Friday, January 27, 2012

New Survey On Marriage In Washington

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
The National Organization for Marriage has just completed a new survey on marriage in Washington State. After surveying 400 voters, they found there is not nearly as much support to redefine marriage as we are being told by the Governor, some lawmakers and the press. In fact, their survey found Washington voters do not support redefining marriage. Analyze this.

I have included a couple more responses from lawmakers to their constituents.

But first, a couple of things happening now in Olympia.

As you know both the Senate and the House bills to redefine marriage were heard this week. Thank you again to all who attended the hearings. It was great to see you standing for marriage---literally in the hallways.

The Senate committee had an executive session yesterday to discuss SB 6239. As expected, they voted it out of committee, thus setting up a vote on the Senate floor. The Senate also rejected an amendment that would have referred it to the people for a vote. Proponents of redefining marriage do not want the people to decide.

The House committee will have their executive session on their marriage bill HB 2516 this coming Monday. We will keep you updated.

With the continued deterioration of public education, I think it is not only important to address the mess in public education, but to also support the Washington State Home School Network.

I strongly encourage you to stand with these parents and their children. I believe in them and in what they are doing. I have linked their website above. Go to the site and contact DiAnna Weatherbee Brannon and see how you can help.

They have their annual Homeschool Day At The Capitol coming up on February 8. You may want to register and be a part of that.

Here are more personal responses from lawmakers, as they respond to their constituents, who happen to be our friends:

Response from Sen. Rodney Tom

Thank you so much for writing with regards to the governor's proposal legalizing same sex marriages here in Washington State. I understand your opposition because I have a father whose position aligns more closely with yours than it does with mine. I think the take away value we all should share is that sometimes good people on both sides of an issue are simply going to disagree. I'm sure that will be the case on this matter.

Throughout my ten years here in the legislature I have consistently supported domestic partnerships and the rights of those in our gay and lesbian community. If the bill comes before us, I will be voting in favor of granting same sex couples the right to marry. Civil rights are a two-way street. This is why the proposal, as it has been described by the governor, would include numerous exemptions for religious organizations and clergy, allowing them to continue to exercise their religious freedoms.

I especially think in this economic environment we all need to work together to move our economy forward and create the kind of high tech jobs that form the basis of our dwindling middle class. The high tech sector is a prime example of why granting these rights is important for Washington's economy. Companies like Google and Microsoft would not be able to hire some of their best and brightest employees if they themselves did not make sure same sex couples did not have the same benefits and healthcare as their heterosexual colleagues.

I know this is a very personal issue for many people and the passions run high. For me, although I will be voting for this legislation, my focus over these next several months will remain steadfast on creating a budget that not only balances this year, but delivers long term sustainability so that we can get off the roller coaster of promising one thing, yet always facing the next legislative session with a deficit.

Again I thank you for your involvement and voicing your opinion. It's a critical component to the democratic process.

think Peace!

Rodney Tom
State Senator
p 360.786.7694
o 800.562.6000 hotline

And this is an exchange between Rep. Sherry Appleton and an informed constituent who opposes redefining marriage:

From: Appleton, Rep. Sherry
Subject: RE: Opposed to redefinition of marriage


This legislation has nothing to do with religious marriage, I would be very opposed to it if it were. This is about "civil legal marriage" and here are the reasons: 1,044 tax laws are specifically defined in federal law for "married couples" - not domestic partnerships, et al.

I have always felt that if someone is part of our democracy, pays taxes, that they should be allowed all the rights and privileges that all of us are entitled to. In our society in this day and age, love is so hard to come by. I think love is a beautiful and enduring emotion between two people and it matters not to me what the person's sexual orientation might be.

We won't agree on this, but I just wanted to let you know why I support this bill. Thank you for writing.

Sherry V. Appleton
Representative, 23rd Legislative District, Pos. 1
Vice-Chair, State Government and Tribal Affairs
Vice-Chair, Health and Human Services Appropriations
Legislative Bldg. 132F P.O. Box 40600 Olympia, WA 98504
(360) 786-7934

Executive Legislative Assistant : Donna Bezon
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety".
Ben Franklin

And here is the constituent's response to her response:

To: " Rep. SherryAppleton"

Response to your points:

1. Of course this will attempt to mandate change to religious holdings, it will be against the law to not recognize a "married" couple for services rendered by religious organizations, for employment, etc.

2. We are discussing State law, not Federal Tax law, I do not see how your conclusion in this regards bears relevance.

3. On this point you are correct, we do disagree. Love alone does not equate rationale for marriage. I will be sure to reflect this disagreement at the next election.

Thank you for your response,


Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Bold. Be Active. Be Blessed.

Have a great weekend.


  1. Question number 5:

    "As you probably know, since 2010 Washington has had a civil union law which gives gay couples all the legal rights of married couples. Now some people want to pass a new law, which changes the definition of marriage.......Do you feel it is necessary or not necessary to pass now a new law which changes the definition of marriage in this way?"

    At this point, survey ceased being a survey and became a push poll. The results were immediately invalidated.

    All it proves is that if you folks can message it on our terms and no opposing view point is presented you have a shot.

    This survey proves nothing about public opinion on fairness and equality in marriage.

    Mark in Tigard

    1. I meant to say 'your terms', not 'our terms'. Big difference.

      Mark in Tigard

    2. Redefining marriage is precisely the homosexual agenda. That was an accurate statement.

      Craig in Lacey

    3. "Redefining marriage" much like "homosexual agenda" is a phrase that has be focus groups tested by your side and found to be most favorable to your side. It is a biased and leading statement, and I think you know that, Craig.

  2. Great news with the survey - if that's the best result they can get with a skewed poll it just god to show any referendum will be as successful as your last one was.

    Thanks again for the good news.

  3. Mark-Do you really think this survey proves nothing about public opinion? Do the 400 people who were interviewed not count because they didn't say what you want them to say? This is not a push poll, it is actually a fairly good and open survey.

    1. I guess we'll both see it in our own way. You folks have staked your claim on the phrase "redefining marriage". Using only that phrase to define the action turned it into a push poll.

      Yes, it does prove something. It proves that if you can message it properly in a vacuum, you might have a narrow chance. But that won't be the reality of an election.

      I agree with Oshtur, it's a skewed poll and the narrow margin of victory for your side is actually very good news for marriage equality.

      Further, this survey doesn't factor what may be the biggest hurdle - your referendum will ask people to reject a law already passed by their representatives. This is much more than just a vote on marriage equality and polls that take this into consideration show a substantial margin in favor of marriage equality.

      Mark in Tigard

    2. Ask Gov. Walker about the power of a referendum to undo what has already been voted on. See California, which undid the pro-gay agenda by referendum. Don't think for a moment it can't be overturned. My dad, bless his heart, didn't have a problem with civil unions. Marriage is an entirely different thing and he won't support it, many people feel the same way. You already have all the rights afforded married couples, right? Wasn't that what the "everything but marriage "fight was about?

      Oh! you mean you lied. I'm sorry, misrepresented your agenda. Marriage is and always will be 1 man and 1 women, 5000 years of recorded history bears that out, anatomy bears that out, common sense bears that out. The stigma will remain, it is an abomination and a detestable behavior and no, you people will not attempt to indoctrinate kids without a fight.

      There is no civil right to perversion.

      Craig in Lacey

    3. I wouldn't be so quick to throw around accusations of lying in regards to the R-71 campaign. Since your side lied through their teeth during that campaign. Or don't you recall how Gary et all claimed R-71 was about gay marriage? Don't you recall how Gary boldly predicted that within two years the courts would have overturned WA state's DOMA? Don't you recall you Gary et all shrilly proclaimed that R-71 was THE LAST CHANCE the public would have to voice their opinion on marriage equality?

      Do you know what stigma I think is going to remain, Craig? The stigma against bigotry, like that which your side is constantly putting on display.

    4. Better to be accused of bigotry than perversion.

    5. You already have all the rights afforded married couples, right?

      Yes, I do, but that's only because I'm a married heterosexual. I just happened to be born with a sexual orientation that isn't discriminated against. Also, I've never personally advocated for anything less than full marriage equality so no misrepresentation here.

      Your posts seem increasingly hostile. I guess that's understandable given the growing momentum and obvious inevitability of marriage equality. The world seems to be leaving you behind.

      Mark in Tigard

    6. Better yet to be accused of perversion by bigots.

  4. Mark you are accusing Gary and those of us who support marriage of creating push polls,etc., yet you call your campaign to redefine marriage "marriage equality". There is nothing equal about what you are asking for. As Gary has written many times, you are not asking for equality, you are asking for "special rights". Their are many loving, caring people in long term relationships that you are not including in your push for gay marriage.

    1. f Mark and those of us, who support marriage equality, are asking for "special rights", then Gary and those of you, who oppose marriage equality, are demanding to maintain "super-duper special rights" since you seek to exclude more people from marriage than we do! Also, while your oh-so-believable concern for these "many loving, caring people in long term relationships" that we are allegedly excluding from equality (not that you lot aren't as well) is touching, just who are these people? Where are their organizations? Where are their advocates, spokespeople and activists? When these folks you speak of care enough about their alleged exclusion from marriage equality to produce any actual effort to present their case and attempt to secure it, I'll consider this just one more example of Christianist disingenuousness.

    2. You are absolutely right. I use the term 'marriage equality' to purposely define my side as one of justice, equality, and civil rights. My intent is clearly to influence.

      The difference is that I am not conducting a survey claiming to honestly sample true support or opposition to gay marriage. Surveying responses to terms like 'redefine marriage' puts you in company with Frank Luntz, not an accurate polling company.

      Oh, and which loving, caring people would I deny marriage?

      Mark in Tigard

  5. All citizens being able to license with their husband or wife is equal treatment, nothing special about it.

    As to the poll QEV Analytics is known for getting the result their conservative clients want. And this poll with its 76% married is no exception.

    Of course the 2009 Elway poll F&FN commissioned got almost the identical results pre R71 and we all know how well that went.

    It's all good news.

    1. Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve or Eve and Sue either. That is the standard since the beginning of time. Deal with it.

    2. I love that "not Adam and Steve" retort. How entertaining that you resort to one of the craziest stories in the Christian mythology and consider it point proven! It's like saying "We're right about gay marriage because we reject science! So there!".

    3. Reject science??? Huh? So how do you think humans procreate? This should be good.

  6. Anonymous... the difference is that we don't quote polls that ask people if they support "marriage equality" and trumpet the results. We don't have to.

    The polls that have shown us ahead have been the ones that ask straightforward questions: "Do you think same-sex couples should have a legal right to marry?" or something along those lines.

    The rest of your argument is, frankly, just silly. No one thinks "marriage equality" means anything more than equal marriage access for same-sex couples. That's as dumb as arguing that you can't be "pro-life" if you eat beef or chicken, because even if you stop aborting babies, you're still killing cows and chickens.

  7. So funny Craig. Your side was the one that misrepresented domestic partnerships as marriage. And our side was up front about still wanting equal rights - every year an equal rights bill was submitted with any domestic partnership bill - this year they are acting on it.

    The thing that will really defeat you? Your embracing out of state influences. Look at the result of NOM having out of staters contact Mary Margaret Haugan - she is even more committed to her decision.

    Washingtonians HATE carpetbaggers and your dependence on them will doom your efforts.

    Again it's all good news.

    1. I didn't misrepresent anything, I said that this is just a stepping stone to attempting to redefine marriage. Your side called it everything but marriage. Gary clearly said that wouldn't be enough for the homosexual lobby, they wanted the name "marriage" as if that some how makes an abhorrent behavior okay.

      This isn't a civil rights issue as you already have civil unions and all the benefits of marriage without the name. This isn't about equality but special rights and having your lifestyle jammed down our throats. It ain't going to happen without a fight.

      That's good news indeed.

      Craig in Lacey

  8. The poll is a joke. It prefaces the question with a tendentious one-sided editorial, mischaracterizes the proposed law and then asks if the law is "necessary." The law does not permit marriage between "any two people" as the poll states. All existing limitations on marriage would continue to exist; only the sex of the marital partners would no longer be relevant. And the issue isn't whether the law is "necessary" but whether it is good or desirable. Finally, WA is not a state where there are equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats, which is the case with the respondent pool. And after all of that skewing, the pollsters can only get a 7 point spread against the legislation. This is encouraging.

    BTW, I do want to give some appreciation for Gary for allowing real discussion and debate on this blog. He doesn't censor comments like they do at NOM.

    1. Keep in mind that Gary doesn't post both sides out of any sense of fairness. He realized a while ago that posts from people like you and me get his followers up in arms and then they donate more.

    2. Now you are talking just plain stupid.

  9. Craig what 'abhorrent behavior '? Gay people engage in no behavior many more straight ones aren't doing also.

    And the domestic partnership is not recognized automatically by other states and countries. Our states obligations to its citizens doesn't end at its borders. It is not the same as the civil contract of marriage.

    If you can license it with your wife then so should all other citizens be able to do with theirs. It's simple equality.

    1. What 'abhorrent' behavior? "You shall not lay with a man as with a women, it is an abomination".

      The Bible goes on to make clear that the marriage bed is sacred, whatever a man and a woman agree to sexually is their concern. That's why your side seeks the "name", hoping it will justify your abnormal behavior and somehow remove the stigma. God is not pleased.

      News flash! Homosexual "marriage is not recognized by most states or countries.

      You can't license with a husband because you are not a wife, ditto for the gals, they're not husbands. As I've said before, Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. I know, I know, you think it's a myth, but even science is coming around.

  10. Craig you are correct. Homosexual acts are inherently unhealthy, whether done with one partner or many. This is especially true of sexual acts between males. Anal intercourse, for example, causes a host of inherent health problems simply because the organs involved do not tolerate this act well.The push for homosexual marriage isn’t really about civil rights, it’s about civil acceptance.We must face the facts of nature: homosexual relationships cannot produce the benefits of heterosexual unions; therefore, our laws should not be changed to pretend otherwise. Laws can neither change the facts of nature and magically transfer the procreative abilities of heterosexual relationships and the benefits of traditional marriage to homosexuals, nor can they erase the serious health problems that result from homosexual behavior. The most loving policy for our country is to legally protect traditional marriage — our national immune system — by ensuring that it remains solely the union of one man and one woman.

    1. You know, even when people reject God's plan, the evidence still bears out his wisdom and care for mankind. People just will not hear and be released from their bondage, they'd rather be prideful and miserable. How sad.

      Craig in Lacey

    2. Then I guess God is a bigot, He set the standard and calls homosexuality an abomination and a detestable behavior.

      Since you are an atheist your stance is understandable, but I love you just like I love Oshtur, I don't what either of you to suffer eternally for rejecting God's mercy. I'm hostile to sin not the sinner, there's a big difference.

      Again this isn't about civil rights, but special rights.

      Craig in Lacey

    3. I don't think he feels that way because he keeps making so many gays. Otherwise, that would just be schizophrenic.

  11. "Gay people engage in no behavior many more straight ones aren't doing also".

    While none of the following practices is unique to homosexuals, they are nonetheless typical....
    Most common is anal intercourse (sodomy)....Foreign objects are often used in order to produce a different erotic sensation or to instigate a more violent sexual activity (sadomasochism). Objects that I have removed from the rectum and lower bowel include corn cobs, light bulbs, vibrators, soda bottles, and varied wooden sticks.

    "Fisting" is when a fisted hand is inserted into the rectum, sometimes as far as the elbow, which produces varied sexually exciting sensations, strongly linking eroticism with pain.... Sexual practices typical of homosexuals can affect the oral cavities, lungs, penis, prostate, bladder, anus, perianal areas outside of the rectum, rectum, colon, vagina, uterus, pelvic area, brain, skin, blood, immune system, and other body systems.... Persistent anal-rectal sexual activity can lead to various pre-cancerous lesions such as Bowen's disease and Kaposi's sarcoma. Whenever tissues are traumatized, cracked, or abraded, they are vulnerable to bacterial infection.

    1. While paranoid stereotyping isn't unique to evangelical Christians, it is nonetheless typical....

  12. While none of the following practices is unique to homosexuals, they are nonetheless typical....

    more straight people are involved in all those things. That's what so funny and so biblically topical - you are obsessing with the possible motes in other peoples eyes and ignoring the logs in you and yours.

    And Craig I didn't call you a bigot. Your presumptive apology is preemptively accepted.

    And the word or concept of homosexuality didn't even exist in the time of the Bible you are projecting your own opinions on it again.

    Gays can be just as good a Christian as you can, and I know that drives you crazy.

    1. Actually i was responding to someone else, I somehow wound up on the wrong reply, wasn't payimg attention, I guess. See I make mistakes too=).

      you are incorrect on the sodomite reference though, 1 Kings 14:24 in Hebrew, the word is Qadesh, which was a male shrine prostitute i.e. a sodomite. That would be in the time of the Bible, as well as the Deut. reference, which you well know. Come on man, you know I know better. Try that on someone else.

      Craig in Lacey

  13. Oshtur. You are right. The word homosexuality wasn't used in Bible times. They called it sodomy, but the behavior was around and did exist.

  14. Sodomy is a made up word to that existed in neither Hebrew or Greek.

    And that is the problem isn't it? Some sects of Christianity are so removed from its original truths they have made it a book of lies.

  15. Come on man, you know I know better.

    Yes I do it seems.

    1 Kings 14:24 in Hebrew, the word is Qadesh, which was a male shrine prostitute

    No Qadesh is plural and refers to both the men and women who were consecrated to the temple and its fertility rites. That puts later mentions where it complains about men going to the Qadesh and forsaking their wives a bit more understandable doesn't it?

    Again, all of the mistranslations taken as fact and used to identify the motes in others eyes is what condemns you.

    1. Oshtur,
      We don't need to point out he speck in your eye. We are hoping you can OPEN your eyes. You have gone to so much trouble ( you call it research, science and Biblical study ) to make your case for your aberrant behavior that anyone with simple common sense knows is weird. It is wrong. It is not designed. God certainly didn't 'make' homosexuals. He made the sex drive and we have perverted it. I did. I tried to teach my children better and they are definitely doing better than their dear Mum but not perfect. Thank you Jesus for making us whole.

  16. that anyone with simple common sense knows is weird. It is wrong. It is not designed. God certainly didn't 'make' homosexuals.
    Ah yes, the 'gay is icky' rationale. I'm sure that people just like you said that about the Samaritans.

    Again the sermon on the Mount was about:

    You don't follow the Law,
    You don't even understand the Law,
    and even if you think you do, there will still always be that one thing you won't do.

    Jesus was all about showing us how what me might think was wrong or 'icky' wasn't at all to God.


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