QUICK LINKS
WA State Supreme Court Upholds Traditional Marriage
Just minutes ago, in a decision anticipated for 16 months, the Washington State Supreme Court upheld traditional marriage.
Gary Randall said from Olympia, "The basic decision came down to the fact that the Supreme Court felt that by limiting marriage to opposite sex, they sustained the ability to procreate."
He continued to say, "We consider this a decisive victory that upholds the values of the faith community."
Click here to read the Supreme Court Decision in PDF format.
25 Comments:
Praise the Lord! Common sense has prevailed! Thank you for all your great work!
Praise God! Wonderful news. God Bless the Washington State Supreme Court for choosing righteously!
Bigotry won out yet again... but equality and justice will prevail in the end. Stay tuned.
As a Christian family we are devistated with what this ruling does to gays. We have friends that will be impacted by this, and who is so callous as to dictate to them whom they choose to love? By a single vote, hate and intolerance reigned. How a civilized, progressive society can restrict human freedom is confounding. So to you gay people out there, our hearts go out to you. Keep up the faith, (as with all struggles for human and spiritual eqaulity), you will ultimately prevail.
It's good to know that we still have judges who refuse to override 5,000 years of traditional scriptural marriage for the sake of an ungodly agenda. Thanks Faith & Freedom Network for standing for Truth.
To the Rev. King : When is it EVER appropriate to put basic human rights up to a public vote?
This is only a temporary setback for equality and justice. As it always does, enlightenment will eventually triumph over organized religion. These zealots will eventually decide that what God really wants is fairness for all - this will happen when bigotry becomes socially unacceptable again.
If Gay-marriage is ok, what's wrong with Gay-incestuous marriage?
(The standard opposition to incestuous marriage is that procreating produces genetically faulty children; since gays can't procreate, that's not an issue with gay-incestuous marriage.)
If this is about love, what's wrong with polygamy? If 3 women love each other, why can't they all get married? What are they supposed to do: draw straws to see which 2 can marry?
So much hate over Love.
Doesn't seem very Christian to me....
it's too bad most people won't actually read the ruling. They didn't use "common-sense" to make their decision. They felt it should be done by the legistlature. Not that anyone accusing the judges of being activist judges will apologize, but it's good to know.
See statement at 9:51 AM first, then read below
Had the ruling been overturned, the article in 10 years would read ......... As a Christian family (who reads our Bible at Christmas and Easter) we are devastated with what this ruling does to Polygamist/Pedophiles. We have friends that will be impacted by this, and who is so callous as to dictate to them whom they choose to love? They have the same rights as homosexuals!! By a single vote, hate and intolerance reigned. How a civilized, progressive society can restrict human freedom is confounding. So to you polygamist/pedophiles people out there, our hearts go out to you. Keep up the faith, (as with all struggles for human and spiritual equality), you will ultimately prevail.
On a serious side, lets love the sinner and hate the sin (not the person). - CP
I will give You thanks with all my heart...
And give thanks to Your name for Your lovingkindness and Your truth;
For You have magnified Your word according to all Your name.
On the day I called, You answered me...
Psalm 138
Praise the Lord!
How sad their are people in this world as un-Christian in thier attitudes as "CP". Praise your lord, as ours is one of love, compassion and humility. Again, love, justice and equality will in time ultimately prevail.
Thank you to all in this battle(Gods battle) who raised up with strength and courage to go forward with the word of God. It was said to me that our children are and will be Bible Illiterate without a fight and I say thank god for people who rise up who vote and are obedient to Gods word of truth.
This truely is a day to say thank you to the lord for showing us his glory suddenly! psalm 92 (1)
It is not, as several "anonymous" writers say it is, "bigotry and intolerance and hate" to stick to reasonable and time-tested definitions. To say marriage is what it has been throughout human history is no more bigoted, discriminatory, or exclusionist than to say that UW in-state tuition requirements discriminate against residents of France, that Social-Security age requiremnts discriminate against teenagers or the able-bodied, that college soccer scholarship eligibility requiremtns discriminate against the seriously-arthritic or out-of-shape, etc. If marriage as one man and one woman wasn't God-ordained, then surely several civilizations would've codified it within a couple hundred or thousand years after the start of civilization, ie several millenia before CHrist. But none have.
If it's not a right, then it's erroneous to say it's bigotry when your wish is denied.
Nobody except God said you can't love whomever; the issue is whether you can demand the authority and power of the state to (1) give you secular benefits that are reserved for legitimate marriage, and (2) instruct or imply to mandatory-attendance schoolchildren that (1) is as valid as legitimate marriage and that conscientious objectors are to be denigrated. By deliberately misstating the issue and Faith&Freedom's position, you discredit yourself.
I'll tell you what IS hate and bigotry: it's falsely accusing people like Faith & Freedom of bad acts/intentions.
Whether gay marriage makes sense to the human or not, it is not healthy or optimal to go against the way things were set up by the Creator. It may seem fulfilling, but it is ultimately as frustrating as trying to legislate against the law of gravity. True happiness and satisfaction are found only in reconciliation with the Creator. On top of that, He blesses those who seek to give Him His due. Part of that is to seek His real intentions by asking Him rather than assuming what they are and editing the ones you don't like.
K-Y
There is so much talk about "hate". But in all honesty, I've seen "hate" and name calling only by the same-sex marriage supporters on here.
It is not hateful to want to do what is right.
You are free to go and buy Draino if you like--but don't expect us to encourage you and help you to drink it telling you what you long to hear. That isn't love. That is cowardice.
Isn't it easy to claim as some above have said:
"what God really wants is fairness for all"
"who is so callous as to dictate to them whom they choose to love"
"By a single vote, hate and intolerance reigned"
Those are easy and cheap words. Wouldn't we all love to say that? Who wants to hurt anyone's feelings? Who wants people mad at them and saying bad things to them and about them? But that isn't love. Real love takes courage.
And about all this talk of zealots--that is an easy cop out. Many states have adopted same-sex marriage statutes. Even liberal states. It is not just the "fundamentalists" saying it is what is right. It seems angry people not getting their own way resort to name calling like "zealot" and "bigot".
To the homosexuals who read this--I know you may be upset and want to blame us. We don't hate you we love you. You can call us names as many on here have--but we will still love you.
Um, calling people sinners isn't name calling?
If this decision was made by God, why did God make the decision in Mass. for same-sex marriage?
And no, we don't hate you. One day you will have more knowledge and understanding and repent - just like Christians did when they gave up keeping slaves, preventing marriage between races, etc.
I mean no disrespect 4:31 PM--your post is very gracious. But I believe it was the bible believing people who read it in its entirety with understanding, and didn't pick and chose what they wanted to believe or try to twist it to justify their actions, who were against keeping slaves and preventing marriage between races etc. Lincoln was one of them. Just read the Thanksgiving Day Proclamation to get a feel for him.
What is the requirement for marriage? Love? If the requirement isn't one man/one woman, then is it love? So I can marry my brother, or my father, or my daughter or my dog? Or all of them at the same time? I love them all very much. Who would deny me my fundamental right to marry whom I love and choose?
Well said, Y-Y. I'd like to repost part of an earlier thread that may have been missed by some people, since this thread so grabbed people's attention to quickly.
[Begin Reposts]
===================================
I know what you mean. Maybe I should work the court system to redefine a few words that would make my life better:
Speeding: Driving faster than the max speed rating of your tires (my tires are rated up to 149MPH, if I remember right, so I should be able to go that fast, and not allowing me to do so is infringing on my right to get places quickly)
Steeling: Taking something that doesn't belong to you without permission and the person or business notices it's gone (i.e. I should be able to steel, as long as no one notices. In general, I'd prefer to steel from dumb rich people of stores with poor inventory control, and software piracy wouldn't be an issue at all. The current definition of "steeling" is too strict and infringes on my right to have the stuff I want)
Adultery: Having sex outside of marriage with an ugly person (as long as I cheat with super model's it's all cool. What kind of person would want to take that right away from me?!? Discrimination against married people, I say!)
Murder: Killing someone who wasn't generally considered an a$$h0le (boy, wouldn't this make life easier! Current laws are too restrictive and not being able to murder under current laws infringes on my constitutional right to life, liberty, and pursuit of an a$$h0le-free life!)
So, if the path is paved such that marriage comes to mean "some number of people who promise to make coffee for each other in the morning until it's inconvenient or whatever," then I'll be jumping on the bandwagon to get my new definitions pushed through the courts too.
Wish me luck and once my new laws are passed, you better think twice before you cut me off in traffic. ;-)
===================================
Associating same-sex marriage as crimes is mean and silly.
===================================
I wasn't associating it with crimes, I was associating it with immoral activities, which for the most part, just happen to be crimes in many cases (well, except for speeding; I just put that one in for fun).
The overlying point, in case you missed it, was that the argument for same-sex "marriage" basically comes down to: It would make us (homosexual couples who want to get married) happier. It doesn't have to do anything with denied rights, it has to do with extra benefits they'd like to have.
So, if we're changing laws based on what I'd prefer, then I'd prefer to cruize down I-5 doing 120MPH if I want (at only 30 seconds per mile, you make really good time). If nobody buys into that idea (i.e. the fact that I'd like it better that way), then I guess the next step would be to claim that it's infringing on my right as a human being. There's nothing wrong with going fast (at least that's what I'll say), and people in other countries can drive that fast, so I'm being denied my basic human right to "the pursuit of happiness at whatever speed I desire." Being denied basic human rights is wrong, so obviously I'm a persecuted minority who needs protection under the law.
If you don't like this logic, then same-sex marriage won't fly either. On what possible grounds could it? Married people get a few benefits for being married that single people don't, but they're benefits for the people who get them, not denied rights for those who don't. So, are we denying homosexuals some basic rights? No. If we were, then all single people could just as well claim to be denied those "rights."
Certain laws protect rights, other laws encourage desirable behavior. That's the two main kinds of laws that exist. Here's some examples of those catagories:
Laws that protect rights:
-Steeling: You have the right to own stuff and not have it taken against your will.
-Murder: You have the right to live and not have your life taken from you prematurely.
These types of laws exist to protect your rights by punishing offenders who violate those right.
Laws the encourage desirable behaviors:
Speeding: For the safety of all persons using the roadway, traveling at safe speeds is encouraged.
Disabled parking: We give the benefit of good (meaning "close") parking places to disabled people.
In both these cases, we're encouraging desired behavior. We encourage people to drive at safe speeds and we encourage people to save the good parking places for disabled people. By doing this, we are NOT, in any way, infringing on some basic human right to drive fast or park close. We decide how to shape our society and use laws such as these to help shape it by encouraging the most desirable types of behavior. So, where does marriage fit? It fits in the latter category. If you get married you get the benefits of the desirable behavior that society, in general, is trying to encourage. If not, you don't. It's a law that provides a benefit, instead of a penalty. To make this analogous to speeding, it would be something like "everyone has to pay $100/month to use the highways (at whatever speed they want), but if you keep your speed below 60MPH, you only have to pay $70/month". That's a benefit you get, if you opt for the desired behavoir. For same-sex couples to have an argument that they're being denied rights, they would have to be having problems like "it is illegal for me to live with this person" or "it's illegal for me to hold hands and kiss this person in public." I would be just fine with NOT seing these things, but the fact is, they're perfectly legal and within those person rights. They have those rights and they're not being infringed upon.
In closing, remember, no rights are being infringed upon by not allowing same-sex marriage. That's just an argument that is being used to try and work the court systems. I don't want to deny same-sex couples any rights that all Americans have, but I'm okay with not giving additional benefits for behavior that is less desirable for society.
===================================
[End Reposts]
I didn't have a chance to comment on those posts eariler, but I thought they did a great job of spelling out the real details of this debate in a way that makes sense. People really do try to twist things around and confuse people to push their agenda, but if you read those posts above, you'll find they spell things out in a no BS fashion, and it's hard to argue with that logic.
-DN
Posted by "4:22 PM":
"Who wants to hurt anyone's feelings? Who wants people mad at them and saying bad things to them and about them? But that isn't love. Real love takes courage."
Exactly! Real love takes courage. Do I show love to my children love by giving in to their every desire? Ice cream for every meal? Nope, sometimes, as much as a love them and WANT to make them happy, I have to make decision and do things they don't like BECAUSE I love them. Society is a lot like kids...
EVERY KNEE WILL BOW AND EVERY TONGUE CONFESS.....JESUS CHRIST IS KING!!
Thank you God for showing mercy where judgement may have been deserved.
To my friends who suffer under homosexuality. Repent, God will deliver you too from the bondage that chains you.....while God is the Lamb and not the Lion.
Why are all of you anonymous people (and that's including people on both sides of the issue) ashamed to use your (real) name?
Where is the courage of your convictions?
I applaud the court's decision.
And I'm not ashamed to put my name to it.
Chris Faulkner
I'm not ashamed, but I just don't do this blog stuff very often, so I've never signed up for an account (not even sure how). Does it help anyone to know my real name? I doubt it (someone want to look me up and call me on the phone for further discussion?). When you sign up for an account, does it somehow validate who you are? If not, then it doesn't really matter anyway, since people could be just making up names anyway. I'm more concerned about content and good arguments than trying to figure out who people are. but, just to make you happy... :-)
James Olson
"Why are all of you anonymous people (and that's including people on both sides of the issue) ashamed to use your (real) name?"
That is a huge assumption don't you think? I am a single female who lives alone. I don't even put my name in the phone book and I'm sure not going to float my name on the internet. I'm new to the blogging scene so maybe it is safe--and maybe it isn't. That is for me to decide. It's really not your place to say I lack the courage of my convictions. I can assure that is not the case. I have no fear (or shame as you call it) of making my joy at the court's decision known. And listing one's name really isn't that impressive to me.
The decision is not really a victory . I am thank ful the court paid attention to the law of the land , homosexual marriage is not a right .
But it is clear that with so many people believing it is , or should be , we are not close to the land anhd value systems our parents had .
Value systems have expiration dates , traditional value systems and compared to racial prejudice , and people are openly called bigots who claim they are scared and victims .
Not a good envirnoment to sending kids to public schools , where the majority in charge have the view of the homosexual activists ..
One generation more and in deed , who knows how we will be living , but homosexual marriagewill be law in some states at least , that is for sure .
Post a Comment
<< Home