Friday, February 17, 2012

Marriage Update: R-74 and I-1192 - A Conflict?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Both Referendum 74 and the Initiative I-1192 are moving forward and are getting considerable press.

R-74 was filed Monday, as you know, by Joseph Backholm. There is a story being advanced that Joe Fuiten actually went to the Secretary of State's office to file a separate and different referendum earlier on Monday and was turned away because the Governor had not yet signed SB 6239 into law.

Dominc Holden, with Seattle's "Stranger" left wing, pro-homosexual newspaper which is read widely by the Seattle main stream press, published this:

Posted by Dominic Holden on Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Pastor Joe Fuiten walked into the Washington Secretary of State's office this morning to file a referendum attempting to overturn the same sex-marriage law that lawmakers passed last week. One problem: Governor Chris Gregoire hadn't signed the bill yet. So election workers turned him away with a 3:30 p.m. appointment to return (after the bill was signed), says Secretary of State's office spokesman David Ammons. Also this morning: Family Policy Institute of Washington director Joseph Backholm waltzed in with his own, separate plans to file a marriage referendum. Same problem, of course.

"I'd heard for a few days that they are not in sync on this," Ammons says.

I spoke with Dave Ammons yesterday and he told me there was some confusion in the Secretary's office because two different people were trying to file a referendum. He told me it was not two different referendums as they originally thought, but the same one. Both Backholm and Fuiten tried to file it separately. Backholm was successful.

It may have had to do with who wanted to sign it. I don't know.

Be very vigilant and discerning, the press and the homosexual activist community will do all they can to divide the pro-marriage community.

Reuters News Service, in a national story, quoted Joseph Backholm as defining Steve Pidgeon's I-1192 as "amazingly confusing".

It is not.

Brad Shannon, with the Olympian reported that "a Thurston County judge has fine tuned language for a ballot measure that seeks to limit marriages in Washington to heterosexual couples."

"This decision," Shannon says, "paves the way for Initiative 1192 sponsors to circulate petitions."

Pidgeon's Initiative is very straight forward. No confusion. The Initiative will be defined on the ballot as:

"Initiative measure 1192 concerns marriage for same-sex couples. This measure would define marriage as a civil contract between one man and one woman and would prohibit marriage for same-sex couples."

"Should this measure be enacted into law?" Yes [ ] No [ ]".

That's it. If it is on the ballot, that is what the voter will see.

Here's the challenge. It requires 241,153 valid voter signatures by July 6. Steve Pidgeon said petitions will be available within the next few days and will ultimately be available at thousands of churches, some Staples stores and online.

We will be making these available as soon as possible. The petition will be posted on our website for download as soon as it is available to us.

We support I-1192 because it takes a longer look at marriage and its long term protection.

Referendum 74 will require 121,577 valid voter signatures. The current law to legalize same-sex marriage, SB 6239, is on hold until July 6. If enough signatures are collected to put it on the ballot, the law will remain on hold until the November 6 election.

We support R-74 because it puts a temporary stay on the law and takes the short term action of overturning SB 6239.

Should R-74 be successful in overturning SB 6239, and I believe it will, the door would still be open for Sen. Ed Murray and others to introduce a new marriage bill in the future.

Should I-1192 be successful, and I believe it will be if we can get the signatures to put it on the ballot, it will essentially block future attempts to redefine marriage. I-1192 would make it very, very difficult to redefine marriage in the future.

The sponsors of R-74 are saying they should have petitions available by the first part of March.

Thank you to all of you who have volunteered to circulate petitions to defend marriage. I will be in touch with each of you through email. Your response has been terrific. We are organizing leaders in each part of the state, who will be coordinating the efforts of Faith and Freedom.

We are committed to seeing each---R-74 and I-1192 on the ballot.

Understandably, this is troublesome to those seeking to redefine marriage.

NOM has said they will be raising millions of dollars from both within the state and from other national organizations.

Faith and Freedom will be raising money to pay for our efforts to gather signatures and future efforts to educate and persuade voters to stand for marriage leading up to the November election.

Thank you for supporting us.

If you have not yet signed up to help circulate petitions, please do so here. If you have signed up, encourage friends and family members to do so as well. Talk to friends about it at church this weekend.

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


  1. Gary -

    For you to state that you are "pro-marriage" as opposed those seeking "gay marriage" is obviously blatantly dishonest. It is obvious to this outside observer that they are desperately "pro-marriage" since that is what they have worked so hard to obtain. Now if you said, we are "pro limited marriage" - I could see an element of honesty in that statement.

    Otherwise, you are simply lying to say that people who don't support your position are not pro-marriage. This is a horrible loss of your personal credibility and integrity(though, admittedly I have never seen you concerned about these parts of your character). While I don't care how you sully your personal name, I do care when you drag the name of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ as your banner and bulwark. Therefore, you will hear from a genuine disciple bring correction from scripture - as we are called to do.

    In Jesus Christ

    1. He keeps using that term 'pro-marriage'. I do not think it means what he thinks it means.

    2. No, the gays are not "pro-marriage", they are "pro-perversion" of marriage. Obviously you don't know what God defines as marriage,
      please read the relevant passages in Scripture.

      You will find the correction you seek

      Craig in Lacey

    3. Amen, Patrick!

    4. So you must agree that when a girl is raped, her rapist should marry her. It's in the scriptures.

      Or that Kings David and Solomon had hundreds of wives and concubines. For you that must be "traditional" too.

      There is always Abraham who married his sister. She invited him to have sex with her slave Hagar. This is relevant according to scripture, right?

      Ken in Vancouver

    5. Ken,

      Yes, yes, and yes. If it's in the Bible, it should be law!

    6. People that are not believers need to see, that the parts in bible were you see wrong things being done by man. that is to show you, the hart of man. and that we need to look to Jesus who is God in His word, to show us how to make the right choices in life. because if we just use those things that we see in the bible as a way out to not obey. That would be wrong, the way to look at it is, that no one is better, then one another. But that we all should be judge. that is y we have Jesus.

  2. I think he knows what it means. It means the same thing to him as to all of us. Marriage is only between one man and one woman. Anything else is not marriage.

  3. Hi Gary. No truth whatever to the Stranger's story about me filing a Referendum. I did not try to file a Referendum nor was I involved in selecting who would file. I'm glad to be working on the larger effort with you and everyone else to get it on the ballot. Joe Fuiten.

  4. Gary: your R71 petitions told people that if R71 was approved, WA schools K-12 would have to teach gay marriage and that homosexuality is normal. Why didn't that happen? Were you lying to people?

  5. No one is talking about the long term problems here. If to many people choose to be gay because they can marry, then our birth numbers will go down. We are really close to sharia law right now and if the Muslims keep having more children than we do its going to happen thanks to political correctness.

    1. we are far closer to Christian sharia than we are to Islamic law. Neither of which is allowed under the Constitution. There IS a serious effort in this country to create a theocracy. Those same people will be more than willing to change the Constitution to codify their theocracy. Anyone who falls outside of their idea of God and religion should be very afraid. Freedom of religion will be changed to requiring everyone to believe and worship as they prescribe.

      As far as people choosing to be gay, that is just rubbish. Can you HONESTLY say you make a daily choice to be heterosexual? If you say being gay or straight is something you actually choose, then perhaps you are struggling with more than you let on.

      Ken in Vancouver

    2. There is only one way to worship our Lord. The right way is the way it says in the Bible. It should be the law and choosing to be gay should be against it. It would be best for everyone.

    3. Since when are we close to sharia law? are you referring, with your comment about our dwindling population, to that recent video that is getting emailed around about how the world's "european" (read: caucasian) populations are dwindling because they are having fewer children than muslims? the one that kept saying "CULTURE" and "MUSLIM IMMIGRANTS" with a big, serious voice? Umm. . . they weren't exactly defining what they meant by culture, had very few real citations for their statistics, but did throw in a scary quote by Gaddafi. Clearly just propoganda! Hope we are good enough thinkers to be able to parse this stuff. Next the crackpots will be saying that homosexuality and legalizing gay marriage is a muslim conspiracy.

      Also, where is that passage exactly in the bible where Jesus forbids love between people of the same gender? I'm having trouble finding it.

      Get a grip.

    4. The muslams ARE promoting gay marriage here because they know that the gay lifestyle will end our civilization faster than anything else. First they promote the gay lifestyle then do sharia law and cut the throats of all gays because they really know how sick they are. Get ready to wear a berka.

  6. You know you don't "own" marriage, right? You would be doing far greater good in the world if you spent your energy strengthening all marriages.

    Focus on your own family. We don't live in a theocracy.

  7. There are more than 7 billion people in the world. Our population growth is never going to be affected by gay marriage. And, gays have kids all the time.

  8. Initiative 1192 will acoomplish precisely what Attorney Stephen Pidgeon said it would. If it makes it on to the ballot and passes in November; I-1192 will strengthen the existing definition of marriage here in Washington State and make it very difficult for legislators to simply create laws that overturn our time honored traditional legal definition of marriage.

  9. ...9realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10and fornicators and homosexuals and slavers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, 11according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted. 1 Tim 1:9-10

    men+cohabitation/sperm/couch, the same terms used in the old testament for homosexuality, are used again in the new (along side perjury, rebellion, kidnapping to enslave someone, etc).

    The other term, fornicator, while used more broadly to apply to all forms of sexual immorality, specifically means 'a male prostitute'.

    For either a man or a women to sleep with someone outside of marraige its considered fornication, for a married man to sleep with another man;s wife, or a married woman to sleep with a man not her husband, its adultery.

    "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral." Heb 13:4

    "1Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2But because of immoralities (Fornication), each man is to have his own wife (eautou genaika), and each woman is to have her own husband (idion andra)....But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
    " 1 Cor 7:1,9

    This passage makes it very clear that because there is the temptation/lust to sleep around outside of marraige (whether with those of the same or opposite gender), then those who experience those temptations (ie anyone without the gift of singleness or who is not a eunich) should get married (in a male/female marraige).

    Going beyond this, why does it matter so much?:

    1) Adam/Eve, and the male/female relationship, is a physical example of Christ's relationship with the Church

    2) The male/female marraige is a blood covenent, again a physical example of a spiritual covenent the church has with God as the bride of Christ

    3) One of the words for sin means 'to miss the mark'. The male/female relationship is held up as the standard, wheras sodomy is condemned as missing the mark (whether its a man/woman or a man/man commiting it) Rom 1:14-27

    4) Sodom and Gemorrah were towns filled with immorality, including homosexuality - the whole town, even the yong, came out to sleep with the male strangers who had visited. Lot was rescued because he was "opressed by the sensual conduct of umprincipled men" (Heb 2 Pet 2:6-10). Homosexuality here, as it is in other passages, linked with corrupt desires and despising authority.

  10. ***

    It is very true it is not the church's job to judge the world outside the church - that is God's job. The church body can and should vote for moral laws, since we are citizens and part of the government. But, this does mean we shouldnb't be focusing on the sins of some random person down the block - we should be focusing on their salvation. It is our own sins we need to focus on (gossip, divorce, anger, etc). Homosexuality within the church is a problem, as the Bible is very clear on it.

    "9I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves." 1 Cor 5:9-12

    The passage above is not saying to shun or kick out anyone you catch sinning in the church. Rather, it is saying the church *does* need to expel people who are living in sin and loving it, who have not responded to church discipline. In the case above, a man was sleeping with his dad's wife.
    The church finally kicked him out. However, the purpose of this is not punishment - rather, its so that the person will repent, or moreso, that if they are a christian they will repent as they long for God and the fellowship of the church - wheras if they were just pretending, they probably will not return. When the man above *did* repent, Paul had to write to the church again so that they would let him back in!

    Homosexuality is a serious issue, especially as the younger generation has been taught (against all scientific evidence that its a predisposition including minor genetic inheritance, mandatory environmental factors, and personl choice) that you are born with it, that it can't be changed, etc. The churches cannot just say nothing, and definately cannot embrace it.

    Which brings me to the last 'why does it matter?'


    Many churches that choose 'adapting to the world' over Biblical teaching, such as embracing homosexuality, end up also embracing other movements, like religious pluralism, and eventually stop preaching Jesus Christ as the only way to God at all.

  11. Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Marriage Update: R-74 and I-1192 - A Conflict?":

    I think thіs is among the most vital info for me.
    And i'm glad reading your article. But should remark on few general things, The web site style is wonderful, the articles is really great : D. Good job, cheers


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