SEOUL, South Korea — South Korea's top university said Thursday that leading researcher Hwang Woo-suk fabricated all of the stem cells he said were cloned from individual patients — a shattering blow to the disgraced scientist's reputation as a medical pioneer.

Korean news outlets also reported that the ongoing probe into one of the biggest scientific frauds in memory had broadened to embrace allegations that government officials — concerned about the shame such revelations could bring upon their country — may have attempted to bribe scientists who were considered potential whistle-blowers.

From a Weekly Standard article by the Discovery Institute's Wesley J. Smith, discussing the embryonic stem cell research fraud perpetrated by Hwang:

This debacle raises several interesting questions: What does it tell us about the thoroughness of the peer review process? Why were younger South Korean scientists able to discover Hwang's missteps when the presumably more seasoned peer reviewers for Science failed? Will the American media take a cue from their courageous counterparts in South Korea, who pursued this story until it cracked, and finally bring skepticism to their coverage of biotechnology? More to the point, will the adult/umbilical cord blood stem cell successes that have emerged one after the other in recent years finally receive the attention they deserve in the mainstream press, which has been so intoxicated with embryonic research as virtually to ignore nonembryonic breakthroughs?

Don't count on it. The pro-cloning political forces, and their media allies, recognize the potential of the Hwang fiasco to damage their cause, so they have quickly regrouped and begun to furiously spin the story. The same voices that not long ago railed against President Bush's stem cell funding policies for supposedly allowing America to fall behind the cutting-edge research in South Korea, now indignantly blame Bush for creating a hyper-competitive atmosphere that led to Hwang's failures. "Ethics can get forgotten as other nations and private companies race to fill the void left by the president's reluctance to fund stem cell research," wrote bioethicists Arthur Caplan and Glenn McGee in the Albany Times Union. "Only a properly funded U.S. stem cell research program will guarantee oversight and the protection of all involved."

The reaction in Connecticut's pro-cloning media was similar to what is described above. But as Smith goes on to explain, scientific fraud is just one of several ethical lapses "associated with the human cloning agenda." Reading Smith's account, one cannot help but think of Connecticut Right to Life President Bill O'Brien's report on the dishonesty surrounding our own state's decision to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to clone-and-kill human embryos (see my Dec. 15th blog).

Could Connecticut's publicly funded clone-and-kill research reach the same level of fraud that we have seen in South Korea? Its proponents would likely say that there are safeguards in place to prevent that from happening. But consider the question posed on the front page of the Dec. 17th Fairfield County Catholic:

The process to expend $100 million in State funding on stem-cell research took its first step on Nov. 29 with the launch of the Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee. Many of the committee members represent groups that strongly support embryonic stem-cell research, which kills innocent human life. Two universities that may seek access to this funding, Yale and UConn, hold 3 of 8 appointed seats. Is this a potential conflict of interest?

Of course it is. This is why Smith's conclusion on where things stand in the clone-and-kill debate may eventually prove true in Connecticut as well:

So where are we in the cloning debate? At this point, we don't know whether human cloning has been successfully accomplished or not. We don't know whether embryonic stem cells have been derived from cloned embryos. We don't know to what depths the dishonesty of the seemingly most successful researcher in the field actually descended.

We do know that cloning proponents in this country are avid in their desire for billions in federal and state money to pay for morally problematic and highly speculative research that the private sector generally shuns. And we do know that some advocates of this public policy agenda are more than willing to play fast and loose with the facts in order to get their way. In short, the human cloning agenda is falling into public disrepute-and for that, proponents of the agenda have no one to blame but themselves.

Posted at 12:40 PM

December 29

HERE COME THE BRIDES [Peter Wolfgang]

On Oct. 11th I blogged about the low numbers of same-sex couples utilizing Connecticut's new civil union law, noting that "only one trio has entered into a civil union in the Netherlands. But in doing so, they have undermined the understanding of marriage in the Netherlands, just as same-sex civil unions are doing in Connecticut." Now, in a Weekly Standard article that should be a "must read" for every pro-family activist, the Hudson Institute's Stanley Kurtz shows how the Dutch "polyamorous triad" figures into the global attack on marriage:

While Victor, Bianca, and Mirjam are joined by a private cohabitation contract rather than a state-registered partnership or a full-fledged marriage, their union has already made serious legal, political, and cultural waves in the Netherlands. To observers on both sides of the Dutch gay marriage debate, the De Bruijns' triple wedding is an unmistakable step down the road to legalized group marriage.

More important, the De Bruijn wedding reveals a heretofore hidden dimension of the gay marriage phenomenon. The De Bruijns' triple marriage is a bisexual marriage. And, increasingly, bisexuality is emerging as a reason why legalized gay marriage is likely to result in legalized group marriage. If every sexual orientation has a right to construct its own form of marriage, then more changes are surely due. For what gay marriage is to homosexuality, group marriage is to bisexuality. The De Bruijn trio is the tip-off to the fact that a connection between bisexuality and the drive for multipartner marriage has been developing for some time.

Kurtz discusses a plethora of cultural indicators to demonstrate the truth of what he is saying. It is a long article that should be read in its entirety, but I want to focus on a few key points that are particularly relevant to the battle in Connecticut.

Our opponents insist that same-sex "marriage" will not lead to polyamory, that they do not support polyamory, that religious and civil marriage are separate and that what is or is not acceptable in one should have no bearing on the other. But as Kurtz notes, the Unitarian Universalist Church played a key role in the legalization of same-sex "marriage" in Massachusetts and are waiting in the wings to do the same thing with polyamory:

In other words, Unitarians understand that moving too swiftly or openly to legitimize polyamory could validate the slippery-slope argument against same-sex marriage...But the clearest statement of strategic intent came from Valerie White, a lawyer and executive director of the Sexual Freedom Legal Defense and Education Fund. A founder of [Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness] along with her brother, Harlan White, Valerie White let Bi Magazine know in 2003 that UUPA planned to keep its quest for recognition on temporary hold: "It would put too much ammunition in the hands of the opponents of gay marriage. . . . Our brothers and sisters in the LGBT community are fighting a battle that they're close to winning, and we don't want to do anything that would cause that fight to take a step backwards." In short, the Unitarians are holding the polyamorists at arm's length only until gay marriage has been safely legalized across the nation. At that point, the Unitarian campaign for state-recognized polyamorous marriage will almost certainly begin.

In a letter to the Courant's NE Magazine last month, Trish Galloway asked why Love Makes A Family never discusses the "B" in their GLBT constituency, that is, bisexuals. A few weeks later a self-professed bisexual responded by saying that it is "often" false to suggest that bisexuals need multiple partners to be happy and that she personally has "no need or desire" to see multiple-partner-marriage legalized. In fact, Trish was right to note the curious silence of the "B" in Love Makes A Family's GLBT advocacy. Here is Kurtz on the connection between bisexuals and polyamory:

Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that the polyamorists themselves are the "missing" bisexual liberation movement. Of course, not all polyamorists are bisexual. Victor de Bruijn reminds us that he is "100 percent heterosexual." Yet Bianca and Mirjam are bisexual. And as in the De Bruijn threesome, the "connecting" function of bisexuals seems to make a great many polyamorous arrangements possible. Of all the sexual sub-groups that participate in polyamory, bisexuals are first among equals. In a certain sense, the movement is theirs.

Among those cultural indicators discussed by Kurtz is a documentary playing in "art house" movie theaters:

Three of Hearts is the story of the real-life 13-year relationship of two men and a woman. Together for several years in a gay relationship, two bisexual-leaning men meet a woman and create a threesome that produces two children, one by each man. Although the woman marries one of the men, the entire threesome has a commitment ceremony. The movie records the trio's eventual breakup, yet the film's website notes their ongoing commitment to the view that "family is anything we want to create."

That's "family is anything we want to create" as in "Love Makes A Family."

Few scholars are as articulate as Kurtz on why marriage must be protected. His conclusion, in part:

Yet somehow the idea has taken hold that tolerance for sexual minorities requires a radical remake of the institution of marriage. That is a mistake.

The fundamental purpose of marriage is to encourage mothers and fathers to stay bound as a family for the sake of their children. Our liberalized modern marriage system is far from perfect, and certainly doesn't always succeed in keeping parents together while their children are young. Yet often it does. Unfortunately, once we radically redefine marriage in an effort to solve the problems of adults, the institution is destined to be shattered by a cacophony of grown-up demands...

But let there be no mistake about what will happen should same-sex marriage be fully legalized in the United States. At that point, if bisexual activists haven't already launched a serious campaign for legalized polyamory, they will go public...Just as we're now continually reminded that not all married couples have children, we'll someday be endlessly told that not all marriages are monogamous (nor all monogamists married). For a second time, the fuzziness and imperfection found in every real-world social institution will be contorted into a rationale for reforming marriage out of existence.

The process of "reforming marriage out of existence" has already begun in Connecticut with the legalization of same-sex civil unions. Stanley Kurtz marshals the facts to paint a picture of what the final result will look like—a picture you will not see in the Courant or the rest of the pro-same sex "marriage" MSM.

The good news is that this grim future can be prevented and—if recent pro-family court and electoral victories, as well as opinion polls, are any indication—it will be. Indeed, for the sake of children everywhere who have a right to grow up in a home with both a mom and a dad, it must be.

Posted at 4:47 PM

December 28

A WIN FOR DECENCY: PASTOR FORCES MILFORD PORN SHOP OUT [Peter Wolfgang]

Bishop Jay Ramirez, Pastor of Kingdom Life Christian Church and a friend of FIC, has won his battle against the porn shop he was preparing to evict. The "adult" video store plans to close down this week. What a wonderful Christmas present for the families of Connecticut! An excerpt from the New Haven Register story:

MILFORD — Looks like Video Pleasures never really had a prayer.

The adults-only video store, which has operated in a building owned by a church and has been a thorn in the side of city officials and clergy, will leave the city by the end of the week, officials said.

That news, which comes amid threats by Kingdom Life Church to evict the store, is a step in the right direction for the revitalization of the Devon section, officials said.

"The preacher will have his building all to himself," Video Pleasures owner Michael Friend said Tuesday afternoon.

Kingdom Life Christian Church Bishop Jay Ramirez said Video Pleasures on Tuesday began moving its merchandise out of the building the church owns at 116 Bridgeport Ave.

"I'm thrilled," Ramirez said. "We're very pleased. We kept our promise to the community. I hope the building will now be used productively. Devon will now be an adult (bookstore) and porn-free area to live."

Bishop Ramirez' victory against porn in Milford is reminiscent of a similar victory secured earlier this year in Waterbury by Pastor James Lilley and Archbishop Henry J. Mansell. The events in Milford and Waterbury are a reminder of the key role that the state's pro-family clergy must play if we are to make Connecticut as family-friendly as possible. If every clergyman in Connecticut is as pro-active as Bishop Ramirez was in Milford, we can reclaim Connecticut just as he reclaimed the Devon section of Milford.

We salute Bishop Ramirez on his outstanding victory.

Posted at 3:53 PM

December 27

CIVIL UNIONS A DUD [Peter Wolfgang]

Carolyn Conrad and Kathleen Peterson desperately want to be uncivilized. In this age of anti-social behavior, that may not seem like news. But five years after exchanging "vows of love and commitment" in Vermont and becoming the nation's first same-sex "life partners" to be joined in a civil union, their messy "divorce," complete with restraining order, warrants the spotlight. Homosexual couples, it seems, aren't always the loving, devoted, way-better-than-heterosexual people that Hollywood, the news media and homosexual agitators make them out to be.

Thus begins "Civil Unions a Dud," a Dec. 24th editorial in the Waterbury Republican-American. As Brian did in his Dec. 12th blog, the Rep-Am notes that a mere 539 same-sex couples in Connecticut (out of the 7,400 counted in the 2000 census) bothered to enter into civil unions in the first six weeks since the law went into effect. Our state government undermined one of society's most precious institutions, marriage, by creating civil unions for a small group of people who don't want it. Our opponents are spinning that dismal result as a reason to legalize full same-sex "marriage." But since same-sex "marriage" will not confer any new rights on the civilly-unioned, their demand shows that what they are really after is not "rights" but the radical redefining of marriage itself.

Posted at 10:49 AM

December 22

THE LION, THE STORES, AND THE CULTURE [Peter Wolfgang]

Two of our favorite editorial pages here in Connecticut are approaching Christmas Day in decidedly different moods. Certainly, one can't help but feel a sense of gloom when contemplating the wave of violence gripping Hartford, and the Waterbury Republican-American's editorial diagnosis is bound to resonate with those of us fighting for the family:

As Gov. Rell said, the anarchy is rooted in "the breakdown of the family, domestic abuse, addiction, poverty and a simple lack of hope." But these and its other ills are the consequences of 40 years of government social engineering that have remade the culture into one that has little use for stable, traditional families. So many Hartford children grow up in single-parent homes today because the culture glorifies promiscuity and denigrates fatherhood; think Archie Bunker, Al Bundy and Peter Griffin.

Boys growing up in fatherless homes lack critical guidance, structure and self-control. For most, irresponsibility rules their lives, from their lawlessness to the children they sire out of wedlock. The offspring they abandon careen through the same culture that teaches them they're free to do as they please whenever they please; that addiction to government giveaways and entitlements is preferable to rugged individualism; that education is not something one learns in school, but what one picks up on the streets. They grow up to be victims of the culture and expect to be treated as such by governments ever eager to oblige them.

The daunting challenge for Gov. Rell, her agency heads, Hartford officials and community activists, with their throw-more-money-at-it mentality, is to reverse 40 years of cultural decay. Good luck.

Reversing cultural decay is indeed a daunting challenge, but not an impossible one. Modestly successful attempts at cultural renewal are occurring all across the nation—even in Connecticut. Consider the following editorial from the Dec.17th Fairfield County Catholic entitled, appropriately enough, "Advent Hope:"

This certainly has been an interesting Season of Advent, filled with perhaps a little more hope than usual. This year, we can thank two unexpected sources: shopping and Hollywood.

Catholics who spend much of the year trying (often in vain) to evangelize the horrid secular culture received a few early Christmas gifts. For one, there seemed to be a more vociferous—and effective—effort this year to "Keep Christ in Christmas" and promote the real reason for the season. The Stamford Advocate, for example, published two inspiring front-page articles, one on a campaign to encourage outdoor Nativity displays, another on devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe (making good mention that she is also patroness of the unborn).

A battle has been waged—and won—at the checkout. The attempt by "big-box" retailers to expunge Christmas from advertising and store promotions backfired after the Family Institute of Connecticut spearheaded a petition drive. Kohl's, Sears, and Target reversed their ban in the wake of people power.

Cynics would say the reversal is insincere, motivated by greed to make money, not a statement. Perhaps so, perhaps not. Conversion of heart can take many forms. The important thing is for it to happen, and to take root. And, a change of heart should be rewarded. You now know where to shop.

Another hopeful sign this Advent is on the big screen. The long-anticipated film adaptation of the The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, is here at last, and it is a joy to behold. Can this restrained, elegant, inspiring movie truly be from Walt Disney Company? It is, and should be seen by all. It is a film about love, family, betrayal, forgiveness, and redemption—all good themes to pursue in these final days of Advent.

Narnia is a big movie, with eye-popping special effects and action sequences (and a life-like lion, the mighty Aslan, to boot). But it is also a quiet, intimate film that challenges the imagination of young and old through a sense of wonder and awe. The Christian symbols are all there, as subtle or as explicit as they are on paper. They provoke the viewer into asking big questions and wanting more answers.

Who knew shopping and going to the movies could be so good for the soul?

Restoring our marriage-based culture is not something that can be accomplished overnight. It will take many years of hard work and there will be both wins and losses along the way. But it can be done. "Conversion of heart can take many forms. The important thing is for it to happen, and to take root."

FIC wishes a blessed Christmas, 2005, to all.

Posted at 3:48 PM

December 21

MARRIAGE PROTECTION AND THE REFERENDUM PROCESS [Brian Brown]

As has occurred in Connecticut and elsewhere, a lawsuit has been filed in Iowa by a handful of same-sex couples seeking an undemocratic imposition of same-sex "marriage." The suit sparked this reaction:

The court case immediately renewed calls Tuesday to amend the state constitution to include the heterosexual definition of marriage.

"This lawsuit is an attempt to circumvent the will of the people," said Chuck Hurley, president of the Iowa Family Policy Center. "The people of Iowa should decide this issue, not a handful of unelected judges."

Scores of states have already passed Marriage Protection Amendments—indeed, in every state where the people could vote, they voted to protect marriage. But what is especially interesting about Iowa is that it, like Connecticut, has no direct referendum process. American Values President Gary Bauer explains in a recent e-mail:

I have no doubt that the people of the Hawkeye State overwhelmingly oppose the idea of two men getting "married," but, unfortunately, the citizens of Iowa are not allowed to put the issue on the ballot themselves, as has been done in so many other states.

Only the state legislature can put a constitutional amendment on the ballot and the Iowa legislature has deadlocked on this issue. The Republican majority in the Iowa State House has passed a marriage protection amendment, but the Iowa Senate is evenly divided and liberals there are blocking the amendment in committee. Homosexual activists are seizing on this gridlock and hoping to score a quick win in the courts.

The situation in Iowa shows that Connecticut is not alone in not having a direct referendum process and that progress can be made despite this obstacle. Like Gary Bauer, we trust that Iowa will make its voice heard in defense of marriage—and that Connecticut, when given the chance, will do likewise.

Posted at 10:48 AM

December 20

VICTORY ON CORD BLOOD RESEARCH [Brian Brown]

As we continue the fight for faith and family here in Connecticut we must bear in mind that we are not alone. Others, too, are fighting the good fight and achieving important victories. Below is a message we recently received from our friends at the Family Research Council:

In the midst of frenzied weekend floor action in Congress, we won a remarkable victory on a bill to fund research on umbilical cord blood stem cells. Cord blood stem cells can be used to treat some 70 diseases—including sickle-cell anemia. The bill was backed by basketball legend Julius "Dr. J" Erving and Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL). Rep. Davis was joined by others from the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). Here is our chance to pursue ethical stem cell research with all its life-affirming possibilities. This was truly a bipartisan effort—in the best sense of that term. Our great thanks also go to Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) and to our Senate champions—Sam Brownback (R-KS), Bill Frist (R-TN), and Orrin Hatch (R-UT). The only downside of this amazing story is that this good news was buried in a flurry of press accounts of other end-of-session stories. President Bush has a great opportunity here to highlight his own success on this bill. A White House signing ceremony would spotlight a badly-needed administration win. Let me also praise our dedicated FRC lobbying team. They were tenacious in appealing for this measure. Good work!

Posted at 2:48 PM

December 15

MARRIAGE VICTORY—IN NEW YORK STATE! [Brian Brown]

A strong decision for marriage has been handed down in New York State. The case of Hernandez v. Robles resulted in a 4-1 ruling for marriage in a mid-level state court. It is reputedly the Empire State's most liberal judicial panel. Even The New York Times called the win "a ringing defense of heterosexual marriage." The Times said the court "portrayed [marriage] as an important way of ensuring child welfare and social stability." This is a huge victory. The Family Research Council partnered with the Alliance Defense Fund by submitting a "friend of the court" brief in the case. Not only did that court rule appropriately, but it applied the strongest rationale for marriage, which is the proper care of children.

The outcome was not welcomed by New York City's Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg, who was re-elected last month on the Liberal and Republican lines, said: "If today's decision is affirmed by the Court of Appeals [New York's highest court], I will urge the Legislature to change the Domestic Relations Law to permit gay marriage." Bad move, Mr. Mayor. The fact that traditional marriage could win in a liberal court in a liberal state shows how truly radical and dangerous is the plan to create counterfeit marriages.

Posted at 4:23 PM

STEM-CELL MEASURE DOES NOT PROHIBIT HUMAN CLONING [Peter Wolfgang]

The Courant has a piece today on a UConn graduate student's petition drive against the school's "cruel" experimentation on monkeys. But the MSM is not covering a far greater cruelty, funded by our tax dollars, which may soon be occurring at UConn and Yale. Bill O'Brien, president of the Connecticut Right to Life Corp, writes in today's Republican-American:

I've been going to the legislature in Hartford for more than 30 years, and I've seen, and excused, a lot of misrepresentation, mistakes and incompetence. But I don't like lies. And when the lies continue, the truth needs to be told.

In September, the Republican-American printed a letter I wrote after I received a constituent newsletter from one of my legislators, Rep. John "Corky" Mazurek, D-Wolcott. In the newsletter, Rep. Mazurek said the stem-cell research legislation that became law this year "bans human cloning."

I wrote that the bill actually allows human cloning and provides up to $100 million in taxpayer funds to pay for it. I wrote that Rep. Mazurek should understand this, since he voted for the bill. I have yet to see him defend or retract his statement.

This week, I got a constituent newsletter from my other legislator, Sen. Christopher Murphy, D-Cheshire, co-chairman of the Public Health Committee. More than anyone, he should understand what the bill does.

But he states in his newsletter, "a bill I authored took action to ban human cloning."

Before the vote last spring, I testified at a hearing that this is a "clone-and-kill" bill. These legislators knew, or certainly should have known, that the stem-cell bill they voted for allows human cloning. If they are so proud of voting for this new law, why do they keep misrepresenting it?

If the new law bans human cloning in Connecticut, then why has University of Connecticut researcher Xiangzhong "Jerry" Yang publicly announced plans to clone a human being by next spring? Dr. Yang recently was appointed to the Connecticut Stem Cell Advisory Committee, the agency created by the stem-cell law to dole out the $100 million for cloning and stem-cell research. Dr. Yang will be voting on whom to give the money to, and, I would be willing to bet some of it will go to his own human-cloning program.

When this committee had its first meeting recently, Gov. M. Jodi Rell's office issued a news release that stated, "the law established a ban on human cloning...'We are committed to doing this research in the safest and most ethical manner possible.'" Ethical? Is lying about the research ethical?

If Dr. Yang is going to use this new law and the funding it appropriated to clone a human being, why are the governor, Sen. Murphy and Rep. Mazurek still claiming just the opposite?

I think the people of Waterbury, Wolcott, Cheshire and Southington, and of the whole state, whether they support human cloning, deserve to be told the truth about what the law does.

If the Stem Cell Advisory Committee votes to give Dr. Yang money for human cloning, and the governor and these legislators don't object and stop him, I think their constituents will be justified in concluding they are being lied to, and I'll be writing another letter to the editor.

FIC will continue to keep our members updated on this story and any possible steps we can take in the future to halt this attack on human life. In the meantime, we recommend joining with our friends at Pray Connecticut in praying for the future of our state.

Posted at 10:30 AM

December 14

ONE SMALL STEP FOR DECENCY IN CONNECTICUT [Peter Wolfgang]

In the war on family life in Connecticut, it is the proverbial "800 pound gorilla" that no one is talking about. I am referring to the plethora of porn shop advertising that has popped up on billboards all over the state in recent years. Does this trend represent an increase in sexually-explicit businesses in our state or in the advertising for the ones that already existed? Either way, it is bad for Connecticut's families—and our economy.

A wise demographer who was appearing regularly on the Brad Davis radio program made an interesting observation a few months ago. Unimpressed by a recent state tourist campaign targeted at professional women (presumably singles) in New York, he felt that Connecticut's real tourist appeal was to families. He noted that there are large numbers of out-of-state families that drive through Connecticut on their way to vacation in Cape Cod and elsewhere who could be persuaded to spend their tourist dollars here. But on their way through, they are likely to see the large number of "adult" billboards on our roads and conclude that Connecticut is not a family-friendly place. It is those families that our state's tourist policy should be targeting, he concluded, and those billboards are preventing them from spending their money here.

Fortunately, Bishop Jay Ramirez—one of the state's leading pro-family clergymen—has taken one small step to restore decency in Connecticut. His church became the landlord for an "adult" shop and they have begun the eviction process:

"Were trying to have a little bit of grace," Ramirez told the New Haven Register. "We want to do things in a responsible business manner. One way or another, they will be gone before next December. I hope they choose to leave before we throw them out."

We need more of the kind of creative thinking displayed by Bishop Ramirez to end this plague on our state.

Posted at 9:59 AM

December 13

MATCHING GRANT UPDATE! [Brian Brown]

God bless all of you who have contributed to our $50,000 Year-End Matching Grant. We have received a number of $50, $100, and even a few $1,000 donations. We have raised $18,200 as we enter the second week of our campaign.

While this is a great start, we still have a long way to go!

Click here to have your tax-deductible contribution to the Family Institute of Connecticut matched!

We have been working harder than ever to be your voice for faith and family. Our Stop the Ban on Christmas Campaign has been a great success. Three major retailers heard our concerns and restored Christmas in their stores!

As the largest pro-family activist organization in the state we rely entirely upon you for our support. We are asking you in this time of giving to consider all that we do to be your voice for faith and family. If you believe in our work please double our ability to fight for you by giving today to our year-end matching campaign drive.

CLICK HERE TO MAKE YOUR TAX-DEDUCTIBLE DONATION ONLINE ON OUR SECURE SERVER!

I will keep you up-to-date on the status of our matching grant campaign in the coming weeks. We only have until January 1st to meet our goal. Thank you again for your generous support!

Click here to have your tax-deductible contribution to the Family Institute of Connecticut matched!

Yours for the family,

Brian S. Brown

Executive Director

Posted at 2:07 PM

December 12

NO DELUGE OF CIVIL UNIONS IN CONNECTICUT [Brian Brown]

The legalization of same-sex civil unions undermines our shared public understanding of marriage on behalf of a small group of people who do not want it. That is what FIC said prior to the law's passage and now that it has gone into effect there is already evidence suggesting we were right. From today's New Haven Register:

Data from the group Love Makes a Family indicates just 539 gay couples sought civil unions in Connecticut in the first six weeks after the law took effect, compared with more than 3,000 couples in Massachusetts who got marriage licenses in the same period. Though the population of Massachusetts is roughly double that of Connecticut, nearly six times more gay couples were married there than entered civil unions in Connecticut.

As is common with civil union coverage in the MSM, the Register piece is loaded down with the usual misleading anecdotes and propaganda. It opens with a same-sex couple saying they will enter into a civil union in part so they can have hospital visitation rights—rights they already had without civil unions. It quotes LMF's head saying that their push to trade civil unions for same-sex "marriage" is "an issue of basic human rights"—when, in truth, it would not confer any new "rights." The push for same-sex "marriage" is clearly about restructuring one of society's most important institutions, not securing "rights." The Register notes that the federal government does not recognize civil unions but neglects to mention that it does not recognize same-sex "marriage" either.

Underneath all the usual nonsense is the key point in the excerpt above: there is, as the Register headline has it, "no deluge" of same-sex civil unions. And for this our state government was willing to undermine one of society's most important institutions.

Posted at 3:56 PM

December 8

MERRY CHRISTMAS, WITHOUT APOLOGY [Peter Wolfgang]

FIC sent an e-mail alert yesterday calling on our members to help stop the ban on Christmas by e-mailing a message to the top seven offending companies that operate in Connecticut. We were amazed by the response. FIC members e-mailed over 1,600 messages in just the first 24 hours and two companies responded so positively that we have already removed them from our list.

Those who holler loudest that there is no war on Christmas frequently help to prove otherwise. It is not unusual for anti-Christian Courant columnist Susan Campbell to substitute a sneer for an argument, but even we were surprised by the disdain dripping from her Sunday column:

Every year for the last five or so, someone publicly bemoans that store employees are replacing the standard greeting of "Merry Christmas" with the more generic "Happy Holidays." Couple that with towns' refusal to display manger scenes on the green, and a certain breed of Christian starts to get nervous. This year, as he so often does, Brother Bill O'Reilly led the charge, bolstered by sacred texts like the book "The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot To Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought," which I would read, but I think it's all in pictures.

Frankly, all these soldiers of the cross wear on me. They've reduced their religion to the wearing of a small gold token around their necks or the display of religious artifacts in public. They worry that not allowing a creche on the green is akin to attacking the season.

Actually, we worry that not allowing a creche on the green is an example of governmental hostility toward Christianity masquerading as "tolerance." As the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus once put it:

The public expunging of the religious particularity of those who are not privileged to be in a minority is no simple matter... As culture is derived from cultus, so multiculturalism requires many cults. Whatever is sacred in public rituals that are, in the words of the Times, "secular yet sacred" must not be permitted to refer to anything so transcendently sacred as to be capable of constituting a culture. Shards of many sacred stories may be cherished for the pleasures of diversity, but we cannot allow one story to be privileged, lest it attain hegemony and lead simple folk to think that we are, after all, participants in a culture with a definite history and even a name. The Christian West has become the culture that dare not speak its name.

Not only does Campbell get us wrong, she gets the season wrong too:

How lightly they take the season. How little regard they have for the spirit of it, when people who won't darken a church door crowd into the pew for the mystery of Midnight Mass. Where the grumpy old guy down the street volunteers — volunteers, yet! — to play the part of a wise man in the church pageant. Where people who otherwise don't think of it write a check for charity because they know that's right and doing right feels good during the holidays [emphasis added].

Many people do not do good deeds this time of year because of a generic sense of "doing right feels good during the holidays" but because they are motivated by the specific content of the holiday: the angel appearing to Mary, no room at the inn, her Child born in a stable, a heavenly host appearing to shepherds, wise men from the east, all of it. They are motivated by the story of God's great love for us.

To be sure, it is intriguing to read such comments from Campbell as "[Christmas] has nothing to do with symbols. In faith, we don't need a tree, creche or greeting to remind us of the event that got the ball rolling," or "if someone can find a Biblical reference that encourages Christians to display a Christmas tree, I'll eat tinsel." It is a religious opinion of Christmas still held by some people today and, centuries ago, held by many in New England.

In fact, it was the opinion held by our Puritan founders. Despite the constant digs at the faith of her childhood, Campbell remains to this day more influenced by it than she realizes.

However much Campbell may distort the matter it is worth remembering that, yes, our faith must be about more than symbols. Fr. Neuhaus again:

...the best way for Christians to put Christ back into Christmas is to observe Christmas Christianly. Forget about the culture wars for a moment, and fix your attention on God Incarnate. In churches, homes, and, yes, public squares, gather to hear it again. "In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus . . ." This truth is the very heart of the cultus that gave birth to this culture. And when this culture dies, as every culture does — whether by the treason of those who had the charge of transmitting it to another generation or simply by exhaustion — this truth will go on to give birth again.

"She wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn." If there is no longer a place for them in the American public square, there will be other places, for all places are His. Meanwhile, it is within our power, personally and collectively, to let Happy Holidays be again the holy days that they are. For the sake of our souls more than for the sake of our culture, but for the sake of our culture, too.

Posted at 5:11 PM

December 7

HYPOCRISY IN HARTFORD [Brian Brown]

So I'm driving into work one morning last week (Wednesday the 30th, to be precise) and there is this car—with the obligatory "Kerry-Edwards" bumper sticker, of course—driving erratically in front of me. As I get closer I see the license plate: "legislative district 6." Sure enough, it was Rep. Art Feltman (D-Hartford) behind the wheel and talking into his cell phone, which he was holding. (The legislature earlier this year outlawed talking on a hand-held cell phone while driving.)

I confirmed it was Rep. Feltman as I was passing him. In fact, he was in the process of pulling in somewhere to make an illegal u-turn while still talking on his cell.

It would have been bad enough for Rep. Feltman to break the law in a non-governmental car. But he apparently feels free to flout the rules he and his fellow legislators set for everyone else while driving a state vehicle. Given this kind of legislative hypocrisy in Hartford, how seriously do our lawmakers expect us to take the new campaign finance reform law being signed by Gov. Rell today?

Posted at 10:58 AM

December 6

SAME-SEX "MARRIAGE" LOBBY HITS ROADBLOCK [Brian Brown]

Where things stand in the fight to protect marriage, as viewed by the Republican-American in today's editorial:

Other than their successes in Massachusetts, Connecticut and Vermont, homosexual activists have found few states sympathetic to their quest to enact laws sanctioning same-sex marriages or civil unions. They ran into a stone wall in 2004 when 13 states voted for constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriages and reserving marriage for a man and a woman. One of the states that approved an amendment was Oregon, widely regarded a liberal state.

As 2005 draws to a close, the news for homosexual activists isn't improving. In Massachusetts, the first and only state to allow homosexuals to marry, the Massachusetts Family Institute has gathered 120,000 petition signatures — twice the number needed — to move a constitutional ban of same-sex marriages through the referendum process. Adoption would reverse a Supreme Judicial Court ruling allowing same-sex couples to marry. The process is tedious, however; the petition has to be approved in two successive sittings of the legislature. But just 25 percent, not a majority, of the members must vote favorably for it to continue. A referendum could come as soon as 2008.

More negative news came with the disclosure by Tony Soltani, chairman of New Hampshire's commission on same-sex marriages, that a recommendation will be forthcoming restricting marriage to heterosexuals. The only concessions made to homosexuals is a proposal to extend official recognition to their unions and a provision for limited rights, such as hospital visitations. No rights would be provided that involve expenditures, such as health coverage for partners.

Some activists dismiss the setbacks, claiming most people support partnership rights for homosexuals through marriage or civil unions. This may be wishful thinking, considering 38 states have acted to curb such rights, either by statute or constitutional amendment.

Finally, the Vatican is readying an instruction to seminaries to bar admission to candidates for the priesthood who practice homosexuality, have deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or support that culture. Exceptions may be made for homosexuals who have practiced celibacy for three years or more.

These developments suggest the homosexual lobby has an inflated perception of its public support and may be harming its own cause by persisting in a quest to refashion society's most venerable institutions.

In his Sept. 12th post on this blog, Peter noted that the media was falsely portraying recent events in Massachusetts as a setback for the pro-family cause. But the truth about the state of the issue in Massachusetts and elsewhere has now come to light. And so, too, will the truth about Connecticut: same-sex unions were not legalized here because people were "sympathetic" to it but because our unaccountable state government imposed it.

Posted at 12:57 PM

December 5

THEY JUST DON'T GET IT [Brian Brown]

Just how clueless are the pro same-sex civil union legislators at our state capitol? Consider Journal Inquirer editor Chris Powell's fine column this past weekend on the "worsening social disintegration" in Connecticut's cities:

It was just another weekend in Hartford last month when five teen-age boys were shot in several incidents believed related to high school feuds. People throughout Connecticut were talking about it but from the state's political leadership there was not a peep of concern...

Many of the legislators surveyed [by the JI] offered only the cliches of burgeoning but ineffectual government — more job-training programs, more after-school activities, more college scholarships, and so on. Only a few legislators seemed to have a clue about the cause of the disintegration, childbearing outside marriage.

"Boys are in fatherless homes that aren't functioning," state Rep. Robert Farr, R-West Hartford, said. "When you have an unstable home life, it's very difficult for school to overcome that."

In fact, it is Rep. Farr's "clue" that demonstrates how clueless he is. Rep. Farr voted for the same-sex civil unions bill—a law guaranteed to produce more fatherless homes. Indeed, while there is always the possibility of fatherlessness as an unfortunate instance of falling short of an ideal, Rep. Farr voted for the first law in state history to uphold fatherlessness as a deliberately chosen good! And yet, here he is lamenting the chaos caused by fatherless homes. Other pro civil union legislators are quoted saying similar things, completely unaware of their role in helping to bring about more of the very thing they lament. Talk about a failure to connect the dots!

What are needed first and what always have been lacking from state government are the capacity for outrage and the resolve that essentially abandoned children from racial minorities are more important than convention centers and other amusements for suburbanites and featherbedding for public employee unions... Then the governor or legislative leaders could summon the General Assembly to examine how government policy has subsidized or otherwise encouraged fatherlessness and how policy could be brought to bear dramatically in the other direction.

Powell is right. The problem is that, far from reversing direction, the state government has greatly increased its encouragement of fatherlessness with the new civil union law. Passing a Marriage Protection Amendment is the most important thing we can do to show resolve that "essentially abandoned children" of all backgrounds will have a state government that supports their right to grow up in a home with both a mom and a dad.

Posted at 2:57 PM

December 2

CONNECTICUT POST SMEARS METHODIST DENOMINATION [Peter Wolfgang]

An article in today's CT Post begins with this sentence:

By openly welcoming homosexuals as members of the Mary Taylor United Methodist Church in Milford, the congregation is putting itself somewhat at odds with its denomination's hierarchy.

Really? The United Methodist Church does not "openly welcome" homosexuals as members?

Yes, according to the Post:

[Mary Taylor United Methodist] Church members recently voted overwhelmingly to adopt a new mission statement welcoming homosexuals to full membership. The vote comes on the heels of the United Methodists' Judicial Council ruling that upheld a Virginia pastor who refused membership to a gay man. The council ruling established that local pastors have authority to bar such members.

Really? The United Methodist denomination has ruled that pastors may refuse membership to someone simply because he is homosexual?

No. Here is how the decision describes the facts of the case:

During the latter part of 2004, an associate pastor in a local church in the Virginia Annual Conference advised the district superintendent that the senior pastor refused to receive into membership in the local church an individual who admitted to living a homosexual lifestyle... He further advised that he would continue to meet with him and be in ministry with him but that he could not receive him into membership of the church since the individual would neither repent nor seek to live a different lifestyle... After additional meetings and communicating with the district superintendent, the Elder informed the district superintendent that he could not receive the individual into membership of the church given his admittance of continuing the practice of homosexuality and that his intent not to discontinue the practice [emphases added].

Exactly one year ago today on this blog, Brian wrote: "There's a difference between faithfully upholding the scriptural prohibitions against homosexual activity and forbidding those with such inclinations from entering your church. No pro-family church does the latter. The UCC ad [claiming otherwise] is a slur."

And so is today's Connecticut Post article.

Posted at 12:14 PM

December 1

PROTECT CHILDREN: STOP SAME-SEX "MARRIAGE" [Brian Brown]

"As voters see that civil unions don't bring fire, floods or mayhem, perhaps they'll become more amenable to full [same-sex] marriage [in 2007]," is how the New Haven Advocate describes Love Makes A Family's strategy. But pro-family advocates have never claimed that the negative effects of same-sex "marriage"/civil unions would be evident overnight. The full tragic effects of a redefinition of marriage on children will not be known for decades—as was the case with no-fault divorce.

Liberalizing our nation's divorce laws was sold to the public as a reform that would be good for adults and children. It is only now that the awful truth is coming to light. Here is an excerpt from a profile appearing in yesterday's Courant of Elizabeth Marquadt, one of the scholars who recently produced the first national study of children of divorce:

But beneath the veneer, Marquardt says she and other young adults who grew up in the divorce explosion of the '70s and '80s are still dealing with wounds they could never talk about with their parents...

The key findings of the study by Marquardt and Glenn are these:

The grown children of divorce say there is no such thing as a good divorce.

Children of divorce say they spent a lot of time alone and, as a result, found some emotional distance between themselves and their parents.

Even in an amicable split, divorce makes children grow up between the two distinct worlds of their parents, who often have different values and priorities.

Children internalize the conflict between these two worlds. They say they feel they have to grow up too soon, act like different people around their parents and keep secrets to preserve the peace.

"Too many people have unrealistic ideas about divorce," Marquardt said. "They think if you do it right, it won't be so hard on the kids. And that's where this `good divorce' idea is so damaging and so seductive, because it basically tells parents a lie.

It is a lie that was sold to our nation some thirty years ago, just as Connecticut is now being sold the lie that children do not need both a mother and a father. We cannot wait another thirty years for studies to reveal what should have been obvious from the beginning. The redefinition of marriage—and the harm it causes children—must be stopped now.

Posted at 10:56 AM

November 30

CLERGY SEX-ABUSE: WHAT THE COURANT ISN'T REPORTING [Peter Wolfgang]

The Vatican this week released a new document reiterating Church teaching that men "who are actively homosexual or show deeply seated homosexual tendencies" should be banned from Catholic seminaries and the priesthood. "Seminary Ban Angers Gay Leaders" is the predictable headline in today's Courant. An excerpt:

"God is neither sexist nor homophobic," said Frank O'Gorman of People of Faith for Gay and Lesbian Civil Rights. "Sexual maturity, not sexual orientation, should be the criteria...

O'Gorman said the Vatican's new policy is rooted in a belief that homosexuality is a disorder and called the instructions "a pogrom" against gays.

"The hierarchy is beginning with a false premise regarding homosexuality and the conclusions it reaches are also false," O'Gorman said. He said he believed that the Vatican issued the instructions now because it fears the gains that gays have made in recent years. "People are marrying; they are `out,' and the hierarchy is very frightened of that."

Actually, no, they are frightened of this:

After an exhaustive review of sex abuse in the priesthood, among the John Jay [College of Criminal Justice in New York] study's findings was the revelation that the majority of sexual abuse by clergy took place during the 1960s and '70s, with 81% of the victims being males between the ages of 11 and 17.

[National Review] Board [for the Protection of Children and Young People] member Dr. Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, described that finding as "remarkable."

"I'm amazed that this fundamental bombshell has not been the subject of greater interest and discussion," he told the Register. "I'm astonished that people throughout America are not talking about it, thinking about it, and wondering about what the mechanisms were that set this alight.

"If you collect all of the seminary graduates between 1970 and 1973, 10-11% of them abused children," said McHugh. "That's an amazing fact. This behavior was homosexual predation on American Catholic youth, yet it's not being discussed."

The above quote does not, of course, come from the Courant. In fact, it is precisely because of the refusal of mainstream media outlets like the Courant to report on the true nature of the clergy sex-abuse scandals that the true nature of those scandals are not being discussed.

Click here to read the Connecticut-based National Catholic Register's coverage of things you are not hearing about in the Courant.

Posted at 10:51 AM

November 29

COMMON SENSE IN SOUTH WINDSOR [Peter Wolfgang]

If, as Brian suggests in the previous post, LMF's strategy depends on eroding the common sense of Connecticut's pro-family citizenry, they could be waiting a very long time. As this letter in today's Courant demonstrates, our state's pro-family citizens know what is and is not good for their children and they are not about to trade common sense for the condescending advice of their "intellectual superiors." In fact, this letter is so good that we are posting the full text:

Doll Boycott Is Common Sense

There is a reason President Bush won the last election: A majority of Americans hold traditional values. Mona Gable [Other Opinion, Nov. 27, "Christian Right Sets Sights On Doll"] may not like that, but the last election offered proof.

Gable's article lamented the controversy surrounding the American Girl doll company and its financial support of an organization that promotes abortion and lesbianism to young girls.

Gable's article contained many derogatory comments that we "on the right" have come to expect such as "I think you're afraid of your daughters being exposed to other points of view," and "my biggest objection with the realistic-looking dolls ... was their `stories,' all of which lacked narrative ambiguity. Perhaps that's why Christian conservatives seemed [before the boycott] to deem the dolls sacred."

Excuse me, but if Gable is going to call conservatives dimwits, she could have at least supported her commentary with some facts rather than resorting to name-calling that's reminiscent of elementary school.

It's clear that the majority of Americans don't want their daughters encouraged to engage in sexual activity before marriage (even though contraceptive-based sex education programs teach such activity). They don't want their daughters taught about alternative lifestyles by schools. And they don't want their money paying for programs that are contrary to what they believe to be right. Call me stupid (well, I guess Gable already did that), but this is all pretty much common sense. Maybe Ms. Gable's intellectual superiority has usurped her common sense.

Jessemyn E. Pekari

South Windsor

Posted at 12:09 PM

LMF AND THE "RUDDY-FACED" MAN [Brian Brown]

Love Makes A Family had volunteers at several polling places on Election Day as part of their strategy to redefine marriage in Connecticut. The pro same-sex "marriage" New Haven Advocate reports:

There was nothing gay-marriage- related on the ballot this month, in Milford or anywhere else in the state. There were no legislative seats up for grabs that could influence the fate of a same-sex marriage bill; legislative elections are a year away. And there are no plans to introduce a gay-marriage bill in the legislative session that begins in February. That will wait until 2007. So it's a longer-term strategy that Love Makes a Family is pursuing. The past year brought bitter setbacks for the gay-marriage movement in many parts of the country, but great success here. In the 2004 legislative elections, Love Makes a Family backed 26 candidates and saw 21 of them win. Partly as a result of those electoral victories, Connecticut this year became the first state in the country to pass a civil union law—which confers all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, but not the name—without a court order.

In fact—as even some of the state's pro same-sex "marriage" bloggers acknowledge—the results of the 2004 legislative elections were mostly a side-effect of Connecticut's preference in the presidential race.

Our opponents also make much of Connecticut being the first state to legalize same-sex civil unions "without a court order." The truth is that there is a case pending and Gov. Rell has said in interviews that this was one of the reasons she decided to sign the bill.

Indeed, as Pray Connecticut notes, the threat of that case still looms:

Although the legislature is not in session, persons opposed to maintaining the traditional family structure continue to work. The case of Kerrigan v. State of Connecticut is still active and seeks the redefinition of marriage in Connecticut, so as to include same-sex couples. The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has now filed a friend of the court brief asking the Superior Court to dismiss the case...

Read the ACLJ press release here.

Meanwhile, in the Advocate story, pro same-sex "marriage" forces lay out their strategy:

Gay-marriage boosters have decided not to introduce legislation in 2006. Facing re-election in the fall, politicians aren't likely to budge from their pro-civil-union, anti-gay-marriage positions. And with civil unions so new, the strategy calls for letting people get used to the changed landscape. As voters see that civil unions don't bring fire, floods or mayhem, perhaps they'll become more amenable to full marriage.

But it's not just a wait-it-out strategy. Love Makes a Family knows that it needs to "build power," as political director Adam Nicholson puts it.

A "wait-it-out" strategy is exactly what it is. Otherwise, why wait until 2007—after the elections—to push a pro same-sex "marriage" bill at the state capitol? Nicholson only tells half the story. The full LMF strategy could more aptly be described as "Build Power, Ignore Voters."

Otherwise, why don't our opponents put the redefinition of marriage they seek up for a referendum? They like to claim the people are on their side with civil unions, so why did they oppose Letting the People Decide? They claim the public will support their goal of full same-sex "marriage" so why do they, even now, still refuse to Let the People Decide?

Because they know that this man speaks for the average Connecticut voter:

"Being a family man, I'm not real sure," said a ruddy-faced man in a yellow windbreaker. "We have to maintain family values. Children today are growing up like wild people. Go into the school system—you'll see. They've got enough on them, with divorce and all." He didn't sign [the pro same-sex "marriage" pledge].

Most state voters, like the Advocate's nameless "ruddy-faced man," know that same-sex "marriage" is wrong, that it is bad for children and even that the push for it is related to other societal ills plaguing the family, like divorce.

And therein lies the question that is at the heart of LMF's true strategy: How long will it take them to erode the "ruddy-faced" man's intuitive understanding of the truth about marriage and his basic common sense?

Posted at 10:48 AM

November 23

A CONNECTICUT THANKSGIVING PROCLAMATION [Peter Wolfgang]

In 1936 Connecticut Governor Wilbur Cross, noting that "it has seemed good to our people to join together in praising the Creator and Preserver," issued the following Thanksgiving Proclamation.

A Connecticut Thanksgiving Proclamation

State of Connecticut

By His Excellency WILBUR L. CROSS, Governor

Proclamation

Time out of mind at this turn of the seasons when the hardy oak leaves rustle in the wind and the frost gives a tang to the air and the dusk falls early and the friendly evenings lengthen under the heel of Orion, it has seemed good to our people to join together in praising the Creator and Preserver, who has brought us by a way that we did not know to the end of another year. In observance of this custom, I appoint Thursday, the twenty-sixth of November, as a day of

Public Thanksgiving

for the blessings that have been our common lot and have placed our beloved State with the favored regions of earth — for all the creature comforts: the yield of the soil that has fed us and the richer yield from labor of every kind that has sustained our lives — and for all those things, as dear as breath to the body, that quicken man's faith in his manhood, that nourish and strengthen his spirit to do the great work still before him: for the brotherly word and act; for honor held above price; for steadfast courage and zeal in the long, long search after truth; for liberty and for justice freely granted by each to his fellow and so as freely enjoyed; and for the crowning glory and mercy of peace upon our land; — that we may humbly take heart of these blessings as we gather once again with solemn and festive rites to keep our Harvest Home.

Given under my hand and seal of the State at the Capitol, in Hartford, this twelfth day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty six and of the independence of the United States the one hundred and sixty-first.

Wilbur L. Cross

By His Excellency's Command:

C. John Satti Secretary

The Family Institute of Connecticut thanks God for our many blessings over the course of our organization's existence and especially in this last year. We are especially grateful to you, our supporters, donors and volunteers. Without you, we would not exist. It is because of your generosity and God's blessings that FIC can fight to preserve the Connecticut heritage of reverence for faith and family that is so evident in Gov. Cross' proclamation and that is under so much attack by the anti-family elites of today.

Posted at 11:26 AM

November 21

COURANT POLL DODGES THE ISSUE [Peter Wolfgang]

Pro same-sex "marriage" activists often claim that Connecticut voters support the civil union law. But in a recent Courant/UConn poll on issues of top concern to state residents, the Courant did not even bother to include a question about civil unions—even though the paper itself considers the new law to be one of the biggest things to come out of the last legislative session.

Why? Was the Courant afraid it might find a significant number of state residents who oppose civil unions, thus discrediting the liberal narrative of increasing state support for same-sex "marriage"? Or was the Courant's oversight a result of the built-in bias that I wrote about in my Oct. 5th post—that is, since the Courant itself supports civil unions it did not even occur to the paper to ask in its poll whether anyone opposes it?

Either way, while the Courant neglects to ask state residents what they think about the legislature's decision to undermine marriage, evidence is piling up regarding the answer: the people of Connecticut don't like it.

According to an article appearing Friday on the New London Day's website, Most Stonington Justices Refuse to Perform Civil Unions:

Out of 50 justices of the peace in Stonington, all fully qualified to perform civil unions, only 17 agreed to perform the ceremony, a rift that parallels the nationwide opposition to gay marriage.

According to a 2004 Gallup Poll, the nation opposes legally recognizing same-sex marriages 2-1. Last year, 11 states outlawed same-sex marriage; Texas joined them on Election Day this year.

Actually, Texas brings to 42 the number of states that have passed some type of law banning same-sex "marriage" since four judges imposed it on Massachusetts (see our Oct. 27th post). The article also falsely implies that the legalization of same-sex "marriage" by Connecticut would be recognized elsewhere—except for Massachusetts, it would not.

Still, the article scoops the Courant by providing a window into the true bipartisan state sentiment regarding civil unions. It quotes two justices of the peace (JPs), both Democrats:

Selectman Peter Balestracci opposes civil unions, and while eligible to perform marriages he has opted out of performing civil unions.

"I don't believe in it," said Balestracci, a Democrat. "I'm a Catholic and that's the way I was raised."

Former Democratic First Selectman Donald Maranell agrees.

"It's a religious decision," Maranell, also a justice of the peace, said. "Marriage is a sacrament and until I'm comfortable with the institution I have that choice."

It was a small-but-significant victory for the pro-family cause that the final version of the state's civil union law allows conscientious objection for JPs like the ones quoted above—an option the JPs in Vermont do not have. But the big victory will be the story the Courant won't cover until it has to: how true public sentiment regarding civil unions leads to its repeal and to the restoration of traditional marriage to its proper place of respect in our laws.

Posted at 9:43 AM

November 18

THE PROBLEM WITH THE COURANT [Brian Brown]

The Courant plans to show 25 employees the door, according to the AP:

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — The Hartford Courant is eliminating about 25 positions through attrition, voluntary buyouts, layoffs and leaving open jobs unfilled, according to a memo distributed Thursday.

In an e-mail to Courant staff, publisher Jack Davis said a similar step toward reducing expenses for 2006 was taken in early October. Fourteen employees were affected.

"However, given ongoing competitive media pressure and disappointing financial results, we need to achieve additional expense reductions if we are to remain as strong as possible in 2006 and beyond," Davis said in the e-mail.

Last December, the Courant eliminated 10 newsroom positions in Washington and Hartford, citing a budget crunch. Those layoffs came on the heels of the newspaper's reduction of 19 newsroom positions through attrition since June 2003.

Tribune [the Courant's parent company] reported this week that its consolidated revenues for the period ending Oct. 23 were down 3.5 percent, from $455 million to $439 million.

That's a total of 68 positions eliminated at the Courant in just the last two and a half years because of declining revenue. So, what is the problem? The problem is that the Courant is very far from being a family-friendly paper.

True, the paper did publish an outstanding op-ed yesterday, No Such Thing As A Good Divorce, by Elizabeth Marquardt of the Institute for American Values. But articles like Marquardt's—that support, rather than attack, the family—are few and far between in the pages of the Courant.

Instead, when Connecticut's families gather around their breakfast tables and open their copy of the Courant, it is more likely that they will be exposed to the kind of values on display in Pat Seremet's Nov. 8th Java column (WARNING: OBJECTIONABLE MATERIAL INCLUDED IN EXCERPT BELOW):

You know something is going to be different at a party when you see a man in a tuxedo and two other men dressed in evening gowns and wigs—all leaving the same men's room at the Hartford Marriott in Farmington (which for this night was renamed "Trans-Inclusive Restroom")...

Never saw anyone in a tiara before at a urinal? Believe it!

There's always an extra element of the fun and the unexpected at parties given by the Hartford Gay & Lesbian Health Collective, and the Saturday night bash called the 1 Big Event ranks with the best of them.

[Noted performer and darling of the gay and lesbian scene Varla Jean Merman, also known as Jeffrey Roberson] was in high gear, curvaceous in a lime-green sparkling gown and matching elegant evening gloves, and characteristically outrageous.

"I've performed on countless pool tables from here to Northampton,' she told the crowd of 375...

Merman brought the house down when she perched herself on the piano and sang "Talk to the Animals" from Dr. Doolittle,—except in her version, the lyrics were: "If I Could Talk To the Genitals."

Hers was more like a trip down mammary lane, with lots of assonance. No body part, male or female, went uncelebrated. Merman wished that she could give an "ovation to the ovum," "go screaming to the scrotum," "argue with an anus" and "have lunch with a testicle."

It was so wildly naughty and funny that there was nearly a stampede to the Trans-Inclusive Restroom after her performance.

Sexually-explicit versions of children's songs sung by "drag queens" may pass for humor in certain circles but it is not what most people want to read about in a family newspaper. It is because of the steady stream of anti-family items like the one above that business has been so bad for the Courant that the paper has been forced to eliminate 68 positions in the last two and a half years. Connecticut families will not continue to buy a paper that repeatedly insults and offends their values—particularly when new technologies like the internet make it so easy for them to get their news elsewhere.

When will the "powers that be" at the Courant—and throughout the liberal media, most of whom face the same slump as the Courant—realize this and clean up their act?

Posted at 3:53 PM

November 15

IN BRIDGEPORT: A LOSS...AND PROGRESS [Brian Brown]

Edna Garcia, the pro-family petitioning Democrat candidate, lost her bid to succeed disgraced state senator Ernie Newton in last night's special election in Bridgeport.

But while she did not win, the election points to hopeful signs for the future of the pro-family cause and lessons we can learn to make those hopes a reality.

In a 6-way race, Edna soundly outpolled a sitting state representative as well as the endorsed Republican Joseph Borges and Michael Singh.

Edna's vote tally represents a respectable showing, especially in light of the Democratic party machine apparatus that she was up against in the person of Ed Gomes, the endorsed candidate and last night's winner.

One big lesson from this race is that the pro-family vote must not be split. If pro-family Rep. Lydia Martinez had not chosen to enter the race late in the game, Edna's vote total would have been much higher.

We know what unity can bring. Rep. David Aldarando's defeat of pro-same-sex "marriage"/pro abortion Democrat Americo Santiago is but one example of what we can do if we are united. More recently (and we will have more to say about this in another post) pro-family forces narrowly failed to defeat Dan Malloy as Mayor of Stamford. Malloy, a vocal supporter of same-sex "marriage", only managed to get 51% of the vote, throwing his gubernatorial hopes into jeopardy.

The volunteers who did so much to help Edna Garcia's race were outstanding. You all went above-and-beyond the call of duty. Indeed, that Edna ran as outstanding a race as she did—even outpolling a state rep. who has had Edna's old seat for the last five years—is a victory in itself.

Connecticut is heavily populated by adherents of pro-family churches. But unless the pro-family citizens of this state are willing to put the same money and manpower behind their beliefs as those working to undermine the family, we will end up with same-sex "marriage" and further attacks on life, marriage, faith and family. It is that simple.

Connecticut's pro-family movement has had some great victories and some defeats, but one thing is clear. For too long, we have not been in the fight at all. We have now begun to organize and fight and we are dedicated to being there and increasing our unity in the years to come. We are in this for the long haul.

Posted at 1:22 PM

November 9

VICTORY FOR WATERBURY...AND THE PRO-LIFE CAUSE [Peter Wolfgang]

Waterbury Mayor Michael J. Jarjura was re-elected last night through a historic write-in campaign after having lost the Democratic primary. Jarjura's defeat in the September primary was good for the pro-life cause. But so was his victory last night.

Two months ago there was much media speculation as to why, despite the advantages of incumbency and plenty of campaign cash, Jarjura lost the primary to Democrat Karen Mulcahy. FIC Action Committee—a legally separate entity—responded by noting in an e-mail alert one reason that had not been covered by the media: Jarjura's own pro-life base had turned on him.

As a state representative, Jarjura had been an outstanding pro-life Democrat; in fact, he was one of FIC's two legislative liaisons. But as mayor he endorsed pro-abortion candidates over pro-lifers in some key races. Those endorsements caused a rift between Jarjura and his pro-life base, leading many of them to provide Mulcahy with her slim margin of victory over Jarjura in the primary.

After a version of the e-mail alert appeared as an op-ed in the Waterbury Republican-American, Jarjura asked an intermediary to set up a meeting between himself and Waterbury's pro-life leaders—and specifically requested my presence (I was the author of the e-mail/op-ed and am also a Waterbury resident). The mayor had begun a write-in campaign and wanted to address the issues raised by my op-ed article.

Both the pro-life candidates—Jarjura and Mulcahy—addressed the pro-life activists present at the Oct. 28th meeting and took questions. Jarjura reminded the audience of his strong pro-life/pro-family record in the legislature and said that he considered himself "on the cutting edge" of pro-life advocacy. "What matters is legislation," he said. Both candidates disavowed support for their fellow Democrat, Rep. Chris Murphy, who played a key role in passing the law spending $100 million to clone and kill human embryos.

Following the meeting, many of the Brass City's longtime pro-life activists remained firmly committed to Mulcahy. But other Waterbury pro-lifers—including my wife and me, as well as a group of Catholic homeschoolers—eventually decided to vote for Jarjura.

Either way, Mayor Jarjura's request to hold this meeting was a victory for the pro-life cause in Connecticut. I am not aware of another big city in the state where the top candidates for mayor would request a meeting with local pro-lifers in order to seek their support.

Waterbury's election was also a victory for the pro-life cause. The top two vote-getters, Jarjura with 38% and Mulcahy with 27%, were both pro-life. This means that in a six-way race for mayor, 65% of Waterbury voters chose a pro-life candidate.

And Independent Alderman Frank Caiazzo—who made national news earlier this year with his effort to pass a proposal declaring Waterbury an "abortion-free zone"—received more votes than any member of his party. According to today's Republican-American, Alderman Caiazzo even outpolled his party's pro-abortion mayoral candidate.

Yesterday's election was good for the pro-life cause and good for Waterbury. In the course of his write-in campaign Mayor Jarjura reaffirmed his commitment to the pro-life/pro-family cause. And now, thanks to his historic win, he has a mandate to continue the good work he has done to put the city on a sound financial footing.

Posted at 2:33 PM

November 7

RECOMMENDED READING: COURANT PROFILE OF FIC [Peter Wolfgang]

A major cover story profiling the Family Institute of Connecticut and our executive director, Brian Brown, appeared yesterday in "NE," the Sunday magazine of the Hartford Courant.

Courant reporter Joel Lang spent several hours interviewing Brian on the need to protect marriage in Connecticut and attended recent public events where Brian was a featured speaker. We are pleasantly surprised by the result: the best, most even-handed story about FIC ever to appear in a mainstream media outlet.

Joel Lang reported on FIC's views accurately and fairly:

Over and over, Brown said the point of marriage is to guarantee children both a "mom and a dad," an impossibility in same-sex marriage. "Why do we even have a binary structure of marriage?" he asked. "To have a child you need a man and a woman. [Throughout history] you're not going to find parenthood being divorced from marriage. That's something we are doing in this generation."

The dangerous shift is fostered by ideas of "modernity" that treat truth as a construct rather than an absolute and that put individual relationships ahead of marriage. Just as the ideal of romantic love justifies divorce of heterosexual couples, it also, Brown said, "leads to the attitude that `I'm a man and I love a man and therefore I should have that love fulfilled in marriage.' " The mistake, he said, is treating marriage "as something that we create subjectively."

The core question to be asked about same sex couples marrying is not whether their civil rights are being violated, but rather "is there a right to redefine marriage?" he said. "Viewing marriage as a bundle of rights for the state to confer at will is not what marriage is."

The other side's attempt to frame the debate as a fight for equality, he said, is part of a strategy to make gay rights a civil rights movement. "They want to make the issue about equality and not homosexual acts," he said. "Their goal is to achieve not tolerance but approbation. Tolerance is not enough, so their strategy is to make opposition unthinkable."

To read the whole article, click here.

In another surprise, the story also plugged this blog, with specific reference to our criticism of the Courant:

On its website, www.ctfamily.org, the institute maintains a blog called Connecticut in the Crosshairs that frequently counter-attacks media bias. A top offender is the Hartford Courant. After the spate of coverage that accompanied the arrival of the civil-union law, Peter Wolfgang, the institute's public policy director, posted an extended critique of the Courant. (It's recommended reading for anyone dissatisfied with the paper.)

Critiquing the mainstream media (MSM) is one of the main purposes of blogs. Having one of your MSM subjects mention the critique—and recommend it—is a significant breakthrough. You can read the critique of the Courant recommended by the paper itself by scrolling down to my Oct. 5th post.

Posted at 12:55 PM

November 4

LIEBERMAN'S "LIKELY" LITMUS TEST [Peter Wolfgang]

Connecticut's own Sen. Joseph Lieberman may be the key swing vote in deciding whether Judge Alito will have a fair up-or-down vote or be filibustered by the Senate's pro-abortion minority. According to today's Connecticut Post

Lieberman and other centrists who spoke with reporters said they affirmed their agreement to allow an up-or-down vote on Alito unless extraordinary circumstances are found to warrant a filibuster.

But what qualifies as "extraordinary circumstances?" The Post reports:

Lieberman would likely join a filibuster if he were convinced Alito would vote to overturn the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

Did Sen. Lieberman actually say this or is the reporter making assumptions? It's not clear from the article. But if Sen. Lieberman does have a pro-abortion litmus test for deciding whether or not to filibuster, it would be a betrayal of his earlier promises to support up-or-down votes for qualified judicial nominees.

Sen. Lieberman's pro-family constituents will be following his role in the Alito confirmation closely.

Posted at 12:25 PM

November 3

BLOGOSPHERE UPDATE [Peter Wolfgang]

This site is now among the 125-plus state blogs that can be found at Connecticut Weblogs. By providing a single free site for viewing the latest posts from Connecticut's blogs, CT Weblogs is performing a wonderful public service for our state.

Blogs can be a great source for information and commentary that you won't find in the mainstream media. Recent posts from some of our favorite state blogs include Blogmeister USA's take on liberal crank Molly Ivins' talk at the Shubert Theater, Connecticut Conservative's advise for New Haven mayoral candidate Gary Jenkins, Connecticut Commentary: Red Notes from a Blue State's thoughts on the political demise of Lt. Gov. Kevin Sullivan and Pray Connecticut—a site designed to promote prayer—wondering aloud if there is any point in praying for the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut.

Our own blog is now over a year old and big changes are in the works—including a possible name change and new URL. We will keep our readers updated. Those wishing to suggest changes—including a new name for our blog—may do so by clicking on the "feedback" button above.

Posted at 1:55 PM

November 1

BILL HAMZY RESIGNS [Peter Wolfgang]

With President Bush's choice of Judge Samuel Alito for Supreme Court Justice, the national GOP has—virtually overnight—reversed its declining fortunes among its pro-family base. The state GOP, alas, continues its trend in the opposite direction:

William A. Hamzy resigned Monday as Republican state chairman, leaving the GOP with a key vacancy to fill in the early weeks of Gov. M. Jodi Rell's campaign for governor.

Hamzy, 39, a state representative from Plymouth, said he will step down Dec. 2, less than a year after Rell installed him in the job...

The party organization showed some independence under Hamzy, issuing a resolution and a press release at odds with Rell on civil unions for same-sex couples.

Hamzy and the GOP state central committee urged lawmakers to define marriage as between a man and a woman — a position shared by Rell. But Hamzy in a related press release broke with the governor by equating same-sex marriage with civil unions.

"We should stop the parsing of words — this is gay marriage pure and simple," Hamzy said.

Rell later signed the civil unions bill into law.

The resignation of its pro-family chairman is a major loss for state Republicans. Rep. Hamzy, who struggled mightily to halt his party's headlong plunge into almost-total political irrelevance, was one of the few state Republicans who seemed to grasp what FIC's Brian Brown was saying in his Dec. 6th blog on this site:

[Kevin] Rennie, a former Republican legislator from South Windsor, writes: "Worrisome for the GOP is that in the North, Bush increased his share of the vote while other Republicans were losing." Yes, but why? Rennie doesn't tell us.

That's too bad, because it was the most important sentence in the entire "Last Word" issue [of Northeast magazine]. The GOP in New England tends to distance itself from President Bush's pro-family positions out of the belief that those positions will hurt them here. But if the main difference between Bush and the New England GOP is Bush's pro-family stance, and Bush did better in New England than the local party, what does that say about local GOP reluctance to embrace the pro-family cause?

Unlike the national party, Connecticut Republicans suffered significant losses last month. If the state party had been as firmly committed to protecting marriage as the national party—and ran explicitly on that commitment—the results would have been different. Instead, the state GOP has dug itself into a hole by its reluctance to fully embrace the pro-family cause. It's time for them to reconsider.

Posted at 7:13 PM

October 29

INTELLIGENT DESIGN "INVADES" CONNECTICUT [Peter Wolfgang]

They finally got their wish. For the last several months, the Courant has been running an inordinate amount of items attacking "intelligent design" on its editorial and op-ed pages. This was in spite of the fact that there was not a single board of education in Connecticut's 169 towns where ID was an issue.

But now there is one. From the Oct. 26th Danbury News-Times:

BROOKFIELD — The national debate over intelligent design, an alternative to the theory of evolution in explaining how the universe