Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Seattle Times--Putting Words In My Mouth

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Lornett Turnbull, Seattle Times reporter, likes a little conflict. Most journalists do.

Yesterday she wrote, "Signs of disharmony have already emerged" among those seeking to protect the sanctity of marriage.

While it is a lengthy article, and Lornett correctly quotes from our blogs, she implies something that isn't exactly correct. Perhaps inadvertently.

She says, "In it Randall, a gay-marriage opponent and a Pidgeon ally, takes referendum leaders to task for snubbing..." Rep. Matt Shea, Senator Val Stevens and Pastor Ken Hutcherson. While I did support these people being included in the official leadership of the referendum and feel it was an error not to do so, it is implied that I am an ally of Pidgeon's but do not support the referendum.

I am an ally to Steve Pidgeon. I support him and will do everything possible to see his I-1192 on the November ballot. It gives a long term protection from the obsession of those seeking to re-define marriage.

I am also an ally to Referendum 74. And am organizing our thousands of friends across the state to help with both the Referendum and the Initiative. Referendum 74 gives a short term solution to protecting marriage by overturning the recent homosexual "marriage" legislation.

I believe that both have a very good chance to win if we can get them on the ballot.

Having both a short term solution in the Referendum and a longer term solution in the Initiative is very important. And prudent.

The press and some others are advancing the idea that having 2 pro-marriage items on the November ballot is confusing---that people somehow can't process that much information.

People are capable of voting "yes" on one and "no" on the other.

The folks are smarter than some think.

They can vote correctly in 2 boxes in the same election.

And they can gather signatures for 2 efforts to protect marriage, without paralyzing confusion, just like I can wholeheartedly support both campaigns.

If you are willing to circulate petitions in your area, please sign up here.

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


  1. Surely it is merely an attempt to create division and subvert a just cause. Thank you for taking a stand Gary. People certainly need a rallying point to keep moving in the same direction in a united front, not allowing for distraction or divisionary tactics. - GM

  2. Are you upset because you thought you had exclusive rights to gross misrepresentation?

  3. Gary, you are consistently taking the high road on this issue. Thank you for your stand on marriage, your leadership on social issues and your clarity. That's class.
    Also thanks for supporting both measures.

    1. There is no high road in bigotry and discrimination. This is simply forcing your religion on others.

      The high road would be to politely disagree and then let others live their own lives in accordance with their own beliefs when their actions have no effect on you.

      Mark in Tigard

    2. There is no high road to perversion and abomination. This is simply forcing your secular beliefs on others.

      The high road is to stop trying to teach kids that vice is acceptable, which most certainly does effect me.

      Craig in Lacey

  4. "Are you upset because you thought you had exclusive rights to gross misrepresentation?"

    I am pretty sure he realizes his opinion is unworthy because it is different then yours.

    1. Gary's consistent misrepresentations are not expressions of opinion. They are flat out intentional distortions. He knows it, you know it, we all know it. It's been pointed out many times on this blog. The fact that he's never offered a correction or apology when factual errors have been pointed out tells you everything you need to know.

    2. Sorry anom ,

      I disagree with Gary often, but I agree with His Faith . The many things that you appear to believe are reason for gary to apologoze for , an "intentional distortion" are comments that make you appear intolerant in other circles. In fact no where have I seen more intolerance in areas of academia and the media then with those who regularly distort the views of believers and all people of faith for that matter. You know as well as i in the media or other areas of our culture , any view that supports a mom and dad as the most compassionate and equal chance for kids to make it will be distorted . Because Gary uses religion as his basis bothers me also , but your selective concern for accuracy appears to be one way. You are not very concerned about the under handed way this debate has taken place . In fact most people will stay quiet because of the nastiness .

      Your wrong .

    3. No, I don't know how your view that "a mom and dad as the most compassionate and equal chance for kids to make it" is distorted by my side.

      That viewpoint may seem intuitive to you, but it just flat out isn't supported by studies. No distortion is required to point out it's not true. If you are really concerned about giving kids the best nurturing environment, there are much better predictors than the sexual orientation of the parents. If you have any specific examples of us distorting your view, I'm not adverse to admitting a mistake.

  5. I don't know why you keep saying that I-1192 provides long-term protection against gay marriage. It doesn't. The legislature could reverse I-1192 by a simple majority vote w/in 2 years. It is true that they could reverse R74 by majority vote right away, but as a practical matter there is no way tha the legislature would revisit issue in less than 2 years regardless.

    So I-1192 really adds nothing to what R74 does. Why have 2 efforts? This is simply a power play by you and Pidgeon and you, Gary Randall, are trying to dilute support for R74. Shame on you and Pidgeon!


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