FIC Blog

The pro-abortion lobbyists behind the sex-ed bills we defeated this year haven’t given up the fight. But they know that FIC hasn’t either. From the June 23rd Journal Inquirer:

Those ‘usual suspects’ include Peter Wolfgang, Executive Director of the Family Institute of Connecticut.

“The bill was written in a very vague manner, so it was never clear how the money was going to be spent,” Wolfgang said. “It seemed pretty clear that abstinence was not going to be the main thrust of this bill.”

The bill’s language, however, was not Wolfgang’s only concern; the Family Institute supports abstinence-only education in public schools.

The fact that many teenagers will already have sex does not mean they should be taught about sex, as far as opponents are concerned.

“Kids are going to do drugs anyway, does that mean we should give them the drugs?” Wolfgang asked hypothetically…

“If the parents are tongue-tied, we ought to provide tools for them to fulfill their natural role in educating their children on these matters,” Wolfgang said, although he maintained that sex education in schools should be limited to an abstinence-only approach.

Read the whole article here.

The Task Force to Study the Causes of Fatherlessness in Connecticut is tentatively scheduled to hold a press conference on Thursday, June 26th at 2:00 pm–and to have its first meeting immediately after the press conference.

Those of you who received FIC Action’s May 22nd legislative wrap-up e-mail know what a significant breakthrough this is for the pro-family cause in Connecticut. And it might not have happened but for the hundreds of messages you, our members, sent to the legislature. This bill, which died a quick and quiet death last year, was passed by three committees and unanimously approved by the Senate this year because of you.

Thanks to your efforts, the task force survived inaction by the House and is tentatively set to begin on Thursday. Watch for more information as it becomes available.

Watch for a special FIC announcement later this week on fatherhood in Connecticut.

Nearly everyone expects the Brass City’s two hospitals, St. Mary’s and Waterbury Hospital, to merge soon. One is a Catholic institution, the other is a secular one known to perform abortions. Buried deep in a May 12th Republican-American article on St. Mary’s interim CEO was this:

Asked whether he thinks religious issues–such as abortion–could derail or at least slow down the merger process, Casey acknowledged that the issues exist, but also said he is confident the two hospitals would eventually get around to signing the letter [of intent to merge].

“They (religious issues) clearly are a hurdle…,” he said in one breath, “…and I’m optimistic the LOI will be signed,” he said in the next.

At the risk of causing St. Mary’s interim CEO to take a few extra breaths, we do hope the hospital will avoid rushing into this merger until it receives some assurances that its religious liberty will be protected. Connecticut’s Catholic hospitals, after all, do seem to be a favorite target of the state’s anti-Christian secularists…and not only in the matter of Plan B.

To this day, we still do not know what became of the complaint of bias filed two years ago against St. Mary’s Hospital by a homosexual doctor upset with the Catholic institution’s refusal to recognize his civil union. Back then, St. Mary’s spokesman patiently explained to the media that it could not acquiesce to the doctor’s demand because it is a Catholic institution that abides by the Church’s “ethical and religious” teachings.

Did the hospital later compromise on the Church’s teaching regarding marriage when it comes to the same-sex unions of its employees? And will it compromise on abortion when it comes to the merger with Waterbury Hospital?

This is one more story that bears watching… 

The best article so far on what the judicial tyranny in California may mean for Connecticut appeared in last week’s Hartford Advocate:

Of course, what the right thing to do is depends on your perspective. Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Hartford-based Family Institute of Connecticut, decried the decision of the California court, even while acknowledging it could influence the decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court.

“There’s no way to know for sure what the Connecticut Supreme Court will do, but I think it’s likely the decision of the California justices to usurp the will of the people will probably embolden the justices here to act in a similar fashion, as a sort of a super legislature,” said Wolfgang…

In California, Wolfgang said, opponents of gay marriage have gathered 1.1 million signatures to put a measure on the ballot this fall to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage and overturn the Supreme Court decision. The opposition began gathering the signatures — which still have to be verified — months ago, according to Wolfgang, in anticipation of the justices taking the action they took.

Connecticut has no similar mechanism to force a referendum on same-sex marriages if the Supreme Court should legalize them. Opponents here would have to convene a constitutional convention, where they could push to create a mechanism for referendums, said Wolfgang…

As it happens, the question of whether to convene a constitutional convention in Connecticut, which comes up only once every 20 years, is on the ballot this fall, but even Wolfgang acknowledges it’s a long shot.

“They don’t call Connecticut the land of steady habits for nothing,” he said. “I think that attitude makes it less likely that we’d get a constitutional convention, but ironically a Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex marriage could help us get it.”

The interesting thing about the article is that pro same-sex “marriage” activists were less willing than I was to say publicly that the CT Supreme Court will probably follow the California Court and re-define marriage by judicial fiat. Even our opponents know that court mandates are their worst avenue for victory and the one most likely to spark a pro-family response.

Whether that response happens in Connecticut will depend on all of us who care about constitutional democracy, religious liberty and the protection of marriage. Watch for more information in the days ahead.

The bad news is that our “robed masters” in CA have imposed same-sex “marriage” on that state by judicial fiat. The good news is that freedom-loving citizens are fighting back, led in part by someone well-known to us:

SAN FRANCISCO — - With its declaration Thursday that gay couples can marry, California’s Supreme Court delivered a monumental but perhaps short-lived victory to the gay rights movement that is likely to resonate on the campaign trail.

The court’s order becomes final in 30 days, and it told county clerks and registrars to prepare. But the window could close soon afterward — religious and social conservatives are pressing to put a constitutional amendment on the state ballot in November that would undo the ruling and ban gay marriage.

“These out-of-touch judges will not have the last word on marriage,” said Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage California.

The court’s decision is likely to re-energize an election-year debate over same-sex marriages and gay rights. By injecting the social issue into a contest that has been dominated by the economy and Iraq, the ruling could provoke a backlash among conservatives, drawing them to the polls in large numbers.

The Courant’s editorial board weighed in yesterday, admitting its own cluelessness:

Opponents of the ruling see it as another attack on family life. James Dobson, chairman of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, said, “It will be up to the people of California to preserve traditional marriage by passing a constitutional amendment. Only then can they protect themselves from this latest example of judicial tyranny.”

Preserve? Protect? Tyranny? We don’t understand that argument.

No kidding. You can tell the Courant’s editors all you want about Boston Catholic Charities being forced out of providing adoptions because of same-sex “marriage”, the New Jersey Methodist Church that lost its tax-exempt status for refusing to rent its beachfront pavilion for a lesbian civil union ceremony, and on and on…and all you will get in response is the editorial equivalent of a blank stare.

I have been inundated with media inquiries seeking the local angle:

”I think it very likely that the Kerrigan court will probably follow what the California court did and impose same-sex marriage on Connecticut by judicial fiat,” said Peter Wolfgang, the executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, a key mobilizer of sentiment against both the civil union law and the marriage bill that passed the Judiciary Committee last year.

Wolfgang’s group is asking for votes this fall for a constitutional convention. If one is approved by voters - the question is posed every 20 years on state ballots - the Family Institute will seek to create ballot initiative lawmaking in Connecticut, allowing the public to approve or reject laws like the marriage statute at referendum.

There is a lot to be said on this. Watch this space and your in-box for further information.

We expect it from left wing bloggers or the Courant’s Susan Campbell. But Chris Powell? Below is the letter I submitted to the Manchester Journal Inquirer on April 30th, which the JI published yesterday:

Chris Powell should check his facts before defaming the one group that shares his concern for “arresting the breakdown of the family” in Connecticut.

In “Break the vicious cycle: Take the children away” (April 5-6 column), Powell rightly connects the public coddling of unwed motherhood and fatherlessness with the emergence of violent predators — but then adds that “the organization whose name contemplates the problem, the Family Institute of Connecticut, is devoted instead to the irrelevance of disparaging homosexuals.”

FIC has always shared Powell’s concern about reversing family decline. In a Dec. 5, 2005, blog on our Web site, we highlighted a Powell column on the same topic and praised his willingness to see through politicians’ clichés about “more job training programs, more after-school activities,” to the real cause of the problem: childbearing outside of marriage.

FIC’s concern for “arresting the breakdown of the family” took concrete form this year in SB 266, An Act Establishing a Task Force to Study the Causes of Fatherlessness in Connecticut, which would “examine the impact of public policies in promoting fatherhood versus fatherlessness and shall consider how subsidized programs operate to encourage or discourage childbearing outside of marriage.”

Working with Sen. Gary LeBeau — an East Hartford Democrat who disagrees with us on same-sex marriage but shares our concern about fatherlessness — I testified in favor of SB 266. It was subsequently passed by three committees. On April 23 the state Senate — which let the bill die last year — passed it unanimously.

Why the big turnaround in the Senate? It was due in large part to lobbying by the Family Institute of Connecticut Action and hundreds of our members who contacted their legislators at our urging. Instead of disparaging the one group that shares his concern for reversing unwed motherhood and is putting that concern into action, Powell should help us get this task force.

These are just a few of the things Powell should have been able to discover before making his silly accusation.

For instance, he might have been interested in the meeting I had earlier this year with Child Advocate Jeanne Milstein. According to a Nov. 21, 2007, Hartford Courant article, following a series of murders of toddlers — allegedly by their mothers’ boyfriends — Milstein intended to ask the state’s Child Fatality Review Board to probe the issue of whether cohabitation is bad for children.

It will probably not surprise Powell that Milstein told me the Courant misreported her intention. But, again, FIC is the only group I know of that would even follow up on a report that the state’s child advocate was looking into the negative effects of cohabitation on children.

Powell objects to how unwed mothers are “aggressively shielded against any judgment” but “instead are affirmed.”

I know what he means. When the Courant ran a Jan. 28, 2007, story, “Unwed and Unashamed,” promoting local television celebrity — and single mom — Shelly Sindland, FIC was the only group to criticize it, noting on our Web site that “most women do not have the financial and other resources celebrities do to protect themselves and their children from the (negative) statistics associated with single motherhood.”

But, even leaving aside our desire to discourage abortions, returning the social stigma to unwed motherhood is an enormously difficult task — and Powell’s own column inadvertently demonstrates why.

FIC has gone to great lengths over the years to make arguments against same-sex marriage — facts about the best interests of children, the societal purposes of marriage, the consequences for religious liberty and parental rights — that have nothing to do with homosexuality. For our efforts, we are rewarded with Powell’s ignorant assertion that FIC is “devoted” to “disparaging homosexuals.”

The charitable assumption is that Powell is misinformed about FIC. Our opponents, on the other hand, deliberately equate any opposition to same-sex marriage with gay-bashing as a way of shouting down disagreement. What the demagogues have done on same-sex marriage they will surely do to efforts to restore a social stigma to out-of-wedlock parenting. After all, look how easy it was to fool Chris Powell.

Any day now the Connecticut Supreme Court could be issuing a ruling imposing same-sex “marriage” by judicial fiat…despite the fact that it has been repeatedly defeated at the state legislature. FIC supports a constitutional convention and right of initiative law to stop the Left’s constant efforts to usurp democracy. The right of intiative is a concept that may enjoy broad support, as this May 4th Courant op-ed by former Democratic state representative John Woodcock shows:

We often read of public opinion polls giving poor ratings to President Bush and Congress. No such poll has been taken regarding the Connecticut General Assembly and state government, but suffice it to say they would probably not fare well in such a poll of Connecticut citizens.

What is affecting the citizenry’s opinion of its state government? Is it citizen apathy, poor job performance, voter fatigue, or the myriad important issues such as escalating electric rates and public safety tragedies?

I believe that Connecticut citizens have the will and interest to stimulate and invigorate their government and make it more responsive to their concerns and their needs.

Just 26 years ago, Connecticut consumers deluged the state Capitol with their support of Connecticut’s first-in-the-nation Lemon Law. In the age before the Internet, they attended public hearings, held rallies, wrote thousands of letters and even flew an airplane over the Capitol with a banner expressing support of the pending law.

He might have added that just 5 years ago pro-family state residents deluged the state Capitol with 70,000 signatures to defend marriage, just 4 years ago 6,000 rallied in Hartford to protect marriage and just 3 years ago the Capitol was inundated with so many phone calls against the same-sex civil union bill that we shut down their switchboards. The civil union bill passed anyway…thus illustrating the problem raised by Woodcock and the need for the solution he recommends:

Today more than ever, Connecticut’s government desperately needs an injection of citizen input. Our legislature has become an isolated “Incumbent Nation.” The past dozen legislative election results illustrate this clearly.

If Connecticut’s leaders want to change the political environment of non-inclusiveness, they should offer and support citizen empowerment laws that promote democracy and citizen participation. These laws have been around for a long time and have been legislated by many states across the country…

A direct initiative law allows citizens to place a public policy issue on the ballot with no legislative approval needed. At least 26 states have these referendum laws available to their citizens, and more than 25 states provide for initiatives from their citizens.

Woodcock does not mention it, but there will automatically be a question on the ballot this November asking CT voters if they want to hold a state constitutional convention. Getting a “yes” vote on that question–which only appears once every 20 years–may be our best chance for getting the direct initiative law Woodcock supports. His own op-ed explains well why a “yes” vote–and a right of initiative–is so greatly needed:

Collectively, these reform proposals, tried and proved in other states, offer Connecticut citizens much-needed citizen rights. To become law, these reforms would have to be initiated and approved by the legislature, which has historically given them a very cold shoulder.

Perhaps the time is now, in this historic presidential election year, that we seek out and elect legislators who will advocate and work for the passage of laws that will strengthen Connecticut’s democracy and empower its citizens.

A likely Court-ordered imposition of same-sex “marriage” is another reason “to seek out and elect legislators” who will support the right of Connecticut citizens to be a self-governing people.

The lead op-ed on the front page of the Courant’s April 27th Sunday Commentary section was, of course, yet another article for same-sex “marriage“:

Their anecdotes revealed common problems. For example, same-sex couples are often denied health benefits because of a provision in the federal Defense of Marriage Act. In numerous situations, hospital or social services personnel either don’t know that they should — or simply refuse to — provide important information or assistance to a spouse in a civil union.

Even before the passage of civil unions, there were remedies for these situations that did not require a redefinition of marriage (a proxy for Mayor Perez admitted as much during his testimony before the judiciary committee last year). And passing same-sex “marriage” in Connecticut will not get same-sex couples “rights” they do not already have. More:

Based on the way I read the Bible — which may not be the way other Christians read it — I could not accept a same-sex couple as being married in the eyes of God. But the Bible also tells me not to mix religion and government. Matthew 22:21 says: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”

But this is begging the question. Whether opposition to same-sex ”marriage” amounts to nothing more than a desire “to mix religion and government” is precisely a point upon which the two sides in this debate disagree. By arguing this way the author will win kudos from like-minded supporters who consider themselves similarly “enlightened” but he won’t persuade a single opponent. Was this silly syndicated piece the best pro same-sex “marriage” op-ed the Courant could find?

For government, marriage represents a contract between two adults who have agreed to share a household and attendant responsibilities. There’s nothing particularly holy about having a justice of the peace in a courthouse tie the knot. It’s a legal proceeding that’s called marriage.

Actually, for government, marriage is a way of increasing the liklihood that its citizens will be born into natural, stable environments and grow up to be productive members of society. That’s why tampering with the key institution connecting sex, procreation and child rearing is a bad thing to do.

Neither I nor my church would recognize them as married under God, but they don’t care about us. They care about getting the taxation, insurance and government services benefits of being a legal pair.

Oh, good. If that’s all pro same-sex “marriage” activists care about, they can end their campaign in Connecticut…since changing the definition of marriage in our state will not alter their ability to get any of those things.

The op-ed appearing in the Apr. 27th Courant is by an editor for the Philadelphia Inquirer, where it first appeared. Perhaps it is harder for the Courant to obtain the right to run pro-family op-eds from other newspapers and that is why we have seen so few in its pages. But, somehow, I doubt it. 

It’s also said that gay marriage will eventually lead to polygamy and worse. This argument is without even the barest shred of merit.

–Genghis Conn on CT Local Politics, March 20, 2007

That didn’t take long. Barely a year after our opponents’ failed attempt to shout down the obvious truth that same-sex marriage could lead to polygamy, Connecticut’s most influential newspaper–and a strong supporter of same-sex marriage–is running a story promoting “polyamory.” From “One Woman, Many Beds,” a story in today’s Courant:

But Robyn Trask, executive director of Loving More, a Boulder, Colo.-based group, believes it is unfortunate that the public often doesn’t hear about what she believes are the positive aspects to having more than one partner.

While polygamy involves having more than one spouse, Trask’s group, which has 1,500 active members, including some in Connecticut, supports polyamory: having multiple loves of either sex with or without marriage.

Trask’s organization publishes Loving More Magazine and runs conferences and retreats that address topics that naturally arise, such as jealousy and envy, and provides support and education for people who wish to have “poly” lives.

Trask herself has practiced polyamory for 18 years and has three children. She has one primary relationship now with a man in Colorado and secondary relationships with a man in New York and another in Hong Kong, each of whom have relationships with others.

The Courant does not cite a single source critical of polyamory or the harm it can do to children. Instead, we get a firsthand account of the supposed strengths of the “multi-partner lifestyle”…though a careful reading of the Q and A suggests it’s not all it’s cracked up to be:

Q:So eventually you found polyamory?

A: We started going to [polyamorist] groups. In ‘99, we started a support group. … It was a coed support group put together by myself and my husband.

My husband started a relationship with a woman. I got involved; we had a triad. The three of us were involved. That was a total surprise. At the same time, I was also dating another man who was living with a woman. She was involved with another man.

Q:Was your marriage working?

A: I am actually now divorced. My husband and I split last year, pretty amicably. I’m now involved with somebody else who helps me run Loving More.

No doubt the same folks who were outraged by the same-sex marriage/polygamy connection will deny that this article lends credence to our argument. We can already imagine their weak attempts to deny it or change the subject: polygamy isn’t polyamory, a newspaper article isn’t a bill in the legislature…whatever.

But with this article the campaign for polyamory has now taken its first step in Connecticut…and it was the push for same-sex marriage that made it possible. Just don’t expect our opponents to ever admit it.