Tuesday, March 06, 2012

"Hope and Pray You Will Not Sign Petition"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Personal emails are being received around the state by people who signed R-71, 2 years ago.

The message? "Don't sign a petition."

While the emails are different, there is a consistent theme. They are not threatening, but certainly intrusive.

Before I share more on this and some content, I received an email from Kirby Wilber, State Republican Party Chair yesterday afternoon.

He was wanting to clarify something in the press regarding the caucuses on Saturday. I told him I would share it with our readers. This is his message: "Gary, fyi,the media got it wrong. No delegates were awarded Saturday. This was a non-binding poll."


The following is part of an email one of our readers received this past weekend:

Dear XXXX,

My name is Paul Thomasson. You don’t know me, but you may soon be in a position to have an effect on my life.

I am writing to you because in 2009, you signed a petition to place Referendum 71 on the Washington state ballot. R71 was a question to the people to approve or reject a law extending the rights and obligations of domestic partnership....[He explains that he got the name from a certain web site]

Another law was recently passed to extend the rights and obligations of civil marriage to same-sex couples in Washington State, and Protect Marriage Washington has again promised to collect signatures to place another Referendum on the ballot (which has been labeled Referendum 74).

As you have probably guessed, I am gay. After many years trying to be otherwise, I came to the realization that my orientation is as innate as the color of my eyes and that it was futile and even harmful to continue trying to be something that I am not (as I’m sure several girlfriends who wasted their time on me would attest).

We can choose what we do, but we cannot willfully choose who we are attracted to or who we fall in love with. We simply do, and are we not as worthy as anyone else to have a chance to know real true romantic love (as opposed to the kind of platonic love that we may have had for members of the opposite gender)?

Thankfully, I found a partner and we have been together for almost 17 years.

We met in Washington D.C. at a country-western dance class on Friday January 13th, 1995 (we have no other date to remember or celebrate). Our meeting and ensuing romance was a revelation to me. For the first time in my life, I understood what the term “falling in love” meant (a concept which had eluded me well into my 30’s).

After a period of dating, even though we didn’t have a license or ceremony or a party or any of the other things that society uses to formalize and recognize a life-long commitment, we made a pledge to each other and we have stayed faithful.

We both served in the military (I, for almost 10 years). We pay our taxes and we try to be good citizens and good sons to our parents.

We don’t understand how extending the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage to us would harm (or even affect) anyone else’s marriage. And in your heart, I’m sure you know that it would not.

We’re not asking for special rights or for you to agree with the morality of the way we live our lives. All we want is for our government to provide us access to the single commonly understood institution that will make it easier for us and people like us to form and perpetuate the kind of stable life-long partnerships which surely benefit society.

I can’t know what motivated you to sign the petition for R71, but I sincerely hope and pray that you will not sign the petition for R74.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this. You are very welcome to reply to this email or to call me if you have any questions about why this is important to us and/or how it would affect us.


[ name and phone number]

Another email I reviewed, had a similar message from the same person, to another one of our readers. It also contained a lengthy overview of his life with this message, "We don't understand how extending the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage to us would harm (or even affect) someone else's marriage. And in your heart, I'm sure you know that it would not."

Our reader responded simply with this message:
"Marriage is between one man and one woman."

"I did not create the world nor the rules that govern it. I am not able to change the Truth and neither are you."

"I will stand for the Truth and pray that some day you will do the same."

"In Christ"

Well said.

In fact, what is being sought through the passage of the "redefining marriage" law is not "marriage equality," it is "special rights." It does not and can not achieve "marriage equality" because there are still many different groupings that would be discriminated against and refused marriage.

Marriage between one man and one woman predates civilization. It has been affirmed by history and every major religion. It is the cornerstone of every successful civilization.

It must not be redefined for one special interest group.

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

Your financial support is essential.

If you have not signed up to circulate petitions to put both I-1192 and R-74 on the November ballot, please do so here.

Be Vigilant. Be discerning. Be Prayerful. Be active. Be Blessed.


  1. In fact, what is being sought through the passage of the "redefining marriage" law is not "marriage equality," it is "special rights."
    How is a citizen being able to license a 100% secular contract with their husband or wife special when other citizens who can already license with their husband or wife?

    All citizens being able to license with their husband or wife just as other citizens can already do is the very definition of marriage equality.

    And as far as the sincere email being 'very intrusive', well we know how Jesus felt about those that weren't even open to discussion about controversial subjects.

    1. "All citizens being able to license with their husband or wife just as other citizens can already do is the very definition of marriage equality."

      Homosexuals *can* marry. I have a friend (who is gay) who is engaged to marry a woman. Is this somehow "forbidden" by the law? Of course not! The law does not allow them to marry a person of -the same gender-, a law which applies as equally to heterosexuals as it does to homosexuals. The law also does not allow sisters to marry brothers, sons to marry mothers, or a man to have multiple wives.

      The government has had the longstanding practice of being able to enforce social rules regarding marraige, even *over* other rights. (For example, that Congress outlawed bigamy, and upheld it even when it interfered with the religious beliefs of the mormons)

      While I don't actually agree that the civil sword of government trumps religious freedom (Althoguh I agree that religious freedom can't trump right to life or any other unalienable right, so churches can't engage in say, child sacfrifice)- in America goverment's stance on marraige is that:
      "Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties with which government is necessarily required to deal."

      As such, goverment is not concerned with how the 14 year old feels slighted that she cannot marry her 73 year old uncle, or that two male cousins feel mistreated that they cannot wed. Government makes laws of the organization of society to keep order, promote the general welfare, and minimize crime. Those rules "determine the principles upon which the government of the people, to a greater or lesser extent, rests".

    2. Oh, you are one of those that thinks that marriage comes from the state. Sorry don't share that opinion, all the state does is offer a contract for married citizens and some have wives, some have husbands and both groups has people of both genders.

      If you can license with a husband so can all other citizens, that's the equality part of it.

      And Mormons practiced polygyny, where only men had the right to license with multiple partners which is incompatible with American principles. It was anti marriage equality.

    3. Amonite, what a wonderful job delineating the very real and obvious issues on this subject. As usual and very predictably, Oshtur, finds a way to completely miss the point and go after what ever straw man he can find. I do enjoy when someone takes the time to 'get his goat'.

      Chalk one up for Amonite. And again thanks for posting. Oshtur seems to be the one assigned to Gary so he is a never ending fountain of distortion.

    4. Amonite is the one who is missing the point completely.

      First of all, Amonite seems to be celebrating a gay person marrying a person of the opposite sex. That marriage is most likely doomed, or, at the very best, loveless. Why anyone would think that is preferable to both of those people entering into marriages with people they can love is beyond me.

      Secondly, Amonite argues that marriages CAN be restricted as her reasoning that gay marriages SHOULD BE restricted. Bad logic. That some restrictions exist doesn’t mean that all restrictions are fair or constitutional. I can name tons of non-religious reasons why children shouldn't marry, or close relatives, or animals, or groups of people, or all the other crazy arrangements our opponents bring up. But there is no good, truthful, non-religious reason why gay people should not be able to marry. Not a one. Zero.

      Thank you, Oshtur...

    5. Thanks for the thanks. The point that they are missing is I never even mentioned sexual orientation, this is about all citizens having the same rights regardless of that. If one citizen with a husband can license with the state, why can't all citizens? This is about allowing all citizens to do the same thing, its not about allowing anything new.

      All close relatives are unacceptable spouses, all people below the age of consent are unacceptable spouses, but adult unrelated men and women are perfectly acceptable spouses for any sex citizen to the state as our domestic partnership legislation demonstrates.

      Marriage equality is good and just and inevitable. They are only hurting everyone by hardening their hearts.

    6. Sorry, all citizens don't have the right to marry, therefore no equal rights, only special rights. Gay "marriage" is incompatible with American principles and nature's God.


      Obviously, you have no faith in that persons ability to love someone of the opposite sex. Why you would deny them that opportunity is beyond me. Many people have left the gay lifestyle and been just fine, you'd rather them be miserable, so you can claim that people can't change their orientation.

      Craig in Lacey

    7. Craig you don't understand the word 'equal'. We already allow some citizens to license with husbands and wives so allowing all citizens to do what some can already to do is the very definition of equal. You can license with a wife so can every other citizen.

      Marriage equality is totally compatible with American principles which are based on the rights of all citizens to do the same thing and have equal access under the law. And nature's God is completely ok with marriage whatever the gender combination of the couple.

    8. And considering I have several friends who are gay now but were once strait [one even had a crush on me as a young teen], and a few who were gay or bisexual and now strait, I would find the idea of "It's something I just can't change/was born with" to be directly contrary to my personal experience as well.

      That is not to say that everything a person can change, they should, or that predispositions are automatically bad [there are many good ones].

      Rather, it is to say that the discussion of the topic is quite relevent - predispositions are judged good or bad on how they effect the body.

      Also, the moral discussion is quite relevant as well. God determines moral good, not man. Man is finite, not infinite. No matter how many times people cry "its unfair" that God labeled any particular sin as a crime [gossip, murder, the slave trade, prostitution, homosexuality, perjury, etc], that does not give man the ability to declare those sins as "righteousness".

      Christians will love everyone, despite any sin, because everyone is a sinner [themselves included]. But to relabel a sin cannot be done, and the christian who does so is in danger of rejecting the blood that covers them. Only Christ's blood can pay for the crime of sin. Paying for sin via 'relabeling' the sin, so as to not reckon it as a debt, is rejecting one's need for Christ and claiming that oneself is equal to God.

      Also, Christians are citizens of heaven first [before citizens of America] - which is one reason the Declaration of Independence appeals to "The law of nature and nature's God" was used as as the entitlement for seperating and gaining independence.

      So then, if we are told that we must reject the Higher law in favor of political correctness, this is not something most christians will do. This may be tolerant in the eyes of the world, but it is not loving or kind. Look at what happened to Sodom and Gemorrah when they tolerated the sin around them and treated it as good and ideal, rather than being tormented, as Lot was, day and night for the unrighteousness around them?

      Sin is a very deep topic, which is far harder to discuss than mere science, but it is at the heart of this issue; for if any class of people demands their actions be branded as good by everyone else (not just let alone, but accepted, promoted, legalized, even celebrated) - then this does do great harm to the nation.

  2. Suzie on Whidbey1:48 PM, March 06, 2012

    From my personal experience with working against Proposition 71, I see that there is a lack of knowledge about the facts.

    Prop 71 gave all the rights of marriage to all. It's wording was so that a lot of people voted for it instead of against it...I strongly feel that if pastors had of defined it to their congregations, it would not have passed.

    This effort to redefine marriage, is far beyond just treating people equally,and , I sincerely hope and pray that this time pastors will see the importance of defining this issue to their congregations.

  3. Thank you, Suzie. The pastors need to lead on this, well said.

    Craig in Lacey

  4. Marriage is between a husband and wife. We do not want government or judges changing that definition for us today or our children tomorrow. Marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers. Do we want to teach the next generation that one-half of humanity—either mothers or fathers—are dispensable, unimportant? Children are confused enough right now with sexual messages. Let’s not confuse them further. Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose; they don’t have a right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.

  5. Wow. So after Gary assures Judge Settle, the 9th Circuit and the Suprem Court of the United States that releasing the R71 names would result in a wave of harassment and intimidation at the hands of violent homosexuals, all we have is a single, polite email from one gay veteran. I would ask Gary to apologize, but knowing Gary, that would be a pointless request. BTW, Gary, we are still waiting to see some proof of your claim that AG McKenna's office was unprofessional and hostile to you in your deposition. You can't just make allegations and then run away.

    1. Steven - One "single, polite email from one gay veteran" does not invalidate all the real, strong threats and harassments that have occurred from the gay community against those supporting traditional marriage in this state. Check it out. Cars viciously trashed; threats on the person's life; intimidating phone calls - you name it.

      The truth is that the gay community is already free to exercise their homosexuality/lesbianism to their hearts content without fear of legal reprisal. They already have "equal rights!" What they are trying to do to the Christian believers through "marriage," is asking them to TURN THEIR BACKS ON THE WORD OF GOD! To go before a priest or pastor to perform "marriage," to have that "marriage" "blessed" by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a BLASPHEMY, A SACRILEGE! The Christian believer can never approve that. To do so would cause us to lose our eternal souls and face an eternal life of damnation! Be content that you are "equal" in that you can do anything in the sexual realm you wish (without harm to anyone, of course), and be brave enough to take the damnation for your lifestyle on yourselves, and not force it on the rest of the world.

      Oschtur wrote, "And nature's God is completely ok with marriage whatever the gender combination of the couple." Where does he get that? Nothing I've ever read in the Bible or anywhere confirms that. If I were he, I'd be afraid for myself, telling such a lie. The gay community should stop driving nails in their coffins and come to know they have a loving God who loves THEM, will forgive them, and wishes to save them.

      This world is not our home. We do have a loving Father who provided the Bible as a direction for our lives. It is an evil for the gay community to try to force us to deny truth.

  6. Just an update on this issue.Paul has a web page devoted to his effort to contact those signed R71. Yes there are the paranoid, vicious, and dismissive responses but there are a large number of thoughtful replies from those that very reasonably justify their signing to those that have regrets and apologize. A few say they sign all petitions, and one didn't remember signing it at all.

    And out of all that he has sent just one took the time to call Paul, but he says the 30 minute conversation was worthwhile on both sides.

    I'd send the link to the page where he is posting the replies but no links allowed. A bit of googling should find it for you though - is name and the topic are pretty unique.

    Glad to see the process by which our state allows citizen legislators is continuing to work as intended.

    (just as an aside I have heard that some signers of R71 are using the published list and facebook tool to find out who of their friends and fellow church members DIDN'T sign the petition - anyone know if that is really happening?)


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