My husband Peter, executive director of FIC, was subjected to death threats for being a pro-family leader. You can read The Courant’s front page coverage here and The Courant’s subsequent editorial here. It’s the editorial that I want to say something about.
I appreciate The Hartford Courant defending Peter. I’m sure the editorialist thinks they are being quite reserved by not offering even a vague defense of Mr. Sarno’s actions. However, when they intentionally mis-characterize FIC as having an “anti-gay agenda”, they themselves take away from the “understanding” they implore.
“The institute should expect criticism when it makes the choice to fight on the emotional battleground of values” says the editorial. I’m not sure what cryptic message the editorialist is trying to send. If “values” are an “emotional battleground” then don’t they matter enough to “fight” over? There seems to be some vague criticism of FIC for “choosing” to “fight.” And, believe me, NOBODY takes criticism on the chin, and then turns the other cheek, like the Family Institute of Connecticut Action. Ever try to debate Ed Page Hartford Courant on Facebook? Now that is a lesson on how to be thin-skinned. Also, the issue of “gay marriage” is one that was foisted on society by activists seeking to change society’s view of homosexuality, Christianity and marriage in general. Read their stuff and see for yourself.
How telling that The Courant’s editorialist characterizes FIC as seeking to “deny . . . woman legal medical procedures”. (Catch that rhetorical retreat?) Newsflash – slavery used to be a legal form of ownership too. Just because it’s legal, doesn’t make it right. And definitely . . . something worth fighting over.