Friday, April 24, 2009

Sen Dan Swecker: "Beyond Gay Marriage"

Senator Dan Swecker has served the people of the 20th Legislative District and the people of the state as a Senator since 1995. Prior to his public service, he served his country in military service.

Senator Swecker has written a column titled, "Beyond Gay Marriage". It is a well reasoned look at the government's role in marriage and why marriage should not be redefined.
_______________

Beyond “Gay Marriage”
By Senator Dan Swecker

Political conservatives have little difficulty establishing that they are against “gay marriage.” The difficulty comes when politicians seek to curry the favor of conservatives and still try to find a middle ground on this issue to attract moderate voters. Many suggest they would support civil unions or domestic partnerships. They try to have it both ways. In doing so, they violate one of our most fundamental principles of the role of government. That principle is that the least government necessary to solve a problem is usually the best government.

Let’s look at the purposes of government in defining marriage. The best way to do this is to review the appropriate role of government in regulating private affairs.

What if we did not have a government institution called marriage? In that case, people would choose to live together base on their feelings for each other or for achieving some common purpose. We would recognize very quickly 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 produces offspring.

Society would quickly determine that providing incentives to keep these relationships intact, for as long as possible, is 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 spell out responsibilities in these relationships. We would also determine the conditions for the resolution of these benefits and responsibilities in the event that the marriage is terminated. That is exactly what we have done in defining marriage.

The failure of traditional marriages has a devastating impact on peoples’ lives, most often the lives of women and children. We need to look no further than the poverty statistics for single women with children. Such failures often have negative impacts on society as well, and increase the demands for government resources and services. No other relationship rises to this level of government concern. No other relationship is as important for the protection and provision of the next generation. For exactly those reasons, government has limited the definition of marriage to the union of one man and one woman.

One might ague that many other types of relationships have value for those who choose to participate in them. Why not include them in the definition of marriage?

First, 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. If we change the definition of marriage solely to accommodate these other purposes, then the expectation of people entering into marriage will change.

Marriage will become a decision to stay together as long as two people love each other or as long as it is to their mutual benefit. Unfortunately, this is not sufficient for the welfare of our children. Marriage needs to be a commitment that goes beyond the moment and looks to what is best for the children in spite of these other considerations.

A second argument is that we could easily include other relationships without hurting the traditional institution of marriage. There are many valid two-party relationships that could easily be added to the list. The homosexual community says “gay marriage” is one of those. What about brothers and sisters, same sex siblings, an elderly parent dependent upon 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?

Of course, the answer is that we need to keep government intervention in relationships to a minimum and focus 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 diminish the level of societal commitment to this one most important union.

Government has a compelling interest to intervene in this one relationship and define marriage as it has traditionally done. Other relationships do not rise to this level of government involvement and government should stay out of them!

37 comments:

  1. Senator, this is a great article. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent and intelligently and well stated.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Senator, not all heterosexual couples can produce children. My wife and I can not. Should we not be allowed to marry? Is our relationship not important to the government?

    Furthermore, the American Pediatrics Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological association all agree it is in the best interest of children that same-sex couples marry. Why? Because same-sex couples do adopt, conceive, and foster children. Sorry, but your philosophy is outdated and plain wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dan's just preaching to the choir that likes the sound of his voice and aren't really listening to the words at all.

    Reality check:
    A married couple need not procreate to be raising children.

    His cited problems have different origins: The poor are deserting the state contract for their marriages in droves as I've pointed out before - the current contract licensed by the state has more liabilities than benefits for the poor and they have figured out its not in their best interest to license it with their spouse.

    That is a problem that has nothing to do with the marriage equality issue and the real reason why naturally married couples with children are not licensing the civil contract.

    The state needs to make it attractive for ALL married couples, especially those with children, to license the civil contract in marriages support. We need to figure out a way to make that attractive and minimize the negatives so trying to excluded some married couples just cuz of their gender combination is just dumb.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Senator, I'm with you all the way.

    Pregnancy should be a requirement before we issue a marriage license. Wow, think of the cost savings to businesses if we only allowed marriage for people with kids.

    Plus, no more divorce. Government has a compelling interest to intervene and ensure that every child has a traditional two parent family.

    ReplyDelete
  6. for the last anonymous: I don't believe we have quite reached that plane - where same sex couples can conceive, not without outside intervention; hmmm possibly a new role for government! and the two become one - the child - can't happen with same-sex couples.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 9:18
    Excuse me, the Senator is not 'wrong'. His philosophy matches many of us who choose to stay within God's principles. God is the same yesterday, today and ALWAYS! So, you feel 'our' ways are out dated? Nope! We know staying within God's ways is the only way always, in spite of the fact that others don't agree!

    ReplyDelete
  8. By the Senator's logic, marriage licenses should be granted upon the birth or conception of a child. That would get rid of the "but what about het couples who don't have children" argument. That, it seems, is the only way the reservation of marriage argument seems to work. The marriage then could transfer to whatever family was caring for the child. Imagine that -- mobile marriages based on the welfare of the child, rather than the state's interest in our sex lives.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anon at 9:18 am,

    I think you missed the Senator's fundamental point. A man and a woman come together in a sexual union that is nature's framework for producing children.

    I'm sorry that you and your wife are unable to have children. Your relationship is still within nature's framework. However, something is not working properly. Fertility clinics specialize in trying to bypass the problem area. This all exists in the framework of our sexual natures as human beings.

    Some heterosexual couples decide not to have children and they, in some way, block the process for having children. At some point in the future, as was the case with my wife and I, the couple can decide to restore nature's process because they still exist within the framework that nature intended for sexual unions.

    Homosexual unions cannot, even in principle, create the framework for children.

    No homosexual union ever produced a child. No male dna has ever been combined with male dna or woman's dna with woman's dna to produce a child.

    To say the Senator's "philosophy is outdated and plain wrong" then is to ignore a basic observation from nature, aka. the way the world actually is, aka. reality.

    Nature is hardly outdated or wrong.

    Larry Rambousek

    ReplyDelete
  10. These are old arguments repackaged and rehashed.

    If we roll back the domestic partnerships in our state, or we ban same-sex marriage in states that already allow it, I’m not aware of any laws in the works that would ban gay people from having children, or that would take children away from their gay parents who are already raising them – nor am I aware of any efforts in these areas that have gained even a little bit of traction.

    If that’s the case, you remove DPs or marriage, and these families and these children are still there. How does making the parents of these children legal strangers – without the legal protections their classmates’ parents have – protect more children?

    Furthermore, in their push to formulate arguments against same-sex marriage, the senator, Gary, and others like them often end up downplaying the importance of marriage in so many areas of our life. If we’re to believe the senator, marriage is nothing more than a procreation contract, which somehow guarantees we will have another generation of children.

    Aren’t there benefits of marriage outside of procreation that are also important? Many straight couples seem to think so, since so many of them marry but never have children. And do we really believe people would stop procreating if we didn’t allow them to marry? Last I checked, we don’t have a problem of too little procreating going on outside of marriage; we have a problem of too much!

    People don’t need marriage to encourage them to have babies. People need marriage to help us protect the children we already have, among so many other things conservatives tend to neglect in their arguments against same-sex marriage.

    Tony in Seattle

    ReplyDelete
  11. Right on Senator!
    Why was marriage a protected and encouraged institution from the start of our country? Educated statesmen saw that the most stable form of relationship was marriage, and encouraging it promoted a sacrificial work ethic among men, instead of restless lawlessness. For women marriage was a form of protection for her and for their children.

    Fast forward to today. By encouraging a new form of "marriage" are we helping or defeating the original purpose of encouraging marriage? Is a homosexual union stable? They have proven it is not. Why in the world would anyone want to sanction anything that destabilizes our nation? For the same reason they have always...because they care more for themselves than they do about others.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I am intrigued by the comments that men and women must be able and intend to have children before they are eligible to marry. We must remember another principle of good government. The best government is the government that is least intrusive. You seem to be suggesting that couples should have a fertility test or a pregnancy test before they can marry. As a government, we tend to regulate by classes as in our tax laws that charge at a rate based on level of income. We don't check to see how much money someone has in their pocket or in their bank account. Fertility and pregnancy tests would be highly intrusive and not always permanent or accurate. We are better off extending the right to marry to the only class that has the potential to produce children.

    Dan Swecker

    ReplyDelete
  13. We are better off extending the right to marry to the only class that has the potential to produce children.Dan you should know that the right to marry is a fundamental human right that is inalienable and exists whether you can procreate with your spouse or not. Hopefully I don't need to show you the many state and federal courts that have ruled this. And our current understanding of biology shows that every citizens has the exact same right to a spouse regardless of the gender of that spouse derived from the same basic human biology we all share.

    And so no, the state can't just let some citizens license their marriages and others not. That would be like saying only Republicans have freedom of speech, or other such discriminatory nonsense.

    Other states have no problem with asking about potential fertility between the 2 spouses under certain conditions such as first-cousin marriage.
    This sudden 'it would be too intrusive' ignores precedence, it ignores that almost half of children aren't being raised by their breeders, and ignores that almost half of marriage contracts licensed today won't be breeding any children, and is so obviously self-serving and a rationalization-to-an-end its why what you say only has an impact on those who already agree with you.

    It won't change anyone's mind.

    Let all children have licensed married parents regardless of their gender combination. Let all citizens have the right to license the contract with their spouse no matter what the citizen's gender. Do what's best for the citizens, their children, their families, the state and society.

    Make marriage the gold standard for all.

    P.S. Oh and again, what you really need to work on is ways that the poor don't take on more burden than benefit from licensing the contract - that is the biggest threat to the licensing of marriage.

    Dan SweckerP.P.S. Google mail accounts are free...

    ReplyDelete
  14. I have never understood why gay couples want to marry. Here are my guesses.

    1. They want to enjoy higher taxes with the marriage penalty.
    2. They want to make it harder to split up.
    3. They want company paid benefits to extent to their partner. (As if most of these people don't already have benefits from their own employer.)
    4. One of these two want to dress in a skirt and stay at home with the children they don't have.

    And finally, they want the respect that comes from official recognition of their relationship.

    The latter is the only one that makes sense. Problem is sin is sin. Giving it a new name does not remove the sin.

    I think these relationships should be illegal. They certainly should not be allowed to adopt children or teach school.

    These people cannot tell right from wrong or good from evil.

    Senator Swecker nailed this one, but he didn't go far enough.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Sen Swecker,

    A government that was the least intrusive, would not concern itself with what genitalia were possessed by two of its citizens wishing to marry. Same-sex couples have children, this is an irrefutable fact, whether they are adopting children that their opposite-sex biological parents are unable or unwilling to care for, or going to a fertility clinic and using a sperm donor or surrogate mother as countless opposite-sex couples do.

    The simple fact is marriage equality would not harm opposite-sex married couples at all, and would greatly benefit same-sex couples and their children. Given these facts, why not just come clean and admit that your true motivation is animus against LGBT people?


    John Colgan
    Seattle

    ReplyDelete
  16. Another fallacy is that it is "not in their best interest to license it (marriage) with their spouse." The only reason for this current trend is that government has created disincentives for people to marry like welfare for single mothers only. When fathers step in the benefits are lost. Either that or one of the parties doesn't want to accept their responsibilities if the marriage is dissolved.

    Dan Swecker

    ReplyDelete
  17. I don't support gay marriage or domestic partnerships because they involve the government legitimizing behavior that should be discouraged. Homosexuality is behavior. Nobody is born engaged in behavior.

    Some will argue that homosexuals are born with a preference, but I find that argument absurd. Homosexuality is a preference that is developed. There is no homosexual chromosome. If there was, I imagine it would be very close to the adultery, pre-marital sex, bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy, and prostitution chromosomes.

    Let me state the obvious: NOT ALL SEXUAL PREFERENCES ARE EQUAL. In the last paragraph, I listed a number of sexual preferences. The preferences are not equal to heterosexual marriage. Many of the preferences I listed are illegal.

    Even those that are legal are not necessarily something that the government should legitimize or encourage. For instance, pre-marital sex between heterosexuals might be common, but the government has no business taking any action that increases acceptance or engagement in the behavior.

    In my opinion, homosexuality is behavior that should be discouraged. I am a voter and I believe that I have the right to express my opinion on what standards the government establishes. I don't hate or fear people who disagree with me. Just like I don't hate or fear my friends and family who have engaged in ANY sexual behavior that I think should be discouraged.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Senator, thanks to modern science, that would include lesbian couples.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Another fallacy is that it is "not in their best interest to license it (marriage) with their spouse." The only reason for this current trend is that government has created disincentives for people to marry like welfare for single mothers only. When fathers step in the benefits are lost. Either that or one of the parties doesn't want to accept their responsibilities if the marriage is dissolved.Those are pretty big reasons Dan and hardly 'fallacies'. One of the primary benefits to the state for civl contracts of marriage - it puts another layer of financial responsibility between the citizen and the state, and its not just the usual benefits that we think of like welfare, food stamps and such. As a legislator I am sure you know the spouse is liable for payment of the legal representation if the spouse is arrested, they are even responsible for their hospitalization if committed to a mental institution and many more that the poor are not going to make themselves liable for if they can avoid it.

    These are not 'just' causations - they are the fuel for the incredibly high number of children born out of wedlock among the poor. Again, if the concern is about families and children, the tiny number of new potential contractees that marriage equality would allow are inconsequential to the big picture.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I don't support gay marriage or domestic partnerships because they involve the government legitimizing behavior that should be discouraged. Homosexuality is behavior. Nobody is born engaged in behavior.See you are wrong right off the bat -Its obvious that homosexuality is not a behavior at all. There is no behavior that homosexuals engage in that many times more heterosexuals do. A 'kiss is just a kiss' no matter what the gender combination of the couple doing the kissing.

    And possibly all sexual preferences aren't equal but we as a society already say that a preference for men or women is one that is. Again, why should some citizens with a female spouse be allowed to l license their marriage and some not?

    ReplyDelete
  21. The latter is the only one that makes sense. Problem is sin is sin. Giving it a new name does not remove the sin.A sin is a violation of religious law - people who don't share your sect's religious law can not violate something they don't even hold as a belief. The US government and our state is required to treat its citizens equally whether they are of your religion or not.

    I think these relationships should be illegal. They certainly should not be allowed to adopt children or teach school. And with that you lose what ever credibility you might have gotten with the 66% of the state that thinks gay people should at least have the right to the domestic partnerships the state provides.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I am fascinated by the statement, "Same-sex couples have children." I assure you that same sex couples do not produce children between themselves. In all cases there is a third party that has participated in some way. Unfortunately, when resources are diverted from biological children to a same sex partner the biological children often suffer. Many benefits are transferred to the surviving spouse if there is one and if not, to the biological children. Of course the principle is provision for the children. One example is the death benefit for law enforcement officers. If the officer is killed in the line of duty and divorced but has dependent children, the children would receive the benefit. With the adoption of domestic partnership legislation this benefit is diverted from the biological children to a third party. This also occurs if the officer had remarried to a heterosexual partner. But if the officer still has dependent children from the original marriage, it is highly likely they will have biological children from the second marriage as well. In all cases transferring the benefit to a domestic partner takes it away from the biological line of succession. Whenever rights are diverted from traditional families to domestic partners it has the potential to disenfranchise members of the biological family.

    Dan Swecker

    ReplyDelete
  23. One other point, "every citizens has the exact same right to a spouse." I agree, they do have the exact same right to a spouse as long as they are one man and one woman and have the potential to procreate. This issue is the only compelling interest justifying government intervention. If not, government should stay out of it. No other criteria can be consistently applied. Let's examine some of them.

    People who love each other - brothers, sisters, best friends? Love comes and goes in the best of relationships. How do you define love.

    People who have sex together - think about it. I don't need to go there.

    People who are committed to each other for life - commitments come and go. People may hold lifetime commitments and rarely see each other.

    There is only one class that is easily identifiable and has the potential for overwhelming impacts on society. One man and one woman who may and often do produce children. Even in societies where men are allowed to have multiple wives, the marriage is between one man and one women and in that contract they each assume their respective roles and responsibilities with regard to their progeny.

    Dan Swecker

    ReplyDelete
  24. Uh oh, here comes the big stick alleging I am prejudice against "LGBT people." You couldn't be more wrong. Until my late 30's I was in complete sympathy with homosexuals. At the age of 32 I became a Christian. Even then, my position did not change. Over the next 5 years, as I studied the bible I became more comfortable with the biblical plan for sexuality. Even then, I did not change my position on homosexuality, but I asked myself the question, "Why would this be part of God's plan." I began to look for reasons why God would establish the institution of marriage between men and women and counsel against any other union. I don't have a silver bullet, but as you can see by my previous comments the evidence for preserving traditional marriage is overwhelming. By the time I was 40 I came to the conclusion that marriage as traditionally defined is best for society and best for the families involved. I have compassion for same sex couples who struggle with societal perceptions about their relationships. Unfortunately, I do not have an answer for them. But I am not willing to sacrifice the essential importance of traditional marriage and family to our society by altering its fundamental form. I think government's role is to stay out of it.

    Dan Swecker

    ReplyDelete
  25. Thanks Gary for printing this editorial . Well stated and quite articulate .


    Dan thank you for a cogent arguement based on what you believe and others is the best for all of us / Including children with sexula preferences that are not hetrosexual . Nothing can or should ever replace the norm and standard of each and every child haing the benefit of a mom and dad .

    Mick Sheldon

    ReplyDelete
  26. Dan, I couldn't know for sure if your are prejudiced against gays. But it's obvious that you discriminate against them.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I am fascinated by the statement, "Same-sex couples have children."What's fascinating is your fascination -by the same mechanism as many of opposite gender couples. Your entire thought experiment has the same results whether the children have a new family of opposite gender parents or same gender ones.

    ReplyDelete
  28. But Mick, what does this have to do with the state licensing them the civil contract - they are going to have they parents they have, same gender or not, regardless whether the state licenses the contract or not.

    All refusing to license the contract does is put these kids at a disadvantage in a situation you already think is disadvantages.

    Your goals don't jive with your complaint.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Dan,

    1. Whether or not children are biological has nothing to do with inheritance and survivorship rights. A child that is adopted, or conceived via a sperm or egg donor has all the same rights with regard to both parents as a biological child does. I find it appalling that you are a State Senator and are apparently completely unaware of this fact. Additionally, as someone who comes from a family with both adopted and biological children, I find your your emphasis on the biological relationships within families to be highly insulting. My adopted bother is just as much my kin as my sister is, and just as entitled to any inheritance etc. as I am. I don't see this as some sort of biological line of succession. Then again, I don't think of myself or my family as royalty.

    2. I didn't claim you were prejudiced, I said you were motivated by anti-gay animus. This is made clear by the fact that you have voted against every measure before the legislature that benefits gays, from it non-discrimination to domestic partnerships, if it is gay-friendly you've opposed it, if it is anti-gay you've supported it. You claim to have compassion to same-sex couples for their "struggle with societal perceptions" about their relationships, yet you are constantly speaking out to reinforce and worsen those "societal perceptions". I believe it was Laura Schlesinger, who used to say People aren't what they say, people are what they do". What you do, Senator Swecker, reflects an animus against LGBT people.

    John Colgan
    Seattle

    ReplyDelete
  30. Oshtur,
    To this statement: I think these relationships should be illegal. They certainly should not be allowed to adopt children or teach school,
    You responded: And with that you lose what ever credibility you might have gotten with the 66% of the state that thinks gay people should at least have the right to the domestic partnerships the state provides.Oshtur – does this mean that same-sex marriage advocates in California lost all credibility after they engaged in character assassination against Prop 8 (making marriage between one man and one woman) supporters after it passed?

    You state: you should know that the right to marry is a fundamental human right that is inalienable and exists whether you can procreate with your spouse or not.You speak a lot about rights. But, I have not seen you define what a right is. How does one evaluate a claim to know it is a right? What makes a right fundamental and inalienable?

    You claim: Hopefully I don't need to show you the many state and federal courts that have ruled this.Of course, courts made the Dred Scot decision so, obviously, just because a court makes a ruling does not necessarily mean it is just. Many courts have recognized that marriage is between opposite genders and yet you have don’t believe they are correct.

    You assert: And our current understanding of biology shows that every citizens has the exact same right to a spouse regardless of the gender of that spouse derived from the same basic human biology we all share.Really? How does biology show a right to a spouse let alone “to a spouse regardless of the gender”? Human biology clearly shows that human sexual nature is designed to bring male and female together in a sexual union that their sexual organs are designed for and to which can clearly lead to offspring. That has been verified for centuries through experience (not to mention common sense).

    Please tell us the biological experiment that shows two men or two women are designed sexually for each other.

    ReplyDelete
  31. does this mean that same-sex marriage advocates in California lost all credibility after they engaged in character assassination against Prop 8 (making marriage between one man and one woman) supporters after it passed?Larry straw men might work on your blog that no one visits but won't here. The individual was calling for making the relationships illegal - if 66% support equal marriage rights, even if not by name, what % think the relationships should be illegal? Yes, full marriage equality is a more contentious issue but wanting to make homosexuality illegal? That's a desire out there in with making a white homeland in Idaho.

    But, I have not seen you define what a right is. How does one evaluate a claim to know it is a right? What makes a right fundamental and inalienable?All of the derive from your natural biology, or the Creator or 'Nature's God' as Jefferson put it. We have a right to life because we live, we have a right to liberty because we have free will, have rights that allow our pursuit of happiness because we have a need to be happy. One of those most obviously biological drives is our homo sapiens ability to pair-bond with another adult. Its natural, its beneficial, and its good for the group as well as the individual. Yes marriage is a fundamental right that we all have.

    Many courts have recognized that marriage is between opposite genders and yet you have don’t believe they are correct.Yes there are courts that don't really think about what they rule, but that's immaterial - the right to marry has been recognized so the only issue is why are some citizen's biologically based right being recognized and some are not? Its good that you mentioned Dred Scott for it was just the idea that some people have different rights that dovetails perfectly with this situation. Eventually equal rights for all will be the standard, Dred Scott equivalent rulings not withstanding.

    Human biology clearly shows that human sexual nature is designed to bring male and female together in a sexual union that their sexual organs are designed for and to which can clearly lead to offspring.Obviously false - there is no 'designed' there is just what's is - and that is that adults can pair-bond via the same natural mechanisms no matter what their gender combination is. That many of these pair-bondings lead to offspring is great, that they all must is obviously untrue. Non-procreative married couples of either gender combination still derive the biological benefits of that union, and again there are 8x as many non-procreated opposite gender couples as there are same gender ones - why are some allowed license to the civil contract in support of this and some are not?

    Please tell us the biological experiment that shows two men or two women are designed sexually for each other. There is none - the error you are making is the historic error - that everything has 'a purpose' when we now know that everything has many functions. Breeding is ONE function of pair bonding but if that was its only function there would be no need to be having sex as often as we do. You are thinking one function is 'the purpose' and hence your error.

    ReplyDelete
  32. This issue is the only compelling interest justifying government intervention. Dan how can you say that when its so obviously untrue - about 50% of contracts currently licensed go to a couple that are not going to 'procreate' together, about 50% of children are being raised this moment by other than their 2 biological parents - the real world gives lie to your claim. If this was what licensing the contract was about it wouldn't miss the target by such a wide margin.

    There is NO indication that the government need 'intervene' as far as procreation goes - people will do it just fine with or without government intervention. The compelling interest for the government here in the US is to be true to our founding ideals -that all citizens have a right to be treated equally by government, if it licenses a contract in support of marriage, all citizens should have reasonable license to marry it, both those that marry men and those that marry women.

    The civil marriage contract is not a gift, its not a reward, its a legal tool to help make married couples and their families lives better and by extensions make the the society and state better too. And it does so regardless if the contract cosignees personally breed, it does so whether they are raising children, it does so regardless of their gender combination.

    Again, equal government access, equal rights, marriage equality.

    ReplyDelete
  33. It's not in anyone's best interest
    to license homosexual relationships. To do so would only encourage them to go against
    the God of heaven and earth who gave them the breath of life from
    the beginning, sustained them by his grace and mercy, and offered to them his gift of eternal life through faith and obedience that is in Jesus.

    It's not in anyone's best interest
    to build anything on sinking sand,
    nor to offer building permits on such material. There will be so many problems later on that will need to be fixed and it will be found out that the decision was
    entirely wrong.

    The thing should be forever banned. In fact it will be. Homosexuality has no part in the future heaven and earth.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Marriage WILL become a decision to stay together as long as two people love each other or as long as it is to their mutual benefit." (EMPHASIS ADDED)

    The Senator has this wrong. This has been the legal policy toward marriage in WA State since 1973.

    God hates Divorce (since 1973 called "dissolution", an intended paradigm shift...)!

    See www.marriagedivorce.com

    ReplyDelete
  35. The Bush GOP government interfered with the Teri Schavio case.

    GO FIGURE!!!

    ReplyDelete
  36. This whole thing is ridiculous and ignorant. I am so so sorry that the union of a same sex couple in marriage affects your life. It must have caused you so much grief.
    ='(

    ReplyDelete
  37. 1:58
    Trust me, its' causing the heavenly hosts with God grief! Thus, we 'grief' with God, with this deviant behaviours movement, that you all are pushing on us today! So contray to God's way--of one man/on woman relationships!

    ReplyDelete

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