Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Crossing the Bridge--- Re-Defining Marriage in 2012

January 10, 2007: "The goal is marriage equality. It's an important statement that our eyes are on the prize, and the prize is marriage." Senator Ed Murray to Seattle Times.

May 17, 2007: "Domestic Partnership [SB 5688] was an incremental approach--a strategic plan" to homosexual "marriage". Senator Ed Murray to Seattle Times.

January 28, 2009: " [SB 5688] is "A bridge until they can marry." Representative Jamie Pedersen to the Seattle Times.

The homosexual community has now joined hands and is preparing to walk across that bridge and re-define marriage.

In July, Josh Friedes, Executive Director of Equal Rights Washington, the states largest homosexual advocacy/activist group stepped down from his role and accepted a new role focused exclusively on homosexual "marriage" in Washington State.

They claim support in Washington to re-define marriage is growing.

ERW board chairman, Dr. Shilpen Patel says, "It is clear...that now is the time for ERW to further intensify our efforts to secure marriage in Washington State as early as 2012."

All the denials of intentions are behind them, their eye is on the prize, in their mind the goal is in sight and they are now staging to begin the pride parade across the bridge.

___________

This will be a battle that will touch every part of the state--every politician, every community, every church and every family.

It is not a political or even a cultural battle---it is a spiritual one. It will be waged in prayer, in the legislature, in the communities, in the churches and ultimately on the ballot. People who oppose will be hurt, maligned and slandered.

We have begun the work of building a coalition of like minded organizations and individuals.

It is very important that we have your financial and prayerful support now as we move forward.

Please take a moment and prayerfully consider what you can and should do to help.

You may click here to make an online donation or you may send a check to Box 399, Bellevue, WA. 98009.
____________

ERW and their allies are already planning as to how they will eliminate DOMA and change the minds of certain Legislators to accomplish their "walk across the bridge." And how they will persuade people who are undecided on marriage.

There is not space here for their full strategy as Josh Friedes explains it, but I have included it in this blog.

The following is taken from "The Seattle Lesbian" web site:

FRIEDES: We have learned from the negative experiences of Maine and California as well as many positive experiences, the most recent one being New York. There really are seven key factors to success. One, starting early -which is why we are making changes at ERW now. Two, engaging marriage equality advocates in peer-to-peer conversations with their social networks about why marriage matters. We have been doing this work for years but we are going to increase our emphasis on this strategy. Three, engaging diverse communities in our work - and when I say diverse I mean diverse. I’m talking about Unions, large and small business, faith communities, People of Color, and LGBT and allied individuals all across the state. Four, raising large amounts of money as early as possible so that we can do the education and organizing work to build a marriage equality majority in both the electorate and the legislature. Five, the marriage equality movement needs to be unified. An important part of my new role will be working to make sure that stakeholders are consulted and engaged in a unified strategy. This also means making sure that other issues are being addressed during the struggle so that nobody is left behind. Six, increasing the quality of grassroots contacts with legislators so that our elected leaders have a great deal of opportunity to meet with LGBT individuals, their parents, siblings, friends, co-workers, neighbors and clergy. Seven, we need to be more engaged in campaigns and elections. Who is in office matters and elected leaders need to know we have their backs.

One of the things that makes it so great to work on marriage in Washington is that there really is no viable way for there to be a state constitutional DOMA this is because, in Washington, the way you amend our state’s constitution is you have to pass a measure through both houses with a 2/3 vote before the amendment goes to the ballot for approval. Neither chamber would do that. What we have to be able to guard against is an effort to repeal a marriage statute when passed by the legislature. In the alternative we need to be able to pass a marriage equality ballot measure if we choose to go that route. Either way we need a marriage equality majority in the electorate.

We have a statutory DOMA that has been passed, and we can simply and effectively repeal that by passing a marriage equality statute. When we are not dealing with the constitution, we are able to do what we did this year when we rolled back parts of the State DOMA by passing the out of state marriage recognition bill.

________________

May God help us to stand together prayerfully, financially and with unity on this culturally and spiritually defining issue.

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

:: Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

10 comments:

  1. How does one spell obsession? O-B-E-S-S-I-O-N.

    When it has to do with the sexuality of others?

    P-E-R-V-E-R-S-I-O-N

    Scripture calls us to lift up the name of Jesus Christ and all men will be drawn UNTO HIM. He will be the judge of those without (ICor5:12,13) - those who name His name are limited to judging those within the confines of the church (ICor5:12,13)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm confused. I thought you said that R-71 was the battle for marriage, since the domestic partnerships afforded by R-71 are marriages in all but name. In fact, your pro R-71 group was called Protect Marriage WA. So how can it possibly be that the spiritually and culturally defining battle is still to come? You weren't lying about R-71 were you?

    Also, how do you plan to combat this gay marriage proposal, since the 2009 Hate Crimes Law criminalizes opposition to the homosexual agenda? That is what you told us in 2009. So I expect you to warn all of your supporters that they run the risk of federal imprisonment if they help.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If marriage is redefined to include same sex, will those couples have to adhere to the same standards as heterosexuals? Will their relationships be measured by how much they earn, save, invest in charity, how many children they create and raise successfully? Will their dissolutions divide their wealth in no-fault proceedings? Will their marriages reduce sexually transmitted diseases by limiting the number of partners? Historically, same sex couples relationships break up and have higher levels of domestic violence. Will they increase the divorce rate or will WA bother gather data so the decisions can be imperial instead of emotional and political? These and many more questions should be answered with data over time before this drastic change in the foundation of culture is turned upside down.

    ReplyDelete
  4. When the moral spiritual restraints of society are broken, you gain a more violent and amoral outcome. What recently occurred during a national meeting of professional counselors and psychiatrists graphically demonstrates such an outcome of the degrading evolution of society. Children will be harmed, marriages fractured, and perversion supported. Christians have sat on the sidelines. Few witness, few give as they should, and few attend regularly their churches. Worship has become a momentary pancreatic spiritual experience. Is it any wonder Islam is on the rise in so many nations...

    ReplyDelete
  5. "When the moral spiritual restraints of society are broken, you gain a more violent and amoral outcome."

    Yet another FFN staff approved post, which contains threats of violence, or at least what the R-71 crowd would call threats of violence were they directed at them.

    Does your hypocrisy know no bounds?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Louisa, what standards are heterosexuals held to with the civil contract of marriage? And multiple studies show that domestic violence rates are pretty much identical with unmarried heterosexuals. And the dissolution rate of UK civil unions are lower than that of their marriage contracts. When all is looked at there is more variability between straight groups that can license the marriage contract then there is between gays and straights.

    You are just trying to rationalize pre-existing prejudices, again if you have the right to license a husband so does everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  7. She has the right because she's a woman, not because she thinks she is.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thank you for understanding that citizens are being treated differently. People should have the same rights regardless of their sex, that's why it's called marriage equality and why it doesn't open any doors - this is about letting all citizens do what some can already do.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You misunderstood my point. She has the right to a husband because she's a woman, not because she's a man who thinks she's a woman. A union bewteen 2 men or 2 woman is anathema to 5000 years of human history because its a perversion of nature. All perversion should be treated differently for the safety and well-being of society.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You misunderstood my point.
    No, this is a case of you misunderstanding your point. By saying only one sex can license with a husband you are saying that citizens aren't being treated equally. By hinging your assertion on the odd idea that is about 'men who think they are women' it means you're only talking about a tiny fraction of men who would license with their husbands, neither of whom are thinking they are a woman at all (that would be transgenderism)

    And since the first people on this continent had no problem with same sex marriage it just shows you really don't know what you are talking about. With our understanding of genetics, the origins of sexuality we know it would be naturally 'perverse' if there weren't some that had husbands and wives of the same sex and the government is obligated to treat all citizens with husbands and wives equally under the law.

    The only point you are really making is you don't understand the issue.

    ReplyDelete

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