FIC Blog

(This is an account by my wife, Leslie, of what we experienced at NOM-Rhode Island’s pro-marriage rally in Providence this past Sunday. The second photo in this article shows Leslie facing down a group of gay “marriage” fascists who were yelling at our children.–PW)

[UPDATE: You can see NOM's video showing some of what Leslie describes here.]

Did you ever see that scene in one of the Narnia movies, where a battle is about to start and preparations are being made – when off in the distance there is a faint chanting and drumming? It grows louder and louder, till off in the distance the enemy is spotted. It’s terrifying. I’m not joking, the same thing happened to us Sunday in Rhode Island at the state Capitol. You see, Peter and I got this great idea to go a Rhode Island rally and support our counterparts in the defense of traditional marriage and visit our friends the Brown Family who would also be there. How was I to know that simply attending a “permitted” event (i.e., we had a permit) to show our support for traditional marriage would end with my family having to be escorted to our minivan by the police for our own protection.

You see, instead of wild enchanted animals drumming and preparing for battle, it was homosexuals in red shirts (and red-faced) with bullhorns and rocks, waving rainbow umbrellas. At least that is all I could see at first . . . just wave after wave of red shirts and rainbow umbrellas. It would have been comical if they were not all chanting and stomping their feet in unison coming around the capitol building toward us. They were actually organized so that they would stand still as a group (about 400 it seemed to me), then march forward in unison toward our group. Pause, chant, march…pause, chant, march. I was wise enough not to stare, but I will not forget the images of my oldest children: Isaac, Katharine & Elizabeth, clutching their friends’ hands and holding each other, mouths agape, looking quite terrified at the incoming crowd. They kept asking “who are they?”, “why do they have a rainbow flag?”, “are they coming here?”, “where’s Frannie?” I have never seen them so scared and I’m rather mad at myself for having put them there. I had no idea the worst was still to come.

The red gays, as I will call them, tromped from their “permitted” area – i.e. the area they had a permit to congregate at the front of the Capitol Building–down a side street about 500 feet away from us at the back of the building. I didn’t realize anything was happening until the speaker asked that we focus on our rally and not spectate. The street with the protesters was parallel to where we were standing and we could watch them chant tremendously loud with bullhorns, stomp, and wave their umbrellas (I happen to own one of these umbrellas that I now want to chuck) all the way down to our street level. Having little children I tend to stand near the back of all public gatherings. Suddenly three squad cars pulled onto the grass behind me and the children. The protesters eventually gathered about 100 feet behind us. Between us and them were the 3 police cars, hastily parked. The incoming protesters gathered at the end of this grassy area near the street and, though upset that they were permitted to gather so close and interrupt our rally (Jennifer Rorback Morse was giving a talk about adoption), I thought surely they would not come any closer. I was used to CT, where the police forcefully keep each rally on their side of the capitol. Not so in rough and tumble RI.

Their chanting (“take your hate out of our state” and vulgarities I have mentally blocked) and the marching in unison started again and each time I peered in back of me (again, we were on the fringe), they were closer. As I reflect now, I realize that their actions were intended to scare and intimidate us. They were not trying to move public opinion, convince legislators or explore the issues. They were angry and were trying to punish and provoke us. It worked; I was scared out of my mind. My heart raced and I tried to stay strong for the children, the speakers and other peaceful gatherers. I couldn’t understand, and still don’t, why the police and their “leaders” permitted what happened next.

My children were buzzing with anxiety (of course Frannie and Rose, my toddlers, were constantly running away). A handsomely dressed couple, sans children, asked me if “these girls” were mine. I said yes, and they informed me that they left their children home. “Gee THANKS”, I thought. A little note about the Rhode Island attendees . . . they were subdued, older, hunkered, weathered, it seemed – with few children present. The Browns and I were from out-of-state and obviously didn’t know what they knew about RI protests and the permissiveness of the Capitol Police. In retrospect, it should have made more of an impression and raised a red flag for me.

My children were not completely afraid because Peter and I were with them so they knew they would be protected. But some of our children began to whimper as the protesters moved closer. It was at this point, about 30 feet away, that my children got a good look at the face of hate. I periodically looked back over my shoulder only to be treated to sneers and chants. I averted my eyes from the signs, especially the ones that were held close to genitals with large black arrows saying something about “dirty”. I’m not exaggerating, they were vulgar and disgusting. Elizabeth and Katharine, whom I’ve taken so much care to teach to read, got an eyeful, I’m sure. The chanting continued and we could no longer hear the speakers. Isaac, my six year old boy, frighteningly asked me if they were going to “get us”. I told him to rest assured that the police would protect us. But oh Dear God, what was happening, I do not know, because the police did NOT protect us.

I have a stubborn streak when it comes to democracy and standing up for the right to petition the government, vote, speak, and peacefully assemble. I don’t back down from a fight, but it was at that point that I started to look for a way to exit. I gathered my bewildered and frightened children to the double stroller. Grabbed my giant purse/diaper bag and looked around. To my horror, it was at that point that the police completely failed. Our small group of pro-marriage attendees was surrounded on every side by the protesters. And, I’m not speaking “metaphorically” surrounded. I mean that they formed a tight circle with a perimeter about 3 feet from where I was standing. We could not leave. Rosie, my 3 year old, informed me at that point that she REALLY had to use the potty. It increased my urgency to find an escape. (Poor little Rosie, we never did get her to the potty till we got home later that evening.)

At that point my husband arrived. I had dispatched him earlier when I heard a scuffle over the microphone and Brian Brown asking the police to remove the protesters – from the podium! Apparently there were lesbians making-out at the base of the podium, with 3 other protesters wrestling for space at the podium with Brian. Peter was yelling to the police to do something. They refused and informed Peter that the protesters “had a right to be there”. Unbelievable. Now, Peter and I don’t “make out” in front of the children. I’m not sure my children have ever seen people getting-it-on, so to speak. Until now. My heart is sinking as I type this. Maybe I should have been more libertine with the physical acts they saw on TV or at parties, so they would not have been so shocked. But really? I honestly believe those protesters thought it was their duty to “educate” my children in such a manner. It is an example of how this will not stop at gay “marriage”. Their intention is to forcibly change all aspects of our culture, even if it means educating our children for us.

My friends. I enjoy a good debate. I think rallies and protests are a wonderful part of the democratic process. But nobody has a right to interrupt our right to peacefully gather and petition the government. We had a permit, we followed their rules. Using tactics to scare and intimidate is NOT democracy. . . it’s hate, it’s bigotry, it’s fascism. For all their talk about “love”, the truth was put on display yesterday. Gay “marriage” is not about love – it is a selfish disorder, it is love without God, focused on adult desires and forceful acceptance. It has never been about true love . . . sacrificial love. Otherwise they would not have ambushed our rally and physically taken over the microphone yesterday using the tactics of intimidation and fear. I’m sure many people would say “we got what we deserved” and take delight in my family’s fear. But remember – the gay protesters were the ones who ambushed our gathering. If the roles were reversed, the media would raise a storm of protest. And demands of repudiation would be issued, and probably received. Others (including myself at this point) would question the wisdom of participating in such a rally. But peacefully petitioning the government is a worthy fight. At this point in history, our fight may just be for the right to simply congregate in public. A fight to retain a place in the public square–something that was so forcefully taken from us yesterday, with the complicity of the police.

I am so proud of Brian and the other speakers. I remember quotes from Chesterton and William Wilberforce being loudly expounded as they wrestled with the protesters at the microphone. It gave me courage. Next, the protesters continued their procession around our group to the back of our podium. Of course, this was all carefully orchestrated by their “handlers”. Their leaders were instructing them when to move, what to chant, where to go. They proceeded to a spot directly behind the podium (in the blazing sun) and stood mocking us (and America) with flags and signs on the granite stairs leading up to the Capitol. I was somewhat relieved because this actually made the speakers easier to hear and nobody was in my family’s personal space.

Each speaker was shaken. I could barely see them but their voices periodically squeaked or shook. I admire their bravery greatly, and they gave some pretty excellent and inspired speeches. The children took up a game of backward duck-duck-goose and things were looking up. We were instructed to pray heartily for the protesters, remember where we came from and who we were, and not to react with violence if confronted. Remember hundreds of protesters were poised above us on the stairs, glaring at us like birds-of-prey. That is not to say they were quiet, they were quite loud and obnoxious reacting to the speeches. Though they did get quieter during the actual praying.

I was apprehensive at the time of dismissal. How was this going to end? Rather dramatically it turns out. As Brian gave the signal to disperse, the protesters started to sing “Hey, Hey, Hey – Good bye!”. Gladly, other music was played over our sound system. The crowds were breaking up but my children were playing so sweetly with the Browns. And I wanted to make the re-connect and stay. Unfortunately for us, a small band of protesters that earlier stormed the microphone was still “hopped up” on hate. Looking for a little more action they turned to my little children. It was Sue [Brown] who heard them say, as they walked toward them . . . “Hey, don’t let your parents teach you to be haters.” 

Sue leapt like a cougar across the grass separating the children and them. She told them to mess with a mother, if they wanted action. I jumped in right away (in my mind) and told them they were asking for trouble, and to “beat it” – poor choice of words, I know. That they were really going to “get it” now. It was lame. This was all very loud and the police . . . well, I realize now, just fancied themselves as “observers”- kind of like the UN. They had no intention of protecting or preventing harm.

The protesters refused to retreat and more red shirts showed up. My little Frannie and Rose kept coming to my knees, and Max to Sue’s. Did I tell you that Sue is about 6 months pregnant and had 6 children there herself? Anyway, statements such as “I’ll make your children gay” and “what about me, I used to be a boy too” were spat at us. I tried to pull Sue away because it was obviously not going to end well, and honestly, these protesters looked like they were about to pass out (remember, they had been in the sun). I exclaimed to the police that they were “attacking” my children. Which, in addition to approaching them on foot – if you accost me in front of my children, you’re attacking my children. Perhaps a poor word choice, but I was scared. Then, the one red shirt who was actually trying to convince the others to leave – turned on me and started shouting that I was a “FREAKIN LIAR!!!!!” A “LIAR” she kept yelling and pointing at me. I ran up and said, “are you going to attack me! Come and get me!” and nearly chest-bumped her companion. I think that is when the photographer for the local newspaper captured the moment for posterity. Sigh.

At this point the kids were staring and people were yelling, in one motion I swirled and grabbed Sue then I swung to the other side of my friends and family and started praying at the top of my lungs. Now, I had recently re-read a magazine article about Bobby Jindal’s first hand account of an exorcism. In his panic, he started yelling “Hail Mary’s” from the corner of the exorcism room because that is the only thing he could remember. And Our Mother in Heaven is quite powerful. So in my apparent panic and in an effort to distract the children from the ensuing madness – I started yelling Hail Mary’s, interspersed with prayers for our opponents who had “obviously suffered some childhood trauma that made them gay” and for the other attendees including the police. It’s one of those slow-motion moments. I’m really dumbfounded, because I’m not a big public prayer or a leader in spiritual matters. Must have been the Holy Spirit, and it was great.

Things started to break up and the police stood between us and them. We asked the police to discourage the protesters from yelling to my kids that they were going to “abduct them and make them gay”, etc. In response we were told to “move our kids”. To where!?!

I was actually concerned about the long walk back to the car – we were about 5 minutes away and at one point had to walk through a train station. After re-connecting with the Browns for a few minutes we realized we should go. Sue and I decided that it would probably be unsafe for them to give us a tour of their Marriage Bus (I did see crowds around it as we were driving away). I asked for a police escort to our van. A hefty officer and a seminarian friend escorted us away from the Capitol to the street. Where, at that point, the officer saw a buddy in a car and poignantly abandoned us. So, we slowly made it back to our car with our seminarian friend. I checked the van over, as I regularly do for key marks, loaded the children, and split. I drove around the Capitol to check on the Browns, who actually had to “break down” all the sound equipment and travel on the marriage bus to their hotel. I lay in bed that night whispering prayers for them because I couldn’t get out of RI fast enough. I hope they are safe. On the way home we debriefed the children. They seem high-spirited, but I have the sort of kids that like to mull it over. They all said that was “crazy”. Yes, indeed. I expect them to talk more about it in the upcoming weeks and months. And the Lord knows, they will have something to “remember when” with the Brown children when they get older.

It’s famine to feast at FIC Action Committee when years ago an endorsement by a socially conservative, grassroots organization in Connecticut would have garnered little, if no attention – to now, where the mere mention or NOT of an endorsement on our blog is mewed, analyzed, closely watched and reported by Connecticut’s biggest and loudest political observers.  Who’s on our blog – or not, advisory members – or not . . . all the intrigue and observation IS deserved because thanks to our members, FIC is Connecticut’s best known and most effective organization fighting for our families in our state. 

Our members have known for years how important an FIC Action Committee endorsement is to determine which candidates to spiritually, physically and financially support and vote for. We’re glad others are beginning to report and share our blogs and lists too! We encourage you and others interested in which politicians have FIC Action Committee’s support to watch for our formal list of endorsed candidates later this summer. 

Want a preview?  Yes, searching  blog post archives can be a good (yet sometimes fleeting) place to check, and even people who don’t report the news for a living can figure out that members of our advisory boards will garner our favor.  We hope that you and others will continue to watch for endorsements by the Family Institute of Connecticut Action Committee.

(Below is a slightly edited version of yesterday’s FIC e-mail alert -PW)

Second Circuit Denies Expedited Appeal

When Enfield changed its mind last week and voted to appeal a temporary injunction against holding graduations at First Cathedral, FIC noted that

according to The Courant, the BOE is still not seeking to move this month’s graduations back to First Cathedral. This undercuts Enfield’s own case and raises questions as to why the appeal is “expedited.”

The Second Circuit Court has denied the expedited appeal on precisely those grounds. From a Courant story no longer available online: 

A short court order issued Monday said the request was denied “as the Enfield Board of Education has decided to hold the 2010 graduations on school grounds regardless of how this appeal is decided.”

This is just the latest development in a fight that likely will not be won until the Second Circuit–or perhaps even the U.S. Supreme Court–rules on the ACLU’s lawsuit itself, rather than this temporary injunction.

And the fight has many twists and turns. Last week, we dealt with one purveyor of liberal media hostility to FIC’s role in the Enfield graduation fight. Today, we recommend our analysis of a recent Courant editorial and we especially recommend Don Pesci’s column on the media and FIC:

Just now, Big Media is interested in preventing Peter Wolfgang of the Family Institute of Connecticut (FIC) from engaging in politics, the birthright of every American, theist or atheist.

The good news going forward is that the Second Circuit denied the expedited appeal on a technicality, not because it agreed with Judge Hall’s ruling–and many commentators believe that Judge Hall’s ruling is so flawed that Enfield will be able to use First Cathedral for graduations next June.

Watch your in-box for further updates.

The Courant Ed Page is right when it says on its facebook that obvious bias is the Ed Page’s job. But there is a difference between the bias of advocating for a position and the bias of making misrepresentations–and The Courant’s bias on Enfield is very much the latter.

We have already discussed why the media is lashing out at FIC here and we said all there is to say about the Courant columnist attacking us here and here. What interests us now is an institutional bias on The Courant’s Ed Page that goes beyond mere disagreement.

The Courant’s lead editorial in the Sunday edition laments Enfield’s decision to reverse itself and appeal Judge Hall’s ruling against the town, calling the previous vote not to appeal “a wise and prudent decision.”

We would understand if The Courant wanted to lament Enfield’s April 13th decision to stand up to the ACLU in the first place, though we would disagree. But to call Enfield’s initial June 3rd vote not to defend itself against Judge Hall’s ruling ”a wise and prudent decision” without spelling out what that vote means is disingenuous.

Judge Hall ruled against Enfield on a preliminary motion, not on the suit itself. Hall’s ruling made it clear that she would rule against Enfield in the lawsuit itself, which was still moving forward. It was the ACLU that filed suit against Enfield, not the other way around, and the ACLU showed no signs of dropping its suit. Enfield’s June 3rd vote not to appeal Hall’s ruling was not a vote to end the lawsuit–it was essentially a vote to lose the lawsuit. And The Courant calls this vote ”wise and prudent.”

The editorial prattles on a bit about FIC’s “pro-religion agenda”–how we want to “tear down” church-state separation and force our religion on everyone. Some of you may be wondering why a Catholic like me wants to force First Cathedral’s Baptist faith on everyone. But irrational and paranoid fears of this type are a staple of liberal editorialists struggling with the uncomfortable truth that many of their fellow citizens remain deeply religious.

 This is not the first time The Courant has taken an editorial swipe at FIC. But, as far as I can recall, it is the first time the editorial has mentioned our organization by name. We must be coming up in the world.

Even then, The Courant describes FIC–twice–as an “outside” group. This is wishful thinking. Never mind that the 2010 Enfield graduation fight was actually begun by the students themselves. Never mind that FIC has well over a hundred members in Enfield. FIC’s office is right down the street from The Courant. Their reporters and photographers have been here on several occasions and the paper has covered our activities for years. We may not fit The Courant’s vision of a Connecticut blissfully untainted by the religious conservatism that is a scourge on the nation’s less enlightened regions. But we are as native to this state as it gets.

And that’s just one editorial. Then there’s the Letters to the Editor.

Last week The Courant published my letter defending FIC. A few days later the paper published a letter responding to my letter:

Peter Wolfgang raised an interesting question. Does Mr. Wolfgang have children in the graduating class of either Enfield high school? If not, then it is not his government he was petitioning, it was other people’s town government.  

Actually, the interesting question I raised was “Do our members have less of a right to petition the government than other citizens?” The writer above misrepresents my letter and The Courant lets her.

That same day The Courant published a letter that somehow managed to criticize a column depicting FIC as money-grubbing opportunists but without actually defending us. Letters submitted by others who did defend FIC were, of course, never published.  

Careful readers will also note that The Courant’s editors included a facebook option for you to “like” the letter criticizing FIC but they did not include the “like” option for my letter defending FIC. They will notice that The Courant provides a link to the ACLU when I mention the organization in my letter but there is, of course, no link to FIC (and it’s my letter!). And they may notice, as of this moment, that my letter has disappeared from the online Letters to the Editor section, even though letters published earlier than mine are still there.  

There is bias and then there is bias. The bias that The Courant’s Ed Page says is its job is not the kind of bias it is displaying in the matter of FIC and Enfield.

The Enfield Board of Education has rescinded a previous vote and will now appeal Judge Hall’s ruling barring graduations from being held at First Cathedral. FIC applauds last night’s vote and hopes that the BOE’s erratic behavior will not damage Enfield’s chances of winning the lawsuit.

First Key Vote: April 13th

BOE Member Judith Apruzzese-Desroches—who voted last night against taking up the appeal—told The Courant “We’re walking into something and I don’t think people realize how big it really is and how long it’s going to last.”

But Enfield had already decided to “walk into” a stand against the ACLU when the BOE voted on April 13th to send graduations back to First Cathedral. If the BOE had chosen then to disregard the case made by Peter Wolfgang and others for holding graduations at the church, it would have been a defeat for the First Amendment and Enfield’s families. But no one would have disputed that Apruzzese-Desroches and our other opponents were doing what they thought was best for Enfield.

What happened next was another matter entirely.

Second Key Vote: June 3rd

BOE Member Donna Szewczak—who voted last night for taking up the appeal—told The Courant “we needed to take a strong stance” and strengthen Enfield’s defense against the ACLU’s lawsuit.

That was exactly the problem with the BOE’s initial vote last week (June 3rd) against appealing Judge Hall’s ruling. Enfield’s initial decision to cave into the judge’s ruling was not a decision to end the lawsuit. It was essentially a decision to lose the lawsuit.

Enfield had already chosen to stand up to the ACLU and the ACLU responded by suing them. At that point, a vote to not be sued by the ACLU was not an option. By initially choosing last week against appealing Judge Hall’s ruling, the BOE was voting to take a weak stance, to deliberately weaken Enfield’s defense against the ACLU.

The five BOE members who voted last week against appealing the judge’s ruling—and the four who did it again last night—voted to undermine Enfield while the town was already engaged in a high stakes lawsuit. The political operatives behind those votes did no favor to the taxpayers or even to the ACLU’s view of the First Amendment. They were simply sabotaging the Town of Enfield.

Third Key Vote: Last Night (June 8th)

The Enfield BOE has now rescinded its irresponsible decision to undermine its own defense. We are pleased that the appeal will move forward after all. But, according to The Courant, the BOE is still not seeking to move this month’s graduations back to First Cathedral. This undercuts Enfield’s own case and raises questions as to why the appeal is “expedited.”

FIC will keep you updated on the continuing twists and turns of the Enfield graduation battle.

FIC is pleased by Judge Julia Aurigemma’s dismissal of a lawsuit seeking to legalize physician assisted suicide. The culture of death will likely seek other means to pursue their goal–and FIC will be there to oppose them. Below is the e-mail alert I sent out on the afternoon of Mar. 8th, which predicted Judge Aurigemma’s ruling.

Victory for the Vulnerable?

I’m just back from Hartford Superior Court, where motions were heard on a lawsuit seeking a judge-created right to physician assisted suicide in Connecticut. Some quick highlights:

• I think it likely that Judge Julia Aurigemma–who I once served as a temporary assistant clerk–will grant the state’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. “Judges aren’t supposed to legislate and people don’t like it when we do,” a skeptical Judge Aurigemma told the plaintiffs’ attorney.
• FIC’s motion to intervene in the Kerrigan same-sex “marriage” lawsuit was discussed in relation to the Catholic Church’s motion to intervene in this case. The assisted suicide lawsuit is itself a product of Kerrigan: the cultural Left learned that Connecticut judges will grant them what the people and their elected representatives will not.
• The rolling effect of S.B. 1098–the 2009 bill targeting Connecticut’s Catholic churches–continues. After being forced to withdraw 1098 in the wake of overwhelming opposition last year, the judiciary committee suddenly scheduled a hearing on assisted suicide–and just as suddenly canceled it when Sen. McLachlan and others called out co-chairs Michael Lawlor and Andrew McDonald for their pursuit of a personal vendetta against the Church. Last year, Lawlor and McDonald’s overreaching on 1098 inadvertently aided FIC’s success in securing the strongest religious liberty guarantees against same-sex “marriage” in the nation. Today, the effective defeat of the 2009 assisted suicide bill–Lawlor and McDonald’s “personal vendetta”–factored into Judge Aurigemma’s apparent concern that the plaintiffs were trying to get the court to legislate a victory that they could not win at the General Assembly.

We told you last week that we would have more to say about Courant columnist Rick Green’s lazy excuse for journalism. Late Friday night we posted a full response to Green on FIC Blog:

Rick Green thinks he has exposed a secret conspiracy between FIC and Greg Stokes. Instead, he has exposed himself to be a lazy excuse for a journalist who thinks that reading legal opinions from the comfort of the Courant’s Broad Street offices can substitute for the real shoe-leather work of journalism.

We encourage you to read FIC’s whole response here.

Green called FIC executive director Peter Wolfgang this morning, denied that he viewed FIC’s role in Enfield as illegitimate and objected to our description of his work as lazy. Yet he barraged Peter with questions that were, at turns, combative and manipulative. And he is only now calling FIC, after we posted a blog criticizing him for having never contacted us.

“How’s your fundraising?” Green asked Peter. “Am I anti-family?” He also asked if FIC had bribed the Enfield Board of Education. (Wolfgang: “We helped provide free legal counsel to Enfield and you make it seem like a bribe.” Green: “Was it?”)

Green wanted to know when FIC first contacted BOE members and which members we contacted. These are fair questions. Why did he wait three months to ask us?

Proving our point about his laziness, Green asked if it was right for FIC to lobby the BOE in private. Shouldn’t the public have been informed about FIC’s activities in Enfield?

Has the man never heard of Google? Even for a journalist who can’t be bothered to visit Enfield, FIC’s role there should not have come as a surprise.

FIC’s email alerts, our blog posts, our media interviews with sources as big as USA Today and as local as the Dan Lovallo radio program, our YouTube video of Peter Wolfgang’s speech to the BOE, the press release we sent to Green’s own newspaper two months ago were all public. The private emails between the BOE Chairman and Peter only provided more detail of what FIC was already telling the public.

Green asked repeatedly about the costs of holding the graduations at First Cathedral in comparison to other venues. Peter told him to check with the BOE itself and also that if Green had attended the Mar. 23rd BOE meeting Green would already know the answer.

Peter told Green that he wished Green had done the kind of reporting that was done by the Journal Inquirer. If Green had attended the BOE meetings or the court hearing, Peter said, Green would have a more rounded understanding of what happened in Enfield.

Green defended the pretense that reading a legal opinion—and making it your only source—counts as investigative journalism. The court provides “a level playing field,” said Green.

“The only thing I object to is your description of my work as lazy,” Green said, in his final comment to Peter. “Ask anyone who’s gone up against me. I’m not lazy.”

We’re not sure what Green means by that. If Green means that he is going to do the sort of journalism that made the Journal Inquirer’s scrutiny of FIC’s work in Enfield so fair and honest, we won’t hold our breath.

If Green means that he has the wherewithal to publish an endless stream of unfair attacks on FIC for advocating positions he does not like, alas, we believe him.

As we await Green’s next salvo, we encourage you to read our full response to his last one. And if we are wrong about the meaning of Green’s comment to Peter, we will say so.

You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war.
—WILLIAM RANDOLPH HEARST

Connecticut’s anti-family power brokers are at it again. In today’s Hartford Courant, Rick Green has penned a column filled with fabrications and distortions about FIC’s role in persuading Enfield to fight the ACLU.

Rick Green thinks he has exposed a secret conspiracy between FIC and Greg Stokes. Instead, he has exposed himself to be a lazy excuse for a journalist who thinks that reading legal opinions from the comfort of the Courant’s Broad Street offices can substitute for the real shoe-leather work of journalism.

Rick Green is a classic practitioner of post-modern armchair journalism. If Green did his job and actually attended the 4/13 and 3/23 BOE meetings, FIC’s role in lobbying the Enfield Board of Ed would be no secret. Likewise, during last week’s hearings at U.S. District Court in Bridgeport, Green was nowhere to be found. It should be added that he never bothered to call me or Greg Stokes and interview either of us before publishing his column. Apparently, Green doesn’t even read The Journal Inquirer; if he did, he would know that Stokes and my relationship was far different from the cozy conspiracy that he portrays in his column.

U.S. District Court Judge Janet C. Hall’s ruling that holding graduations at a church would constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause has provoked a statewide furor and discomforted the apparatchiki of Connecticut’s cultural left.

Judge Hall’s decision gave ordinary people a firsthand glimpse at the bitter fruits of radical judicial activism. In this case, a local community will not be allowed to decide for itself where it will hold its graduations. As a consequence, step-parents, grandparents, and extended family will likely be precluded from witnessing graduations due to facility limitations.

The public outpouring of support for Enfield has left Connecticut’s cultural left mystified. They were on the wrong side of public opinion on this issue.

FIC has exposed this situation for what it is. Anti-family forces have been embarrassed by this exposure. They are enraged at FIC for being its source and are lashing out.

Nowhere is this more visible than in Rick Green’s screed against FIC in today’s Courant. In it, Green attempts to employ a classic rhetorical tool– making an issue of a red herring– in this case FIC’s involvement in lobbying the Board of Education. But his poorly informed, slanted excuse for journalism has failed to fool the people of Enfield. For them, FIC’s involvement is old news.

Make no mistake: Green is trying to manipulate public opinion by crafting a narrative that bears little resemblance to the truth. It is a classic trick in political science: when public opinion is not in your favor, attempt to focus it on a red herring or manipulate the facts to fit a storyline that favors your side.

In this case, Green is trying to fit the Enfield graduations into his faux-populism narrative of 2008. Unfortunately for him there is overwhelming evidence to show that popular opinion played the decisive role in the course of action taken by the Board of Education.

The people of Enfield have been following the issue closely and see his dissembling for what it is. They have attended Board of Education meetings in droves. Many more have watched the meetings on E-TV and followed the issue in The Journal Inquirer. In the age of monopoly media, a columnist like Green could get away with making misrepresentations in his column. Now, alternative media and televised public meetings make it easy to hold lazy journalists like Green accountable.

Rick Green wants to take a few emails released during discovery and make them the story. He wants to focus attention on the emails, because he knows that when it is focused on the outrage of students and parents, the left loses.

A Tale of Two Newspapers

The story of the fight over First Cathedral has been a tale of two newspapers, as much as it has been a tale of events in Enfield. Alex Wood and Ed Jacovino of The Journal Inquirer have written fair, accurate, and insightful articles on the topic. In contrast, The Hartford Courant has been almost completely out to lunch… to the point that columnists no longer do fieldwork or interview principals.

History

The first skirmish in the graduation battle actually occurred on January 26, 2010—long before FIC became involved with the issue. Amidst a heated floor discussion, the Board of Education voted to return graduations to the high schools. Neither students nor parents were happy about that discussion.

At the subsequent BOE meeting, students from Enrico Fermi and Enfield High Schools showed up to protest the decision to return the graduations to the high schools. At that meeting the students of Enrico Fermi High School presented a petition with hundreds of signatures on it to the Board of Education. In the face of a standing-room-only crowd filled with students, the Board agreed to put a motion to rescind on the agenda of the next Board meeting.

The next regular Board of Education meeting occurred on 02/23. At that meeting, students from Enfield High School presented their petition to the Board of Education and the Board voted to rescind its January decision. Although FIC sent out an email alert that day, only 2-3 FIC members showed up to testify in favor of the motion to rescind.

It was only subsequent to the motion to rescind that FIC became involved in lobbying the issue. There were two reasons why FIC decided to lobby to have graduations returned to First Cathedral:

(1)  To make sure that Enfield offered a graduation ceremony that fairly accommodated the families of the town.

(2)  To protect the civil rights of First Cathedral. The First Amendment requires that churches be treated equal to other organizations in the public square.  We wanted to make sure that First Cathedral was not discriminated against in selecting a location.

As The Journal Inquirer elaborates, the relationship between FIC and BOE Chairman Greg Stokes is not the cozy relationship that Rick Green portrays in his column. On March 23, we went to the Board of Education meeting expecting to lose the vote. It was only after the task force of principals provided an apples-to-apples cost of the venues that First Cathedral again became a viable possibility.

Although FIC played a key role in lobbying the matter, it would have been for naught were it not for the overwhelming support of students and parents on this issue. If you go back and watch the Board of Ed meetings you will see that students and parents overwhelmingly wanted the Board of Ed to return to First Cathedral.

Green’s Anti-Family, Anti-Populist Bias

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
—GEORGE ORWELL

Green’s bias against pro-family activists is on display in his column. For Green, it is suspect for FIC to do things he considers permissible for the forces of the secular left. It is a “conspiracy” for FIC to connect those in need of legal assistance (Enfield) with counsel (ACLJ). But he has no such problem with the Does retaining ACLU and Americans United. For Green, public-interest law firms are only good when they represent his interests. But when they represent pro-family forces, they are somehow sinister or illegitimate.

The same could be said for organizations that engage in lobbying like FIC. For Green, it’s okay for the ACLU or, say, Sullivan and LeShane to lobby the BOE. But FIC’s role somehow de-legitimizes the decision of the BOE. We worked towards a similar objective for different reasons. The BOE was interested in cost and convenience. FIC was interested in protecting the civil rights of First Cathedral and making sure the graduation ceremony accommodated the families of the town.

In his column, Rick Green shows why he is not an elected official by admitting that he thinks this overwhelming public support to be irrelevant to the decision. Additionally, he shows his true colors: that contrary to his 2008 assertions, he is not a populist and looks down on popular opinion with disdain.

Back then, his argument was much as it is now— it was okay for out of state unions to pump hundreds of thousands of dollars into an anti-constitutional convention campaign; but FIC’s support for the “Vote Yes” campaign somehow de-legitimized it. Ultimately, when you peel back the masks, his argument is that the secular left has a place in the public square— but social conservatives do not deserve the same rights to lobby and fight for what they believe.

Make no mistake: the anti-family power brokers of Connecticut’s Left consider the opinions of the common man and woman to be a hindrance to public policy, not the proper objective of governance.

The continued ferocity of Green’s attacks show that FIC has become a formidable force. It is also shows how much Connecticut’s anti-family power brokers detest our effectiveness at thwarting their agenda.

(Below is the text of today’s FIC email alert. Two additional points: 1) This lawsuit is actually not over; Enfield’s vote was only to not appeal the judge’s ruling. 2) I will discuss what this means on the Dan Lovallo program today at 5 pm. - PW)

Twenty-one years ago today a young man stood athwart a column of tanks in China’s Tiananmen Square for the sake of freedom. Last night, Enfield’s Board of Education decided it could not even face down a lawsuit for freedom’s sake.

We can be shocked that Enfield voted 5-4 last night to give in to the ACLU’s demand that they not hold their high school graduation ceremonies at a local church. Or we can be shocked that Enfield was willing to fight at all. Connecticut’s elected officials are not known for their political courage.

Family Institute of Connecticut’s role in the Enfield graduation battle was to help secure the BOE’s April 13th 6-3 vote for returning graduations to First Cathedral. Afterwards it was up to the American Center for Law and Justice and the BOE to carry on the fight. The ACLJ did its part; the BOE did not.

The BOE took a cowardly position last night. They betrayed the trust that was placed in them to act according to the commitment they had made. They betrayed their commitment.

They also betrayed the students, who wanted their graduations at First Cathedral. And they did it because of a ruling that almost certainly would have been overturned, issued by a judge who should not have heard the case because she had a potential conflict of interest.

FIC was the only organization that was willing to lead this fight. We succeeded in persuading Enfield to stand up to the ACLU for seven weeks. But it was seven weeks too much for the anti-family forces who control the commanding heights of culture in our state.

Connecticut’s citizens are now aware of things our opposition does not want them to know. The public now knows that the current interpreters of the First Amendment are so hostile to religion that even a graduation on church property is forbidden. The public now knows that judicial activism is so extreme that even a local community is not allowed to decide for itself where it will hold its graduations.

FIC has exposed this situation for what it is. Anti-family forces have been embarrassed by this exposure. They are enraged at FIC for being its source and they are lashing out.

We see this especially in Rick Green’s column today. You would think from Green’s column that it was FIC that sued Enfield, rather than the ACLU. But in the bizarro world of Connecticut’s biased media, if you resist the demands of the Left then you are the one who has committed some cultural act of aggression.

We will have much more to say about Rick Green’s lazy excuse for journalism—and about the next steps in the pro-family fight for the First Amendment. The battle for Enfield may be over. But the fight for Connecticut is just beginning.

U.S. District Judge Janet Hall has granted the ACLU’s motion to block Enfield’s June 23rd-24th graduation ceremonies from taking place at First Cathedral, saying it would violate the First Amendment. Enfield’s attorneys will seek an expedited appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York.

Judge Hall wrote that graduation at First Cathedral would constitute an “endorsement” of religion, defined by a previous case as “sending a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.”

In fact, it was Judge Hall who just conveyed that message with her ruling–that FIC and First Cathedral are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and that the despisers of religion are insiders, favored members of the political community.

Judge Hall “assumes” (her word) that Peter Wolfgang–who is not a party to this case–believes that not holding (emphasis is hers) graduation ceremonies at First Cathedral is itself a violation of the First Amendment.

In fact, as ACLJ attorney Vince McCarthy told Channel 3, Peter was simply saying that holding a public graduation ceremony in a church building is not an endorsement of religion and, therefore, does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Put another way, the First Amendment requires that churches be treated equal to other organizations in the public square.

Watch for more information on Enfield’s appeal of Judge Hall’s ruling.

Please click here to donate to the Family Institute of Connecticut!