Monday, June 29, 2009

People Pushing Back on Homosexual Marriage

R-71 UPDATE: We are receiving some very good reports from people who are gathering signatures. If you have had a good experience, please share it with us so we can pass it on to others who are in the trenches.

We received the following message:

"From Whidbey Island...The first three pastors I approached...said, "yes, we will stand on the Truth" (E.V.Free3, Coupeville Community Bible, and Living Hope,Foursquare) I actually attended Living Hope last week and you had to stand in line to get out of the church because the sign up table was at the door.As to the first comment above,,,anyone wanting to sign a petition...find a Godly church!"

To share your story, click here and add a comment!

_____________________

People Pushing Back on Homosexual Marriage

A recent CBS/New York Times poll shows that support for same-sex marriage has declined by 9 percentage points within the past 60 days.

CBS is, of course, trying to minimize the decline in support by saying, "Support for same-sex marriage has declined slightly from two months ago."

Is 9 percentage points a slight decline? In 60 days? I think that is more than "slight".

We have been saying that the more people get to know the nature and tone of the homosexual marriage agenda and it's effect on the culture, the more they will begin to push back and reevaluate what they really believe about natural marriage. I believe that is reflected in these numbers.

The poll found only 33% favor homosexual marriage, down from 42% in April.

Jenny Tyree from Focus on the Family, told ONENEWSNOW she thinks these numbers reflect a bit of a backlash against the 5 states whose legislative bodies have redefined marriage recently.

She also said she thinks, "Americans really saw the intolerance that occurred after the Proposition 8 vote back in November."

I agree. The intolerance continues. You should see the content of some of the messages sent to myself and others leading Referendum 71. It's so vile, it's stunning.

Faith and Freedom hired Elway polls to take a survey of Washington voters regarding homosexual marriage at the beginning of this year. While Washington State does not reflect the national polls, Elway still found that Washington rejects homosexual marriage.

The State Legislature has given homosexual marriage to the state by passing SB 5688, refusing both Senator Swecker's appeal to refer the matter to the voters and the same appeal from Representative Matt Shea.

Referendum 71 will allow the people of the state to express their will regarding marriage. The fight to keep it from a vote of the people is fierce, however there is an army of people circulating petitions in churches and communities across the state.

If you have not yet signed a petition, please contact us. We will send you one. If you can circulate one or more in your church and community, please do so.

Thank you and God bless you. Thank you for your financial support.

_________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

17 comments:

  1. I will never understand how you manage to frame yourself as the victim, when it is our families, and our lives that our under attack.

    If you get your way, police officers who are killed in the line of duty will not be able to pass their benefits onto their families.

    Firefighters who are killed in the line of duty will leave their families in financial ruin.

    Pension benefits that people work their entire careers to earn will vanish.

    Gary frames himself as a victim to win you sympathy, but he is really a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is attacking my family, and I will never understand why.

    Hate is ugly Gary. Jesus is love.

    ReplyDelete
  2. On the other side is that I have not read of one Republican County Organization through out the state that is taking this issue on . My local republican chapter has not mentioned a word about it.

    Taking names on a political petition in a church is even considered by some to be against their personal understanding of the Gospel , thus even limiting those who may have signed it . I am sure that is few in number though .

    I would have liked a chance to vote on this myself, but it does not appear to be something that will happen.

    ------ Mick

    ReplyDelete
  3. What happened at Phillip's trial? Does he still have a job?

    ReplyDelete
  4. You claim the fight to keep Ref 71 from the ballot is "fierce", yet you cite not a single example of this fight. The only challenge filed to the ballot title, delaying the start of signature gathering was filed by Larry Stickney, and then dropped.

    Just how is this "fierce" fight to keep Ref 71 off the ballot being fought.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 10:14 What you don't seem to understand is that some of us view the gay community as a group of SINGLE people, who choose to have same sex roommates/companions. This is NOT hate. This is standing up for God's prinicples of one man/one women marraiges/couples, if u will. I feel to 'go back' as we use to be, and just live in peace with each other, and not change the laws, as the gay commuity wants to do. I had friends in Bible college that we 'suspect' chose this life style. What was done about it? NOTHING! It was their 'business' and no laws were being cosidered to 'change' as it is today! HAte? hardly, I had good freinds in BIBILE college, and high school, whom were neat gals, who chose 'discretly' this lifestyle, but did NOT get 'into our faces'. We respected each other!

    ReplyDelete
  6. 9:24

    Why don't you 'discreetly' choose your religion and not make everyone else live it? Please understand, I don't hate you for your religion, this is just standing up for the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I have had good friends who discretely lived a religious lifestyle but did not 'get into our faces'. We respected each other!

    ReplyDelete
  7. lol--talk about twisting my words!
    My 'religion' as you call it, is actually 'God's princples! I have a 'faith'--NOT a religion. A big difference! I know this maybe hard for you, but we do 'care' for those 'caught up'up in this 'lifestyle' that is contrary to the way God set up marriages/couples--only between a man and a women! As for the 'bill of rights', look it up, our forefathers 'expected' us to stay within God's basic principles, as that is what are constitution was BUILT on, and the signers have made statments comfirming this fact! Tis sad our 'communication' cannot be met, but, we do care and pray constantly for 'deliverance' from the deviant lifestyle that many unfortunately are caught up in now days! Many have left this lifestyle however-PTL! PRaying for the others! WE CARE!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm glad you had a 'lol'. So my question is restated, why don't you discreetly choose your 'faith' and not make everyone else live it?

    Regarding the Bill of Rights and Constitution, I have looked it up. There are a lot of varying opinions about what the founders thought - but there is no argument about what they they actually wrote into the Bill of Rights and Constitution. There is no reference to your god in either.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If someone does not believe in your God, why should this person have to follow your God's version of marriage?

    ReplyDelete
  10. If you looked further, to the founders statements that they made after writing the constitution, they consistently stated that the constitution was 'founded' on God's basic principles, and each made statements the importance of keeping within God's principles, or this nation will not survive!

    ReplyDelete
  11. If you looked further, to the founders statements that they made after writing the constitution, they consistently stated that the constitution was 'founded' on God's basic principles

    You mean 'love your neighbor', compassion, humility honesty, forgiveness, those principles? The ones you are being asked to act against by attacking your fellow's citizens equal rights under false pretenses?

    It is extremely hypocritical of anyone supporting R-71 to say they are following 'God's basic principles'.

    But then like most of my recent posts its unlikely this will be allowed through because nothing about the lie that is R-71 must ever be revealed, right Gary?

    ReplyDelete
  12. 10:24

    If this was their intent, why didn't they mention God anywhere in the Constitution? Oversight? Poor attention to detail?

    The fact is, there was a lot of debate about it and it is an intentionally secular document.

    You still haven't explained why others should have to live by your god's rules.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "It is extremely hypocritical of anyone supporting R-71 to say they are following 'God's basic principles'."

    That is not true at all . One could be for or against this ballot for various reasons, religious or secular from both sides of the fence. You clearly have not looked at both sides if you believe that , as many who converse have not in my opinion.


    Just as one could be against allowing single people to obtain marriage benefits that our society has chosen to give to domestic partnerships . Which from what i understand this bill does. My friends I golf with say they will obtain the benefits of the domestic partnerships , medical etc , but hey do not wish to commit to marriage . I totally understand their points , good ones in some ways, I just disagree with the long range effects on all of us. I hope I am wrong . Honestly do.


    One reason they gave was the marriage tax , " It thought that had been done away with" But they say they will pay more income tax if they are married. So besides the homosexual issue , I would be inclined to vote no on that premise alone . Single people wanting domestic benefits yet not wanting to commit to marriage . I actually thought that was an insult to the homosexual commitment talking point , that here are hetrosexuals wanting to take advantage of the benefits but not the commitment aspect . I have not been asked to march in a gay parade as of late , so I guess not.


    Also do away with the fact married people pay more income tax if combining incomes , it should be the same , or from my world view even lower .




    The difference of course they know I don't hate them , they know I would do for them a favor say if they asked it of me . You however do not . But because of hypcracy, hatred , or whatever the merits of a real debate on a society providing benefits to the prime relationship that they feel best suited for bringing the newest genertion into society has lost its meaning . This realy is not a religious arguemnt , the morality I agree does support the Bibical understanding that homosexual sex is a negative.

    Also the fact we are becoming a more socialized nation makes special benefits say for married couples less important , since we are getting many of theose beneifts for just living in the United States anyway .

    Mick

    ReplyDelete
  14. That is not true at all. One could be for or against this ballot for various reasons, religious or secular from both sides of the fence.
    Of course they could Mick, I was only talking about those using the excuse of 'Christian Principles' the topic of discussion.

    You clearly have not looked at both sides if you believe that , as many who converse have not in my opinion.
    I've looked at all sides of this issue.

    Just as one could be against allowing single people to obtain marriage benefits that our society has chosen to give to domestic partnerships. Which from what i understand this bill does.

    Which of course it doesn't. All participants will be in domestic partnerships, i.e. none of them single, and they will only get domestic partnership benefits, not marriage benefits.

    My friends I golf with say they will obtain the benefits of the domestic partnerships , medical etc , but hey do not wish to commit to marriage.
    Which shows a pretty basic lack of understanding of what this bill does. It makes the state legal features of domestic partnerships and the civil marriage contract exactly the same.

    One reason they gave was the marriage tax , " It thought that had been done away with" But they say they will pay more income tax if they are married.
    Only if they file together. They always have a choice - file jointly or file separately - a smart person would file the way that they pay less tax. The so called 'marriage penalty' is only taken by choice by those that file a joint return when they could have saved money by filing separately. The 'penalty' derives from tax codes that would allow two spouses of widely different income levels such as a working husband and a stay at home mom to file jointly so that they would pay LESS tax than they would separately. It makes no sense for spouses making equal income to file jointly - just pretend they have a domestic partnership and act accordingly - file separately.

    Single people wanting domestic benefits yet not wanting to commit to marriage.
    Mick they aren't single if they are in a civil marriage contract or a domestic partnership - there is no such thing as a 'single' married or partnered person. The idea of 'single' people being married or in a domestic partnership makes no sense - by simple contract law its impossible to be both at the same time.

    Also the fact we are becoming a more socialized nation makes special benefits say for married couples less important
    I will comment on this just because of the word 'benefits' as if licensing either contract gives you things and doesn't require things from you - that is incorrect. There are many responsibilities, both to the spouse, the family, and the state that are taken on with either of these contracts too. You get arrested and need a lawyer who pays for him? You if you can afford it, your spouse if they can afford it, and only finally the state. You do something crazy at a SeaHawks game and they put you in the hospital for observation for a few days - they send the bill to your spouse. With this bill all the COSTS of being licensed with the state are incurred too.

    The 'benefits' of either contract is it standardizes the relationship - many aspects become known quantities the instant the contract is in force. The 'benefits' of a contractual relationship is for both the cosigners and the state as it tells all parties what they can expect from the others. A few might make you eligible for 'benefits', some make you responsible for 'debts', and most don't really do anything but provide perfunctory answers as to 'how will this work between the 3 of us?'

    And still - those who embrace the Christian principles of our forefathers would be for equal rights and responsibilities and against R-71.

    ReplyDelete
  15. IT'a not equal to have marriages redefined--and that is what you are asking! It' just not logical. You cannot have children 'naturally'. It's sad, but true, our differences will never be compromised, although us with faith pray for undertanding of God's principles, that we all need to live by!

    ReplyDelete
  16. IT'a not equal to have marriages redefined--and that is what you are asking!
    Not in Washington state - as far as the state is concerned the legal term 'marriage' is reserved for opposite gender couples only. That was supposed to deal with the whining from the 'redefine' crowd. But they were, as usual, disingenuous, and not being true to 'God's Principles' at all.

    Of course it is ridiculous that the state needs to have 2 separate contracts for citizens who supposedly have an equal right to a spouse but again, that is what your side insisted on and even when you got what you asked for you still want to deprive your fellow citizens of equal rights under any contract name.

    This isn't about marriage, this is about your desire to have the state ignore some couples who are just as 'married' to each other as you are. It's spite, mean-spirited, and exactly the kind of attitude Jesus was talking about when he spoke against the 'hearts like ancient crypts' of the fundamentalist pedantic rule followers of his time.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "If someone does not believe in your God, why should this person have to follow your God's version of marriage?"

    ehhh , they don't now .
    Marriage Laws in this nation are not Bibi cal , they however can be said come from a Judeo Christian ethic. Would be interesting to see how marriage laws are say in China or another non Christian nation .





    Marriage laws now that are said to support Christian Scripture is just a made up argument . Read the scriptures in the new testament and you will see the present no fault divorce, etc all encompass a very secularized view of marriage and those rights and obligations in marriage are now legally supported by secularized rcws .

    Mick

    ReplyDelete

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