Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Redefining Marriage "Is About Erasing The Stigma"

As the campaign to redefine marriage in Washington State rolled out yesterday in Bellevue, we learned that is about making people feel good about their behavior.

The Associated Press reported, "Supporters said the effort is about erasing the stigma."

Erasing the stigma?

Homosexual behavior has a stigma because every major religion in the world condemns it. The Bible clearly condemns the behavior, but unlike other religions, Christianity provides love, deliverance and redemption through Jesus Christ, from all sin, including homosexual behavior. While the behavior is condemned, the person is not.

Gene Johnson, writing for the AP seemed to suggest that Washington's Domestic Partnership law---the one McKenna supported and we opposed with R-71, already gives homosexuals all the benefits saying, "The measure [Murray's new bill] would not grant same-sex couples any significant new rights" in that they are provided in the "everything but marriage" bill. They already have the benefits, giving credence to the idea that there are other reasons for redefining marriage.

Erasing the stigma. Affirming the behavior.

We also learned that homosexual advocates decided to try to push this bill through the legislature rather than allowing it to go to a vote of the people.

Rod Hearne, with Equal Rights Washington, explained that many people dislike the notion of allowing people to vote on fundamental rights.

When did homosexual "marriage" become a fundamental right?

Is re-defining marriage a fundamental right?

Could there be some doubt as to whether Washington voters would actually approve redefining marriage?

Those who seek to re-define marriage show great optimism, often quoting polls, including one done by Faith and Freedom, as proof that society has changed and will support them, but there is ample information in our poll, particularly with those who vote consistently, that redefining marriage is not a given.

I think there is doubt, maybe serious doubt, that they can win a vote by the people.

And we learned something about some, but not all, of the candidates running for governor.

AP said the group got an instant boost from Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jay Inslee. His spokesman said, "For him it's an equal rights issue." He is on board with redefining marriage.

Rob McKenna, a GOP candidate said, well... his spokesman said he supports the Domestic Partnership, "everything but marriage" but not marriage. However, his spokesman said, "Rob believes that this is an issue that is going to be decided by the people."

Not a resounding note of support.

The Olympian published a story yesterday after the Bellevue press conference, casting Inslee on one side of the issue and McKenna on the other side.

I hope they are right. I'm not convinced.

Neither AP nor the Olympian, or any other newspaper or news service I read last night mentioned a third gubernatorial candidate. I understand he does not have the visibility that the other two have, however, he is running, he is articulate and he strongly defends natural marriage.

Shahram Hadian, a former Muslim converted to Christianity some years ago, now a Christian pastor, is running for governor. I have met him twice. You should be aware of him. This is his web site: hadian@hadian2012.com . He is definitely on our side on social issues.

And finally. Rod Hearne at ERW said, "This is an opportunity to help families in tough times. It doesn't cost anything."

Mr. Hearne, you have no idea of the cost involved in rebellion against the Creator, affirming and celebrating behavior that He Himself has condemned and called "sin," while redefining the institution of marriage, which He Himself created, bringing one man and one woman together for special purposes. A model as old as the human race.

God help us.

You may also help us by donating here if you want to defend marriage. Or send a check to Box 399, Bellevue, WA. 98009.

God bless you and thanks.

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

7 comments:

  1. Marriage equality is about all the state's married citizens having the equal ability to license the civil contract with their husband or wife just as others can already do. Simple equality under the law.

    And domestic partnerships are not equal to marriage contracts outside the borders of the state. A marriage contract is accepted and recognized in other states and even other nations where a domestic partnership contract is not. And this will be even more important when section 3 of DOMA is overturned and the federal government recognizes all valid state issued marriage contracts.

    That's why you're on the losing side of this equation - if the marriage contract is religious, there are plenty of US religions who perform the rite of marriage for same sex couples - like it or not it is already 'redefined'. And since this complaint is really about just the 100% secular civil contract licensed to married citizens (really? you think the state makes people 'married'?) then the equal treatment required by the state and federal constitution applies - if one citizen can license with their wife then they all can.

    I can see the desire to do it now so any repeal effort would happen in the presidential election year but really I'd rather wait until the fall of DOMA myself. With federal benefits in the equation and the state government's constitutional obligation to do best by its citizens it would then be unconstitutional to limit some citizens to a 'state only' contract.

    Either way, Gary and his ilk are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Marriage has always been defined as between a man and woman. Until recently when a perversion of nature has been codified into the laws of several states, which still has not removed the stigma or affirmed the behavior. It ain't gonna happen in this state whether you win or lose.

    God is not mocked, you will reap what you sow. If you sow to the flesh you will reap corruption, if you sow to the Spirit you will reap eternal life.

    Craig in Lacey

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's interesting that the right wing fringe has such disdain for people who actually support the sanctity of marriage, yet make a man on his THIRD marriage the current leader in their primary.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Craig, this is about married citizens having the ability to license the 100% civil contract the state has for married citizens, that' all. You are projecting way too much of yourself into this.

    Again, if marriage is religious, many churches bless same gender couples.

    if this about the civil contract, its just equal access to government and equal treatment under the law.

    Either way you're in the wrong. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's dude.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Craig, the "it's always been that way" argument holds no water. If tradition were justification for laws, then we'd still own slaves.

    Besides, you misrepresent the history of marriage. It was first between one man and many women, then one man owns woman, then white man and white woman, etc. You would not recognize the marriages of a thousand years ago -- or even 200 years ago.

    Finally, why on earth do these "Christians" care if other people's marriages don't adhere to their own personal religious beliefs? And why concentrate on gays only? Why don't we see Christians spending millions of dollars fighting divorces? Or marching in the streets to prevent a divorcee from remarrying? Or calling for the death of adulterers?

    And the biggest question: Why do these "Christians" insist the rest of us must live by their religious values - under the force of law - when they certainly would never allow the same for themselves?

    Once again: You do not have to marry a person of the same sex if you personally believe your salvation is at stake.

    Tony in Seattle

    ReplyDelete
  6. All I can say is it is truly sad that Gary Randall and his organization have nothing better to do than worry about who marries who. People like Kim Kardashian or Britney Spears who have no respect for the "sanctity" of marriage are allowed to make a mockery of it by divorcing 72 days later or realizing it was a mistake after getting married on a whim in Vegas, but yet because it was between a man and a women it's perfectly fine. It makes no sense to me Gary why you and/or your organization should care who I choose to marry. I am in a committed loving relationship as a gay man with two children and deserve the basic right to marry just as anyone else does. Believe me it's going to happen and is only a matter of time! Craig, I will pray for you. It truly is sad you are stuck in the brainwashed mindset that is completely unrealistic!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Tradition is not justification for laws? I agree, God's word should be the justification for all laws.

    I agree that the people you mentioned should not be celebrated for their behavior. It is a travesty that half of all marriages end in divorce. God hates divorce, but gave Moses permission to offer a 'certificate of divorce' because of the hardness of men's hearts. Divorce is not a sin, homosexual conduct is.

    You're forcing your lifestyle on society and accuse others of forcing theirs on you? That's a hoot!

    If you're looking for affirmation here, ain't gonna happen. I project nothing but a willingness to not see children taught that pervasion is acceptable as a lifestyle choice.

    You can live together if you choose, just don't call it marriage because it isn't.

    Tony

    You misrepresent marriage, it was first between one man and one woman. We have continued to pollute it ever since. Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve=), not Eve and Sue either!

    As for being on the losing side, that's o.k., I'm going to stand for biblical principles regardless. We'll see in eternity who really loses.

    Craig in Lacey

    ReplyDelete

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