Wednesday, February 08, 2012

The Tipping Point And The Remedy

Washington State is about to cross the moral threshold that Malcolm Gladwell, in his best selling book of a few years ago called, "The Tipping Point."

The book, read by millions, was about how to create positive and constructive improvement, however the principle of "tipping," unfortunately, is also true in regard to destructive moral behavior and decisions that enable it.

Washington State is about to step across the moral threshold and create a destructive cultural tipping point with unexpected and perhaps unintentional consequences.

Gladwell opens his book with these words:

"In the mid-1990's the city of Baltimore was attacked by an epidemic of syphilis. In the space of a year, from 1995 to 1996, the number of children born with the disease increased 500 percent. If you look at Baltimore's syphilis rates on a graph, the line runs straight for years and then, when it hits 1995, rises almost at a right angle."

"What caused Baltimore's syphilis problem to tip?...Crack cocaine."

Gladwell describes using crack as "risky behavior". The rest of his book is about turning destructive situations around.

Washington State is at a moral tipping point as a majority of lawmakers and the Governor seem to be poised to abandon the lessons of history and the morality taught by their parents and their church, and step across a destructive threshold to redefine marriage.

We are about to enshrine into law a bill that seeks to normalize that which is not normal or natural, affirm behavior that has been condemned by every successful civilization and every major religion and redefine in civil terms, the institution of marriage which predates all civilizations in that it was instituted by God Himself at creation.

Washington State is about to denigrate marriage between a man and a woman, the oldest and most sacred human institution which predates civilization and government.

What is the remedy?

Let me share some prayerful thoughts and considerations.

Initially, the state is saying that marriage will be between a man and a woman or two men or two women and they are calling it "marriage equality."

The state is about to blindly enshrine into law, a law that does not provide equality. Under this law, marriage is still discriminatory. What about polygamists who love each other? What about blood relatives who want to marry because they love each other?

This law is deceptive because it claims "marriage equality," but creates "special rights" for a very small behavioral group. Marriage will still be discriminatory.

Tipping Point. Who will be the next group to demand "marriage equality"?

This law will also discriminate against the religious beliefs of many Christians, as it will redefine sex-education in public schools. Public schools will be forced to teach homosexual behavior as normal, when it is condemned by biblical teaching. This law will also be discriminating to certain small businesses.

The abortion laws have come to bear with force on the beliefs and practices of the Stormans family and their pharmacy in Olympia. This new marriage law will do the same.

It will discriminate against children. It has already caused small children to be paraded in front of legislative hearings by their homosexual parents in an attempt to normalize the redefined family. It also takes away the right of children to have a male father and a female mother, which is universally considered to be the optimum family structure.

As I watched the hearings in both the Senate and the House, I was reminded of another time, a time I mentioned recently in a blog---a time when a leader refused to take heed of lessons learned from his father and previous generations. He rebelled against the faith of his father, much like Governor Gregoire and other lawmakers have admitted as they have shared their personal conflict in supporting this miscarriage of what is right and normal and natural and moral.

History says this man took the sacred "vessels of gold and of silver" his father had placed in the temple and brought them to his party, desecrating them---using them for purposes for which they were never intended.

Governor Gregoire and a majority of lawmakers are about to mimic that historical and moral tragedy.

They are about to use marriage for a purpose it was never intended.

Belshazzar failed to learn from his father---and these legislators have failed to learn from the teaching of their church and their families. And from history.

Nebuchadnezzer, Belshazzar's father, had been taken into exile until "he knew that the Most High God rules the kingdom of mankind" (Daniel 5:21).

Nebuchadnezzer had come out of his exile and humiliation reborn in the knowledge of God's Truth and His principles. And his son, Belshazzar, knew this.

Yet he created a tipping point which ended his life and destroyed a kingdom.

When he saw the infamous "handwriting on the wall," he called in the Chaldean "interpreters," who knew nothing of these matters, to explain the meaning of the writing. They were frauds.

Governor Gregoire and some misled lawmakers are being counseled by people who are blinded by their own passions and behavior. And have no moral understanding on this matter.

In desperation, Belshazzar finally took the advice of the queen and called the prophet Daniel, who explained what the "handwriting" meant.

It was too late.

A life was lost. A kingdom was destroyed.

They were "weighed in the balances and found wanting."

They had crossed the threshold of a tipping point.

As I watched Pastor Ken Hutcherson and others at the hearings faithfully point out the moral error of passing this law, I also watched the smirks, rolled eyes and disgust displayed on the faces of those who are committed to desecrate the vessel of marriage. In a sense, mocking the people of faith and the God they serve.

As I watched, I remembered a song written and recorded by Johnny Cash. This is a link to a video and all the lyrics, but here is the last verse:
"My friend you're weighed in the balance and found wanting,
Your kingdom is divided, it can't stand.
You're weighed in the balance and found wanting,
Your houses are built upon the sand."
The remedy.

First and foremost, this tragic situation can only be reversed through prayer. It is not a political matter. It is a spiritual matter. Pastors, congregations, individuals, and legislators of faith must join in prayer regarding this matter.

Then we must take prayerful action.

Some months ago I called Rep. Matt Shea and told him I knew this was coming and I felt we should organize a broader coalition than we had for the R-71 campaign. He agreed. I suggested he should chair the coalition. He agreed to do so. We contacted several other legislators who share our beliefs. These legislators, along with myself, Larry Stickney and attorney Steve Pidgeon, met and organized. Now we have a broad coalition that includes some pastors, legislators, Christian leaders, business people and a number of the faith based organizations in the state.

It appears the legislature has the votes to pass this bill. Governor Gregoire has committed to sign it.

If the law is passed, we will run a referendum or initiative. Whichever is the most effective.

Today, I'm asking you to join us in two ways.

First, a referendum or initiative will be run. I will need people all over the state to help circulate petitions to friends, to churches and in the communities. If you will be willing to help with this, please email me with your name, address, email and a phone number where I can reach you. This information will be held in confidence with me and my office.

Please email me at gary.randall@faithandfreedom.us.

Secondly, support us financially. Your donation is needed now. This effort will be very costly.

Thank you for standing with us as we stand for marriage.

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

12 comments:

  1. Gary

    You blindly accepted Mr. Gladwell's analysis. However, it was inaccurate. The problem was prohibition which created a twisted environment and mentality with the typical negative results. This is EXACTLY what happened during the prohibition of the 30's. I am disappointed that you choose not to think through shallow, inaccurate conclusions. Jesus has called us to a much higher walk than you demonstrate.

    Patrick

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Gary its statements like this:

    Initially, the state is saying that marriage will be between a man and a woman or two men or two women and they are calling it "marriage equality."

    The state is about to blindly enshrine into law, a law that does not provide equality. Under this law, marriage is still discriminatory. What about polygamists who love each other? What about blood relatives who want to marry because they love each other?


    that turn people away from your side the best. When you compare polygamy and incest with all citizens being allowed to do what some can already do it demonstrates you have no reasonable point. All citizens being able to do the same thing is not anything like any citizens being able to do new things.

    And what's amazing is that I think you think this is a great argument - I know Mr. Hutchensen does, he brings it up each time and seems oblivious how it just invalidates his opinion.

    You are going to need new boogie monsters to try and scare people with, everyone is just a bit too grown up to fall for these anymore.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's exactly the point, you are attempting to do a "new thing". It shouldn't have been allowed in the first place. Don't worry, someone will attempt to push the envelope further in the name of fairness and civil rights. Then what will you say?

      Craig in Lacey

      Delete
  3. Excellent word Gary. This should be very sobering for all who are Christians and for those who have strayed from their faith. You are spot on in your analysis of leaders seeking the wrong counsel.

    ReplyDelete
  4. OV. Gary does make a great argument. Every person who looks at redefining marriage objectively has to deal with this issue. Redefining marriage on the basis of equality does in fact open the door and give precedent to future demands for equality. You say redefining marriage should be done on the basis that "some are already doing it" turns people like me anyway from people like you. Other people are doing a lot of unseemly things. Should that too be legalized?

    ReplyDelete
  5. You say redefining marriage should be done on the basis that "some are already doing it" turns people like me anyway from people like you. Other people are doing a lot of unseemly things. Should that too be legalized?

    You realize you just dis'ed 'traditional marriage', right?

    ReplyDelete
  6. anom your right , re defining marriage to accommodate a small politically active population but not addressing the other non political less culturally acceptable possibilities is a good point. But I would say not a compelling point . It shows that marriage equality in itself is just a political slogan , but it is working . This is not about equality , for one thing it not insures some marriages will not have the possibility of providing equal representation to a child of both genders. Ones equality is the child's inequality .

    I have noticed where ever homosexual rights have been extended , their is also a cultural movement that attemts to link itslf to it . I really don't believe they are as much for gay rights as they are for anti religious bigotry that comes against religion of all kinds . It is seen possibly more by the religious right because they are so political , but I see it also against religion in general . Religion is seen as evil , intellectually dishonest , supported by uneducated people . In some institutions religion is socially unacceptable even now .

    This issue really should not be debated on a religious basis in my opinion anyway . But in in this post Christian culture its a sure way to loose the debate . One thing for sure , the results on lives are already evident because of divorce and this secular pluralist society . Actually is a good time to be involved in your church and serving the Lord . Their is so much need , and I believe the church will become united and very involved in the lives of so many people who are the least of these , and the powers at be will never know about this move of God ,because it will come from the poor, the streets , those in pain and who have been hurting , the hungry and the lost . God already won the fight , their are licenses to pole dance in bars , this is just one more state license that allows for part of the population .

    Mick

    ReplyDelete
  7. RE: "Redefining marriage on the basis of equality does in fact open the door and give precedent to future demands for equality."

    This argument is not an argument against marriage for same-sex couples. It's an argument for not changing ANY laws at all whatsoever, for shutting down all claims of injustice anywhere.

    Imagine where we'd be if we used this way in the past... We would have worried that allowing women to vote would mean we'd have to allow children to vote. Lowering the drinking age to 18 would mean we'd have to lower it to 7, or even 2. Allowing blacks to own property would mean we'd have to allow dogs to own property. Allowing people of different races to marry would mean we'd have to let different species marry. If we raise the speed limit to 70, what keeps us from raising it to 100? 200? If we ban marijuana, what keeps us from banning candy? Or milk?

    In fact, every change has its own set of considerations that need to be satisfied before a law will change.

    Beyond that, even your premise is wrong: The door is ALWAYS open to challenge the law, whether we allow same-sex couples to marry or not. Winning this issue will not shut down the courts and keep our law in a frozen state. The "unseemly things" you allude to have no shot at becoming law, and you know that.

    You're not getting the reaction you used to get in the past on this issue, so now you're trying to say this is about something even worse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a specious argument, the "unseemly" thing is about to become law. As for getting a reaction, you're about to see a reaction, all the way to the Supreme Court. Allowing perversion to be codified into law only invites more attempts to do so. God is not mocked, you will reap what you sow.

      Craig in Lacey

      Delete
  8. "This argument is not an argument against marriage for same-sex couples. It's an argument for not changing ANY laws at all whatsoever, for shutting down all claims of injustice anywhere"

    Huh ? Basically its just a fact . Its up to you to decide if allowing the defintion of marriage to be more inclusive is good or bad in those other situtations .Your just choosing homosexuality , as some just choose hetrosexuality , The 14th Amendment when written was applied to slavery , but if you look at judical history , it has opened the doors for legislation that has allowed the Federal Government to apply laws on states that had nothing to do with racism . Changing the defintions of the law , and the reason for it , opens doors , and when you change laws or add laws , there are almost always un for seen consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  9. anom 1225

    "Winning this issue will not shut down the courts and keep our law in a frozen state. The "unseemly things" you allude to have no shot at becoming law, and you know that.

    You're not getting the reaction you used to get in the past on"

    Have to say touche I guess, equating homosexual marriage to womens rights and civil rights are about the same as when people equate homosexuality to incest and beastility . Its more acceptable to equate homosexuality with womens rights in this culture , if you equate homosexuals with beastility you are a bigot . I would say homosexuals won the PR war in my opinion .

    But to your view that homosexual marriage does not change things I disagree . An example when abortion was being originally debated people on the pro life side at times would say it would not be toom long we will be killingour seniors for convenience . At that time such things were considered as well like beastility , immoral , insidiious , could niot even imagin it . Oregon and our state have laws allowing it now . Its considered compassionate . Abortion changed how we viewed life as a culture . already now schools have mandated that parents are to be addressed in non gender terms . Do you really think there is no difference in a mom and dad , or mom and step dad , or two dads or two moms , etc . I belive most of now would say the preference of all things being equal the biological mom and dad are the best way to go . Having laws that that promote that I bvelieve help insure that is more common then not .

    Marriage is in trouble now , its obvious we have all seen kids growing up in ways the vast majority on this richly blessed country did not have to . Hope your right , but you seem you have more hate and selfish reasons behind your reasoning , I just think kids do better with their mom and dad and our culture should treat that like it the way God designed it almost . ;0)

    Mick

    ReplyDelete
  10. Craig have to agree with you there . But the pro marriage side does also, so I gave him some slack . We compare same sex marriage with all sorts of evils . I tried to make a point about changing law can cause for un seen consequences and I think he just got emotional on us , lost his balance . The 14th amendment caused the Federal government to mandate laws that had nothing to do with slavery . In fact did it not come in to play in allowing Bush to win over Gore and over turning the Florida Court ? Maybe should have have used that as the un for seen consequence of changing law , liberals always can identify with Bush being evil . ;0)

    Mick

    ReplyDelete

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