QUICK LINKS
Gay Couples Receive Special Consideration From WA Supreme Court
The Associated Press is carrying the story. Lawyers for gay and lesbian couples will get two more weeks to possibly challenge the Washington State Supreme Court’s ruling upholding traditional marriage.
The Court has agreed to accommodate the gay and lesbian couples by agreeing to move the deadline for a reconsideration filing from August 15 to August 29th.
Lisa Stone, director of the Northwest Women’s Law Center, is very happy. She said, “The longer we have to think about it, the better off we are.”
Why are they doing this?
We know it has nothing to do with polls, because the Chief Justice told the press last January, when the Faith & Freedom Elway poll showed Washingtonians moving away from support for gay marriage, that people are always putting poll results out here and that they don’t mean anything to the Court.
We have been told often that the Court is not politicized.
Perhaps it’s in the spirit of “fairness.”
Yet, Chief Justice Alexander did tell “The Stranger,” a pro-homosexual news outlet in Seattle, that he expected the ruling to be challenged. It might also be noted that his record shows consistent support for homosexual issues, except for the recent DOMA ruling.
I’m sure Chief Justice has not thought about this, but what if he accepts the challenge because its such an important case and in the spirit of “fairness” wants to give the gay rights activists another chance.
If the lawyers for the gay and lesbian couples wait until the 29th to decide to file for reconsideration, then it takes the Court a while to decide whether to revisit a ruling, which is rare, but not unheard of, that could put this process well into the primary election cycle. It’s possible that a judge could actually, after “reconsidering,” change his mind sometime around or just prior to the primary.
Wouldn’t that be confusing?
There are certainly a lot of questions around our judicial process.
Within days, Faith & Freedom will be releasing our first ever Judicial Voter’s Guide. It will help all voters to see things more clearly.
_________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
Click here to add this blog to your email inbox.
34 Comments:
I've had it with those activist judges and their fairness. The will of God and the will of the people shall be done.
Gary how often DOESN'T a court allow an extension when its asked for? Its the rule rather than the exception in virtually any court in the land and this state.
Other legal experts have seen serious flaws in the majority decision, ones that don't even stand up to cursory examination. Of course the plaintiffs should be able to ask the court to reconsider - its their RIGHT to be able to do so.
Quit with the fear mongering - the system is working exactly like its supposed to - an 'activist' judge would be one who didn't accommodate this right of appeal as allowed by law.
I hear both comments. Because the judicial system has become so skewed, we don't really...know...whether or not the judges decision is politically motivated. However, his record does speak and that cannot change.
We need to hear more 'FACTS' than opinions to be allowed to decide for ourselves. That's the American way, at least that's what I was told in school. The process of appeal was instigated because whether or not they admit it, judges are human. As human beings, we ALL make mistakes and the appeal process was designed as check to balance our judicial system. Of course, we all that it's been abused, both ways, unfortunately.
Keep bringing the facts and then add your opinion as opinion and there can be no criticism. As elections draw near, we will be watching.
Question. Is there an email/fax that the general public can use to let the judge know his decisions are being watched? With our judges 'deciding' for us what we need to approve, it would be interesting to see if their decisions would be the same. Don't you think??? Since the 'law' really doesn't come into play with many of the decisions. Thanks.
good grief. they certainly took long enough with the first decision. how absurd.
always the martyr, never the martyred.
Really, if there wasn't something for Gary to claim that everyone was out to get him, I'm not sure what he would do.
Of course, he could do some real research and use evidence to support his opinions but that would probably take too much effort.
12:03 AM "Other legal experts have seen serious flaws in the majority decision"
Who? I haven't heard of any.
Additionally, even if a challenge is the rule and not the exception (which I doubt) I doubt time extensions are the rule and are the exception.
5:25 AM "The process of appeal was instigated because whether or not they admit it, judges are human"
This isn't an appeal. They have already exhausted their appeals.
WA State public schools are sorely lacking in basic education. Gary I think it would behoove you to explain the role of judges, basic functions of the courts and how their function differs from the legislature. It would benefit both sides.
4:49 PM your childish comments aren't worthy of my time.
Fine. Let's just be sure that there's LOTS of publicity about the judges prior to the upcoming elections. I'm fed up with the sneak installation process.
A quote from James Robison:
"Everyone wants to claim the moral high ground, but who determines which way is up? What is right and what is wrong?
As Christians, we know that righteousness comes from God."
And as an agnostic, I know righteousness comes from within. I do right things because they are right, not because a higher power threatened me with punishment.
Hello we need to get this Nation right one Nation under God and marriage needs to be between one man and one woman
Gods blessings
Entertainment Industry Does Not Reflect Society
Entertainment Industry Does Not Reflect Society
For at least a generation, Hollywood has been telling us they do not affect society, society affects the movies. Their favorite line is, “Entertainment is merely a reflection of society.”
For the most part that has never been true, but never as much as it is today.
Hollywood has always had an agenda and as the culture war has become more defined, Hollywood has become more aggressive in promoting their beliefs.
Brokeback Mountain, a film which chronicles a decades-long homosexual affair between two 1960’s-era cowboys has received eight Academy Award nominations.
And Lee, the director of the movie said, “I’m amazed how people everywhere have had the sensitivity to want to get into the complexity of the issue.”
But wait, who is everybody? And who makes the Academy Award Nominations?
Hollywood is talking to itself. And they’re terribly out of touch.
If everyone is into this, why did Brokeback take in only $51 million in 8 weeks while the Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe took in $277.9 million in 8 weeks?
The answer is easy. More people are into the message of Narnia than into the message of Brokeback.
And for that matter, it didn’t seem that viewers were flocking to NBC to watch the “Book of Daniel” either, for the same reason. NBC abruptly canceled the series last week because the general public did not resonate with a drug-addicted Episcopal priest who imagined conversations with a blasphemous “Jesus” character any more than they did with two homosexual cowboys who abandon their families as though they had no choice.
There is a revolution of conscience taking place in America. Some things are simply not acceptable.
Thank God.
Gods blessings
capitol 3 republicans
Religious conservatives claim Katrina was God's omen, punishment for the United States
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, some religious conservatives have speculated that the storm was sent by God as an omen or as a punishment for America's alleged sins. Media Matters for America has documented such statements from three religious conservative media figures: Pat Robertson, Hal Lindsey, and Charles Colson.
Pat Robertson: Katrina linked to legalized abortion
On the September 12 broadcast of the Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club, host Rev. Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former Republican presidential candidate, linked Hurricane Katrina and terrorist attacks to legalized abortion:
ROBERTSON: You know, it's just amazing, though, that people say the litmus test for [Supreme Court nominee John G.] Roberts [Jr.] is whether or not he supports the wholesale slaughter of unborn children. We have killed over 40 million unborn babies in America. I was reading, yesterday, a book that was very interesting about what God has to say in the Old Testament about those who shed innocent blood. And he used the term that those who do this, "the land will vomit you out." That -- you look at your -- you look at the book of Leviticus and see what it says there. And this author of this said, "well 'vomit out' means you are not able to defend yourself." But have we found we are unable somehow to defend ourselves against some of the attacks that are coming against us, either by terrorists or now by natural disaster? Could they be connected in some way? And he goes down the list of the things that God says will cause a nation to lose its possession, and to be vomited out. And the amazing thing is, a judge has now got to say, "I will support the wholesale slaughter of innocent children" in order to get confirmed to the bench. And I am sure Judge Roberts is not going to say any such thing. But nevertheless, that's the litmus test that's being put on, the very thing that could endanger our nation. And it's very interesting. Read the bible, read Leviticus, see what it says there.
On the September 1 broadcast of The 700 Club, Robertson also claimed that, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Roberts can "be thankful that a tragedy has brought him some good," inasmuch as Democratic senators may be less likely to question him aggressively.
According to Robertson's website, The 700 Club "reaches an average of one million American viewers daily." But according to a Los Angeles Times report, The 700 Club "has drawn an average of 863,000 viewers a day during the 2004-2005 television season, Nielsen Media Research said."
Hal Lindsey: Katrina proof that "judgment of America has begun"
On the September 9 broadcast of the Trinity Broadcasting Network's International Intelligence Briefing, host Hal Lindsey stated:
LINDSEY: It seems clear that the prophetic times I have been expecting for decades have finally arrived. And even worse, it appears that the judgment of America has begun. I warn continually that the last days lineup of world powers does not include anything resembling the United States of America. Instead, a revived Roman Empire in Europe is to rule the West, and then the world.
Based in Santa Ana, California, and owned by Jan and Paul Crouch, TBN is the world's largest Christian television network. TBN's website claims its programming is carried by more than 5,000 stations around the world. Lindsey also writes a weekly column for the conservative website WorldNetDaily.com and is the author of several books on Biblical prophecy, including The Late Great Planet Earth.
Charles Colson: God allowed Katrina to happen to bring attention to lack of preparation for terrorist attack
On the September 12 broadcast of his BreakPoint radio program, former Nixon special counsel-turned-Christian radio commentator Charles Colson speculated that God allowed Hurricane Katrina as a reminder to the United States of the importance of winning the "war on terror":
COLSON: [O]ne lesson I learned from Katrina is that we had better win the war on terror and resolve to prevent another 9-11. Katrina exposed how easy it would be to take a city out.
[... ]
COLSON: Katrina gave us a preview of what America would look like if we fail to fight the war on terror. "Did God have anything to do with Katrina?," people ask. My answer is, he allowed it and perhaps he allowed it to get our attention so that we don't delude ourselves into thinking that all we have to do is put things back the way they were and life will be normal again.
According to the program's website, BreakPoint "airs each weekday on over 1,000 outlets with an estimated listening audience of 1 million people." Colson also writes a column for Christianity Today and another for his own BreakPoint Online website that is also carried by Townhall.com.
Religious conservatives claim Katrina was God's omen, punishment for the United States
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, some religious conservatives have speculated that the storm was sent by God as an omen or as a punishment for America's alleged sins. Media Matters for America has documented such statements from three religious conservative media figures: Pat Robertson, Hal Lindsey, and Charles Colson.
Pat Robertson: Katrina linked to legalized abortion
On the September 12 broadcast of the Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club, host Rev. Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former Republican presidential candidate, linked Hurricane Katrina and terrorist attacks to legalized abortion:
ROBERTSON: You know, it's just amazing, though, that people say the litmus test for [Supreme Court nominee John G.] Roberts [Jr.] is whether or not he supports the wholesale slaughter of unborn children. We have killed over 40 million unborn babies in America. I was reading, yesterday, a book that was very interesting about what God has to say in the Old Testament about those who shed innocent blood. And he used the term that those who do this, "the land will vomit you out." That -- you look at your -- you look at the book of Leviticus and see what it says there. And this author of this said, "well 'vomit out' means you are not able to defend yourself." But have we found we are unable somehow to defend ourselves against some of the attacks that are coming against us, either by terrorists or now by natural disaster? Could they be connected in some way? And he goes down the list of the things that God says will cause a nation to lose its possession, and to be vomited out. And the amazing thing is, a judge has now got to say, "I will support the wholesale slaughter of innocent children" in order to get confirmed to the bench. And I am sure Judge Roberts is not going to say any such thing. But nevertheless, that's the litmus test that's being put on, the very thing that could endanger our nation. And it's very interesting. Read the bible, read Leviticus, see what it says there.
On the September 1 broadcast of The 700 Club, Robertson also claimed that, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Roberts can "be thankful that a tragedy has brought him some good," inasmuch as Democratic senators may be less likely to question him aggressively.
According to Robertson's website, The 700 Club "reaches an average of one million American viewers daily." But according to a Los Angeles Times report, The 700 Club "has drawn an average of 863,000 viewers a day during the 2004-2005 television season, Nielsen Media Research said."
Hal Lindsey: Katrina proof that "judgment of America has begun"
On the September 9 broadcast of the Trinity Broadcasting Network's International Intelligence Briefing, host Hal Lindsey stated:
LINDSEY: It seems clear that the prophetic times I have been expecting for decades have finally arrived. And even worse, it appears that the judgment of America has begun. I warn continually that the last days lineup of world powers does not include anything resembling the United States of America. Instead, a revived Roman Empire in Europe is to rule the West, and then the world.
Based in Santa Ana, California, and owned by Jan and Paul Crouch, TBN is the world's largest Christian television network. TBN's website claims its programming is carried by more than 5,000 stations around the world. Lindsey also writes a weekly column for the conservative website WorldNetDaily.com and is the author of several books on Biblical prophecy, including The Late Great Planet Earth.
Charles Colson: God allowed Katrina to happen to bring attention to lack of preparation for terrorist attack
On the September 12 broadcast of his BreakPoint radio program, former Nixon special counsel-turned-Christian radio commentator Charles Colson speculated that God allowed Hurricane Katrina as a reminder to the United States of the importance of winning the "war on terror":
COLSON: [O]ne lesson I learned from Katrina is that we had better win the war on terror and resolve to prevent another 9-11. Katrina exposed how easy it would be to take a city out.
[... ]
COLSON: Katrina gave us a preview of what America would look like if we fail to fight the war on terror. "Did God have anything to do with Katrina?," people ask. My answer is, he allowed it and perhaps he allowed it to get our attention so that we don't delude ourselves into thinking that all we have to do is put things back the way they were and life will be normal again.
According to the program's website, BreakPoint "airs each weekday on over 1,000 outlets with an estimated listening audience of 1 million people." Colson also writes a column for Christianity Today and another for his own BreakPoint Online website that is also carried by Townhall.com.
"And as an agnostic, I know righteousness comes from within. I do right things because they are right, not because a higher power threatened me with punishment. "
But how do you know what is right? Our versions of "right" could be completely opposite. There are now pedophiles who claim that sex with children is their civil right. They think they are right. I think they are wrong.
Oh, come on, don't use the lousy pedophile argument. There is obviously a victim and demonstrable harm from pedophelia. Do you really think things like that are wrong only because your religion says so?
You are correct, several of our rights and wrongs are probably opposite - for example, the first four commandments are throwaways for me.
How do you know what is right when you have to pick and choose so carefully from the bible? I think you're own internal moral compass must kick in once in while - or do you really think we should kill people for cursing their parents?
Religion in America has fought it out with American culture before, and it has lost everytime. It won't be any different this time. It just takes some time for people to understand what is really going and stop listening to the extremists on boths sides of the issue.
I don't remember who the quote is from, but I liked it all the same. "Good people will do good things. Bad people will do bad things, but it takes Religion for good people to do bad things."
Or this interesting fact. Jesus was a pacifist. Why then have more people died is his name than any other? Remember the reformation or the crusades for example?
Yeah, yeah, yeah. God allowed Katrina, blah, blah, blah. Inundated New Orleans because of gays, blah, blah, blah. That's why the gay parts of the French Quarter were complete swept away while other areas weren't. Oops, the gay areas faired some of the best. hmmm.
Most people understand why things like hurricanes happen. They don't need to believe in something to explain why bad things sometimes happen.
A revived Roman Empire? The Roman Empire didn't collapse until after Constantine made Christianity the state religion. Well, at least the Roman baths were fun :).
More people have not died in Jesus' name than any other. In fact, the worst mass murdering regimes in history were all atheists.
Also, Jesus is not a pacifist.
Sorry, Pam, but it is true. Go check the history books.
This is unrelated, but could an agnostic please tell me what that means to them? I know the basic dictionary definition, but I'd like to hear from an actual agnostic what they believe. I'd rather hear it from the source then have a non-agnostic tell me what an agnostic believes.
thank you :o)
I'm agnostic. To me it means that I don't know if there is a god. What I've seen makes me believe that there isn't one, and certainly not one as defined by Christianity, however the evidence doesn't exist to absolutely make the claim in either direction. I consider all religions to be mythologies invented by and for man. However, I acknowledge that I do not know for certain, nor do I think anyone else does until it could be empirically proven.
Thank you :o)
Hmmmm that is interesting about agnosticism. I know what you mean. You know, I probably wouldn't be a born-again Christian unless it was empirically proven to me personally. I was too intellectual and a hard sell. I like the words of actor Stephen Baldwin (brother of Alec Baldwin). He said something like
"believe me, I'm the last person I ever thought would be a born-again Christian". That was the same for me.
ok, how was it empirically proven to you personally?
from another agnostic...
The more I lear from archeology and history about the neighbors of Israel (Egypt, Hittites, etc.) during the period of the old testament, indicates that it wasn't God's word of what literally happened. The Israelites didn't "conquer" Canaan, monotheistic belief didn't become the thing until after the exile, etc. The old testament just ends up being the rich collection of narratives about a culture with plenty borrowed from other cultures. Once you take out the old testament, the religions formed afterwards have no foundation.
That doesn't mean that there isn't valuable information in the old testament, or that they shouldn't be studied, etc. Just that it's not believable that the text was the literal dictation by God.
I think it does a disservice to the historians, scribes, etc. that wrote the books of the old testament.
Oh pooh. Even if that were true, which it isn't, it wouldn't change what I believe. I experience Christ again and again and again. There are many of us who do and there have been many of us the last 2000 years. We are very diverse: old/young, wealthy/poor, tall/short, fit/chunky, highly educated/high school educated, black/white/brown/yellow, man/woman, boy/girl, blonde/red/brown/black haired.
And my agnostic friends, it impresses me that you "acknowledge that I do not know for certain". For me, that is humble and wise. Those are admirable things to a Christian.
"There is obviously a victim and demonstrable harm from pedophelia. "
I know that--you know that--they don't know that. They do not believe there is a victim or harm.
"oh pooh". I liked that.
"Even if that were true..." Even if what was true? That the old testament isn't what literally happened?
For instance, one of Saul's sons was Ishbaal. The suffix of his name refers to the god Ba'al in the same way that suffixes of yahu refers to Yahweh. At the time of the United Monarchy, other gods besides Yahweh were worshipped in Isreal.
I don't understand why it's such a big deal that it isn't literally true.
You left out one thing in list of diversity: gay/straight.
Humility and wisdom are admirable traits in Christians and non-Christians alike.
I don't get your point. So you think the pedophile thinks the activity is fine? Well, society doesn't. They see a victim and make laws accordingly. Societies determine their laws based on their own morality and practicallity. It has nothing to do with religion. Again, do you behave according the every guideline in the bible (which you claim is the word of god - hence morality)? Or do you pick and choose from the bible according to your own internal feelings?
As you say, societies determine their laws. So then why are you so upset over the Defense of Marriage Act? Why hate the people of Faith and Freedom because the Court said the legislature (who was put into place by the voters of the whole state, not just the few who read Faith and Freedom blogs) was within their right to adopt the Act?
Back to the beginning? OK, first, the pedophile comparison is a false comparison. Plus, we don't hate you all 'because the court said...'. You have every right to support laws that you deem appropriate. We see this one as discriminatory and wrong. We see it as you simply trying to legislate your anti-gay feelings and defending them as religous dogma - in other words forcing others to live according to your religion. There is no demonstrable victim in gay marriage. For now, this is a matter for the courts because anti-gay marriage laws are discriminatory according to the constitution - hence the efforts to amend it. Ultimately it will be decided by society. Today, that might go against gay marriage. Tomorrow is another matter as science always ultimately prevails over mythology.
Actually, efforts to amend the constitution are because many believe some judges are trying to create law, while ruling on these cases, when that is not their position or within their authority to do so (it is the role of the legislature).
It is not evidence that DOMA laws are unconstitutional, as you claim.
This is not just a religious issue. The majority of this state are not religious. But the majority of this state support the DOMA. Perhaps your efforts would be more effective elsewhere. Maybe you haven't noticed, but people coming on here being belligerent really isn't helping your cause.
The "pedophile comparison" was not a comparison.
Yes, ultimately it will be decided by society. I could well go the other way tomorrow.
Please note the above should read "IT could well go the other way tomorrow". I am firm in my beliefs and won't go the other way.
This society was supposed to be based on several indisputable premises:
That all citizens are equal,
That government exists to serve the needs of the citizens.
All citizens should have some reasonable opportunity to be able to license the civil contract in support of a marriage in a society of equals. DOMA says that a couple of citizens who can pair-bond with someone of the opposite gender can do so with few exceptions and have that pair-bonding recognized and supported by the state while couples of citizens who pair-bond with someone of the same gender will will have theirs officially ignored.
In a government that serves equals that's just wrong.
Well at least now no one can whine about 'special rights' now that the state officially only recognizes the marriages of some of its citizens - can't get more special than that.
Hi Vishanti,
Where have you been? Are you all right?
Here is what Dan Swecker, the prime sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act Bill of 1998, said in a Seattle Times article on Wed. August 16:
"What is society's interest in defining traditional marriage? If we had no government institution called marriage, people would choose to live together based on their feelings for each other or for achieving some common purpose. We would soon recognize that only one type of relationship would rise to the level of critical government interest and concern--that is the relationship between one man and one woman, because it has potential to produce offspring."
"Society would quickly determine that providing incentives to keep these relationships intact, for as long as possible, should be a very high priority. Through reasonable legal means, we would make provisions for these relationships to hold property, share benefits and provide the best possible nurturing environment for the next generation. We would also determine the conditions for the resolution of these benefits and responsbilities in the event that the marrriage is terminated. That is exactly what we have done in defining marriage. It is important not to change the focus of people entering into the marriage contract. This is not about feelings and it is not about the mutual benefit of the two parties. It is about the next generation. The best interest of children is to be raised by the biological mother and father. Society needs to do more to encourage moms and dads to stay together and make the sacrifices necessary to take care of kids."
"Supporters have said same-sex marriage would strengthen the institution of marriage and family by reaffirming commitment and fidelity. But judging by data about the Netherlands, where homosexual relationships gained legal recognition in 1998, the opposite is happening."
After going into detail about the Netherland findings, he goes on to say:
"One might argue that we could easily include other relationships without hurting the traditional institution of marriage. The homosexual community says 'gay marriage' is one of those. What about a polygamous relationship in which a man has two or more wives? Or a bisexual who wants a husband and a wife? What about nonsexual relationships, such as same-sex siblings; an elderly parent dependent on an adult child; two good friends, and so forth? All of these relationships have value for the parties involved. Why not include them as well?"
"The answer is, we need to keep government focusing our resources on the critical group we originally identified, the children. To do otherwise would simply reduce resources available to sustain children and families of traditional marriages and diminsih the level of societal commitment to this one important."
"Children are the future of any society. Although it may not be the only way, protecting traditional marriage is the best way we can take care of our kids."
Some of you should look into Jessica Law Governor Arnold supports Jessica Law
Which has beena partison passed and is agains't pedophiles- so that is not even an argument of being right in todays society
Jessica Law has passed as a Bi partison issue just take a look at Governor Arnold blog
www.joinarnold.com on Jessicas Law
Post a Comment
<< Home