Thursday, November 17, 2011

A Moral State Of Denial

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
The argument for homosexual "marriage" hasn't changed over the past 11 years, according to the Seattle Times editorial board. However, they say, things have now changed, "attitudes are more accepting."

This week they exhorted the people of the state: "ALL right, Washington State: Let's do something bold. In the name of fairness and equality for all residents, it is time to stop working around the edges of domestic partnership rules and benefits. Our state should legalize same-sex marriage."

If the arguments haven't changed, why have attitudes changed?

Several reasons come to mind.

Gubernatorial candidate Jay Inslee's spokesman identified one reason. He said for him, it's an "equal rights" issue.


Sen. Ed Murray and other homosexual advocates have convinced some of the people that homosexual "marriage" is not re-defining marriage---it is "marriage equality." Josh Freides, director of the just launched campaign, told KOMO radio following my interview with KOMO that they prefer the word "marriage equality" to same-sex, gay or homosexual "marriage." He said they particularly don't like the term "homosexual". But what makes marriage "equal" if it is extended only to homosexuals? What about polygamous groups who also "love" and are committed to each other? And all the other inequities found in marriage? What about first cousins, brother and sister, two sisters or two brothers, parent and child---all forbidden from marriage.

Mr. Inslee, please show us the equality in merely adding homosexuals, while excluding all the rest of those who will be equally qualified, at least in their mind, under the new rules for marriage, should it be redefined.

This is "special rights." Not equal rights.

What then will the argument be for not expanding "marriage" to all other groups? Will the Seattle Times Editorial board be telling our children in 11 years or less, it's time for polygamous "marriage"? Will they suggest it's time to "do something bold" and further redefine marriage? How bold will the suggest we become?

The Associated Press article which I linked earlier this week, also identified another reason some "attitudes have changed." The article quoted "supporters" saying, "It's about removing the stigma."

Homosexuality has evolved. It was identified as an act---sodomy, for many, many years. Then it was identified as a condition---homosexuality; now, it is an identity---gay. And from that the homosexual advocates have claimed it to be the new "civil rights" issue, now attempting to identify with and co-opt the African American struggle for civil rights, making it equal with sexual behavior.

Sexual behavior is not equal to ethnicity. Nor should it be identified with the civil rights movement.

I have written a personal message to biblical Christians. If you are a biblical believer, please take a moment and read it. If not, please skip it.

"A covenant with death---we have made lies our refuge."

Isaiah, the prophet, defined the moral collapse of his time, saying, "The priest and the prophet have erred through intoxicating drink. They are swallowed up by wine...they err in vision, they stumble in judgment." (Is. 28)

He said the tables "are full of vomit and filth; no place is clean."---An ugly image, to say the least.

In defining the moral collapse of our times, it can be said that some religious leaders are intoxicated by the so-called "tolerance and acceptance" of our times. Too many religious people are intoxicated by relativism, embracing a "new" truth called tolerance, believing right is wrong and wrong is right and perversion is normal. Values in this brave new world are ever changing. No absolutes.

Relativism and relative values allow everyone to determine what is "fair" and what is not.

Our times could also be defined by some churches wanting to "emerge"---relating to everyone, without taking a biblical stand on anything. Social Silence. While our very foundations crumble. And people continue to look for answers.

This, while trampling the sanctity of life---calling it choice, redefining marriage---calling it equality, and stripping Judeo-Christian values and principles from the foundations of our culture and county, calling it inclusion or fairness or honoring diversity.

We err in vision and stumble toward Sodom in our judgment.

Isaiah spoke encouragement and justice to his fellow citizens, speaking, "Strength to those who turn back the battle at the gate."

I believe God will give strength and courage and provision to those who seek to turn back the battle at the gate of our culture and communities today.

Your continuing financial support of this ministry and God's strength and blessing, allows us to continue to fight the battle--- to turn back evil at the gate.

And the battle rages. Your support gives us strength. Without it we could not do what we do.

Marriage is under more attack than ever. Recently, Sen. Patrick Leahy D-VT, a powerful and very liberal Senator who voted for DOMA when it was passed in the 1990s said, "Much has happened since DOMA became law, it must now be repealed." The President agrees.

Last Friday, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla and Chair of the Democratic National Committee said, "Saying life begins at conception is 'extreme and radical'."

And the President has mocked the House resolution affirming "In God We Trust" as our national motto.

State Senator Ed Murray, encouraged by the media and some religious leaders, is preparing to introduce legislation that will nullify Washington State's Defense of Marriage Act and usher in so-called homosexual "marriage." This session. And he and his colleagues launched their "conversation" with the people of Washington State, this week.

There are both politicians and pastors who support him.

We err in vision and stumble in judgment.

Rep. Matt Shea is the chair of a new alliance for marriage group. I serve with him, and helped organize the group. It includes several other State Senators and Representatives, including Rep. Brad Klippert, Rep. Jason Overstreet, Rep. Jim McCune, Sen. Val Stevens and others . Larry Stickney and Attorney Steven Pigeon are also part of the group. We have called it DOMA--Defense of Marriage "Alliance". We are now laying the ground work to defeat Sen. Ed Murray's bill to redefine marriage in the next session. A press release is forth coming.

We are scheduling meetings around the state. If you would be interested in helping organize a meeting in your area, please contact me by email. I will need your name, phone number and address. And will need to verify who you are. I know you understand. I will personally respond and will not share any of your personal contact info.

If we cannot kill the bill in session, we will run a referendum and bring it to a vote of the people.

Isaiah said of those who mocked godly righteousness in his time, "We have made a covenant with death---we have made lies our refuge."

Killing the unborn in the womb is not health care, nor is it a "right" or a "choice."

Redefining marriage, mocking the oldest and most fundamental institution in human history, created by God, is not a "civil rights" issue, nor is it an act of "equality." Or "fairness." It is rebellion against our Creator. God calls it sin.

Homosexuality is an act---a behavior, not an identity. Homosexual behavior is not equivalent to ethnicity.

Today's culture is taking refuge in lies. So are some religious leaders.

The battle must be turned back. Will you help us?

Our expenses going forward over the next few months are significant. If you are inclined to help us defend marriage, this is the time to step up. Your support is absolutely necessary, if we are to turn back the enemy at the gate.

Please mail a check or make a secure online donation.

In the spirit of Thanksgiving, I thank you, for your stand and your support and may God bless you.


  1. AMEN! Our thoughts exactly

  2. Really Gary, we've been through this so many times before:

    of age, unrelated adults are already totally acceptable spouses that can be licensed by many people in this state. This is an equality issue because all that's wanted is for all citizens to be able to do what others can already do.

    If you can license with a wife so should every citizen.

    Letting all citizens do what others can already do is not the same as letting any citizen do what no citizen is allowed to do.

    Oh and polygamy of all types is not illegal in Washington state and I have never found a single one that wants to legally contract with all of them with the state. Can you imagine what would happen to a man if all his wives divorced him and all his earnings kept being divided in half exponentially in the settlements?

  3. Ever notice how we never get past these bumper sticker arguments against gay couples getting married? Instead of addressing the issues head-on, we get these "play-on-words" sound bites. Quoting Gary: "... But what makes marriage 'equal' if it is extended only to homosexuals?" Uh, yeah.

    Let's try this play on words elsewhere: Do we really want "pro-life" laws in this country? Would our country really be "pro-life" if we only save the lives of babies? What next? Will we have to stop hunting down terrorists? Will we have to stop participating in wars? What about the death penalty? Or mosquito repellant?

    No, folks, this is not "pro-life," this is "special rights" for babies...

    Gary asks of marriage equality: "If the arguments haven't changed, why have attitudes changed?" I think you've answered your own question.


  4. 'Homosexuality has evolved.'

    No, it hasn't, our understanding of it has! At least for an increasing majority. Homosexuality itself is the same as it's always been and always will be across the animal kingdom.

    Mark in Tigard

  5. Are we now monkeys or omebas? We're at the top of the food chain. We should have the common sense not to engage in destructive behavior.

    The question is why we have a pro-genocide law against the most defenseless among us.

    Craig in Lacey

  6. Craig common sense says that people in committed sexual relationships isn't destructive at all, gay or straight.

    As to the allusion to the legality of having an abortion, biblically there is no proscription of same. Causing a woman to miscarriage was a property crime, to was legal to kill pregnant women. Torah scholars said that humanity began 'with the breath' just like in Genesis and so said a fetus wasn't a person until they were halfway down the birth canal.

    Have a baby is still riskier in the US than having a first trimester abortion (which is sad in several ways). You don't want to have an abortion don't but as long as we have personal body autonomy laws that say you don't have to donate blood to save the live of uncle fred someone obviously doesn't have to use their womb in a way they don't want to regardless of your opinion of the rights status of the fetus.

    Just saying'...

  7. "Are we now monkeys or omebas?"

    Typical evangelical, living in the past.

  8. The wisdom of man is foolishness with God.

    "for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they will become one flesh". No Adam and his husband Steve or Eve and her wife Sue. Woman completes man and vice versa. Any other commitment is contrary to God's plan. I know, I know, that's an "inconvenient truth"., but there it is.

    Then use birth control or quit fooling around! A little personal responsibility is called for here. In a case of incest or rape or threat of death to the mother I have no problem with it, as a means of convenience or getting rid of the "problem", I do.

    Did you have the right to be born? Would you rather have been aborted?


    We've been down the Torah scholars road before. I don't care what they said, only what the Bible says, Thou shalt not murder.


    Man is not now nor ever has been an animal, the way some people act, I've questioned that myself sometimes=). It's because of our sinful nature that we turn God's grace into a license for debauchery.

    Typical evolutionary hogwash. Man is unique in all creation.

    Craig in Lacey

  9. Thou shalt not murder.
    Murder is illegal killing. And if its not considered a person, currently or biblically, then you aren't illegally killing it.

    And please, 'if I were aborted'? I wouldn't exist if I had been aborted - its the sort of nonsensical question that makes your side of the argument seem ridiculous.

    Again, God is all knowing and merciful, right?- Why in the world do you think it puts souls in the majority of fertilized ovums that never implant, silently or knowingly miscarriage or are going to be aborted?

    Come one give an all knowing, all powerful deity a bit of credit for common sense here.

  10. Oshtur,

    Please keep in mind that this is the same god that personally asked 4 of the craziest republican candidates to run for president and who told Bush to invade Iraq.

    I personally find his decision making a little sketchy.

  11. Doesn't matter whether it's currently fashionable or not, just like prostitution in Nevada, it's still immoral.

    Don't twist the question, dude. I said "Would you rather have been aborted?" You changing the question is the same circular reasoning we get from your side all the time.

    It's a long way between a miscarriage and the deliberate killing of the baby. You really can't see the difference? More circular logic I suppose. Lack of implanting and miscarriages are natural occurences, abortion is not.

    It is the deliberate taking of a life. NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO SAY SOMEONE DOESN"T DESERVE A CHANCE TO LIVE.

    Now that's a civil rights issue, the most fundamental and basic of rights.


    I'll wait for God to validate those 4 statements and Bush's too. Although I don't recall W ever making that staement,if he did he was mistaken.I can't say I like any of the current crop of potential nominees. I'm not a Republican by the way, just a conservative.

    I find God's decision making to be right on time.

    Craig in Lacey

  12. Craig, that's the point - its not a baby yet, both biblically and by common sense. its not immoral, or if it is its a property crime as the Bible clearly states.

    And it makes no difference - if you have a right to let uncle fred die by denying him blood, or bone marrow you have a right to deny the use of your womb.

    And I don't think you know what 'circular logic' means - it is when you support a premise with a premise rather than a conclusion.

    Example - "would you rather have been aborted? presumes that someone could have a choice about an act that would make them incapable of answering the question to begin with. What you are really asking is 'would I rather to hot have existed?' and the answer to that is 'no', but since I do the exist the question is just pointless since if I didn't exist the very question would never have been asked.

    In fact most of your usages of the term don't have anything to do with it at all since it is just answering questions. The ultimate circular logic is depending on a book as the absolute source of truth without explaining how it came to be that without depending on the book itself to justify the assumption.

  13. Property crime? Really? We don't live under the Torah. Cause the negligent death of a pregnant woman and you are charged with the deaths of both the mom and the baby. You don't pay a fine, you do time.

    You do exist, that's the point. No one (fortunately for you) decided that you didn't deserve life.

    It's immoral to deny someone life-saving medicine, blood, bone marrow, whatever; if it's within your power to give. It's also immoral to deny someone the most basic right of all, the right to live, if they haven't done anything to forfeit that right. Our laws are wrong. Where are mercy, compassion and long-suffering?

    If she had the right to deny the use of her womb, she also had the right to not have sex. She should have thought of the consequences in the first place. Don't misunderstand me, I know people make bad choices, the child shouldn't pay the price.

    I assume nothing, the very world we live in indicates intelligence, purpose and design. If we didn't have the Bible, that would still be no excuse for ignoring what's in front of our faces.

    Creation screams order, evolution screams disorder. That's a conclusion based on facts. The Bible puts flesh on the bones. You may mock it if you wish, God laughs at the folly of man.

    Craig in Lacey

  14. Faith and Freedom Staff9:18 PM, November 26, 2011

    Note to David Cary Hart:
    Your post was declined because it contained links to both your self and another site. Regardless of content, we do not approve posts with links.

  15. Whew! Well I guess you'll never been appealing to those Old Testament laws anymore - that's will change our future discussions.

    Oh and according to RCW 9A.32.060 its a manslaughter if the fetus is 'quick' i.e. it could be born and survive. And what is the last biological feature essential to independent existence that develops? - why 'the breath'. And the state's right to get involved in a pregnancy and any termination here in Washington? Why the exact same time...

    (don't discount those Torah points of view too quickly, eh?)

    And of course the woman has a right to not not have sex too.

    I assume nothing, the very world we live in indicates intelligence, purpose and design.
    Even if so that would validate the Bible and Jehovah over the Great Cthulhu how exactly?

    You assume the Bible is correct and use it to justify that assumption when numberless other assumptions would support the same conclusions.

    Again, the best thing is for you to just drop the circular logic references.

  16. Again the laws are wrong. It is immoral to deny someone the right to live if they haven't done anything to forfeit that right. My point is you do time if you cause the death of an unborn child. It should be the same in a clinic as on the highway.

    Premies have machines breath for them, are they then not alive? The Torah doesn't cover that, eh?

    The Great Who? Sesame Seed Monster? cthulh didn't come and die and be resurrected to redeem his creation. I don't think he even knows we're here=)

    Here's the validation. John 3:16

    Craig in Lacey

  17. Premies have machines breath for them, are they then not alive? The Torah doesn't cover that, eh?
    Actually no just don't understand. That the machine can help is because the lungs are functional - the last system necessary for independent life to reach a functional state in the fetus is the lungs. The machines are of no help if the lungs aren't ready for 'the breath'.

    And saying that our entire history of medical obligation to others is just 'wrong' just takes you out into lala land. Face it Craig, you want to control other people's lives and as you have just demonstrated denying them the choices about how they can use their bodies would probably be just the start.

    There are other less free nations in the world - why try and change this one?


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