Monday, December 03, 2012

"Spouse A" - "Spouse B" - "Bride" - "Groom" - What To Do?

While the 3% or so of Washingtonians who are homosexual revise the Washington State marriage license for themselves and the 97% who are not homosexual, but will be impacted by the resulting actions, there is much confusion. I know---it's with majority consent. It's still a mess, however.

The path to the "equality altar" is strewn with ghosts of the past, but the mighty state with all the kings men and all the kings horses is clearing the way.

Cameron Satterfield, spokesman for King County says of the revisions, "We're working hot and heavy on it."

In an environment where men are "wives" and women are "husbands," one would expect some confusion when you redefine the societal norm of more than 5000 years.

The most pressing issue seems to be how to revise the marriage certificate. What to call the people getting married. All people who will get married.

Thinking about this, I glanced at my wife and my marriage license from Yakima County. Much simpler times.

The newly revised marriage law in Washington becomes legal this Thursday, December 6. Homosexuals can begin getting "married" on Sunday.

Here's what the state is doing with the certificate, some of the details regarding their clearing a path to the altar and what I believe will be the short term impact of this confusion.


Originally, the state had planned to go with "Spouse A" and "Spouse B," however, after "100 comments," Secretary of Health Mary Selecky says she is officially going with the options of "bride," "groom" and "spouse".

She is also altering the parental choices to "parent," "mother" or "father."

There's been a big to-do in the press last week as to whether the certificates would be ready by Thursday.

They will be. Satterfield, who is working "hot and heavy" says if they can't get the computer systems revised they will print hard copies for homosexual couples. "We'll do it the old fashioned way," he says.

The first link above includes a copy of the revised certificate.

But there is a bigger issue at play in all this. One every person of faith and conservative should be aware of.

Lornett Turnbull points out in the Seattle Times that there are many, many complex issues surfacing as marriage is redefined, involving previous homosexual relationships---ex partners, previous "marriages," foreign "marriages," ect.---other arrangements where people are legally bound together.

With the hyper commitment of Washington State government to redefining marriage, I'm sure they will sort it all out---regardless of the monetary cost.

Here is a point worthy of our attention:

The Times says, "No single government department is equipped to answer all the questions. Attorneys and legal groups that have worked with same-sex couples and gay issues are fielding many of the calls, but even they at times are stumbling over the ambiguities in the law."

Ambiguities.

Prediction:

Washington and other states that have legalized same-sex "marriage" will begin a mantra of unfairness based on ambiguities, calling on the federal government to do something about it.

President Obama, liberated to his post election "flexibility" and committed to abolishing the federal DOMA and advancing the homosexual agenda, will help to clarify. I don't know the tack he will take, but watch; his administration will get involved to help clarify matters and in doing so will discover that it is necessary for the federal government to insert itself in order to help with the matter of clarification.

This process will have deep and damaging impact on every thing related to parental rights and family.

The Telegraph is reporting this morning that the Church of England issued a statement on this very issue. They are saying, "Allowing same-sex couples to marry will create few new rights for homosexuals, but will spread confusion for the rest of society as the definition of marriage will have to change everyone."

As the Washington State Legislature re-convenes in January, Senator Ed Murray, Jamie Pederson and fellow homosexual advocates will resume their incremental legislative destruction on values that a vast majority of citizens hold, by "clarifying" and bringing into "compliance" all those pesky little laws that are not in harmony with their agenda.

The faith community must be prepared to respond. And we will. God willing.

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

28 comments:

  1. Let us also remember that there will be numerous lawsuits against anyone not embracing the newly imposed agenda. If you are a photographer, wedding planner, caterer, baker, jewler, facility owner or operator, adoption agency, or anything on the periphery of this, you need to consider this closely and be prepared for the onslaught of legal action that will ensue when you are forced, regardless of your will, desire or faith, to conform... or else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is completely and utterly false.

      Lawsuits against bakers, caterers, photographers, etc. all have to do with anti-discrimination laws, not marriage laws.

      NO ONE in the state is allowed to discriminate against individuals in public accommodations on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Christians cannot discriminate against gays, and gays cannot discriminate against Christians. No one has a special privilege to discriminate in providing public services for others.

      This has been the law in our state for years SINCE 2006. So if there were to be an onslaught of lawsuits, THEY WOULD HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED.

      Delete
    2. But it's never been applied in such a way as to force a business owner to participate in blasphemy. That's a First Amendment violation.

      Delete
    3. You have no right to say if what someone else's religion is a 'blasphemy' or not or treat a customer as if they shared your religion. They have a right to their religious beliefs, you have a right to yours, and customers and employees have a right to be treated the same whether they share your religion or not.

      Many religious sects support marriage equality, just because yours doesn't doesn't give you a right to deny them public accommodation or customer service.

      Again, even Paul said it was ok to do business with those outside your church - their sin is God's business, not yours.

      It always amazes me that any American would think they had a right to pretend that anyone else shared their religious views. That would be the First Amendment violation.

      Delete
    4. I do not pretend. Only a hypocrite would do that. My views are not your views and YOUR VIEWS are not my VIEWS. Why then do you FORCE me, to change everything that I have believed and STILL DO BELIEVE, TO ACCEPT YOUR VIEWS which I do not believe? Why are you using the GOVERNMENT to undo the beliefs of the majority and call it discrimination? YOU are literally forcing me to accept your views and if I don't you are using the government to punish me because I do not believe the way you do.

      Delete
    5. The Psychiatrists themselves are diagnosing themselves. Because of this capability the abnormals are calling themselves normal and expect everyone else to accept their abnormal views of their abnormal state. Now they're calling the normal abnormal and v ice versa. "God gave them up" in Romans chapter one. Go ahead and let them do what they want to do. They are responsible for their decisions. They will reap the consequences.

      Delete
    6. Why then do you FORCE me, to change everything that I have believed and STILL DO BELIEVE, TO ACCEPT YOUR VIEWS which I do not believe?
      No one is - just like Catholics can think those who have been secularly married aren't 'really married' you are free to think that same sex couples aren't the same. Your right to a religious viewpoint on this is unchanged.

      Why are you using the GOVERNMENT to undo the beliefs of the majority and call it discrimination?
      The Washington state government isn't there to validate your religious viewpoint or mine. It has to be religiously neutral. And in case you missed it the majority think that people of all sex combinations should be able to legal register with the marriage contract. Your view is not the majority.

      YOU are literally forcing me to accept your views and if I don't you are using the government to punish me because I do not believe the way you do.
      No, again you have a right to believe whatever religious tenets you want. What you don't have, and have never had, is the right to treat others as if they shared your religious beliefs.

      I think part of the confusion is you are thinking this as two equal sides, when its not. There are no people that are saying you and your spouse shouldn't be able to register with the state, but on your side there are. One is letting all people do as they believe, the other is saying all people can only do as they believe. No one is ever going to force you to marry someone that you don't think you should, that is your first amendment right.

      The majority of the state has spoken and really changes nothing. It was already illegal to discriminate against registered domestic partnerships, someone's religion, sex, sexual orientation, and here in Seattle its been illegal to do so for marital status for a couple decades - why do you think the Woodland Park Zoo, Costco and the like no longer have 'Married Only' memberships? And using that as an illustration when they switched to family discounts nothing changed.

      So you have a right to your religious opinion, everyone else has a right to theirs, the state can't take either religious opinion into account when deciding public policy. The people have spoken, all citizens can register with their spouse, pick and choose who you think are the 'real' ones, but respect the civil contract if you don't respect the your neighbor's equal rights.

      Delete
    7. No, I disagree. I don't care if the state or people legalized murder, as they have in many countries. I'm still not going to recognize it or sanction it by being a participant in any way. That's the end of it, sue me.

      Craig in Lacey

      Delete
    8. Comparing legalize 'illegal homicide' (whatever that is) to two citizens making a mutual commitment via a 100% secular civil contract pretty much sums it up nicely. Being sued will be the least of concerns for those that don't respect the First Amendment, the American ideals, or Christ's Law.

      Delete
    9. It would be the same if they legalized prostituttion in this state, I wouldn't rent my place to sanction it, nor would I cater their party.

      Case law backs me up as courts have sided with the rights of pharmacies not to carry abortion pills.

      Craig in Lacey

      Delete
    10. And once again you don't understand the issues. Prostitution, legal or illegal, isn't a protected class. You as a business owner are promising to uphold the law and religion and sexual orientation are protected classes, a person in the wedding business can't refuse to do business with an Islamist, Hebrew, or Catholic because they don't like their marriage beliefs and they can't for a Lutheran or Episcopalian because theirs that support marriage equality, Again, you have no right to make customers pretend they share your religion or punish them because they don't.

      And you don't even understand the pharmacist ruling - this is about being forced to carry something to sell, an illustrative example would be a butcher - just because he sells beef doesn't mean he can be forced to carry and sell halal or kosher beef but that doesn't mean he can refuse to sell the beef he does carry to an Islamist or a Hebrew.

      Similarly if you sell cakes for weddings you don't have to carry same sex/Islamist/Catholic wedding toppers but if someone wants a cake of the type you do sell you can't legally refuse to sell it because they are Catholic, Islamist, or Lutheran.

      A Cake is just a cake, and you can sell it to anyone for whatever purpose without regard to whatever legal purpose they might be using it for. There is no requirement that you force your religious beliefs on others - Paul was very clear on that.

      Delete
    11. I'm not punishing anyone, nor forcing my beliefs on someone. They can clearly go somewhere else for a cake and they can clearly still believe as they wish. Paul was very clear that I'm to be in the world but not of it. I will not support homosexuality in any way, as it is of the world, not God. End of story.

      Craig in Lacey

      Delete
  2. "their incremental legislative destruction on values that a vast majority of citizens hold"

    Too bad we couldn't have an election to see what the majority actually does think. Oh, that's right, we just did.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The majority is often wrong on moral issues. It's only going to get worse.

      "The fool says in his heart, there is no God".

      Craig in Lacey

      Delete
    2. I agree that civil rights shouldn't be determined by popular vote. Anyway, it was just a response to Gary's ludicrous claim that a vast majority of citizens hold anti-gay values.

      Delete
    3. I think the election shows that Americans , even when led by a far left media or right media will usually try to be fair . I think that is what is greatest about this country . I believe thinking this is about the acceptance of homosexuality in the culture is perhaps mis guided . For one if it was not King County , and their civic dedication to voting , their religious idealogy of leftist isues gay marriage would have lost in this state . This despite the brain washing of academia , or in your case the support for gay issues in the academic world and thefull support of the media . Even with a lacking church going state .

      Homosexuality is basically un natural is what it comes down to . Tolerance and acceptance are two different things . Which is why we see the homosexuality community really just doubling down as they say , the acceptance they so want is not available through a culture , its not for anyone .

      That acceptance is only through God .

      Delete
  3. Of course the children that are incorporated into this union at birth will have certificates that list parent A and parent B, but of course listing the child as male or female would be discriminatory as it would violate the child's LGBT rights. Even listing them as a child is probably age discrimination as it labels them.
    Stay tuned folks, more coming at us from an asylum near you, as the inmates are in charge.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gary, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

    There is no change to men being "husbands" and women being "wives." The change to the application reflects that the state must now have a form that can also be filled out by two husbands-to-be or two wives-to-be.

    It is a form.

    No one is being asked to refer to themselves any differently now than they were before.

    Also, there's no circumstance where men are "wives" and women are "husbands" in any serious or legal context. That's just ridiculous.

    Finally, your prediction about DOMA is very cunning, especially since THE STRATEGY HAS BEEN QUITE CLEAR BY GAY RIGHTS GROUPS FROM THE BEGINNING. It's the strategy because it makes sense.

    DOMA will fall because 1. a majority now supports same-sex marriage in our state and nationally overall; 2. DOMA IS the federal government inserting itself in state law where it never had before, not the other way around; and 3. DOMA unfairly targets legal marriages by same-sex couples only for discrimination and denies only us the federal benefits of our legal marriages under state law. I'm not sure how anyone can seriously defend that one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Two husbands, imho, is what is ridiculous.

      Delete
    2. Then you are free to marry a woman.

      Delete
    3. Yes, two husbands is ridiculous, I prefer the Biblical model of two or more wives.

      Delete
    4. The difference is Tom and Jerry on the cake, in icing. The requirement to call them Mr. and Mr. or Mrs. and Mrs. by law, or else is ridiculous. It won't come out of my mouth and you can lock me up, still ain't gonna happen.

      Who I choose to do business with is a private matter, not a public one. If I don't want to cater your wedding because of my religious beliefs, that's convered by the 1st Amendment. See the Stroman's case.

      I don't care what the state says, you still ain't married.

      Craig in Lacey

      Delete
  5. Gary, do you want some cheese with that whine?

    ReplyDelete
  6. The American Psychiatric Association just revised their classification of trans-gender and it is no longer classified as a mental disorder.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Faith and Freedom staff12:45 PM, December 03, 2012

    No comments will be published with a link, including a name link to personal profile.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gary, thankyou for standing strong in a world that is on a slippery slope to hell. I believe this is the beginning of the end, but God is in control. The Bible does say that in end times He will cut the days short because it will get so bad. We Christians have to continue to stand firm in the word of God, and to cont to up hold His truths, just as you are doing, even in the mist of persecution. God Bless you Gary as you continue to speak the truth.

      Delete
  8. Why not just fight for your "RIGHT TO MARRY" only under a religion. And force the states/feds to change all marriage laws to state "2 concenting adults Benefits Contract" or something to that effect. Then 1. Gays (as well as everyone else) will not be allowed "Marriage" but a legal contract. 2- only the church would be allowed to preform "Marriages". If it really is just about not allowing gays to have "Marriage" then change the law to reflect that the states/feds do not recognize any "marriages".

    Then marriage is not re-defined, it just is taken away from the government to change the definition.

    ReplyDelete

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