Today the Washington State Senate is scheduled to vote on SB 6239, a bill that if passed, will redefine marriage and legalize so-called homosexual "marriage" in the state, forever changing the culture of the state and rewriting much of the public education sex-ed curriculum.
Senator Ed Murray and other activist legislators have been incrementally working toward this day for more than 15 years. Each session they have passed bills that expanded homosexual rights, all under the guise of fairness and compassion. In more recent years they have adopted the "civil rights" theme for their incremental progress, claiming their sexual behavior merited and was equal to the deserved civil rights movement of equality for African Americans.
Claiming that ethnicity is equivalent to their sexual behavior.
Sen. Murray says he now has the 25 votes necessary to pass the bill in the Senate. The margin is greater in the House.
Gov. Gregoire came out recently saying she was breaking with the beliefs of her church and her upbringing, but was going to both sponsor the bill and support redefining marriage anyway. "But," she said, her decision was not without personal moral conflict. And that she preferred that this issue be referred to the people for a vote.
Sen. Haugen, the 25th vote, recently joined the parade, also admitting personal moral conflict over the issue and wishing out loud it could be referred to the people for a vote. Senators Hill, Shin and others have also wished it could be referred to the people.
This past Monday, the Seattle Times told its readers to forget the voters saying, "The rights of minorities should not be subject to the whims of majorities."
The sanctity of marriage as between a man and a woman has been honored and promoted by every successful civilization and affirmed by every major religion in the history of the human race. And every major religion condemns homosexual behavior as deviant and unacceptable.
Those who support marriage and oppose redefining it stand on solid ground and on the side of history and wisdom.
It is hardly a "whim."
Those seeking to redefine a proven human institution, elevating and celebrating behavior condemned throughout human experience, may better define "whim".
If Murray is right and his bill passes today, what if an amendment to refer the bill to the people is offered--- what will they do? Are they truthful about wishing it could go to a vote of the people? Or have they been merely creating a little political cover for themselves?
By the time this day has passed, we will likely know if the Senate is willing to stand against history and morality by redefining our oldest human institution.
And we will know if they really would prefer to refer it to the people.
If the Legislature is afraid to refer this issue to the people, those of us who are standing for marriage will run a referendum. And we all know what that will involve. But we will do it anyway, because the people have a right to speak on this issue?
May God help, guide and provide for us in the days ahead.