Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Suburbs Of Sodom

Thank you to all who attended the senate hearing yesterday on HB 1267 in Olympia. The hearing room was over capacity and an overflow room was opened in another part of the building.

I personally enjoyed seeing and chatting with many of you.

Rep. Jamie Pederson, the sponsor of the bill, spoke first, introducing his reasons for the bill, etc. That was followed by testimony from a number of homosexuals and I think one straight couple who supported the bill. Those who support the bill did what they have consistently done on homosexual issues, they brought children to read testimony in support of the bill.

Those who testified from our side did well. I was not given opportunity to testify, although I had requested it.

Aside from the many valid reasons why this bill must not become law---and there are many, it was a personal comment made by Pedersen that continued to resonate in my mind last night.

He told of how he, as a kid, had watched "Leave It To Beaver," concluding that those days are gone and families look very different now. Therefore, the laws must be changed to reflect and support the change---specifically the picture of family the homosexual community advocates.

But I'm wondering if the laws of a society should be changed to support and affirm principles and practices that have been rejected by every major religion and every successful society for the past 5000 or more years.

I'm thinking specially of marriage, family, and now, motherhood.

It occurred to me that those asking society to abandon those principles and practices are doing so because of their sexual preferences and behavior. And although they represent between 2% and 4% of our population, they are asking---no, demanding, change for an entire culture. Re-do the neighborhood.

Rep. Pedersen and others do indeed see a very different standard for "family". But should the standard be changed for a few?

Are we creating a Suburb of Sodom?

In this new neighborhood, left turns are mandatory, right turns illegal. Two mommies and two daddies are normal and those who oppose this change are out of touch, rigid, uninformed, haters, bigoted and intolerant. Mother's wombs are not sacred, but for sale.

In this neighborhood green lights mean stop---red lights mean go, up is down and down is up, unnatural is natural, abnormal is normal and if you speak of it, you may be committing a "hate crime."

I would ask---no beg, that our Senators lead us not into the temptation to reorder society and compromise motherhood, but deliver us from evil by rejecting this bill.

Please contact your state senator today and ask them to oppose
HB 1267.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Blessed.

_____________
Gary Randall
President
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

**Image of Sen. Dan Swecker and Gary Randall at Hearing.

20 comments:

  1. You miss the point of Pederson's comment entirely. The law does not change society; society has already changed and the laws have yet to keep up.

    In the '50s, we did not understand that many good people among us are homosexual, and it's not a moral choice or the result of a mental disorder; it's a natural part of the human fabric. We now know that when gay people have the freedom to find lasting love and to create families and to live openly with full participation in society, they can live happy, healthy, and productive lives. (Sound familiar? Straight people have had this option all along.) Pederson is asking for the law to reflect that change.

    Vast majorities of people already understand that, and there's no turning back. Anti-gay laws do not keep gay people from existing, forming families, raising children, etc. And they certainly won't take us back to Gary's favored time when gay people had to hide in shame. All these laws do is hurt people.

    Tony in Seattle

    ReplyDelete
  2. "although they represent between 2% and 4% of our population, they are asking..."

    Gary, your numbers are way low, but with that aside, could you please clarify at what percentage it's ok to ask for equal rights?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Note that Senator Swecker is explicitiy NOT "Not for sale"

    ReplyDelete
  4. Senator Swecker has staked out his position very clearly on this and other social and moral issues. He is not for sale. Anyone who knows him or cares knows that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 12:31 I am aware of polygamist groups that are "happy", have found lasting love, are forming families, raising children and are productive. Does that mean you support polygamists being given "group marriage" rights equal to natural marriage between one man and one woman? If not, why not? If so, how are you supporting them in their time of need and social injustice?
    I don't see Gary wanting to go back to anything. He is simply resisting the notion of throwing out what best serves successful societies.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Suburbs of Sodom". What a concept. Keep up the good work Gary.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 2:05 At what percentage do you feel polygamists should have equal rights and marriage equality?

    ReplyDelete
  8. @4:56 and @5:08... An old tactic: When you’re losing, change the subject. Are we talking about polygamy or same-sex couples? Please pick, but don't pretend we're talking about the same thing.

    But, to answer your (unrelated) question, consider this: Before the mid 20th century, there was no interracial marriage either, yet there were “happy” polygamists AND “happy” interracial couples. Then why didn't the legalization of interracial marriage lead to polygamy?

    The (obvious) answer: Each change in law brings up its own set of questions that need to be satisfied ("happiness" plays a role, but not a big one). Off the top of my head, I can think of dozens of questions polygamy brings up that have *absolutely nothing* to do with same-sex couples. Legalizing gay marriage will do nothing to address those questions. I’m afraid if you want to legalize polygamy, you’ll have to make your own case. The gays can't help you anymore than those interracial couples did.

    Here are more similar questions you can now answer yourself using the logic above: Will allowing women to vote mean we have to allow children to vote? Will allowing slaves to be free mean that we can't own pets? Will banning abortion mean we'll have to ban heart surgery? Does teaching creationism in schools mean we have to teach voodoo?

    Tony in Seattle

    ReplyDelete
  9. 5:08pm

    I'm not the one making the assertion that a request for equal rights is diminished if from a small group. I don't believe size of population should be a criteria for civil rights. My support of or opposition to polygamy wouldn't be based on their population. 2:05

    ReplyDelete
  10. 7:51

    Precisely! My opposition to this bill has to do with the selling of humans for money. I don't care if they're 1% of the population or 99%. Slavery is slavery.


    Tony,

    I don't know who you where responding to. Polygamy is a different problem, I oppose it and homosexual marriage because they are immoral and aberrant behaviors. Oh and incidently, I'm not losing, you are.

    You have to stand before God someday and give an account for your actions and the hardness of your heart. You may not believe that or choose to ignore it, but you have been warned!

    I will continue to oppose what God has said is wrong, regardless of who is doing it. You see, I have to stand there too!

    Craig in Lacey

    ReplyDelete
  11. Craig...

    Thanks, Craig, for the warning. But here's a warning for you, too: Many a Christian throughout history has expressed their confidence in knowing what God has "said" to condemn, punish, hurt, and discriminate against their fellow human, only to regret it later. No Christian today is proud of its role in the fight against a woman's right to vote, the freedom of slaves, or the punishment of those who did not believe in a flat earth.

    You can hide behind the Bible, but your homophobia is you speaking, not God.

    Tony

    PS You are losing.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Tony

    I knew someone would go there with the slavery, flat earth, etc.

    First of all, I make no excuses for those who misuse the Bible to further their financial or political gains.
    Secondly, the Bible is silent on voting, period, male or female, so there was no basis for that argument.
    Thirdly, the Bible expressly FORBIDS kidnapping people for the purpose of slavery, which is what happened in this country. So no biblical basis for that argument.
    Fourthly, there is no biblical support for a flat earth, square earth, triangular earth, etc., etc.

    So in all the cases you brought up there was either a prohibition against what people supported and/or the Bible was silent.

    Finally and my point exactly is this; the Bible expressly FORBIDS SEXUAL IMMORALITY OF ALL KINDS! Be it heterosexual or homosexual. God said don't do it or you will pay the price!

    I didn't make this up, if you would like the references; Ex 20,Deut.5, Lev. 18, Matt. 5: 27-28, 31-32, Matt. 20: 1-9,Romans 1:23f.

    I speak the truth in love brother because I don't want you to suffer, but to have eternal life. God says "I set before you blessings and cursings, life or death, choose life, for why should you die?"

    Craig in Lacey

    ReplyDelete
  13. Craig, I remember having this discussion with you on these pages a couple of months ago about your supposed strict adherence to the literal word of the Bible to support your discrimination against gays. Finally, you were forced to say you support the killing of children who mouth off to their parents, as the Bible instructs. It's hard to take you seriously.

    Tony

    ReplyDelete
  14. Tony, find that verse please and I'll respond to that case specifically; back to the case at hand. You accused others of being wrong in their support of things they assumed the Bible supported and did not or had no position on and I agreed.

    I accuse you and others of being wrong in support of things the Bible clearly FORBIDS; there is no assumption here. ALL
    SEXUAL IMMORALITY is forbidden. I guess God is an equal opportunity discriminator, huh? Gay or straight, man or women.

    See, I don't get to pick and choose. Before I knew Christ I
    wouldn't have cared if you put a gun to your head or stepped in front of a bus. But, my heart was opened and softened by what Jesus revealed in His word. Why should you die and suffer throughout eternity because of your pride and hardness of heart? Repent, so that times of refreshing may come!

    "eye has not seen nor ear heard what the Lord has prepared for those who love him"

    It's not yet too late,

    Craig in Lacey

    ReplyDelete
  15. Craig, Gary's blog posting "Slouching Towards Gomorrah and the Republican Party", Dec 20, 2010.

    ME, 9:04 PM, Dec 22, 2010: “Then, obviously you support death-by-something for kids who curse their parents (Exodus 21:15,17; Leviticus 20:9). What method of death do you recommend for them?”

    YOU, 11:49 PM, Dec 22, 2010: “9:04 Absolutely, if the Bible calls for their death, then death it is. I'm not a "cafeteria Christian". I don't get to pick and chose which parts to follow and which parts not to. Stoning would be acceptable, there would be a lot less cursing of parents, adultery, sex outside marriage, homosexuality, etc. I would advocate public execution, give people something to think about before they act.”

    I bring up these passages only to point out the hypocrisy of Christians who insist that they live by the literal word of the Bible and use it to justify their votes against the equal treatment and human dignity of others. Despite your insistence to the contrary, all Christians pick and choose. Many passages today seem just too plain silly to be the “word of God,” yet they were once taken very seriously and literally. Would we seriously stone mouthy children in public today as you and the Bible suggest? C’mon.

    Viewing past cultural battles through our contemporary lens and arguing that Christians back then misinterpreted the Bible for evil is easy. What’s difficult is to step back and consider whether we are making that same mistake yet again. It’s not yet too late for you.

    But what I take issue with the most is your insistence that the rest of us live by your religious beliefs under the force of governmental law. My equal treatment, my marriage, my life is irrelevant to you, so long as you interpret that God does not want it for me. Does being able to rally a majority to your side make it “right”? How much would you tolerate my insistence on using the force of law to demand you live by my religious beliefs?

    My right to choose my religion and to marry the person I love does not command you to violate any moral or religious code you believe in. If you believe you need to live a certain way to enter heaven, you do not need the force of US law to come down on gay people or any other minority to make that happen.

    Tony in Seattle

    ReplyDelete
  16. Tony

    I stand by my statement, there would be a lot less "mouthing off" if a public example was made. You viewed the past cultural battles and brought it up, I didn't. I just corrected your error and pointed out their misunderstanding. I would have done the same then, but I wasn't born yet.

    You can pair off with whomever you like, I can't stop you. What you are not free to do is indoctrinate the next generation to support an unnatural and immoral union. Does rallying a majority to your side make it 'right'. I will contest that to my dying day and I am not alone.

    You have no religious beliefs that I can see and since this country was founded on the general priciples of Christianity it is you who are trying to force your beliefs on me.

    Its not difficult for me, Scripture is clear, there is no possibillity of misunderstanding. ALL SEXUAL IMMORALITY IS FORBIDDEN! You can choose to ignore that at your own peril.

    I can't bless ignorance nor wanton disregard!

    Craig in Lacey

    ReplyDelete
  17. "I can't bless ignorance nor wanton disregard!"

    I guess you don't bless yourself then.

    Ignorance: This country was NOT founded on "the general principles of Christianity". It was founded on Enlightenment ideals about freedom, equality and self-governance.

    Wanton Disregard: Your posts show a wanton disregard for Truth, logic and most of all for any people, who do not share your narrow-minded religious beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I wouldn't even think of blessing myself. Not my job.

    Ignorance? Let's see,

    'We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this; and I also believe without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel', Benjamin Franklin

    'The Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth......[and] laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity'. John Quincy Adams

    'The Christian religion-its general principles-must ever be regarded among us as the foundation of civil society' Daniel Webster

    I have many more examples of the original intent of the founders of this country. Somebody's been selling you a bill of goods. Revisionist history.

    I spoke the TRUTH because I follow the author of all truth, His name is Jesus Christ, I am not ashamed of Him

    "Seek and you will find, knock and it will be opened to you"

    Eternity is waiting, one way or the other=)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ohhh, Craig and cut and paste David Barton's misrepresentations of quotes color me unimpressed.

    Why don't you provide us with a source for each quotation so that we may view it in context (and minus the ellipses)?

    Here's how it's done:

    "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

    Treaty of Tripoli, article 11, signed by President John Adams (Father of John Quincy Adams, and unlike his son, active participant in the founding of this nation) in 1797.

    The above language was unanimously ratified by the US Senate, which at the time contained several signatories to the Declaration of Independence -actions that seem unlikely or at least dishonest if your claims of this nation being founded on Christian principles were true.

    Furthermore, nothing any of the founders said, outside of what is written in the Constitution, has any relevance to our form of government. Last I checked there was no mention of Christianity in said Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Tony, so nice to see you're familiar with Barton's book. That will make it easier for you to check the references in the back, which are extensive.

    Here you go:

    Benjamin Franklin's quote; The Papers of James Madison, Henry Gilpin, editor(Washington, D.C : Langtree & O'Sullivan, 1840), Vol. II, p.985, June 28, 1787

    John Quincy Adams" quote; An Oration Delivered before the inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport at their request on the 64th Anniversary of the DOI, July 4, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), pp5-6

    Daniel Webster"s quote; from a speech before the Supreme Court of the U.S. in defence of the Christian ministry and in favor of the religious instruction of the young. Feb. 10, 1844. ( printed by Gales and Seaton, 1844), p.4

    Here's a couple more to chew on:

    " The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were... the general principles of Christianity...I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principals of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature"
    John Adams, Works, Vol.X, pp. 45-46 to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813.

    You know, the father of the other Adams and most certainly a Founder.

    " we, therefore, the Congress of the U.S of A., do solemnly declare and proclaim that... we appeal to the God who searches the hearts of men for the rectitude of our intentions; and in His Holy presence declare that, as we are not moved by any light or hasty suggestions of anger or revenge, so through every possible change of fortune we will adhere to this our determination." Samuel Adams, Writings, Vol.IV, p. 86 " Manifesto of the Continental Congrss"," Oct. 30, 1778


    AS for the Treaty of Tripoli, this can be read as described because it refers to the Federal government, not the states or the nation as a whole, read the whole quote in context.

    When reading any historical document, the original intent of the authors must be ascertained. They affirmed repeatedly in their own words the foundations of the laws and government of this country. Which are the general principles of Christianity.
    This may be as Gore said, an 'inconvient truth', but it's the truth nontheless.

    Remember our founding document, " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights" There was no need to repeat it in the Constitution or Bill of Rights because it was already understood who man's Creator was.

    Again, like I said, you are trying to force your lifestyle and beliefs on this country. I will not sit idly be and watch perversion codified into law.

    You revisionists keep trying, don't you?

    Craig in Lacey

    ReplyDelete

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