Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Marriage "Redefiners" Fear The People And The Court

It is apparent that those seeking to redefine marriage fear both the vote of the people and the US Supreme Court.

They prefer a state by state strategy, isolating local lawmakers and making their case for "marriage equality," while telling the local lawmakers that the general public (voters) now approve of redefining marriage.

Results? Some misled state lawmakers vote for "special rights" for homosexuals, believing it to be an expression of equality and believing they are voting with a majority of the public.

Neither is true.

While homosexual activists hail them as "courageous," forward thinking and in the majority, the activists themselves fear both a vote of the people and a ruling from the US Supreme Court on the matter.

Surprisingly, The New York Times actually tipped the hand of the "redefiners" and explained the strategy in an article, "A Slow Stroll To The Supreme Court," admitting the "redefiners" fear both the Court and a vote of the people.

They Fear The People.

While claiming Washington State is now ready to approve redefining marriage, homosexual activists do everything within their power to avoid allowing the people a vote on the matter.

Some of them, including the Governor, sanctimoniously stood publicly and before the legislature declaring that they wished it could go to a vote of the people.

Hypocrisy.

Pro-marriage legislators in both the State House and Senate offered amendments that would have sent the marriage issue to the people for a vote. In every case the legislature denied the people that right and defeated the amendment.

The majority in the legislature did not "wish it could go to the people for a vote." And neither do the homosexual activists in elected office. Otherwise it would have happened.

Now, faith based and conservative organizations have been pressed into action to allow it "to go to the people for a vote."

We are committed to helping put both R-74 and I-1192 on the November ballot. Both are designed to protect marriage. The referendum in the short term and the initiative in the long term. Both must be put before the people.

Will you work with us in circulating petitions in your area? If so, please sign-up here. If you have already signed up, there is no need to do so again. The response has been terrific. Thank you.

We are finalizing our organization of districts across the state and will be in touch with all who have signed up within the next few days.

I-1192 petitions are ready. I understand R-74 petitions will be ready during the first 2 weeks in March.

They Fear The Supreme Court.

This past weekend I was catching up on some reading and noticed an article in the New York Times from last week.

Frankly, I was surprised that they tipped the hand of the homosexual activists to the degree in which they did.

In the article, "A Slow Stroll To The Supreme Court," they actually admit that the "redefiners" are trying to avoid the courts as well as the people.

The NYT reported, "The key to getting the answer you want often depends on the question you ask. And sometimes the best answer is no answer."

They say that strategy seems to have guided the appeals court ruling that recently struck down Proposition 8, after it was passed by a vote of the people, that prohibits same-sex marriage in California.

The Times story is actually admitting that should the Prop. 8 issue go to the Supreme Court it would likely lose because the Supreme Court would likely not uphold their broad argument that the Constitution guarantees same-sex marriage.

So, they are afraid of the Court.

Nan Hunter, a law professor at Georgetown, told the NYT, "I've always thought that the smart thing to do is to win this case for California and to keep the case out of the Supreme Court."

Why? Because it won't win.

The Times actually reported that, "Many gay rights advocates breathed a sigh of relief. They had long been wary of the Proposition 8 suit, preferring a state by state litigation and lobbying strategy over betting the farm on a case that was likely to end up in the United States Supreme Court. Some said they hoped the justices would now decline to hear an idiosyncratic case affecting a single state."

Senator Ed Murray, Rep. Jamie Pederson and other homosexual activists in the Washington State legislature have taken this same "slow stroll."

Over the past number of years, they have passed a little "equality" here---a little fairness there---a little more "equality" here, each a stepping stone on the path of the "slow stroll."

Incrementalism.

The frog in the kettle.

Those who have voted with them have been hailed as "courageous". Those who opposed them were haters, bigots and narrow minded. Too many preachers and politicians were silent. So were too many citizens.

This is our time.

The 2 measures, R-74 and I-1192, may well be the last opportunity for pro-marriage citizens to address the issue of redefining marriage in the state.

This is not a time to be silent or inactive.

Thank you for standing with us.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Fearless. Be Active. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.

5 comments:

  1. Quick note:

    Many on both sides of the Prop 8 issue misunderstand it. The ruling is only about a state where:

    1) all citizens have a right to marry regardless of the sex of their spouse,
    2) all such citizens once were all able to license the same contract titled 'Marriage'.
    3) that equal access was rescinded, saying some marriable citizens may license one contract and the rest must license another although both contracts are equal in their access to state statutes.

    The federal court ruled that saying some citizens must now use a different contract after all citizens being able to use the same is unconstitutional because such a mere word distinction between married citizens could only be fueled by animus.

    So those in the know aren't afraid of the US Supreme Court - the ruling in actually is a 'no duh!' level of constitutional infraction - you can't after the fact subdivide people into two groups that used to be one when the two groups are otherwise identical other than the label you put on them.

    But since California is the only state where all citizens have the right to marry regardless of the sex of their spouse and at one time all such citizens licensed the same contract titled 'Marriage', the ruling would only affect California.

    I will leave you to your deliberations. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  2. They should fear God! And no that if they have gay marriage he will punish us all and not just them. But they don't care.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Of course it was rescinded, the pols voted it in and the people voted it out, its going to the USSC and the 9th district will be overturned, which will be a victory for of the people, by the people, and for the people of California and beyond. Deliberate on that:)

    Craig in Lacey

    ReplyDelete
  4. hate to burst your bubble but Gary and anyone else, who supports I-1192, is by definition a marriage "redefiner", since the initiative redefines marriage in WA state.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is very well written post. Please pray that Allen and Salvatori will support marriage and vote against Snyder's resolution.

    ReplyDelete

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