omission. If the numbers had been
reversed, would the Courant have neglected to mention it?
At Rev. Crabtree’s press
conference, Sen. Mary Ann Handley dismissed concerns about holding the
civil union vote the week of the Pope’s death. “I
don’t think we need to concern ourselves with that.” Rev.
Crabtree referred to FIC’s press conference as “a few
people” — perhaps she, like the Courant, did not
notice her own tiny numbers — and said the civil union bill
“is not about marriage, it’s about civil rights.”
Rev. Crabtree’s assertion is rebutted in a quote from an article that appears on the Courant’s front page today:
Gay rights activists have framed
the debate over same-sex marriage as a question of civil rights, but
Charles Giampietro, a 46-year-old tool-and-die maker from Meriden,
doesn't see it that way.
"There's something much bigger
going on," says the married father of five. "They're really trying to
change the structure of society."
Although she cites the UConn poll
done a year ago and ignores last month’s FIC poll conducted by
Harris Interactive, Daniela Altimari’s story is a more-balanced
profile of pro-family citizens than normally appears in our state media.
Rev. Crabtree’s claim to speak for a large number of pro same-sex “marriage” clergy was undermined by another piece in today’s Courant.
According to the article by Frances Taylor, it is not clear that Rev.
Crabtree even speaks for her own UCC denomination. While Rev. Crabtree
complains about an alleged attempt to persuade churches to leave the
UCC over this and other issues, others question that view of things:
The Rev. David Runnion-Bareford,
executive director of the Biblical Witness Fellowship, a Candia,
N.H.-based evangelical organization within the United Church of Christ,
denied that his group's mission was to lead churches away from the UCC.
The theological tension between
evangelical and liberal churches in the UCC follows a trend common
among mainline churches over the past 25 years. The gulf between the
two camps within the United Church of Christ has widened in recent
years over issues such as same-sex marriage. Three Connecticut churches
left the UCC in the past year over such issues, including First Church
of Christ in Wethersfield, the largest Congregational church in New
England and previously one of the largest UCC congregations in the
country…
The Rev. Peter Smith, who leads
First Church of Christ in Thomaston, a conservative church, complained
that the state UCC conference adopts official positions even when not
all member churches agree. He said he doesn't think Biblical Witness
Fellowship members are attempting to lead churches out.
"Just by the fact of [their]
being evangelical in UCC means they are more willing to talk with
people with whom they differ," Smith said…
[Said Rev. Runnion-Bareford,] "This is like blaming the boy for the fact that the emperor is naked," he said.
The Senate will vote today. FIC
supporters should meet in the LOB lobby at 11:00 AM. Last week, a
Hartford judge ruled that she could not grant a divorce to a lesbian
couple “married” in Massachusetts because CT does not
recognize same-sex “marriage” — but hinted that she
would rule differently if the state legalized civil unions. This is
further evidence that if this bill becomes law, the courts may use it
as a pretext to impose same-sex “marriage” on CT. Please
join us today, if you can.
Posted at 10:37 AM
April 4
FURTHER SUPPORT FOR TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE [Ken Von Kohorn]
A newly-released CNN/USA
Today/Gallup poll indicates that what we are seeing in Connecticut
— strong opposition to redefining marriage — has been
confirmed nationwide. Here is a summary of the new poll results:
Public opposition to "marriages" between homosexuals is at an all-time high, according to a poll released yesterday.
When asked whether they thought
same-sex "marriages" should be recognized by the law as valid and come
with the same rights as traditional marriages, 68 percent of the
respondents in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll said they should not.
Twenty-eight percent said same-sex "marriages" should be valid and 4
percent had no opinion. The survey of 443 adults was conducted March 18
to 20.
A similar poll by Gallup last
year found that 55 percent thought homosexual "marriages" should not be
valid, while 42 percent said they should be recognized.
As important as the huge margin
favoring traditional marriage — 68% to 28% — is the
continuing movement away from any redefinition. Support for
non-traditional marriage arrangements has diminished from a year ago.
The poll also reports that a strong majority now favor a Federal
Marriage Amendment.
While our policy recommendations
will always be based on time-honored precepts and the overwhelming
preponderance of social science (showing the vital importance for
children of having both a mother and a father), it is of course nice to
see that a large and growing majority of Americans agree with us.
Posted at 11:50 AM
April 1
THE BATTLE HAS BEEN JOINED [Brian Brown]
At the beginning of March, pro
same-sex “marriage” lobbyists expected a cakewalk. After
dropping their all-or-nothing ploy, they “settled” for a
civil union bill that would legalize same-sex “marriage” in
everything but name. On Feb. 23rd the Judiciary Committee approved the
bill by a 2-1 margin and on Mar. 2nd Gov. Rell expressed support for
the “concept” of civil unions. Our opponents expected the
bill to sail through the legislature.
What a difference a month makes.
On Mar. 30th an official of the
pro same-sex “marriage” CT Conference of the United Church
of Christ (UCC) — with the Orwellian-sounding title
“Coordinator for Wider Church and Justice & Witness”
— e-mailed a desperate plea to her list:
Legislators are receiving
hundreds of e-mails a day opposing SB 963, An Act Concerning Civil
Unions…this deluge is beginning to have an effect…Please
contact your legislators…help CT stay on track to assure
[same-sex civil unions]
So, how did we get from there to here?
On Mar. 9th FIC and the CT
Catholic Conference (CCC) held a joint press conference to reveal new
information regarding public opinion in our state. A poll commissioned
by FIC and the CCC and conducted by Harris Interactive showed that 78%
of CT voters know that marriage is the union of one man and one woman
and 76% want to have a vote on the future of marriage. Citing these
numbers, several of the state’s leading religious figures —
including Hartford Archbishop Henry Mansell and First Cathedral’s
Bishop LeRoy Bailey — called on the politicians to let the people
decide by referendum whether to include a marriage protection amendment
in our state constitution. Senate Minority Leader Louis DeLuca
(R-Woodbury) announced that he would try to amend the civil union bill
to allow a non-binding referendum on marriage this year.
Though most of the state’s
media ignored our poll, the effect was still felt. The day after its
front page coverage of our press conference the Hartford Courant ran an editorial attacking Archbishop Mansell’s support for a referendum. Four days later the Courant published a second editorial against the referendum, making the same arguments but with greater urgency.
Following the press conference,
thousands of CT’s pro-family citizens — in the word of the
UCC official — “deluged” their representatives with
calls demanding that they vote no on same-sex civil unions and yes on a
referendum to let the people decide. Many used the resources on
FIC’s home page to contact their legislators. Others were moved
to do so by radio host Brad Davis, who has tirelessly exhorted his
listeners to defend marriage.
The deluge mattered. In an
interview with Dan Lovallo, filling in for Brad, Rep. Jim Amann, the
Speaker of the House, said that — although he expects a close
vote and a spirited debate — he believes the civil union bill
will fail in the House. The state central committee of CT’s
Republican Party unanimously approved a resolution calling for the
protection of marriage. In a press release, party chairman Rep. Bill
Hamzy denounced the civil union bill, correctly identifying it as
same-sex “marriage” by a different name. After her chief
legal counsel met with us, Gov. Rell said she would like the civil
union bill amended to include language identifying marriage as the
union of one man and one woman.
Throughout Connecticut, the
Church has awakened. FIC received overwhelming support last month when
I spoke at a Men’s Conference at First Cathedral. Yesterday, 50
of Connecticut’s most passionate pastors left an FIC lunch
determined to rally their congregants for the protection of marriage.
The battle is far from over and
the legalization of same-sex “marriage”, in everything but
name, here in CT this year is still a very real possibility, as the
recent vote
by the finance committee shows. But pro-family citizens have engaged
the battle in greater numbers and with more passion than pro same-sex
“marriage” lobbyists expected.
If the events of March gave us a
fighting chance, the events of April must be about victory. Watch for
FIC’s ads to begin appearing in newspapers this week. There will
be a statewide prayer rally for marriage on Friday, April 22nd at
locations throughout CT. On April 24th from 2-4 PM FIC will host the
biggest Marriage Protection Rally in state history on the steps of the
state capitol in Hartford. On Wednesday, April 27th we will host a
Lobby Day for Marriage at the legislative office building.
Things are happening fast. Watch this space for continuing updates on what you can do to protect marriage.
Posted at 2:03 PM
March 30
THE HARTFORD COURANT: AN INSIDE LOOK [Peter Wolfgang]
Once a year, the Courant holds a reception to honor the writers of the best letters-to-the-editor to appear in its pages in the previous year. Last night I attended the reception at the Courant building with my wife, who was one of this year’s winners. Here is her letter:
Promote Better Decision-Making
A woman's infant son and her
10-year-old sister are killed by their mother's boyfriend (who's also
the boy's father), and the tragedy focused on by Helen Ubinas in her
April 22 column ["Desperate Mothers, Desperate Measures"] is that the
mother could not find publicly funded day care for her son.
Ms. Ubinas' column reflects what
many people only want to see — not the very clear problems of
pre-marital sex and unwed motherhood but, instead, the blind adherence
to more state funding for social programs that encourage non-parental
care.
Does anyone think that the
children (and taxpayers) of this state would be better served by
providing more condoms, welfare and day-care subsidies rather than
encouraging more flexible working schedules for mothers, fatherhood and
marriage initiatives and even, dare I mention it, abstinence-only
programs?
Let's stop looking for more
band-aid solutions to our failed social agendas and begin questioning
our blind commitments to "safe sex," no-fault divorce and
oh-so-nonjudgmental single parenthood.
Leslie K. Wolfgang, New Hartford
The event began with a dinner in
the second floor cafeteria. The room was filled with columnists whose
names will be familiar to Courant readers: Susan Campbell, Jim
Shea, Pat Seremet, Bessy Reyna, Michele Jacklin and more. Leslie and I
debated liberal business columnist Dan Haar, an amiable fellow, over
the content of her letter. Haar insisted that poverty was the root
cause of the problem, but he partly conceded Leslie’s argument
that the things she recommends are not being taught in the public
schools. “When I was a teenager in the 70’s,” he
said, “we were taught that alcohol, drugs and premarital sex were
fine, as long as we did it in moderation.”
Larry Cohen, the Courant’s
lone libertarian columnist, smiled when I told him that I worked for
FIC. “I gave the Family Institute a warm welcome,” he said,
referencing a column he wrote when Brian was hired. I told him that it
was that column which caused me to contact Brian and, four years later,
led to my position at FIC. “Those are the columns that will get
me into heaven,” he joked.
After the dinner we went
downstairs for a presentation by cartoonist Bob Englehart, followed by
a reading by editors Robert Schrepf and Tom Condon of excerpts from all
the winning letters. They were a friendly and charming bunch, but the
liberal tilt of the majority of letters — as well as side
comments by Condon suggesting that those were the letters he was in
strongest agreement with — did lend credence, I thought, to the
concerns many of us have about a lack of ideological diversity at the Courant.
There was a question and answer
period following the presentation. I asked Schrepf, the editiorial page
editor, this question: “In your endorsement of President Bush
last year you advised him to drop his opposition to abortion and
same-sex ‘marriage’ because these were — in your
phrase — ‘yesterday’s wars.’ Considering
everything that has happened since, do you still believe that these are
‘yesterday’s wars?’” With a note of sadness in
his voice, he replied, “Events have shown that they’re not.
I wish they were.”
Posted at 12:02 PM
March 29
SAME-SEX “MARRIAGE” WILL LEAD TO POLYGAMY [Peter Wolfgang]
Few things infuriate same-sex
“marriage” proponents more than the frank acknowledgement
that their activism — intentionally or not — is paving the
way for legalized polygamy. But it is not just pro-family advocates who
say so. “I don’t know what the magic is about [the number]
two,” Anne Stanback, head of Love Makes a Family, told the
Judiciary Committee when asked about the number of possible
participants in a “marriage.”
Stanback unintentionally proved
our point: once you redefine marriage to include two men or two women,
there is no logical argument by which it cannot include three men or
more. If marriage does not mean something, it will end up meaning anything, thus destroying the institution.
What Stanback admits to under
duress, others are now openly advocating for. Last week on National
Review Online, sociologist Stanley Kurtz discussed
a law review article by Elizabeth F. Emens, a professor at the
University of Chicago Law School, defending polyamory (group marriage):
Emens's breakthrough article is
a sign that the case for mainstreaming polyamory is finally
being...well, mainstreamed...Anyone who believes that a serious public
campaign for legalized polyamory is impossible should take a look at
Emens's work…The professor is unhappy that proponents of
same-sex marriage agree with [Senator Rick] Santorum that were gay
marriage to create a new openness to adultery, bigamy, and polygamy,
that would be a bad thing. Emens's preferred response to Rick
Santorum's parade of horribles is "So what?"
Kurtz’s piece on
Emens’ article is must-reading, particularly for understanding
what same-sex “marriage” activism is leading to:
Is Emens right? Not by a long
shot. The most striking thing about her article is how little it has to
say about children. And when Emens does take up the problem of
children-and the related problem of the stability of polyamorous unions
— she is superficial and dismissive. For all the other links
between this defense of polyamory and the gay-marriage battle, the most
important connection may be this question of children. If the gay
marriage battle hadn't already done so much to separate the idea of
marriage and parenthood, an article like this could never have been
written. Once we act as though children are anything other than the
central reason for the public interest in marriage, we open the way to
exactly what Emens offers.
Posted at 4:46 PM
March 28
YOUR CALLS ARE HAVING AN EFFECT — BUT MORE ARE NEEDED! [Brian Brown]
Three key events last week give
us reason to believe that the pro-family voice is finally being heard
at our state’s capitol. On Tuesday, the CT Republican State
Central Committee voted unanimously to endorse the traditional one
man-one woman definition of marriage. “We should stop the parsing
of words — this [the same-sex civil unions bill pending in the
legislature] is gay marriage pure and simple,” Rep. William Hamzy
(R-Plymouth), the Party Chairman, said in a press release.
“Supporters of gay marriage should have the honesty to say what
their intentions are rather than cloaking this major change in the
social fabric of our culture with legalese…We hope all CT
residents will contact their legislators and tell them that civil
unions are not good for our state.”
On Thursday, Rep. Jim Amann
(D-Milford), the Speaker of the House, told radio host Dan Lovallo that
he believes the same-sex civil union bill may be defeated in our state
House of Representatives. Rep. Amann says that he expects a spirited
debate and a close vote but that he believes the civil union bill may
fall short of passage.
On Friday, Courant staff writer Mark Pazniokas wrote a typically biased article
about the CT GOP’s pro-family resolution. Pazniokas tried to spin
the resolution as an instance of GOP “division,” but some
remarkable news buried at the end of his article suggests that there is
less division than he would have us believe:
Rell said she would like to see the civil union bill amended to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
Proponents of the civil unions
bill say the language is unnecessary, because same-sex marriage
obviously is not permitted under current law. But the governor said the
definition still would be welcome.
"The bill right now as written
does make several references to marriage throughout," Rell said. "It
would be an opportune time for us to define marriage in that bill as a
marriage between a man and woman."
(In fact, many of those same
“proponents of the civil union bill” who dismiss Gov.
Rell’s suggestion — because current law
“obviously” forbids same-sex “marriage” —
have said repeatedly that their ultimate goal is the legalization of
same-sex “marriage.” But don’t expect to hear that
from the Courant’s Mark Pazniokas.)
All of these things — the
CT GOP’s pro-family resolution, Speaker Amann’s prediction
that the civil union bill will fail in the House and Gov. Rell’s
desire to amend the bill — are great news and a testament to the
hard work of all those in the pro-family movement who are fighting to
protect marriage. Your calls to your legislators and Gov. Rell are
having an effect!
But we are not out of the woods
yet—not by a long shot! We have to keep making those calls,
visiting our legislators and keeping the pressure on. Grassroots action
by pro-family citizens is the only thing that can counter the
overwhelming presence of the well-heeled pro same-sex "marriage" lobby
at our state legislature.
Lawmakers—many of whom are
good people who are genuinely confused by the issue—must contend
day-in and day-out with our well-connected opposition. Those
lawmakers—as well as your family and friends—are also being
exposed to a daily barrage of pro same-sex "marriage" propaganda from
our biased state media, such as Thursday’s AP article
lionizing Sen. Andrew McDonald as a moderate because he supports civil
unions rather than same-sex "marriage." This article is deliberately
designed to confuse the reader. The state's lawmakers and voters must
be told that civil unions is same-sex "marriage" in everything but
name. In fact, if the civil union bill passes, the courts may use it as
a pretext to undemocratically impose same-sex "marriage" on
Connecticut, as occurred in Massachusetts.
So please, continue to call your
lawmakers and Gov. Rell and ask them to oppose civil unions and support
a referendum to let the people decide. (You can call your legislators
by clicking here and Gov. Rell by clicking here.) Write to your local newspapers in opposition to civil unions/same-sex "marriage" by clicking here.
Plan to attend FIC's April 24th Rally to Protect Marriage and our April
27th Lobby Day. Pastors, call our office at (860) 548-0066 for
information on our Mar. 31st Pastor's Lunch.
Your calls have helped turn the
tide in this battle. But there remains much to be done and defeat is
still a real possibility. Please raise your voice up for the protection
of marriage today. And please consider donating to FIC and FIC Action,
the flagship organizations of Connecticut's pro-family movement, by
clicking here.
Posted at 1:55 PM
March 24
PIVOTAL CULTURAL MOMENTS [Ken Von Kohorn]
While Connecticut debates the
definition of marriage and family, the entire country, it seems, has
been pulled — either emotionally or from a legal perspective
— into the ongoing drama of Terri Schiavo. Both our civil unions
debate and the Schiavo case illustrate the increasingly bitter cultural
divide within America.
To FIC, one of the main concerns raised in both cases is: What are we saying, as a state and as a nation, to our children?
Civil unions — and their
next logical step, same-sex "marriage" — tells kids that adult
gratification trumps the needs of the next generation. The vital
importance of having both a father and a mother, we are saying, must be
ignored in order that self-serving adult arrangements, which set aside
the best interests of children, have official recognition.
Terri Schiavo's case also says
something to our children — most of it very bad. We have been
telling them that a flawed life has no intrinsic value and that a human
being can — even should — be starved to death with the
official blessings of our judicial system. Those of us who treasure
life as a gift from God, worth preserving no matter how inconvenient,
watch with increasing horror and dismay as court after court allows an
innocent human being to be denied food and water.
We at FIC will continue to fight
for policies that send better messages to our children. We must show
them that life is about more than satisfying our own individual
interests.
Posted at 3:54 PM
March 23
CONTACT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE! [Brian Brown]
Rep. Al Adinolfi told radio host
Dan Lovallo this morning that he believes the civil union bill could be
passed by the House. We can still stop it! The Finance Committee is the
last stop before the bill is considered by both Houses of our state
legislature. You can contact the members of the Finance Committee and
ask them to vote against civil unions by clicking here.
Posted at 12:26 PM
CHRIS POWELL SAYS: “LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE!” [Peter Wolfgang]
In my Mar. 21st blog I noted the
small contingent of columnists in CT print media who do not spout the
pro same-sex “marriage” party line. Yesterday, another one
broke from the pack. In his column for the Manchester Journal Inquirer, “Connecticut can only gain from a referendum on ‘civil unions,’” Chris Powell writes:
An advisory referendum on "civil
unions" legislation would be especially appropriate because the
legislation proposes a major change in the social order…Polls
suggest that a referendum in Connecticut would approve "civil unions."
If it turned out that way and the legislature enacted the legislation,
a proclamation of democratic tolerance would be made to the entire
nation. And if "civil unions" were defeated at referendum, legislation
the public didn't want would be discouraged. What's wrong with that?
Powell is citing a poll that was
done a year ago. The recent FIC poll conducted by Harris Interactive
showed that 78% of CT voters know that marriage is the union of one man
and one woman and 76% want the politicians to let the people decide. As
Powell rightly asks, “What’s wrong with that?” Our
opponents have yet to provide a good answer.
Posted at 10:31 AM
March 22
THE HOLY WEEK INSULT [Brian Brown]
"It really can only be taken as
no more than an insult to Roman Catholic and other Christian
denominations in this state who believe this proposed legislation
violates the sanctity of marriage."
Those are the words of Rep. Al Adinolfi, R-Cheshire, responding
to yesterday’s 30-15 vote by the Appropriations Committee in
favor of the same-sex civil union bill that would destroy the
traditional definition of marriage. Rep. Adinolfi is exactly right
— having this vote now is an insult to the majority of CT voters
for whom this is the holiest week of the year.
Earlier this month an FIC/CT
Catholic Conference poll conducted by Harris Interactive revealed that
78% of CT voters know that marriage is the union of one man and one
woman and 76% want the politicians to let the people decide the future
of marriage.
So, why yesterday’s
lopsided vote in the Appropriations Committee? In part it is due to the
incredible pro same-sex “marriage” bias of our state media,
such as this profile of Sen. Andrew McDonald that appeared in yesterday’s Stamford Advocate.
The article avoids any mention of the recent FIC poll conducted by
Harris Interactive, instead leaving the deliberate impression that last
year’s UConn poll is the most recent poll of public opinion. The
article does not even quote any pro-family opponent of the bill. In
fact, the Advocate goes so far as to quote the Judiciary
Committee co-chairmen’s assessment of themselves as
“listening carefully” to and “respecting” the
arguments of opponents, without bothering to ask pro-family spokesmen
if their assessment is correct.
Since the Judiciary
Committee’s approval of a civil unions bill — same-sex
“marriage” in everything but name — and Gov.
Rell’s endorsement of the “concept,” legislators have
been deluged by calls from angry constituents demanding that they vote
no on civil unions and yes on a referendum.
But as yesterday’s vote demonstrates, more — much more — needs to be done.
You can contact your legislators, the newspapers and Gov. Rell to express your opposition to the civil union bill by clicking here.
FIC is the flagship organization
of the pro-family movement in CT. The success of our cause depends upon
your willingness to help us in our mission. You can donate to FIC by
clicking here.
Finally, watch this space for
future updates on our April 24th Marriage Protection Rally, our April
27th Lobby Day and other events for the protection of marriage. In
particular, pro-family pastors are urged to contact us for information
on our Mar. 31st Pastor’s Lunch.
This week’s vote is not the
first time our opponents have insulted our faith. If civil
unions/same-sex “marriage” becomes law, it certainly will
not be the last. This week, more than any other, is the time to stand
up for our faith and our families.
Posted at 10:41 AM
March 21
CAMPBELL CONFUSED; OTHERS SAY: “LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE!” [Peter Wolfgang]
I have been reading Susan Campbell’s Courant
column since I was a teenager. That was back in the 80’s, when
Campbell still sported a headband in a photo that ran above columns
that provided a unique voice at the Courant. The slow decline
of her column, which is now just another mouthpiece for the same
liberal mantra spouted by the rest of the mainstream media, has been a
sad thing to watch.
In her piece for the Sunday Courant,
“Catholic Parents Know Jesus Loves Their Gay Daughter,”
Campbell describes a couple’s profession of love for their
homosexual daughter this way:
This from practicing Catholics,
catechism teachers, readers of the Scripture. In fact, those Scriptures
tell them to love that daughter. And that's what separates the Menards
from so many in the hierarchy of their faith — and from others
who use holy texts to condemn homosexuality and thwart the drive toward
civil unions or gay marriages in Connecticut.
This is the usual “love me,
love my agenda” nonsense from the pro same-sex marriage lobby and
their media friends. Campbell, who frequently cites both her
fundamentalist childhood and her education at the liberal Hartford
Seminary when commenting on religion, should at least crack open a
Catechism of the Catholic Church before writing about Catholicism. If
she did, she would know that there is nothing in the Catechism —
written by “the hierarchy of their faith” — that
could possibly be interpreted to mean that parents should not love
their homosexual children. But that’s if Campbell was interested
in what Catholicism actually teaches, rather than simply smearing
Catholic bishops opposed to same-sex “marriage” as haters.
Fortunately, there is still a
small contingent of columnists in CT print media that will tell you, to
borrow Paul Harvey’s phrase, “the rest of the story.”
In a column for the Waterbury Sunday Republican that is, alas,
not available online, Lee Grabar notes three different
“progressive” bills — including civil unions —
“sailing” through the Judiciary Committee on votes that ran
roughly 2-1, which is not representative of the will of the people.
Laurence Cohen, the Courant’s lone libertarian columnist, expands on Grabar’s point:
The legislative nightmare of
civil union or gay marriage is bouncing around at the Capitol…To
be sure, there are a handful of legislators who live in safe districts
with intellectual pretensions sufficient to appreciate a politician who
champions homosexual stuff. But there are many more local pols in
districts full of blue-collar Catholics or socially conservative
minorities or ordinary-folk suburban types who think the whole thing is
icky.
What to do, what to do? You're a
legislator representing Connecticut, with a moral duty to act with-it
and cool in a sophisticated, Northeastern kind of way, as opposed to a
Mississippi or Idaho kind of way…Coming to the rescue with a
good sense of humor is state Sen. Louis DeLuca, who suggests putting
the gay stuff up for a non-binding referendum, just to see what the
folks back home actually think. It's not that Lou is curious about it.
He knows what people think. If you put the gay marriage stuff up to a
vote, it would lose big…
But the boys and girls at the
state Capitol won't play the referendum game. It might start a bad
precedent that would encourage voters to believe it actually matters
what they think.
Posted at 11:01 AM
March 18
THE HEAVY HAND OF OUR OPPOSITION…AND WHAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT [Brian Brown]
In her column in today’s Courant,
“What’s So Threatening About Acceptance?” Bessy Reyna
offers one long caricature of what she calls “the well-meaning
but thoughtlessly cruel arguments” of pro-family groups against
the legalization of civil unions/same-sex “marriage.” She
describes the support of some CT legislators for same-sex unions as
recognizing “the humanity they share” with homosexual
constituents, implying that those who do not share her politics are
opposed to people’s humanity. (One wonders: Does Reyna believe
that her fellow Courant columnist Stan Simpson, an
African-American who rejects the civil rights claims of same-sex
“marriage” proponents, is denying her humanity?)
Bessy Reyna is just one of many
liberal columnists in our state media that are apparently incapable of
engaging our arguments without distorting them beyond recognition. In
what is perhaps a Lenten act of penance for having committed the
politically incorrect thought crime of praising Pope John Paul
II’s pro-life view in the left-wing Hartford Advocate (see my Feb. 14th blog), Alistair Highet publishes a rant this week that, among other errors, describes our position this way:
They've called the campaign "Let
the People Decide," and as I understand it, are saying that the issue
[civil unions/same-sex “marriage’] should go before the
masses, who will defy their legislators at referendum and surge to the
barricades to prevent two fags in a condo from being recognized as a
legal entity.
This caricature is precisely the
sort of heavy-handed approach to this debate that has caused so many
average citizens in CT to reject our opponents’ positions.
Perhaps that is why Gov. Rell’s chief legal counsel agreed to
meet with Marie Hilliard, executive director of the CT Catholic
Conference, and me yesterday. We are grateful to Gov. Rell for allowing
us to meet with her staff to discuss why the same-sex unions bill is
bad public policy. We also discussed the recent FIC poll conducted by
Harris Interactive showing that 76% of state voters want to vote on the
future of marriage and 78% believe that marriage is the union of one
man and one woman.
Gov. Rell has not yet decided
whether she will sign or veto the civil union bill, if it should reach
her desk. Now is the time to contact her and ask her to oppose the
civil union bill! You can do that by clicking here.
It is also a great way to send a message to our state’s biased
pro same-sex “marriage” media: We will not be intimidated!
Posted at 12:16 PM
March 17
THE CHURCH IN CT AWAKENING [Peter Wolfgang]
“The Church in America
Awakening” was the subtitle of a book published in 1999 by the
Rev. Richard John Neuhaus. Thanks to the Judiciary Committee’s
approval of the same-sex unions bill and Gov. Rell’s support for
the “concept,” we may be experiencing a situation in our
state that could be described as “The Church in CT
Awakening.”
Yesterday, in a rare radio
interview, the Most Rev. William E. Lori, Bishop of Bridgeport, weighed
in on the civil unions/same-sex “marriage” issue. Host Brad
Davis began by pointing to a poll taken of his listeners last Saturday
wherein 402 out of 415 callers — 97%—said they opposed the
legalization of same-sex unions. Bishop Lori concurred, citing the FIC
poll conducted by Harris Interactive showing that “at the very
least” 76% of state voters want the chance to vote on marriage
and the majority expressed opposition to the redefinition of marriage.
“There is a need for a referendum, at the very least,”
Bishop Lori said. Citing the poll again, Bishop Lori said,
“lawmakers should pay attention.”
It’s “frustrating
that we’re not being heard” by the legislature, Brad said.
“You must contact your representatives and tell others to,”
Bishop Lori told Brad’s listening audience. “It is
important to continue dialoguing with the Governor (and legislators) in
light of the information that is surfacing, on both the will of the
people and the substance of the issue. Kids do better with both a mom
and a dad. It’s got to be about the kids — they are the
ones left out of this equation.
“Marriage is an institution
older than Judaism and Christianity. No matter your faith, people know
that God meant marriage to be between a man and a woman. The
legislature cannot undo the institution with the stroke of a pen.”
In addition to yesterday’s
interview with the Bishop of Bridgeport and last week’s public
address by the Archbishop of Hartford, FIC is seeing a number of other
indications that the Church in CT is awakening. There is the deluge of
contacts and support that we have received from pastors and laity in
the last few weeks. There is also the unprecedented number of men who
have registered for the men’s conference to be held this Saturday
at Bishop LeRoy Bailey’s First Cathedral of Bloomfield, where
FIC’s Brian Brown will be speaking. (To register or to get more
information on the IRON SHARPENS IRON Northeast Men's Conference, call
Brian Doyle of Vision New England Men's Ministries in West Hartford at
860.233.8136 or go to the conference website at www.IronSharpensIron.net).
Of course, almost nothing about
the Church’s awakening is being reported in our state media,
where free advertising for Love Makes a Family disguised as objective
reporting — like this piece
from the New London Day — continues to be the norm. Nevertheless,
it is happening, and not a moment too soon. Whether we succeed or fail
in protecting marriage for ourselves and future generations in
Connecticut will depend largely on the witness of our state’s
believers — Catholic as well as Protestant, Christian as well as
Jewish and other faiths. Watch this space for continuing updates on the
Church in CT Awakening.
Posted at 12:37 PM
March 16
REPUBLICAN-AMERICAN SAYS: “LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE!” [Peter Wolfgang]
The Waterbury Republican-American has an important editorial
today endorsing a non-binding referendum on the future of marriage. The
editors take issue with pro same-sex unions Sen. Andrew
McDonald’s professed concern for the financial cost of a
referendum, which they call “the best option for accurately
assessing voters’ views on marriage.” The editors also set
the record straight as to who would be “polarizing” the
electorate:
If Sen. McDonald is right and 70
percent of Connecticut residents favor civil unions, then he should not
be afraid to test his belief. The referendum results would be
polarizing only if they showed widespread support for traditional
marriage, and then lawmakers forced civil unions upon the disapproving
public.
Posted at 9:30 AM
March 15
BIASED MEDIA IN DISARRAY [Brian Brown]
The FIC poll conducted by Harris
Interactive, revealing that 76% of state voters want to vote on the
future of marriage, and the subsequent push for a referendum seems to
have thrown our local media outlets into disarray, with various
reactions.
Liberal radio host Colin McEnroe,
based on the few minutes I heard him yesterday, has opted for the
standard biased media approach of pretending that those with whom one
disagrees do not, in fact, exist. He and his co-host did acknowledge
the existence of House Speaker Jim Amann, of course, but only to
criticize his pro-family remarks in the CT Post and to dismiss
him as a bad Speaker. From there, it was on to declarations that the
civil unions bill will be easily passed by the legislature, to claiming
that there is no real opposition to it and to citing as proof a UConn
poll, implying that it was taken recently. The FIC poll conducted by
Harris Interactive was, of course, ignored.
There is a reason why our
opposition has referred to the UConn poll so often in the last week.
They are trying to create a public perception that it was the UConn
poll, rather than the poll conducted by Harris Interactive, that was
just released. The UConn poll, which puts state opposition to same-sex
“marriage” at 46%, was actually conducted in March, 2004.
In other words, the favorite poll of CT’s pro same-sex
“marriage” activists gauged where public opinion was one year ago
— before the court decision imposing same-sex
“marriage” in Massachusetts went into effect, before 13 out
of 13 states amended their constitutions to protect marriage and before
CT’s own Judiciary Committee approved a civil unions bill. The
FIC poll conducted by Harris Interactive, which was done last month,
shows that 78% of the voting public believes that marriage is a union
between a man and a woman and 76% would like to vote on it. If
anything, putting last year’s UConn poll side-by-side with the
more recent FIC poll conducted by Harris Interactive shows that the
public is moving in our direction.
Unlike Colin McEnroe, the pro same-sex “marriage” editors of the Courant seem to have detected this trend and they are alarmed. In its second editorial on the topic in four days, the Courant
warns that those of us seeking a referendum “are on thin
ice.” If so, why the need for a second editorial that simply
repeats the arguments the paper made on Friday?
There is no need for a referendum, the Courant
sniffs, because lawmakers can instead “take into account polls
that show public support for civil unions, if they think such evidence
is crucial to their decision-making.” But “if”
lawmakers — to the exasperated sigh of the Courant
— deign to consider public opinion before voting on civil unions,
why would a poll be a better representation of public opinion than an
actual vote by the people? And if the Courant really believes that the polls accurately reflect public support for civil unions, why does it fear a referendum?
“Civil rights issues ought not to rise or fall on polls or non-binding straw votes,” the Courant
huffs. But this is an assertion, not an argument. Whether the
legalization of same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue
is precisely the point upon which we disagree. It is one thing to
disagree with our arguments, but the Courant refuses even to engage them.
“Residents would have good
reason to fear traveling down that slippery slope” toward making
CT an initiative and referendum state, the Courant claims. Why?
Because residents would have a state government that is more
accountable to them? Or is it actually the editors of the Courant
that have “good reason to fear” allowing CT to have
referendums and initiatives? Do the editors fear waking up one day to a
CT that is not the “progressive” and
“enlightened” place they always said it was, but rather, a
state whose moral beliefs more closely resemble those parts of the
country that the Courant has, for years, looked down upon?
And then there is this:
The legislature might have the
authority to approve a ballot question to go before voters in a special
election on a day other than Election Day. But that would be very
costly and of dubious validity, considering the state's history of low
turnouts for special elections.
So even by the Courant’s own admission, it is legal to hold a referendum — the only dispute is whether it can be held on Election Day. The Courant
frets about the low turnout of a special election. But if there was a
low turnout, would that not put to rest the fears stated in the Courant’s previous editorial, about a referendum being “polarizing” and “fomenting anger?”
But the real question posed by today’s editorial is: why? Why did the Courant
feel the need to run a second editorial on civil unions/same-sex
“marriage” just four days after its last one? No major new
development regarding the civil unions bill has been reported in the Courant since the first editorial was published and the second editorial offers no new arguments. So why did the Courant feel it necessary to publish a second editorial against the referendum? What is happening at the state capitol that the Courant is not telling its readers?
Posted at 1:47 PM
“WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS?” [Peter Wolfgang]
That question — the title
of a book by a liberal commentator — is also the point of
“Stop The Whining Over Liberal Media,” a letter in today’s Courant
criticizing Rich Kendall’s earlier letter for saying the
media’s coverage of the civil unions/same-sex
“marriage” issue has been biased. Kevin Miner, the author
of today’s letter, offers a hypothetical standard for media bias
that is more revealing of a particular mindset than he realizes:
If there was truly a liberal media, I would be a commentator on CNN and Bob Novak would be in jail.
Miner would likely include this among the assertions made by Rich Kendall to which he objects:
The latest big lie perpetuated
by liberal editorial staffs and networks is that there is no real
opposition to civil unions in Connecticut, except from those in the gay
lobby who won't settle for anything less than same-sex marriage.
In fact, I commented on this as well, in a Mar. 3rd blog:
In the circles Courant
reporters run in, we’re probably not “the most visible
opposition” to civil unions. You are not likely to see FIC at the
Love Makes a Family fundraisers that Pat Seremet writes about in her
Java columns, for instance.
More hyperbole from a
“conservative whining over the so-called liberal media,”
right? Those tempted to think so might want to read today’s Java column, “Love Makes A Family And a Great Party,” wherein the Courant’s gossip columnist reports on, sure enough, the latest LMF fundraiser:
Love may make a family, but at
his grand manse in Bloomfield, which he shares with his partner, Bill
Beeman, a resort financier, Michael van Parys made the dinner. First,
it was an arugula wrap with prosciutto, mushroom croustada and spinach
balls, followed by tenderloin with peppercorn crust, ravioli with lemon
and artichoke sauce, carrots with cilantro, and the most gorgeous
stemware a Cosmopolitan ever had the privilege to be poured into.
Here at FIC, we do not have
“the most gorgeous stemware a Cosmopolitan ever had the privilege
to be poured into,” but if you are willing to give us some
volunteer time we will be happy to buy you a cup of clam chowder at Max
Bibo’s. We might even spring for a large.
Posted at 10:45 AM
March 14
WEEKEND ROUND-UP [Peter Wolfgang]
Based on things heard and seen in
our state’s newspapers and airwaves over the weekend, the
public’s opposition to civil unions/same-sex
“marriage” is beginning to have an impact.
“In all my years on the
air, I have never seen a response like this.” That was radio host
Brad Davis describing a poll of his listeners which he conducted on
Saturday. For three hours he asked his listeners if they are for or
against legalizing same-sex unions. The producer took 415 calls. Only
13 were for it; 402 calls — 97% — said they opposed
same-sex civil unions. To potential critics who may say that
Brad’s listening audience mirrors his own conservatism, he
pointed to a pre-election poll of the same listeners showing 51%
supported Bush and 48% supported Kerry, which closely mirrored the
actual results of the election. As Brad’s poll shows, opposition
to civil unions/same-sex “marriage” is widespread and
transcends the usual divisions in our culture and politics.
Further proof of this fact was on display in a Saturday piece by Courant
columnist Stan Simpson, an African-American who rejects the attempt by
pro same-sex “marriage” activists to hijack the civil
rights movement:
Count me in as a firm `No' vote
in this movement to have Connecticut endorse gay marriage. This is not
a civil rights issue. It's about sexuality, sexual orientation and
trying to shoehorn it into public policy…the distinction with
interracial unions is that it never disrupted the foundation of
marriage as man and woman, or the biological concept of producing
children.
In my book, you can be for individual rights, but against gay marriage.
"People have the right to live
as they choose," says Brian Brown, executive director of the Family
Institute of Connecticut, which opposes gay marriage. "But they don't
have the right to redefine our basic core social institution —
marriage. Support for protecting marriage as the union of one man and
one woman has absolutely nothing to do with hate, prejudice or bigotry.
We need to affirm everyone's basic rights."
The Saturday Courant also carried one of the best — and longest — letters to the editor
ever printed on this topic. Rich Kendall, the writer, hits all the
right notes, including criticism of the bias that is sometimes present
in media coverage of this issue. The Courant, to its credit, prints the criticism:
For three years, those of us who
support traditional marriage have been vilified in the press and over
public airwaves as right-wing extremists who want to impose their
religious beliefs on the gay community and deny it its civil rights.
The latest big lie perpetuated
by liberal editorial staffs and networks is that there is no real
opposition to civil unions in Connecticut, except from those in the gay
lobby who won't settle for anything less than same-sex marriage. This
totally ignores the rigorous and sustained opposition by a large
segment of the voting public.
It should give pause that
90,000-plus petition signatures were presented to the governor and
General Assembly last year demanding passage of a Defense of Marriage
Act and that more than 6,000 residents braved a 10-below-zero
wind-chill factor to protest at the state capitol last February.
Evidence suggests that the liberal news media in this state are censoring the pro-family message.
Almost as if it were determined to prove Rich Kendall right, the CT Post on Sunday ran a long feature article
on civil unions/same-sex “marriage” without any mention of
the new FIC poll conducted by Harris Interactive showing that 78% of
state voters believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman
and 76% want to vote on the future of marriage. Nevertheless,
pro-family activists can note with appreciation the Post’s interview with Democrat Rep. Jim Amann:
House Speaker James Amann,
D-Milford, said the bill will be taken up by the Democratic caucus.
“I'm still in favor of marriage being between a man and a woman;
that's me personally.
“If the caucus wants a
debate I won't prevent it,” he said. “The judiciary vote
was lopsided, but it is not a thumbprint of where the rest of the House
is on this. I haven't done a head count but if there is no support for
it in the caucus we won't run with it.”
Indeed, Speaker Amann’s
public assessment of the co-chairmen of the Judiciary Committee
suggests that the majority party is not of one mind on the issue:
“Mike [Lawlor] is a great
guy, but he is from the liberal side of the aisle,” Amann said.
“Sen. McDonald is gay and has been pushing for this since he came
into the building.”
Posted at 11:15 AM
March 12
WHAT'S REALLY AT STAKE IN THE SSM DEBATE [Ken Von Kohorn]
David Frum's latest essay
crystalizes much of what FIC has been warning about in this space. He
begins by recounting a little-reported incident last month at Harvard:
On February 26, Jada Pinkett
Smith, wife of Hollywood star Will Smith, sparked a fierce little
controversy at Harvard after receiving an award. In her thank-you
speech, Pinkett Smith told the story of her life. She described how she
had grown up as the child of two teenage heroin addicts and overcome
adversity to build a successful career and a happy marriage. She
concluded:
“Women, you can have it
all — a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous
career. They say you gotta choose. Nah, nah, nah. We are a new
generation of women. We got to set a new standard of rules around here.
You can do whatever it is you want. All you have to do is want
it.”
What could possibly be offensive about this message?
According to a complaint issued by the Harvard Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance, as reported by the Harvard Crimson,
Pinkett Smith’s words “implied that standard sexual
relationships are only between males and females.” “Our
position is that the comments weren’t homophobic, but the content
was specific to male-female relationships,” said one of the
Alliance’s co-chairs. The other added: “I don’t think
[Pinkett Smith] meant to be offensive, but I just don’t think she
was that thoughtful.”
The organizers of the award ceremony agreed to apologize for the 'offensive' remarks.
Frum then reminds us of the Boston Globe editorial
we referenced in this space on March 7th — the one that
criticizes Massachusetts Gov. Romney for even suggesting that kids do
best with both a mom and a dad.
And finally, there is this:
Prodded by its famously
high-handed courts, Canada is now amending its laws to accommodate
same-sex marriage. The province of Ontario has passed a law deleting
the words “wife,” “husband,”
“widow,” and “widower” from every statute in
which they appear. The federal same-sex-marriage bill now before the
parliament voids the term “natural parent” wherever it
occurs in Canadian law and replaces it with the term “legal
parent.” Should the federal bill pass, motherhood and fatherhood
will have been deprived of all juridical meaning in Canada — and
children will belong to any adult or group of adults to which the state
may wish to assign them.
Notice the pattern. As the
same-sex "marriage" movement gathers momentum, it is clear that it is
not just about "fairness" or "equal rights." It is about redefining
marriage for everyone. Or, as Frum puts it:
For years, advocates of same-sex
marriage have pledged that their big idea will have little or no effect
on the 97 percent or so of the population that is not gay. All they
wanted, they said, was that marriage rights be “extended”
to a very small minority: What possible difference could that make to
anyone else? But as same-sex marriage advances from slogan to reality,
we are learning that it will make a very big difference to us all.
Same-sex marriage does not extend marriage. It transforms marriage.
We highly recommend that you read the entire essay here.
Posted at 4:15 PM
March 11
COURANT SAYS: “DON’T LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE” [Brian Brown]
“That simply is not
how we do things here in Connecticut.” Those were the words of
Anne Stanback — head of the pro same-sex “marriage”
lobbying group Love Makes a Family — heard on the radio
yesterday, responding with horror to the suggestion that we should let
the people decide the future of marriage in Connecticut.
Today, our state’s largest paper declares its agreement with Anne’s elitist view.
In an editorial published with unusual haste — it was just yesterday that the Courant covered this story — the editors write:
Feelings run strong on both
sides regarding whether the state should permit civil unions or
marriage between same-sex couples. So it's hard to imagine that a
statewide, non-binding referendum proposed by critics will do much to
advance the argument or enlighten legislators.
Really? How does it follow that because
“feelings run strong” on civil unions/same-sex
“marriage,” a referendum will not “do much to advance
the argument or enlighten legislators?” Will a referendum only
“advance” an argument or “enlighten” a
legislator if it is on an issue about which people do not have strong
feelings? This is the muddled thinking that is typical of Courant editorials on this topic.
The Courant objects to a referendum “as a way of giving all the state’s voters a say”:
But voters have plenty of say.
For one, they elected the representatives now serving their interests
in the General Assembly, and they can vote them out if they don't like
what they see.
Before writing the lines above, the Courant
editors should have taken a second look at an op-ed that appeared in
their own newspaper on Nov. 16, 2004. In “A Legislature Beholden
— But Not To The Voters,” Robert Satter, a judge trial
referee in Hartford Superior Court and the author of “Under the
Gold Dome: An Insider’s Look at the Connecticut
Legislature,” lays out the grim statistics:
In 2004, 61 state
representatives had no opposition from the other major
party…This amounted to 40 percent of the House races going
uncontested this year…13 senators had no opposition from the
other major party…This amounted to 36 percent of Senate seats
going uncontested…57 House members in contested races against a
major party opponent won by 60 percent or more…Adding those 57
races to the 61 uncontested races means that 118 House members, or 78
percent won in a walk…The figures are similar for the
Senate…78 percent breezed to victory and only eight seats, or 22
percent, were in play.
Satter explains why, contrary to the Courant’s editorial, voters do not have plenty of say:
This situation occurred not by
chance but by design…the legislature…has become
particularly adept at designing House and Senate districts so as to
assure the re-election of incumbents…With the use of
sophisticated computer programs, they can practically guarantee that
result. Incumbents don’t just win but win with such large margins
as to eliminate competition.
On the “critical
question” of “what kind of a legislature results from such
elections” Satter writes that the likely prospect
is a legislature catering to
special interests because it has no fear of retribution at the polls.
Legislators raise much of the money for campaigns — as much as
$50,000 for a House race and $200,000 for a Senate race — from
lobbyists and special-interest groups. Legislators not beholden to
their constituency for retaining their seats are peculiarly susceptible
to the blandishments of such lobbyists.
And that is why a civil unions/same-sex “marriage” bill is moving forward in the legislature. That
is why the Archbishop of Hartford said the bill is “advancing
with no attempt to determine the will of the people.” It was not, as the Courant’s editorial claims, because “it’s advancing in a direction he and like-minded people disagree with.”
In fact, it is the Courant’s pro same-sex “marriage” editors who oppose a referendum because the likely result is something that they
would disagree with. An overwhelming majority of 78% agree that
marriage is the union of one man and one woman. 76% of state voters
want the chance to vote on a constitutional amendment that would define
marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Yet the Courant, which had
itself editorialized in previous election cycles against the negative
effects of uncontested races, now says “the voters can vote them
out if they don’t like what they see.” It is the Courant,
which had implied in its Mar. 4th “The Ground Has Shifted”
editorial that the civil unions vs. same-sex “marriage”
debate is the only one now taking place in Connecticut, that is now
afraid to let the people decide. It is the Courant, which in an
editorial last year had dismissed opposition to same-sex
“marriage” as “yesterday’s wars,” that
now describes a popular vote on marriage as a “polarizing
referendum,” that would “foment anger.”
Contrary to the Courant,
FIC’s “true goal” in asking for a referendum on
marriage is not “fomenting anger,” but rather, to let the
people decide. The Courant’s true goal in opposing the referendum is to make sure that they don’t.
Posted at 1:45 PM
March 10
NICE TRY [Brian Brown]
We received a call this afternoon from someone claiming that this line from Peter’s blog was inaccurate:
The difference, of course, is
that [Love Makes a Family’s] poll was conducted by a political
organization while FIC’s poll was conducted by Harris
Interactive, a reputable polling firm.
Our caller insisted that
LMF’s poll was conducted by UConn, not a political organization,
and that, indeed, FIC has “a lot of inaccuracies on your
blog.”
Well, it’s good to know
that our blog is being read by our opponents and that it is causing
enough of a stir to generate the occasional hostile call or hysterical
e-mail. But it is our caller, not FIC, that needs to check his facts.
LMF’s poll was not conducted by UConn. Here’s my op-ed that was published in the Courant on Jan. 13th, 2004 about LMF’s bogus poll:
Look Closer At Poll Supporting Same-Sex Marriage
Brian S. Brown
Recently, Love Makes a Family,
the lobbying group pressuring our state to radically redefine marriage,
released a poll in which it claimed that 77 percent of Connecticut
residents would find same-sex marriage acceptable and 57 percent
support it. Neither of these assertions are remotely accurate, and the
news media have done a grave disservice to the democratic process and
their own standards by repeating these flawed figures without
researching them.
Repeated polls by major polling
companies (Gallup, Zogby, Pew Charitable Trust) show that an
overwhelming majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage. In
Pew’s most FIC poll, 59 percent oppose same-sex marriage and only
32 percent support it. A majority oppose civil unions in most reputable
polls.
By all indications, Connecticut
residents follow a similar pattern. A Quinnipiac University poll
conducted a week before Love Makes a Family’s “poll”
found that more Connecticut residents oppose same-sex marriage than
support it.
Why, then, was the Love Makes a
Family poll so incongruous? First of all, because it was not conducted
by a polling company at all: It was done by a campaign company that
specializes in electing Democratic candidates rather than testing the
pulse of the people. (Don’t take my word for it. Visit their
website at www.decisionr.com and examine their standards for yourself.)
Further, this poll does not even
say what Love Makes a Family purports it to say. It never asks,
“Do you support or oppose same-sex marriage?” Instead, its
authors make up new and confusing categories, such as
“civil-marriage.”
And when it does ask a question
that seems to make sense, it counts those who answer in opposition as
actually in support. Respondents who answered that they would
“not like” civil unions, but would accept them if enacted
(what is that supposed to mean — the respondent would not lead a
revolt?) are counted as supporting civil unions. This is how Love Makes
a Family comes to the gross fabrication of 77 percent of Connecticut
residents supporting civil unions. Again, I invite readers to look at
the poll themselves and make up their own minds at Love Makes a
Family’s website at lmfct.org.
Every time the people of a state
have had the opportunity to vote on redefining marriage, they have
opposed it. Hawaii and California are not exactly conservative states,
yet their residents passed Defense of Marriage acts (allowing those
states not to recognize same-sex unions from other states) with
overwhelming majorities when it became clear what was at stake.
That is because defending
marriage transcends party labels, cultures, races, religions or any
other differences. Marriage is truly our most multicultural and
trans-historical institution. The people of this nation and state
realize that the future of the family, the very foundation of our
social order, is at stake — and they are not going to remain
silent while it is radically redefined.
Brian S. Brown is executive
director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, a nonprofit group that
led a petition drive for a Defense of Marriage Act in Connecticut this
past year and plans to take up the drive again in February.
Posted at 3:43 PM
COURANT GIVES GOOD COVERAGE [Peter Wolfgang]
We have not been shy about criticizing the Courant’s
same-sex “marriage” coverage when we thought it lacked
balance. But we have also never hesitated to praise our hometown paper
when we see something we like — and we certainly like what we see
today!
The largest article
on today’s front page is about yesterday’s FIC/CT Catholic
Conference press conference, revealing that 76% of state voters want to
have a vote on the future of marriage. The online version does not do
justice to the hard copy. The article is located on the center of the
front page, with a photo of Hartford Archbishop Henry J. Mansell and a
large quote from him on the defense of the family and democracy
appearing above the fold. The caption beneath the photo provides a
succinct summary of the image. Clearly, the editors who designed
today’s front page understood the newsworthiness of the event.
This is due in no small part to the good reporting of Courant
staff writer Daniela Altimari, who has accurately and fairly conveyed
FIC’s positions in the articles she has written. Today’s
piece is no exception:
Led by the Connecticut Catholic
Conference and the Family Institute of Connecticut, the coalition will
continue to lobby the legislature. But as part of a campaign dubbed
"Let the People Decide," it will also make its case directly to state
voters through newspaper and radio ads, direct mail, phone banks and a
rally at the Capitol on April 24.
Daniela goes on to note the
multicultural nature of our pro-family coalition — a fact that
the press usually ignores — and quotes Bishop LeRoy Bailey of The
First Cathedral in Bloomfield. She also reports what the AP did not:
If a vote were held, opponents
of gay marriage expressed confidence that they would prevail. They
touted the results of a new poll, jointly commissioned by the Catholic
conference and the Family Institute, which shows broad resistance to
changing the state's marriage laws.
The poll, conducted by Harris
Interactive, asked if marriage should be defined as a union between one
man and one woman. About 78 percent of the respondents said they
"totally agree" with that statement. Completed in late February, the
poll had a margin of error of 4.9 percent.
Anne Stanback of Love Makes a
Family is quoted objecting to our poll on the grounds that her group
“commissioned a poll that got almost the opposite results.”
The difference, of course, is that LMF’s poll was conducted by a
political organization while FIC’s poll was conducted by Harris
Interactive, a reputable polling firm.
To the idea that we should Let
the People Decide, Stanback had this response: “that’s not
the way we make laws in Connecticut.”
Posted at 10:44 AM
March 9
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS: A TEXTBOOK CASE OF BIAS [Brian Brown]
FIC and the CT Catholic
Conference held a press conference today unveiling new polling data
that completely turns the conventional wisdom of our state’s
elites on its head: 76% of state voters want the chance to vote on a
constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union of one
man and one woman. An overwhelming majority of 78% agree that marriage
is the union of one man and one woman. These numbers clearly refute the
claim by our opponents’ that the “ground has shifted”
in Connecticut and that the only debate taking place is between civil
unions and same-sex “marriage.” A legislature that gives
that impression to media outlets is not a legislature that is
reflecting the will of the people.
So, what do you do with this inconvenient fact if you are a reporter who is biased against our cause? Why, you would write the story
that the Associated Press wrote, of course: a brief item about the
press conference making no mention of why the press conference was held
(the poll results) and refusing even to mention the groups who held it
(FIC and the CT Catholic Conference). But Anne Stanback of Love Makes a
Family is, of course, quoted.
We are hopeful that other media
outlets will offer a less biased report on our poll. For instance,
mentioning the poll’s actual existence — and its findings
— might be a nice touch.
Posted at 4:40 PM
March 7
SO MUCH FOR FATHERS [Ken Von Kohorn]
Maggie Gallagher, an indefatigable fighter for the interests of children and society, sent us this email earlier today:
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney
said recently that while children may be well raised in many
environments, the ideal environment is a mother and a father. Look at
the tongue-lashing he got from the Boston Globe who said comments like these have no place in "enlightened political debate."
As I and others have predicted,
once you have gay marriage, saying that fathers matter will become the
equivalent of making racist statements.
Because the promise of gay marriage is that gay couples will be viewed and treated as just the same as everyone else.
Posted at 3:43 PM
ANOTHER SLAP TO DEMOCRACY [Brian Brown]
New Haven Superior Court Judge Patty Jenkins Pittman has denied FIC’s motion to intervene as a defendant in Kerrigan vs. State of CT, the case filed by seven same-sex couples seeking a court-imposed legalization of same-sex “marriage.”
This is another slap in the face
for self-government in Connecticut. Our opponents claim that a
legislative decision to legalize same-sex civil unions without a court
order is an expression of democratic support for their cause. Peter
notes, below, one reason why their claim is false. Another reason is
that — at the very same time our opponents claim to have the
people on their side — they are still pursuing an undemocratic
court mandate to redefine marriage.
We are up against an
unaccountable legislature and an undemocratic court. But the people are
on our side. We can see that in the thousands of citizens that are
calling and writing to their representatives and in the calls flooding
into the offices of local radio hosts like Brad Davis.
And we have a poll to prove it.
On Wednesday, FIC will be holding a press conference to reveal new
information proving what we have said all along: the people want the
right to decide the future of marriage. If we are ever going to resolve
this issue, the legislature and the courts must step aside and LET THE
PEOPLE DECIDE!
Posted at 3:23
SOCIAL LIBERALISM, PRAGMATIC APATHY OR SOMETHING ELSE? [Peter Wolfgang]
Today’s New York Times has a piece bringing its readers up to date on the civil unions/same-sex “marriage” issue in CT:
But in Connecticut, the exit
ramp to New England and its distinctive style of social liberalism, no
court ruling has been necessary to push state-sanctioned civil unions
toward what lawmakers in both parties say is likely passage. And while
changes in neighboring states may have altered perspectives here, some
say the state has long been known for tolerance, or at least pragmatic
apathy.
Like the Courant, the Times tends to confuse the legislature with the actual people
of Connecticut. Both papers should take a second look at “A
Legislature Beholden — But Not To The Voters,” an op-ed by
Judge Robert Satter that was published by the Courant on Nov. 16th and cited by Brian on this blog on Nov. 17th:
A legislature in which more than
three-quarters of its members feel themselves immune from
accountability to the voters, and start thinking of their safe seats as
personal fiefdoms, threatens the quality of our democracy.
Indeed, there are occasional hints from the Times that it knows public opinion in CT is more complicated than is being reported. An article
in the Sunday edition, while covering divisions within CT’s
religious community from a mostly pro same-sex “marriage”
perspective, ended with a quote that will ring true for many of us:
"I think the last major
problematic issue that came before the Episcopal Church was women's
ordination," he said. "People got comfortable with that, the newness of
that, and it settled back in. I think, however, that with homosexuality
and gay marriage, the liberal side would have suggested that the topic
would have died down and gone away and people would have acquiesced to
this revision in thinking, but it hasn't because this is very
doctrinal. It's the difference between what is sin and what is not sin.
I do believe that it may ultimately end up with the Episcopal church
dividing, and other denominations following suit."
Posted at 2:28 PM
CIVIL UNIONS, FATHERLESSNESS & GORDON HAMILTON [Peter Wolfgang]
On March 3rd, in response to a
report that the new head of the CT chapter of the ACLU — a former
NAACP official — would make the passage of a same-sex unions bill
his top priority, I blogged:
What a waste of resources. The
epidemic of fatherlessness is at the root of the youth violence that
Hartford is currently experiencing. Instead of focusing on that, Mr.
Vann wants to pass a bill that will actually increase fatherlessness!
Thomas Finn expands on this point in a letter in the Sunday Courant that is worth quoting in full:
Same-Sex Unions Put Kids At Risk
The Courant has provided
virtually seamless support for same-sex marriage/civil unions —
while avoiding a balanced discussion of the risks to children should
either become law.
Until March 2, that is. Consider
the headlines: "Rell Joins Backers Of Same-Sex Civil Unions" [Page 1]
vs. "Raising Boys To Men Takes Dads, Too" [Connecticut section].
I see a contradiction here. In
the latter article, columnist Stan Simpson identifies the damaging
effects to our youths from the absence of positive men (dads) as heads
of households, while in the former, we read of the governor's support
for civil unions.
Because these unions permanently
remove a child's opportunity to be raised in a home with both his or
her mother and father, then our state is attempting to legally certify
a relationship that puts kids into Mr. Simpson's category of risk.
Mr. Simpson's concern for
children being raised without both parents does not reflect hate or
discrimination. Rather it reflects the reality that the health and
welfare of kids raised without both mom and dad are at risk.
I'm not swayed by the statements
that research has shown kids raised by same-sex couples are not at
risk. I've read that research and it doesn't show that.
Let's remember that government
didn't define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman,
nature did. Government, therefore, does not have the power to redefine
the nature of marriage and its benefit to children and society.
In the natural world, no matter what laws we change, two nights can't make a day.
Thomas F.X. Finn, Southington
Dr. Finn is right to cite Stan Simpson’s March 2nd column,
which is must-reading for anyone fighting for the family in CT. I was
particularly struck by this reference in the Simpson piece:
A lot of the role models that
our young males are following are only the negative ones, the ones they
see on the rap videos and listen to on the radio," [Boys & Girls
Club President Kenneth] Darden says. "Unfortunately, that's what
they're responding to. They're not responding to those positive
individuals out there really doing some significant things."
Darden mentions the late Gordon
Hamilton, the recently deceased Watkinson School basketball coach and
city youth counselor, as an example of a young man worth modeling.
Hamilton, 31, received little attention until he died in a January car
crash on the New Jersey Turnpike.
Gordon and I grew up in the same
neighborhood in Manchester and knew each other from the time we were
children. He was close friends with my brother, Erik, who served as his
assistant coach at Watkinson and finished the season as head coach
after Gordon’s tragic death.
Gordon grew up to be the man we
all respected precisely because of the role his father played in his
life. This point was underlined for me at his memorial service when one
young man spoke from the pulpit about the effect Gordon had on his
life. “A lot of us didn’t have our fathers around when we
were growing up,” he said. “Gordon shared his father with
us.” He went on to describe the times Gordon’s dad was
there for him and other fatherless boys, the things they would do
together and how Sam Hamilton helped fill that empty space in their
lives.
Gordon’s legacy is one more
example of why children need both a mom and a dad. If the legislature
— and Gov. Rell — pass the same-sex civil unions bill, it
will help create a class of children for whom motherlessness and
fatherlessness will be permanent and obligatory, not just the falling
short of an ideal but a deliberately chosen outcome! Our state
government will, in effect, be saying to men like the one who spoke at
Gordon’s funeral: “Your pain means nothing to us. What
matters is the satisfaction of the adults.” What lawmakers in
their right minds would say that to the children of their districts?
Posted at 10:13 AM
March 4
COURANT ADVOCACY CONTINUES [Brian Brown]
The lead editorial
in our local paper today declares that “the ground has
shifted” on the same-sex “marriage” debate:
“Connecticut is having a conversation about whether civil unions
or same-sex marriage should be codified as state law.” Actually,
no, that is not the debate Connecticut is having. The General Assembly
is having that debate. The people of Connecticut want a statewide
referendum, but that is the debate the legislature thus far refuses to
have and the Courant prefers to ignore. To imply — as
this morning’s editorial does — that because of the
Judiciary Committee’s vote, the civil unions vs. same-sex
“marriage” debate is the only one now taking place in
Connecticut, is just pure advocacy.
But that is the Courant’s pattern: run a few articles in the news section misrepresenting the facts (“The most visible
opposition to the [civil unions] bill” comes from pro same-sex
“marriage” absolutists) print a few related items in the
entertainment section (today’s review
of “Lesbians on Ecstasy” reads like a parody of the genre)
and then publish an editorial declaring — voila! —
“the ground has shifted.”
“Wait,” you say, “what about today’s pro-family op-ed
by Marie Hilliard, executive director of the Connecticut Catholic
Conference? Isn’t that an indication of even-handedness by the Courant?” Marie’s op-ed is excellent, making all the necessary points succinctly and with clarity:
The Connecticut legislature and
Gov. Rell should not take such a historic step without the consent of
the people. The people should determine whether they wish to have
marriage and family, premier institutions of society, permanently
redefined for all of our society.
A referendum vote would allow
the people of Connecticut to voice whether they believe that all it
takes to make a family is love, or whether the family is a much more
profound institution than this simplistic definition entails. Let the
people decide.
But no, the Courant is not even-handed on this issue. Yesterday, the Courant’s
op-ed editor told me the paper would run a piece I had written for
today’s edition. Two hours later she contacted me again to tell
me the board changed its mind about publishing my op-ed. They were
printing Marie’s piece instead, because she had not written for
them previously and they felt I had been published “too
much” on the Courant’s op-ed page.
First, I have been published on the Courant’s op-ed page twice. Second, why could the Courant not run both pieces on different days? Given that the vast majority of articles published day-after-day in the Courant
about this issue favors the pro same-sex “marriage” side,
publishing both Marie’s op-ed and mine would have only been fair.
But the Courant is not
about fairness. It is about pursuing its own agenda, pure and simple.
As pro-family citizens continue the fight at the state capitol,
countering the politically-motivated bias of the Courant is
something we should all be thinking about. The people of Connecticut
deserve to hear both sides of the story equally — and the Courant is putting its heavy hand on the scale.
Posted at 10:44 AM
March 3
COURANT RUNS SEMI-CORRECTION; OTHERS STILL GETTING IT WRONG [Peter Wolfgang]
Yesterday, the Courant published this curious line: “The most visible
opposition to the [civil unions] bill has come from those within the
gay community who saw civil unions as not going far enough”
[emphasis added]. Today, our state’s paper of record ran this correction:
The Connecticut Catholic
Conference and the Family Institute of Connecticut have been visible
opponents of marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples. A story on
Page 1 Wednesday neglected to mention their opposition.
In the circles Courant
reporters run in, we’re probably not “the most visible
opposition” to civil unions. You are not likely to see FIC at the
Love Makes a Family fundraisers that Pat Seremet writes about in her
Java columns, for instance. Nevertheless, the “most
visible” line was a ridiculous error, making the Courant appear as out of touch as the late New Yorker
movie critic Paulene Kael in 1972 (who then lived in New York City's
Upper West Side), when she famously remarked, "I don't know how Richard
Nixon could have won; I don't know anybody who voted for him." We
appreciate the Courant’s semi-correction.
Others in today’s Courant, though, are still getting the big picture wrong. Anne Stanback’s op-ed
has the usual language about the pro same-sex “marriage”
cause as another “movement for civil rights,” despite
testifying last month that she “would never be so presumptuous as
to say the African-American struggle and the gay struggle are the
same.” In fact, same-sex “marriage” proponents make
that presumption all the time. Just ask pro-family radio host Brad
Davis, who noted this morning how much he resents the e-mails from
activists accusing him of bigotry: “I thought the gay movement
was a loving movement that appreciated open debate. But you don’t
want open debate. It’s your way or no way.”
Today’s paper also has a piece
announcing that Roger C. Vann, a former official of the NAACP, will be
the new executive director of the Connecticut chapter of the ACLU. His
first priority? Passing the same-sex civil unions bill.
What a waste of resources. The
epidemic of fatherlessness is at the root of the youth violence that
Hartford is currently experiencing. Instead of focusing on that, Mr.
Vann wants to pass a bill that will actually increase fatherlessness!
Posted at 12:32 PM
March 2
“IN LIKE A LION…” [Brian Brown]
As we enter the month of March it
is time once again to step back and consider where things stand in the
battle to protect marriage in Connecticut. The news is not good. But we
at the Family Institute have a number of measures planned which could
turn the tide with this present legislature — if pro-family citizens respond by rising up in record numbers.
First, the bad news. In total disregard for the will of their constituents, the Judiciary Committee of our state legislature voted
on Feb. 23rd to approve a “civil unions” bill that would
legalize same-sex “marriage” in everything but name. In
fact, if this bill becomes law it may well create a domino effect
causing the legalization of same-sex “marriage” in name as
well as fact. The passage of this bill could severely undermine the
position of Atty. Gen. Richard Blumenthal, who is defending the
legality of Connecticut’s marriage statutes in a case brought by
seven same-sex couples seeking a court-ordered imposition of same-sex
“marriage.” The court hearing Kerrigan vs. State of Conn.
may well interpret civil unions — a separate entity created
specifically for homosexuals — as a violation of the state
constitution’s equal protection clause and impose same-sex
“marriage” as a remedy.
At the start of this legislative
session, Love Makes a Family, the pro same-sex “marriage”
movement’s chief instrument in Connecticut, said it would oppose
civil unions and support only same-sex “marriage.” On Jan.
27th on this blog, I responded:
Despite the “all or
nothing” rhetoric, if LMF fails to make headway on same-sex
“marriage,” they could back Rep. Lawlor’s civil
unions bill at the last minute, claiming that they are
“moderating” their position and are willing to accept a
“compromise.”
Sure enough, yesterday’s Courant ran an article with this headline:
Change Of Heart On Civil Unions: Gay Rights Group Softens Its Stand
While reporting on LMF’s decision to drop its ploy, the Courant mischaracterized Gov. Jodi Rell’s position on the issue, or at least the one she had up until yesterday:
Rell has expressed support for
the general idea of expanding the rights of gay couples, but has not
weighed in on the bill's specifics.
At the time that sentence was published Gov. Rell had not
“expressed support” for “expanding the rights of gay
couples” but in fact had said just the opposite: that she did not
see the need for further legislation because she believed that previous
legislation had adequately addressed concerns raised by pro same-sex
“marriage” activists. Here are the Governor’s exact
words, from an interview published by the New Haven Register on Dec. 10:
On the issue of gay marriage,
Rell said she does not favor it. "I’m an old-fashioned person
when it comes to that. I believe in marriage between a man and a
woman." Rell also questioned the need for civil unions. "I’m not
sure what it would accomplish," she said, pointing to protections
already in place allowing gay couples to adopt children, as well as to
have access for hospital visits. "I think we have gone a long way in
changing the statutes to address those concerns," she said.
Ever since Gov. Rell gave that interview, the Courant
has censored and distorted her position. The
propaganda-disguised-as-reporting in our state’s largest
newspaper may have had its intended effect. Here are the lead
paragraphs of a front page piece in today’s Courant:
Gov. M. Jodi Rell endorsed the
concept of civil unions for same-sex couples Tuesday, adding to the
momentum building behind the gay-rights measure.
"I don't believe in discrimination of any sort, and I want people to have equal rights and equal opportunities," Rell said.
The governor said she had not
evaluated the civil-unions bill approved last week by the judiciary
committee, but for the first time she offered unqualified support for
the concept.
"The concept I don't have trouble with," Rell told reporters after a ceremony at the Capitol for new judges.
While Gov. Rell has gone from
having “questioned the need for civil unions” to declaring
it a “concept I don’t have trouble with,” it is not
clear that the Courant’s headline, “Rell Joins
Backers of Same-Sex Civil Unions” is accurate. One radio report
described her comments this way: “if the right civil
unions bill were to reach her desk Gov. Rell would sign it.” That
seems a more accurate characterization of her remarks than the Courant’s insinuation that the Governor has already joined the side of those seeking the passage of S.B. 963.
Of course, the same Courant piece includes this bizarre line: “The most visible
opposition to the [civil unions] bill has come from those within the
gay community who saw civil unions as not going far enough”
[emphasis added]. Really? I was not aware that Love Makes a Family had
topped the 90,000 signatures FIC gathered in opposition to legislation
of this nature or the 6,000 people we rallied on the steps of the state
capitol last year. The Courant appears to have dropped all
pretense of objectivity when covering this issue. The weird
“inside baseball” quality of its reporting about alleged
differences between different pro same-sex “marriage”
factions makes it read more like the in-house journal of the “gay
rights” movement, rather than an objective news source that all
sides can turn to for accurate reporting.
But we know where the biased
liberal media stands. The question is: where does Gov. Rell stand? It
is up to the pro-family movement to make clear to her — and to
our legislators — that there is no “right” civil
unions bill. It is same-sex “marriage” in fact and very
likely in name, too. Gov. Rell and our legislators must understand
that, because of the Kerrigan case and the stated goals of our opponents, a vote for civil unions is a vote for same-sex “marriage.”
So, what is to be done? First, we
need every pro-family citizen of our state to contact their state
senator and state representative and ask them to VOTE NO on civil
unions. You can use the resources of FIC’s website to contact
your legislators by clicking here. You may also send an e-mail to Gov. Rell asking her to veto the civil unions bill by clicking here.
Second, we need to get letters to
the editor from pro-family citizens into our state newspapers to
counter the overwhelmingly pro same-sex “marriage” bias of
the “mainstream” media. You can use the resources of
FIC’s website to send letters to your local newspapers by
clicking here.
Third, FIC will be holding a
press conference on March 9th to unveil new information regarding where
the Connecticut public stands on marriage protection. After the 9th it
will be clear that legislators who refuse to let the people vote on a
marriage protection amendment are not representing their constituents.
Fourth, FIC will be holding a
Protect Marriage Rally on Sunday, April 24th, 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM on the
steps of the state capitol in Hartford. We need as big a turnout as
possible to stop the passage of the civil unions bill. Spread the word
to your friends, family, churches, pastors, every like-minded
pro-family person you know. Whether or not we can defeat civil
unions/same-sex “marriage” in Connecticut will depend
largely on the number of people who attend this rally.
Fifth, there will be a Protect
Marriage lobby day at the state capitol on April 27th, the Wednesday
after the Rally. Like the Rally, we need as big a turnout for this
event as possible if we want to defeat the civil unions bill. Our
opponents have made it this far because they have a large and constant
physical presence at the legislative office building. The only way to
stop their momentum is for the pro-family movement to outdo them in
letting our representatives know — face to face — that
their constituents oppose civil unions and same-sex
“marriage” and that we want a vote on the marriage
protection amendment.
We have a tremendous task ahead
of us if we are to protect marriage in Connecticut and there are still
other issues that need to be addressed: the proposal to make Waterbury
abortion-free, which was almost passed by the city council; the public
health committee’s approval of a bill that would use your tax
dollars to clone and kill human embryos; the bill that would require a
minor to notify her parents before getting an abortion; the bill that
would create a special exception allowing someone who assisted in a
suicide to get accelerated rehabilitation; the teenage abstinence bills
that are bottled up in committee; the epidemic of fatherlessness in
Hartford that has led to a wave of youth violence; the list goes on.
FIC intends to have a hand in all
of those issues, but without losing focus on the one issue that looms
over the future of the Connecticut family: the fight to protect
marriage from being radically redefined. Toward that end, I am pleased
to announce the hiring of Peter Wolfgang as our new Director of Public
Policy. Although a recent hire, Peter has been fighting side-by-side
with us from the beginning and many of you already know him. You will
be hearing more about — and from — Peter in the days ahead.
He will be joining me as a regular blogger on this site.
They say that “March goes
in like a lion and out like a lamb.” Policy-wise, March certainly
has come in like a lion for the pro-family movement of Connecticut. But
for many of us, March will indeed go out like a lamb — the
paschal lamb, whose Easter feast we will celebrate on Mar. 27th this
year. As we approach that most hopeful of days, let us remember that
the darkest of defeats can sometimes be a prelude to the greatest of
victories.
Posted at 5:39 PM
February 28
WHAT THEY REALLY THINK OF MARRIAGE…AND OF YOU [Brian Brown]
Pastor Rick McKinniss of Wellspring Church in Berlin had a great op-ed in yesterday’s Courant on the pitfalls of legalizing same-sex “marriage.” His closing paragraph is worth quoting in full:
Our legislators need to weigh
these considerations carefully before legalizing a redefinition of
marriage that would create a court quagmire and further weaken family
life. Recent generations have certainly seen how imperfectly people
live out the ideals of covenantal marriage between one man and one
woman as a foundation for family. But our laws protect and reward that
ideal because it best protects children and strengthens society.
Radically changing the definition of marriage and family, however, will
only make the attainment of that ideal harder — and our social
fabric will be further weakened in the process.
The pro-family view put forth by
Rev. McKinniss — that a redefinition of marriage will weaken
marriage as a societal institution — is usually treated with
scorn by our opposition. But it’s amazing what local pro same-sex
“marriage” activists will admit to when they wander away
from Love Makes a Family’s talking points. In a pro civil unions op-ed in today’s Courant, for instance, attorney Vicki Veltri writes:
Indeed, I'd like the government
to move away from the patriarchal institution of marriage. Why are we
in the gay community so eager to immerse ourselves in an institution
that we've all said is so inherently full of gender stereotyping?
And that’s in the middle of an article from a “gay citizen of Connecticut” arguing that the state should
legalize same-sex “marriage.” Thanks for telling us what
pro same-sex “marriage” activists really think of marriage,
Ms. Veltri.
Indeed, Ms. Veltri’s piece
deserves a wide readership. Those few pro civil unions legislators who
said they were not accusing opponents of bigotry, as well as Gov. Rell
— who has not even said if she would veto the bill — should
note this line: “I really would like to have a president and a governor
who would stop using my sexuality as a vehicle for whipping up
hatred” [emphasis added]. Does the governor know that this is how
pro same-sex “marriage” activists describe her (rather
mild) expression of concern for the sanctity of marriage?
And the people of Connecticut
— the majority of whom oppose same-sex “marriage”
— should note Ms. Veltri’s next line: “The only way
for that [same-sex “marriage”] to happen is to gain
acceptance by educating an ignorant public” [emphasis added].
And there it is, people of
Connecticut: what pro same-sex “marriage” activists really
think of marriage, the governor and you.
Posted at 11:00 AM
February 25
LMF STILL HAS FRIENDS [Brian Brown]
Sure, liberal lobbyist Betty
Gallo and Judiciary Committee Chairman Mike Lawlor have split with Love
Makes a Family over its role as state puppet for the national pro
same-sex “marriage” movement. But LMF still has one ally
that will never abandon them: the Associated Press. In a story
so slanted that it could have been written by Anne Stanback, the AP
informs us today that “Vermonters say gay marriage would be
better than civil unions in Conn.”
According to the piece, although
civil unions is same-sex “marriage” in everything but name
it is still not good enough for Vermont homosexuals, who say that
Connecticut is settling for what they now believe to be a
“moderate, conservative alternative” in civil unions.
First, it is interesting to note that while 1,000 Vermont same-sex couples have contracted civil unions, 6,000
out-of-state couples have. Events in New England appear to be driven by
a national homosexual movement desperate for victories wherever
possible, not by the perceived needs of their constituents in a given
area. Second, that movement’s insistence that legalizing marriage
in everything but name is not enough for them confirms what we have
said all along. Their goal is the redefinition of marriage, not
equality.
Third, if you want to know how
the pro same-sex “marriage” movement has made it this far,
just read your morning paper. The media in general — and the AP
in particular — is incredibly biased in their favor.
Posted at 11:49 AM
February 24
A DARK DAY FOR CONNECTICUT [Brian Brown]
Yesterday was a dark day for our
state. Civil unions legislation was overwhelmingly approved by the
Judiciary Committee. WE MUST UNDERSTAND THIS: CIVIL UNIONS LEGISLATION
IS SAME-SEX "MARRIAGE" BY ANOTHER NAME. IT IS IN EVERY WAY IDENTICAL TO
MARRIAGE ON THE STATE LEVEL.
As usual, in a completely
undemocratic fashion, the Judiciary Committee leadership scheduled the
vote only hours before it occurred. We lost on civil unions by a 25-13
vote. This shows you just how out-of-touch our elected officials have
become. (In the days ahead we’ll be posting a recap of their
remarks prior to the vote, as we did for the Feb. 7th hearing.) Once
again T.R. Rowe (R-Trumbull), did us a massive service in getting the
word out and leading the fight to protect marriage. You can read the coverage in the Courant by clicking here.
It is now essential that we move
our campaign to the next step. WE MUST NOW CONTACT EVERY SINGLE MEMBER
OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND ASK THEM TO OPPOSE CIVIL-UNIONS/SAME-SEX
"MARRIAGE" LEGISLATION. Same-sex unions legislation still has to be
approved by both our House and our Senate and signed into law by our
governor. While our chances for stopping the bill in the Senate are
minimal, we can still stop the bill either in the House or by a veto by
the governor. You can send an e-mail to your elected officials by
clicking the button at the bottom of this page.
PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO
YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY! Without a grassroots response unlike this
state has ever seen, same-sex "marriage" will be coming to our state.
We are also planning another
massive rally, a poll, and a lobby day at our capitol. We will do
absolutely everything in our power to protect marriage. We are up
against a biased media, a liberal judiciary, an out-of-touch
legislature, and a well-financed homosexual lobby. We are more in need
of your support now than ever. Click here to donate online on our secure server.
Without your help, Connecticut
will likely become the second state in our nation to pass civil unions.
What is more, passage of civil unions will make it almost assured that
our courts will mandate same-sex "marriage."
TAKE ACTION NOW BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!
Using our Grassroots Action
Center you will be able to send an e-mail directly to your own state
representative and state senator by clicking the button at the bottom
of this blog. You will also be able to download a pre-written letter
that you can change and put in your own voice.
CLICK BELOW TO ACT!
Click the link below to log in and send your message: http://votervoice.net/target.asp?id=fict:4224224
Posted at 10:04 AM
February 23
CIVIL UNIONS VOTE TODAY [Brian Brown]
Prof. Brown’s claim about public opinion notwithstanding, the Republican-American
had its own theory about why Love Makes a Family (LMF) is pursuing an
“all or nothing” strategy in Connecticut. Here’s the
excerpt, from my Feb. 14th blog:
But [pro same-sex
“marriage” activists] are astute election- and
poll-watchers. They need to go for the jugular now because outside of
the Northeast, resistance to same-sex marriage and support for a
constitutional amendment reserving marriage for one man and one woman
are growing quickly.
Today’s Courant confirms the Republican-American’s
suspicion that LMF is nothing more than the national pro same-sex
“marriage” movement’s beachhead in Connecticut. In a
story about liberal lobbyist Betty Gallo’s decision to break with
LMF over its “all or nothing” strategy, Rep. Lawlor
criticizes LMF for taking its orders from the national movement, and
Anne Stanback basically admits to the charge.
The upshot of all this is that
the Judiciary Committee will vote on an amended version of S.B. 963
that would legalize civil unions. THIS VOTE IS SCHEDULED FOR SOMETIME
THIS AFTERNOON. Please make use of our Marriage Protection Action Center
to contact the Committee and ask them to vote NO on S.B. 963 and H.B.
6601 in any form and YES on H.J. 29, the marriage protection amendment.
Tell them that civil unions is same-sex “marriage” by a
different name and the pro-family movement is opposed to both. The only
way to win this is to make your voice heard in Hartford and to pray for
our state.
Posted at 12:35 PM
February 21
WHO'S "FUNDAMENTALLY ANTI-DEMOCRATIC?" [Brian Brown]
Jennifer Gerarda Brown, a professor at Quinnipiac Law School, has an op-ed in yesterday's Courant
urging that the legislature not wait for a pending court decision
before legalizing same-sex "marriage." Her reasoning is that if a
legislature were to vote for same-sex "marriage" without being forced
to do so by a court (as happened in Massachusetts and—with some
smoke and mirrors—in Vermont) it would demonstrate the
"fundamentally anti-democratic" nature of the proposed Federal Marriage
Amendment (FMA). She further claims that the pro-family movement is
"desperate to enact" the FMA because we "know" the public is turning
against us.
Really? Prof. Brown makes an
assertion about our "desperation" based on a single poll. Nowhere in
her article does she mention last year's 13-out-of-13 state vote for
marriage protection amendments to state constitutions, which passed
even in liberal Oregon.
But if Prof. Brown and the pro
same-sex "marriage" movement really believes that they are the
defenders of democracy, there is a way they can prove it. Connecticut's
pro-family movement is supporting H.J. 29, a bill that would allow the
public to vote on whether or not to amend our own state constitution to
protect marriage. Thus far, the Judiciary Committee's pro same sex
unions chairmen will not even allow a hearing on the bill. Why does the
pro same-sex "marriage" movement not join us in asking for a hearing on
a bill that would let the people decide? After all, Prof. Brown informs
us that it is pro same-sex "marriage" activists that are fighting for
democracy. So what are they afraid of?
Posted at 11:12 AM
February 18
COURANT ENDORSES SAME-SEX “MARRIAGE” [Brian Brown]
In an editorial
filled with the usual confusions and falsehoods, our state’s
largest newspaper endorsed full blown same-sex “marriage”
today. Like Sen. Mary Ann Handley’s bizarre comment during Anne
Stanback’s testimony (see my Feb. 10 blog), the editorial begins
by comparing pro-family advocates to those who opposed “banning
slavery, allowing women to vote and permitting interracial
marriages.” Ironically, the same paragraph condemns the making of
“hurtful statements.” The hypocrisy of our
“tolerant” opposition knows no limits.
The Courant notes that the
reforms mentioned above did not “bring down civilization.”
If the editors actually engaged our argument — instead of a straw
man caricature of it — they would have to admit that those who
warn about slippery slopes are sometimes right. Or do the editors, like
Rep. Themis Klarides, still believe that the divorce revolution of the
1970’s was a wonderful thing?
The Courant accuses the
thirteen states that passed marriage protection amendments last year of
“prejudice.” The paper fails to note that the
“prejudiced” include the liberal states of Oregon and
Michigan.
The Courant makes the
usual distinction between “civil” and
“religious” marriage, claiming that the granting of
same-sex “marriage” is “a civil rights issue, not a
religious issue.” Tell it to the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic
fraternal order that is being sued by a lesbian couple in Canada for
refusing to rent their hall for the couple’s
“wedding” reception. If same-sex “marriage” is
legalized in Connecticut, similar violations of religious freedom will
be coming soon to a church or church-related institution near you.
“It is hard to argue against” same-sex “marriage,” the Courant claims. Nonsense, I do it all the time. What is hard to do is to make an argument for
same-sex “marriage” that is logical and does not rely on
demonizing the opponents of same-sex “marriage.” As
today’s editorial further proves.
Posted at 3:25 AM
GREAT MOMENTS IN CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY [Ken Von Kohorn]
The New Haven Register reported
on Tuesday that a small church in Milford, the Woodmont UCC
Congregational, has received 30 new members — in part because of
its explicit welcome of "gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender
people." That is certainly one way to grow a congregation. Here are
some excerpts:
The membership at Woodmont
United Church of Christ, Congregational, has increased dramatically
since the congregation made it known it that welcomes gays, lesbians,
bisexual and transgender people, the church pastor said Tuesday.
The Rev. Paige Besse-Rankin said
while the church’s formal announcement came Monday, the
congregation has made it known for some time that it is open to
everyone, a move she concludes led to 30 new members signing up for her
church.
Kingdom Life Christian Church
Bishop Jay Ramirez said every church should be open to everyone. But
Ramirez, who leads a congregation of 2,500 members, said he can’t
understand how a church can endorse homosexuality or same sex marriage.
"When (being gay is) called sinful it’s a personal attack," Besse-Rankin said.
Besse-Rankin needs to take up her
complaint with the Almighty. In the meantime, the recent increase of 30
members notwithstanding, her church remains on the order of
one-twentieth the size of Bishop Ramirez's church. The church-going
people of Milford are not intolerant, they have simply voted with their
feet for a church that actually adheres to Biblical teachings —
as opposed to opportunistically moving with the tides of human behavior.
Posted at 11: 45 AM
February 17
ACTION NEEDED ON PARENTAL CONSENT [Brian Brown]
H.B. 5484,
a bill requiring parental consent before a minor can receive an
abortion in Connecticut, is being held up in the legislature’s
Select Committee on Children. At least half of the committee members
support holding a public hearing on the bill, but the co-chairmen have
not agreed to it. Please contact them and ask them to bring this bill
to a hearing. They are:
Sen. Edward Meyer (D-Branford, Durham, Guilford, Killingworth, Madison, North Branford)
E-Mail: Meyer@senatedems.ct.gov
Phone: (860) 240-8600
Rep. Michael Cardin (D-Ashford, Tolland, Willington)
E-Mail: Mike.Cardin@cga.ct.gov
Phone: (860) 240-8500
Connecticut is one of the few
remaining states in the nation where a minor child can receive an
abortion without her parents being made aware of it. Please help us put
a stop to it. For more information, see the Connecticut Catholic
Conference’s fact sheet by clicking here.
Posted at 4:04 PM
February 16
ISSUES FORUM [Brian Brown]
The Courant held its “issues forum” yesterday. This is what was reported about the same-sex “marriage” discussion:
Legislators then discussed the
prospect of passing legislation that would allow same-sex partners to
form civil unions despite a call from some advocates to settle for
nothing less than the right to marry. Amann guaranteed there will be
debate on the issue this year, but DeLuca was blunt.
"In my opinion, civil unions
probably would have come out of the judiciary committee this year,"
DeLuca said. But, following the all-or-nothing stand of the advocacy
groups, "I don't think it will now."
We hope Sen. DeLuca is correct.
But even if he is, that is only half the battle. The co-chairmen of the
Judiciary Committee, Rep. Lawlor and Sen. McDonald, must allow a
hearing on a marriage protection amendment. If the amendment bill were
to pass, it would allow the people to decide the future of marriage in
Connecticut. That is the only proper way to resolve an issue of this
magnitude.
Posted at 2:30 PM
February 14
THE CULTURE TURNS [Brian Brown]
The Hartford Advocate and its sister publications usually provide a reliable barometer of left wing opinion in Connecticut. Which makes the article about Pope John Paul II in the current Advocate all the more amazing:
What informed this great will
was a Polish strain of "personalism," an existential philosophy that
stresses the dignity of the individual. We only can attain full
personhood through moral action. Whatever one's position on abortion,
birth control, pre-marital sex or whatever, the Pope's position on
these matters is not arbitrary, but consistent with a philosophy that
stresses the importance of each human life. Each of us — just
conceived, or standing outside a coal mine in the rain — is
eternally valuable. We matter. Can we be mad at this fine Pope because he wanted us to believe this?
To be sure, the Advocate
piece is not uncritical about the Catholic Church. But as recently as
ten years ago it would have been impossible to imagine the Advocate publishing the paragraph excerpted above. Something is changing in our culture and the Advocate is right to recognize John Paul II’s role in it. Hats off to Alistair Highet for writing this piece and to the Advocate for publishing it.
Posted at 1:54 PM
GATHERING STEAM [Brian Brown]
Love Makes a Family’s
demand for same-sex “marriage” has helped gather steam for
marriage protection in Connecticut. On Sunday, the Republican-American ran a succinct, tightly-argued editorial
against same-sex “marriage.” The editors have a theory as
to why pro same-sex “marriage” activists are pushing an
“all or nothing” strategy in our state:
But they are astute election-
and poll-watchers. They need to go for the jugular now because outside
of the Northeast, resistance to same-sex marriage and support for a
constitutional amendment reserving marriage for one man and one woman
are growing quickly.
But our opponents’
“all or nothing” strategy has caused resistance to same-sex
“marriage” to grow quickly here, too. In a Saturday article in the Bristol Press,
four Democrats — Sen. Tom Colapietro, Rep. Kosta Diamantis, Rep.
Betty Boukas and Rep. Roger Michele — and one Republican, Rep.
Bill Hamzy — all express opposition to same-sex
“marriage” and civil unions. These legislators, and
their constituents, provide further evidence that marriage protection
is a bipartisan cause:
Diamantis said that gay marriage
is about the only issue that constituents have been phoning him on.
"Their sentiments are strong," he said, and they’re against it.
"Clearly, on this one, people come out," Diamantis said.
Posted at 10:50 AM
BRAVERY IN THE BRASS CITY [Brian Brown]
It is rare for a public official
to tackle the abortion issue head-on in Connecticut. But that is
exactly what one Waterbury Alderman plans to do later this month,
according to this front page piece in today’s Republican-American:
WATERBURY — For at least a
few minutes on Feb. 22, abortion will take center stage at the Board of
Aldermen. Independent Party Alderman Frank J. Caiazzo Jr. has placed an
item on the agenda, suggesting the city pass an ordinance making
Waterbury an "abortion-free city." …Caiazzo said he thinks the
pro-life agenda is something Waterbury residents agree with,
particularly given the religious and family-oriented middle class
communities that make up his Town Plot base. He also is the father of
two adoptive daughters, which is in keeping with the anti-abortion view
on what alternatives should be.
It is not clear what effect the
ordinance might have on Waterbury Hospital, the city’s only
abortion provider — or even if the ordinance will pass.
Nevertheless, it is a public service for Alderman Caiazzo to provoke
conversation about one of the grave moral issues of our time. We hope
that elected officials in both major parties will follow his lead.
Posted at 9:43 AM
February 11
WHAT NEXT FOR MARRIAGE PROTECTION? [Brian Brown]
Pro-family supporters who receive
our e-mails already know what first steps must be taken following
Monday’s hearing. If you do not already receive our e-mails, you
can join us in fighting for marriage protection by clicking here.
The media coverage of the hearing
helps illustrate the long-term challenges we face. The most obvious is
to make sure the public knows the truth. The Danbury News Times,
for instance, falsely reported that Gov. M. Jodi Rell “favors
expanding rights for gay couples.” In fact, this is what was
reported about Gov. Rell’s position in the Dec. 10th New Haven Register:
On the issue of gay marriage, Rell said she does not favor it.
"I’m an old-fashioned
person when it comes to that. I believe in marriage between a man and a
woman." Rell also questioned the need for civil unions.
"I’m not sure what it
would accomplish," she said, pointing to protections already in place
allowing gay couples to adopt children, as well as to have access for
hospital visits.
"I think we have gone a long way in changing the statutes to address those concerns," she said.
At the time, we offered
“two cheers” for Gov. Rell and we said we would reserve the
third cheer until she vetoes a civil unions bill, if that should become
necessary.
And it just might. Despite the opposition of both FIC and Love Makes a Family, “state lawmakers said they plan to push ahead with civil union legislation,” according to the Courant’s article about Monday’s hearing. If so, then, as the Courant
reported, FIC will oppose it as much as same-sex “marriage”
and we will continue to push for a hearing on the marriage protection
amendment:
Opponents of gay marriage also spoke against civil unions, which they condemned as gay marriage by another name.
Instead of marriage or civil
unions, lawmakers should be debating a state constitutional amendment
banning such unions, said Brian Brown, executive director of the Family
Institute of Connecticut.
"Democrats and Republicans,
suburbanites and urbanites, African Americans, Hispanic and white
Americans — the majority of all major groups in America agree
that marriage is and only can be the union of one man and one woman,"
Brown said.
He held a petition that he said
contained 90,000 signatures of residents who support a constitutional
amendment. "We are seeing the will of the few trumping the will of the
many," Brown said. "This committee itself is not even giving a public
hearing to a bill that would let the people decide the future of
marriage."
Posted at 1:50 P.M.
NOT QUITE WHAT ST. VALENTINE HAD IN MIND [Brian Brown]
You may remember “People of
Faith for Gay Civil Rights (PFGCR),” the pro same-sex
“marriage” group whose most outspoken member, Frank
O’Gorman, refers to crimes against pro-family churches as
“justice actions.” It seems O’Gorman has an
“action” planned for Monday, according to his group’s
website: the “MCC Third Annual Valentine’s Day Marriage
Equality Action.” Says the flier, “On Monday, February
14th, members and friends of Metropolitan Community Churches all across
the USA will visit their town or city halls to request marriage
licenses as same-sex couples.” Despite O’Gorman’s
verbal support for crimes against churches, Love Makes a Family is
co-sponsoring the event with his group.
“Join us on this national
MCC campaign to highlight the discrimination inherent in current
marriage laws which segregate out same-gender couples,”
PFGCR’s site proclaims. But one must wonder — as our
legislators are beginning to wonder — why is it
“discriminatory” to limit marriage to members of the
opposite sex, but not “discriminatory” to limit it to two
people? “What is the magic about the number two?” Rep.
Cafero asked pro same-sex “marriage” activists this week.
“That has to be a question that needs an answer.”
But activists for the other side
could not answer him. Which leads us to ask: how much longer before
polygamists join pro same-sex “marriage” activists at town
hall on Valentine’s Day to demand their own marriage licenses?
Posted at 11:10 AM
REP. WALKER AND THE REDEFINITION OF MARRIAGE [Brian Brown]
At Monday’s public hearing
on the pro same-sex “marriage” bill, Rep. Toni Walker
(D-New Haven) questioned my definition of marriage as the union of a
man and a woman. She said Webster’s Dictionary is her
“foundation” and that when she looked up the word
“marriage,” she did not see the words “man and
woman.” In fact, Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
(tenth edition) includes this definition of marriage:
The institution whereby men and
women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for
the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.
This edition was published in
1995. Perhaps Rep. Walker was reading from a more recent edition. But
if Webster’s editors removed this definition of marriage as
recently as some time in the last ten years, they — and Rep.
Walker — are making our point for us. When we say that marriage
is being “redefined,” we mean it literally.
Posted at 9:33 AM
February 10
ANNE STANBACK’S TESTIMONY [Brian Brown]
Anne Stanback, head of the pro
same-sex “marriage” lobby “Love Makes a
Family,” testified after me at the Judiciary Committee’s
public hearing on Monday. In her brief testimony she essentially argued
that tolerance wasn’t enough — society owes same-sex
couples its approval. “Marriage equality,” she said, is
more than benefits and protections. The current law denies
“us” — homosexuals — respect under the law.
Marriage is more than the sum of its legal parts. It is a cultural
institution. Therefore, only marriage helps same-sex families. She
cited the Massachusetts court case legalizing same-sex
“marriage” in that state and a recent ruling that could
have the same effect in New York City. “Does the
‘constitution state’ deserve less?”
The legislators questioned
Stanback for almost an hour and they were about as tough on her as they
were on me. But whereas their questions to me were mostly about first
principles — What is marriage? Why not same-sex
“marriage?” etc. — their questions to her were mostly
about the politics of the issue. Rep. Larry Cafero (R-Norwalk) told her
that the members of the Committee had “evolved” on this
issue. He said he favored legislation in 2000 and 2002 giving same-sex
couples additional benefits, however he “struggles” with
the concept. “With all respect to Rep. Walker,” — who
had made the bizarre claim that marriage is not defined by the union of
a man and woman because she could not find that definition in
Webster’s Dictionary — “the man-woman definition of
marriage is the one we all grew up with. You (Love Makes a Family) were
in favor of civil unions before. Back then, you said ‘we’re
not talking about gay marriage, we’re talking about civil
unions.’ The legislature moves your way and now, all of a sudden,
Love Makes a Family is not interested in civil unions. It’s
same-sex ‘marriage’ or nothing.”
Stanback responded by making a
blanket — and false — claim that at the time of her birth
“in this country, legally marriage was between people of the same
race.” She claimed that a plurality of the population now
supports same-sex “marriage” because “same-sex
couples have shared their stories.” Rep. Cafero seemed not to
appreciate Stanback’s insinuation that his hesitation to support
same-sex “marriage” makes him the moral equivalent of a
racist. “I struggled [with this issue], I was a hero three years
ago [for supporting previous legislation backed by Stanback] and now
I’m criticized for not supporting full same-sex
“marriage” — from Love Makes a Family. That is
somewhat disconcerting.”
At this point Rep. Cafero asked
Stanback about language in the pro same-sex “marriage” bill
that says that Connecticut does not condone homosexuality.
Stanback’s response: “Yes, I’d like that taken out of the bill. Nor should the state condone heterosexuality. I don’t like that language. When people get to know us, they’ll see they have no reason to fear condoning it
[emphases added].” Despite all previous claims to the contrary,
Stanback was clear that her aim was not mere tolerance, but the
reshaping of society’s mores.
Rep. Cafero noted that current
marriage laws place limits on the sex, number, age and familial
relationship of those who can marry. If same-sex “marriage”
is legalized, “it is a logical next question to ask: what is the
magic about the number two?” It was the first indication that the
pro-family movement’s much-derided concern about polygamy was
finally being taken seriously. Rep. Cafero also mentioned Tom
Greene’s lawsuit in Utah and reiterated his point: “That
has to be a question that needs an answer.”
“I don’t know what
the magic is about the number two,” Stanback replied.
“It’s about who can marry, not how many. It [polygamy] is a
hollow argument. I can’t answer you any better than that.”
But Stanback answered better than she knew, essentially proving our
point for us. Rep. Cafero pressed the matter with her. “People
[polygamy proponents] can come forward and press their ideas,”
she said. “That doesn’t mean it would happen.” She
repeated her line about “who can marry, not how many” and
claimed that legalized polygamy was not a logical extension of same-sex
“marriage.” Rep. Cafero tried to get a more definitive
answer from her. “I don’t know if it’s discriminatory to limit marriage to two,” she said, in a remarkable concession [emphasis added]. “I haven’t seen polygamous groups in Connecticut
[emphasis added].” It was an amazing qualifier — “in
Connecticut” — and Rep. Cafero knew it. “Ten years
ago, groups weren’t asking for same-sex
‘marriage,’” he reminded her. He closed by asking her
if she would support a civil unions bill if it makes it out of
committee. She said no, calling it “separate and unequal. We
oppose civil unions.”
Sen. Mary Ann Handley
(D-Manchester) opened with a comment that somehow managed to work in
references to women’s suffrage, desegregation and Auschwitz all
in the space of a minute. That was the wind-up. Here was her pitch:
“If we pass same-sex ‘marriage,’ do you see any hurt
to society?” Stanback answered “no.”
Sen. Ernest Newton
(D-Bridgeport), after noting that his own experience as an
Afro-American has taught him that legislation has not ended bigotry,
asked “Are you willing to risk not having anything unless you can
have same-sex ‘marriage?’” Sen. Newton said he had
read the Courant’s pro-same sex “marriage”
op-ed by civil rights hero John Lewis “whom I respect, but I
don’t understand how this is a civil rights issue.”
Stanback’s response: “I would never be so presumptuous as
to say the African-American struggle and the gay struggle are the
same.” It was a rare backing-away from one of the pro same-sex
“marriage” movement’s more grandiose claims. The fact
is, they say or imply it all the time.
“It hurts that we backed
you before and now it’s ‘same-sex ‘marriage’ or
nothing,’” Sen. David Capiello (R-Danbury) told Stanback.
He also raised a concern about polygamy. “What if,” he
asked her, “in the interim, you end up with the marriage
protection amendment because of your ‘all or nothing’
strategy?”
Sen. Andrew Roraback (R-Goshen)
cited a post-election New York Times article about a chastened pro
same-sex “marriage” movement pursuing a slower strategy. He
suggested that, unlike the more sober national movement, the
state’s pro same-sex “marriage” activists were
putting their personal interests over their political interests. He
said there must be a “division of opinion in the gay
community” over Love Makes a Family’s opposition to civil
unions. Sen. Roraback expressed displeasure that “what was
heralded as a civil rights triumph a few years ago is now derided as an
affront.”
“Every national gay group
backs us,” Stanback responded. On Love Makes a Family’s
‘all or nothing’ strategy, these groups told her
“that is the right decision in Connecticut.” She reminded
him of FIC’s opposition to civil unions and told him
“you’re not getting a break” from the pro-family
movement by supporting civil unions. Sen. Roraback told her she could
have waited for the Kerrigan decision. “Love Makes a
Family would love to pass a bill through the legislature,” she
responded. “We don’t want to wait three years.”
Sen. Roraback returned to the New
York Times article as being more in tuned with public opinion. “I
wish I could share with you the 500 e-mails I’ve received”
showing that there would be a backlash if same-sex
“marriage” were legalized, he said. At this, pro same-sex
“marriage” Rep. Michael Lawlor (D-East Haven) suggested
that Stanback could produce 500 e-mails too, if needed. “It does
not appear hard to do,” he said.
We know differently. It was not
an accident that Rep. Lawlor’s one intervention on behalf of
Stanback’s cause during her testimony came at that moment. Sen.
Roraback’s reference to the e-mails you, our supporters, are
sending to the Judiciary Committee was one of the most important
moments of the entire hearing. Rep. Lawlor and the pro same-sex
“marriage” movement know the only thing standing in their
way is the willingness of our fellow citizens to stand up and be
counted on this issue. That is why FIC will never stop fighting for
your right to be heard. That is why, if this issue is ever going to be
resolved, the politicians must let the people decide.
Watch this space in the coming
days and weeks for more information on what you can do to persuade our
legislators to allow a hearing on the marriage protection amendment.
Posted at 4:56 PM
THE PROPAGANDA BEGINS [Brian Brown]
Any doubt that Sen.
Roraback’s proposal to lessen the penalty for assisted suicide is
just the opening shot in a renewed effort to legalize it in Connecticut
was erased by today’s Courant. Here is an excerpt from Helen Ubinas’ column on the suicide in Litchfield that inspired Sen. Roraback’s proposal:
In 1995, the judiciary committee
held a public hearing to consider making Connecticut the second state
to legalize assisted suicide. Obviously that didn't happen. And
obviously it's time to take a look at the law again…But another
judiciary committee member, Sen. Andrew Roraback, offered a good
alternative to overhauling the statute. Wednesday he pitched a bill
that would make someone accused of aiding, not causing, another
person's suicide eligible for accelerated rehabilitation. [Judiciary
Committee Chairman Michael] Lawlor said he supports the proposal. The
thing that complicates these cases, Lawlor said, is that there is
always love behind them.
It’s all there: the
admission of the ultimate goal, the praise of an incremental step
toward achieving it, the exploitation of a headline-grabbing event to
get the ball rolling and the assurance that, after all, it’s all
about love. But killing someone is not an act of love. Making certain
your loved one gets treated for the depression that made him or her
suicidal is an act of love.
If Sen. Roraback’s bill
becomes law, it will further a culture of death that does not value the
weak, the elderly, the infirm, the handicapped, the underprivileged and
the unborn. This is one more battle — one of many — that
the pro-life/pro-family movement must fight at our state legislature if
we hope to protect human dignity in the “Constitution
State.”
Posted at 1:15 PM
GOV. RELL’S DILEMMA — AND OURS [Brian Brown]
Gov. Rell proposed her first
state budget in an address to the General Assembly yesterday. Good
people can and will disagree over any number of items in her budget,
but Connecticut’s pro-life community will be united in opposition
to the last item mentioned in this excerpt from today’s editorial in the Republican-American:
"We must not embark on a
spending spree of new programs and policies," [Gov. Rell] declared, and
then announced her plan to embark on a spending spree of new programs
and policies: $1.3 billion more for transportation improvements, $58
million more for the Department of Children and Families, free college
education for children adopted after Jan. 1, $5.5 million for a pilot
program for universal preschool, $57 million more for public education,
$2.5 million more for the Indian casino host towns, $15.5 million for
laptops for high school English classes, $5 million more for
mental-health services AND $20 MILLION FOR EMBRYONIC STEM-CELL RESEARCH
[emphasis added].
FIC will continue to follow the
progress of the budget and to keep our members informed of
opportunities to prevent our tax dollars from being used to clone and
kill embryonic human beings.
Posted at 10:10 AM
February 9
MONDAY’S SAME-SEX "MARRIAGE" HEARING [Brian Brown]
On Monday the Judiciary Committee
held a hearing on two bills that would legalize same-sex "marriage" in
Connecticut. Pro-family supporters contacted their legislators,
attended the hearing and prayed for the protection of marriage in
larger numbers than ever before. Those prayers were heard during the
lottery to choose the order of speakers, when I happened to pick a
number making me the first to testify.
During my three minute speech I
told the members of the Judiciary Committee that if the people of
Connecticut had a choice on this issue, they would decide the same as
13 other states — including liberal Oregon — did last year:
to protect marriage. I pointed to my left, where we had parked six
boxes containing 90,000 signatures by people "as diverse as Connecticut
itself" asking for a marriage protection amendment. I reminded the
legislators that children do best with a mom and a dad and that
same-sex "marriage" severs the tie between marriage and childrearing.
Its legalization would mean the will of the few trumping the will of
the many. It is not a message of fairness for the Judiciary Committee
to hold a hearing on the two pro same-sex "marriage" bills but not on
H.J. 29, the bill calling for a marriage protection amendment. They
should let the people decide. If pro same-sex "marriage" legislators
truly believe the people are on their side, I asked, why will they not
allow a hearing on our amendment?
The legislators questioned me for
an hour and a half. Pro-same sex unions Sen. Andrew McDonald
(D-Stamford) asked about the difference between "civil" and "religious"
marriage. Marriage pre-exists the state, I explained. It is an
anthropological institution. The state recognizes it because it is in
the state’s interest to do so, as the negative consequences of
the 1970’s divorce revolution further proved. The core definition
of marriage has not been contested across time or culture.
Against Sen. McDonald’s
questions, I maintained that the pro same-sex "marriage" bills do
affect people’s religious beliefs and can infringe on those
beliefs. "How does the bill detract from religion?" he asked. I pointed
to our petitions, which were signed by everyone. Marriage is a central
part of culture. Pro-family citizens oppose the redefinition of
marriage out of altruism, not because it will have some immediate
negative affect on their own marriage. Marriage is for the greatest
good, the common good. The primary purposes of marriage are
childrearing and social cohesion. I quoted Edmund Burke on marriage
being society’s first little platoon. Yes, marriage involves
companionship and love, but love alone does not make a family. To say
otherwise is to sever one of its most important functions.
"We allow gay adoption," Sen.
McDonald pointed out. He also cited single moms and abusive nuclear
families and asked me why marriage is the defining element of the
ability to rear children. "There’s no contradiction," I told him.
Yes, single parenthood is a problem. I was not laying blame and single
parents do need our help. But legislation should be the viewed from the
perspective of what can occur. With same-sex "marriage" the state
creates an institution where children will *never* have the ability to
have both a mom and a dad. It does not work well for society. I pointed
to pro same-sex "marriage" Scandinavia, where more parents now cohabit
and never marry. The state should shoot for the ideal, I said. In
general, children do best with both a mother and a father.
In an apparent reference to my
negative mention of cohabitation, Sen. McDonald asked, "Would same-sex
‘marriage’ ameliorate your convictions? I know you think it
would dilute the institution of marriage, but would it make it worse?
How?" This is how we got here, I told him, with the divorce rates so
high. Same-sex "marriage" did not get us to this point, but is only
conceivable because we’re here. Same-sex "marriage" further
destroys the shared public understanding of what marriage is. If
same-sex "marriage" is ok, why not polygamy? By taking this last step
(same-sex "marriage"), you do away with a shared understanding of
marriage.
Noting FIC’s opposition to
civil unions, Sen. McDonald asked "So you’re against more rights
for people who live together and love each other?" I took exception to
the question’s premise. "That’s like asking if an aunt who
is a caretaker for her niece should have more rights," I said. The
granting of rights should not be based on sexual relationships other
than marriage. So, of course FIC would oppose civil unions. Taking one
last stab, Sen. McDonald asked about special arrangements for the
children of same-sex couples who end up in court. I noted that in most
custody cases of same-sex couples, the mother and father are still
alive and that, depending on the issue, probate court is available.
Sen. Ernest Newton (D-Bridgeport)
asked why the residents of Connecticut should have a say on this issue
by voting on a constitutional amendment. I agreed that the constitution
should not be amended lightly. But it will be amended one way or the
other because of the Kerrigan case. Four judges imposed same-sex
"marriage" in Massachusetts and it could happen here. The only way to
stop it is the marriage protection amendment. Courts should not make
law. Both sides come to the legislature every year on this issue. Why
not let the people decide? And this is not your average issue —
it’s crucial to the well-being of society. We are not denying
anyone rights or benefits. Same-sex couples can already write wills and
have health conservator documents written up. To say the amendment
denies them rights is like saying a grandfather and grandson who live
together are being discriminated against. Marriage should be protected
because of its uniqueness, it is not discriminatory. "Why
wouldn’t voters trust us with this?" Sen. Newton asked. Some
issues, I replied, are so salient, so monumental, so important that the
people must decide. The legislature should give people that chance.
Rep. Bob Farr (R-West Hartford)
noted the existence of illegitimate children, lack of commitment,
co-habitation and companies that provide "domestic partnership"
benefits. "Isn’t civil unions better because it stops the erosion
of marriage?" he asked. Look to Sweden, I responded, where both
homosexuals and heterosexuals can have civil unions. Where there is no
shared definition of marriage, such as Sweden, these in-between way
stations lessen the number of marriages. I reminded the Committee that
before people began trying to legalize same-sex "marriage" in
Connecticut, FIC’s efforts were focused on strengthening
marriage. We oppose same-sex "marriage" because it takes a sledgehammer
to all our previous work by destroying a shared definition of marriage.
Sen. David Cappiello (R-Danbury)
said that while he joins us in opposing judicial usurpation, he was
concerned that our amendment would break with the constitutional
tradition of granting more rights, not less. I told him that we are not
taking rights away because same-sex "marriage" does not exist in
Connecticut. The issue will not go away once the courts can trump the
people. If you want people to decide, then we need an amendment vote.
Sen. Cappiello asked about other arrangements. Anything that creates a
separate institution, I responded, a way-station to marriage, we would
oppose. We need to protect marriage from redefinition by the courts.
Some of the most hostile
questions of the entire 90 minutes came from Rep. Themis Klarides
(R-Derby). She noted the failure of some traditional households and
accused me of wanting to keep children in unhappy nuclear families.
Citing Rutgers’ David Popeno, I explained that, if you control
for other variables, social science shows that kids overall do best
with a mom and a dad, despite the exceptions. Gender is not unimportant
and marriage is based upon the complementarity of male and female.
Same-sex parenting is new and so there is not a lot of data on it yet.
But the research on motherlessness and fatherlessness does exist and
scholars like David Blankenhorn in "Fatherless America" have
demonstrated its harmful effects. We did not have this data in the
1970’s when divorce laws were first liberalized, but we now know
that no-fault divorce was not a panacea. It is the same thing with
same-sex "marriage." Based on what our culture experienced with the
divorce revolution, why would we again change the societal model of
marriage?
Rep. Klarides praised liberalized
divorce laws and said that she thought it unfair that divorces used to
be harder to obtain. She said she didn’t care if a child’s
parents are two men or two women and that she did not believe I was
putting the best interests of the children first. I reminded her that I
said children "do best" with a mom and dad, not that they could "only"
be in a home with them. I was not creating an either/or scenario. But
the social science is clear. As legislators, I reminded her, you have a
duty to create the best culture you can. You can do that by allowing an
amendment vote. We should create a marriage culture. Statistics show
that the divorce rate is declining. "But," I told Rep. Klarides,
"you’re suggesting one extreme or the other." You can’t
support a bill that, by its very nature, destroys marriage. There is
already a Canadian commission looking into polygamy. If you support
same-sex "marriage," then you have to answer, why not polygamy?
Rep. Klarides could not answer my
question. "Polygamy is a hollow argument," she said. "Then, why not?" I
replied. At this, she went for the cheap applause line. "Do you think
if same-sex ‘marriage’ is passed, I’ll say tomorrow
I’ll be a lesbian?" I reminded her that I had explicitly said
from the beginning that, no, I’m not saying that. We’re
making arguments from the public good. Marriage is a shared public good.
"When you say ‘we,’
for whom are you speaking?" asked pro same-sex "marriage" Rep. Michael
Lawler (D-East Haven). I reminded him of the 100,000 petitions on the
floor to my left. "You’re opposed to any legal recognition for
same-sex ‘marriage?’" he asked me. You word it to suggest
it already exists, I responded. We’re opposed to same-sex
"marriage." We oppose civil unions because it is same-sex "marriage" by
a different name. "For any two persons?" Rep. Lawlor asked. I told him
that we oppose any attempt to create institutions that mimic marriage.
"We recognize business entities but you’re opposed [to civil
unions]," he responded. "You’re just opposed to the fact that
there’s same-sex couples that love each other? It seems like
opponents are against anything having to do with homosexuality.
You’re so concerned about a slippery slope that any recognition
is opposed by you guys." I reiterated our opposition to any mimic or
counterfeit of marriage. I pointed to the amendments passed in Oregon,
Michigan and 11 other states to illustrate that people are waking up to
the fact that marriage is being redefined and they are opposed to it.
"Where do your funds come from?"
Rep. Toni Walker (D-New Haven) asked. "Where does your definition of
marriage between a man and a woman come from?" Our funds come from
private donors, I responded, and our definition of marriage comes from
social science, common sense and all of human history. Marriage is the
most trans-historical, multicultural institution we have. If you
propose a different definition, what is the foundation? Rep. Walker
claimed that Webster’s definition of marriage does not mention
man and woman. In the weirdest moment of the entire 90 minutes, she
said Webster’s was her "foundation" and she went on to discuss
the definition of discrimination. I told her that I was not arguing in
favor of discrimination. Is Tom Greene in Utah being discriminated
against because he can’t practice polygamy? I’m not trying
to deny people their rights and people can disagree without being
accused of evil motivations. "You’re creating a law that
discriminates," Rep. Walker insisted, "the amendment amounts to not
hearing other people." That’s not correct, I told her. The law
currently allows marriage between a man and a woman. The marriage
protection amendment stops any court-ordered redefinition.
Anne Stanback of "Love Makes a Family" testified after me. I will comment on her testimony in this space tomorrow.
Posted at 3:07 PM
SO, HOW DID IT GO MONDAY? [Ken Von Kohorn]
That's the question FIC has
repeatedly been asked during the last 48 hours or so. "It," of course,
is the Judiciary Committee's hearing on two bills legalizing same-sex
"marriage," and the short answer is that it went well. Brian will be
posting a longish blog on his testimony later today and tomorrow he
will offer a recap — and some thoughts of his own — about
Anne Stanback's testimony. For now, though, we thought you might
appreciate some of the feedback from FIC's in-box, all directed at
Brian:
I wanted to congratulate you and
your team on the great work done in Conn. yesterday. After receiving
your update...we are all encouraged (but prayerful) by the efforts of
you and the dedication you have shown. I...look forward to working with
and learning from those who are making such a tremendous difference
like yourself. Thank you for all you're doing...
Keep up the great work! This is a fight we must win. I will mail in my contribution for the Harris Interactive poll.
Both on WTIC radio and at the
Judiciary Committee, you did an excellent job. You were very
articulate, easy to follow and pleasantly engaging with the committee.
This was one of your finest hours!...
I saw you last night on the
[CTN] at the hearing on same sex marriage. I was riveted watching you
defend marriage bravely and so capably. I also marveled at your cool
and knowledgeable responses to...questions. You did a great job of
teaching...people with your answers as well as all those who were
watching.
Why don't they (the
representatives) "trust" the people of Connecticut with this most
important issue? Trust us enough to let us decide, let us vote on an
amendment to our Constitution.... Rep. Walker (the one who accused you
of discrimination) I am amazed, uses the Webster's Dictionary as her
only legal means of research on marriage? Amazing! Don't we have
history books and a law library in the capital? Thank you for all you
did and are doing. May God richly bless you for your stalwart efforts!
I was at the Hearing today,
myself and our pastor, we heard your argument and want to thank you for
such a strong and powerful message you put before the Judicial
Committee. You were speaking for me and thousands of others. You are
helping us keep this state and the institution of Marriage as God had
intended it to be. Please keep up the good hard work. Are you helping
other states start a Family Institute like ours? God bless you and your
family. We did not get to speak, and I am still unaware of the outcome
of today's hearing. I am watching the streamed video now.
I was refreshed by the clarity
and persuasiveness of Brian's views expressed during your call to the
Ray and Diane Show. I was unaware of your organization until I heard
you on this show. I am against same sex marriage but had been willing
to support...civil unions. Brian's points about the incremental nature
of this movement are making me think again. I will be visiting your
site to keep posted on your organization's activities. Thank you for
speaking out on WTIC AM!...
Firstly, I want to say thank you
for all the work you are doing to protect marriage in Connecticut.
Without you we would have lost this battle long ago. I will continue to
keep you and your staff in prayer for God's guidance and help...
Posted at 1:26 PM
PROPOSED BILL WOULD MOVE CT CLOSER TO ASSISTED SUICIDE [Brian Brown]
According to an article in today's Waterbury Republican-American,
State Sen. Andrew Roraback (R-Goshen) plans to introduce a legislative
proposal in the Judiciary Committee TODAY that could lessen the legal
penalty for assisting in a suicide by making a distinction between
"causing" the suicide and "aiding" in it. The passage of this bill
would move us closer to the legalization of assisted suicide in
Connecticut. Please use the resources of the Family Institute of
Connecticut's Marriage Protection Action Center
to contact the members of the Judiciary Committee and ask them to
OPPOSE Sen. Roraback's proposal to lessen the penalty for assisted
suicide. Please call attention to this issue to every like-minded
person and ask them to do the same.
Posted at 9:30 AM
February 5
ADOPTION SHOULD FAVOR MARRIED COUPLES [Ken Von Kohorn]
The Institute for Marriage and Public Policy has just issued a Policy Brief covering adoption law in the fifty states. Here is their Executive Summary:
While all 50 states assert that
adoption is governed by the “best interests of the child,”
legal preferences for married couples in adoption are rare. More states
explicitly ban "discrimination” based on marital status than
contain even mild preferences for marriage. Five states (Alabama,
Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New York) make it illegal to prefer
married couples in placement decisions. Only one state (Utah) codifies
a clear preference for married couples in adoptions. Recommendation:
State legislatures should codify appropriate preferences for married
couples (where available) in adoption law.
Connecticut should explicitly
favor married couples for adoptions. Social science — as well as
common sense — recognizes that kids do best with a mother and a
father in a stable marriage. Any policy that does not pay homage to
that basic truth shortchanges children in need of adoption.
Posted at 12:05 AM
February 4
ABSTINENCE EDUCATION HEARING ON FEB. 8th [Brian Brown]
Our state legislature’s
Select Committee on Children will be holding a public hearing this
Tuesday, Feb. 8th, on two bills that could lead to increased abstinence
education in Connecticut’s public schools. Click here
to read the action alert received today from the Connecticut Catholic
Conference. FIC supports the passage of these two bills and urges the
pro-family movement to attend Tuesday’s hearing.
Posted at 12:34 P.M.
COURANT PLUGS MARRIAGE ADVICE BOOK [Brian Brown]
On the front page of the Courant’s “Life” section today, staff writer Kathleen Megan has an article about a book by Steve Campbell
that contains marriage-saving
advice in terms that he believes guys will understand. That is, using
football and other sports analogies to explain the intricacies of
relationships. Called "Third and Long: Advice From a Guy Who's Learned
the Hard Way" ($12.95 at Amazon.com), it's a book that Campbell wishes
had been available to him several years ago, when his marriage began to
fall apart….His title, he said, is drawn from that moment in a
football game where all is not lost, but when "you have to buckle down
and get that first down — or else you'll lose the game."
Based on Megan’s piece, “Third and Long” seems to be worth the $12.95. We are grateful to the Courant for making the public aware of it.
Posted at 11:10 A.M.
February 3
SAME-SEX “MARRIAGE” HEARING ON FEB. 7 [Brian Brown]
The pro-family movement has spent
the winter warming up for the main event: the battle to protect
marriage in 2005. Here in Connecticut, it’s time for Round One.
The Judiciary Committee of the
Connecticut General Assembly will hold a public hearing on legislation
legalizing same-sex “marriage” this Monday, Feb. 7th, from
1:00 to 6:00 P.M. in Room 2C of the Legislative Office Building in
Hartford.
The bill under consideration, S.B. 963,
is the most extremist pro same-sex “marriage” bill
imaginable. It legalizes “marriage” for “any two
persons…regardless of the sex.” It removes the words
“bride and groom” from the current statute and replaces it
with “both persons.” It adds language listing various types
of families that are in “the best interests of the child”
while omitting any mention of a child’s need for both a mom and a
dad. It removes the statutory language declaring Connecticut’s
public policy to be that marriage is between a man and a woman. nIt is,
in short, the most “in-your-face” pro same-sex
“marriage” bill ever devised by Connecticut’s radical
anti-family elites.
The decision by Love Makes a
Family that it will only support the most extreme pro same-sex
“marriage” bill proves what FIC and other pro-family groups
have said for years. The goal of pro same-sex “marriage”
activists is not equality or compromise, but the radical redefinition
of marriage for all of society. That the majority of our fellow
citizens believe that marriage should remain the union of man and one
woman is a fact held in utter contempt by pro same-sex
“marriage” activists. n Even if legislators were to enact
the false compromise of “civil unions” these activists
would not stop pushing for same-sex “marriage.”
FIC sent an e-mail alert earlier
this week calling on pro-family supporters to contact Judiciary
Committee members and ask them to oppose S.B. 963, the bill legalizing
same-sex “marriage.” We also oppose H.B. 6601,
a bill that would force Connecticut to recognize same-sex
“marriages” from Massachusetts and other countries. We
support H.J. 29,
a bill that would allow a referendum on amending our state constitution
to read “that it is the policy of the state of Connecticut, and
its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and
one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.”
FIC calls upon all pro-family
supporters to contact the Judiciary Committee members and tell them you
OPPOSE the two bills legalizing same-sex “marriage” and you
SUPPORT H.J. 29, a bill that would let the people decide the future of
marriage in Connecticut. If you did not receive our e-mail alert, you
can use the resources on our Marriage Protection Action Center
to contact Judiciary Committee members and to give us your e-mail so
that you can receive future alerts. We also need as many pro-family
supporters as possible to attend Monday’s hearing so that the
legislators can see that most people want marriage protected, not
redefined.
For those who are willing, we
also need pro-family citizens to testify at the hearing. Speaker order
will be determined by lottery and sign up to be included in the lottery
is from 9:00 A.M. to 12:30 P.M. on Monday in Room 2500. You must bring
65 copies of your testimony. Speaker order will be posted in Room 2C at
12:45 P.M.
While the 2005 battle for
marriage protection in Connecticut is just beginning, this first round
is crucial. Whether we succeed or fail in preserving society’s
most important institution for the well-being of children will depend
largely on the willingness of you, the pro-family citizens of
Connecticut, to stand up and make your voice be heard. Won’t you
please join us?
Posted at 12:03 P.M.
February 2
CANADIANS WANT TO PRESERVE MARRIAGE [Ken Von Kohorn]
According to today's National Post,
Canadians overwhelmingly want to maintain the definition of marriage as
between one man and one woman — and they would prefer a
referendum rather than letting Parliament decide the definition
marriage for them. Here is an excerpt:
As MPs begin debating the
government's same-sex marriage bill, a healthy majority of Canadians
would actually prefer to see the contentious issue decided by a
country-wide referendum, a new National Post/Global National poll
suggests.
More than two-thirds said they
would prefer a direct say on the gay marriage question, rather than a
free vote in Parliament that lets politicians act according to their
conscience, the survey indicates.
And the poll suggests the
same-sex legislation might go down to defeat in a plebiscite, with 66%
saying they support keeping the definition of marriage as being between
one man and one woman.
Sounds more than a little like our prescription for Connecticut: Let the People Decide.
Posted at 11:08 A.M.
February 1
EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH HEARING [Brian Brown]
The Public Health Committee of
the Connecticut General Assembly held a hearing yesterday on whether
the state should give $10 million of our — the taxpayer’s
— money to embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). The Hartford Courant’s article
on the hearing was notable for its fairness and balance, and for
stating clearly what ESCR supporters are trying to hide: that the
proposed bill “endorses cloning as a means to obtain embryonic
human stem cells.” It also requires the destruction of the cloned
embryos, which is why we rightly call it a “clone and kill”
bill.
The hearing began with a panel of
three pro-ESCR speakers. Paul Pescatello of Connecticut United for
Research Excellence (CURE), a lobbying group established to build up
the state’s economy, said the bill was about “bricks and
mortar” — the building of research centers. Dr. Dianne
Krause of Yale — perhaps the most heavily endowed university in
the nation — worried that Yale’s ESC researchers would be
hired away by other schools if $10 million of taxpayer funds were not
forthcoming (actually, she called the $10 million figure “a nice
start”). Nicole Phaneuf, whose five year old daughter has
juvenile diabetes, unintentionally provided heartbreaking evidence of
how the biotech industry is misleading people. “Embryonic stem
cell research is our only hope,” she testified. “Without
this, we have no hope.”
During the Q and A with the
pro-ESCR panel, Rep. Mary Ann Carson (R-New Fairfield) zeroed in on Dr.
Krause’s definition of cloning as beginning at implantation.
“The word ‘cloning’ just has too many
meanings,” said Krause, who believes the human embryo is not a
human being prior to implantation. Under questioning from Rep. Carson,
however, Dr. Krause conceded that if the same embryos she wishes to
experiment on are implanted, they could continue to grow into human
beings.
The highlight of the hearing was
the testimony of Dr. Micheline Mathews-Roth, a professor of medicine
from Harvard who spoke for the pro-life panel that followed the
pro-ESCR panel. Dr. Mathews-Roth stated what should be obvious: to
obtain embryonic stem cells, you need to destroy a 5-7 day old human.
“That is a fact of science, not religious belief.” She
quoted several biology textbooks to support her statement.
A slight, elderly woman, Dr.
Mathews-Roth was nonetheless a whirlwind of intellectual clarity. The
only way to get embryonic stem cells, she said, is to “break
open” the embryo, killing it. “They are whole, intact
members of our species. This is a fact of embryology.” She noted
that injection of embryonic stem cells can cause immunological
rejections in patients and other problems that are not present with
adult stem cells.
Ethically, she said, patients in
a hypothetically successful ESCR experiment should be informed that a
very young human is being killed to treat them. “Otherwise, the
doctor is intellectually dishonest.” Because some patients may
not wish to have other people killed in order to treat them, lack of
full disclosure could lead to lawsuits. She noted that the CURE
handouts on ESCR fail to be forthright about this. “CURE ought to
say ‘we think killing humans is justified’ and give the
reasons.” ESCR, she said, amounts to the ultimate age
discrimination, saying that the youngest human lives are not worth
preserving. “Does Connecticut really want to sanction the
practice of deliberately starting the lives of members of our own
species for the purpose of harvesting their parts?” Dr.
Mathews-Roth noted that the Iacocca foundation is funding adult stem
cell research that could help the little girl with juvenile diabetes
whose mother testified earlier. “Isolating embryonic stem cell
research,” on the other hand, “does kill a growing human.
And that’s pretty awful.”
The Rev. Ted Tumicki of the
Diocese of Norwich, a moral theologian, underlined the ethical
questions raised by the bill. Would you create your own twin and kill
him for his stem cells? How about human/animal hybrids? How about your
own biological child? “The bill answers ‘yes’ to all
these questions.” Fr. Tumicki noted that the bill’s review
provisions leave too many questions unanswered and amounts to a rubber
stamp. “This is a fast bill. We need a good bill.”
Individual testimonies following
the two panels began with Connecticut’s pro-abortion Lieutenant
Governor, Kevin Sullivan, who accused pro-lifers of putting out
“massive amounts of disinformation” regarding ESCR. But if
this were true, wouldn’t pro-ESCR legislators have exposed the
misinformation during their question and answer session with the
pro-life panel? During the Q and A with the pro-life panel, however,
the only adversarial questions asked by legislators were the usual
chestnuts about favoring one religion over another and philosophical
disagreements over when human life begins. Not one pro-ESCR legislator
challenged the pro-life panel on an item of
“disinformation.” But during the Q and A with the pro-ESCR
panel, Rep. Carson exposed Dr. Krause’s false claim that the bill
forbids cloning.
The only people putting out
“massive amounts of disinformation” in this debate are
working on behalf of the clone and kill bill, not against it. FIC will
continue to support the honest side in this debate as they strive to
prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to deliberately destroy human
life.
Posted at 4:45 P.M.
January 31
SOCIETY HAS STAKE IN STEM CELL DEBATE [Brian Brown]
In about a half hour from now,
the Public Health Committee will be holding a hearing on whether to use
our tax dollars to fund the cloning and killing of human embryos in
order to experiment on the embryos’ genetic material. If you can
still make it to the hearing, please do come. We need to pack the room
with citizens who value the sanctity of all human life, including the
embryo.
People like the family mentioned in today’s New Haven Register article
are being misled. Embryonic stem cells have not been demonstrated to be
of any medical value. The bio-tech industry is raising false hopes in
order to secure funding from the public which they cannot get from the
private sector, where savvy venture capitalists refuse to invest in
something that does not work. Meanwhile, adult and umbilical cord
stem-cell research, which has produced results, gets very little public
funding. The drive to use taxpayer dollars for embryonic stem cell
research is driven by ideology, not science.
We all have a stake in the outcome of this debate, because we as a society will have to live with the results.
Posted at 10:05 A.M.
January 28
BREAKING…SAME-SEX “MARRIAGE” BILL RAISED [Brian Brown]
A bill legalizing same-sex
“marriage” in Connecticut was referred to the Joint
Committee on the Judiciary today. No hearing has been set. You can read
S.B. 963, “An Act Concerning Marriage Equality,” by
clicking here.
As promised by Love Makes a
Family — and lamented by its allies — S.B. 963 is the most
extremist pro same-sex “marriage” bill imaginable. It
legalizes “marriage” for “any two
persons…regardless of the sex.” It removes the words
“bride and groom” from the current statute and replaces it
with “both persons.” It adds language listing various types
of families that are in “the best interests of the child”
while omitting any mention of a child’s need for both a mom and a
dad. It removes the statutory language declaring Connecticut’s
public policy to be that marriage is between a man and a woman. It is,
in short, the most “in-your-face” pro same-sex
“marriage” bill ever devised by Connecticut’s radical
anti-family elites.
This battle is just beginning. I
will be sending an e-mail alert to all of our supporters next week on
what they can do to stop this effort to destroy marriage and to get a
vote on a marriage protection amendment. We need your support, your
activism and your prayers to convince the politicians to let the people
decide the future of marriage in Connecticut.
Posted at 1:56 P.M.
ANOTHER GREAT MOMENT IN CONN. JOURNALISM [Brian Brown]
On Jan. 21st I blogged about the Courant’s
article on the “historic” importance of a lesbian police
recruit declaring her sexual orientation to fellow recruits who already
knew she was a lesbian. Today’s Courant brings us another great moment in Connecticut journalism. In a photo and article that takes up half a page in its West Hartford edition, the Courant
informs its readers that “about 30 people” at a UCC church
in New Britain held a candlelight vigil to “say all are welcome
[here], and in particular the gay community.”
The vigil was prompted by
television controversies involving homosexuality, including the
decision by two networks to reject a UCC ad that depicts homosexuals
attending a UCC church after being rejected at other churches. But that
ad makes the same error the vigil attendees do and the networks were
right to reject it. There’s a difference between faithfully
upholding the scriptural prohibitions against homosexual activity and
forbidding those with such inclinations from entering your church. No
pro-family church does the latter. The implication, in both the ad and
the vigil, that pro-family churches are bigoted is a slur.
Today’s article begins by
quoting the thoughts of a 12-year-old vigil attendee who
“isn’t quite sure how she feels about the whole
debate” regarding homosexuality and the church. The photo in the Courant’s print edition depicts one 14-year-old and four 12-year-olds holding candles at the vigil.
One has to wonder about a
movement that puts 12-year-olds in front of the media to discuss their
thoughts about homosexuality. In fact, one has to wonder about a
movement that thinks the rejection of a TV ad and the criticism of a
cartoon is a good reason for a vigil.
Posted at 12:25 P.M.
January 27
DR. FRANKENSTEIN WANTS YOUR TAX DOLLARS [Brian Brown]
The following information was
received from the CT Catholic Conference. As I mentioned in
today’s e-mail alert, we need as many people as possible to
testify at Monday’s hearing if we want to stop the government
from using our tax dollars to fund “clone and kill”
research on embryonic human beings.
ACTION ALERT
January 31, 2005 Public Hearing On EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH
A public hearing on legislation
for State support, including State Funding, of embryonic stem cell
research has been scheduled by the Public Health Committee. Bill number
SB934.
The hearing will be held on January 31, 2005, at 10:30 a.m., in the
Legislative Office Building, Room 1D. Sign-up begins at 9:00 a.m. If
possible, please bring 40 copies of testimony. Please try to attend
this hearing and express your opposition to human embryonic cloning and
embryonic research.
Bill overview/issues.
1. The bill does not completely
ban human cloning. The human embryo is by its very nature human and
this bill clearly allows for the creation and destruction of human
embryos for the harvesting of stem cells. It allows for the taking of
these cells well into the embryonic stage of development. It is
commonly mentioned that the cells are extracted in the first 4 -7 days
of growth. However, this bill allows the harvesting of embryonic stem
cells up to at least the first 20-22 days of growth and potentially
even longer based on language interpretation.
2. The bill does not ban invitro
fertilization of a woman for the purpose of harvesting embryonic stem
cells from aborted embryos or fetuses for the purpose of research.
3. The bill allocates $10
million over two years for the purpose of embryonic and adult stem cell
research. However, the bill does not setup any ethical standards for
who can sit on the advisory board that oversees the funding. Can people
who have financial self interests in this research be able to sit on
the advisory board? Will the board be dominated by embryonic stem celll
supporters resulting in very little funding for adult stem cell
research?
Contact your State Senator and Representative, and especially members of the Public Health Committee
,to express your opposition to this type of stem cell research. The
Catholic Church fully supports adult stem cell research which is
already in the human trial stages on many illnesses. The immoral
destruction of human life (the embyro) for research purposes is not
necessary.
For more information visit our website or click here.
Posted at 2:51 P.M.
“LOVE MAKES A FAMILY” GOES OFF THE DEEP END [Brian Brown]
Dispirited by pro-family
victories on the national scene, local pro same-sex
“marriage” activists have claimed their cause will fare
better here, on what they have dubbed “Planet Connecticut.”
Now, even Love Makes a Family’s own allies are beginning to
wonder if the group is from another world.
You could almost hear the disappointed sigh in the Courant’s headline today: “Tactic May Stall Bid for Civil Unions.” According to the article,
Love Makes a Family (LMF), the main pro same-sex “marriage”
lobbying group in Connecticut, has made a “controversial
decision” to launch “an all-or-nothing” campaign to
legalize same-sex “marriage,” rather than “civil
unions.”
LMF’s decision has distressed its allies in the legislature:
"We have a real opportunity to
pass a civil union bill this year with all the rights of marriage. The
position taken by Love Makes a Family puts that at risk," [Rep.
Cameron] Staples [D-New Haven] said. "I was disappointed."
Even Rep. Staples and the Courant
are beginning to realize that Love Makes a Family is an extremist
organization. But they should not be surprised by LMF’s position.
It follows naturally from the group’s misreading of Connecticut
public opinion on same-sex “marriage.” Pro same-sex
“marriage” legislators and the Courant are aghast
at LMF’s “all or nothing” push for same-sex
“marriage” because they are slightly more tethered to
reality. LMF, on the other hand, may really believe its own spin about
the fictional “Planet Connecticut,” a land where an
“enlightened” majority favors same-sex
“marriage.”
If so, Connecticut’s pro same-sex “marriage” media establishment bears some of the blame. Today’s Courant
piece, for instance, uncritically touts a UConn poll purporting to show
that a majority of state residents favor civil unions and a plurality
favors same-sex “marriage.” Then, regarding LMF’s
current campaign, the paper adds:
A same-sex marriage bill faces
seemingly insurmountable hurdles: The legislation would originate in
the judiciary committee, where it probably would be defeated, and Gov.
M. Jodi Rell is strongly opposed to gay marriage.
First, some polls are more
reliable than others. Who now remembers the UConn poll of a few years
ago that supposedly proved that the people of Connecticut wanted higher
taxes? The poll’s credibility collapsed after Courant columnist Laurence Cohen examined the wording of the questions. The same thing happened when I wrote an op-ed for the Courant exposing a bogus poll commissioned by Love Makes a Family.
Second, Gov. Rell’s opposition is not limited to same-sex “marriage.” On Dec. 10, the New Haven Register published this:
On the issue of gay marriage, Rell said she does not favor it.
"I’m an old-fashioned
person when it comes to that. I believe in marriage between a man and a
woman." Rell also questioned the need for civil unions.
"I’m not sure what it
would accomplish," she said, pointing to protections already in place
allowing gay couples to adopt children, as well as to have access for
hospital visits.
"I think we have gone a long way in changing the statutes to address those concerns," she said.
So far, Gov. Rell’s opposition to civil unions has been noted twice in the Courant:
in a sidebar published in tiny print and in a letter to the editor that
appeared on a Saturday. In its two major same-sex
“marriage” articles published since Gov. Rell made those
comments — on page A1 and B1 — the Courant behaves as if she never said it. It is this type of slanted reporting that has led Love Makes a Family down a blind alley.
Further, the Courant piece
does not engage the issue. Same-sex “marriage” is wrong
because it would create permanent and obligatory motherlessness or
fatherlessness for children who need both a mom and a dad. The
disastrous consequences of the divorce revolution of the 1970’s
have taught us not to engage in vast, untested social experiments with
children. If same-sex “marriage” is legalized, further
distortions of marriage — such as polygamy — will become
inevitable. Schools would indoctrinate children with a societal
redefinition of marriage, regardless of parental opposition.
Although it looks like Love Makes
a Family has come off the rails, pro-family supporters must remain
vigilant. Pro same-sex “marriage” Rep. Michael Lawlor says
he does not “rule out offering a civil-union bill.” Despite
the “all or nothing” rhetoric, if LMF fails to make headway
on same-sex “marriage,” they could back Rep. Lawlor’s
civil unions bill at the last minute, claiming that they are
“moderating” their position and are willing to accept a
“compromise.”
But it would not be a compromise
at all. Civil unions are same-sex “marriage” by a different
name. We are fighting to protect the institution of marriage, not just
the name. If civil unions are legalized in Connecticut, as LMF knows,
state courts may seize on it as a pretext to impose same-sex
“marriage,” claiming a violation of the
constitution’s “equal protection” clause.
The Family Institute of
Connecticut and our supporters will continue the fight against the
destruction of marriage, regardless of whether its supporters refer to
the radical redefinition they seek as same-sex “marriage”
or “civil unions.” And we will continue to fight for the
right to have a vote on a marriage protection amendment to our state
constitution. For there to be a final resolution of this issue, the
politicians must let the people decide the future of marriage in
Connecticut.
Posted at 1:55 P.M.
January 26
“NO NAME-CALLING WEEK” [Brian Brown]
5,100 middle school teachers in
36 states have signed onto “No Name-Calling Week,” an
initiative of the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network to stop
what they believe to be an epidemic of verbal abuse against homosexual
students. It’s a truism that people ought to respect one another
and not engage in name-calling. But, as an editorial in the Waterbury Republican-American notes:
The irony of GLSEN's involvement
here is homosexual activists are knee-jerk name-callers. If anyone
speaks out against homosexual marriage, for example, GLSEN and its ilk
do not attempt to rebut their arguments, but rather immediately brand
them as homophobes, as if the principled belief that marriage should be
reserved for one man and one woman is based on irrational fear of
homosexuals.
That hypocrisy has been evident
here in Connecticut, as I noted in my Dec. 16th blog. In fact, we
received so much hate mail from same-sex “marriage”
supporters recently that we created a new feature on the home page, Comments from Our “Tolerant” Opposition,
so the public could see it for themselves. If the pro same-sex
“marriage” movement really wants to reduce intolerance in
our society, they could start by confronting the hate coming from some
of their own members.
Posted at 10:25 A.M.
January 25
A CAUTION ON HIGHER EDUCATION [Ken Von Kohorn]
Some of our readers may have
heard about the scolding Harvard president Lawrence Summers has
received from academia for even suggesting that there may be innate
differences between men and women's brains, when it comes to math,
science and engineering. One of our favorite commentators, Dennis
Prager, has published a column
today about this incident that is well worth reading — especially
if you have children nearing college age. Some excerpts:
Outside of the university, most
people know that men and women are innately different, that they
therefore have some different innate abilities, and that the latest
research shows that the two sexes actually have physically different
brain structure and composition.
But such empirical truths are not utterable in the most intellectually closed places in America — our universities.
To come to realize that the
highest institutions of learning often do not value learning but seek
to propagandize their children (largely against everything they, the
parents, believe in) is too painful. Most people can't confront the
fact that, unless their child is studying the natural sciences, they
have paid huge sums of money for their child to be able to share
bathrooms with members of the opposite sex, read columns in college
newspapers about American evil and tongue techniques for better oral
sex, binge drink, and with a few noble exceptions, be propagandized.
As readers are aware, this year
I am writing a series of columns making the case for Judeo-Christian
values. The secular university provides one of the most cogent
arguments for those values: This institution, which is the most opposed
to Judeo-Christian values, is also the least committed to truth.
An excellent source of valuable
information about the educational atmosphere and political climate on
many college campuses is ISI's Choosing the Right College 2005.
Posted at 10:25 A.M.
CONN. POST BREAKS FROM THE PACK [Brian Brown]
It’s unusual for a
Connecticut newspaper to publish an unbiased article on the concerns of
local pro-lifers. It’s even more unusual for that paper to do it
twice in one week. The CT Post’s willingness to do so puts it head and shoulders above the pack. Two excerpts from today’s article:
Most of the region's news organizations, including the Connecticut Post, devoted prominent coverage Thursday to an incident in Seymour in which a man cut six puppies' throats.
[Wrote in a pro-lifer:] "This
week in Bridgeport alone about 21 innocent children were brutally
murdered on Main Street [the location of the Summit Women's (abortion)
Clinic]. Did they receive front-page coverage? Have we become so
accustomed to legalized child killing that it doesn't bother us any
more?"
To read the whole article, click here.
Posted at 9:36 A.M.
January 24
FAMILY-FRIENDLY SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM [Brian Brown]
President Bush’s goal of
reforming social security has been much discussed in the news lately.
Less discussed has been the role played by families with children in
supporting social security and the burdens the current system places on
them. The Courant helps to correct that omission today by
running Philip Longman’s excellent op-ed on the topic. As Longman
notes, it is children that ultimately finance the system and “the
only true solution is to ease the burdens on today’s parents that
are driving down birthrates…”
Yet parents get no compensation
from Social Security, nor from the wider economy, for the investments
they make in their children. Instead, Social Security pays the same
benefits, and often more, to people who avoid the burdens of
parenthood. So long as Social Security effectively penalizes people for
having the very children the system requires, it contributes to a
downward spiral of falling birthrates leading to higher and higher tax
rates.
To read the whole article, click here.
Posted at 10:03 A.M.
January 21
“HISTORIC” MOMENT FOR CT STATE POLICE [Brian Brown]
Stop the presses! Something big occurred in the history of Connecticut law enforcement yesterday:
"That was a very first for our
organization. We struck history today with the Connecticut State
Police," said Carney, of the Springfield Police Department.
What was it, you ask? Have the
state police done something about the 7.3% crime increase in
Connecticut’s capital city? Have they single handedly reduced
Hartford’s ranking as the seventh most dangerous city in America?
Well, no. But a police recruit
“came out” during a diversity training course to fellow
recruits who already knew she was a lesbian. The Courant apparently shares Detective Carney’s assessment of the importance of this event, at least enough to publish an article about it.
Meanwhile, the Louisiana Supreme
Court ruling upholding that state’s marriage protection
amendment? The federal judge in Florida who upheld the
constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act? The Courant has yet to print a word about either decision this week.
Posted at 2:43 P.M.
January 20
RARE SIGHTINGS OF AN ENDANGERED SPECIES [Brian Brown]
On Dec. 1st in this space I mentioned Anchor Rising, the conservative Rhode Island blog run by Justin Katz. Today, Justin posts his interview with Jeff Jacoby, the Boston Globe’s
lone conservative columnist. It’s subtitled, naturally, “An
American Conservative in New England.” Considering all my
blogging about the Courant, I found this exchange interesting:
AR. You've written a number of
straightforward and obfuscation-dispelling columns about same-sex
marriage. To my experience that's a particularly rare action for a
member of the New England media. In Rhode Island, for example, the news
department of the Providence Journal has practically advocated
for same-sex marriage, and even conservative talk radio hosts claim an
inability to see anything wrong with it. Why do you think something so
clear to you and me barely seems to register as a real argument among
New England opinion makers?
JJ. Same-sex marriage, like the
mainstreaming — even celebrating — of homosexuality
generally, is one of those ideas that you have to believe in to be in the media or opinion elite, especially in a blue state. Just as you have to believe that the United States is a rogue nation led by a crazed cowboy, just as you have
to believe that there is no more fundamental qualification for a
federal judge than unblinking support for easy abortion, so you have
to believe that the understanding of marriage that has prevailed for
5,000 years is a manifestation of ignorant redneck bigotry. Maybe it's
a question of DNA. Or maybe it really is true that we come from utterly
different origins: Conservatives are from Mars, liberals are from San
Francisco.
To read the full interview with one of New England’s most thoughtful conservatives, click here.
Posted at 3:03 P.M.
COURANT COVERAGE IS SELECTIVE [Brian Brown]
It is worth noting whenever the
Rev. William DuBovik, longtime pastor of one of Hartford’s most
thriving Eastern Orthodox parishes, has a letter in the Courant. Here’s his latest:
Abortion Coverage Is Selective
How sadly ironic that at a time
when people are correctly questioning the propriety of capital
punishment and when we collectively mourn the victims of the tsunami
disasters, a group at Yale University is staging a film festival to
promote the right to kill unborn babies, and The Courant gives it
plenty of free publicity [Life section, Jan. 17, "Abortion Rights
Subject Of Films"]. One wonders whether The Courant will give news
coverage to the thousands who will gather in Washington on Jan. 24 for
the annual March For Life.
All life is sacred, and although
pregnancy, giving birth and raising children present challenges and
require sacrifice, these are not justifications to end life and thus
deprive oneself of the joy of participating in God's creative acts.
The argument that this is about
freedom falls short because no one is compelling someone to become
pregnant. However, once a new life enters the picture, one's
responsibilities do change.
The Rev. William DuBovik, Hartford
The writer is pastor of All Saints Orthodox Church in Hartford.
Fr. DuBovik’s concern about the Courant’s
coverage is a familiar one to readers of this blog. And, in addition to
the items mentioned by Fr. DuBovik, or previously on this blog, we can
now add one more.
Yesterday, the Louisiana Supreme
Court unanimously upheld as constitutional the marriage protection
amendment that was passed last year by 78% of the state’s voters.
There is not a single mention of it in today’s Courant.
Does anyone doubt that if the Louisiana decision had gone the other
way, news of it would have been prominently featured in the paper?
Posted at 11:35 A.M.
January 19
“THE HEART OF AMERICA IS CHANGING” [Brian Brown]
This Saturday marks the 32nd
anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the infamous Supreme Court decision
legalizing abortion. The pro-life movement in Connecticut has never had
it easy, but we still manage to achieve some successes, as the
Connecticut Post reports today:
That would bring to 1,335 the
number of women talked out of aborting their pregnancies at Summit [the
Bridgeport abortion clinic] during the past 15 years, according to
Marilyn Carroll of Milford and Carmen Lopez of West Haven, who head the
Connecticut chapter of Operation Save America.
"Not one is sorry she kept her baby," said Carroll, whose group offers the women help with food, clothing and counseling.
Rev. Flip Benham is quoted in the
article noting that abortion clinics in the U.S. have declined from
2,000 in 1991 to 726 today. “The heart of America is
changing,” he says.
We need to change the heart of Connecticut, too. Visit the events page
of FIC’s website for information about the Hartford March for
Life. We will post news of other pro-life events as information becomes
available.
Posted at 10:28 A.M.
January 18
PETITION DRIVES, THEN & NOW [Brian Brown]
Most Mass-attending Connecticut
Catholics are choosing not to sign the Church’s petition for the
repeal of the state’s death penalty law, according to a front page article by Mark Azarra in the Republican-American today. Azarra asks Fairfield University professor Paul Lakeland to comment:
Low petition turnout or not,
"the bishops themselves are going to keep hammering away on the death
penalty," Lakeland said. But, he added, "if they don't do well on this
it may chasten them on what issues they bring (to parishes) for signup"
in the future.
This is wishful thinking on the
part of pro same-sex “marriage” activists, including
Lakeland, a “liberation theologian” who dissents from
Church teachings on human sexuality. Two years ago the Catholic Church
in Connecticut worked with other denominations and the Family Institute
of Connecticut on a petition drive that generated 90,000 signatures
calling for a state Defense of Marriage Act. In fact, it was the laity
who approached the bishops for permission to conduct the Catholic
portion of the marriage protection petition drive in the first place.
In the fight for faith and family in Connecticut, we know we can count
on the Catholic Church to be among our strongest allies.
Posted at 11:10 A.M.
January 17
UNITE FOR LIFE [Brian Brown]
The Courant has another editorial
today praising the efforts of pro-abortion lawmakers who want to use
our tax dollars to kill human embryos in order to experiment on them.
While the Courant diligently notifies its readers every time an anti-death penalty event or a pro-abortion film festival
is scheduled, today’s editorial neglected to mention that a
public hearing on legislation regarding embryonic stem cell research
will take place Jan. 31st.
FIC encourages the entire
pro-family movement to get active in the effort to stop our tax dollars
from being used to kill embryonic human beings. We should not let
pro-abortion advocates demagogue the pro-life cause as some mere
idiosyncratic Catholic belief. Too often in the media’s coverage
of the stem cell debate, that is exactly what they have done.
Let’s show them that the movement to protect embryonic human life
is as broad and diverse as the movement for the protection of marriage.
Below is the relevant information, courtesy of the Connecticut Catholic
Conference.
ACTION ALERT
EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH
A public hearing on legislation
for State support, including State Funding, of embryonic stem cell
research has been scheduled by the Public Health Committee. The hearing
will be held on January 31, 2005, at 10:00 a.m., in the Legislative
Office Building, Room 1D. The exact language of the bill is not yet
available. Please try to attend this hearing and express your
opposition to human embryonic cloning and embryonic research.
Contact your State Senator and
Representative to express your opposition to this type of stem cell
research. The Catholic Church fully supports adult stem cell research
which is already in the human trial stages on many illnesses. The
immoral destruction of human life (the embyro) for research purposes is
not necessary.
For more information visit our website or click here.
Watch for future updates on this issue.
Posted at 10:40 A.M.
January 14
EAST LYME UPDATE [Brian Brown]
On Jan. 4 in this space, I
blogged about how parishioners at St. Agnes Church were fighting back
against the efforts of a homosexual couple to make the church remove
its “Defend Marriage Now!” banner. The men’s efforts
included a media campaign against the church and an attempt by the town
government to force the pastor to remove the banner. Parishioners
struck back, with an article, an op-ed (re-printed on this blog) and
five letters to the editor in the Lyme Times.
In the Jan. 7th issue of that
paper (not available online), pro same-sex “marriage”
activists return fire. In an op-ed, “St Agnes Crosses Free-Speech
Line,” John de la Roche claims the banner “does more than
exercise their [the parishioners] right to free speech. The banner is
offensive to its neighbors” and these parishioners have therefore
“crossed the line.”
But if free speech is only
permitted as long as it offends no one, then there is no right to free
speech. Perhaps that is exactly what de la Roche is trying to say. Our
opponents often suggest that merely stating opposition to their goals
is the equivalent of a hate crime. For all their talk about civil
rights, they seem not to believe in either the “free
exercise” of religion clause in the First Amendment or in the
free speech clause.
The same Jan. 7th issue includes
three pro same-sex “marriage” letters to the editor. My
favorite is by Gretchen Raffa, an official with the CT chapter of the
pro-abortion group NARAL Pro-Choice America, who describes FIC as
believing that "children benefit only from a family defined by a mother and father figure [emphasis added].”
Actually, FIC believes that children do best
in a family with a mother and a father, not a mother and father
“figure.” One has to wonder about the ability of our
opponents to engage us in a civil debate when they cannot even manage
to state our positions accurately.
Posted at 10:10 A.M.
January 13
FAST TRACK TO INHUMANITY [Brian Brown]
Connecticut is on the “fast
track” toward using taxpayer dollars to clone and kill human
embryos in order to experiment on their genetic material. Of course, yesterday’s Courant article
puts it differently, describing a “scientific gold rush”
set off by California’s decision to give $3 billion to embryonic
stem-cell research, which will supposedly lead to cures for any number
of diseases.
It’s interesting that the Courant’s
stem cell coverage always mentions the effect California’s
decision will allegedly have on our state’s politics, but its
coverage of same-sex “marriage” never suggests the
13-out-of-13 state vote for marriage protection amendments will matter
here. And while the paper gives fawning coverage to the Catholic
Church’s opposition to the death penalty, it sounds like an
anthropologist explaining the strange beliefs of an alien tribe when
reporting on Catholic opposition to the destruction of human embryos:
Marie T. Hilliard of the
Connecticut Catholic Conference said her group is opposed to the
measure because embryonic stem cells are obtained through the
destruction of days-old embryos. Since the Roman Catholic church
believes life begins at conception, her group equates the destruction
of the embryos to sacrificing children, she said.
In addition to being inhumane,
embryonic stem cell research is inefficient. Why is it that scientists
have been able to raise private funds for adult stem cell research and
not embryonic stem cell research? Because only the former is producing
results and venture capitalists aren’t going to waste their money
on what doesn’t work. No, for that, we have the government. And
your wallet.
Posted at 10:52 A.M.
January 11
YOUR VOICE MATTERS [Brian Brown]
The U.S. Supreme Court has
refused to invalidate a Florida law that prevents homosexual couples
from adopting children, according to an AP article in today’s Courant. Here’s the money quote:
"This shows the justices clearly
want to give gay rights a rest, at least for this term," said David
Garrow, a constitutional expert and historian. Garrow said Justice
Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the 2003 opinion, and the justices who
supported it may have sensed a strong backlash lurking behind the
Florida case, which brought gay rights together with children and
family issues.
There is a lesson here for those
of us fighting for marriage in Connecticut. Our voice counts. Despite
all the false spin from the other side on how the alleged need for
same-sex “marriage” should trump the will of the majority,
if enough of us raise our voices in protest, it won’t happen.
Even the supposedly apolitical courts will back off.
But the question remains: will we
raise our voices? Will the many citizens of Connecticut that are
pro-family finally rise up and demand that the legislature and the
courts respect the sanctity of marriage? If we wait until something big
happens — until the legislature legalizes civil unions or the
state court hearing the Kerrigan case imposes same-sex “marriage on us — it may be too late. The time to speak up is now.
If you know someone who believes
in our cause but has yet to join the fight, encourage him or her to
visit FIC’s website and sign up now. The situation at our state
capitol is dire. We cannot hope to turn the tide unless we draw enough
new members to our cause to have the same affect on our state
government that the pro-family movement had on the Court that refused
to invalidate the Florida adoption law.
Posted at 9:50 A.M.
January 10
TESTING THE WATERS [Brian Brown]
“All we’re asking for
is ‘civil’ marriage, not ‘religious’ marriage.
We would never try to impose our will on the churches.”
How often have we heard pro
same-sex “marriage” activists make this claim? Perhaps some
of them even believe it. If so, they should read the Chicago Tribune article that appears in today’s Waterbury Republican-American.
At a Catholic school in Costa Mesa, CA. the pastor has allowed the sons
of a homosexual couple to be students there — despite a letter
from eighteen parents complaining about their presence. As the article
delicately puts it:
The case, along with a similar
one at another Roman Catholic school, have raised questions about the
church's policies regarding the education of children of same-sex
couples.
In that other case, a lesbian
couple is suing a Catholic parish in Eugene, OR. for $550,000 because
the school refused to admit their adopted daughter. The objecting
parents at the Costa Mesa school felt their children could not receive
full-fledged instruction on faith with the two boys in the school. They
said they could not see how a teacher could fully explain the church's
policies on homosexuals without causing the two boys anxiety over their
fathers' lifestyle.
But their feelings — and
those of the Oregon parish — don’t matter to a movement
that, at least here in Connecticut, still claims not to be opposed to
religious liberty:
Martha Walters, [the lesbian
couple’s] attorney, said that under local ordinances the school,
although private, is a place of public accommodation.
"It is like a restaurant," she said. "It is a private business, but the public has access…"
Gay and lesbian advocates said
they expect church school access to be a growing cause of concern among
same-sex couples with children.
"All parents, gay or straight,
want a quality education for their children," said David Tseng, an
attorney in Washington who had worked with Parents Families and Friends
of Lesbians and Gays, a national advocacy group.
"We are at the cutting edge of a civil rights movement," he said. "There are people out there testing the waters."
Make no mistake. Their claims to
the contrary notwithstanding, if local activists succeed in bringing
same-sex “marriage” to Connecticut, the religious freedom
of those opposed to it will be their next target. After all, what does
the First Amendment matter when up against “the cutting edge of a
civil rights movement?”
Posted at 11:10 A.M.
January 7
MEDIA NOTICES SOMETHING GOOD [Brian Brown]
I’ve had occasion —
ok, lots of occasions — to comment on local media bias against
people of traditional faith. But I am interested in noting those
instances when the press does cover the good work being done by our
friends and allies. Such is the case with a piece in the Connecticut Post today
about the efforts of Milford’s Kingdom Life Christian Church to
provide relief to the victims of the tsunami in Asia. A tip of the hat
to the Post for covering this story and to Bishop Jay Ramirez, a friend
of FIC, for providing another example of Christian love to a secular
world. And, of course, we offer our prayers for all those still
suffering from this horrible calamity.
Posted at 1:13 P.M.
January 6
FAIR AND BALANCED? [Brian Brown]
The Catholic Church in
Connecticut will be holding a petition drive this weekend asking
parishioners to oppose the death penalty, according to a front page article in the Courant. The Republican-American also has a front page piece on the petition drive (not available online).
I do not mention this in order to
comment on the death penalty. What I find notable is the media coverage
regarding this new petition drive. Beginning in Nov., 2002, the
Catholic Church and FIC worked together on the largest petition drive
in state history—90,000 signatures so far—calling on our
legislators to enact a Defense of Marriage Act. At the time, the Courant ran a brief item about our effort on the back page of its news section.
But the anti-death penalty drive makes the front page. In fact, the Courant
considers it as important as Gov. Rell's State of the State address,
since those are the only two items to get "above the fold" attention on
today's front page. The article itself seems designed to increase the
public's awareness of, and participation in, the anti-death penalty
cause. From reading the piece we learn, for instance, that: 1) There
will be a petition available to sign this weekend. 2) There will be a
press conference on the state Capitol steps Wednesday. 3) There will be
a death penalty forum on Thursday, time and location provided. 4) There
will be a worship service the night before Michael Ross' execution,
time and location provided. And: 5) There will be a prayer vigil a few
hours prior to the execution, time and location provided.
Some time toward the end of this
legislative session the pro-family movement will be holding another
Marriage Protection Weekend, complete with events occurring throughout
the state. Can we count on the Courant to give our events the
same level of free advertising that it gave to the anti-death penalty
cause? Of course not. And the mainstream media still wonders why
everyone thinks they're biased.
Posted at 11:00 A.M.
January 5
BREAKING…GOV. RELL CONCLUDES “STATE OF THE STATE” SPEECH [Brian Brown]
Gov. Rell just finished her first
major address to the legislature. She listed the issues she considered
to be most pressing for this session. They included the budget, medical
malpractice reform, embryonic stem cell research — but not civil unions. Gov. Rell, I believe, does not want that bill on her desk any more than we do.
Her speech included many
uplifting passages about throwing off “the self-imposed shackle
of partisan politics” and working together. Most interestingly,
she talked about how her recent surgery for breast cancer has affected
her world view. Quoting from my notes:
“I have been unexpectedly
faced with my own mortality. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I am looking at
things a little differently now, with new eyes.”
As the session unfolds, we in the
pro-family movement will continue to hope that Gov. Rell’s new
take on things will include a reverence for marriage and the sanctity
of human life. On marriage, we have good reason to be hopeful.
Posted at 12:53 P.M.
I’M NOT ASHAMED [Brian Brown]
…to tell you that I will
be appearing on a public access program called “I’m Not
Ashamed.” The theme of the show is “God, Country and
Family” and it will begin airing on local stations next week.
Here’s a listing of where and when it airs:
- New Haven, Hamden, West Haven — Saturday night 8:00 pm Ch 27
- Soundview Media (Fairfield county) — Thursdays at 3:00 pm
- Comcast Middletown (Middlesex county) — Saturday nights 6:00 pm
- Comcast Danbury (Danbury, Ridgefield, Bethel, Brookfield) — Monday nights 9:00 pm
- BCTV (Branford) — Sundays 10:00 am
- Comcast Clinton (the shoreline from Branford, Guilford, Madison, etc.) — Monday nights 9:00 pm
- Charter Communications (Windham county) — Mondays at 9:30 pm
- Tele-Media (the valley towns- Derby, Ansonia, Oxford, Shelton, Seymour, Naugatuck, etc.) — Tuesdays at 6:00 pm
- ETV (East Haven) this studio runs the show 6 times a month usually toward the end of the month, no dates given.
- NHTV (North Haven) — same as above.
Posted at 11:05 A.M.
January 4
ST. AGNES PARISHIONERS FIGHT BACK [Brian Brown]
On Dec. 13th in this space I
wrote about a homosexual couple in East Lyme who had launched a
campaign to force St. Agnes Church to stop displaying FIC’s
“Defend Marriage Now!” banner. Their efforts included a
biased article in the Lyme Times and an attempt by the town government to curtail the church’s right of free speech.
The town’s effort at
censorship has not yet been successful and the media campaign has only
made the lay faithful of St. Agnes Parish angry. Perhaps sensing that
its previous article lacked balance, the Lyme Times ran a
second, less lopsided, piece in its Dec. 24th issue (not available
online). All five of the letters to the editor in that issue supported
the church’s right to hang that banner. In addition, the paper
ran an op-ed by John Sweeney, a Niantic resident, on the hypocrisy of
those attacking the banner. It is reprinted below, with the permission
of the author.
“Tolerance” as a Weapon of the Intolerant
by John Sweeney
I now know something I never
knew in the 13 years I have lived here. Apparently the entire town of
Niantic is a group of intolerant homophobes. We must be, if one pair of
homosexual partners is beginning to have “second thoughts”
about moving here because of a banner (“Gay Couple Offended by
Church Banner,” December 10th). And I always thought we were so
nice; how could I have missed this Nazi-like atmosphere?
East Lyme has just been painted
with the brush of intolerance by the Coalition of the Perpetually
Aggrieved, a loose confederation of professional victims trying to
intimidate a decent society in the name of “tolerance.” The
chief aim of the thin-skinned CPAs (with apologies to Certified Public
Accountants) is to claim their Constitutional right to never be
offended, by trampling on everyone’s actual Constitutional right
to free speech.
According to the story, gay sex
partners Joseph Smith and Joshua Parker, incorrectly described as
“newlyweds” (since their Vermont civil union is not legally
recognized in Connecticut), noticed a banner outside of St. Agnes
Church that read, "Defend Marriage Now! Join us in taking a stand for
marriage and the family!" The fairly innocuous banner, provided by the
Family Institute of Connecticut, sent these two into Code Red. Rather
than first speaking like mature adults to the church’s pastor,
Rev. Arthur Archer, they went straight to the newspaper to try to
publicly intimidate them into removing the banner. They also wrote a
scathing e-mail to Brian Brown, FIC’s executive director.
The Lyme Times implied that the
church caved in, by reporting that they removed the banner following a
reporter’s call about the pair’s complaint. However, Rev.
Archer explained to me that church policy places a time limit on
posting outside signage, and the time limit happened to coincide with
the complaint. To the church’s credit, the sign has since been
returned to a different location. It will remain there (unless it is
vandalized like the banners in six other towns by the
“tolerance” crowd) as long as their policy permits, and/or
until they are challenged by the East Lyme Zoning Commission, to whom
Parker and Smith have tattled.
This temper tantrum by Parker
and Smith exposes some issues about “tolerance” that we
should explore. In fact, their e-mail to the FIC has me a bit confused.
It appears that the language they used would fall under their own
definition of “intolerant.”
But maybe it’s just me, so I have some questions for the CPAs.
What is the definition of
tolerance, and how is your e-mail to FIC an example of that? In it, you
wrote, "Your so-called 'organization' sickens me and you are an
abomination…!” Is calling someone an abomination an
example of tolerance? The Bible calls homosexual acts an
“abomination to the Lord.” Is the word
“abomination” an example of tolerance in your e-mail but
not in the Bible?
Your e-mail continues, “I
think that you and all so-called 'Christians' should not spend all your
time trying to condemn gays or hating us because you too are also [sic]
committing a huge 'sin' by not practicing God's Word and loving thy
neighbor." Do you hate us because of that? If my disapproval of your
sin of homosexual activity is hatred, then is your disapproval of my
“huge sin” also hatred?
I felt offended by being called
an abomination. Should I not feel welcome in this town? Would you like
to see all Niantic citizens leave town, who think marriage is by
definition between one man and one woman?
To the pastor who said that
discrimination of any kind is against her church's baptismal covenant:
So you don’t discriminate at all? Would an adulterer lead your
young marrieds’ ministry? Would a pedophile teach Sunday school,
or an abusive alcoholic become the pastor? Do you require any kind of
special degree to become ordained? How does that work with your
baptismal covenant?
Another pastor indicated that
gay people wanting to commit themselves to a monogamous, faithful
relationship in marriage is acceptable. Could bisexuals be monogamous
and faithful to qualify for this definition of marriage? Please provide
a definition of marriage that doesn’t discriminate against anyone.
If a married parishioner was
involved in statutory rape, should either party be lovingly confronted,
or would that be hateful? Is it possible to accept and love someone
while not condoning their behavior? I don’t allow my children to
smoke; do I hate them?
Did Jesus ever tell anyone that He loved, to “go and sin no more”? Was He being hateful and discriminatory?
If someone writes an article
criticizing this editorial, should I feel threatened by their hatred
and make broad accusations against the whole town? I eagerly await your
answers.
John Sweeney lives in Niantic.
Posted at 10:12 A.M.
January 3, 2005
CONNECTICUT, 2005: THE BATTLE BEGINS [Brian Brown]
It’s a new year and a new
legislative session. Time to consider where things stand in the battle
to preserve marriage in the state of Connecticut.
On Jan. 1 the Hartford Courant launched a front page, above-the-fold pre-emptive strike for the legalization of civil unions, which is same-sex “marriage” by a different name. According to the Courant
“several legislative leaders say civil unions…are most
likely to win broad support in Connecticut.” These include
Republican House Minority Leader Bob Ward and Democrat House Majority
Leader Jim Amann, who says that for the first time “he expects a
spirited floor debate” on the issue. And there is this, from the
major champion for the destruction of marriage at our state legislature:
"Based on the election results
in Connecticut, it seems as though, at a minimum, [the legislature]
could support some type of civil union bill," said state Rep. Michael
Lawlor, D-East Haven. "I support marriage and I think that's where
we'll end up. The question is, how long does it take to get there?"
As everyone knows, the
state’s election results were about John Kerry, not same-sex
“marriage.” But that’s just one of the items the Courant
neglects to mention in its assessment of state public opinion on this
issue. The paper does not mention that in little more than a month
— November, 2002 — FIC and our allies collected 70,000
petitions calling for a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It does not
mention that on a freezing cold day — February 8, 2004 —
six thousand people rallied in front of the state capitol for the
passage of the DOMA. And, in its most glaring admission, the Courant
neglects to mention in its front page article that Gov. Rell —
who, with her 80% approval rating, knows where the people stand —
has spoken against civil unions. (The paper grudgingly acknowledged two
days later, in a sidebar on page B2, that the Governor was
“skeptical” about civil unions.)
Despite all this, the threat of a civil union bill being passed by this legislature is very real. As I said on Brad Davis’ radio program
this morning, the pro-same sex “marriage” groups have been
lobbying every day at our state’s capitol and they are making
progress. The people of Connecticut have to stand up on this issue.
This is real and it is coming unless we call our state representatives
and demand that they stand up for traditional marriage.
Thanks to the loss of pro-family
stalwarts like Sen. Win Smith, there is no way to predict what will
happen in this legislature. Although the pro-family movement did not
lose state elections on this issue, we are nonetheless in a difficult
position. If a civil unions bill is enacted, the state court hearing
the Kerrigan case — a case filed by a group seeking the
legalization of same-sex “marriage” — may use it as a
pretext to impose same-sex “marriage” on Connecticut.
Now is the time for the
pro-family citizens of Connecticut to stand up and be counted. Those of
us who have been in this fight all along must redouble our efforts.
Most importantly, those who have been sitting on the sidelines must get
involved. It took the legalization of same-sex “marriage”
in Massachusetts before the nation was roused to defend the family. If
Connecticut citizens who are not yet active in the pro-family fight are
waiting for the same thing to happen here before they get involved, the
battle will have been lost before it has even been engaged.
In the coming days, weeks and
months I will be contacting you, the pro-family citizens of
Connecticut, about what you can do to protect marriage in this
legislative session. In the meantime, please spread the word about FIC
to everyone you know. A call to arms has been issued, and we cannot
hope to win the battle unless the everyday citizens of Connecticut hear
it.
Posted at 11:54 A.M.
December 30
STATE’S TOP CENSORED NEWS STORIES OF 2004 [Brian Brown]
“From Rowland to Rell to
roundball, take a look back at the top news stories in Connecticut
during the past 12 months,” says the teaser for Fox 61’s
“News at Ten” program in today’s Courant.
Well, if Fox 61 says “roundball” — whatever that is
— qualifies as one of the state’s top stories for 2004, who
am I to disagree?
Still, I have to wonder why 6,000
people rallying on a freezing cold day in February in front of the
state capitol for the passage of a Defense of Marriage Act does not
qualify as one of the state’s top stories of the year. A few
local newspapers have already done their “top state news stories
of the year” articles and I have yet to see a mention of our
rally.
It is possible to find the rally
and other stories if you know where to look. Call them “The Top
News Stories of 2004 That Our State’s Media Wants You To
Forget.” Here, for instance, is an account of the rally, posted
Feb. 9 on the website of Catholic blogger Mark Shea:
Report: Rally For Marriage 2004
A reader writes:
Where to begin? Perhaps with the
media coverage, since that's how most of the state experienced our
Rally. It was predictably biased. According to a neutral third party
— the capitol police — 6,000 people rallied in Hartford
yesterday in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and against
efforts to legalize same-sex marriage. The Associated Press, whose
reporting throughout this debate has been remarkable — even by
the normal standard of liberal media bias — for its pro-gay
marriage slant, put our numbers at "about" 3,000. Most of the state's
media followed the AP's lead, with WTIC 1080 AM telling its listeners
last night that we had "nearly" 3,000 and that a brief pro-gay marriage
rally at Bushnell Park had 40 people. Of all the wonderful things said
by our speakers, the AP ran only a single quote: Baptist Bishop
Bailey's "Are we a nation under God or under gays?" By itself, that
quote does not reflect the tenor of the speeches, or even of Bishop
Bailey's own speech.
The Hartford Courant never gave
a specific number for the people at our Rally, limiting it to a vague
"hundreds" in the caption under the front page photo and "thousands" in
the first paragraph. A gay counter-rally at a nearby church, however,
drew "more than 800," if you believe the Courant. The Bushnell Park
pro-gay marriage rally shrunk from the AP's "40" to "a few dozen." The
Courant also claimed that Catholic Bishop Rosazza "mocked" Love Makes a
Family when he made a reasoned argument that loves alone does not make
a family. However, the Courant did take note of the diverse,
multicultural nature of our movement, which is a major breakthrough in
the quest for honest media coverage of the same-sex marriage issue.
The New Haven Register put our
numbers at 4,000, but claimed the Bushnell Park rally had "75." The
paper said our goal was to pass a federal DOMA, a law that has been on
the books since 1996 (we're trying to pass a state DOMA). The Register
acknowledged the lopsided numbers of the dueling rallies, but added
that the pro-gay marriage side "will get their chance" next week, when
they hold another rally.
The media coverage was not all
bad. Though there was a tendency by local television to give the false
impression of a rough parity between our rallies, channel 30 aired a
sound byte by Protestant Bishop Ramirez expressing our lack of
animosity toward our adversaries and pleading for fair coverage from
the media (the Courant mentioned this, too). Leslie and I were treated
fairly by CPTV for an interview with Carolee Salerno that aired over
the weekend. The New London Day, which published the best article,
, was the only media outlet to note: 1) the cold weather that "more
than 4,000" endured, 2) that, while six speakers addressed our crowd of
thousands, "70" of the "600" people at the church's pro-gay marriage
rally were "speakers" 3) that Bishop Bailey told pro-gay marriage
lawmakers that we would vote them out of office and 4) that Love Makes
a Family's Ann Stanback is apparently pro-life, declaring that we
should be fighting "divorce and abortion" instead of gay marriage. I'd
love to see a reporter with guts follow up on that comment with
Stanback.
What else? There was good
participation by Catholics at the Rally: the Sisters Minor of Mary
Immaculate, the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, and lay people
holding up signs of the Divine Mercy were all quite visible. Except for
my own Council I didn't see any Knights of Columbus that I recognized,
though I know there was a bus-full from East Hartford. The speakers
were good, Brian Brown's leadership was excellent and his op-ed in
today's Courant, ctnow.com — OPED , is so well-written that it
will likely trump the media bias that I have discussed.
After the Rally, several small
groups from the counter-rallies showed up to heckle us. I recall in
particular one mini-van of angry lesbians that pulled up to us as we
were cleaning up. "How's marriage doing, boys?" the driver taunted us.
"You save marriage, yet? How are your marriages doing? How many
divorces do you have between you, huh? How many divorces do you have?"
she kept repeating. "Where were you when the legislature was cutting
aid to the poor? Where were your rallies, then?". I suspect our angry
lesbian cares as much for the poor as Ann Stanback does for the unborn.
But this is the sort of incident that never makes the press. Had it
been one of us taunting one of them, it would likely have been added to
hate crime statistics.
Finally, my own involvement: I
led the Pledge of Allegiance. Here is how I began: "In the 1950's, the
Knights of Columbus led the effort to persuade President Dwight D.
Eisenhower and the U.S. Congress to add the words "under God" to the
Pledge of Allegiance. Last year, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
declared the reciting of the Pledge by schoolchildren to be
unconstitutional because of those words, 'under God.' As we gather
together in this great cause, let us begin by declaring in defiance of
those on the 9th Circuit Court and the Massachusetts Supreme Court who
would impose their will on us, that we are a free people, a
self-governing people, a nation 'under God.'" My comments were well
received by the crowd.
On May 17, FIC held a
counter-rally to protest the judicial imposition of same-sex
“marriage” on Massachusetts. A description of the
day’s events was posted the next day on www.marriagedebate.com by moderator Eve Tushnet. Here it is:
REPORT FROM A CONNECTICUT RALLY AND COUNTER-RALLY: Peter Wolfgang
[Peter Wolfgang, of New Hartford, is a district deputy for the Connecticut State Council of the Knights of Columbus.]
[Eve notes: I'm interested in
reading these personal descriptions of events, from any perspective.
Please do send them along. I can't guarantee that I will post them in
whole or part, but I am always trying to find the telling details that
individuals on the ground notice even when reporters might miss them. I
should note, of course, that I have no way of verifying any such
accounts, since the whole point is that I'm not there—if I were
there I'd just post my own impressions! Anyway—here are excerpts
from Peter's account:]
On Sunday, pro-gay marriage
forces held a rally at the state capitol in anticipation of their
victory in our neighboring state. Borrowing a page from their book, the
Family Institute of Connecticut held a counter-rally on the opposite
side of the capitol an hour before the pro-gay event. Brian Brown gave
a forceful presentation on the need for a federal marriage amendment.
Bishop Gonzalez, a leader of Hartford's Hispanic Protestant community,
spoke with compassion and sensitivity—but also with
honesty—about the Christian teaching on homosexuality found in
Romans 1.
As usual, we had a diverse,
multicultural crowd, which included some new faces. Mormons, dressed in
their Sunday best, seemed more visible than they had been in the past.
Among Catholics, there was a strong contingent from Regnum Christi. As
each side continues to hold dueling rallies I am left with the
impression that the other side has reached the limit of its support
while our side continues to gain new adherents.
During our counter-rally we were
surrounded by pro-gay marriage protesters, who heckled us and tried to
shout down our speakers. Were it not for the capitol police I think
they would have dived into the crowd or rushed the stage. One held a
sign that read "The Family Institute of Connecticut Uses the Bible the
Way Hitler Uses Gas." After our rally we were heckled by a man dressed
in a priest's outfit holding a sign advertising his Web site:
www.shameoncatholics.org .
So far as I could tell, none of
this made the press. Instead, the media focused on a phony scare caused
at the pro-gay marriage rally by one man who left a vial of holy water
there. The area was cordoned off as police checked to see if it was
something hazardous. Last I heard, the man was arrested for felony
breach of peace and was being held on a $10,000 bond.
Finally, here’s my Oct. 26 post on this blog regarding a same-sex “wedding” in East Haven:
A Morning With The “Tolerant”
KC 101 did eventually perform a same-sex “wedding” in East Haven. Here’s the story.
The Family Institute of
Connecticut Action Committee (FICAC) — a legally separate entity
— bought three billboards in the town of East Haven. Two say
“Protect Marriage: Vote McCann” and the third says “A
Vote for Mike Lawlor is a Vote for Same-Sex
‘Marriage’...Period.” Mike Lawlor, East Haven’s
state representative, is — in the words of the CCLU — the
“major champion” of the pro-same sex “marriage”
lobby at our state legislature.
Last Thursday, the New Haven
Register ran an article on the “controversy” sparked by the
billboards. In it, Lawlor describes himself as someone who
“favors some sort of government recognition of same-sex
relationships, whether through civil unions or gay marriages.” Of
course, Lawlor’s not just another pro-same sex
“marriage” legislator — he’s the man most
responsible for forcing the issue on the public.
KC 101 eventually found a
lesbian couple whose “wedding” was performed Friday by
morning DJ Vinnie Penn beneath the FICAC billboards. A small crowd was
present representing both sides. Here’s an excerpt from the Oct.
23 Register:
“So, as the women said
their on-the-air vows, one man kept up a constant patter loud enough
for the radio audience to hear.
“This is ugly! This is sin! It’s not good!” said the man, who would not give his name.
“Why don’t you go
tell it to a rock!’ yelled a female supporter, who said she was a
20-year old East Havener but did not want to divulge her name because
her parents didn’t know she was there.”
I was there. The Register’s article doesn’t begin to cover what actually happened in this exchange.
After describing the same-sex
“wedding” as a sin the man, an African-American with a
thick accent, went on to say “You’re too brilliant for
this. You’re too intelligent for this. Please don’t do
this. It’s not good for America.” To which the 20-year old
responded, “I was born in America. Where the **** are you
from?”
The man was unfazed.
“It’s against God,” he said. “That’s your
God,” the girl responded, as she took a wiccan symbol that she
wore around her neck and waved it at him. “I have a 3.9 GPA at
Southern [Connecticut State University],” she added, for no
apparent reason.
Other same-sex
“marriage” supporters followed her lead. One woman asked
the man if he was on welfare. Others asked him if he was himself a
homosexual.
Having now attended several
rallies, counter-rallies and “guerrilla theater” of the
sort hosted by KC 101 on Friday, there are two things I can always
count on:
1) Those who claim for
themselves the mantle of “tolerance” are often the least
tolerant people you will ever meet. And
2) The local media will do it’s best to make sure that you never know it.
In addition to the items above,
in 2004 FIC also defended pro-family Bishop LeRoy Bailey’s right
to speak at a Martin Luther King Day event, put up billboards around
the state calling for marriage protection, responded to criminal
attacks and government censorship of churches displaying our
“Defend Marriage Now!” banners, filed a motion to intervene
in Connecticut’s same-sex “marriage” lawsuit and
launched this blog. I personally spoke at several pro-family churches
in the state this year as well as the New Haven Festival of Arts and
Ideas, held several public debates with same-sex “marriage”
advocates like Ann Stanback and the Episcopal bishop of Connecticut,
and was honored at awards dinners held by Christian Heritage School and
Conquest, a Catholic boys youth group.
You wouldn’t know it from
the “top state news of the year” stories in our local
media, but 2004 has been the busiest year yet for FIC’s fight to
protect marriage. 2005 promises to be busier still. We’ll keep
fighting until marriage is permanently protected in Connecticut. And
when that day arrives, know that it is because you, our faithful
supporters, made it happen. Happy almost-New Year.
Posted at 2:33P.M.
December 29
ANOTHER GOOD MOVE BY GOV. RELL [Brian Brown]
On Dec. 6 in this space I made this comment in response to an article by Kevin Rennie in Northeast Magazine:
Rennie, a former Republican
legislator from South Windsor, writes: “Worrisome for the GOP is
that in the North, Bush increased his share of the vote while other
Republicans were losing.” Yes, but why? Rennie doesn’t tell
us.
That’s too bad, because it
was the most important sentence in the entire “Last Word”
issue. The GOP in New England tends to distance itself from President
Bush’s pro-family positions out of the belief that those
positions will hurt them here. But if the main difference between Bush
and the New England GOP is Bush’s pro-family stance, and Bush did
better in New England than the local party, what does that say about
local GOP reluctance to embrace the pro-family cause?
Unlike the national party,
Connecticut Republicans suffered significant losses last month. If the
state party had been as firmly committed to protecting marriage as the
national party — and ran explicitly on that commitment —
the results would have been different. Instead, the state GOP has dug
itself into a hole by its reluctance to fully embrace the pro-family
cause. It’s time for them to reconsider.
Four days later I noted with appreciation the following comments by Gov. Rell, from an interview with the New Haven Register:
On the issue of gay marriage, Rell said she does not favor it.
"I’m an old-fashioned
person when it comes to that. I believe in marriage between a man and a
woman." Rell also questioned the need for civil unions.
"I’m not sure what it
would accomplish," she said, pointing to protections already in place
allowing gay couples to adopt children, as well as to have access for
hospital visits.
"I think we have gone a long way in changing the statutes to address those concerns," she said.
Now, according to a Dec. 23 article in the Courant, Gov. Rell wants pro-family Rep. William Hamzy, R-Plymouth, to be the next chairman of the Connecticut Republican Party.
Maybe someone in Gov.
Rell’s office is reading this blog. Or maybe not. Either way,
there will be less in the state’s 2006 election results for Kevin
Rennie to find “worrisome for the GOP” if the Governor
continues along her current path.
In the meantime, we at FIC wish her a speedy recovery following her recent surgery, and many good wishes.
Posted at 2:00 P.M.
December 28
MERRY CHRISTMAS — II [Brian Brown]
Yes, I know Kathy Lee quit her show with Regis a few years ago. But this editorial from the National Catholic Register,
a Connecticut-based newspaper, is the best commentary on anti-Christmas
bias that I’ve seen. The paper has given FIC permission to
reprint it in its entirety. Enjoy.
Christmas Scares Them
This Christmas, thank God the culture is so set against mentioning Christ.
After you get angry about it, we mean.
Christians in 2004 America find
themselves in a situation that a reader summed up rather nicely.
“A few years ago we were asked to ‘Keep Christ in
Christmas,’” wrote Ed Lynch of West Nyack, N.Y. “Now
it seems we should ask to ‘Keep Christmas in
Christmas.’”
The Catholic League has noticed the same thing — and has kept a record.
Fontana, Calif., skipped
Christmas and celebrated a Festival of Winter this year. Said Catholic
League President Bill Donahue, “Santa Claus, who is not
associated with anything other than Christmas, was inexplicably
present…and there was a tree lighting ceremony, though no one
said why trees are lighted in December.”
Chapel Hill, N.C., sponsored a
“Holiday Parade” and “Community Sing and Tree
Lighting,” as part of “a series of holiday events.”
Glendale, Ohio, had a Holiday Walk on the Village Square.
Historic Franklin, Mich., has
held an annual Holly Day Festival for years. This year, they dropped
the word “holly,” because “holly” suggests
Christmas.
In Kansas, the Catholic League found the following correction in The Wichita Eagle
newspaper: “A story in Monday’s paper referred to a tree
that was lighted at Tuesday’s Winterfest celebration as a
‘Christmas tree.’ In an effort to be inclusive, the city is
actually referring to this tree as the ‘Community
Tree.’”
Does it seem that there is
excessive shame, or worry, about mentioning Christ’s name? Does
it make you angry? It made rapper Kayne West angry, too.
He was recently nominated for 10
Grammy awards. His hit song “Jesus Walks” is laced with
profanity, but its basic message is summed up in lines like these:
“The way schools need teachers / The way Kathy Lee needed Regis /
That’s the way I need Jesus.” In it, he makes the point
that everybody needs Jesus.
Since he’s no Christian
music artist, a reporter on CBS news’ “60 Minutes II”
asked West how people reacted to the new song when he recorded it.
Said the rapper, “People
would be like, ‘Yo, it’s the best song I ever heard, but
it’ll never make it on radio,’ and it frustrated me, so the
second verse I wrote about how they say you can’t say Jesus on
radio…The word Jesus was like saying [the
‘N-word’]…It’s gonna offend people for you to
say Jesus.”
He’s right. People are
very offended if you use God’s name respectfully — though,
ironically, it’s socially acceptable to use it in vain.
But this should give us great hope.
Why? Because there was a time,
not so long ago, when you could speak about Christ much more freely
— in part, because fewer people took him seriously.
The word “Christmas”
didn’t offend the irreligious element in society back then.
Nativity scenes in public didn’t make agnostics rage. These
things were harmless references to a quaint old story. Science was the
new vehicle for answering men’s questions and many people assumed
it would eclipse religion altogether, just as it had done in Europe. In
the meantime, why complain about pious old stories?
But it didn’t turn out that way in the United States.
If anything, the past decade has
seen signs of a religious revival. First it was the high school
students who would burst into prayer at school-sponsored events as
school officials looked on, horrified. Then it was the rise of the
Christian shadow-culture, with its own music, books and videos that
became such a major business force in the 1990’s. Now, in 2004
alone, in addition to the success of “Jesus Walks,” The Passion of the Christ became a blockbuster movie and a groundswell of support by Christians was credited for the president’s re-election.
Jesus isn’t so harmless
anymore. Suddenly, the word “Christmas” doesn’t fall
on the ear of the culture like a quaint harking back to a sweet old
story. Now, it’s more likely to be a direct challenge to the
listener, because it refers to a particular person — a radical,
polarizing person who can’t be ignored.
This has actually brought our
culture closer to the ethos of the first Christmas. That first
Christmas wasn’t so sweet, really: Christ’s coming was
brutally opposed by Herod, who had soldiers kill baby boys because he
wanted Christ dead.
If Christ’s name is making
our neighbors uncomfortable again, we can thank God. It means
they’re taking him seriously. And it means they need to hear from
us how they can overcome their fear and find much to receive from the
newborn King.
Posted at 3:14 P.M.
MARRIAGE PROTECTION VOTE NEEDED [Brian Brown]
An AP story in today’s Courant
reports that, despite pro-family gains in the last election, the
Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) still faces an uphill battle in the
next Congress. Pro-family Senators point to court cases pending in
several states and tell the AP that Congress will approve the FMA after
more courts impose same-sex “marriage” on their states, as
occurred in Massachusetts.
But Matt Coles of the American
Civil Liberties Union's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project said that's
unlikely — and not entirely by accident.
Many of the cases making their
way through the courts were filed by individuals not affiliated with
leading gay rights organizations, he said, and were not framed to
challenge the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.
Frontline groups have held off,
he said. "People think that neither the country nor the courts are
ready for it and probably we'll lose. Nobody likes to take cases and
lose."
But same-sex
“marriage” proponents are not limiting their legal tactics
to attacks on the federal DOMA. In Connecticut, a
“frontline” pro-same sex “marriage” group has
filed a suit asking the court to use the equal protection and due
process clauses of our state constitution to impose same-sex
“marriage” on us. This is one of the major reasons why
Connecticut needs a vote on a marriage protection amendment to our
state constitution; whether or not to redefine society’s most
precious institution is a question that ought to be decided by the
people, not the courts.
Posted at 10:45 A.M.
December 25, 2004
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Connecticut in the Crosshairs will resume Tuesday, December 28th. FIC wishes all readers an enjoyable Christmas time.
Posted at 10:05 A.M. [Revised]
December 23
FIC ACTION COMMITTEE VINDICATED [Brian Brown]
On Oct. 28th in this space I linked to a New Haven Register
article about a bogus complaint that had been filed against FIC ACTION
COMMITTEE by a member of a pro same-sex “marriage” group.
Here’s the relevant quote:
“The group’s
treasurer, Brian S. Brown, who is executive director of the Family
Institute of Connecticut, a separate tax-exempt group, said Currie need
not worry.
“Currie’s complaint
is ‘totally baseless and I look forward to the elections
commission finding that it’s baseless, because we’ve
already worked through all this’ and ‘we’ve been in
constant contact with the Elections Enforcement Commission,’
Brown said...
“[Brown] said the payments
Currie says appear to be payments to itself actually are payments from
the FIC Action Committee to a third organization, Family Institute of
Connecticut Action Inc., a lobbying organization.”
Yesterday we received a letter
from the Elections Enforcement Commission stating that it unanimously
voted to dismiss the complaint after finding that FIC ACTION COMMITTEE
did not violate the law. I said at the time that the complaint was
totally baseless and that has now been confirmed by the Commission.
This is yet another failed attempt by the “tolerance”
hypocrites to silence those who dare to oppose their agenda.
Posted at 4:15 P.M.
IN NEWINGTON, IDEOLOGY TRUMPS COMMON SENSE
A recently negotiated contract
will give school district employees in Newington medical insurance
benefits for their “same-sex partners,” according to an article in last Sunday’s Courant.
Upon learning that they will be compelled to fund a contract that
equates same-sex unions with marriage, outraged taxpayers signed
petitions and attended town meetings to register their opposition.
The teachers won the same-sex
benefits, which will cost taxpayers $80,000, in exchange for lower wage
increases and increased insurance payments. This is a strange
negotiating strategy for Newington’s teachers since, as the Courant
notes, “teachers’ unions try to keep the status quo rather
than relinquishing anything that affects all members in exchange for
new perks that benefit only a few.” The paper quotes the comments
of a few experts, including this from a labor attorney:
"It is unusual that a bargaining
unit would take on higher costs that are going to affect all of its
membership in order to obtain a benefit that will be used by so few,"
he said. "It is contrary to every trend and may become an issue in the
future for the union itself."
How will the union’s
leadership explain to its members that it let pro same-sex
“marriage” ideology trump the best interests of those
members? I’m sure that will indeed be “an issue in the
future for the union itself.”
Posted at 4:00 P.M.
December 22
COURANT COLUMNIST ON ANTI-CHRISTMAS BIAS [Brian Brown]
Don’t be fooled by the article’s title. Although the Courant’s
Business page headline says “Right Hijacks Holiday
Simplicity” Dan Harr, a self-described “liberal, Jewish
columnist” has written a sympathetic piece on the dwindling
public presence of Christmas in Connecticut. Harr believes this is a
result of commerce, not ideology, and he throws a few digs at uppity
Christians who think otherwise. But he finds it “mildly
annoying” that stores won’t say “Merry
Christmas,” and does a fine job of documenting the near-total
absence of Christmas at the Westfarms mall.
Posted at 3:45 P.M.
December 21
THE “TOLERANCE” HYPOCRITES LOSE A LOCAL BATTLE [Brian Brown]
The mayor of Milford said the
city will not remove the privately-funded Nativity scene from the town
green, despite a threat of legal action from the CT state director of
American Atheists. You can read about it here (link requires registration).
When a group of six atheists
protested the Nativity scene on Sunday, they were met by 250 Christian
counter-protesters. What motivates the Left to provoke these
confrontations? Do they really believe the world is a better place for
it? Writing in the Dec. 27 National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru pretty much nails it:
If I’m right about
liberalism’s instinctive reflexes, then contemporary liberalism
has forfeited the creed’s ancient claim to promote civil peace.
The modern liberal version of separation of church and state is
supposed to keep us from refighting the European wars of religion.
That’s what the liberal justices on the Supreme Court tell us in
their opinions in church-state cases. But if liberal secularism amounts
to the unwitting imposition of the views of an irreligious minority on
a religious majority, then it hardly seems likely to foster social
harmony. Nor has it.
Posted at 5:00 P.M
December 20
UCC JOINS FORCES WITH HATES CRIMES SUPPORTER [Brian Brown]
Commentary on the hypocrisy of
our “tolerant” opposition is a regular theme of this blog
and our opponents certainly do provide enough examples of it. But even
for someone as used to it as me, this next item really takes the cake.
Pro same-sex “marriage” activists joined forces with a
defender of hate crimes against pro-family churches yesterday to hold a
rally to “defend tolerance.”
The Courant tried to drum up support
for the “Rally to Defend Church’s Tolerance” on
Saturday but only a “crowd of about 50” showed up,
according to today’s story.
The rally called “for tolerance and freedom of speech” in
response to the banning of a United Church of Christ (UCC)
advertisement by two TV networks. Frank O’Gorman of People of
Faith for Gay Civil Rights called the networks refusal to show the ad
“a critical example of the silencing of progressive voices”
and a UCC conference minister is described as grateful for the support.
He shouldn’t be. Last
summer, pro-family churches that displayed our “Defend Marriage
Now!” banner had those banners stolen or vandalized in Norfolk,
Wallingford, South Windsor, Stamford and Darien. We held a press
conference denouncing these hate crimes, saying we would not be
silenced or intimidated. Even many pro same-sex “marriage”
media outlets understood our point, with the Hartford Advocate,
for instance, noting that “For folks trying to legalize [same-sex
“marriage”] with a civil rights argument, church vandalism
is not exactly the best way to do it.”
But someone forgot to tell Frank
O’Gorman. In a comment on the website of a pro same-sex
“marriage” church, O’Gorman defended hate crimes
against pro-family churches, asking rhetorically whether their property
should “enjoy immunity” from what he called “justice
actions.” (You can read O’Gorman’s twisted logic in his own words by clicking here.)
It is shocking that the UCC would
organize a rally to “defend tolerance” against those who
“silence” others with a man who defends hate crimes against
pro-family churches. But then again, the UCC ad that was banned by the
networks is itself exclusionary. According to a spokesman for CBS, the
ad was rejected “because it implied that other churches turned
away people.” Here’s the description of the ad that
appeared in the Dec. 2 Courant:
The 30-second ad, called "Night
Club," shows two bouncers standing in front of a nameless church,
selectively letting in worshippers. A white heterosexual couple is
admitted past a velvet rope into the church, but the bouncers block a
male couple and several individuals of color. Later scenes show smiling
people of various races — including a pair of women —
standing together.
"Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we," the commercial's voice-over says.
This is simply slanderous. Not
only is it a lie to suggest that pro-family churches exclude
congregants with homosexual inclinations, the ad’s suggestion
that pro same-sex “marriage” churches are multicultural
while pro-family churches are racist is completely false. The
pro-family movement is the most racially diverse, multicultural,
multiethnic and ecumenical social force since — well, since the
civil rights movement of the 1960’s which our opponents falsely
claim as their own. The pro same-sex “marriage” movement,
by contrast, is overwhelmingly white and upper middle class. It is one
thing for our opponents to refuse to acknowledge this, but to create a
media event around an ad that turns reality on its head is an act of
desperation.
Pro same-sex
“marriage” activists, not pro-family supporters, are the
most intolerant element in our public life today. Just last week
another “Defend Marriage Now!” banner was defaced, this
time on Boulevard Street in Hartford. In East Lyme the town government,
at the behest of a homosexual couple, is trying to force a church to
remove its banner. Here at FIC, we continue to receive a steady stream
of vile hate mail from pro-same sex “marriage” supporters,
complete with Nazi swastikas and messages like “screw you Jesus
freaks” and worse. There is nothing in Connecticut’s
pro-family movement that compares to the hate and intolerance that we
constantly experience from the advocates for same-sex
“marriage.”
But we are not deterred. If
anything, we are inspired. Our opponents would not be trying to silence
us if they did not think we were making progress. And they are right to
think so. In 2004 thirteen states voted to protect the “one
man-one woman” definition of marriage. In 2005 a dozen more
states will have that opportunity, and we will fight to make
Connecticut one of them. As the hypocrisy of the “tolerant”
becomes more evident, the goal of securing marriage protection becomes
more possible. In the long run, the UCC’s embrace of hate crimes
supporter Frank O’Gorman will only further our cause.
Posted at 4:48 P.M.
THE “TOLERANCE” HYPOCRITES [Brian Brown]
The “tolerance”
hypocrites are in overdrive this week. Yesterday, a handful of atheists
protested the mere presence of a privately-funded Nativity scene on the
town green in Milford. They were met by over 200 Christian
counter-protesters. You can read about it here and here.
The atheists have the right to
express their view, of course. But the Left behaves as if its right to
free speech is a right to be free from criticism, and so it equates
criticism of its statements with censorship. We are glad people do not
fall for this rhetorical sleight of hand, and we salute those
Christians who exercised their own right of free speech to let the
atheists know what they think of attacks on Christmas.
Opposition to public displays of
Christmas decorations is nothing more than hate-driven paranoia. Just
because someone is an atheist does not give him a license to become an
anti-Christian bigot.
And that’s not just me talking. Those words come from Michael Cook, an atheist from Windsor, in an op-ed that appeared in Saturday’s Courant:
I am sick and tired of
anti-Christian bigots complaining about religious Christmas decorations
on public lands. If you are a Christian, these decorations represent
religious beliefs. If you are not a Christian, they are simply pretty
decorations, no more significant than a jack-o’-lantern on
Halloween or a shamrock on St. Patrick’s Day. Christmas
decorations are not going to harm anyone. There is nothing offensive
going on here. We are not talking about displaying posters of Adolf
Hitler. It frightens me that neo-Nazis can stage a parade and be
supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, but a Nativity scene
is considered offensive.
Good for Mr. Cook for seeing through the hypocrisy of his fellow atheists and good for the Courant for having the courage to run his piece. Now watch for the Courant
to run letters from atheists accusing Cook of attacking their right to
free speech. Those who make reason their god are often the most
unreasonable people of all.
Posted at 12:18 P.M.
December 16
COURANT STILL FIGHTING “YESTERDAY’S WARS” [Brian Brown]
Perhaps recognizing that
yesterday’s “Hooters” editorial was the single lamest
thing it ever published in support of same-sex “marriage,”
the Courant’s editors take a second stab at it today. Unfortunately, today’s editorial is not much more coherent than yesterday’s.
The paper notes that “No
floods, fires, earthquakes or other cataclysmic events” have
occurred in the seven months since same-sex “marriage” was
legalized in Massachusetts. As Rabbi Greer asked rhetorically at our
Rally for Marriage last year, "What did they expect? An earthquake? A
tidal wave? It will be decades before we see the disastrous results."
In fact, an AP story over the weekend — which the Courant
fails to mention — has reported on the significant number of
same-sex “divorces” that have already occurred in
Massachusetts.
The Courant claims that
the refusal of the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the challenge to the
Massachusetts case means that states are free to make their own
decisions on same-sex “marriage” and a Federal Marriage
Amendment is, therefore, unnecessary. This is the sort of cracker-jack
analysis that caused the editors to dismiss opposition to same-sex
“marriage” as “yesterday’s wars” just
prior to the election. The challenge was dismissed because it was based
on the “guarantee clause,” an unusual approach that was
unlikely to gain a hearing with this Court. When a pro same-sex
“marriage” case does make its way to the Court, it will be
based on the “full faith and credit” clause, on the claim
that the other 49 states must give “full faith and credit”
to same-sex “marriages” performed in Massachusetts. In
light of the Court’s sudden discovery last year of a
constitutional right to homosexual sodomy, it is unlikely that the
Justices will allow the states to make their own decisions about
same-sex “marriage.”
The Courant notes that
“most Americans are leery” (adamantly opposed, actually) to
same-sex “marriage” but are “evenly divided”
over “equal benefits,” etc. As Gov. Rell noted last week
— in an interview that has received no mention in the Courant
— same-sex couples in Connecticut already have the rights they
claim not to have. And according to a poll that was reported on WTIC
1080 last night — but not in the Courant — most people oppose civil unions.
The editorial makes reference to
the pro same-sex “marriage” lawsuit pending in Connecticut
and ends with this: “More legal challenges elsewhere are likely
in both state and federal courts until this contentious issue is
resolved.” When pro same-sex “marriage” advocates say
the states should decide the issue for themselves, this is what they
mean: state courts, not legislatures. Theirs is a movement for
judicial tyranny, not democracy. The only way for the people to have a
say on whether marriage should be radically redefined is to have a vote
on amending our constitution. Because, one way or another, our
constitution is going to be amended: either by the people or by their
robed masters.
Posted on 3:30 PM
GOT HATE? [Brian Brown]
Pro same-sex
“marriage” activists and their supporters in the media
claim that their movement is all about “tolerance” and
“diversity.” According to them, it is the pro-family
movement — those of us who fight to protect marriage from radical
redefinition — that are motivated by hate and intolerance. In
fact, it often seems that the only response pro same-sex
“marriage” activists know how to make to well-reasoned
opposition is to simply dismiss their opponents as a bunch of haters.
Those who buy into the “pro
same-sex ‘marriage’ people are tolerant/pro-family people
are hateful” picture ought to see the love letters we’ve
been getting from the “tolerant” lately.
Most of them are anonymous. Many
of them are scrawled in black magic marker. For people who endlessly
mention the separation of church and state or their dislike of
religion, a surprising number of them try to engage us in theological
debate. These are usually letters of the “your behavior is an
affront to God, shame on you” variety.
One writer informs us that our
work makes him “imbarrassed” [sic] to be a Republican.
Another says, “I consider the election of Bush to be
reinforcement for bigots and the ignorant. If CT weren’t
Democratic, I’d move to Canada.”
Our mere willingness to express a
viewpoint that our hostile correspondents disagree with is, to them,
proof of our bigotry. One correspondent, apparently unable to tell the
difference between people who work democratically toward a goal she
opposes and mass murder, refers to us as “the conservative
Christian Taliban.” Another writer claims that after we pass a
Marriage Protection Amendment our next goal will be to
“exterminate” homosexuals.
But FIC has never advocated
violence, hate or bigotry toward anyone. Instead, we’re the ones
receiving anonymous phone messages like this: “I hope you all get
cancer of the testicles and die.” Pro same-sex
“marriage” activists may call us fascists, but it was not
someone on our side who mailed us the letter that read “GO F***
YOURSELVES” with a Nazi swastika on it. Nor was it someone on our
side that left the note on the windshield of one of our volunteers,
whose car had a pro-DOMA bumper sticker, which said, “You should
have been aborted in your mother’s womb. You Christians should
all be lined up and shot.”
It seems the true feelings of our
opponents are best described by this succinct note, which we received
yesterday: “SCREW YOU JESUS FREAKS.” Remember this the next
time pro same-sex “marriage” activists drone on about how
“tolerant” they are and how “hateful” we are.
Posted on 2:11 P.M.
December 15
THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE COURANT [Brian Brown]
It’s been over six weeks
now since President Bush was re-elected by voters who said moral values
was their top concern. The Courant, which had endorsed the
President but advised him to drop his opposition to same-sex
“marriage” and abortion — since these are, the paper
claimed, “yesterday’s wars” — still does not
know what to make of it. In today’s edition the editors are reduced
to citing the preponderance of “Hooters” restaurants in red
states as an argument for same-sex “marriage.” Values
voters are hypocrites, the paper implies, so why not ignore them on
same-sex “marriage?” From shouting
false-but-high-falutin’ arguments about equality to mumbling
about “Hooters.” How far the mighty have fallen.
The sad thing about the Courant
is that if it did not waste so much newsprint on marriage-destroying
propaganda it could actually be a useful tool for families, who need
all the help they can get. A piece on the physical difficulties faced by older parents with small children — which the Courant reprinted from the Baltimore Sun
yesterday — shows how the paper can disseminate information that
will actually help its readers, rather than cause them to roll their
eyes. We need more stories like this from the Courant and fewer cheap shots at values voters who dare to reject the paper’s advice.
Posted at 10:10 A.M.
December 14
STATE WANTS TO FUND THE KILLING OF HUMAN EMBRYOS [Brian Brown]
In an article in today’s Courant
Gov. Rell says she would like to make “a one-time revenue
deposit” of $10-$20 million dollars from the state surplus to
fund stem cell research. Undeterred by a projected deficit of about
$1.3 billion in the next fiscal year, Rep. Jim Amann, the House
Speaker-elect, wants to spend $2 billion on stem-cell research.
Here’s the key excerpt:
Legislators, Amann said, must be
sensitive to opposition to embryonic stem cell research from the Roman
Catholic Church and others on moral grounds. Part of the controversy
revolves around the belief that human embryos should not be destroyed
because they constitute life.
"Absolutely, we have to be
extremely careful," Amann said. "What they fear is they confuse it with
cloning sometimes. It's going to require a study that makes it quite
clear that we're not aborting or using fetuses."
FIC appreciates Rep.
Amann’s civility, which is in marked contrast to the cries of
“bigotry” we usually hear from our opponents in the
same-sex “marriage” battle. But with all respect, it is the
funding proponents that are confusing the issue.
Nowhere does this article make
clear the distinction between adult stem cells and embryonic stem
cells. Nor does it make clear that funding proponents want the money
for embryonic stem cell research. There is no moral dilemma in
research on stem cells from adults or umbilical cords. In fact, adult
stem cells are the only kinds that have thus far produced real advances
in medical research.
But embryonic stem cell research
involves the creation of human life specifically for experimentation.
Proponents confuse the issue by making a false moral distinction
between “therapeutic” research and cloning. They claim
that, while it would be wrong to create a human being through cloning,
there is no harm in extracting stem cells from an embryo if the embryo
is destroyed afterwards.
Their moral logic is exactly
backwards. If it is immoral to create a human being through cloning, it
is even more immoral to create one specifically to experiment on his
genetic material and kill him afterwards. What proponents call
“therapeutic” cloning is really a policy of “clone
and kill.”
Connecticut should not go down
this path. As the recent election showed, our country wants to pull
back from the culture of death, not plunge deeper into it. State
funding for the destruction of human embryos would implicate all of us
who pay taxes in the killing of innocent human life.
FIC will continue to monitor this
situation and keep our supporters informed of any new developments.
Until then, we can all educate ourselves further on this issue by
visiting the web site of the Connecticut Catholic Conference: www.ctcatholic.org.
Posted at 11:00 A.M.
December 13
PRO-SAME SEX “MARRIAGE” ACTIVISTS TRY TO CENSOR CHURCH [Brian Brown]
On Dec. 2 in this space I wrote
about an e-mail we received from Joshua Parker, a homosexual resident
of East Lyme who said our “Defend Marriage Now!” banner on
a local church “sickened” him and was an
“abomination” in the eyes of God. Parker wrote that he and
Joseph Smith, an East Lyme native with whom he had a “civil
union” in Vermont, would launch a media campaign to force the
church to remove the banner. Their opening salvo appeared in the Lyme Times on Friday.
“It is disingenuous for any
mature church leader to assert that the words ‘defend
marriage’ are anything but code for anti-gay political
action,” claims Smith. In fact, the only disingenuous thing here
is Smith’s attempt to paint anyone who disagrees with him as a
bigot.
We have seen this before. When
our banners were first displayed on churches across the state last
summer, those churches were subject to a campaign of harassment and
intimidation. Banners were stolen or vandalized in the dead of night.
One prominent pro-same sex “marriage” supporter described
hate crimes against pro-family churches as “justice
actions.” But we were not deterred. We stood up to the cowardly
criminals who tried to silence us then and we will stand up to the
hypocritical self-professed champions of “tolerance” who
try to censor us now.
Interestingly, Parker and Smith
help make our case for us. Initially, pro-same sex
“marriage” activists claimed that religion was the only
possible motivation for opposing their cause. But last summer they
claimed that the attacks on pro-family churches did not qualify as hate
crimes because the message on the banner was political, not religious.
FIC, having always considered religion one of several legitimate
reasons for opposing same-sex “marriage,” noted the
opportunistic change of tune in our opponents’ spin.
Smith and Parker prove our point.
“My first reaction [upon seeing the banner] was indeed
theological,” Smith says. In both the article and their e-mail to
us, Smith and Parker, who claim to be born-again Christians, clearly
see our banner in religious terms and react to it on that basis. Their
comments ought to put to rest the claim that opponents of the banner
are not motivated by religious animus.
This episode also calls into
question the commitment of pro-same sex “marriage”
activists to the separation of church and state. Last summer the town
of Norfolk, at the behest of pro-same sex “marriage”
activists, claimed falsely that a church that hung our banner violated
zoning laws. Now, Smith and Parker say they will contact their
“elected representatives” as part of their effort to have
the banner removed from the East Lyme church. Indeed, the article ends
with the mayor of New Paltz, N.Y. declaring ominously, “The
banner wouldn’t go up in New Paltz.”
Against all attempts at
harassment, intimidation and government censorship, pro-family churches
will continue to publicly proclaim their support for the protection of
marriage against those who seek to radically redefine it. Contrary to
the Lyme Times, for instance, the banner at St. Agnes Church
was not taken down; it was moved to a more prominent location. Inspired
by these examples of courage, more churches have called to request our
banners. FIC will continue to stand by them and support them in any way
we can. In fact, we are currently in talks with churches in New Paltz.
Posted at 4:26 P.M. (with previously missing last paragraph added at 8:50 A.M. on December 14th).
December 10
UKRAINE’S CONNECTICUT CONNECTION [Brian Brown]
The Most Rev. Basil H. Losten,
the Ukrainian Catholic bishop of Stamford, has declared Sunday,
December 12, a day of prayer for peace and freedom in Ukraine. FIC
joins Bishop Losten, one of our state’s pro-family leaders, in
prayer for the success of Ukraine’s democracy movement. Below is
the bishop’s statement, from The Sower, Stamford’s Ukrainian Catholic newspaper (not available online).
PROCLAMATION
A Day of Prayer and Vigils for Peace and Freedom for Ukraine
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
We are living in historic times:
our Ukrainian nation is demonstrating before the whole world the
indomitable spirit that has characterized it throughout decades of
persecution. A new generation of young people, who have built a tent
city in Independence Square in Kyiv, is giving voice to its fierce
patriotism and defiant heroism, becoming a symbol of what it means to
be children of God, free from all fear, seeking only justice. Their
sincerity could no longer suffer the evil of deceit, falsification and
lies, and has become an inspiration to the whole nation and a standard
of freedom and democracy held high for the world to see.
The world marvels at what is
taking place in Ukraine, and supports the rightful demands of the
Ukrainian nation to free itself of the long-standing interference of
Russia, which persists in its attempts to control Ukraine by supporting
the present corrupt government.
Ukrainians in many countries on
all continents stand united behind their brothers and sisters in
Ukraine, for the hunger for freedom has no borders to contain it. You,
dear children of Ukraine, who find yourself far from your motherland,
and all freedom-loving peoples who care about the future of Ukraine,
can support this defense of democracy by joining your voices in this
cause, by your prayers and by your financial support.
We, hereby, proclaim Sunday,
December 12, 2004 to be a day of prayer and vigils for peace and
freedom for Ukraine in all the parishes of the Stamford Eparchy and ask
that a special collection be taken up for the dire needs of our freedom
fighters in Ukraine.
Joining you in prayer and the hope for a bright future for the land of our forefathers, I bestow my Episcopal Blessings.
Most Rev. Basil H. Losten, Eparch of Stamford
Posted at 4:12 P.M.
TWO CHEERS FOR GOV. RELL [Brian Brown]
As Ken notes, the greater
accountability of government in the U.S. makes it less likely that we
will follow Canada’s lead on same-sex “marriage.” We
saw proof of this on Election Day when 11 out of 11 states — even
liberal Oregon — voted a Marriage Protection Amendment into their
constitutions. Two additional states did the same thing earlier in the
year, bringing the total number to thirteen. Whenever the people are
given a choice, they vote to protect marriage.
If Connecticut had been given
that choice we, too, would have voted to protect marriage. But a
Marriage Protection Amendment was not on the ballot in Connecticut.
Recent election results in our state, therefore, do not reflect
majority opinion on same-sex “marriage.”
And we are not the only ones who know this. In an interview published in the New Haven Register today, Gov. M. Jodi Rell has this to say:
On the issue of gay marriage, Rell said she does not favor it.
"I’m an old-fashioned
person when it comes to that. I believe in marriage between a man and a
woman." Rell also questioned the need for civil unions.
"I’m not sure what it
would accomplish," she said, pointing to protections already in place
allowing gay couples to adopt children, as well as to have access for
hospital visits.
"I think we have gone a long way in changing the statutes to address those concerns," she said.
If the spin coming from the
state’s pro-same sex “marriage” movement were true
— that the election proves Connecticut is different than the rest
of the country on same-sex “marriage” and that the passage
of a civil unions bill is “almost inevitable” in the next
legislative session — Gov. Rell would not have made these
comments. A governor does not earn an 80% approval rating without
knowing where the people stand.
So, Connecticut’s
pro-family movement offers two cheers for Gov. Rell. We’ll
withhold the third cheer until she vetoes a civil unions bill, if that
should become necessary. For now, though, the Governor’s comments
are most encouraging to the state’s pro-family citizenry, as we
prepare for the battle ahead.
Posted at 11:30 A.M.
AS CANADA GOES ... ? [Ken Von Kohorn]
By now you may have heard reports
about the Canadian Supreme Court decision that has opened the door to
same-sex marriages in Canada. Canada is rapidly becoming an important
test case as to how same-sex "marriage" legalization would alter the
cultural landscape — and the portents are not good. Fortunately,
as yesterday's David Frum's Diary points out (we have also posted
his column on our website), there are important differences between the
political processes in the U.S. and Canada. We have many more checks
and balances that can temper the power of unelected judges. However,
for those checks and balances to work effectively, We the People must
roll up our sleeves and get involved. We will be letting you know how
you can help, here in Connecticut, as the new legislative session
begins next month.
Posted at 6:02 a.m.
December 9
CONFESSIONS OF A “CAL” READER [Brian Brown]
“Cal,” — short
for “Calendar,” — is the weekend entertainment
section that appears every Thursday in the Courant. Nearly
every issue features a mention of the latest pro-homosexual propaganda
show at one of our local college campuses. A few weeks ago it was a
homosexual film festival at Trinity. The descriptions of some of the
films — a woman finds liberation through a lesbian affair with a
domestic servant from Ghana, etc. — sounded like a parody of
political correctness.
Today’s Cal announces
a play running at UConn this weekend. The headline is “Gay
‘Confessions of a Mormon Boy.’” The accompanying
photo — which includes two pictures of the same actor —
illustrates the play’s theme. In one picture you can tell the
character is Mormon because he’s wearing a suit and holding the
Book Of Mormon. In the other picture you can tell he’s
“gay” because, well, he’s disrobing.
Before you accuse me of
stereotyping, consider that it is the play’s publicists that
created this photo. As for myself, I still don’t understand why
the New Haven Advocate felt it necessary to run a photo
of me with the caption “Brian Brown: not gay.” But in light
of today’s Cal, perhaps that’s for the best.
Posted at 4:01 P.M.
December 8
HAPPY CHANUKAH [Brian Brown]
The Family Institute of
Connecticut would like to wish a Happy Chanukah to all our Jewish
supporters. Chanukah, the Jewish Feast of Lights, began at sundown
Tuesday. In an essay
published last Chanukah, Rabbi Daniel Lapin, president of Toward
Tradition, offered important insights on why the message of Chanukah is
“not just for Jews.”
Posted at 11:05 A.M.
HOW TO REACH THE COURANT [Brian Brown]
Yesterday I encouraged our supporters to write to the Courant
to counter the false portrayals of the pro-family movement that it
frequently publishes. Here are the paper’s guidelines for letters
to the editor:
The Courant welcomes letters of public interest. Letters must include an address and day and evening phone numbers and be exclusive to The Courant.
Generally, letters should not exceed 200 words. We reserve the right to
edit and shorten letters and run them in any electronic form. Writers
ordinarily are limited to one published letter every two months.
Posted at 10:28 A.M.
KUDOS TO THE COURANT [Brian Brown]
The Courant has a feature article
today on the support husbands give to wives who suffer with breast
cancer. The article is not untouched by some of the silliness one
expects from the Courant — a reference to “sweat
lodges” and “energy healers” — but nothing on
how traditional faith aids those who suffer. Still, a positive
portrayal of marriage without a plea for its redefinition is such a
rare thing for our local paper that it is worth noting. Kudos to the Courant.
Posted at 10:20 A.M.
December 7
SPEAK UP ABOUT ANTI-CHRISTIAN BIAS [Brian Brown]
There’s a letter to the editor in today’s Courant that is worth re-printing in full:
Speak Up About Anti-Gay Bias
We were heartsick to hear the
following account from a friend. Over Thanksgiving dinner with her
extended family, Grandma proclaimed that 16-year-old Sandy, long-time
family friend and recently out of the closet as a lesbian, would have
been better off if her suicide attempt several years ago had been
successful. After all, Grandma said in her righteousness, the Bible
tells us that homosexuality is an abomination.
Could this be how the current
"moral values" will enrich us? And what about Sandy? Do we really want
more gay-bashing that will encourage more suicide among gay and lesbian
teenagers, already the highest group at risk for suicide attempts?
The recent refusal by CBS and
NBC to air a United Church of Christ ad celebrating the inclusiveness
of God's love has exacerbated the situation. Do Americans believe that
a church ad declaring that "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do
we" is too controversial to air?
We're thankful that there are
many religious and highly moral people worshiping in congregations that
do not consider gays to be a fringe element to be merely tolerated. Or
worse, that they are abominations in the eyes of God, unworthy of
membership in a religious community.
Silence is not golden. It's time
for Americans who hold deeply spiritual commitments to the values of
justice, fairness and equality to speak up.
Donna and Gary Gianini, Co-chairmen, Welcoming Congregation Committee, The Universalist Church of West Hartford.
Did the story told by the
Gianinis — that a Christian Grandma wished death upon a lesbian
teenager at a Thanksgiving dinner — really happen? I don’t
know. Neither do the Gianinis. They are merely repeating hearsay by a
third party in a public forum. It would be inadmissible evidence in a
court of law, but it’s good enough for the Courant.
There are some reasons to doubt
the veracity of this story. Aside from its being told by someone who
did not actually witness the event, it seems to fit perfectly the
caricature that pro-same sex “marriage” activists have of
pro-family Christians as people motivated by hate. Add to that its
authorship by the “Co-chairmen” of the “Welcoming
Congregation Committee, The Universal Church of West Hartford”
and one might fairly conclude that the letter, like the UCC ad, was an
attempt to pump up a liberal church by falsely portraying pro-family
Christians as haters. And yet the Courant saw fit to run it.
Imagine the co-chairmen of a Protect Marriage Committee at an Evangelical church submitting a letter to the Courant.
Imagine that in the letter, they described hearing from a friend about
a Thanksgiving dinner attended by a homosexual couple who bragged about
their infidelity following their “marriage” in
Massachusetts and that their liberal church affirms their behavior.
Imagine the authors closing the letter by saying they’re
“thankful that there are many religious and highly moral
people” at their church, unlike the church the homosexual couple
attends.
The Courant would never
let that letter see the light of day. But a letter using flimsy
evidence to depict pro-family Christians as haters? The Courant’s just fine with that.
The letter in today’s paper
is part of a deliberate strategy by pro-same sex “marriage”
activists to portray pro-family citizens as haters. Our opponents have
resorted to these tactics because they know they cannot win on the
merits of their arguments. Instead, they’re hoping that enough
letters like this will cause the pro-family movement to lose public
support, thus suffering a “death by a thousand cuts.”
We should not take this lying
down. Readers of this blog know that it is the pro-family movement that
is really on the receiving end of hate and prejudice. We know that we
are motivated by love — for our families, our country and even
our opponents — and not by hate. I encourage everyone in our
movement to write their own letters to the editor so that people will
know what our movement is really about, rather than the lies
perpetrated by the other side. Letters can be e-mailed to the Courant at letters@courant.com.
Posted at 11:22 A.M.
December 6
THE WORD AFTER “THE LAST WORD” [Brian Brown]
Pity the Courant, the
presidential election did not go its way. Sure, the paper endorsed
Bush. But that decision belonged to the publisher. Given much of the
news and opinion slant of the Courant these last four years,
it’s unlikely the endorsement would have survived a vote by those
responsible for the paper’s daily content. Further, the
endorsement condemned as “yesterday’s wars” President
Bush’s support for the protection of marriage and the right to
life — the very issues that won him reelection. Small wonder,
then, that for the last month reading the Courant has been like eavesdropping on a group of liberals engaged in primal scream therapy.
But no longer. Yesterday’s Northeast magazine is, the title assures us, “The Last Word” on the election. Most of it consists of typical Courant
commentary: Mike Swift listing the ways Connecticut supposedly differs
from red-state America (we have better teeth, etc.), Lowell Weicker
taking umbrage at the belief held by many that America “was
founded by those fleeing religious persecution” (“Not
so.”), Jerry Dunklee recommending as a model Mother Devine
— a woman who mixed Buddhism and Christianity to create her own
church (“America’s like that.”), and so on.
It was not all bad. Jeff
Shult’s guide to the new political correctness was funny
(“When encountering a ‘Liberal’ on the street, an
Evangelical Christian should resist the urge to use an offensive
greeting such as ‘Who’s your daddy?’”) and Courant publisher Jack Davis makes keen observations on the misuse of the term “progressive.”
And then there was Kevin Rennie.
Rennie, a former Republican legislator from South Windsor, writes:
“Worrisome for the GOP is that in the North, Bush increased his
share of the vote while other Republicans were losing.” Yes, but
why? Rennie doesn’t tell us.
That’s too bad, because it
was the most important sentence in the entire “Last Word”
issue. The GOP in New England tends to distance itself from President
Bush’s pro-family positions out of the belief that those
positions will hurt them here. But if the main difference between Bush
and the New England GOP is Bush’s pro-family stance, and Bush did
better in New England than the local party, what does that say about
local GOP reluctance to embrace the pro-family cause?
Unlike the national party,
Connecticut Republicans suffered significant losses last month. If the
state party had been as firmly committed to protecting marriage as the
national party — and ran explicitly on that commitment —
the results would have been different. Instead, the state GOP has dug
itself into a hole by its reluctance to fully embrace the pro-family
cause. It’s time for them to reconsider.
Posted at 12:40 P.M.
WHEN “TOLERANT” PEOPLE ATTACK [Brian Brown]
The Courant’s music reviews are not part of my normal morning repertoire, but it’s hard to resist a headline like “Violent Assault of Ministry.”
Ministry, it seems, is a “left-wing industrial-metal” band
that played at Toad’s Place in New Haven over the weekend.
During the performance the band
“fed its hatred of President Bush” with the singer
“shooting a Bush-masked stagehand while the crowd raised fists,
devil-horns and voices in approval.”
“This, of course, is the
irony,” the reviewer informs us. Of course. “Ministry is
undoubtedly preaching peace.” Undoubtedly. A fake assassination
of a hated President is just an “ironic” way of
“preaching peace.” What don’t you understand about
that?
Posted at 10:55 A.M.
APPELLATE COURT GETS ONE RIGHT [Brian Brown]
Courant columnist Frank Harris III reacts today to a recent decision by our state appellate court:
Last week's Connecticut
Appellate Court ruling was a welcome sign that the clock may be ticking
away from the notion that one should not spank a child, no matter what.
The court overturned a ruling
that essentially says any marks left on a child from a parent who metes
out corporal punishment amounts to child abuse. It found that spanking
a child does not automatically make one a child abuser. It found that
parents have the right to impose reasonable physical punishment.
The discipline of children is an
inexact science and reasonable people will naturally disagree over the
best way to go about it. What’s notable about the state agency
rule struck down by the court is that it left no room for reasonable
disagreement. Under the old rule, the slightest mark caused by the
spanking of a child made the parent who administered it a child abuser.
Families need to make their own
decisions about the upbringing of their children, without undue
interference by the government. We in Connecticut’s pro-family
movement are pleased that our appellate court has reaffirmed that
principle.
Posted at 9:52 A.M.
December 2
CRITIC’S CORNER [Brian Brown]
In the two months since the blog
began I’ve received a lot of feedback, most of it positive. But
there is the occasional grump. Most of them sound like this guy:
ATTN: Mr. Stanley Kurtz
Dear Mr. Kurtz:
Your so-called "organization"
sickens me and you are an abomination to all Christians as well as in
the eyes of my God! My God is not a vindictive God and he loves all
people, and I think that you and all so-called "Christians" should not
spend all of your time trying to condemn gays or hating us because you
too are also committing a huge "sin" by not practicing God's Word and
loving thy neighbor.
We are all God's children by
far, and there is enough hate and crime as well as war going on in this
world. We are people too, and we are as well very capable of raising
and having strong families. The reason that I even wasted my time and
energy to visit your Website is due to the fact that my husband and I
had our Vermont Civil Union over the summer and we have recently
migrated back to Niantic. My husband, [name withheld], is a native to
this area and graduated from East Lyme High in 1980 and introduced me
to this very beautiful village during the summer. I too fell in love
with Niantic, so we decided to move here and to make this our permanent
home.
During our walk to the beach on
the afternoon of Nov 29th, we walked past St. Agnes Church and to our
dismay noticed your huge banner strung across the back of the church.
After seeing this abomination we were sickened. We want you to know
that we are very committed Christians who are deeply saddened by this
unneccessary public expression of hatred, and we have now begun the
process of notifying the news media as well as our elected
representatives. All of us are working together to encourage St. Agnes
Church to remove this inflammatory and asinine banner and to let the
community know that East Lyme will not have this kind of garbage in our
community.
We are people too, and again: We are _all_ God's children and we are _all_ a part of the community!
In Christ,
[name withheld], East Lyme, CT
First, I’m not Stanley
Kurtz. This poor fellow evidently confused me with the author of one of
the articles linked to on our homepage. Second, I’m accused of
“condemning” and “hating” others by a man who
declares in his first sentence that FIC not only “sickens”
him, it’s an “abomination” in the eyes of God.
Who’s the hater here? As usual, our adversaries need to take a
look in the mirror.
This e-mail is representative of
the general tone of much of our opposition. Their inability to debate
us on the merits — rather than dismiss our view as a mere
“expression of hatred” — explains why they keep
losing elections.
Posted at 3:03 PM
PROGRESS? [Brian Brown]
The Courant has a front page article today declaring that the “generation-long erosion in ‘traditional’ parenthood is now over.”
I hope so. Making Connecticut as
family-friendly as possible is, after all, FIC’s reason for
existing. But newspaper articles are, as is often said, “the
first draft of history.” Time will tell if the statistics cited
by the Courant prove the paper’s conclusion.
The data available does not seem
to indicate that we have emerged from the post-1960’s crisis of
the American family. Rates of divorce and single parenthood are still
astronomically high. What it does show is that those rates are not
getting higher. The drive toward the destruction of the family seems to
have been thrown in neutral. The challenge ahead for the pro-family
movement will be to throw the destructive trends into reverse.
Posted at 10:14 A.M.
THE NETWORKS GET ONE RIGHT [Brian Brown]
NBC and CBS are refusing to run
an ad produced by the United Church of Christ (UCC), a denomination
whose leadership is adamantly pro-same sex “marriage.”
Liberal radio host Colin McEnroe was in a quite a tizzy about it
yesterday, insisting that viewers could barely notice the homosexual
couples in the ad. In the first sentence of today’s Courant article, we are told the ad was “created as a message of tolerance and inclusion.”
No, it wasn’t. The ad was
created by smug liberals to proclaim their moral superiority to those
Christians who are so uncouth as to actually be faithful to Christian
morality. Here’s the Courant’s description of the ad:
The 30-second ad, called "Night
Club," shows two bouncers standing in front of a nameless church,
selectively letting in worshippers. A white heterosexual couple is
admitted past a velvet rope into the church, but the bouncers block a
male couple and several individuals of color. Later scenes show smiling
people of various races — including a pair of women —
standing together.
"Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we," the commercial's voice-over says.
This is one time when the
networks got it right. According to a spokesman for CBS, the ad was
rejected “because it implied that other churches turned away
people.”
The people who made this ad are
the ones always insisting that they are “open and
affirming” — that it is only those dastardly conservatives
who judge others. But can you imagine Catholics or Evangelicals
producing an ad that promotes their churches specifically by attacking
other churches? And then trying to air it on CBS and NBC? And then
throwing a hissy fit in the media when they didn’t get their way?
“Chutzpah” is a word that comes to mind.
“Clueless” is
another. There’s a difference between faithfully upholding the
scriptural prohibitions against homosexual activity and forbidding
those with such inclinations from entering your church. No pro-family
church does the latter. The UCC ad is a slur. Our congratulations to
the networks for not allowing one instance of liberal bigotry on to
their airwaves.
Posted at 9:35 A.M.
December 1
“WE NEED A RESOLUTION” [Brian Brown]
Mary Bonauto, the attorney who
won the same-sex “marriage” case in Massachusetts and has
filed suit in Connecticut in hopes of achieving the same thing here,
spoke to “50 students and visitors” at the University of
Hartford yesterday, according to the AP.
Given the AP’s tendency to exaggerate the numbers for pro-same
sex “marriage” events while downplaying the numbers at
pro-family events, plus the fact that the Hartford Courant
couldn’t be bothered to cover a lecture in their own back yard,
it doesn’t seem to have been much of an event. This, after the Courant ran an announcement encouraging people to attend and Bonauto herself took to the local airwaves to drum up interest.
Bonauto calls it “an
encouraging sign” that Gov. Rell opposes a Federal Marriage
Amendment. But governors have no role in the passage of federal
amendments. Bonauto is grasping at straws.
Which is understandable. If the
U.S. Constitution is eventually amended to protect marriage,
Bonauto’s colleagues in the pro-same sex “marriage”
movement will have her to thank for it. More than anyone else, it was
Bonauto’s victory in Massachusetts that made the passage of a
Federal Marriage Amendment possible.
“It’s just clear that
the discussion here in Connecticut is at a point that we need a
resolution,” Bonauto told the audience. That’s the one
thing she and I agree about. And the way to have a resolution is to
allow the people to vote up or down on a Defense of Marriage Amendment
to our state constitution. Otherwise, we will be stuck with an
unelected court or an unaccountable legislature imposing their will on
us regarding the most important moral issue of our time: the
preservation of marriage. That’s no way to “resolve”
differences.
Posted at 2:27 P.M.
FMA NOW! [Brian Brown]
The Republican-American’s editorial page offers
a rousing endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) today.
The editors are right to remind us what we’re up against:
Politics at the Capitol in
Connecticut similarly have taken a hard left turn in recent months.
With more liberal legislative leadership — that's saying a lot
— and a governor who supports public financing of benefits for
homosexual couples and opposes a constitutional amendment affirming
traditional marriage, those advocating same-sex marriage in Connecticut
will have an easier row to hoe.
The editorial’s title
offers the only legitimate resolution of the same-sex
“marriage” issue: “Let the people decide.”
Posted at 1:44 P.M.
ANCHOR RISING [Brian Brown]
We are not alone. In addition to
this blog, there are others throughout New England that have
established a presence on the internet in order to fight the
anti-family elites in our region. One of the best websites can be found
at anchorrising.com, a Rhode
Island blog. Run by Justin Katz, a conservative writer/musician/artist,
Anchor Rising is a good resource for connecting with like-minded people
throughout our region. Having spoken before a large pro-family audience
at Rhode Island’s state capitol in early October, I can tell you
that there are many in our neighboring state that are committed to
putting all of New England “on the right side of hope.”
Thanks to Justin, pro-family New Englanders now have another outlet for
their voices to be heard.
Posted at 1:14 P.M.
NOT “INEVITABLE” [Brian Brown]
Whenever I debate anti-family
activists or legislators there is one assertion they always make: that
same-sex “marriage” is “inevitable.” As Joshua
Baker and Maggie Gallagher explain
on National Review Online today, there is nothing inevitable about it.
Contrary to claims made by pro-same sex “marriage”
advocates, young people’s opposition to same-sex
“marriage” is actually increasing.
When I last testified before the
Judiciary Committee, Chairman Lawlor asked me about polls showing young
people being more favorable to same-sex “marriage.”
“We have a lot of work to do with the youth,” I said
— a response that caused shocked gasps from the pro-same sex
“marriage” audience.
It looks like they’ll have
a lot more to gasp about in the years ahead. The only thing
“inevitable” about same-sex “marriage” is that
some will continue to make the false claim that same-sex
“marriage” is inevitable.
Posted at 12:39 A.M.
CIVIL UNIONS = SAME SEX “MARRIAGE” [Brian Brown]
It’s the first of the month
— time for a refresher on where things stand in the battle to
protect marriage in Connecticut.
The “gut punch” of
thirteen out of thirteen states voting to amend their constitutions to
protect marriage combined with supposed pro-same sex
“marriage” victories in Connecticut has left local
anti-family activists with a case of vertigo. Their dizziness has
caused them to conclude that they live in a (by their standards) better
place called “Planet Connecticut,” a land where it is
“almost inevitable” that the next legislature will legalize
civil unions. You can read about it from their perspective here.
It is possible — though not
inevitable — that our legislature will legalize civil unions next
year. FIC will fight for the family with every resource at our
disposal. Whether we succeed will depend largely on the support of you,
our grassroots activists. You can help our efforts by using our home
page to contribute to the Family Institute.
The same-sex
“marriage” issue could be resolved once and for all by
allowing Connecticut’s voters to vote up or down on a Defense of
Marriage Amendment (DOMA) to our state constitution. Anti-family
advocates will oppose this because they know and we know what
they’re not telling the media: that a few legislative races in
Connecticut do not reflect the will of the majority on same-sex
“marriage.”
This is confirmed by the fact that anti-family legislators are focusing on civil unions, not same-sex “marriage.”
But how will the public react when they realize that a vote for civil unions is a vote for same-sex “marriage?” As the Connecticut Catholic Conference makes clear,
civil union is a phony compromise. The courts will use it as a pretext
to impose same-sex “marriage” by claiming that civil union
is a violation of the equal protection clause. The same activists
pushing for civil unions will be only too happy to push the equal
protection argument in court; they’ve said so repeatedly.
Civil unions will not prevent
same-sex “marriage” — it will guarantee its passage.
The only way to permanently protect marriage in Connecticut is to allow
voters the opportunity those in thirteen others states had: to vote for
or against a Defense of Marriage Amendment.
Posted at 12:00 P.M.
November 30
DOMA NOW! [Brian Brown]
The U.S. Supreme Court has
refused to take a case that could have led to the overturning of the
decision legalizing same-sex “marriage” in Massachusetts.
Does this, as the New Haven Register claims, “boost the chances” that marriage will be redefined here in Connecticut?
No. Even Anne Stanback, head of Love Makes A Family, told
the Courant she “doubted it would have a significant
effect” on her effort to destroy marriage as we have known it.
The case was based on a claim that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of a
“republican” form of government when it undemocratically
imposed its will on an issue that should have been decided by the
people’s representatives. We are in complete sympathy with that
claim. But it is hardly surprising that the same entity that imposed
Roe v. Wade on the nation — the ultimate usurpation of politics
by a court — would not support the claim. At least not until
there are more Justices on the bench who respect the Constitution they
are supposed to be interpreting.
But even without the “boost” the Register
hoped for, the pro-family movement will have a tough fight in the next
legislative session. Bob Ward, the head of the Senate Republicans, is
quoted in that same Register piece saying that he would “probably” support a civil unions bill.
Our goal for this next
legislative session will be to convince Ward and his colleagues —
on both sides of the aisle — not to join the courts in imposing
the destruction of marriage on an unwilling public. They must put the
issue squarely before the voters by allowing us to vote on whether to
amend our constitution to protect marriage.
You can help our effort by using
the resources on our home page to call your state senator and
representative. Tell them you want the people to vote on a Defense of
Marriage Amendment (DOMA) to our state constitution.
You can also use our home page to
donate to the Family Institute of Connecticut. As you can tell from the
items linked to on this blog, we have never been in more need of your
support.
As always your support — in money as well as time, prayer as well as activism — is deeply appreciated.
Posted at 11:07 A.M.
November 29
PLANET CONNECTICUT, 2004 [Brian Brown]
The pro-same sex
“marriage” movement suffered its most crushing political
defeats this year, with thirteen out of thirteen states — even
liberal Oregon — voting to amend their constitutions to protect
marriage. Most of these Defense of Marriage Amendments passed by 70-80
percent.
So how do Connecticut’s
pro-same sex “marriage” activists respond to the
public’s overwhelming rejection of their cause? By pretending
they live in a different place, a fantasy land called “Planet
Connecticut.” At least, that’s the impression one gets from
Carole Bass’ article in the Nov. 25 New Haven Advocate.
Yes, in the last election
pro-family Sen. Win Smith lost and pro-same sex “marriage”
Rep. Mike Lawlor won. But most Connecticut voters cast their ballots
based on their choice for President, not for or against same-sex
“marriage.” As a recent headline put it, “Nobody
asked Connecticut voters about moral issues.” If they had —
that is, if there had been a DOMA on the ballot — Connecticut
would have voted the same as blue-state Oregon: against the President
but for the protection of marriage.
Because there was no DOMA on the
ballot, same-sex “marriage” activists are reading the
defeat of a few pro-family state candidates as a public endorsement of
their cause. In the Bass piece and elsewhere, they now describe a civil
unions bill as “inevitable.”
The threat is real. But “inevitable?” No.
We’ve been here before. The
state election results in 2002 also favored the anti-family side. Yet
in the 2003 session Rep. Lawlor couldn’t even pass a
“domestic partnerships” bill through the committee he
chairs.
That’s not to say that victory is assured for our side, either. It will be a long, hard fight for the pro-family movement.
The only way to resolve the
same-sex “marriage” issue once and for all in Connecticut
is to put it before the voters, as was done in Oregon and elsewhere.
Let the people decide: Should we preserve the meaning of marriage or
radically redefine it? The legislature must allow the people to vote on
whether to put a Defense of Marriage Amendment into our state
constitution.
Same-sex “marriage”
supporters should not mind putting the issue squarely before the
voters. That is, if they really believe that “Planet
Connecticut” is on their side.
Posted at 2:00 P.M.
November 25
THANKSGIVING [Ken Von Kohorn]
Happy Thanksgiving to all! Today
the Family Institute thanks God for our many blessings and especially
for you, our supporters. Without you, to put it bluntly, we would not
exist.
Today we also offer thanksgiving for blessings from a far off location: China. Today's New York Times has a front page story which, in typical Times
fashion when it comes to matters of religion, accentuates the negative
("Violence Taints Religion's Solace for China's Poor"). But reading
between the lines lurks a major story: the gratifyingly large number of
new Christians in the People's Republic of China. In the story's fifth
paragraph, Times readers learn that there are more church-going
Protestants in China than in Europe. This is a little-reported story in
the Mainstream Media and is an astounding development, portending great
things for the future of peace and prosperity in the world.
A recent book, Jesus in Beijing: How Christianity is Transforming China and Changing the Global Balance of Power
by David Aikman (Regnery — 2003), gives the amazing details of
how courageous believers in China have prevailed, despite imprisonment
and torture, in bringing the message of God's salvation to millions of
Chinese — peasants and even high party officials who had been
hungering for spiritual uplift after decades under the repressive
communist regimes.
So let us give special thanks for what even the New York Times
can't ignore. As people become freer after living in chains, they
thirst for God's word. That this is manifesting itself in China can
only be a blessing for the world.
Posted at 12:45 P.M.
November 24
Kinsey [Brian Brown]
The Advocate newspapers
— and similar media outlets — have done their part to
de-legitimize marriage and make this world a more dangerous place for
children. But where did this trend begin? It began with Alfred Kinsey.
Kinsey, a “sex
researcher,” published “Sexual Behavior in the Human
Male,” in 1948. Though Kinsey’s research has been widely
discredited, he launched the sexual revolution by offering
pseudo-scientific evidence for his claim that all manner of perversion
and deviance were already widespread in America.
Naturally, Hollywood has just produced a hagiographic film about Kinsey. Naturally, the Courant’s feminist film critic gives the film four stars today in a review titled (of course) “BRINGING SEX OUT OF THE DARK AGES.”
As Frederica Mathews-Green explains, Kinsey did not liberate us from the dark ages; he put us there. As Sue Ellin Browder writes,
he did it on the basis of phony science. If you want to know more about
Kinsey — and what you can do to stop Hollywood and the Courant’s lionization of him — click here and here.
Posted at 4:05 P.M.
November 23
WHAT ARE THESE “MORAL VALUES” THINGIES ANYWAY? [Brian Brown]
On Nov. 9 in this space I noted that the Connecticut Post’s
regional/local section for that day had articles on six different
sexual crimes. I’m not the only one who noticed. Joe Miksch writes about it in the Nov. 18 issue of the Fairfield County Weekly, one of the chain of left-wing newspapers associated with the Hartford Advocate.
Miksch’s main point is that
we should not blame the newspaper for printing disturbing news.
“[I]f you really want to blame someone for that, try the child
molesters.”
That seems rather obvious. But in
making his case, Miksch adds this: “And to think people have the
temerity to criticize this newspaper for those naughty advertisements
toward the rear of our paper.”
Miksch doesn’t get it. The
reason those crimes are so prevalent is that we have a culture where
anything goes and no act can be stigmatized, lest one be thought
“judgmental.” There is no reason why consumers of ads for
every kind of adult perversion will not eventually turn their attention
to children. Pop culture and academia have already begun the process of
legitimizing pedophilia, the final taboo. History will record that it
was media outlets like the Advocate chain that helped put us on this road.
Miksch ends his piece by taking
swipes at the comic strips “Family Circus” and
“Mallard Fillmore.” But Miksch’s moral logic —
or lack thereof — makes him a dead ringer for Mallard’s
clueless “Mainstream Media Man” who, after the election,
had to ask Mallard: “What are these ‘moral values’
thingies anyway?”
Posted at 1:07 P.M.
November 22
SMALL STEP FORWARD FOR THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [Brian Brown]
The AP has an interesting piece
today on how same-sex “marriage” is part of a broader
attack against marriage and what the pro-family movement is doing about
it. Of course, the reporter does not put it in quite that way. But
then, this is the AP we’re talking about. The reporter noticed
the comprehensive nature of the pro-family effort to protect marriage.
We’re happy with that, even if he fails to understand that this
is not something new.
Posted at 3:56 P.M.
MEMO TO BESSY: IT’S CALLED AN “ELECTION” [Brian Brown]
“Until Nov. 3,” Courant columnist Bessy Reyna writes, “I had been complacent in my belief that I lived in a country that welcomed the exchange of ideas.”
But because her preferred
candidate did not prevail on Election Day, Reyna has concluded that we
do not live in a country that welcomes an exchange of ideas. Instead,
we live in a country where voters “stifle debate and impose
ideological homogeneity.”
It’s too easy to point out
that Reyna exhibits all the dissent-stifling characteristics she
attributes to those who dare to vote differently than her. So,
here’s another question: Where does the Courant find these
people? Is there a journalism school that specializes in churning out
columnists that are this lacking in self-awareness?
Posted at 2:44 P.M.
November 18
FOR STRONGER MARRIAGES [Brian Brown]
There is some good news in today’s papers. The Republican-American has an AP piece
on Smart Marriages, a conference held in Dallas to help strengthen the
institution. Protecting marriage from the attempt to radically
re-define it is an urgent priority. But we must also fight to
strengthen traditional marriage, which has been so de-valued in our
culture in recent decades. Conferences like this are a good place to
start.
Posted at 4:45 P.M.
YOUNG PRO-LIFERS [Brian Brown]
They get less attention from the Courant than pro-abortion interns. But the young have been trending pro-life for some time now. In 1997 the Courant ran one article on Feminists for Life.
The Courant should take a
second look. Through its college outreach program, FFL has been at the
forefront of changing young minds about abortion. Now that would be a
story worth covering.
Posted at 4:17 P.M.
LATEST DISPATCH FROM “YESTERDAY’S WARS” [Brian Brown]
Wednesday’s Courant included a sympathetic look
at local pro-abortion activists, who want the recently re-elected
President Bush to “know that there’s a large constituency
that disagrees with his stance on reproductive rights.” Can you
imagine the Courant running an equally sympathetic piece, say,
eight years ago, on local pro-lifers who wanted a re-elected President
Clinton to “know that there’s a large constituency that
disagrees with his stance on the right to life?” To ask the
question is to answer it.
Anyway, it seems that all is not
well with the younger pro-abortion activists. There’s a concern
that, following the election, they feel “dejected and could be
difficult to rally for another battle.”
But supporters of the culture of
death need not fear! “The interns are re-grouping.” At the
University of Hartford there will be a “fund-raiser and education
plan for World AIDS Day.” (Will the “education plan”
include abstinence? Don’t hold your breath.) At Yale there will
be an “abortion-rights film festival.” (Will it include
“The Silent Scream?” I’m guessing no.) Yale will also
hold an “emergency contraceptive day” run by a pro-abortion
student group whose membership “has doubled since the
election.”
The Courant would have us
believe that the pro-abortion movement is experiencing a reaction to
President Bush that could have political repercussions. There’s
just one problem. They told us the same thing before the election.
At the beginning of this year, the Courant
ran a fawning profile of the energetic Erin Aiello, a UHart student and
Planned Parenthood intern who organized local support for the
pro-abortion march in Washington. The paper gave her a full page, big
photos, the works. But that was then. Here’s what she sounds like
now:
“All of us interns worked
so hard for the last three years…We did voter registration. We
marched in Washington. It was kind of frustrating to know here we have
another four more years. I was personally hurt.”
Ms. Aiello, of course, is nowhere
near as hurt as the victims of her activism. But this is a good
reminder to the rest of us not to take too seriously the abortion
coverage of a newspaper that seems incapable of understanding
what’s at stake.
Posted at 3:35 P.M.
November 17
THE DEATH OF MARRIAGE: COMING SOON TO CT? [Brian Brown]
Fasten your seat belts. Connecticut’s in for a wild ride in the next legislative session. According to the Danbury News Times, it’s full speed ahead for the legalization of same-sex “marriage” or civil unions next year.
Rep. Robert Godfrey (D-Danbury),
who chairs the committee that decides what bills make it to the House
floor, says it is “almost inevitable” that a civil unions
bill will become law in 2005. Gov. Rell’s spokesman refused to
say that she would veto the bill. A pro-same sex “marriage”
activist from Bridgeport says civil unions will be “a great first
step” toward the legalization of same-sex “marriage.”
Rep. Mike Lawlor (D-East Haven) says that once civil unions pass,
legislators will ask “Why not marriage?”
Every poll of Connecticut voters
conducted by a reputable polling company (Wirthlin, etc.) shows our
state is overwhelmingly opposed to having a radical re-definition of
marriage imposed on us. The information reported by the News Times
confirms Robert Satter’s thesis that we have “A Legislature Beholden — But Not To The People.” As Satter writes:
A legislature in which more than
three-quarters of its members feel themselves immune from
accountability to the voters, and start thinking of their safe seats as
personal fiefdoms, threatens the quality of our democracy.
Between an unaccountable
legislature and an activist court, things look grim for the family in
Connecticut. But it also looked that way two years ago, right before we
defeated the “domestic partnerships” bill in Mike
Lawlor’s own committee. Peter Wolfgang’s article on that victory is worth re-reading, as we steel ourselves for the challenges ahead.
We beat back the destruction of
marriage before in Connecticut. We can do it again. But we’ll
need your help. Watch this space for updates as the battle heats up.
Posted at 9:50 A.M.
November 16
UNREASONABLE [Brian Brown]
In a letter
to the Courant, Frank O’Gorman, a board member of People of Faith
for Gay Civil Rights, “beg[s] to differ” with my quote in
Saturday’s paper that “a person of faith and reason
understands that marriage is about a man and a woman.” You see,
“[a]s a gay Catholic who is usually fairly reasonable,”
O’Gorman believes...
Well, I don’t really know
what he believes. I was so struck by O’Gorman’s
self-description that I never finished the letter. O’Gorman, the
most extreme pro-same sex “marriage” activist in
Connecticut, is best known for having described hate crimes against
pro-family churches as “justice actions.” At an FIC rally
last May, a member of his group held a sign that said “The Family
Institute uses the Bible the way Hitler used gas.”
Yes, there are homosexual Catholics who are “fairly reasonable.” But Frank O’Gorman is not one of them.
(For information on Catholic outreach to homosexuals, click here.)
Posted at 10:17 A.M.
November 15
DO NOT TAKE ADVICE FROM THIS MAN [Brian Brown]
You have to hand it to Dan Haar. While other local lefties are still crying in their lattes, the Courant’s liberal business columnist claims
that “[a]s the nation lurched to the right on Election Day,
Connecticut moved hard the other way,” and he smells an
opportunity:
Eventually, progressive-minded
folks would settle — or choose to stay — in Connecticut and
other like-minded states. Since socially liberal people tend to be well
educated, the ranks of technology workers and creative types could
swell here.. And, that, clearly, would be a boon for the state’s
vibrancy and prosperity.
Never mind the bigoted assumption
that religious conservatives lack education and creativity. If
Haar’s thesis was true, we would have seen it by now. Yes, the
Republicans gained seats in Congress while losing seats in the
Connecticut General Assembly in 2004. But it also happened in 2002. In
fact, in happened in 1994, the year a pro-family majority took over
Congress.
So by Haar’s standards,
Connecticut and the nation have been on opposite ideological tracks for
a decade now. The result? Connecticut’s population growth was so
slow that we lost a seat in Congress.
If Dan Haar is the kind of
thinker that the state’s business elites turn to for advice,
it’s no wonder our local economy isn’t in better shape.
Posted at 10:49 A.M.
MESSAGE RECEIVED [Brian Brown]
The Left is having a tough time
adjusting to the news that most of the country rejects their agenda as
a matter of moral principle. In Saturday’s Courant,
local lefties express their dismay that “conservative Catholics,
white evangelicals and black Protestants...found common cause on gay
marriage, abortion and stem cell research,” a convergence which
led to a “formidable political tide.” The article quotes my
observation that it was those “non-negotiable issues” that
created our coalition.
In response, we pro-family
citizens are accused of being a bunch of fear-mongering,
diversity-hating, poor people-ignoring, narrow-minded, hypocritical,
simple-minded fundamentalists who can’t think for ourselves. It
was also claimed that the religious left “did not respond”
to us.
In fact, we’ve been hearing the Left’s response for years. That’s why they lost.
Posted 9:47 A.M.
November 12
STATE LEADER OF UCC COMES UNHINGED [Brian Brown]
The Northfield Congregational Church has voted unanimously
to leave the United Church of Christ denomination because of the
UCC’s support for abortion and same-sex “marriage.”
In an official withdrawal letter mailed to Davida Foy Crabtree, the
head of the UCC in Connecticut, the church noted that the UCC’s
positions run counter to the “straightforward teachings of the
Bible.”
This is the fourth UCC Church in
Connecticut in the last year or two to leave the denomination. The
recent vote by the UCC state convention to tell state legislators that
the UCC favors same-sex “marriage” means there will
probably be more.
But while Davida Foy Crabtree was
nonchalant last summer about losing the UCC church in Wethersfield
— the largest in New England and fifth largest in the
denomination — the loss of Northfield, her childhood parish, has
pushed her over the edge. Naturally, she sees a conspiracy:
Crabtree said all the churches
that are withdrawing because of these doctrinal wars have been pastored
by clergy not ordained in the United Church of Christ. And, she added,
"I don’t think this is unintentional."
While acknowledging she has no
hard evidence of collusion, "I believe there are intentional efforts
being made by individuals to identify churches that are vulnerable to
this kind of influence and then to take them out of the denomination,"
Crabtree said.
I for one have reached the point
where I’m not going to let it be unnamed any longer — the
kind of work that these outside pastors are doing in our midst.
Ms. Crabtree has come unhinged.
First, if the UCC leadership had not strayed so far from orthodox
Christianity, they would not have had to borrow clergy from other
denominations in the first place. Second — given the key role of
FIC in organizing pro-family Christians in Connecticut to protect
marriage — if there was a conspiracy of pro-family UCC pastors,
we would probably know about it. The truth is that most of our
Congregationalist supporters are fiercely loyal to the UCC and deeply
grieved over its direction under people like Crabtree.
Crabtree marvels at “how
far” the departing churches have “strayed from our historic
and traditional commitments.” She complains that “[o]ne
generation of church leadership makes a decision like this...really
without consideration for all those who have gone before.”
This, from someone who thinks
Christians have a duty to advocate for the legalization of same-sex
“marriage.” But then again, we were warned about false
prophets.
Posted at 10:37 A.M.
November 11
CCLU ATTACKS CATHOLIC SCHOOL [Brian Brown]
The far-left Connecticut Civil
Liberties Union has faxed a letter to officials in Berlin declaring
that town’s annual grants to St. Paul Catholic School illegal.
You can read about it here.
The town of Berlin has been
issuing these grants for 30 years. In that time the grants have paid
for a counselor, remedial reading teacher, psychologist, speech
therapist , a medical supervisor, supplies, printing telephone bills
and clerical services. It’s money well spent, considering that if
the school closed down, the town would have to educate those students
at a greater cost than the grants.
But the CCLU declares the
arrangement illegal based on it’s belief that the town
can’t guarantee that “public” money isn’t being
spent on religious programs. In the CCLU’s worldview, that would
be a terrible thing. But that explicit sex-ed program being taught to
the kids in Bristol? Well, that’s just fine with them.
These are, of course, the same
people who can’t understand why they lost an election over
something called “moral values.”
Posted at 10:56 AM
November 10
THEY’RE TEACHING WHAT IN BRISTOL?! [Brian Brown]
Larry Cohen is a great writer and his latest column is no exception. But the pro-family community in our state should pay particular attention to his second-to-last paragraph:
The Holyoke story may sound
familiar to parents in Bristol, Conn., who earlier this year were
amazed to learn that the middle school life skills course included
rather detailed information on oral and anal sex. Who has time for long
division?
The local newspapers would have
us believe that the people of Connecticut don’t care about moral
issues. If the sex-ed curriculums in Bristol — or just over the
border in Holyoke — were front page news in the Courant, you can be darn sure it would generate a response that would leave no doubt about our state’s concern for morality.
The fact is, the state media pick
and choose what they think people should care about by deciding what
does and does not get coverage and how much attention should go to what
they do cover. Most people would not know what’s happening in
Bristol if Cohen had not mentioned it in passing.
But it ought to be front page
news. Similar programs could be — or are being — enacted by
other boards of education across our state because the people are being
kept in the dark.
Last summer, FIC helped organize
a campaign against a homoerotic, anti-Catholic play being put on by the
town of Cheshire. We responded because alert citizens in Cheshire told
us about it. When we know of similar happenings around the state, we
will respond. And we once again ask the media to do a better job of
reporting on these outrages.
Posted at 12:05 PM
THEY SHOULD HAVE ASKED STAN SIMPSON [Brian Brown]
Here is the second Stan Simpson column
in less than a week to deal sympathetically with the concerns of
pro-family African-Americans. Simpson is one of the best columnists at
the Courant and I hope his colleagues are paying close attention to what he has to say.
In every interview I give, I have
repeatedly stressed the broad range of support for our multicultural,
ecumenical pro-family movement. Many of our opponents refused to
believe it. Maybe they’ll believe it now.
Posted at 11:37 AM
“NOBODY ASKED CONNECTICUT VOTERS ABOUT MORAL VALUES” [Brian Brown]
Further proof that the recent
election of pro-same sex “marriage” candidates in
Connecticut does not reflect our state’s pro-family majority
arrives today, courtesy of the Republican-American.
It seems state voters were not asked about moral issues “largely
because Connecticut was considered a decidedly pro-Kerry state and was not voting on controversial issues, such as gay marriage." [emphasis added]
Oregon, another “decidedly
pro-Kerry state” nonetheless voted in favor of a Defense of
Marriage Amendment (DOMA) to its state constitution this month. In
fact, that amendment passed in all 13 states where it was on the ballot
this year.
If the pro-family citizens of
Connecticut — both Democrat and Republican — are ever to
see their values permanently protected, we need a vote on amending a
DOMA to our own state constitution.
Posted at 11:15 AM
WHY NOW? [Brian Brown]
According to an Associated Press (AP) article
in our local papers today, “Scientists report no evidence for
abortion-cancer warning, [women] are wrongly told it could hike breast
cancer risk.”
The AP is concerned that in some
states the law requires that women considering abortion be informed
that it “could” increase their risk of breast cancer
“despite scientific evidence to the contrary.” Later on,
the reporter grudgingly acknowledges that there are studies that
“suggested” a link and that the women are told the issue
“needs further study.”
Never mind that the AP skews
it’s reporting in a pro-abortion direction. We’re used to
that. What I wanted to know as I read this article is: what new
development in the last 24 hours — or even the last week —
caused the AP to suddenly publish an article on informed consent laws
in today’s newspaper? The answer is: nothing. The
“hook” for writing the article is the negative verdict on
an abortion/breast cancer link issued by the National Cancer Institute
“more than a year ago.”
Ah, but there was a new
development last week. President Bush was re-elected on a pro-life
platform. As a result, expect even more of this
pro-abortion-propaganda-pretending-to-be-neutral-reporting from the
Mainstream Media (MSM) as in the next four years.
Meanwhile, to find out what the MSM is not telling you about the abortion/breast cancer link, click here.
Posted at 10:43 AM
November 9
IT'S THE VALUES, STUPID [Ken Von Kohorn]
Gersh Kuntzman writes
in Newsweek that he cannot understand why this year the Democratic
Party was not perceived as the party of values. One of his
thought-provoking questions: "If abortion is such a big issue to these
moral value folks, why don't they support gay marriages — the
only abortion-free relationships?"
Governor Janet Napolitano
(D-Arizona) is also confused. She asks, "How did a party that is filled
with people with values — and I am a person with values —
get tagged as the party without values?"
Luckily for Kuntzman, Napolitano and other confused onlookers, Dennis Prager has solved
the mystery. Surprisingly, it seems to have had something to do with
the party's embrace of the Hollywood left, including the paragon of
American values, Michael Moore. After one Bush-bashing evening filled
with obscenities, Senator Kerry remarked that "these people are the
heart and soul of America."
That last comment alone should have cleared things up for Kuntzman and Napolitano without the assistance of Dennis Prager.
Posted at 1:45 PM
NOT EXACTLY “COSMO” [Brian Brown]
This
is from “Today’s Woman,” a section that appears every
Tuesday in the Waterbury Republican-American. Anne Hendershott, a
University of San Diego sociology professor and Waterbury native, has
published a new book, The Politics of Deviance.
Filling in for Brad Davis this
morning, local radio host Dan Lovallo wondered aloud why
“women’s organizations” like N.O.W. are silent about
the exploitation of women on network TV. But Hendershott argues
persuasively that groups like N.O.W. helped cause the problem.
Her thesis is that
society’s celebration of behavior it once stigmatized — and
its subsequent loss of a moral foundation — is directly
attributable to the P.R. efforts of left-wing advocacy groups. Not
surprisingly, the head of Love Makes A Family is quoted in opposition
to Hendershott.
But Hendershott’s concern
that we are headed toward “a social anarchy of sorts” is
well founded. The (Bridgeport) CT Post’s Web site
carries not one, not two, but SIX articles regarding sexual crimes,
mostly against children. And that is just today’s local/regional
section.
I would have missed the
Hendershott article if the wife of a friend hadn’t mentioned it.
“Today’s Woman” is not part of my normal Tuesday
regimen. But it’s good to know that the female readership of the
Republican-American have available to them something better than the
garbage found in most “women’s magazines.” Can you
imagine Anne Hendershott’s book receiving fair treatment in, say,
Cosmopolitan?
Posted at 10:12 AM; Updated at 3:12 PM
November 8
“Homophobia?” How About “Christophobia?” [Brian Brown]
This letter appeared in the Sunday Courant:
Church Is No Place For Votes
I have voted in many elections, but this election year astonished me.
The school where I was to cast
my vote is under renovation and could not be used as a voting center. I
received a postcard from the Wethersfield registrar of voters notifying
me that my polling place had been changed to the Church of the
Incarnation on Prospect Street. This totally astounded me.
In all my years, I have never
heard of using a religious institution as a voting place. Whatever
happened to the separation between church and state? Are there no
available municipal buildings, senior centers or firehouses in all of
Wethersfield that could have been utilized?
On the days leading up to the
election I noticed The Courant contained listings of designated voting
places. Churches were listed for a number of towns. I find this
practice to be totally out of line in this country, let alone this
state.
A friend told me I was
overreacting because I would be casting my votes in the church hall,
not the actual church. Well, little did I know that I would be greeted
by a cross that stands 30- to 50-feet-high just outside the hall's
entrance. Overreacting? I don't think so.
Daniel F. Duggan, Wethersfield
...“and it’s not just
because I’m a vampire!” Seriously, Mr. Duggan, lighten up.
A Christian church is as legitimate a polling place as any other,
despite the bigotry it may provoke in some.
Posted at 9:50 AM
“It Would Be A Mistake To Think It Was Just Conservatives Who Opposed Gay Marriage.”
Seems the Courant’s
editors should have consulted their own columnist, Stan Simpson, before
writing off the protection of marriage as “yesterday’s
wars.”
Posted at 9:36 AM
November 4
Getting Back To The “Real Issues” [Brian Brown]
The mayor of Hartford has an important op-ed
in the Courant today on how “Kerry Lost The Values Vote.”
His conclusion is that “to regain status as the national majority
party, [Democrats] must be willing to embrace those for whom faith in
God is a key component of civic participation.”
Yes, but let’s spell it out
explicitly. If they want to “embrace those for whom faith in God
is a key component of civic participation,” politicians —
of both parties — have to drop their support for abortion and
same-sex “marriage.” Doing so shouldn’t be a problem
for them, since these are just “distractions from the real
issues,” right?
Posted at 4:35 PM
Courant Wisdom Undone [Brian Brown]
Speaking of which, the Courant has a wonderful lead editorial
today on common predictions that didn’t come true. The editors
list the prediction and then describe what happened instead.
Here’s my favorite one:
“Pocketbook issues, not moral values, will make the biggest difference.
Many voters who rewarded Mr.
Bush with a second term seemed more alarmed by what they perceive to be
the erosion of family values.”
Don’t you just love that “what they perceive to be” part?
Posted at 4:17 PM
Unexpected By Whom? [Brian Brown]
So President Bush gets re-elected on the moral issues. The Courant’s headline? “AN UNEXPECTED MORAL VICTORY.” Only to those clueless enough to write off the effort to preserve morality as “yesterday’s wars,” guys.
Posted at 4:10 PM
October 29
See What Happens When You Forget To Read The Courant? [Brian Brown]
The Courant may think that
Connecticut cares less about the right to life than states in the
mid-west do. The editors measure local voter concerns by what
“garners bigger headlines” in their own paper, after all.
They should think again.
According to a front page piece
in the Republican-American, a dozen Waterbury-area Catholic priests are
publishing a four-column ad in tomorrow’s paper “that
spells out for Catholic voters the church’s position on abortion
and four other ‘non-negotiable’ issues.”
Someone forgot to tell these priests they were fighting “yesterday’s” war. Thank goodness.
Posted at 3:21 PM
“Yesterday’s” War? Or Future Victories? [Brian Brown]
The Courant’s front page today carries an article
on the “pivotal” role religion may play in the swing states
on election day. I’m sure it will. But a closer look at the
article reveals something else.
It’s abortion that will
play a pivotal role in the election. Specifically, it’s President
Bush’s pro-life position that may put him over the top.
Interesting news from the paper
that just last Sunday advised the President to drop his opposition to
abortion. What was that again about “yesterday’s
wars?”
Posted at 3:01 PM
“Low” On Who’s List? [Brian Brown]
A headline in the Courant today says “Same-Sex Marriage Low on Voters’ List.”
How does the Courant know this? Because other issues “have all
garnered bigger headlines in Connecticut.” In other words,
same-sex “marriage” is not important to voters because the
Courant says so. And oh yes, a pro-same sex “marriage”
activist in Washington and a professor in Rhode Island say so, too.
The Courant could not be more
wrong. As today’s Waterbury Republican-American more accurately
reports, “Election may hinge on same-sex marriage:”
“Four of the states with
marriage amendments on the ballot are presidential battleground states,
led by potentially decisive Ohio. The issue could tip results in
Michigan, Arkansas and Oregon by energizing Republican-leaning
Christian evangelicals and other social conservatives.”
Despite its headline and lead paragraphs, the truth eventually emerges even in the Courant piece:
Advocates on both sides of the
issue, however, are preparing for a bitter debate once the
[Connecticut] General Assembly reconvenes early in 2005.
‘It’s a crucial
issue, whether the candidates want it to be or not,’ said Brian
Brown, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut and a
leading opponent of gay marriage. Brown blames the media for failing to
press politicians about where they stand on the question.
We’re getting calls every day from people wanting to know which candidates are pro-marriage,’ he said.
Anne Stanback of the pro-same sex
“marriage” lobby “Love Makes A Family” allows
that the issue will become “more visible once the session
starts.” Of course she’d prefer that it be less visible
now, when voters have their say.
The #1 proponent of same-sex
“marriage,” Rep. Mike Lawlor, adds “I don’t
think people care that much.” But:
Brown...pointed to polls
conducted on behalf of [FIC ACTION COMMITTEE] that show 67 percent of
Lawlor’s constituents oppose same-sex marriage.
The attempt by radical activists
to destroy marriage may be “low” on the Courant’s
list of priorities. But to the rest of us, nothing could be more urgent.
Posted at 12:34 PM
October 28, 2004
FIC ACTION COMMITTEE Under Attack [Brian Brown]
John K. Currie, a West Hartford
member of “Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays”
(PFLAG), has filed a bogus complaint against FIC ACTION COMMITTEE. You
can read the New Haven Register article about Currie’s complaint here (link requires registration).
These are the key excerpts:
“The group’s
treasurer, Brian S. Brown, who is executive director of the Family
Institute of Connecticut, a separate tax-exempt group, said Currie need
not worry.
“Currie’s complaint
is ‘totally baseless and I look forward to the elections
commission finding that it’s baseless, because we’ve
already worked through all this’ and ‘we’ve been in
constant contact with the Elections Enforcement Commission,’
Brown said...
“[Brown] said the payments
Currie says appear to be payments to itself actually are payments from
the FIC Action Committee to a third organization, Family Institute of
Connecticut Action Inc., a lobbying organization.”
Posted at 11:45 AM
October 27
Church Teachings Mandate Kerry Vote? [Brian Brown]
The UCC is not the only church in
Connecticut with a few adherents who hold bizarre interpretations of
faith and morals. Consider Kathy Grace, a Catholic from Beacon Falls,
whose letter in today’s Waterbury Republican-American is titled
“Church teachings mandate Kerry vote.”
What I find interesting is not
Grace’s choice for president. It’s her claim that,
precisely because of Catholic Social Teaching, she has “a moral
obligation” to vote for John Kerry.
According to Grace, because the
U.S. bishops are “emphatically multi-issue,” other issues
— “peace and disarmament, structures that favor people over
profit, care for the environment, and better options for the
poor” — must be weighed equally with abortion.
There’s just one problem. The Catholic Church does not actually teach what Kathy Grace says it teaches.
Last summer Joseph Cardinal
Ratzinger, head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith, wrote the memorandum “Worthiness to Receive
Communion” to the archbishop of Washington, D.C. In it, Ratzinger
writes “When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand
in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate
for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which
can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”
But as Catholic teaching makes
clear, none of the issues mentioned by Kathy Grace are
“proportionate” to the slaughter of 1.5 million unborn
babies every year. In “Worthiness” Ratzinger specifically
states that other issues do not have “the same moral
weight” as abortion and euthanasia. The U.S. bishops’
documents stress the defense of life as the foundation of all human
rights. And in his 1995 encyclical “The Gospel of Life”
Pope John II writes, regarding a law permitting abortion, that it is
“never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign
in favor of such a law, or to vote for it.”
Good people can and do disagree
about politics. But the claim that Catholic Social Teaching mandates a
“moral obligation” to vote for John Kerry is simply false.
Posted at 3:55 PM
October 26
And the “U” in UCC Stands For...? [Brian Brown]
Mark Azzara is the best religion
reporter in Connecticut’s secular press and the Waterbury
Republican-American is lucky to have him. In “United Church of
Christ an increasingly divided denomination” — a story on
Page D1 last Thursday — Azarra breaks from the media pack to tell
us what’s really going on inside the UCC:
“The United Church of
Christ may need to reword its logo,” Azarra writes,
“especially the phrase ‘That they may be one,’
because that’s increasingly not the case. Winsted Church of
Christ recently voted to leave the denomination. Sherman Congregational
Church and First Church in Wethersfield are gone, too.
“Torrington’s First
Congregational Church voted last year to cover up or erase all
reference to the denomination from the parish’s signs and
letterhead.”
What’s causing good
Congregationalists to blush at the mention of their denomination? A
recent vote by its state convention stating that opposition to same-sex
“marriage” amounts to “an unwarranted act of
exclusion” and that the UCC should “communicate” this
new faith to legislators.
Our hearts go out to our
pro-family friends within the UCC, who continue to fight this nonsense.
Pro-same sex “marriage” activists knew this vote would
drive orthodox Christians out of the UCC and they did it anyway. Funny
how those who complain the most about “unwarranted acts of
exclusion” are the ones committing them.
Posted at 9:00 AM
“Yesterday’s Wars”? [Brian Brown]
The Sunday Courant offered a few
surprises for state liberals. The most obvious, of course, was the
paper’s endorsement of President Bush for re-election. As if to
soothe the blow, the Courant offered this advice for a second Bush term:
“For the sake of uniting
the country, say no to fundamentalists who want to impose their brand
of theology on social issues. These crusades range from relentless
attacks to restrict women’s reproductive rights to opposing
federal funding of promising embryonic stem-cell research to fighting
for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Those are
yesterday’s wars.”
We’re sure our liberal
friends caught the Courant’s other surprise. After all, it was
only buried in the 47th paragraph of a 59 paragraph article. In a front
page piece on the Latino head of the Connecticut Young Republicans,
Helen Ubinas eventually gets around to mentioning this:
“Polls also suggest that a
majority of Hispanic voters, young and old, are more likely to share
Republican views on controversial issues such as abortion and same-sex
marriage.”
Which causes us to ask two questions:
1) Do Hispanics know that the
Hartford Courant considers them to be “fundamentalists who want
to impose their brand of theology” on the nation? And
2) If the fastest growing segment
of our population supports the right to life and the protection of
marriage, how could these possibly be “yesterday’s
wars?”
Posted at 9:46 AM
A Morning With The “Tolerant” [Brian Brown]
KC 101 did eventually perform a same-sex “wedding” in East Haven. Here’s the story.
The Family Institute of
Connecticut Action Committee (FICAC) — a legally separate entity
— bought three billboards in the town of East Haven. Two say
“Protect Marriage: Vote McCann” and the third says “A
Vote for Mike Lawlor is a Vote for Same-Sex
‘Marriage’...Period.” Mike Lawlor, East Haven’s
state representative, is — in the words of the CCLU — the
“major champion” of the pro-same sex “marriage”
lobby at our state legislature.
Last Thursday, the New Haven
Register ran an article on the “controversy” sparked by the
billboards. In it, Lawlor describes himself as someone who
“favors some sort of government recognition of same-sex
relationships, whether through civil unions or gay marriages.” Of
course, Lawlor’s not just another pro-same sex
“marriage” legislator — he’s the man most
responsible for forcing the issue on the public.
KC 101 eventually found a lesbian
couple whose “wedding” was performed Friday by morning DJ
Vinnie Penn beneath the FICAC billboards. A small crowd was present
representing both sides. Here’s an excerpt from the Oct. 23
Register:
“So, as the women said
their on-the-air vows, one man kept up a constant patter loud enough
for the radio audience to hear.
“This is ugly! This is sin! It’s not good!” said the man, who would not give his name.
“Why don’t you go
tell it to a rock!’ yelled a female supporter, who said she was a
20-year old East Havener but did not want to divulge her name because
her parents didn’t know she was there.”
I was there. The Register’s article doesn’t begin to cover what actually happened in this exchange.
After describing the same-sex
“wedding” as a sin the man, an African-American with a
thick accent, went on to say “You’re too brilliant for
this. You’re too intelligent for this. Please don’t do
this. It’s not good for America.” To which the 20-year old
responded, “I was born in America. Where the **** are you
from?”
The man was unfazed.
“It’s against God,” he said. “That’s your
God,” the girl responded, as she took a wiccan symbol that she
wore around her neck and waved it at him. “I have a 3.9 GPA at
Southern [Connecticut State University],” she added, for no
apparent reason.
Other same-sex
“marriage” supporters followed her lead. One woman asked
the man if he was on welfare. Others asked him if he was himself a
homosexual.
Having now attended several
rallies, counter-rallies and “guerrilla theater” of the
sort hosted by KC 101 on Friday, there are two things I can always
count on:
1) Those who claim for themselves
the mantle of “tolerance” are often the least tolerant
people you will ever meet. And
2) The local media will do it’s best to make sure that you never know it.
Posted at 11:25 AM
October 24, 2004
Heard on Imus This Morning [Brian Brown]
“Some distressing news
about the city’s youth according to a new survey,” said
Charles McCord this morning. “One in four students reported not
using a condom when they have sex.”
What’s even more
distressing is that our media finds nothing else distressing about that
factoid. As Christian blogger Mark Shea often says, “Show me a
culture that denigrates virginity and I’ll show you a culture
that hates children.”
Posted at 10:30 am
October 23, 2004
KC 101 Proves Our Point [Brian Brown]
FIC Action Committee has
purchased three billboards in East Haven to help the opponent of
pro-same sex marriage Rep. Michael Lawlor. Two of them say
“Protect Marriage: Vote Dan McCann.” The last one is more
blunt: “A Vote For Michael Lawlor is a Vote for Same-Sex
Marriage.”
That didn’t go over well
with KC 101, a local radio station. Yesterday, their morning DJs said
they would retaliate by performing same-sex “marriages”
underneath the billboards — and on Dan McCann’s front lawn.
But today they admitted that
they’ve run into a little problem. It seems they can’t find
any local homosexuals who want to get “married.”
Which only goes to prove our
point. The pro-same sex “marriage” agenda is being pushed
by a small minority of radicals bent on imposing their anti-family
views on the rest of us. Most people don’t want this. Even many
homosexuals don’t want this.
Posted at 10:45 am
October 22, 2004
I Wed Thee...and Thee...and Thee [Brian Brown]
If Susan Campbell wants to
understand why opposition to same-sex “marriage” is
anything but silly, she should check out Monday’s Wall Street
Journal. In it, Kay Hymowitz discusses a recent op-ed by Georgetown law
professor Jonathan Turley.
Turley argues in favor of
legalizing polygamous marriage. He believes that it follows logically
from the Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision, which invented a constitutional right to sodomy. Since Lawrence
“recognized the constitutional right to engage in any form of
consensual sexual relation” the 1878 decision upholding a ban on
polygamy is, in Turley’s view, no longer valid.
And so it is that the slippery slope from same-sex marriage to polygamy is becoming a reality. In Bronson v. Swenson
a “Utah threesome” have already filed suit because they
were denied a marriage license. Here in Connecticut same-sex couples
have sued for the “right” to be “married.” If
they win, how long will it be before our state faces its own Bronson case?
Pro-same sex
“marriage” activists who sincerely believed their quest
would not result in legalized polygamy should reconsider before
it’s too late.
Posted at 10:00 am
October 21, 2004
The Gates of Full Human Potential? [Brian Brown]
Ok, so Courant columnist Susan
Campbell can’t tell the difference between a doctrinal dispute
and “where homosexuals can sit at the table” or a public
policy debate and “who gets to walk all the way to the throne of
God” (see previous post).
But the Courant must have a
pretty high regard for marriage if its columnist accuses opponents of
same-sex “marriage” of wanting to keep homosexuals
“outside the gates of full human potential,” right?
Well, not quite. You see, the
Courant only trots out a lofty view of marriage when it’s talking
about “marriage” between homosexuals. For the rest of us,
the Courant provides articles like, “What’s A Little Phone
Sex Between Consenting Adults?”
In its advocacy for same-sex
“marriage” the Courant sings the praises of monogamy and
commitment and deplores what it sees as homosexuals’ legal
exclusion from these goods. But monogamy is not on the agenda in this
remarkably judgment-free article:
“Many others use
commercial phone sex and Internet sex-talk services. Such businesses
are highly lucrative worldwide, at least for the folks who own them, if
not for the women they hire to do the talking. Alternative newspapers
typically run back-of-the-book ads for "hot phone sex" and "naughty
local girls [who] want to get nasty with you." Sexually oriented spam
e-mails offering sex talk and videos litter the Internet. And there
also are numerous, heavily used sites offering free chat rooms where
sex in all its variants is topic A through topic Z.”
The article gets worse:
“For those who simply want
a quick way to reach orgasm, it eliminates spending time and money on a
date that may not lead to the desired result.”
Remember this the next time the Courant tells its readers how highly it values “committed relationships.”
Click here for the full, nauseating article.
Posted at 7:33 am
October 20, 2004
“Real” Christian Compassion and Real Dishonest Reporting [Brian Brown]
Thanks to “blogging,”
non-journalists finally have an opportunity to correct the distorted
view of the world that has been spoon-fed to us by the liberal media
for years. In pursuing that noble task there can hardly be a more
target-rich environment than the columnists of the Hartford Courant.
Take Susan Campbell, for
instance. A cheerleader for same-sex “marriage,” her
columns on the topic are so devoid of evenhandedness — never mind
logic — that one can’t help but wonder if she does more
harm than good for the cause she espouses. Today’s column was no
exception.
In “Real Christian
Compassion” Campbell asserts the United Church of Christ (UCC)
Connecticut Conference’s recent vote to support same-sex
“marriage” was a “victory for God’s
people.” Really? Then whose people are pro-family Christians? How
is it that the same activists who falsely accuse us of bigotry and
exclusivity can so casually engage in the very rhetoric they claim to
deplore? Imagine what Campbell’s reaction would be if I gave a
quote to the media describing a pro-family victory as a “victory
for God’s people.”
Campbell writes that the vote
comes at an “ugly time when ‘gay’ equals
‘sinner.’” Actually, Christians believe that
“human” equals “sinner.” The effort by pro-same
sex “marriage” activists to paint the pro-family movement
as motivated by an animus toward homosexuals is deeply dishonest.
Because we oppose same-sex
"marriage," Campbell claims, we are trying to keep people
“outside the gates of full human potential.” Opposition to
homosexual activity in the Episcopal Church means we are
“wrestling with where homosexuals can sit at the table.” We
should not oppose same-sex “marriage” because
“choosing who gets to walk all the way to the throne of God would
be God’s job, not ours.” And our concern over the issue is
“silly” because our focus should be on “the indecency
of poverty.”
This is all utter nonsense. If
Campbell believes the issue is less important than helping the poor
then she should encourage her friends at Love Makes a Family to close
down their operation and open a soup kitchen. Better yet, they could
volunteer at one of the many run by pro-family Catholics or
evangelicals.
Posted at 9:21 am
|
