QUICK LINKS
Seattle P.I. "Strange Bedfellows"
Strange bedfellows, indeed.
We have consistently reported on the ever-morphing advancement of the Washington State's gay activist's agenda.
Two years ago they were saying, "No," this isn't about marriage, we just want benefits. Last year your legislature gave them a Domestic Partnership Law. The day Gov. Gregoire, with both hands in the air in celebration, signed the bill, the activists, including Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, said, "No," this isn't enough. This is only a beginning. We won't be happy until we have gay marriage or as they call it, "marriage equality."
You won't believe what they are asking for now. "Putting the horse before the cart" comes to mind.
That's right. Senator Ed Murray has delivered a bill for gay divorce. He told the Seattle P.I. yesterday, "We are not only asking for the benefits, we are also asking for gay divorce."
Indeed, this is a case of strange bedfellows.
But why do they want divorce when they don't even have marriage?
Murray says, they not only want the protections of marriage, "But we are also asking for the responsibilities that go with marriage."
There are two reasons why they are doing what they are doing.
First, they know that Washington is not ready to accept homosexual marriage-- yet. Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, also an activist for the gay community, told the P.I. "Over time as we pass these bills and we continue to educate our fellow members in the Legislature and the general public about the protection that we don't have available to us by not being able to marry, we will help move the debate so that people see that that is just an issue of basic fairness."
Re-read that and think about it.
Secondly, they plan to overload the domestic partnership law with more and more "benefits" such as, divorce, etc., until the law has essentially supplanted marriage itself and they believe the institution of marriage will implode as far as it is unique and designed for one man and one woman, procreation, and the nurturing of children. They have already introduced such a bill earlier this week. We will let you know as it moves forward.
If this happens, there will be no legal basis to deny so-called "marriage" to polygamists, multiple marriage groups, and God only knows what else. They will deny it in the same way they denied their pursuit of marriage only a couple of years ago.
The concern of people of faith is certainly one of Biblical teaching on the subject. But it also has enormous implications in regard to society itself. This is why every major religion in the past 5,000 years has advocated heterosexual marriage.
This is not an issue of fairness. It is a matter of how you want your community to look for your children and grandchildren. It is a matter of what you believe and why you believe it. It is the question of whether or not you want the institution of marriage re-engineered to accommodate a lifestyle and behavior that represents a small minority of our society. Forty-nine other states are saying no to gay marriage. What will you say?
They are counting on you to engage in "dialogue" about the issue, as they re-educate your children regarding normal sexuality using information for indoctrination in public school and by continuing to elect state lawmakers that will see it all their way and vote "yes" at the appropriate time.
If we don't act this year, we are looking at the future.
______________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.
15 Comments:
Why does Gary claim that "gay activists" said they didn't want marriage, but NEVER provide a quote to back that claim up? Think about it, if someone ACTUALLY said something, you quote them saying it, it's more powerful that way.
Gary needs to either produce a quote from Murry or Peterson saying that same-sex marriage isn't their ultimate goal, or admit that his entire argument is based on a false premise. My guess is he won't be able to find such a quote becuase it simply isn't true. Gay rights activists have been upfront about seeing Domestic Partnerships as a partial success in securing ALL the rights of civil marriage for commited same-sex partners. Since Gary knows we can't win the argument on basic rights, fairness or equality, he instead dishonestly claims that his opponents are being dishonest in an attempt to divert his followers attention from the real issues: basic rights, fairness and equality.
Jeff in Bellevue
Oh please, everyone has been upfront about wanting license to the civil contract of marriage from the get go. The year the domestic partnership bill passed there was another that just allowed all citizens license to the civil contract of marriage - marriage equality has always been the goal.
If this happens, there will be no legal basis to deny so-called "marriage" to polygamists, multiple marriage groups, and God only knows what else.
Oh please! The issue is marriage equality, i.e. all citizens being able to reasonable license a contract with a spouse, not 'marriage anything goes'. All polygamists wanting to marry someone of the opposite gender can already license the contract - that they can't have as many contracts or with as many people as they want in them is a totally different issue.
You are the ones making this a big issue - we are talking solely about the totally secular civil contract of marriage, you know - the one that two opposite gender atheists can license from the state. Why its a big deal that it will be available to this additional 'small minority' of law-abiding, tax-paying naturally married citizens with spouses is what you can't explain rationally.
Look at Massachusetts, they've been allowing marriage equality for over a year now - see any 'sky is falling' result? No. No decrease in heterosexual marriages, still one of the lowest divorce rates in the US, same gender marriage contracts still being licensed at several times their relative presence in society.
You might have a point:
- if the number of gay citizens was progressive, the more there are the more they'll be, but its not - since the dawn of modern statistical methods in societies around the world the number of gay people is virtually identical. Beat us, hug us, makes no difference the same percentage of society will be gay.
- if there was some factor that was inherently 'gay' that was harmful. But there's not - there is nothing gay people do that many more times straight people also do. Study after study after study, 2 released just this week, show that married gay couples want the same things as straight ones, they go about getting them the same way, and they resolve their problems and issues the same.
Let's face it the commies are gone, racism is out of vogue, so we're the only outlet you have to be really get down judgmental on someone. Doesn't matter if my marriage has lasted longer than yours - doesn't matter if my major concerns in life are family and community issues that we share. No your concern is if I might be having wild gay sex which you just assume I am having (you' might be very surprised) something that you will never see regardless.
I guess I'm just lucky the Christians in my neighborhood take the story of the Good Samaritan to heart.
you nailed it. totally right on.
I find it interesting that you would tag the Christians in your article. Christians are good samaritans, but you must also realize it's because Jesus said "love one another." Just because a Christian might reach out and love you doesn't mean they condone what you are doing. If you want to involve Christianity then you MUST involve the bible. I suggest you read 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1: 1-32. You can see that this is not acceptable behavior no matter how much you try and sugar coat it bye using fancy language and arguments. It is what it is. Just like night is night, you can add light to it to make it bright, but you can't change the fact that it is still night. Read Genisis 2:24, it's states that a man shall cleave to his wife and the two shall become one. Not a man to a man or or a woman to a woman. Think about it, we fall in love and marry to create children to carry on our names and legacies. If you have relations with someone of the same sex there is no possible way to accomplish this. Yes you can adopt, but there is a point that is missing. Read Genesis chapter 1 to see what God's idea was for us. He created man and woman, to be united together. It is the lust of man for a man or a woman for a woman that goes against what God's intention for his creation. Many people have denied that this is what God's plan was, but it's written there, not by man, but by God for man to live by so it will go well with him and he can pass on his legacy to his children. There are too many scripture verses to pick out about sin and loving your enemies, but the overall statement that God is sharing is to repent of sin, to not walk in sin, to ask for forgiveness of sin, to love those who sin, but not condone their sin, to hold their feet to the fire, but in love so they ask why. God's judgement is clear though so no one should be confused. Read Hebrews 3:12 to see what God says you must do about your sin. Read Revelations 21:8 to find out what happens to those who do not repent of their sin. Remember you can get mad at me for saying these things because you want justification for your sinful acts. Christians love because we are commanded to love, but we do not accept the sin of homosexuality. It is what it is. Just like night, it can't be changed into something different and acceptable by putting a marriage label on it, it doesn't change what it is. Change can and will only come from the heart of those who commit the sin. Remember, "For all have sinned and fall short," so even though your sin is there for all to see, doesn't mean that everyone else is perfect. There was only one perfect person to walk on this earth and he was Jesus,he took on your sin on the cross as a perfect sacrifice so that when you repent of your sin you will spend eternity in heaven with him. That my friends makes Jesus the ultimate Good Samaritan.
Is it our place to punish sinners?
Didn't Jesus say let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.
I wonder if behind this opposition to Gay rights is the fear that God will punish us for the sins of the homosexuals.
Shouldn't we worry more about our sins and not the sins of others?
Amen--
Anon11:26
there is also the matter of Rom.1---the warning of how God 'could' turn his back on us as a nation, if we 'willingly' go against his 'basic principles'--it's not 'worded' this way in the Bible--but that is tne personal message that I get--thus, the laws of our land is important to keep it the way our forefathers set it up--'In God WE Trust'--keep God's principles intact!
1:12,
"In God We Trust" has NOTHING to do with our forefathers, unless by forefathers you mean reactionary red-scare mongers from the 1950s.
Jeff in Bellevue
Gary,
You threw polygamy in the same pot with homosexuality. What's wrong with pologamy? It was practiced by the greatest men of the Bible - and God never condemned these men. Further, these men had mistresses (sex outside of marriage) - again, God never condemned these men.
I am concerned that your judgements and message is based on modern day cultural norms - that is, humanism, and in opposition to the Word of God.
Could you clarify this?
Thanks,
Greg
Christians are good samaritans, but you must also realize it's because Jesus said "love one another."
I guess that puts the original Samaritan one up on you because he did it because it was the right thing to do, not because he was told to.
Just because a Christian might reach out and love you doesn't mean they condone what you are doing.
And what is that exactly? What am I doing? And unfortunately we live in a country of religious freedom - it is their obligation to condone the legal activities of those who don't share their religion.
I suggest you read 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1: 1-32.
Don't engage in theft, adultery, masturbation, or idolatrous behavior or I won't get into heaven. Check. And if I have absolutely no desire to go to heaven what then?
Read Genesis 2:24, it's states that a man shall cleave to his wife and the two shall become one. Not a man to a man or or a woman to a woman.
Then I'm not following your interpretation of Christian tenets - terrible me. That is my right as an American, right?
God is sharing is to repent of sin, to not walk in sin, to ask for forgiveness of sin, to love those who sin, but not condone their sin, to hold their feet to the fire, but in love so they ask why. God's judgement is clear though so no one should be confused.
Ah but that is the point - I'm not a Christian, I can't sin and even your God gives a choice to obey him or not. As an American this is reinforced by our constitutional right to freedom of religion. There is a constitutional right to equal protection of the law whether someone shares your religious views or not - they are free to sin by your standards all they want as long as they stay within the law, right?
And you seem to have the story of the Samaritan backwards - it wasn't about him but about Jesus answering the question: 'Who is my neighbor' that I am commanded to love as God loves me? The Samaritans were a hated religous minority, all sinners by the letter of the majority law, just like you feel about gay people. Yet one of them was the one that helped making him one of those neighbors you are commanded to love. Jesus never implied the man should convert the Samaritan, free him from sin, merely love him as God loves them - yes you are supposed to love them even if they don't agree with you on every little thing.
And that's the issue - you don't have a legal right to tell me not to be gay so the only way you can show 'love' is by making my life being gay as good as it can be. So what's better - saying gay married couples should be ignored and impeded thereby encouraging then to be unmarried, their lives harder, crueler? How is that better or 'loving' for the state, you or me?
As to the person who thinks God will punish everyone because if they tolerate legal activities what can I say? Its a magical reason like saying if we don't plant lots of oats the giant space goat will come to eat us - there's no way to directly refute it.
I can point out that even if it were true allowing a few people to license a totally secular contract is nothing in comparison to how they are taking his name in vain, not keeping the sabbath holy, not honoring their mothers and fathers, etc. If people committing what you think are sins is going to make your god abandon a nation not letting a few citizens license a contract is way too little too late. Maybe you should rather error on the side of compassion to your neighbors - that would seem to be your last, best hope.
"In God We Trust" has NOTHING to do with our forefathers, unless by forefathers you mean reactionary red-scare mongers from the 1950s.
Jeff in Bellevue
Jeff In God we Trust can be found in the last paragraph in our National Anthem , written I believe in 1814 . Not to mention it was engraved on our coins as early as 1861 . You are welcome to your own opinions , but your facts about our Forefathers appear unresearched to be polite .
You threw polygamy in the same pot with homosexuality. What's wrong with pologamy? It was practiced by the greatest men of the Bible - and God never condemned these men. Further, these men had mistresses (sex outside of marriage) - again, God never condemned these men.
Posted by Gary
Gary I think you need to perhaps join a Bible class , if you are being sincere . You will find things like King David;s first born's life being taken because of his adultry . I really think you are confusing Bibical characters with examples of perfect people . People do that with our Founding fathers too , no its their imperfections that should give us hope , because many of them persevered . . They really do not have crowns of purity over their heads , they were people making the same mistakes as you and I make . And sometimes suffered severe consequences , Thank God for his mercy !
"I guess I'm just lucky the Christians in my neighborhood take the story of the Good Samaritan to heart."
Well Oshtur I would say you were blessed . But what is the big deal with the polygamous . I know its thrown into debating points . But harm do they do to you ? Many of those relationships work fine in their culture . It may be a different issue , but one related to marriage .
This law that is supporting gay marriage discriminates against polygamous . Just like the law for a man and a women discriminates aginst you . All laws discriminate , that is why we have them .
I don't get you hanging out to making arguements that obviously show you have a bias no different then Gary;s but built on a different culture and experience .
I think you get too emotional about this , almost addictive Oshtur . I wish Gary would speak to other issues myself , this is an old one . I am a cspan type myself , this is on the bottom of the Gop heap these days .
Feel good Oshtur , the left has conquered tolerance in our state , it of course feels little or no difference in the name calling we get thrown in all our directions though .
Mick,
Perhaps you should do some research yourself.
While "In God We Trust" does appear in the final stanza of the Star Spangled Banner, which was written in 1814, the Star Spangled Banner was not made the national anthem until 1931.
"In God we Trust" was not added to coinage until 1864.
"In God We Trust" was not made the national motto until 1956. Prior to this point the unofficial, de facto motto was "E Pluribus Unum" (out of many one), which was frankly a far more appropriate motto for a diverse nation such as ours.
While the leaders at any of these times may technically be considered our "forefathers", it is clear from the usage that the anonymous posted meant our nations founders, who had no part in any of these legal actions.
Jeff in Bellevue
[b]But what is the big deal with the polygamous.[/b]
Mick there is no 'big deal' about them other than its not the issue at hand. This is about citizen based 'marriage equality' - do all citizens have an equitible opportunity to license their marriage with a spouse with the state. Now we don't. Someone who needs a spouse of the opposite gender - about a million potential candidates in this state alone. For one needing a same gender spouse -0 potential candidates.
Biblical 'polygamy' we are really talking about serial marriage by the man only - he is individually married to multiple women, they are married only to the man. All the participants can already have equal access to the existing contract, they all have a huge pool of potential candidates. Should the state license a contract that is only practically open to one gender? And if you opened multiple contracts to both what happens to when the man marries a woman and she marries another man? The contract we currently have will not function with more than 2 mutually exclusive participants. The issue is 'marriage equality' not 'marrige anything goes'.
Again, maybe it would be worth figuring out how to make it work but regardless it is a completely different situation than giving every citizen the same access to the existing contract just by a slight change in the licensing conditions of the contract.
Mick,
In respnse to your below comment, it was during the Bible class that I learned about King David. As you well know, your singular example of Bathsheba has nothing to do with David's polygamy and his concubines. YET Jehovah only condemed David for the single instance - a very distinct instance - of Bathsheba. In all other ways, David walked right in God's eyes. The plain simple fact is, a Biblical marriage may include at least several wives and several concubines.
I realize that you and I may be uncomfortable with this because of our relgious enculturation - but such humanism and religion and worldliness has nothing to do with the Word of God.
Greg
Gary I think you need to perhaps join a Bible class , if you are being sincere . You will find things like King David;s first born's life being taken because of his adultry . I really think you are confusing Bibical characters with examples of perfect people . People do that with our Founding fathers too , no its their imperfections that should give us hope , because many of them persevered . . They really do not have crowns of purity over their heads , they were people making the same mistakes as you and I make . And sometimes suffered severe consequences , Thank God for his mercy !
Post a Comment
<< Home