Friday, March 06, 2009

Urgent. It is Time to Call a Senator and Say No to SB 5688

While calls have been being made to Washington State lawmakers, it is time to increase the number of calls to specific senators, urging them to oppose and vote no on SB 5688. They will be voting soon on this matter and it is very important they hear from as many of you as possible.

Here's why.

The citizens of Washington are being misled by the activist homosexual lawmakers and their colleagues who are also either misled or unwilling to support traditional marriage.

For example: I'm looking at Sen. Rodney Tom's letter of response to a constitute from his District 48, who asked the senator to oppose SB 5688.

Tom's letter first extols the virtues of SB 5688, then quotes John F. Kennedy on giving rights to people, then says, "To those opposed to this legislation, it would not circumvent the marriage laws of Washington. It would not change the definition of marriage in Washington. It would not require anything different from any religious group in the state. In summary, it would not affect them."

"Them," of course is us.

I will tell you why this statement is misleading and deceitful and which senators we need you to call, starting today.

First, Senator Tom's statement. I don't know if the Senator, himself, has been misled or if he is purposefully misleading his constituents.

Deceit is tricky.

Technically, most of his statement, standing alone, is true. However, this bill is a Trojan Horse. This bill and the House Companion Bill 1727, elevates domestic partnerships to the level of marriage and removes any legal difference.

Once these bills become law, homosexuals will have a basis to sue for "marriage". They will sue on the basis that they are being discriminated against because they can't use the name marriage, yet their domestic partnership contract is exactly the same as marriage. They will use this bill as basis for the suit, thus achieving "marriage" through litigation.

The Washington State Legislature has the second largest gay caucus of any state in the country. Openly gay lawmakers pushing these bills and misleading the public as to their effect are, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, Rep. Marko Liias, D-Mukilteo, Rep. Joe McDermott, D-Seattle, Rep. Jim Moeller, D-Vancouver and Rep. Dave Upthegrove, D-Des Moines. These men have repeatedly told the press and the public that their ultimate goal is "marriage". This is a giant step to achieve that goal. At the end of their journey is Governor Gregoire, with open arms, raised in victory, ready to sign anything they place before her. Gov. Gregoire has signed more pro-homosexual legislation than any governor in the history of this state.

I'm urging you to stand for traditional, biblical marriage. Please call the following list of senators and respectfully ask them to vote no on SB 5688. Begin today.

Would you also contact friends, family members and friends at church this weekend and ask them to join with us and make the call. Ask your pastor if he will mention it from the pulpit. His mention of this bill would not violate any tax-exempt rules.

When you call your own senator, also tell their office you live in their district.

Following is the list we need you to call. We have posted instructions in how to find which district you live in and which senator is yours.

First. There are three Republicans who we feel are not with us. They need to hear from you.

Dale Brandland, district 42 -- 360-786-7682
Curtis King, district 14 -- 360-786-7626
Cheryl Pflug, district 5 -- 360-786-7608

Secondly, these Democrats will be up for election next year. Ones with an asterisk (*) by their names have one or more Republican seat mates.

Claudia Kaufman, district 47 -- 360-786-7692
Steve Hobbs, district 44 -- 360-786-7686
*Chris Marr, district 6 -- 360-7867610
Eric Oemig, district 45 -- 360-786-7672
Rodney Tom, district 48 -- 360-786-7694
*Derek Kilmer, district 26 -- 360-786-7650
*Tracey Eide, district 30 -- 360-786-7658

The following two senators are not up for reelection next year, but have Republican seat mates.

Jim Kastama, district 25 -- 360-786-7648
Mary Margaret Haugen, district 10 -- 360-786-7618

There are others who will be voting with us that I have not listed. There are also those who will not be voting with us regardless of how many calls they would receive.

We will be posting all votes on this bill and the House bill.

This is both urgent and timely. Thank you for stepping up. I really believe your calls will influence some of these lawmakers.

Thank you and God bless you.

_____________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

22 comments:

  1. Are you asking us to call the whole list above, or only the ones in our district?

    ReplyDelete
  2. " These men have repeatedly told the press and the public that their ultimate goal is "marriage"."

    So can we take this as an admission that Gary was being less then honest in all his previous posts where he claimed the supporters of Domestic Partnerships were being dishonest about their intentions?

    Oh, and thanks for the list I called everyone and either thanked them for co-sponsoring the bill, or encouraged them to support it! I also forwarded the list to all my family and friends, who will do the same. Thanks for doing the legwork for us FFN!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow, Gary. You are swinging for the fence. This should cause every person who cares about marriage and family to pick up their phone and maybe their check book and get involved. This could change the current direction of our legislature. I would expect you to get a very strong reaction from the pro-gay movement.
    Thank you and God bless you. I support you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It looks like FFN is doing their part. Let's do ours. Please everyone get on the phone today and talk to people Sunday at church.

    ReplyDelete
  5. your link on the six gay lawmakers doesn't go anywhere. i think komo news reported that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Once these bills become law, homosexuals will have a basis to sue for "marriage". They will sue on the basis that they are being discriminated against because they can't use the name marriage, yet their domestic partnership contract is exactly the same as marriage. They will use this bill as basis for the suit, thus achieving "marriage" through litigation.

    Again, the exact opposite is true - the State Supreme Court ruled that 'separate but equal' is the way our state constitution prefers. Having equal rights via a different contract prevents successful legal challenges to the current marriage contract.

    ReplyDelete
  7. When I hear that laws passed that
    allow for anything don't affect anyone....It's nonsense.

    I suppose the argument is made that allowing the legalization of
    use of harmful drugs (for example) wouldn't affect a non drug user in the least, meaning that the non user can
    still go on non using by the grace
    afforded them by such government...this is insanity!

    Have they no sense?

    It's what happens when people allow for that which God has called confussion.

    Those that allow confussion and
    promote it will be ashamed. No one
    will want to remember who they are. No one will want anything to do with them except to forgive them
    and hope that they can start a new life again.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anon 10:23
    A number of years ago when the debate for gay rights began to surface, gay activists denied they wanted anything but benefits.
    In the recent past 3 years, the gay activists have started saying publically that marriage was indeed their end game.
    Gary has been addressing this and other issues related to family and marriage for quite some time.
    He called them out when they denied they wanted marriage and he is now calling them out as they say this bill is not about marriage.
    Hope this helps.
    Faith and Freedom Staff

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jeremy King.

    Call all of them. Identify that you live in the district when you call your own senator.

    Faith and Freedom Staff

    ReplyDelete
  10. Faith and Freedom Staff,

    1. Can you provide a single bit of evidence to support this claim? Ed Murray has introduced a same-sex marriage bill for each of the past 7 legislative sessions, so any claim that he had not made perfectly clear his ultimate goal is marriage is dubious at best.

    2. Gary has made this "hidden agenda" claim as recently as last year, so your 3 year timeline also appears to be bogus.

    So prove me wrong, provide us with quotes from these men denying that marriage was their ultimate goal!

    Or, and I think this is far more likely, you'll just censor this post.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Did I miss something? Murray and others are today denying that this present bill is a step toward gay marriage. It is well known that Murray has been floating a gay marriage bill for years. Every step toward gay marriage has contained a denial that it is actually a step toward gay marriage.

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  12. 1. Can you provide a single bit of evidence to support this claim? Ed Murray has introduced a same-sex marriage bill for each of the past 7 legislative sessions, so any claim that he had not made perfectly clear his ultimate goal is marriage is dubious at best.

    Yes, the ultimate goal has always been marriage equality and it has been no secret - both domestic partnership and marriage equality bills are submitted, and only the DP one is acted on.

    Gary's concern is just misplaced - the judicial route to marriage equality is closed as I've pointed out many times. But Gary isn't entirely wrong.

    The current route would be through the legislature, getting them to pass the marriage equality bill. Now that could be argued from the perspective that 'We have two state contracts that now effectively do the same thing, why not just have one?'. This argument worked in the California legislature where they passed marriage equality twice, but the governor refused to sign it.

    But that's not as immediately 'exciting' since you would only push for the legislature to do that if you 1) think it would pass and 2) survive any referendum challenge. So even when the DP contract has the same rights as the marriage one, I don't think anyone will be pushing for that until the older generation isn't voting anymore.

    Not as motivational a reality as the spectre of 'judicial activism' though so not the first line of reasoning being presented.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Did I miss something? Murray and others are today denying that this present bill is a step toward gay marriage. It is well known that Murray has been floating a gay marriage bill for years. Every step toward gay marriage has contained a denial that it is actually a step toward gay marriage.

    Sorry to reply so much but your confusion is confusing me. Let me outline it and then tell me where you think the confusion likes.

    1. Yes, the best solution would be one contract for all marriages. Murray has said that's what he wants and every year submits a marriage equality bill that is never acted on.

    2. A domestic partnership contract is, by definition, not a marriage contract. It doesn't matter what rights it includes, what statutes the two contracts might share, a DP ≠ Marriage. DP is a 'half a loaf is better than none' solution to the goal of marriage equality.

    3. The door to a judicial or legal challenge to getting marriage equality is closed. The Supreme Court said that the legislature could limit access to contracts like this if they wanted to, what they couldn't do is limit access to the rights the contracts give. This means no matter how identical the DP might get to the marriage contract the SCOWA would say 'that's just fine - the legislature can do that if they want.'

    4. Note the many uses of the word 'legislature'. THEY (or a referendum) are now the remaining ways that marriage equality could be achieved. That that would not be through a 'challenge' but rather a 'selling' effort - convincing the legislature or the voting population that there should only be one contract for everyone. Can't be forced, it will happen by the free will of the electorate and/or their duly elected representatives.

    So yes, the ultimate goal is and will always be marriage equality, but DP ≠ marriage, DPs are just a 'better than nothing' 2nd choice and there are no legal challenges left other than trying to get the SCoWA to reverse their decision that said the legislature could have 'separate but equal' contracts if it wanted to.

    Where do we disagree on any of these points?

    ReplyDelete
  14. So I take it that neither FFN staff nor their apologists can produce quotes from Senator Murray, or anyone else, denying that full marriage equality is their ultimate goal.

    Noted.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Proverbs 25:5
    Take away the wicked from before the king, and his throne shall be
    established in righteousness.


    Wickedness has been before our state government for so long with
    their endless suggestions. Some people in government have let down
    their guard against the onslaught
    and become corrupted. Some have been discouraged and decided to give in.

    Let God arise in his church and drive the wickedness away, for our
    God is a God of truth. His justice
    is to all generations. Though the wicked have their way, it is only
    for a day. Those that have given in to them will be ashamed, and if
    they are willing, God is able to pick them up again and teach them the way of understanding, justice and equity, honor and nobility.

    Let every wicked thing that goes
    against God's design of marriage,
    get off of Washington's government. May the presence of the Lord be upon the capitol in
    Jesus's name. May darkness make way for the king of kings. Let the church praise him that the king of glory come in.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Technically, most of his statement, standing alone, is true. However, this bill is a Trojan Horse. This bill and the House Companion Bill 1727, elevates domestic partnerships to the level of marriage and removes any legal difference.
    ******************************
    Why does this issue bother you?

    ReplyDelete
  17. It is spelled Pflug, not Pfluge. I worked for her last year, and she can be very touchy about that sort of stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Great list. Now I know who to call to support my equal rights. I also am grateful for your reader's outward demonstration of hatred. It is demonstrative of the root of homophobia and the root of the anti-equality movement. You all know it has nothing to do with God or Jesus, you violently hate gay people, don't you? I feel sorry for you all. Hatred is such a toxic emotion.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Why does this issue bother you?"

    Because it has nothing to do with protecting "traditional marriage" and everything to do with having the government enforce their disapproval of homosexuality.

    ReplyDelete
  20. no, it's the protection of marriage, one man and one women, as God as set up for us--period 11:59!

    ReplyDelete
  21. no, it's the protection of marriage, one man and one women, as God as set up for us--period 11:59!

    Hmmm these bills are about domestic partnerships, there is a totally separate contract named marriage licensed by the state. They are two totally separate things, worry no further.

    ReplyDelete
  22. sorry, but the title of Gary's March 9 post puts the lie to that claim. You'll note that marriage does not appear at all, but the domestic partnership bill does make an appearance as "Homosexual Legislation", not "marriage legislation" but "homosexual legislation". You see what motivates the Christianist right, and gets the all important donations flowing isn't marriage it's hating on gays!

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.