Monday, June 15, 2009

Planned Parenthood Joins Homosexual Activists to Defeat R-71

Planned Parenthood published an email message on Saturday, the 13th, announcing they were joining homosexual activists to defeat Referendum 71.

They extolled SB 5688 as a civil rights victory, then said, "Unfortunately, a small, but vocal group of opponents are seeking to place a referendum---Referendum 71---on the ballot to repeal this law."

I would not characterize those who support Referendum 71 as small or necessarily vocal. I would describe them as significant in number and resolute in their convictions and beliefs concerning marriage and family.

I was personally out Saturday helping deliver petitions. The picture is representative as to what is happening all across the state. People meeting in parking lots, homes, offices and churches---distributing petitions. Pictured is Rick with Faith and Freedom delivering petitions to Joe in the Sumner-Puyallup area on Saturday.

There have been some instances where petition gatherers have been confronted, however there seems to be a growing fear among the SB 5688 supporters.

Two women gathering signatures on Saturday in front of the West Side Olympia Top---with permission---were confronted by a lesbian couple who created a scene, then complained to the store, which resulted in the women being asked to leave.

However, it is a story out of Spokane that is most telling. KXLY did a fairly extensive story on Friday of a small group---I'm told there were less than 12 people---who were asking people to decline to sign Referendum 71. (Article).

The event was organized by high school student Jack Sorensen. He told KXLY they were trying to,"Reach voters before R-71 supporters do."

He explained, "Many organizations in Washington fear gay rights legislation won't stand up against Washington voters and we're trying to keep it off the ballot."

I believe he is right. Those who are trying to advance the homosexual agenda, have used every political strategy to undermine our efforts to even get to where we could begin gathering signatures.

Senator Ed Murray told the Seattle press that getting to SB 5688 was part of a long term strategy of incrementalism, with the final and next step being homosexual marriage.

They do not want homosexual marriage before the people for a vote.

Their greatest fear, as revealed by a high school student, is that the people will have a voice in legislation that will, for generations, impact the state fiscally and culturally.

The Elway Poll survey taken for Faith and Freedom in January indicate voters will reject this legislation. (Elway Poll)

Thank you for all your hard work. Do not grow weary in well doing. Thank you for your financial support.

______________

Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom


Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

20 comments:

  1. Gary, the duplicity of your efforts are in bold face type at the top of these petitions you've crafted. Its not about marriage, it won't even get rid of domestic partnerships.

    Why not just say it will stop the clubbing of baby seals if you are going to lie about what your referendum does?

    Your Elway poll has nothing to do with domestic partnerships, as you know.

    Again, that you would bear false witness with the printing of each of these petitions shows where your true allegiances lie.

    What more is there to say? You might get enough signatures with lies, but I don't think you will get enough votes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Heavenly Father,
    I ask your divine protection over signature gathers and signature signers. I pray you will open the blind eyes and stopped ears. I ask you will uncover lies. We know God you created Adam and Eve. We know you love those who sin, but you hate sin itself. Turn the hearts of those who oppose traditional marriage so they will see truth. In Jesus' name, Amen

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you for your blog. I am receiving it via e-mail and am encouraged by your hard work and the work of others in supporting R-71.

    I have posted the Spokane article to Newsvine with a comment in support of OUR rights not to have a gay marriage state. I expect it will initiate a firestorm of controversy.

    I was interested to see the poll you posted. In my opinion, 43% FOR GAY Marriage is still way too high! We need to educate our neighbors - with LOVE.

    I hope you will be encouraged. I got nearly 90 signatures myself yesterday in a total of about 45 minutes. I will be doing the same today. Go Team!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Question: Since you are portraying referendum 71 as a battle over same-sex marriage, can we assume that, if you lose at the ballot box, the will of the people is clear, and you will not impede the Legislature should it choose to legalize same-sex marriages?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oshtur, it's not about 'domestic partnerships', it's about 'authentic marriages'= one man/one women legal marriages!
    The laws should not change, as this is about God's 'laws' also, as well as 'mans' earthly laws!'

    ReplyDelete
  6. 11:35 AM.

    1. Uncovering lies would not bode well for you side, since they are lying right on the petitions themselves.

    2.I am not aware of anyone, who opposes so-called traditional marriage. Those, who you oppose, just seek marriage equality with same-sex civil marriage rights, they are not trying to curtail anyone's rights - that's what the backers of Ref 71 are attempting.

    John Colgan
    Seattle

    ReplyDelete
  7. it's about 'authentic marriages'= one man/one women legal marriages!
    No referendum 71 is about preventing just some of the features of the domestic partnership legislation from taking effect - succeed or fail it doesn't prevent domestic partnerships and has absolutely nothing to do with marriage at all.

    ReplyDelete
  8. oh but Oshtur, you know very well that this is part of the agenda for gay marriages in our state. Your Senator Murray keeps stating this, and is determined to make it so. This bill we are objecting to is a stepping stone to make our DOMA nil,in order to pave the way for the gays. Not going to happen!

    ReplyDelete
  9. "they are not trying to curtail anyone's rights "

    Actually you believing they are rights do not make it so. Constitutionally they have not been shown to be.

    A marriage licesne is No more a right then it is a right for someone to have a drivers license. Your talking points fall short regardless on which side you fall on.

    Mick Sheldon

    ReplyDelete
  10. "43% FOR GAY Marriage is still way too high! We need to educate our neighbors - with LOVE"

    Interesting statistic . That number goes up with younger people . Not necessarily a larger percentage who would campaign or become activists , but people with a belief system more inclined to be live and let live , if it does not bother me directly , so be it . I would expect to see laws changing drastically dealing with legalization of drugs , etc in the future . I will submit to you I agree it was better when more kids had a culture that was more standardized, that kids grew up in homes with a Mom and dad and were able to receive the God Given natural benefits of both genders .

    I will disagree on the love aspect changing opinions of others. The homosexual activists here are not good examples of gay folks . gay folks are just like you or me , but with whatever reason for making them attract to each other . Dealing with that in this world must be quite the hardship from where I sit , is it not hard enough for most of us who grew up as hetreosexual in the 1950s and
    1960s and so on ?

    I would say it would take a revival , not a political solution to get marriages back on track and committed . People committed to each other with the love God HE intended . With such a high percentage of people not considering traditional marriage important , even though its not the majority, well culturally our kids have already been hurt by that . I do not believe it is intentional for people to make moms and dads less likely , gay marriage , consequences culturally are easier seen to be problematic by those who embrace Christianity I agree.

    But I believe for real revival to take place , it will require us to see our love is no better say then that of a homosexual , pagan or whatever . Its only the Love Of Christ that makes us different, and that Love needs to be shown .

    This is not a disagreement with you to sign or not sign this petition , just an observation i do not see it as an act of love , or hate for that matter.

    Mick Sheldon

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mick,

    You are incorrect. Per the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v Virginia, marriage is indeed a civil right.

    Not to mention that I didn't call it a "Civil right" but merely a right. As in SB5668 grants several rights to couples in Domestic Partnerships. The backers of Ref 71 are trying to curtail those rights. My point stands, your rebuttal falls flat.

    ReplyDelete
  12. h but Oshtur, you know very well that this is part of the agenda for gay marriages in our state.
    No actually its your best chance to prevent marriage equality.

    Our Supreme Court has already ruled that DOMA is ok as long as the rights are available through some other means. The domestic partnership legislation is that 'some other means'. As long as the rights are available there is no longer a successful court challenge possible. This is like what the California Supreme Court decided - that as long as it is just about the word 'marriage' and not actual rights its not unconstitutional.

    Yes, the ultimate goal would be for the legislature or public initiative to acknowledge marriage equality. But if there are already equal rights that battle would be years in the future.

    Again, preventing equal rights, what Referendum 71 does, is the way to get the Supreme Court to hear the case again, and they have already telegraphed that if equal rights can't be had through the legislature it will become the job of the court to insure them and the path to that is the same one the Iowa Supreme Court took.

    So you want to Preserve Marriage for as long as you can don't sign R-71 and if it does vote yes to protect those children.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "The backers of Ref 71 are trying to curtail those rights. My point stands, your rebuttal falls flat."


    Don't tell the Justices in California, or for that matter the vast majority of legal scholars.
    I do not have a right to marry anyone I please. If homosexuals are allowed to marry through legislation , they still will not have a "right" to marry anyone they please. Their is still restrictions as their are now for hetrosexuals . Its not a right .

    You can make up rights in your own mind , that is allowed . You can drive a car blind also , But it is not Un Constitutional to stop a blind person from obtaining a Drivers Liscense or is Un Constitutional to stop homosexuals from being married. .

    It is not against the Constitution to not allow a law that stops a person from marrying a person of the same sex, because of age , for multiple partners, etc. Its not a Constitutuional Right .
    In the 1870's it was decided in a Federal Court basically the same points used in this debate "legal points" that multiple partners were not Constitutionally entitled to be allowed to be married.

    The legislature can write a law saying so, but it has nothing to do with a civil right unless someone stops a person from doing so after the law says they can .



    You want to word smith go ahead , but the only debate you win is the one you are having with yourself. You have proven you can not listen or care that reality been lost in your obsession or passion.

    Mick Sheldon

    ReplyDelete
  14. Don't tell the Justices in California, or for that matter the vast majority of legal scholars.
    Mick, simply put - you are wrong. You need to go read what the Justices in California decided - they reserved the word 'marriage' for future civil contracts in support of opposite gender married couples. That doesn't mean that same gender one's aren't married - they just can't license the civil contract titled 'marriage', that's all. They went out of their way to stress that and to state, just as ours did, that the rights of marriage are the same for all citizens even if the state supports them identically with different named contracts.

    I do not have a right to marry anyone I please.
    Of course you don't, none of our rights are universal and unilateral. You can't say what ever you want, your right of liberty can be curtailed. The idea that something isn't a right just because it isn't more important than other's rights is a poor argument.

    Un Constitutional to stop homosexuals from being married.
    Actually it is - the California court just ruled that in fact. You are confusing the state of being married with the civil contract licensed by the state. Remember the state is below the citizen, not above. The state of California just isn't going to call its same gender married couples 'married, license them a 'marriage contract'. - that's fine, its the state that's wrong, not the people. If its ok for some citizens to have male spouses its ok for all of them, that's what courts are ruling. Now in Washington and California they have hedged their bets by making 'marriage' just a word - all citizens can marry, but some license a civil contract in support of this right with a 'domestic partnership' contract, some with a 'marriage' contract. Since the right to a merely a word is NOT a constitutional right the states ruled that was ok.

    That is why R-71 is a bad idea - as it stands with the completion of equal rights for all citizens our state court has already ruled - as long as everyone has the rights, its ok for the state to use 2 different words when referencing those rights.

    Make those rights unequal and you are begging the court to step in and say 'no the rights are really the same right and so since you won't let some citizens have a 'separate but equal' contract then all must have access to the same contract'.

    Want marriage equality to happen? Get R-71 to limit the rights of some citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "So you want to Preserve Marriage for as long as you can don't sign R-71 and if it does vote yes to protect those children".


    Oshtur actually I was pro domestic partnerships till I read these blogs . It was not your coments , but another gay activists that convinced me I was wrong . I somehow doubt he would consider me open minded though for remaining open minded and changing my opinion . ;0)

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Oshtur actually I was pro domestic partnerships till I read these blogs"

    If what with what the supporters have said that was the result you would have done that any way. There wasn't any realistic hope you'd be for equal rights.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You who say that people have the right to marry the same sex, and that those who are in legal opposition to it are wrong, I have this question for you:

    By whose authority, God's or man's?

    By whose authority do you act in, and who gave you that authority?

    ReplyDelete
  18. When I as a single unmarried man
    who has no children, see offers
    for free treats at a restaurant for fathers on Father's Day, I do
    not think it right that I should think that my constitutional rights have been violated, or that
    I have been discriminated against,
    for I ought not to try to take down, or diminish anything honorable that someone chooses to honor, when it is an honorable thing according to God.

    But when I try to honor that which is dishonorable to God, what then?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Mick,

    The fact that some Justices in California, found it Constitutionally acceptable for a voter initiative to remove the right to the name "marriage" from same-sex couples - so long as they retain all the rights and privileges of marriage, doesn't change the fact that Ref 71 is an attempt to revoke rights granted by the legislature in this state.

    Even if a court were to find such a revocation of rights to be Constitutionally acceptable, it would remain a revocation of rights granted by the legislature.

    You seem to be (deliberately?) confusing rights in general with Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights. Drivers licenses aren't civil rights, but if a initiative were introduced limiting the "privilege" of driving to those under 70, it would be removing rights granted by the legislature from those over 70.

    ReplyDelete
  20. By whose authority, God's or man's?
    Why the Creator, the god of the Deists mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. The god who's holy texts are the books on biology, science, ethics, math, physics and all the rests. The god that acknowledges all have a right to their own religion and all have a right to be free of each other's religion.

    Which is the authority that founded this nation based on the premise of equal rights for all citizens.

    Since the biological mechanism are the same for all who are able to have spouses of a particular gender regardless of their own their right to marry is likewise the same. Either we acknowledge the right of people to have spouses that are male or female or we don't. Artificial limitations like 'same' or 'opposite' when people aren't really attracted to those qualities are specious, deliberately divisive and unethical and ungodly.

    ReplyDelete

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