FIC Blog

We are blessed to live in a country that cherishes freedom - and that includes your freedom to choose with whom to associate and with whom to trade. Even when political machinations may tend to thwart the will of the people, the power of how you choose to spend your money can be an effective tool in bringing about social change. American patriots recognized the importance of this tactic through their boycott of British goods in opposition to “taxation without representation” during the colonial years preceding the Revolutionary War. Mahatma Ghandi recognized it too through his “swadeshi” policy, boycotting all foreign-made goods as part of the movement to obtain independence for the nation of India. These examples demonstrate that when political forces collaborate to obstruct the will of the people, there is still a way to express our discontent and work to bring about change.

Now both sides in the SSM debate are actively using boycotts in an attempt to aid their cause. 

LGBT activists in California, angered by the passage of Proposition 8, obtained the list of donors to the “Yes on 8” campaign and published them to call for boycotts of what they perceive as anti-SSM businesses. In response, the National Organization for Marriage created a new website BustTheBlacklist.com to call for a “Buycott” of these same business targeted for harassment by the LGBT activists, by encouraging pro-family supporters to make a special effort to patronize these businesses. 

Meanwhile, the American Family Association (AFA) has begun a national campaign to boycott Pepsi and its related family of products (e.g. Frito-Lay, Gatorade, Tropicana, Quaker), prompted by their enthusiastic support and financial donations to LGBT activism. PepsiCo has given $1 million to support the gay agenda, and AFA is asking pro-family supporters to petition the company to stop its pro-LGBT advocacy. AFA is simply asking that companies remain “neutral” in this “culture war”, and has a past track record of successfully influencing the corporate policies of other companies like McDonalds (which was boycotted from May to October during 2008, and which ultimately promised to withdraw its support for LGBT activism and refrain from further involvement in political and social issues).

Closer to home, teachers may be aware that their union (the Connecticut Education Association) was among the groups that endorsed a “No” vote on the question of a Constitutional Convention. Similarly, the California Teacher’s Association funneled more than $1.2 million into the fight against Proposition 8. In response, the Pacific Justice Institute created a new site ChooseCharity.org to inform union members about their right (under Federal law, based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) to avoid supporting causes and candidates they believe are in opposition to their religious beliefs and/or their political views by informing the union of their objection to paying dues. Instead they can redirect their union dues to a charity that is in agreement with their religious faith. 

In the end, it’s your money and you should choose for yourself how and where to spend it. Knowing more about the organizations and companies with which you might do business can help you to avoid inadvertently lending financial aid to the very things you find objectionable. Pro-family supporters should be especially alert and vigilant to ensure their hard-earned dollars are used for the good of society, rather than for efforts diametrically opposed to their values. 

FIC Blog wishes a Merry Christmas to all our Christian members and a Happy Chanukah to our growing number of Jewish supporters. It is thanks to divine providence–and your kind generosity–that we are sustained in our fight for faith and family in Connecticut. May the season’s blessings be upon you!

It’s been an enormously busy time at FIC, but I want to assure all of you who asked that we are committed to firing up FIC Blog again. Among its many features, FIC Blog serves as a sort of “virtual archive” of FIC’s activities and media appearances–and in the last few months we’ve done more media interviews than in all the previous years of our existence combined. The need for FIC Blog, in other words, is greater than ever.

To kick off the return of FIC Blog, I will start with the most important of all our recent media forays: my Nov. 16th op-ed, which appeared on the front page of The Hartford Courant’s Sunday commentary section. Here ’tis:

Same-sex marriage arrived in Connecticut this week the only way it could: by bypassing the democratic process.

Only three states have had same-sex marriage, and in each case it was imposed by a 4-3 vote of the states’ high courts. In California, the people reasserted their right to self-government and — thanks especially to African American turnout — voted on Nov. 4 to overturn their court and restore the traditional definition of marriage. With Arizona reversing an earlier vote, same-sex marriage has now lost in all 30 of the 30 states that held referendums on amending their constitutions.

Connecticut was supposed to be different. Same-sex marriage activists saw in our state their best chance for a democratic victory and so they frequently brought their cause to the General Assembly. Their repeated failure to democratically pass same-sex marriage undermines the legitimacy of their court victory.

In neither Massachusetts nor California did the legislature say “no” to same-sex marriage as often or as explicitly as in Connecticut. Even in 2005 — their best year — same-sex marriage advocates were forced to drop their “same-sex marriage or nothing” demand and settle for a civil union law that explicitly defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

That even a legislature as liberal as ours refused to pass same-sex marriage says a lot about where the people of Connecticut really stand on this issue. In the end, same-sex marriage activists had to rely on four unelected judges to impose it.

The conduct of those judges and of state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal raises further questions about the democratic legitimacy of same-sex marriage in Connecticut.

The Family Institute of Connecticut moved to intervene on the ground that the attorney general would not defend the role of traditional marriage in promoting responsible procreation and child rearing. As Justice Peter Zarella notes in dissenting opinion, this is “the only argument” that has ever won in such cases. The court dismissed our motion, saying that it could consider the same argument via an amicus brief and that “if the attorney general failed to argue that there was a rational basis for traditional marriage, he would not be adequately representing the state’s interest.”

He didn’t. The attorney general’s office never made that argument and the court concluded that it therefore need not consider it. Given the court’s reasons for dismissing our motion, its refusal to consider the rational basis for traditional marriage was, as Zarella wrote, “unseemly, to say the least.”

The court released its decision on the Friday before Columbus Day weekend. The following Tuesday a Courant/UConn poll was released purporting to show that most Connecticut residents approved of the judicial imposition of same-sex marriage.

This is how a “revolution from above” is conducted. Step 1: Have four judges undemocratically force same-sex “marriage” on Connecticut. Step 2: Have the media rush in to say to the public, “Move along, folks. Nothing to see here. Most of you are OK with this. Only a few rabble-rousers oppose it.”

But how accurate is a poll taken over a weekend — particularly a three-day holiday weekend — when many people are away? The Courant’s poll on the constitutional convention, for instance, begun on a Saturday, misjudged the “no” vote by 20 points.

Perhaps this is why those who cite polls to buttress their claim that Connecticut residents support same-sex marriage are unwilling to let those same residents vote on it.

Unlike California, Connecticut has no initiative process to allow a direct vote on marriage. And, unfortunately, the constitutional convention ballot question that lost on Election Day was manipulated by our state’s political elites from start to finish.

Teachers unions and other special interests poured at least $800,000 into a dishonest campaign portraying themselves as the outsiders and the modest “Vote Yes” coalition as the big-money insiders. “Vote Yes” was outspent by more than 2 to 1 — and were it not for the last-minute intervention of the Catholic Church it would have been outspent by more than 80 to 1, according to fundraising figures filed with the state to date.

The people of Connecticut and their elected representatives never voted for same-sex marriage. Had it been otherwise, same-sex couples could have reasonably claimed that Connecticut now “accepts” it. Instead, their undemocratic victory will continue to haunt them in the battles for religious liberty and parental rights that now lie ahead.

• Peter Wolfgang is executive director of The Family Institute of Connecticut.

While the political world swirls in Obama mania, there hasn’t yet been much media attention upon the outcome of the marriage amendments in Arizona, California, and Florida. Nevertheless it appears that supporters of traditional family values can find reassurance in all of these contests. Here are the results as they currently stand this morning:

• Arizona Proposition 102 – Yes (56.5%), No (43.5%) 
     [Source: AZ Secretary of State]
• California Proposition 8 – Yes (52.1%), No (47.9%) 
     [Source: CA Secretary of State]
• Florida Amendment 2 – Yes (62.1%), No (37.9%) 
     [Source: FL Department of State, Division of Elections]

Maggie Gallagher, President of the National Organization for Marriage, points out that this issue of protecting marriage is one that speaks to Republicans and Democrats alike:

This vote, like earlier votes in Wisconsin, Oregon, and Michigan, affirms that when it comes to marriage there is no such thing as a blue state or a red state.  Americans support marriage as the union of husband and wife.

If these results hold steady through final tabulation, that will make a new total of 30 states which have enacted marriage protection amendments. And only 2 states - Connecticut and Massachusetts – continue with SSM, albeit through judicial fiat rather than the will of the people. 

From our Oct. 14th e-mail alert:

Last Friday [Oct. 10th] four judges on Connecticut’s Supreme Court undemocratically forced same-sex “marriage” on our state. Our best—very likely our only—chance to restore marriage and self-government in Connecticut is for the majority of state voters to vote “Yes” on Question 1 on Election Day (Nov. 4th) to have a constitutional convention.

FIC will fight hard for that “Yes” vote these next three weeks and we know we can win if we have your help. As we begin the final push to restore democracy in our state, let us keep in mind a few key points in the wake of this outrageous act of judicial tyranny:

Last week’s “victory” for same-sex “marriage” is illegitimate. The claims falsely made against President Bush’s election in 2000 are entirely true in the case of same-sex “marriage” in Connecticut: our opponents’ “victory” is illegitimate; it was stolen from us; they “won” dirty. Connecticut will now be one of only three states in the nation to have same-sex “marriage” and in each state it arrived the same way: a sharply divided state court undemocratically forced it on the people. In no state has same-sex “marriage” been passed democratically.

Our opponents’ biggest fear is that you will click here and make a generous donation to FIC!

Even worse: Neither the legislature in Massachusetts or California said “no” to same-sex “marriage” as often as ours did in Connecticut! In 2003 our General Assembly rejected a same-sex civil union bill in committee, in 2005 they passed it only by attaching an amendment explicitly defining marriage as between a man and a woman and in 2007 a same-sex “marriage” bill died in our House of Representatives. Our opponents were careful only to bring same-sex “marriage” to the legislature in non-election years…and even then they were defeated every year! This fact tells us more than any biased poll could about what the people of Connecticut really believe on same-sex “marriage.” Our opponents worked for years to make Connecticut the first state to pass same-sex “marriage” democratically…but in the end they had to resort to judicial tyranny! This is because they were never going to win democratically in Connecticut…so overwhelming is opposition to same-sex “marriage” in our state that even a legislature as liberal as ours refused to enact it!

Just because four judges undemocratically forced same-sex “marriage” on Connecticut does not mean our state “accepts” it. “This means Connecticut now accepts our ‘marriage,’” same-sex couples are telling local media outlets. They will discover that just because four judges impose a radical redefinition of marriage on our state does not mean that people accept it. “Now we can register as a married couple at Home Depot,” one same-sex couple told a news channel. But what if Home Depot refuses? Will this couple sue it too—and any other private business (or religious entity) that resists the facile equating of a 4-3 pro same-sex “marriage” decision with the public’s “acceptance” of it?

This is why it was clever of our opponents to first try to get same-sex “marriage” through the democratic process…and why the court’s 4-3 ruling forcing same-sex “marriage” on Connecticut is the worst “victory” they could have. If they had secured same-sex “marriage” through the legislature—or especially through direct referendum—they could claim with some justification that Connecticut had “accepted” their “marriages”. Instead, they are left to claim that having same-sex “marriage” forced on the state means we “accept” it. In truth, our opponents’ real goal was not acceptance—if it was, they would never have filed the same-sex “marriage” lawsuit at all. Their real goal was to force same-sex “marriage” on Connecticut whether we like it or not…and then to make us all kowtow to this undemocratic diktat!

Same-sex “marriage” proponents are against representative democracy. Our opponents say they are against a constitutional convention and direct initiative because they prefer representative democracy over direct democracy. The 4-3 ruling forcing same-sex “marriage” on Connecticut exposes them as liars. In truth, they prefer representative democracy only so long as it produces the results they want. In the case of same-sex “marriage,” it didn’t. Even a legislature as liberal as ours repeatedly said marriage is between a man and a woman. So they had the Court force it on us instead. Our opponents have far less respect for representative democracy than we do. Giving Connecticut the right to direct initiative will help restore the power of both legislators and voters—and reduce the power of our “robed masters” on the Supreme Court.

The September 28th Rally for Marriage was the most successful Rally FIC ever had. Make no mistake: last week’s court ruling is a disaster for democracy. But, given the disdain for democracy held by the judges and pro same-sex “marriage” activists, it was a disaster we had been expecting for over a year. As the Hartford Courant reported on Saturday: “But [Peter] Wolfgang said he was happy that voters will get their chance on Nov. 4. ‘It’s been a deliberate strategy of the Family Institute to goad the court into releasing the decision before Election Day,’ Wolfgang said. ‘This is one of the few silver linings of today’s news.”‘ As bad as the pro same-sex “marriage” decision is, it would have been far worse if the Court kept it secret until after Election Day. A main goal of the Rally and other FIC projects was to get the Court to release its ruling before the election. Having achieved our goal, there is now far more attention on the constitutional convention question…and our chances of getting a “Yes” vote are greatly improved.

We must support the Connecticut Constitution Convention Campaign. With the 4-3 ruling for same-sex “marriage,” our opponents have been unmasked as activists opposed not just to citizen empowerment but even to representative democracy! We are up against powerful interests who are thrilled to have a bare majority of unelected judges undemocratically force same-sex “marriage” on Connecticut. Getting a “yes” vote on Question 1 on Election Day in order to have a constitutional convention is very likely the only chance we will have to restore not only marriage, BUT OUR VERY RIGHT TO SELF-GOVERNMENT IN CONNECTICUT! Please click here to offer this group whatever support you can: financial, volunteer, a willingness to put up yard signs and so forth. We have three weeks to restore marriage and democracy in Connecticut and every minute counts!

We must support the Family Institute of Connecticut. Were it not for FIC, either same-sex “marriage” would have already been imposed on us years ago…or the Court would have held its ruling until after Election Day…or few people would even know about the constitutional convention question and its potential for restoring democracy in Connecticut. In the wake of this Court ruling we are hearing the same thing from our opponents that they said after the 2005 civil union law passed: “Oh, good. Now FIC will go away.” Nothing shocks and horrifies them more than that FIC continues to exist and to fight their attacks on faith and family in Connecticut! The avalanche of hateful messages left on our voice mail and e-mailed to my in-box in the days since the Court ruling shows that our opponents know how fragile their “victory” is—and they know that FIC is the one group best positioned to lead the fight for our values for many years to come.

Their disdain for us is really a compliment to you…and a testament to the faith of all of you whose support has allowed FIC to carry on this fight “in season and out of season.” In the weeks and months ahead we will need your support more than ever. Nothing will send a better signal to our opponents that their “victory” is illegitimate and that Connecticut’s pro-family citizens are fighting mad than FIC’s continuing ability to lead the charge.

Could you please click here to make a donation of $25, $50, $100, $250 or more? If you have been blessed with the means to do so, would you be a pro-family hero by donating $500, $1,000, $2,500 or even $5,000 or more? Checks can also be mailed to: Family Institute of Connecticut, 77 Buckingham Street, Hartford, CT 06106.

We are also looking for major donors who may be willing to support the base of our $50,000 Year-End Matching Grant. Our Year-End campaign typically accounts for about half of our annual operating budget and is our most important fundraising event of the year.

This battle is not over. And whatever the results on Election Day, FIC will continue to lead the fight for faith and family in these dark times! Watch for more information in the days ahead. And may God bless you for your continued faithfulness and support.

In a future e-mail alert we will give a partial listing of FIC’s hundreds of media appearances these last few days. Your support makes it possible for us to speak truth to power. Thank you!

Below is our Tuesday e-mail alert (minus the links), which  has since sparked on an online reaction from Courant columnist Rick Green. We’ll have more on this when time allows:

The pro same-sex “marriage”/pro-abortion forces who wield inordinate influence over Connecticut’s politics and culture are legion. And they are coalescing around a campaign to stop the one group they all fear the most: Family Institute of Connecticut.

It’s almost comical. How could FIC’s small two-man office be such a threat to the ridiculously wealthy organizations that call the shots in Connecticut’s halls of power?

And yet, we are. Last week, some of the richest lobbies in our state held a press conference featuring Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to speak against a yes vote for the constitutional convention. Why do they so adamantly oppose it? It is because FIC supports it. Nothing—no other group’s position on the constitution convention—scares them more.

So they’re getting desperate. And dishonest. Just look at Rick Green’s column in today’s Hartford Courant. Here’s an excerpt:

Members [of the Constitution Convention Campaign] kept saying this wasn’t about special interests. So why was the director of the Family Institute of Connecticut (google: Marriage Protection Pledge) up there at the front of the room?…

What [Peter] Wolfgang, [Rep. Arthur] O’Neill, [Campaign Chairman Matthew] Daly and the other faux populists behind this constitutional convention aren’t telling you is that this is all about special interests and handing them the right to ram their various agendas down our throats. They want to bring us endless — and costly — referendums on everything from abortion to gay marriage to eliminating teacher unions to medical marijuana.

Rick Green would have the Courant’s readers believe that FIC’s support for a constitutional convention means the “Vote Yes” side is the one backed by special interests. But what Green isn’t telling you is that the “Vote No” campaign is outspending us by more than ten-to-one! Given our opponents’ lopsided financial advantage, it is shockingly dishonest for Green to mislead the Courant’s readers into believing that a “yes” vote for the constitutional convention would allow “special interests” to “ram” unwanted agendas “down our throats.”

The dirty little secret of this campaign—the one Atty. Gen. Blumenthal, Courant columnist Rick Green, same-sex “marriage” activists and other powers-that-be don’t want the public to know—is that big money ALREADY controls CT politics and is being spent to stop anything that empowers citizens and lessens the power of well-healed special interests. The $45,000 our opponents are already spending to prevent direct initiative is probably peanuts compared to what they will spend by Election Day.

Nothing has ever threatened the privileged place of “the powers that be” in Connecticut like the prospect of a con con and direct initiative. Direct initiative will not mean that big-monied special interests will control CT politics. Rather, it will give the average citizen a voice against the big-monied special interests that already do.

We can stop them. We can protect marriage and restore the right to self-government in Connecticut. But to do it we need your help—and we need you at the Rally for Marriage this Sunday!

This Sunday, September 28th at 2:30 p.m. the Family Institute of Connecticut will hold a Rally for Marriage on the steps of the state Capitol in Hartford. This will be Connecticut’s most important marriage protection event yet—but it may not succeed unless thousands of people like you turn out to make their voice heard!

Bishop Jeremiah Torres of the House of Restoration Church, Pastor Brian Simmons of Gateway Christian Fellowship, “CT 6″ Pastor Christopher Leighton, Rabbi Joshua Hecht of Beth Israel Synagogue, Fr. Greg Markey of St. Mary’s Church in Norwalk and other major clergy and politicians will join FIC executive director Peter Wolfgang to speak in defense of marriage and the right to Let the People Decide at the Rally. Parking will be available at The Legislative Office Building Parking Garage, Elm St, Market St and the Bushnell Parking Lot. Click here to download our Rally flyer.

News of a “counter-rally” has raised the stakes for the Rally for Marriage. In order for our Rally to be a success, we must turn out substantially more people than our opposition. Please ask your pastor, priest or rabbi to rally fellow believers to attend the September 28th Rally for Marriage. Please arrange to have a bus leave from your church following Sunday services. The success of the rally depends on turnout, and turning out thousands for marriage protection will not happen unless Connecticut’s churches are willing to take a stand. Your willingness to organize your church to attend the rally could make the difference between failure and success. The stakes are that high! For more information, contact FIC at 860-548-0066 and ask for Larry. And please forward this e-mail to every like-minded person you know!

Finally, we are asking for your financial support for the Rally and for FIC’s other projects to support marriage and the family in Connecticut. Our opponents are willing to put their financial resources into stopping FIC. Do Connecticut’s pro-family citizens have the same level of commitment to our beliefs as those who work around-the-clock to attack the family in our state?

You see what a threat FIC is to Connecticut’s anti-family “powers-that-be.” We want to make sure their fears are justified—that is, that FIC really is the one group that can best turn back the pro-abortion/pro same-sex “marriage” stranglehold over our state. But we can’t do it without you.

The Attorney General and the Hartford Courant think FIC is a force to be reckoned with. We want to prove them right…but we need your support to do it!

Thank you and God bless you for all you do for our shared cause. The Rally is just a few days away. Your financial support for our work is more appreciated than we can say.

In today’s Connecticut Post, the front page of their Commentary section features a rant by wire editor John Hourihan who opines about how he is “getting tired of the religious right”.

Writers like Hourihan need to understand that the feeling is mutual. We are getting tired of liberally biased media who scoff at the faith of our fathers, and who grow evermore out of step with mainstream America. We are getting tired of being dismissed as irrelevant by elitists, who bluntly categorize us under a single derisive label rather than trying to develop a better understanding of the breadth of our concerns. We too are citizens, and deserving of a voice in public affairs – notwithstanding the determined efforts of those who seek to exclude anyone whose political opinions are informed by their faith. 

Nevertheless the increasing sense of frustration being expressed by our liberal colleagues is a sign that we are making good progress towards reclaiming a more significant role in government. So let them keep on ranting about how we bitterly cling to religion. Their words and actions continue to make it clear that they don’t understand average, everyday folks who are more concerned about the moral distinction between “right and wrong” than the political appellations of “right and left”. 

Sadly the liberal mindset seems to be blurring for its practitioners a proper knowledge of “right and wrong”, and erasing their understanding of their own religious faiths and traditions. Like our dear Speaker Pelosi, who misrepresents Catholic teachings on the sanctity of life, Hourihan misstates Catholic teachings on salvation - saying “I’ve been told we’ve all been saved.” Such a heretical belief in universalism actually denies the uniqueness of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross; but the catechism says that “Apart from the cross there is no other ladder by which we may get to heaven.” Moreover not everyone is saved - because we each have a choice. The grace of God enables us to choose to turn to Him, and calls us to repentance; but man can still choose to either receive or reject this inspiration of God. As explained by Jesus Himself: 

You can enter God’s Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way. But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it. (Matthew 7: 13-14) 

So who are you going to believe … Jesus Christ, or John Hourihan? Perhaps instead of mocking those who seek to share the gospel message, we should commend them for honoring Christ’s instructions - “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations!” 

FIC sent an e-mail alert to our membership Tuesday morning urging them to support the con con campaign. We got a call from the AP five minutes later and the result is the article that appeared yesterday in several state papers:

Hartford - Tens of thousands of dollars are being raised in an effort to persuade Connecticut voters to reject a proposal on the November ballot to reopen the state constitution.

The state’s largest teachers union, the Connecticut Education Association, has contributed $40,000 to the group “Vote No: Protect Our Constitution.” Planned Parenthood of Connecticut has given $5,000 to the same cause, according to filings with the State Elections Enforcement Commission…

”They’re being outspent 10 to 1. That’s pretty serious,” said Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut. He sent an urgent e-mail to members Tuesday, telling them the campaign “is in trouble and needs our help.”

The article was met with predictable reactions from same-sex “marriage” proponents:

I’ve been disappointed with the campaign for constitutional change…Naturally, the loathsome “Family” Institute of Connecticut is involved. They, of course, want to pass an initiative banning gay marriage, because that’s all they care about.

But the blogger quoted above should pay careful attention to the comments in his own thread:

Genghis, the media might present this issue as driven by anti-gay people, but you’re 100% wrong to believe the media’s presentation of this subject.

What the state’s liberal bloggers don’t know about what’s really happening in CT politics and media could fill a library. (Quick semi-relevant side-note: Our defeat on the 2007 Plan B bill had the unexpected and totally bizarre effect of enhancing FIC Action’s credibility at the state Capitol. How? Ah, but that would be telling…) Early on, FIC Blog made an effort to fill in the blanks for the lefty bloggers but we soon discovered it’s more effective (and fun!) to let them spout assertions that are totally off base.

This time, however, it may be worth it to dish a small amount of inside info.

But first: make no mistake, FIC’s interest in the con con is, of course, to let the people be heard on whether marriage will be protected as between a man and a woman. Our opponents don’t want the people to be heard on this because in some 40 or so states where the people were allowed to vote on it, the pro same-sex “marriage” side lost (and they usually lost by a lot).

No, our opponents would rather have the CT Supreme Court impose same-sex “marriage” by undemocratic fiat–something that may happen any day now–because it’s the only way they can win. It’s funny that they’re quoted in the AP story saying the pro-family side won’t get what it wants from the legislature. On marriage, the truth is almost entirely the reverse: it is pro same-sex “marriage” activists who have lost every year at the legislature, even in a legislature as liberal as ours.

Indeed, even the one year they did make a gain–the 2005 civil union law–was really a defeat for them. Or have all our opponents forgotten how Love Makes a Family came roaring into that session demanding “same-sex ‘marriage’ or nothing,” how even Betty Gallo and Mike Lawlor made a very public break with them and how, in the end, they had to settle for a civil union law with an amendment attached to it defining marriage as between a man and a woman? (But that’s a silly question. Of course our opponents forgot all this. Facts that inconvenience those walking lockstep with a liberal media toward “progress” can easily be dropped down the memory hole, never to be heard from again.)

And yet, despite all of the above, the blogger who said “you’re 100% wrong to believe the media’s presentation” of the con con is correct. The media has in fact played up–and overplayed–FIC’s role in the vote yes coalition. We are just one member (and we’ve been voted down on occasion) along with the Federation of CT Taxpayer Organizations, the eminent domain folks, “three strikes” folks, folks with no issue other than they like direct initiative and even some lefty groups that I won’t name because I don’t want to be the one to get them in trouble. There are also several groups who have attended or are attending coalition meetings but have not yet taken a position.

It’s in the nature of a coalition that there will be differing–even conflicting–reasons for joining, and the con con coalition is no exception. There are even some who support con con/direct initiative on the theory that state residents will vote in favor of same-sex “marriage.”

And yet, to hear the media tell it, the con con is all FIC and same-sex “marriage.” Why?

Well, the immediate assumption is that the liberal media is against the con con and thinks it can generate a “no” vote by making it all about same-sex “marriage.” To be sure, the media does have biases that are real and usually unacknowledged. But not all of those biases are political and not all of them are unacknowledged.

The truth is that I have noticed the media slant on the con con and I have questioned reporters about it. They tell me that Family Institute’s issue is “sexier.” I happen to agree. But then, I am the head of the Family Institute.

FIC aside, yesterday’s headlines got a key fact out to the public: that there are “Thousands spent to prevent constitutional rewrite” as the Rep-Am had it, or as the subheading in the Courant put it, “Pricey Effort Waged Against Direct Initiative.” Our opponents claim con con/direct initiative would be bad because big money would then control CT politics. But the present financial facts prove the opposite: big money ALREADY controls CT politics and is being spent to stop anything that empowers citizens and lessens the power of well-healed special interests. The $45,000 our opponents are already spending to prevent direct initiative is probably peanuts compared to what they will spend by Election Day.

The “Vote No” coalition does not want you to know this. That is why they are already making “push poll” phone calls around the state providing false information to scare you into voting no. That is why the usually congenial head of Love Makes a Family sounded unusually testy in yesterday’s story. The article exposed the lopsided financial advantage of the “Vote No” campaign.  

Nothing has ever threatened the privileged place of “the powers that be” in Connecticut like the prospect of a con con and direct initiative. Direct initiative will not mean that big-monied special interests will control CT politics. Rather, it will give the average citizen a voice against the big-monied special interests who already do.

View FIC Action Committee’s press release on the CT primaries here.

Our members received a more detailed analysis in their in-boxes yesterday. As for the Courant article referenced in the press release, here’s the money quote:

The candidates both have impressive resumes and share a mainstream Republican philosophy of fiscal conservatism, though Witkos hews closer to the right on social issues such as gay marriage and abortion, while Wertheimer embraces the politics of consensus…Witkos has staked out more conservative territory on social issues, which has won him the endorsement of the Family Institute of Connecticut.

In the only Senate primary where same-sex “marriage” was an issue, the pro-family Witkos defeated his opponent 74% to 26%.

View FIC Action Committee’s list of endorsed pro-family primary candidates here.