Letter to the editor refused

[de06451]

Has anyone had their letter to the editor at the Record-Journal refused due to being "politically incorrect" or not in agreement with RJ editor, Allan Church? Here's my letter that I wrote recently that was "declined" with no other explanation. I know it was declined because other letters I have written about this topic have been refused.

September 15, 2007

Dear Editor,

Sometime this fall the Connecticut Supreme Court will issue a ruling in the same-sex “marriage” case, Kerrigan, et al. v. Commissioner of Public Health, et al. If the Court decides to impose same-sex “marriage” on Connecticut by judicial fiat, it will be the greatest usurpation of the democratic process in Connecticut history.

In 2003, 100,000 state residents signed petitions asking our legislators to pass a defense of marriage act (DOMA). In 2004, 6,000 people rallied in sub-zero temperatures at the state capitol in support of the DOMA and in 2005 another 3,000 people rallied to protest the passage of civil unions. It is because of this unprecedented democratic uprising that same-sex “marriage” has been defeated in Connecticut year after year.

If the Court should now impose same-sex “marriage” on us by judicial fiat, it would be an attack not only on marriage but on the very principle of self-government. Just three years ago a Harris Interactive poll showed that 78% of state voters know marriage is between a man and a woman and 76% want the right to vote on it.

Even our liberal legislature has heeded the will of the people and decided against redefining marriage. Our Supreme Court should do likewise.

[eds]

I have some refused. Religious letters that espouse one religion's beliefs especially are deemed not "newsworthy" or "current".

I have not heard of any rulings etc. Perhaps your letter was not "current" or had some facts that are in error? Just perhaps, mind you, I am not saying this is true. I am just asking because I did not read anything like that recently.

[collie]

I too have had letters refused, not a lot but even if couched in terms of "I think" and "in my opinion," if the Record Journal strongly disagrees with your opinion they reserve the right not to print your letter. They put a disclaimer in; they reserve the right to edit at will. I appreciate the paper and the opportunity to publish a letter to the editor but I would rather have an argument with them and not have the letter printed than to have my words altered. In the past six years only twice I think I had a problem. ACLU issue it is not due to their disclaimer.

[de06451]

Thanks for your responses...You haven't read anything in the paper about it because the liberal media won't print/air it. I was at the rally...this letter actually came from the Family Institute of CT's website to try to post in "letter to the editor" around the state. This event is extremely newsworthy as it affects the future of our state and how our children will be taught in public school. I don't think enough people in our state realize how seriously close we are to having same-sex marriage in our state. Even with an outcry of over 70,000 signatures against it several years ago, our state legislators still enacted civil unions. And now our state supreme court stands to potentially thrust same-sex marriage on us even though a majority of the people of CT have voiced a resounding NO! Part of the problem is that the liberal media will not properly cover this issue, because if more people knew what their legislators in Hartford were doing, they would be appalled!
Myself and several others requested a meeting with Kathy Abercrombie to talk about this issue and she refused. Yet she will continue to vote for same-sex marriage/civil unions. Can you imagine our children being taught in school that it's okay and normal to have two mommies or two daddies...ugh! It's one thing to be in the privacy of one's own home and make one's lifestyle choices as an adult, but when you want our state government to accept and condone your homosexuality and destroy the meaning of marriage in the process, that's just plain wrong.
Check out www.ctfamily.org to get some current news that the liberal media isn't publishing on this issue.
And I know the paper puts in a disclaimer with the "right" to edit someone..but what they are editing is anyone who doesn't agree with their liberal stance. What kind of newspaper is that? What else don't they print? Does it make you wonder?

[eds]

While I do not support the government's claim that they need to approve of any "marriage",between any of the sexes, I find usurpation of CT state's legal process to be appalling.

CT created a law I feel should be supported once enacted. I do not agree with the law, nevertheless, it should be supported or the process of democratic determination by a state, and by definition, state's rights, will again be trampled on as they have been since the Civil War.

The right of a state to determine its own fate, even to secede if necessary, was something the founding fathers attempted to provide for, by limiting the power of the federal government. However, over time, that power has increased to where the state's have become beholden to the political influence of federal agencies which legislate by policy rather than by representation.

[collie]

Try the Catholic Transcript. On the light side, I bet the Catholic Transcript might have censored a few letters to the editor themselves, like letters of support for abortion, gay marriage etc. It doesn't really sound fair the paper wouldn't print your letter and Abercrombie wouldn't meet with you. It wouldn't have killed them. And I support gay marriage but news is news and constituents are constituents.

[JenMann]

I am going to take a guess at this without calling my family member who is also an editor of the RJ it is because you basically said that it is your feeling that the act you are talking of should be instated and that last thing they want on their hands is to print that and then have someone like me who is married to a man and is a female who believes marriage and or civil union should be acceptable for all , some need to realise you will not turn gay if someone stands near you and if it is your religious beliefs well then let your God judge and you not too because you are NOT to judge it is not your right, your right is to live by your Gods laws and for him to judge you.


Has anyone had their letter to the editor at the Record-Journal refused due to being "politically incorrect" or not in agreement with RJ editor, Allan Church? Here's my letter that I wrote recently that was "declined" with no other explanation. I know it was declined because other letters I have written about this topic have been refused.

September 15, 2007

Dear Editor,

Sometime this fall the Connecticut Supreme Court will issue a ruling in the same-sex “marriage” case, Kerrigan, et al. v. Commissioner of Public Health, et al. If the Court decides to impose same-sex “marriage” on Connecticut by judicial fiat, it will be the greatest usurpation of the democratic process in Connecticut history.

In 2003, 100,000 state residents signed petitions asking our legislators to pass a defense of marriage act (DOMA). In 2004, 6,000 people rallied in sub-zero temperatures at the state capitol in support of the DOMA and in 2005 another 3,000 people rallied to protest the passage of civil unions. It is because of this unprecedented democratic uprising that same-sex “marriage” has been defeated in Connecticut year after year.

If the Court should now impose same-sex “marriage” on us by judicial fiat, it would be an attack not only on marriage but on the very principle of self-government. Just three years ago a Harris Interactive poll showed that 78% of state voters know marriage is between a man and a woman and 76% want the right to vote on it.

Even our liberal legislature has heeded the will of the people and decided against redefining marriage. Our Supreme Court should do likewise.

[eds]

Maybe you should ask your family member, who is an editor, exactly what a sentence is.