Tuesday, February 07, 2012

Redefining Marriage-What's Next?

With the attempt to redefine marriage under way and premature celebrations popping up on Capitol Hill, here's an update of where we are and what's ahead.

As you know, the Washington State Senate approved SB 6239, the bill to redefine marriage, by a 21 TO 28 vote.

Most of our readers have seen the senate roll call vote list----who voted to redefine marriage and who voted against it, however, I continue to get requests to publish the list. This is it.

Note that Republicans; Fain, Hill, Litzow and Pflug voted against their colleagues in the Senate, the position of the State Republican Party and natural marriage itself, voting with most Democrats and homosexual advocates to redefine it.

Remember that. Think election time.

Also note that 3 Democrats said "no" to redefining marriage and voted with us to protect marriage. Senators Hargrove, Sheldon and Shinn should be commended for standing for what is right. Perhaps you could send them an email thanking them for their stand for marriage. You can contact them through our website.

The House of Representatives held their hearings yesterday. Thank you to all who attended and to those who testified.

I have linked the video of the entire hearings. They were a little over an hour and a half. Rep. Matt Shea, Rep. Brad Klippert, Rep. Jay Rodne did everything possible to insure protection from religious rights being undermined in this rush to redefine marriage. Rep. Rodne offered an amendment to refer the issue to the people---the homosexual activists in the House of Representatives would have none of it. That discussion is at about 1hr-30 min. on the video.

All those who testified on our side did a great job. Couldn't have been better. I would direct you to Pastor Ken Hutcherson at about 26:30 on the video. He specifically addresses the civil rights issue.

Homosexual activist Legislators Murray, Pedersen and others have predicted they have more than enough votes in the House to approve their bill to redefine marriage.

Representative Shea told me he thinks a House vote could come this week, possibly tomorrow.

Senator Ed Murray has been warning his followers in the homosexual community not to "pop the corks just yet" because it is not a done deal.

Indeed.

We have a strong coalition of pro-marriage organizations and individuals who are committed to overturning this law, should it pass. And we are together on this issue.

Gov. Gregoire has pledged to sign it.

We have pledged to run a referendum to allow the people to vote on the issue. For those seeking to redefine marriage, this is their greatest fear.

While the Governor and a number of legislators told the press they would prefer this issue be voted on by the people, those same legislators killed the very amendment that would have referred it to the people.

They do not want this to go to the people. They only want to say they want it to go to the people.

Thank you for standing for marriage and for standing with us at this most critical time.

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

17 comments:

  1. I don't know if Gary's the silliest man I have ever read but he is clearly ignorant of scripture. There is no redefining of marriage - there can NEVER be a redefining of marriage. Man's laws are IRRELEVANT to marriage - God's Word is an immovable rock but Gary is all caught up in humanism rather than Jesus Christism - and obviously has no faith in God's Word.

    If you ever wonder why the church is sorely troubled - you only have to look at the men who have been leading the sheep....

    Oh well....

    Patrick

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hutcherson's testimony was a rambling incoherent mess! Apparently he is suffering under the delusion that HE is the final authority on what is and isn't a civil right. Thankfully, the Ninth Circuit court disagrees with him!

    Also, I found Hutcherson's personal attacks on Representative Pedersen for having his children present to be offensive and highly distasteful. As Hutcherson and many others on his side of the argument made perfectly clear, they had no qualms whatsoever about denigrating this children's families and parents in front of them. The fact that Hutcherson's side featured testimony from 13 year old Allison Vance, which she admitted was written by her father, just serves to highlight Hutcherson's extreme hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Was this child's mother there? 2 daddies is not a family. It's a perversion and the child is caught in it. Good thing you're not the authority on what a family is, God is, and He will not be mocked. The sins of the father will follow that child for a lifetime. Shame.

      Craig in Lacey

      Delete
  3. "Apparently he is suffering under the delusion that HE is the final authority on what is and isn't a civil right."

    Whereas he obviously can't be the final authority, because he's not homosexual. Only the Pervo-American community has the right to define things like that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh please, drop the drama, Joel.

      Who said Hutcherson's heterosexuality had anything to do with the fact that he isn't the final authority on civil rights? His proclivity for violence themed rhetoric, his constant self-aggrandizing and self-promotion, his history of protesting high school students for holding a pro-gay Day of Silence, and his serial dishonesty on just about every issue are what make him a poor person to make judgments on what constitutes a civil right.

      Delete
    2. Hmmmm.... a literate and intelligent person.

      Nice!

      Delete
  4. The 9th US Circuit Court is an abomination. Mimi from MA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Judge disagree with Mimi - bad
      Judge agree with Mimi - good

      Yawn.

      Delete
    2. Oh, that's a relief. I thought it was a real court and that the ruling would actually count.

      Delete
    3. Mimi - Please read my first letter to correct some ignorance. Unless you choose ignorance rather than knowledge BUT that is anti-Christ as we know for Proverbs, the Word of God, calls us to "get knowledge" - it is a command.

      Agape,
      Patrick

      Delete
    4. Patrick: Human, is that you??? Mimi

      Delete
  5. As I always have, I give Gary credit for allowing comments that both criticize him and his commentary. It would, of course, be appropriate for Gary to address some of the criticisms of his commentary. e.g. the Biblical vs. the humanist (Gary's) definition of marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "voted with us to protect marriage"

    Admittedly, the above is one of the silliest statements I have ever heard. Gary's marriage and every other marriage will do just fine - in fact, they will not be affected one wit.

    The only protecting is Gary's humanist, anti-Biblical ideology that wants to drag everyone else under its power and control.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you really that ignorant or are you professing Christ to cover your paganism? It is clear Biblical teaching that a man and women were made for each other, that for a man to lay with a man as a women is an abomination and a detestable behavior, sexual immorality is condemned by Old and New Testament.

      If you're going to attempt an apologetic in an open forum I suggest you open the Bible first and a book of fundamental logic.

      The only humanist, anti-biblical ideology is yours.

      Craig in Lacey

      Delete
  7. The 9th District Court decsion that homosexuals marrying is a civil right makes the other 42 states violating the Constitution ? Or I guess more specfic same gender marriage is a civil right , since homosexuals can get married , and a lesbian can marry a homosexual man , the civil right is really two genders getting married i GUESS.

    Not sure how you can say it is a Constitutional Right based on our Constitution . It also is not a violation of the Constitution to have gay marriage .

    Mick

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No Mick that wasn't the decision. Since married citizens regardless of the gender of their spouse are equal in California, both before and after proposition 8, the decision was about telling some married citizens they would have to subsequently use a different name for their contract with the state. Since they all have the same rights retroactively telling some that they must use a different named contract was found unconstitutional.

      As such it has not application for any of those other states

      Delete

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