QUICK LINKS
Equal Rights WA Vows To Build On 2007 Victories
In their latest communication, Equal Rights Washington, the state's largest homosexual lobby, says, "We must continue to grow the movement for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights and 2008 is the perfect year to do it."
They promise their donors they will continue to "educate" the public and legislators about the importance of gay marriage while they increase the "protections" in the recently passed Domestic Partnership Law.
To some the continual expansion of so-called "protections and responsibilities" for homosexuals seems fair because most of us are inherently inclined to help the under privileged. However, this is a very different matter than the African American struggle for civil rights with which they consistently attempt to identify. Unlike the civil rights movement for racial equality, the gay movement is an effort to establish affirmation of a lifestyle and chosen behavior by enshrining it into law with the goal of redefining marriage.
We must also remember that the gay rights movement is progressive, committed to incrementalism and will not be content until they have redefined both marriage and the family and have normalized homosexuality to this generation.
But even "marriage" won't be enough according to some of the movement's leaders and writers. There is a chorus of homosexual voices already saying that "marriage is not enough for gays and society itself must be restructured because traditional, monogamous relationships do not work satisfactorily for gays." I have previously given the link for beyondgaymarriage, if you haven't read it, please do.
The legislators that I am talking to do not believe Ed Murray and the other gay activists in the Washington State Legislature will try for a "marriage bill" this year because, for one thing, they do not want to negatively affect the Governor's reelection efforts. Rather, they will continue to try and expand the "rights" already given them last year preparing for "the bill" next year after they get her elected for her second term.
A preview of how these things work is happening in New Jersey. Last week, New Jersey lawmakers voted to give "transgendered" individuals special rights under their "hate crimes" laws. Governor Corzine is expected to sign it.
The first part of the bill adds "gender identity and expression" to the existing "hate crimes" law. It also requires all new police officers to attend a two-hour hate crimes sensitivity training course.
The troublesome part of this is the "gender expression" part. How do you define "gender expression"? It is very ambiguous.
If a man wants to express himself as a woman, then he would be free to wander in and out of women's public rest rooms. What about the women who know who and what they are? Do they not have rights and a reasonable expectation of privacy? And what about children? Where are their protections? Is there no protection from those who are morphing between genders?
While New Jersey is 3000 miles from here, the same agenda is walking the Capitol Campus in Olympia. Our local gay activists will declare that none of this applies, that they only want equal rights and protections. You must keep in mind that these are the same people who were denying that they were pushing for marriage just two years ago. When the Governor signed the Domestic Partnership Bill into law, in fact the very day she signed it, they were declaring to the press that "No, no, this is not enough. We want full marriage rights."
Every piece of legislation they get passed is an incremental step toward gay marriage and beyond.
If you have ever had any inclination to get involved, this is the time. Leading Christian leaders are saying that 2008 is a pivotal year that will affect the next generation and beyond.
We need to show up if we really care about these things.
____________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.
____________________
Great turnout at Saturday's strategy meeting in Clark County. Thank you. Next Saturday's meeting at Pellegrino's in Tumwater, (click here for details). Please plan to attend. Call us if you are coming. 1-800-731-5328.
14 Comments:
Gary you've brought this up so many times its just getting harder for you even pretend to make it sound as threatening as you'd like it to sound.
"Oh no, a few citizens who are just as married as many who already get the state contract might be able to license the totally secular state contract too!"
"Oh no, acknowledging some people are violently attacked solely because of some quality the attacker perceives might help protect them from that violence!"
"A group of people who want nothing to do with the current secular civil contract of marriage might get their will because more people are given license to it!" (huh?)
Equal rights for all citizens isn't really that scary.
Agreeing that people shouldn't be subject to violence because of some totally legal perceived quality really isn't that scary.
Agreeing that all families are important that we all should do everything we can to promote family values even for families that aren't quite like ours really isn't that scary.
You mentioned a few blog entries ago about the poll about the importance of family values in politics. What you failed to mention is that support for them is pretty much the same on the both sides of the political fence with the only difference is about 20% of those on my side thinking mentioning it is just a political ploy.
News Alert: I'm a family values voter. I vote for every school levy, do you? I vote for all families to have equal support from the state, do you? I support efforts to strengthen families and give children stable loving environments since experts agree that is the single most important factor in raising happy well mannered adult, do you?
if so, what exactly is it the issue that divides up? Seems to me yoru goal is to ignore and exclude some families from 'family values' and I don't. Is it that you are really more of a 'my kind of family only values' voter?
Not at all , you miss the important aspect of having the state partners in the act . What have Medicare pay for it Oshtur ?
Why not? Its incredibly cheap - uses generic medications. There are many state funded benefits you don't reap any reward from and ones you would not partake in yourself. Shoot, make it part of the legislation that the state can't pay for any of it, the existing Hemlock society could pick up the tab for every single one without batting an eye.
Tempest in a teapot issue - either way it makes no substantive difference.
"Tempest in a teapot issue - either way it makes no substantive difference."
I am pretty sure you meant thuis in the other blog where you were advocating for assisted suicide .
Meaning the state , we , assist another person in that decision .
Same here , at least we are both consistenet somewhat . Interesting pro life folks were ridicules by many pro abortion advocates for saying abortion will lead to the state killing people out of the womb . Just as pro Marriage people say now changing the laws in marriage will lead to multi partner , bi marriage , etc . All of a sudden its not a choice when communities , schools and neigborhoods become affected with the use of tax payer dollars .
Mick, there is no 'we the state' - there are only individuals. Lots of my tax dollars go to things I wouldn't necessarily want to spend my money on but that isn't the purpose of 'the state' - to just satisfy my needs only.
The state is already paying for these elderly suicides regardless - the money issue is a red herring and you know it.
And 'the state killing people out of the womb' is new? Where have you been living?! Washington has been killing people involuntarily out of the womb for, well, forever! We have the death penalty!
This is allowing some very limited form of legal suicides, the patients kill themselves, and as we know from our aged suicide statistics they are already doing it, this just lets them do it under a doctor's supervision AND lets them know their alternatives so they might reconsider. This will have the effect of reducing suicide in the elderly over all if Oregon is any indication.
What is a 'bi marriage' by the way?
oops and yeah how did I get these thread replies mixed?
I blame the browser and I'm sticking with it. :)
As long as people who use rhetoric about family values and freedom fail to defend their rhetoric, perverts of any stripe will succeed in their social agenda. Legitimization (of perversion) by association (with the civil rights movement) is as old as the hills. This form of piggy-backing is so obviously hypocritical it smells. Why aren't all these wonderful church members attacking such a perverted agenda, exposing it for what it is??? Could it be that both sides of this issue are selling hypocrisy to the sheep?
Rob
Bellingham, WA
Rob, that's just it - being gay ISN'T a perversion. Its not a vice, its not any of those things you have been tricked and lied to into thinking it is. Some people are sexually attracted to women, some to men and some of them are of the same sex. Its simple biology, the more we look the more we know that its just a variation like left handedness. And yes, equal rights for all law-abiding citizens is what the civil rights movement was all about.
Attacking will not cause there to be one less gay person, just as tolerance will not make one more. That is the truth that many Christians realize (not the ones sending money here of course) and that's why polling shows you and yours are in a small minority in this state. Thank God. ;)
oshtur. why are you thanking god? i have seen you say many times you do not believe in god. that you think he is a myth. are you a closet christian?
Don't overlook the smiley face ;)
And more seriously, our Deist founding fathers believed in a Universal Creator that hasn't interfered in the universe since its inception - no miracles, no revealed magical knowledge, etc. Don't think any reference to a God is a reference to the Christian Jehovah - even among single deity religions its pretty obvious they aren't all talking about the same thing.
As I've mentioned before several physicists think we will be able to make universes ourselves in the future - but they would be ones like the Deists believed in - once we create it we can't interact inside of it. What would I owe such a Creator - a great big 'thank you' for sure, but worship and abject obedience? Nope - a creator that required such would almost be be definition not worthy of it.
But then you are free to disagree - this is America after all. (as long as you agree that people have a right to disagree with you)
OV said
"Mick, there is no 'we the state' - there are only individuals. "
I think that is where I differ , we the people are suppose to be in charge of the state . Yet we all are suppose to have Constitutional Rights , endowed by our Creator , that the state , or the people , no matter what their opinion on it can do anything about .
I don't believe you have a RIGHT to kill yourself , we can vote on it . I believe the Constitutionally of it was already questioned and allowed ?
I totally understand the compassion and reasons why some believe this is the right way to go . But I don't want the state involved in it . Its none of the states business at the very least .
OV said
"Lots of my tax dollars go to things I wouldn't necessarily want to spend my money on but that isn't the purpose of 'the state' - to just satisfy my needs only."
I agree , but say you would not vote for for a tax cut for Exxon , even though some want to . You and I would agree on that , but you coming from a leftward perspective would diagree with me on many government programs , Ok say school charters . School Choice and vouchers . You believe the best interest of education for all , the government does not allow some kids to get a better opportunity at education who would benefit from a voucher program to get out of a dangerous school envirnoment .
Right ? To me this is the same principle , but perhaps not a bigger emotional subject . You do vote against government programs that I advocate for because you don't want your tax dollars advocating for it , or you do not not want the government giving the impression it is promoting religion in regards to say vouchers for a religious or home schooling .
OV
"The state is already paying for these elderly suicides regardless - the money issue is a red herring and you know it."
No your wrong , to me its not a red herring .
You need to understand some people are different then you in how they digest information . Just as sincere as you my liberal friend . No more , no less.
The state is paying for vouchers in public schools also , they are called pell grants in colleges . But in the form of legal fees, juvenile delinquent problems , etc . for K-12 .
Not sure how we are paying for assisted suicides , if you mean making the person comfortable with drugs I agree , but that is different then giving a drug that stops a life .
OV Said
"And 'the state killing people out of the womb' is new? Where have you been living?! Washington has been killing people involuntarily out of the womb for, well, forever! We have the death penalty! "
Yes , and lets hope the state does not carry out assisted suicide to those poor souls in the same efficient manner it has carried out in carrying out the most most horrific murderers in our state .
OV said
"AND lets them know their alternatives so they might reconsider"
This is how we totally differ ,
So two people in the exact same circumsatnces , the exact same options can and will choose different options . You are not concerned say the possibilities ?
The cost if the state is the only one involved in the decsion , Say you on your death bed , surrounded by loving friends , caring people , loved ones all wanting you around . Your friends want you around ,
Then me , old and grouchy , no one around , and some state doctor giving me the same options but obviously not with the compassion some one who is important like you is getting the information .
I don't value life as you do , I am not saying I am better then you . I hope you understand that , but I can not support a program that allows people and their circumstances to be convinced or not convinced about their worth of their life , especially when they are ill . We need to value all life as important , all worth saving . We as a state need to support , I fear the consequences of not causes a chain reaction . That I can not prove , because its a spirtual condition . And then you will blow me away for my magic thinking .
My point about abortions and people saying that one day the state will be particpating in assisted suicide . At that time the vast majority of the population would have laugh at those who said that , you as usual are making an elegant reason for it .
Not too long ago you would have been ridiculed as a death monger . Not taken seriously . I consider you points good , I am even effected by this culture of the day .
Our culture is slipping so gradually and at the same time quickly I am not even sure if you can see or admit that .
OV said
"What is a 'bi marriage' by the way?"
Two women , one guy , two guys one women , .. People have mixed sexual preferences .
You need to get out more . ;0)
Mick, you're right we don't process information the same you say regarding suicide:
But I don't want the state involved in it . Its none of the states business at the very least.
I agree, but the state is already involved in it by making it illegal. For the state NOT to be involved it would have to have a neutral stance and this initiative wouldn't even be necessary. This proposal is all about getting the state UNinvolved in these particular cases under these rare circumstances.
Yes , and lets hope the state does not carry out assisted suicide to those poor souls in the same efficient manner it has carried out in carrying out the most most horrific murderers in our state .
The 'state' isn't going to be killing anyone by this legislation - the individual themselves will be doing that all the state will be doing is not interfering with their decision to do so under these very carefully limited and defined situations.
And so all your talk about the 'state killing' someone is off the mark. Allowing a citizen to practice their own free will decision is the very antithesis of the 'state' doing anything.
Oh and 'bi marriage' - is just polygamy which again is a totally different issue than letting everyone license a monogamous marriage. As I've pointed out before letting a citizen be in more than one marriage (or a polygamous marriage) is very different from only letting some citizens reasonably marry at all. Just because someone is bisexual doesn't mean they should be able to marry more than one spouse any more than because you can be attracted to more than one woman you should be able to be in a polygamous one. Just like you, the bisexual still has to pick one.
OV Said .
"I agree, but the state is already involved in it by making it illegal. "
Well I agree , taking an innocent life is illegal .
OV Said .
"The 'state' isn't going to be killing anyone by this legislation - "
I thought it was called state assisted suicide ? Does not the doctor inject the person with the needle ? What happens if the patient does not have the ability to do it themself ? Also does the patient have to be bed ridden ? etc ? Are their conditions , or just the patients "opinion" with the advice of their state doctor ? I guess we should know the details of the bill .
OV Said .
"And so all your talk about the 'state killing' someone is off the mark. Allowing a citizen to practice their own free will decision is the very antithesis of the 'state' doing anything."
Why do you feel the need to use liberal safe words that take the focus off what the discussion is about ? . Its not a choice its a an abortion of a pre born baby. , its not free will , the state is helping a person to kill themself . Its about death ! The person is using the state as a support for their own death . The state is involved , therefore I am , you certainly seem to think you have the right to be involved in allowing this state to be involved .
Is their exclussions for depressed minds , and who makes the decision if the person is depressed , the state ?
Gardner knows he will be in a situation and is making the decision before hand , I respect his point , and that is a different conversation , but it is not the point you are making . You have left out all details of how this comes about but free will and the state have to comply .
You do not have A Constitutional Right to kill yourself in this country .
OV Said .
. Just because someone is bisexual doesn't mean they should be able to marry more than one spouse any more than because you can be attracted to more than one woman you should be able to be in a polygamous one. Just like you, the bisexual still has to pick one.
40 years from now OV , someone may call you a nasty close minded name for being so closed minded .
That was my point about assisted suicide , your last statement was what I was getting at , to express to you what pro lifers were being ridiculed for suggesting about abortion linking to suicide 40 years ago. You are making a point to what the no folks to gay marriage are saying will be allowed in 40 years .
Actually no way of knowing .
Your thought process of the value of life has been changed with a culture shift , and abortions being considered even birth control in some circels . your views like mind are formed by the culture around us .
Of course if you think about it , your arguements if there are any why you believe this should not be allowed of bi marriage will fall on the ears of people that have no clue to where you are coming from most likely
4o years from now . Just as I think you seldom do from my views .
Yours is based on recent culture , mine also are , but they are also based on traditional western culture .
Who are you voting for ,
I have no clue .
Take care ,
I thought it was called state assisted suicide ?
No.
Does not the doctor inject the person with the needle ?
No.
What happens if the patient does not have the ability to do it themself ?
No. (does the light start to dawn...?)
Also does the patient have to be bed ridden ? etc ? Are their conditions , or just the patients "opinion" with the advice of their state doctor ? I guess we should know the details of the bill .
Yes, I guess we should.
Try reading at itsmydecision.org to find out a bit more about the details.
To participate, a patient must be:
At least 18 years old and a Washington State resident
Mentally capable of making and communicating health care decisions for him/herself
Diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six months (applies only to people with diagnosed terminal disease, not physical disability or age)
All decisions made by the patient must be entirely voluntary.
Two physicians determine whether these criteria have been met.
The attending physician must inform the patient of feasible alternatives including comfort care, hospice care and pain control.
The application process includes an oral and written request, a waiting period, and objective witnesses.
No one other than the eligible patient may administer the oral medication.
The patient may revoke her/ his decision at any time.
Post a Comment
<< Home