Here are some of the responses from lawmakers to constituents who write to them expressing their opposition to redefining marriage. Thank you to our readers who forwarded these and other responses. I chose two responses that reflect, generally, the thinking of those wanting to redefine marriage:
From: Hansen, Rep. Drew
Subject: RE: Opposed to redefinition of marriage>
Date: Thursday, January 12, 2012, 2:49 PM
Dear Mr. xxxx
Thank you for taking the time to write to me. There are many gay couples in committed, long-term relationships in this state already; I would like to see them recognized as "marriage"-entitled to all the rights and responsibilities that this status entails-rather than as something less such as "domestic partnerships." It means a great deal to me that I am "married" to my wife. I would not want to be my wife's "domestic partner"; the permanence and uniqueness of marriage mean something to us, and I expect gay couples would feel the same way.
Now naturally, nothing that I'm saying here, and nothing in the marriage bill, will have any effect on the rights of churches to perform marriages as they please. That's part of the First Amendment's protection of the free exercise of religion, after all, and I would find it abhorrent if the state were ever to get into the business of proscribing what my church can and can't teach, on marriage or on any other issue. I'm just sharing my thoughts to give you a little more background on why I feel the way that I do.
Thank you again for writing, and I hope you're having a great New Year.
And then there is this response. A couple of these were forwarded to us. Rep. Jamie Pedersen is a homosexual activist and sponsor of the House Bill to redefine marriage.
From: "Pedersen, Rep. Jamie"
Date: January 16, 2012
Subject: RE: Constituent: Same same Marriage undermines the family
Thanks for your message. I strongly disagree with you on this issue and am the House prime sponsor of the bill that will provide marriage equality for same-sex couples. I can assure you that the legislation will provide strong protection for religious liberty. No priest or clergy person will be required to solemnize any marriage, and no religious organization may be compelled to permit its facilities to be used in connection with any marriage. But civil marriage is a legal construct of the Revised Code of Washington, and it is very much up to the legislature to define who can marry. I believe that our state has a strong interest in not discriminating against -- and harming -- the families of same-sex couples based on the religious views of a small and dwindling minority.
All families in Washington are hurt by our current policy of treating some families as different and inferior. All families in Washington will be strengthened by making civil marriage available to couples regardless of their sexual orientation.
Personal Observation By Gary: Note the line "religious views of a small and dwindling minority" That is, of course, how he views the faith community.
Representative Jamie Pedersen
43rd Legislative District
P.O. Box 40600
Olympia, WA 98504
Republican Rep. Glenn Anderson (Fall City) has announced that he will support homosexual "marriage". He came to this decision by researching The Code of Hammurabi, Council of Trent and Emperor Justinian. I'm not kidding.
Anderson is also running for Lieutenant Governor this election. Anderson is an example of the "break away from the conservatives so you can get elected to a state wide office" advice Sam Reed has been dispensing in recent years. We'll see how it works out for Rep. Anderson.
And finally, on this Friday, some good news. The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) issued a press release committing $250,000 to help defeat Republicans in Washington State who break with the GOP Party commitment and vote for homosexual "marriage."
Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Informed. Be Prayerful. Be Active.