Friday, January 06, 2012

WA Legislature---A House Divided

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
While Governor Gregoire's administration calls for more taxation to fix her economy---roughly $1 billion shortfall still remaining to be fixed, she has, with her call for homosexual "marriage," elevated re-defining marriage above the overwhelming economic challenges of the state.

Senate Republican Leader, Mike Hewitt, said yesterday that the debate she has signed on to is ill timed given the dire fiscal condition of the state. He also sees a conflict with Murray.

He told the press that the marriage debate will particularly create problems because Democratic budget negotiator Sen. Ed Murray is "vested in this personally."

Murray is a homosexual who, as a senator, has spent countless hours over the past several years laying the groundwork for this moment when he and others believe they can redefine marriage.

Hewitt said, "We should leave the social agenda off the Legislature this year. The last thing we need to do is to be down here in turmoil over social issues."

Indeed, there will be turmoil.

"Oh no," says Spokane's Democrat Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, "This is the right time to move forward with marriage equality."

Gregoire disputes Hewitt's concern, assuring the public that legislators are multitaskers. Capable of many things at once. This, of course, is how the Democrat controlled legislature has been so effective during Gregoire's term.

All this affirms that the homosexual agenda is more important to them and their allies than actual education in the public classroom, more important than religious freedom and more important than actually doing the work of the people at the Capitol.

Redefining marriage for 1/4 of 1% rather than focusing on the debilitating fiscal fiasco in Washington State.

The issue of re-defining marriage cuts much deeper than so-called "marriage equality." When attorney Steve Pidgeon told us in a meeting this week that only one fourth of one percent have taken advantage of the domestic partners law, it became clear that the DP law was not really just about equality.

Gregoire, Murray, Pederson and others moved mighty mountains to get the must have DP legislation passed.

While re-defining marriage will be wrapped in warm, soft wraps, with emotional human stories, it is much more than that.

Homosexual activists told the Associated Press at their "re-define marriage" kick off in Bellevue several weeks ago, "Yes, we have the benefits, but we want the name." "Why?" asked the AP reporter. "Having the name will help erase the stigma" of the behavior they said. And that's a quote.

We are encouraging you to call every lawmaker in the state and encourage everyone you know to do the same, however, there may be another action even more important.

Take a moment in the face of what will likely be the most fierce battle in the history of the state and ask yourself, "What do I believe? Why do I believe it? What is the basis of my belief?"

Do I merely attach my beliefs to the changing, relativist moral climate of our times or are there eternal, enduring principles and truths that I build my life upon?

Does a rebellious culture become my moral compass merely because they invert words and call good evil and evil good?

Am I conformed to that worldview or am I transformed by the renewing of my mind? Are there absolutes? Are some things right and some wrong---some sin and some not? What is the basis of my beliefs?

You will certainly face these issues in the coming days.

This issue of marriage will divide not only the Legislature, but the state, communities, churches and even families.

Abraham Lincoln reminded us that a nation divided cannot stand. One view will prevail, the other fail. Consequences will follow.

Take a moment this weekend. Consider the truth. "Then you will know the truth and the truth will make you free."

Be Vigilant. Be Convinced. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful.


  1. Again, it need take no more than 15 minutes - put it up to a vote without the posturing and delaying tactics that are pointless. It will either pass or it won't. Seriously, the more they whine about it the more time they give to drumming up support for it - put it up to a vote quickly without food dragging is the best strategy for your side.

    If it passes, you can collect the signatures for a referendum with your mysteriously sourced paid signature gatherers and put it on the ballot. Of course you already told people they were doing one on 'gay marriage' so it might confuse them but you can just tell them 'no no its really about marriage this time' and maybe they will figure it out.

    This will only be boring, time consuming political theater if Republicans make it that way.

    It's their choice.

    (anyone been illegally treated due to the petition releases from the last time you did this? Its been over 4 months - anything?)

  2. If jobs and the economy are so much more important than social issues, why does Gary spend so little time talking about jobs and the economy on this blog? Seems to me this blog is all social issues all the time!

    Does anyone doubt that if the law being proposed were banning marriage equality, such as the ones in North Carolina and New Hampshire, Gary and his cohorts would support them 100% and be completely unconcerned about jobs, the economy and giant holes in the budget - just as his cohorts in those states are currently doing. Check out NOM's website-- apparently it isn't the time to discuss social issues in states like WA where the issue is enacting marriage equality, but it is time to discuss them in states like NH and NC where the issue is blocking or ending marriage equality.

    Hypocrisy. Blatant double-standards - situational ethics even.

    Of course Gary has the unmitigated gall to cite Pidgeon in a post whining about how the state should be concerned with education funding instead of social issues. I suppose Gary thinks we should all ignore the hundreds of thousands of dollars the state spent defending against a frivolous and fundamentally dishonest lawsuit (almost every one of the "Doe's" was a public anti-gay activist like Gary and Val Stevens) that at is core was little more than a PR campaign attempting to smear LGBTs as violent. Pidgeon was of course, Gary's lawyer in said frivolous, dishonest suit.

    Of course the costs of this lawsuit are on top the costs of verifying petitions and conducting an election on Ref 71, Gary's failed attempt to overturn the domestic partnership law. Since Gary and his ilk have already promised another referendum attempt should full marriage equality pass, it couldn't be any clearer that their cries of poor timing, and other higher priorities are nothing more than ruses to avoid having to discuss the real issue, and having their naked anti-gay bigotry exposed for all to see.

  3. OK, so there are too many economic issues to deal with so we can't take on marriage equality. Yet, on Nov 3, 2011, Gary wrote a column supporting efforts by Republicans in Congress to reaffirm "In God We Trust" as our country's motto.

    Such transparent hypocrisy.


  4. I'm looking forward to this battle for the "stigma" to remain where it belongs, on those who call evil good.

    Craig in Lacey

  5. The politicians who disturb me the most are the ones who claim to be Christian, but still support the things that are obviously violations of the concepts of natural law and natural rights that this country was founded on (not to mention th...e words of the Bible). What could possibly more of a violation of the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God" than same sex marriage? What could possibly be more of a violation of "the unalienable right to life" than the government subsidized murder of the most helpless and most innocent? Pelosi, Gregoire, and the rest of the so-called religious left are a part of the same "reprobate mentality" that is described in Romans Chapter one. They can claim to be "religious", but I have more respect for atheists than I have for the religious left; atheists are more honest.

  6. What could possibly more of a violation of the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God" than same sex marriage?
    Just about anything. The holy writs of 'Nature's god' are the books on biology, physics, sociology and the like and the improve with the passage of time.

    Its totally natural for adult humans to be attracted to a particular gender of adult humans. Both men and women have every gene necessary to be attracted to either, we understand how genetic and epigenetic events can result in an adult human that can be attracted to males or females regardless of their own sex.

    We do know that when that attraction occurs at no time does your body 'look in its genes' to see if you have a Y chromosome or not before hand.

    Allowing all those with a spouse to license with the state is exactly what Nature's Law requires and Nature's god would want.

  7. What could possibly more of a violation of the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God" than same sex marriage?

    Since homosexuality occurs at regular and reliable rates throughout most species in nature, homosexuality actually is a 'Law of Nature'.

    Mark in Tigard

  8. "I'm looking forward to this battle for the "stigma" to remain where it belongs, on those who call evil good."

    And there you have it. Gary danced around it, but Criag but it in simple and straightforward language. For Gary, Craig and their ilk, this battle is about nothing more than nothing less than stigmatizing gays and lesbians.

  9. Mark

    What percentage of those unions produce offspring or a lasting relationship? Ahh, that would be none. Show me one species that mates only with the same gender and I'll show you one that's extinct. They certainly don't "marry" for life.

    By the way, when did we become monkeys or omebas. You may want to imitate one, but I'll stay a unique creation of God.


    I talk straight, your "stigma" has always been there, since long before I was born. It'll be here long after I'm gone.

    As I said in another post, legalizing something still doesn't make it moral, i.e. prostitution or drugs.


    You should know better. Some people are attracted to kids, etc.. A person's being tempted is not immoral, giving into it is. By your definition, why should they not practice there attraction? It's perfectly normal, right? Same sex attraction is the same thing, 5000 years of history has born this out.


  10. Anonymous poster, you should know better - Jesus made it clear that the temptation IS the sin, as he did with his example of adultery.

    As far as some people being attracted to children you are referring to your biblical heroes since they had the ages of 12 for girls and 13 for boys as the age of sexual congress.

    But regardless, we know that men and women attracted to men and women all use the same biological attraction mechanism, and if its legal for one citizen to marry someone who is an unrelated, of age male then they all should, ditto for females.

    Again simple test:

    do we allow some citizens to license with a husband? Yes.
    do we allow some citizens to license with a wife? Yes.
    do we allow some citizens to license with a child? No

    See the difference? Marriage equality is about letting all citizens do what other citizens can already do in keeping with our American ideals, not about letting anyone do what no one is allowed to do.

  11. Oh and I find it humorous that someone is putting up a petition to change DOMA from male and female to man and woman. Don't they know that the terms are not synonymous - that male and female refer to sex and man and woman refer to gender?

    Legally what they are saying is that they want to allow a female who has had a gender transition to a man, and a male who has to a woman to now be allowed to license the marriage contract!

    Who would have thought they would put up an initiative to support trans rights?!!!


  12. You're right, Craig, legalizing something doesn't make it moral, even if has been legal since long before we were born. You know, things like slavery, racial discrimination, second class treatment of women or discrimination against gays and lesbians.

  13. 7:22

    I was making a point of the silliness of the statement that homosexuality violates the laws of nature. When something occurs in nature at a regular and reliable rate, it is a law of nature. You can argue the efficacy of homosexuality continuing the species, but that's immaterial to its status as a law of nature.

    btw - no one is advocating same sex marriage as the only option. Our species won't be endangered.

    Lastly, are you saying that all the species in nature are not 'a unique creation of god'? Are you accepting evolution now????

    Mark in Tigard

  14. I googled in the "quote" from Pastor Randall's post above, where a gay activists admits that he wants the name "marriage" to erase a stigma of some kind. But google finds no such quote, other than here at this site and one other political site. But nothing from the Associated Press or any other news source.

    Pastor Randall, are you making up quotes?

  15. Faith and Freedom Staff10:01 PM, January 10, 2012

    Anon. 7:31 No Pastor Randall is not making up quotes. He is quoting the Associated Press as reported by KOMO News. This is the link

  16. Sorry FnF Staff, but the quote Gary presents does not appear in the article you cite.

    Gary said:
    "Homosexual activists told the Associated Press at their "re-define marriage" kick off in Bellevue several weeks ago, "Yes, we have the benefits, but we want the name." "Why?" asked the AP reporter. "Having the name will help erase the stigma" of the behavior they said. And that's a quote."

    The ONLY appearance of the word "stigma" in the AP article FnF staff claims is the source of the quote:
    "Instead, supporters said, the effort is about erasing the stigma that long-term couples face when they have to introduce their significant others as "my partner," rather than "my husband," or "my wife."" You'll note that the word "stigma" is the reporters and not from any "homosexual activists".

    At no point does the AP article quote anyone saying "Having the name will help erase the stigma", which Randall assures us a quote. Are Randall and the staff confused about what it means to claim something is a quote? It means that the words presented within quotation marks are the EXACT words spoken by the individual cited. Since the words Randall put in quotation marks do not appear anywhere in the AP story, it CAN NOT be the source of the quote.

    So the question remains, can Randall or FnF staff cite an actual source for the words Randall makes a point of telling his readers is a quote? Or will they admit that Randall is now simply putting words in his opponents mouths?

    Hypocrisy. Dishonesty.

  17. yes but he is quoting the news article's author opinion (or paraphrase), not any 'gay activist'. i.e., the article's author put words into the mouth of the activists.

    Still considering what we have seen, its close enough.

  18. There is a verbal exchange quoted above. Pastor Randall uses quotation marks. He has some gay activist saying ""Yes, we have the benefits, but we want the name." He then has a reporter asking them "why?" and then has the gay activist declaring that it would "erase the stigma". He then asserts that the stigma is a stigma concerning homosexual conduct and further tells us that all of the above is a quote.

    None of this is in the KOMO link and you can't find it anywhere on Google. The only thing in the KOMO story is one reference by the reporter to erasing a stigma relating not to homosexual conduct but to gay people having to introduce their partners with some euphemism. Pastor Randall was making up quotes and thus should retract the above and apologize. I won't hold my breath as we are still waiting for him to come up with support for his claim that AG McKenna's office was rude, hostile and unprofessional in his deposition.

  19. @Oshtur, no it's not close enough, it is an entirely fabricated quote! None of the words Gary placed within quotation marks and even pronounced a quote appear in the AP article that Faith and Freedom staff (Gary perhaps?) is claiming as the source for the quote. It's not even a case of Gary quoting the reporters words, the words Gary presents as quote simply to not appear in the claimed source material.

    It may be par for the course with dishonesty from Gary, but it simply is not even remotely close enough.

    John in Seattle


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