FIC Blog

We had a big victory at the state Capitol last week with the effective defeat of S.B 1098, the bill which would have removed the authority of Catholic bishops over their parishes. I’m just back from the Capitol, where it appears we may have had another major victory today–though I can’t say too much about it yet (watch for more info in your in-boxes tomorrow).

Many legislators–including several who are not normally known for supporting us–are approaching FIC to congratulate us on our success and to encourage us to keep it up. Their comments got me thinking about the strategies that helped bring us to this point. As we move to the next level of this battle (again, see tomorrow’s e-mail), it might be good to do a quick review.

Our adversaries have a certain idea of what a social conservative is and they desperately want to put us into that box. That is why The Fairfield Weekly–without making so much as a phone call to us first to check their facts–has falsely attributed to FIC a flyer that was distributed at last week’s rally. In fact, the flyer we did distribute that day was a bit more sedate.

That’s FIC’s style: tough but professional, assertive but civil, storming the bastions, yes, but in a spirit of truth speaking in love. That’s why even The Courant reported on my “steady voice and earnest, scholarly demeanor” (their words) in a 2007 front page article. That’s why we became the state’s leading voice for faith and family in the halls of government, the media and other elite institutions.

And that is what we must remember going forward. Rep. Lawlor and Sen. McDonald have repeatedly used their authority as co-chairs of the Judiciary Committee to put the Christian faith on trial. FIC members will work to hold them accountable for it in the same manner we always have: by being polite, courteous and civil–while confident in the truths we are defending.

The Fairfield Weekly’s shabby excuse for journalism is a reminder that the path we walk is not an easy one. Things said or done by others will be falsely attributed to us.

And even our willingness to take the high road will be used as a weapon against us. In a public hearing just last week, for instance, Rep. Gail Hamm (D-East Hampton) claimed she was “offended” by my “rude” refusal to play along with a particularly hostile line of questioning from Sen. McDonald and Rep. Lawlor.

The task before us is to speak the truth in love while not kowtowing to those opponents–like Rep. Hamm–who would have us believe that the only way to behave is to do as we’re told. (Hamm, ever the schoolmarm, even had this complaint about me: “I heard snickering!”)

Watch for more information about FIC’s next steps. And God bless you all for being neither what our adversaries pretend we are or what Gail Hamm would like to make us into.

Truth has never been a high priority for left wing blogs. So it comes as no surprise to learn that they are falsely attributing to FIC a flyer that was distributed at last week’s Rally. It’s also no surprise that they would fail to post on their websites the flyer we really did distribute, which was printed on FIC letterhead. Below is the text of that flyer. 

Welcome to the Battle!

You took time off from work today. Maybe you chartered a bus. Perhaps you made last-minute arrangements for child care or you brought the children with you. All so that can you make your voice heard on the most crucial battle of our day: protecting religious liberty in Connecticut!

The Family Institute of Connecticut thanks you for willingness to be here today. We want you to know three key facts about the fight you are in:

Though S.B. 1098 has been tabled for this session, the specific threat it posed to religious liberty is still active. On the opposite side of this page is a fact sheet produced by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport. Please note the bullet point we have marked “MOST IMPORTANT.” The 1955 statute governing Catholic corporations (which S.B. 1098 would have changed) was requested by the Church itself, is the type of corporate governance the Church prefers and is constitutional. Rep. Lawlor and Sen. McDonald are seeking a legal opinion that may declare it as unconstitutional as a way of pursuing the same purpose of S.B. 1098. If the 1955 statute is somehow removed it may open the door for the sort of state interference in internal church governance as S.B. 1098 sought to accomplish. Tell your legislators that you OPPOSE S.B. 1098 and that you SUPPORT the 1955 statute (section 33-279).

Another Judiciary Committee bill, S.B. 899, is the most real and most immediate threat to religious liberty in Connecticut. S.B. 899 seeks to codify the CT Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex “marriage” in our state. If passed in its present form it will lead to attacks on religious liberty similar to what we have seen in other states: Catholic Charities in Boston forced out of adoption services for refusing to place children with same-sex couples, a Methodist church in New Jersey losing tax-exempt status over a pavilion for refusing to rent it to a lesbian union ceremony and many more such incidents. In last week’s public hearing on S.B. 899, many members of the Judiciary Committee ridiculed the CT Catholic Conference for asking that S.B. 899 be amended to protect religious liberty—including legislators who oppose the other bill, S.B. 1098. Do not let these legislators tell you they support religious liberty if they are against S.B. 1098 but FOR S.B. 899. Tell them you expect them to AMEND S.B. 899 as the Catholic Conference asked!

Support the Family Institute of Connecticut! We are the grassroots arm of religious liberty and the defense of the unborn and the sanctity of marriage in Connecticut. Executive Director Peter Wolfgang and the FIC have been leading this fight at the state Capitol, in the media, the schools and the churches for many years. If you are just learning of us, please go to www.ctfamily.org and check us out. And please donate to our work! Your contributions make it possible for us to be the best, most professional and most reliable ally of all the faiths—Catholic, Protestant and Jewish—in these battles!

I’ll be a guest on the Laura Ingraham show tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. to discuss R.B. 1098.

It’s one of the most outrageous attacks on religious liberty in Connecticut in living memory. Click here to read up on R.B. 1098 and to help us stop it.

I’ll be on the Dan Lovallo show this afternoon following the 3:30 news to discuss the CT Catholic Conference’s Special Report on The State of Abortion in CT…and Obama will likely be a topic as well. I also gave an interview about the Report to Shelly Sindland, which will probably run on The News at Ten on Fox 61 tonight. More info on the Report (and FIC’s role in it) in the days to follow…

According to an article in this morning’s Courant, abortion is one of the most immediate priorities of our newly-inaugurated President:

In one of his first acts as president, Barack Obama is planning to lift a rule that prevents federal money from going to international family planning groups that counsel women on abortion or perform the procedure…

On the eve of Obama’s inauguration, aides were still plotting out the schedule under which the 44th president would make specific announcements. But one date that has special significance in the debate over funding for international family planning groups is Jan. 22 — the 36th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.

Called the “Mexico City policy,” the rule prohibiting federal aid for such groups was announced by President Ronald Reagan during a population conference in that city in 1984. Critics call it the “global gag rule” because it discourages family planning groups from discussing abortion.

With the culture of death on the march, we must renew our efforts to fight for a culture of life. For the first time ever, FIC is helping to support the CT March for Life. The prayer rally will be held this Thursday, Jan. 22, at 11:30 a.m. on the south lawn of the state Capitol in Hartford. At 12:30 I and other pro-life speakers will address rally attendees in room 310 of the Capitol building. Please invite every pro-life person you know (who isn’t already in Washington that day) to join us! 

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.