Thursday, April 29, 2010

Update on R-71

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Secretary of State Sam Reed's web site is expressing optimism that they prevailed before the Supreme Court in the matter of releasing the R-71 petition names to homosexual activists.

The site quotes Attorney General Rob McKenna saying, "My team and I think it went well." Secretary Reed agrees and thinks "McKenna did a persuasive job" and is optimistic of a win.

The ruling will likely come down in June.


  1. This ruling doesn't surprise me,
    remember our Lord said "If they
    persecuted me they will persecute
    you" Be of good courage,as wise as
    a serpent and as gentle as a dove.
    The Lord is with his people! To
    live is Christ and to die is gain!
    What can man do to me?
    Craig, Lacey

  2. IF they get our names -then when they do anything WE need their names-!!!-to know who the ENEMY is among us and DO we want them in the Workplace or in OUR Neighborhood ??or even in OUR Churches where the Bible is Clear-You can NOT be a Christian and a Practicing Sodomite at the same time - I Use the labels that the Bible/GOD uses for them , NOT Coined words for Social Acceptance !! -It can work BOTH WAYS !!!

  3. Hate to break it to you, Glenn Ruth, but you don't have any choice as to whether gays and lesbians are in your workplace or neighborhood. Just as they have no choice over whether intolerant people like you are in their workplace or neighborhood. Your good friend Rev. Hutcherson, with an futile assist from Gary, tried and failed to get a referendum on that on on the ballot.

  4. 934 sounds like your angry , and because of it making some silly comments , at least incoherent. Homosexuals in the workplace is not what the Extending benefits from traditional marriage partners to homosexuals and others was about. The referendum signers feel as though they may be targeted by people such as yourself who seem to feel they need to bully those who believe it was a mistake. You and others are proof that is a realistic concern , the court will decide if it is Constitutional. i tend to believe that it is not violating the Constitution to release the names as the law says it should .

    But your proof of the concern . And a few thousand years of tradition, culture and legal precedent shows why many people are concerned of changing the foundation our families at one time set as the example .

    The folks with the traditional beliefs lost , I would think that should be enough .

  5. 934 doesn't sound too threatening to me. To the contrary, 934 acknowleges that we all have to live together - whether we agree with one another or like each other is irrelevant. To quote someone famous who said "If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn your other cheek to him as well." Likewise, if someone finds out that you voted to change the domestic rights law, and decides to stop doing business with you, or chooses to sever their friendship, turn the other cheek and accept that as a consequence of acting on your convictions. To quote another famous person, Justice Antonin Scalia, “Democracy requires a certain amount of civic courage.” Indeed, if you want to reverse laws that are already on the books, be willing to stand up and acknowlege yourself. Be brave, Christian soldiers!


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