Tuesday, November 10, 2009

One more thought as we move forward

As the vote count winds down on R-71, the implication of the many events surrounding the campaign will linger. And we will put it all in perspective---proper perspective.

As we attempt to properly do so, words are not adequate to express my personal gratitude to all who worked tirelessly and gave so much of themselves to this effort. Your email of personal support, particularly over the past 24 hours, are deeply appreciated. I am honored to have worked with you and look forward to doing so in the near future as we move forward.

Among the many active in the R-71 campaign is Robert Struble, Jr. Bob passed out flyers and participated in 10 debates. He is a published author, with a history of political experience.

He has written an article giving his perspective on R-71, what we did, what it means and what we must do as we move forward. His article was published yesterday in the Catholic Exchange, titled, "Defending Traditional Marriage: Washington State vs. Maine".

In it he says, "Informed observers now expect that the Washington State Supreme Court will mandate marriage licenses as well on constitutional grounds. The 'Justices' will draw the newly enacted bill from their jurisprudential quiver to kill the concept of marriage affirmed throughout history. Thus they will continue the deconstruction of our Judeo-Christian heritage."

"Because," he says, "Washingtonians cannot amend our constitution directly, we the people cannot overturn constitutional rulings by the Court."

Many of us who worked together on this effort are preparing for the next step. I strongly recommend you read Struble's article for a healthy perspective of what happened in R-71 and what it means moving forward.

____________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

5 comments:

  1. "Thus they will continue the deconstruction of our Judeo-Christian heritage"

    NOTE: Please don't read the following if you are offended by the Word of God - the Bible.

    As a part of that Judeo-Christian heritage, I am reminded of the serveral wives and concubines of that great man of God, the father of the faith, Abraham from whom our Lord descended. Likewise, that other scion of the faith with 40 or so wives and 80 or so concubines. We know that David was only displeasing to Jehovah in one matter - the matter of Uriah the Hittite. And, dare I mention so many other father's of the faith who found the fullness of traditional marriage in God with an assortment of wives and mistresses. Indeed, the marriage covenant that the Lord has provided us is rich - for those

    If it was not for the early deconstruction of this rich heritage - paganizing marriage into a monogamous (albeit not necessarily gender specific) relationship, our culture would continue this tradition. I am truly fascinated by the genuine early Christians who received instruction from the apostle Paul for the role of Eldership and Deacons to limit their wives to only one if they chose to hold these offices - due to the pragmatic reason rather than for any other reason as plainly stated.

    I, for one, enjoin the brethern to return to the fullness of God's word and to eschew those who would parch our tradition with such pagan traditions as monogamy.

    Patrick

    ReplyDelete
  2. Please answer me this question: Why is that F&F will run a campaign to stop homosexual marriages but doesn’t also run a campaign to stop no-fault divorces?

    And a bonus question: Why is it that you don’t use the biblical teachings denying marriages between the races? The Bible says that He separated the races.

    I hope to hear back from you!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm curious what this "next step" you speak of is?

    If you're convinced that the WA Supreme Court will legalize marriage now, then you're out of options.

    Your only option is to convince 38 states to change the US constitution after 34 states ask for a constitutional convention. By my count, there are at least 14 states where there is no chance that the legislature would vote for such an extreme measure. And it's up to Congress to decide if a) the legislature or b) the people of each state will vote (guess which a Democrat-run government will pick...)

    And by the time all of this happens, it's going to be 2015 and same-sex marriage will have an extra 5-10% support across the country.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Like the new web . Videos and topics are diverse .

    Interesting to see if forcing people to pay for medical coverage without an opt out will be allowed by the Constitution. It is wrong morally and legally from my view.

    Read an interesting piece recently on what the Founders were speaking to with the term Provide for the General Welfare . The word general gets lost with today us against them politics, , but the Founders apparently were not too keen on promoting policies that did not effect everyone.meaning everyone pays and everyone benefits.


    To help just certain classes of people was not considered appropriate. This class warfare and putting one group against the other would never had been considered.

    I had hoped for health care reform, hoped to see more competition, a well established safteynet for those who could not afford insurance , perhaps vouchers of a sort.

    But obviously the left goofed up this from almost the beginning , thus allowing the only information given out usually being wrong information. Mostly by right wing groups. If it was not FactCheck.org I would not have known what was what , and I doubt the majority of people use those kinds of checks when emails or advocacy groups spew their politics via distortions and fabrications .

    Good job on the new info and site.

    Mick

    ReplyDelete
  5. Interesting to see if forcing people to pay for medical coverage without an opt out will be allowed by the Constitution. It is wrong morally and legally from my view.

    Mick

    This is a serious issue of concern for myself and it gets lost amidst all the fear mongering re: communism by the religious right. The reality is that a public option would be great - as long as both it and health care in general were an option.

    The forcing of people to buy health care is inappropriate - HOWEVER, they would need to sign off that NO ONE will be called to support them when they need it but cannot afford it - it was their decision to leave their bios life in God's hands - and let God be the "decider-guy".

    BTW - do you note that when you are reasonable, we agree??

    Best,
    Patrick

    ReplyDelete

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