QUICK LINKS
Sen. Dan Swecker - A Voice of Clarity
Much has been written about the "marriage issue" since the Washington State Legislature passed DOMA in 1998. Many have voiced their feelings on both sides of the issue, with the Washington State Supreme Court most recently voicing their opinion.
Senator Dan Swecker serves Washington's 20th legislative district, but in many ways, he serves the entire state of Washington. He was the prime sponsor of the Senate version of the DOMA legislation back in 1998. Since then his comments have given clarity and calm in the midst of conflict.
Most recently, his guest commentary appeared in the Seattle Times and once again his words gave clarity.
I want to share his thoughts regarding traditional marriage.
Senator Dan Swecker ... in his own words. Click here to read article in Seattle Times.
_____________
Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom
President
Click here to have these blogs delivered to your email inbox.
35 Comments:
Dan Swecker is clearly twisting numbers to support his opinion/position.
yes its the standard Christianist propaganda - a mixture of distorted information, wild eye terrorist speculation, and enough 'bearing false witness' to top it off nice and slimy.
The decline in people licensing the civil contract of marriage has been happening since the mid 70's in all the northern european countries, it had nothing to do with any of them allowing same gender couples the right to license with the government but I'm sure he knew that.
The reasons are pretty obvious - when you live in a socialized country where each individual gets the lion's share of the civil benefits that licensing the contract traditionally supplied there's no reason to do so. Its not that people in these countries aren't marrying, its that they many aren't bothering with a civil contract until there so reason to actually get one such as the birth of a child and even that's only necessary in some countries.
And his bringing up the problem with 'marriage lite' alternatives is an argument FOR letting all Washington citizens to have reasonable ability to license the same civil contract. Yes having marriage alternatives undermines marriage, that's a reason FOR marriage equality for all citizens.
And the old distortion that 'they want to be able to marry anyone they want' and any 'valuable' relations must being asked to be allowed to marry which isn't true at all. What's being asked for is all Washington citizens having reasonable ability to license the civil contract as it now exists - a mutually exclusive contract between two adults with the intent of building a life together of a higher quality than all other relationships.
Once you look at the situation honestly you realize that all of his terrorist speculations about polygamy, bisexuals, siblings, and the like are just that - attempts to scare people away from what should be common sense: all adult citizens should have some reasonable avenue to license the civil contract. They are happier and healthier, they are more economically stable, they are more productive members of society, they provide better environments for raising children. Its good for them (which should be enough right there since the US government exists to serve the citizens) but its also goo for society - are people honestly saying is better that gay people be permanently single? That society has no interest in seeing them couple up in stable relationships?
But then that there is no honest reason for disallowing marriage equality which is why the Christianists have to lie and cheat to try and justify their thinly-veiled hatred and agenda of destroying the founding principles of this nation.
The nation seems to be waking up to their duplicity but will it do so fast enough to prevent lasting harm?
Actually, the above two posts are standard propaganda. There is no distorted information, wild-eye terrorist speculation, nor false witness in Dan Swecker's statements. There's sure a lot of it in the above posts, though.
Societies cannot survive without procreation, and it's a well established fact that children do best in homes in which they are biologically related to both parents.
All the diversionary arguments by homosexuals to point to occasional departures from this general rule are propagandistic in nature, and transparently so.
When you have a weak argument and are failing in trying to get your own way...call your opponent a bigot, twisted, lying, hating blah, blah, blah.
Vishanti you sound like the hateful bigot.
Why do you homosexual activists keep trying to make this all about Christians? We are not a majority. The bulk of the state is your opponent--not just us.
I guess you have to have someone to blame for all your woes in life.
Pam, I would like to see proof of the studies that show that children do best in homes in which they are *biologically related to both parents.* Can you send a link?
No such unbiased study exists. All major child-welfare organizations in this country disagree with your assertion. The only "studies" you'll find that make this claim come from sources that have an agenda.
The following organizations have all issued statements in favor of same-sex parenting and/or marriage in the years indicated. Don't believe me? Google their sites and look it up:
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1999), American Academy of Family Physicians (2002), American Academy of Pediatrics (2006), American Bar Association (1995, 1999 and 2003), American Medical Association (2004), American Psychiatric Association (1997 and 2002), American Psychoanalytic Association (2002), American Psychological Association (1976 and 2004), Child Welfare League of America (1988), National Adoption Center (1998), National Association of Social Workers (2002), and the North American Council on Adoptable Children (1998).
wow, people were quick to jump on this.
So how is Mr. Swecker twisting his numbers? Well, he using an old trick that people for or against an issue commonly use.
You start with a given fact (% of people in marriages in Netherlands) and than attribtute that fact to their belief or cause. The only problem is that the why of the fact (% of people in marriages) isn't necessarily because of that reason. Perhaps the change in % of people married is related to tax law changes that make is less favorable for married couples, so couples wait until they get married. Perhaps, there has been an economic downturn in the Netherlands that has increased stress in relationships leading to more divorces. Perhaps its just changing values where people are waiting longer to get married that a generation before.
Take another example. Suppose the number of movie tickets bought in Mass over the last year has increased. Does that mean that same-sex marriage in Mass is good for the movie business? It might, but obviously probably not. There is no connection for the effect from the suspected cause.
We all have to read such "proof" critically, regardless of your point of view. When the proof seems to validate your view, it's easy to forget to look critically at what they are saying.
When you see someone's research that claims something, you have to look to see how they came to that and how they overcame biases so that they aren't really claiming something else.
So far, the only good example that I've found of showing unbiased, direct cause and effect of gay-marriage has been by the APA and AMA.
I'm glad you put that (2:54PM). I did a google under APA and found an article about an interview of the President of APA and Bill O'Reilly.
The site is for the North Assosication for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality.
http://www.narth.com/docs/oreilly2.html
It is a good article b/c while it is slanted more towards the site's view, it does present some data from both sides of the issue. And they do offer data to support Swecker.
I am glad to read it because I can better understand where you (homosexuals) are coming from. I still disagree, but am glad to have the info.
In support of Pam's comments I found a web site for you http://www.narth.com/docs/gendercomplementarity.html.
They address flaws in some of the research done by people trying to bolster the "statements in favor of same-sex parenting"
And go on to address some findings that indicate harm from same-sex parenting.
I learned that too in an undergrad Research Methods class--that not all research is created equal.
We learned in that class that the "study" that appeared on the cover of Newsweek that said homosexuality was genetic was not considered valid because the man dong the study went into it trying to prove it was genetic. He wanted to come out of the closet. Because he went in with an agenda, it discredited the study.
Thanks for the links, folks. But NARTH is NOT an unbiased organization. They formed to further so-called "conversion therapy" and, therefore, attempt to present data in a way that supports their agenda.
Here's the Wikipedia definition of NARTH: NARTH is a non-profit organization dedicated to "affirming a complementary, male-female model of gender and sexuality". It was founded in 1992 by Charles Socarides, Benjamin Kaufman, and Joseph Nicolosi and is part of the ex-gay movement that advocates using reparative therapy to change the sexuality of lesbians and gay men.
The APA, AMA, and other social welfare organizations I mentioned above are not "dedicated" to any gay or anti-gay agenda. They came to their conclusions based on studies. They were not "hoping" or "looking for" an answer they wanted to support their beliefs. They simply observed and came to conclusions.
And please don't claim that all of these disparate organizations have come together to secretly promote homosexuality by all claiming to agree that same-sex parenting is not harmful to children. That's just ludicrous, not to mention impossible.
So, I ask again ... send me a link to a study that shows that children do best in homes in which they are *biologically related to both parents." You won't find any.
Hello, everyone... I'd like to speak up here. I'm a Christian, married, two wonderful kids that turned out great. I support same-sex parenting and same-sex marriage because I think it's best for the children in those famlies.
What's so disappointing about reading this thread is the number of us Christians who are willing to ignore all of the valid research out there because of our learned opinions and "feelings" about homosexuals. I imagine heterosexuality feels as wrong to them as homosexuality does to us.
We hide behind bogus studies and listen to preachers and other so-called religious leaders who say they know the will and desires of God. Many of us made the same mistakes during the civil rights era. We should NOT make them again.
And, finally -- we should not judge our neighbors. If gays are truly deviant, God will deal with them in the end. If God wants to end same-sex marriage, He has the power.
In the meantime, there are hundreds of thousands of children being raised by gay singles and same-sex couples across the country. We should -- no we MUST -- provide those children the same legal security and protections we provide our own kids. We -- and our government -- should not be in the business of harming children or leaving them without legal protections, health care, and responsible LEGAL parents because we do not like the families they were born into or raised in. This is not a competition.
I pray more of us will open our eyes, because we are doing more harm than good for these children. And in the process we are giving Christianity a bad name.
Hello 7:00PM
Of course we shouldn't judge our neighbors. But saying something is wrong is not judging. Saying it with malevolence may be. But wanting what is right is not.
Even Jesus said "go and sin no more" while humans wanted to stone a woman to death.
I think you are wrong in saying those opposed to gay-marriage are basing it on "feelings" about homosexuals. Most Christians know that it isn't about "feelings". If it were only about "feelings" I would take the easy road and say I support gay marriage because there are some very nice homosexuals on here and I don't really like them angry with me.
And again--this isn't just a Christian issue.
What is giving Christianity a bad name (if that is even true--and disagreeing with someone should not give someone a bad name--and if it does so be it) is they can't see us in person and see the love and benevolence we have for them.
No, I think what is giving you a bad name is that you are trying to make others live according to your beliefs rather than their own.
I don't care how much love and benevolence you offer, please stay out of my personal life!
Well as others have shown Dan's distortions are just that. A small part of the problem is that most people can't read for information. An example of this would be the person that said an APA interview with Bill Reilly some how showed Bill was right:
"When O'Reilly asked Dr. Stotland if she was familiar with a study of how marriage has virtually collapsed in Sweden since gay marriage was adopted, Stotland said she'd just returned from Stockholm and had not heard about any great numbers of marriages collapsing."
"O'Reilly told her the data on Sweden was irrefutable"
A watchdog group, Media Matters for America, has a paper at their site listing all the lies that Bill told about this which goes on for many pages. Bill knows he's lying, NARTH knows its lies, but they post them anyway and the people here repeat these lies with glee.
The German research group, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, has been commissioned to do a number of studies on Sweden over the years about marriage, childbirth rates, and the like. All show a trend starting in the 1970s of a steep decline which LEVELS out in the 1990s, it doesn't continue.
Yes, the decline in the number of civil marriages started 2 generations prior to the 1995 start of same gender partnerships registrations (no there is no 'gay marriage' in Sweden but then that is such an obvious lie it doesn't really need to be pointed out, right?) In fact between 1995 and the year 2000 the number of marriages in Sweden ROSE!
So Bill O'Reilly lied, and make no mistake he knew it, as do the people here who repeat his lies without checking.
But then that answers the other complaint - I'm not talking about Christians, i.e. people that actually follow the teachings of Christ, but Christianists, people who in the name of Christ do the Devil's work. Christians don't look for the worst in people, Christians don't gossip and willfully lie - so very few of the people here are Christians, most are merely Christianists.
You think I'm being hateful? No just pointing out the pretty obvious truth that if the people telling lies and pointing fingers here WERE Christians nobody of heart would ever want to be one.
Is there a chance they are just Christians gone astray? Maybe, but their hatred is so ingrained and embraced there isn't much chance of them ever getting back on any kind of righteous path. They seek out food for that nasty little dark spot in the soul that revels in being better than someone else - that the food is really just lies and spiritual poison doesn't seem to phase them at all.
The truth is that whatever problems northern european countries have on civil marriage, it has not been caused by allowing marriage equality or even just letting same gender couples register. Again, isn't it odd that none of them talk about the only real example that is actually relevant - Massachusetts, where marriages are up since marriage equality and it has the lowest divorce rate of any state in the Union? The truth is that marriage is not under 'attack' and that having one or 2 out of a hundred licenses issued go to same gender couples would have no effect on 'marriage' as practiced here in the United States. The truth is that gay citizens, their families, and society in general would benefit from their having the same option to legally formalize their marriages.
But this isn't about what's right or true or what's best for their neighbors to most of the people here - this is just about hatred and trying to rationalize hatred while hurting their neighbors.
Christianists, pure and simple.
Vishanti said
"Well as others have shown Dan's distortions are just that. A small part of the problem is that most people can't read for information. An example of this would be the person that said an APA interview with Bill Reilly some how showed Bill was right:
"When O'Reilly asked Dr. Stotland if she was familiar with a study of how marriage has virtually collapsed in Sweden since gay marriage was adopted, Stotland said she'd just returned from Stockholm and had not heard about any great numbers of marriages collapsing."
"O'Reilly told her the data on Sweden was irrefutable"
Had you kept reading you could have accessed the actual study and analysis found in the Weekly Standard link.
Weekly Standard is a well known publication and is highly regarded.
That really has nothing to do with what the woman from APA said--and she only said she hadn't heard anything. Not that she had done a study or any analysis. Yet there was a study available to you but I guess you choose not to read it or even acknowledge it.
No one was lying.
Ha! Of course I wasn't referring to what she said but what Bill said (again the reading for understanding problem). I have read the desperate propaganda rationale by Stanley Kurtz at the Weekly Standard. Read what he says when his lies from his first article had been refuted:
"Yet the half-page statistical analysis of heterosexual marriage in Darren Spedale's unpublished paper doesn't begin to get at the truth about the decline of marriage in Scandinavia during the nineties. Scandinavian marriage is now so weak that statistics on marriage and divorce no longer mean what they used to."
And with that Stanley painted himself into a corner - if 'statistics.. no longer mean what they used to' then he is admitting he used useless data in his first article. And if they do mean something (which they of course do) then he is just trying to deflect that his distortions were caught. Either way a prevaricating liar trying to push an agenda, not be an agent of truth and you are defending his lies and the liars that repeat them.
Again, ALL of the european divorce and childbearing trends have been going on since the 1970s AND the most dramatic changes occurred over 20 years ago.
There is NO cause and effect between gay marriage and there is no 'gay marriage' in Sweden to begin with (another Bill lie that you seemed to have glossed over).
Again, you would rather support an easily proved liar than admit you were wrong - false witness, pride, arrogance - these are not the virtues of Christians but of Christianists.
Oh I see--everyone is wrong but you.
No, no, no.
Everybody else is wrong except for ME!
lol.
What's wrong?
2 Samuel 1:26
I grieve over you, my brother Jonathan!
You were very dear to me.
Your love was more special to me than the love of women.
ok that was pretty psycho.
And you must be pretty desperate to take scripture out of context like that.
I grieve for you Vishanti.
Goodbye
It's easy to make enormouse leaps of logic in statistics.
For example:
Succesful marriages have been on the decline in the past several decades in the US. Divorce rates are rising and highest in the so-called "red states."
Using Swecker's logic, it's easy to see that our DENIAL of marriage to same-sex couples has directly lead to this decrease in marital success in the US.
Or maybe it was cell phones? Or computers and the internet? Or color television? They all seemed to start around the same time.
what, taking scripture out of context?
That was just David's lamentation over the death of Johnathon. It's not any more out of context than quoting a single verse out of Leviticus. Right?
Anonymous is grieving for me for something Anonymous said. Sounds like a case of dissociative personality disorder to me.
But as always anonymous can't deal with the topic at hand. Dan threw out a hodgepodge of allusion and innuendo about the Netherland "since the changes" and says that "these changes have devastated Dutch marriage". What is the reality?
The out of wedlock births in the Netherlands and countries that do allow same-sex couples to civilly marry or register rose 8% between 1991 and 2000, the exact same percent they rose in the european countries without either. For example these rates have soared in Ireland, Luxembourg, Hungary, Lithuania, and several other eastern European countries—all countries that do not allow same-sex couples to marry or register.
Netherlands marriage rates in 2002 were similar to what they were in the mid 1980's, divorce rates actually down.
75% of Dutch couples with children are married. (compared with 72% of families with children in the United States)
I could go on but would it really make any difference? The people here are like Dan and Bill and NARTH aren't looking for facts they're looking for excuses to rationalize prejudices. That these facts don't bear close examination just means they go out of their way to not to look too closely. *wink wink nudge nudge*
In all these european countries, Canada and Massachusetts there is not one whit of credible evidence that shows allowing same gender couples a level of legal support has been the cause of any change at all in the existing marital statistical trends. But that doesn't stop people from lying and saying that it did and others from repeating it as 'gospel'.
One of the "anonymous's" wrote:
>No such unbiased study exists. All major child-welfare organizations in this country disagree with your assertion. The only "studies" you'll find that make this claim come from sources that have an agenda.
Sorry, but "major child-welfare organizations" favoring homosexual marriage and "parenting" do not impress me in the least. Nor do psychiatric organizations and lawyers.
Choose less biased folks yourself and maybe I'll listen to you.
Oh, I forgot...you're biased.
Pam its again just distortion. The studies that supposedly show heterosexual parents best are being compared ONLY with single parent households. See the sly trick - they are claiming they are better than something but not being clear on what that something is. Typical way of lying with statistics.
All studies that have compared 2 parent households of same-gender and opposite-gender parents have found no significant difference. As with most things, the difference within the preferred group is far greater than the different between the two groups.
And because of this its no surprise these groups favor marriage equality because that's where the facts lead them - it best for kids if their parents are married and that's true no matter what those parent's gender combination might be. You've effectively said that any group that doesn't agree with your view can't be used to change your mind which presents a bit of a conundrum that should be obvious.
Is it not just common sense that biological parents have a natural inclination toward protecting and supporting their children .
Of course people not realted can step in and do a great job , but if you can not understand the natural advantage of the MOm and Dad ,
shhhheshhhh
What's common sense is our civil contract does not require that of parents. just a hair under 50% of american children ARE being raised by other than their genetic contributors and we stil still let these parents marry. So they are saying its ok for some non-genetic parents of children to marry and not others.
When and if we don't let the divorced remarry you MIGHT have a point, but until then we have to compare parents the way they really are - some genetic, some not. And actually there is no study I know of that shows that biological parents are statistically better than parents who have raised a non-genetic child since birth. You say there's proof - give me some direction to information that shows that is true.
Common sense is not proof ? Since you want to change the law , and the Supreme Court does not see your view as valid ..
Why should I as a tax paying voting citizen vote for your view point .. This is democratic republic , meaning my view has as much merit as yours ... And If more people have your view , th law will be changed . So besides your hatred , and individual sexual preferences , why should i vote to give you marriage benefits ?
Because its fair ?
Of course common sense can be wrong or disputed. Common sense says that all parents raising children should have the opportunity to license the civil contract for the benefit of their families.
Why should you, as a taxpayer, vote for equal access to a civil contract for all taxpayers? Obviously fairness is a big part of it - no moral person would expect their marriage to be supported by the government and deny other taxpaying citizens the same support for their marriages.
And beyond fairness its the 'common sense' thing to do - it encourages family formation and persistence, married couples are happier (good for them and you), healthier - both mentally and physically (again good for them and you), more productive members of society, take less from society, and more. There is no down side to marriage equality other than the truly hateful people that don't want to keep access to the contract as a special right.
Which gets us back to the original observation - the fear-mongering seen on the hateful, special rights side of the house. I am at this moment looking at a graph of all EU members marriage statistics graphing 1993(pre gay registration) vs 2004. Though most countries have seen a decline in the rate of marriages lets look at the ones that have seen an increase:
Denmark
Finland
Sweden
Iceland
Norway
(and Croatia)
all but Croatia have gay partnerships or marriage equality.
So again I ask, where is there any indication of this 'devastating' harm trumped up by people like Dan, Bill and the like? Since when has fear-mongering been a Christian trait? Isn't it far more likely that these liars, prevaricators, fear-mongers and those that follow them are serving an entirely different master than Jesus Christ?
vishanti I can't believe you are still on these blogs promoting your guilt ...
Shhhesh ... Of course marriage with homosexuals is becoming more and more acceptable in our culture of today ..
But look at the culture of the day , homosexuality and marriage is not something the public is supporting , its just something else that is out there and no big deal ..
The culture that allows homosexual marriage is a culture that promtes equality and fairness , yeah right and if you are a parent tell me that culture your kids is exposed is promoting anything but if feels good do it , and don't get caught .
Real mean spirited way to look at things, but that's the Christianist way.
What the parent tells their kids is that everyone is different and have different things they need to be healthy contributing members of society. Most people fall in love and pair-bond with people of the opposite gender, a few with people of the same gender. That doesn't mean either is 'better' or 'special', all it means is people are different and just as we expect others to allow us to live our lives as we want we owe them the same courtesy.
I know, far to accepting and Christian for you, but it is an option.
(and I do note your not saying anything to try and support Dan's lies and distortions - at least you have that in your corner).
People are coming to their senses. They are recognizing that Mr. Randall and his followers are not Christians. They hateful people pretending to be Christians, but Jesus Christ would not condone their actions. May God love you all!
Vishi ,
Since when do people have to allow toyur view of a relationship acceptable for marriage . ? To be fair ? Like fair bi sexuals ? Four people ? How about who0ever can intimidate their legislator ?
Ok , lets just vote on it ..
Oh thats wrong too ?
The state has to accept your perverted view of a relationship ?
The state does not have to accept any relationship because you say its fair and moral ,
Your view of Christianity .. Nope we have separation of church and state ,
Hey Mr people coming to their senses . You be right .
Watch your Supreme Court Justices are advertsing on conservative radio describing themselevs as law and justice Judges , and of course property rights advocates . No shame , no shame .
Vishi ,
Since when do people have to allow toyur view of a relationship acceptable for marriage?
Since when does anyone here think the state 'marries' people? Please show of hands of people on this forum that think marriage comes from the state? No this is about all married couples having license to the civil contract in support of marriage, not 'marriage'.
Ok , lets just vote on it .. Oh thats wrong too ?
You want to vote on which law-abiding citizens marriages should have license to the civil contract in its support? What American would vote for special rights for only some citizens?
The state has to accept your perverted view of a relationship ?
of course if I were to point out that Christianists were perverting Christianity everyone would say that was hateful. But its not in your case, right?
The state does not have to accept any relationship because you say its fair and moral , Your view of Christianity .. Nope we have separation of church and state ,
Don't know where that came from - the civil contract of marriage has nothing to do with Christianity - to atheists can license it just fine. Obviously since we do have separation of church and state the state must have very very very strong reasons to allow the marriages of one religion to license the civil contract and not another's.
Post a Comment
<< Home