Friday, May 15, 2009

Marriage on Trial: The Case for Marriage

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Paid for by Faith and Freedom PAC.

I am told that Governor Gregoire has scheduled the signing of SB 5688 for Monday. I am also told that the sponsors of the bill will join her in celebration. Once the bill is signed, the Secretary of State will authorize and release us to begin gathering signatures for Referendum 71. I am told this could take a few days as well. It appears that when we are finally able to go on the referendum, we will likely have only about 60 days remaining to collect the signatures. Many are declaring our defeat before we begin. Some who should be supporting are sitting it out.
We believe in miracles. We also believe in the people who stand for marriage. Together, with God's help, we believe we can get this referendum on the ballot. To say we need your support and help would be an understatement. We will keep you updated.

Marriage on Trial: The Case for Marriage

Over the next few weeks I will take a few days to address some of the questions and charges that are raised by those who want to redefine marriage.

The primary source for my comments will be taken from a book titled, "Marriage On Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting," written by Glenn T. Stanton and Dr. Bill Maier. You can buy it from Amazon for $10.20 and yes, if you buy it through our website Faith and Freedom Foundation will receive between 4% and 8% on your purchase. (Click here for details). If not through us, please buy the book somewhere. Every family that cares about marriage and family and its future, should have this book in their home. Particularly in these days when marriage is under such assault. Every person of faith should read it--parent and child.

One of the questions often raised by those who want to redefine marriage is, "If heterosexuals can fall in love and form committed relationships called marriage, why can't we?" Or, "If heterosexuals gain access to legal, tax and health benefits with their marriages, why can't homosexuals have access to these same benefits when they commit themselves to one another?"

Marriage equality.

Here's something to consider.

I watched as homosexual couples brought their children into the hearings on SB 5688 to testify and help make the case for same-sex parenting. The adults and children argued that kids need loving parents and two men or two women can love and care for a child as well as a mother and a father can. They often point to the failures in marriage as reason to redefine it.

Here's the problem with that.

These arguments exclusively serve the interests of those making the argument. They are never about serving the common good.

Marriage is never only about the couple. It is always about the larger community. Marriage is an agreement between a couple and the larger society. Concern for the good of all society is the primary reason social institutions such as churches and governments get involved at all.

In the great debate about marriage we seem to have forgotten that marriage is not just about benefits for the couple. It always includes concern for the next generation.

Stanton and Maier expand on this a great deal and outline why every society needs marriage and how it contributes to the greater good. Among other things, they say the institution of marriage:

*Regulates sexuality, keeping it confined to committed, loving exclusive relationships.
*Socializes men, channeling their sexuality and masculine energy in community-building ways.
*Protects women from being exploited from men.
*Ensures that children grow up with a biologically connected mother and father.

The failure of some marriages is not a legitimate argument to redefine and deconstruct marriage.

The institution of marriage serves these purposes in all known human civilizations and it does so because it brings men and women together in permanent, exclusive relationships.

Same-sex marriage is incapable of doing any of these things.

Stanton and Maier conclude, there is simply no social need for same-sex "marriage". But all societies need what they call natural marriage.

Consider this.

Could society be harmed by too much same-sex "marriage"? Of course, if all or a majority of "marriages" were same-sex, a society would disappear.

On the other hand, is too much natural marriage ever harmful? No. Actually, too little natural marriage can be harmful.

Natural marriage cannot be regarded as "equal" in social value and benefit. Society needs one, but does not need the other.

"Marriage equality" cannot be achieved by simply redefining or deconstructing natural marriage.

SB 5688 is not about benefits or children, it is the final incremental step to redefining marriage. If you are unsure about the issue of defending marriage, please consider these things.

To those in the faith community who have been persuaded to sit this out and not support the defense of marriage for whatever reason, please reconsider.

If you have been led away from supporting Referendum 71 because of political calculations and economic considerations, please reconsider.

We cannot wait two years to address the deconstruction of marriage.

Consider this:

"If you wait for perfect conditions, you will never get anything done."

"God's ways are as mysterious as the pathway of the wind, and the manner in which a human spirit is infused into the body of a baby while it is yet in its mother's womb." Ecclesiastes 11:4-6 Living Bible.

Strategy is a good and wise action. Being faithful in standing for righteousness and righteous purposes and principles is the higher calling.

There is a time for everything and this is the time to defend marriage.

Thank you for standing with us.

God bless you.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.


  1. I just want to thank you guys for attacking my community. By doing so you have bought us together. We have never been stronger and I know in my heart as God is my witness that you will not collect enough signatures to get ref 71 on the ballot. Why? Because God hates hate. And you, Gary, represent hate.

  2. Among other things, they say the institution of marriage:'Among other things' indeed. What are some of those other things?

    For the individual, married citizens are happier & healthier as a rule, regardless of the gender of their spouse. Whether this is solely due to having a personal advocate and supporter, biological natural marriage factors, or a combination of both is unclear but they exist for all married couples, same gender or opposite.

    For their families it allows for a stable child rearing environment. Child rearing experts agree that this is the primary factor needed in the good upbringing of a child. A commitment to marriage enhances this regardless of the gender combination of the parents.

    For society it makes a more stable economic unit and puts an economic buffer between the obligations of the state to the citizen, their spouse is placed between the two. Because of this married citizens take less from the state than a single one, and give more back. It is to the society's economic benefit to have as many of its citizens married as it can, regardless of the gender of their spouse.

    As to your assertions:

    *Regulates sexuality, keeping it confined to committed, loving exclusive relationships.Well of course marriage does not confine sexuality, but it does regulate it to an extent, but it does that no matter what the gender combination of the couple - same gender relationships are no less potentially 'loving and exclusive' than opposite gender ones.

    *Socializes men, channeling their sexuality and masculine energy in community-building ways.More than that it socializes both genders, and has these benefits regardless of the gender of their spouses.

    *Protects women from being exploited from men.As if you've never seen men & women exploited by both men or women,

    *Ensures that children grow up with a biologically connected mother and father.Which of course it doesn't. Almost half of all children being raised today are not being raised by both their biological parents. Restricting the civil contract to only those that are is short sighted and loses track of what the civil contract is - a set of governmental tools to make married citizens and their families better: more lasting, more defined, more permanent.

    The institution of marriage serves these purposes in all known human civilizations and it does so because it brings men and women together in permanent, exclusive relationships.Yes it does as it does for men & men and women & women. One need look no further than this continent to see an entire aboriginal civilization that had no problem with men taking a man as a spouse.

    Same-sex marriage is incapable of doing any of these things.Untrue. The only aspect that is the one for a child being raised by biological parents but that has never been a criteria for marriage, and only the most hard hearted would think that a naturally married couple shouldn't be allowed to license the civil contract because their children are not biologically their own.

    Could society be harmed by too much same-sex "marriage"? Of course, if all or a majority of "marriages" were same-sex, a society would disappear.On the other hand, is too much natural marriage ever harmful? No. Actually, too little natural marriage can be harmful.Ah a bad application of Kant's Categorical imperatives first formulations. In social creatures rarely is it desirable for all members to do the same things. In the first case you are talking about something that just isn't going to happen, only 2% of the population is self-identifiying gay; doesn't matter if you love em or hate em, that's about how many are going to be that way. And the second, you have no way to know what effect the ability for adults of the same gender to naturally marry has affected our development as a species and culture. Its easy to say 'everyone should marry an opposite gender spouse' but to change humanity so that would be the only natural outcome might require removal of things that would prevent use from building a civilization at all. The thread of same gender attraction and natural marriage is a long one that goes back to the start of the tapestry that is humanity - pretending you could just remove it and not end up with a massive pile of threads is the real logical error.

    There is a time for everything and this is the time to defend marriage.More people marrying isn't an attack, being able to hold marriage up as a gold standard isn't an attack, letting all naturally married citizens have an opportunity to license their marriage with the state to make it better for them, their families, and the state isn't an attack.

    Are your neighbors, even your gay neighbors, better off married or single? That is the question you need to be asking and the answer is obvious.

  3. Gary, once again you make a strong argument for the benefits of marriage, both for gay marriage and traditional marriage.

    And once again, you fail to demonstrate any actual harm in allowing gays to enjoy the stability, security, and happiness of marriage. Real life experience has shown that gay marriage doesn't produce any of the problems you've predicted. Yet you persist.

    I really believe your opposition is because you won't value your own marriage as much if it's something gays can have to. Kind of like a guy who loves his new sports car, until he sees a Hispanic driving one.

    It's just not the same if those kind of people can have it too, now is it?

  4. OK, this is a relatively simple matter. God is God. We, who claim His Name, are the crux of the matter... And, "We" have already redefined marriage...! How you say? "We" allowed our laws (1973 in WA, and all states by 1985 or so...) to reflect marriage beyond what the God of the Universe said it is. A lifelong union--they are never again two (i.e. NO "dissolution" occurs in God's economy!), but are ONE until a husband/wife should die! How many of "us" are in relationships that "we" define as "marriage" while the "spouse of our youth" is still breathing...? God has clearly called this adultery. And adultery is no different a sin than homosexuality in its eternal consequences. I just bought John Piper's latest book ("This Momentary Marriage", 2009) and it seems very timely (long overdue really...) on these matters. I agree with all I have read so far. I fear that his conclusion though might add to the compromise that slipped into the Church through Erasmus and others during the reformation period. (See the Westminster confession on this matter for further evidence of how "we", His Church--and bride!--have gone astray...) We have bought into the changes in terms that have crept in... Such as referring to a marriage as "dead". Wrong, people die!, physically!, marriage is until one or both stop breathing not until one decides their spouse is "spiritually" dead! Or calling a separated couple as having "dissolved" the marriage... Wrong!, if a "divorce" occurs they are to either remain divorced or be reconciled to their spouse (for as long as they shall live)...! And as God is a God of reconciliation, and as He has given us a ministry of (and His Word of) reconciliation, this is clearly, always, His will...! IF YOU ARE IN A RELATIONSHIP AND HAVE A LIVING, PRE-EXISTANT, SPOUSE, YOU ARE IN ADULTERY...!!! REPENT! It is "We" who must repent and turn FROM "Our" wicked ways if we expect God to hear and heal our land... May God have mercy on "us" and grant US Repentance.

  5. Yes, GOD hates... GOD HATES DIVORCE...! (And to stop the persistent rumour or misinterpretation of this "hatred", it is not a mere kind of, "oh, I hate it when that happens" kind of hate, NO!, But it is the strongest Hatred, the God of the Universe has. (Check the Greek in the Septuagint version for clarification of the verse referred to...)

  6. Wow--talk about being on the defensive here!? whew!

    It's sad, I agree, that we cannot agree. However, many of us have a burden for our authentic marriages, and a burden for those who we feel are 'duped' in a lifestyle that can be 'changed' and allow God's way of family and couples. Somehow there can be respect, as there has been up until now. One has the choice of lifestyle,yes, but, legally, one man and one women is the only 'marriage' that has been accepted by God's standards, and society! Needs to 'stay' this way. We have lived in peace up until now, and we can do so again! The gay commuity have MANY more 'rights' as single people,then they have in the past! Surely this is appreciated?

  7. WE need to stop being guided by orgasm and turn to the Creator's Word, His Word is Truth! (Let all men [or women...] be called a liar...!). To be clear, God (Jesus) created sex only for marriage. And Marriage is ONLY 1 man and 1 woman, who are 1 at the stating of the vows--til death ALONE they are parted. YES, 50% OF THOSE CLAIMING TO BE CHRISTIAN ARE IN PERSISTENT, ONGOING ADULTERY...! Shame on US! WE MUST REPENT (admit it and QUIT it)...!

  8. The gay commuity have MANY more 'rights' as single people,then they have in the past! Surely this is appreciated?Of course, equal rights would be great - but ignoring that gay people marry just the same as straight ones is not appreciated and not dealing with the reality of the situation.

    If your sect think that your members can only marry someone of an opposite gender (or any other criteria you want) then go for it. But I am not a follower of your religion and so that had no bearing on my marriage.

    We live in a country that was unique at its inception, one where the idea of equal rights for all citizens and a government that existed to serve the people, not the people the government.

    If the state is going to license a totally secular civil contract in support of marriage it needs to be available to all married citizens. If you consider marriage a religious concept there are plenty of churches that marry same gender couples. If you are like me and consider it a natural biological right, people naturally marry same gendered spouses just like they do opposite gender ones.

    So the choices are to be true to our founding principles and allow all to make their own choices for themselves in this area, or have the government treat married citizens differently solely upon the gender of their spouse.

    Sorry to be so uppity but equal rights is one of the primary qualities of being Americans - when in doubt equality is always the default decision.

  9. So just where does it end? Next people will want to wed their pets, have more than one spouse, marry within the family, and on and on and on. The possibilities are endless, all under the guise of "rights". When asked for a precedent, the finger will be pointed at gay marriage, which serves no use to society, other than to fill an agenda.

  10. Whenever someone stands on an argument that is against the things of God, suggesting something contrary to his will as if it is something honorable or good, and finds fault with those
    who are in a good institution or cause, it is often an attempt to
    justify themselves or the argument
    they make. Self-justification is a fault and a work of evil that
    will not stand before the throne of God, a place we all should be
    getting ourselves ready to stand before for we know not when that day shall be nor how many days we
    have left to live. The only justification God has provided is
    that which Jesus has made for us by the sacrifice of himself, and in the receiving of that and the putting on of it, there is no pointing to anyone but him who gave his own blood for us and his
    righteousness for our covering and

  11. …which serves no use to society, other than to fill an agenda.Fortunately we live in America where the government exists to serve the citizens, not the citizens the government. And, of course, marriage benefits society regardless of the gender combination of the spouse - on pure economics alone it is a married couple is more economically beneficial to society than two single people.

    As to your other 'slippery slope' arguments they all have different justifications than marriage equality, each one of those doesn't lead to the others. They are just the same tired old red herrings trotted out - the problem is marriage equality has existed for some time now and these things have not taken place as a result. You can only cry 'wolf' for so long before no one listens anymore...

  12. Ohstur, would you answer anonymous
    5:31 of the situations of plural marriages, marriages within the family, etc.? There are now 'illegal' plural marriages. Do you feel this will confuse the children, seeing these different 'families','plural, withing the family, etc? I do! Thus, our society must keep the 'standard' one man/one women authentic marriages. If others want to live 'differently', they can do so, but ONLY within the law! Live and let live, yes, but not with the attempt to change society, and yes, God's ways, in the meantime! NO--we must prevent other scenarios of 'couples' that would confuse and yes cause harm to our future generations!

  13. Those who support gay marriage
    misrepresent God and the mystery
    of Christ.

  14. Ohstur, would you answer anonymous
    5:31 of the situations of plural marriages, marriages within the family, etc.? There are now 'illegal' plural marriages.
    There always has been. Shoot I know the second wife of an islamic man right here in Washington state. (and yes he has a civil license with this first wife) And did you know that Washington is actually in the minority of states who doesn't allow first cousins to marry? And not to worry about true in family incest - that can't make an equality claim, it can't make a lack of license claim and its trivial to make a hazard argument, the area that your side fails in the attempt over and over; its hard to convince people that 2 of age unrelated citizens licensing their marriage is wonderful or horrible just because one person's gender has flipped. Allowing marriage equality won't open the door to incest or plural marriages any more than interracial marriages or no fault divorce did.

    [just an aside, the Supreme Court already ruled over 100 years ago on biblical/mormon/middle eastern polygyny where just the man can have multiple marriage contracts - you can't do it because it would give the men special rights that the women didn't have -marriage equality is for women too . if we ever did have legal polygamy it would be true polygamy where the woman can have as many licenses as she wants too, just like the man. Think about it - you think any traditional Mormon or Muslim male is going to enter a contract where his wives can sue him for divorce or can take on a new husband without his ok? This concern is a fantasy - there will be no legal polygamy in the US. Now some places have 'decriminalized it' so the women arent risking sending their husband to jail when they report spousal abuse, but its a common-law 'live and let live' situation and is the most we would ever have and the most they would ever want - well the men anyway]

    Do you feel this will confuse the children, seeing these different 'families','plural, withing the family, etc? I do! Fortunately kids aren't confused by most new things - you just tell them some people are like that, you're like this, tell them why you like your way better and they will say 'oh ok'.

    I mean how hard is it to say 'Some mommies marry daddies and few marry mommies'? You are going to have to tell them something like that anyway for any gay couples with students in their classes. You don't think their kid is going to call them anything but some variant of 'mom or dad' do you?

    Withholding access to a civil contract doesn't stop their marriage, it just hurts them and their family by denying them the legal framework for strengthening that marriage the contract provides.

    Again, even Gary's poll showed that 52% of those under 56 y/o support marriage equality in Washington state right now!

    Oh and a conservative law blog did an analysis of gay rights polling data from Gallup through the years - it seems these discussions [b]are[/b] pointless because people's minds are made up - as you move through the years you can see the blips up remain in their aging polling group - so don't hope that 'those yungin's will come to their sense's - marriage equality is just down the road and you are just going to have to deal.

  15. Totally off the subject, Gary, can we get referendums for signatures before we can get signatures? Can you print them up now, or do you have to wait on that?
    I am ready to get out and start getting signatures!
    Thank you for allowing us this chance to have our voice be heard, because we are currently being drowned out in the national media.

  16. Petitions can't be printed until we are assured there isn't a change to the ballot title.

    For a petition to be valid it has to have a ballot title created by the Attorney General. He said he would release the title after the Governor signs the bill.

    However, then the ballot title created can be challenge in court for up to 5 days. So we can risk wasting the precious money we have for petitions and hope the title announced isn't changed or we will have to wait until the 5 day filing period expires and then print them.

    I'd rather not lose money printing something that might not be valid.....our resources are precious on this one.

    So we can't get signatures for at least another week - maybe even a little more than that.

  17. Hi,in a way all this argument on marriage is theoretical-God has ordained when the end of days will be-and they are now ! All this needs to take place before Jesus comes back !


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