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: firstname.lastname@example.org . 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.