Wednesday, February 29, 2012

The God Gap In America's Culture

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
I'm not personally endorsing anyone in the Republican presidential primaries. I'm praying for God's will in the matter. I am watching the debates and the outcome of the primaries, as many of you are.

I am convinced that any one of the four seeking to run against the President would be a better President.

Rick Santorum's recent comments about faith, the Bible, the sanctity of life, natural marriage and a host of other so-called social issues, has created a firestorm.

Columnist Maureen Dowd of The New York Times called Santorum, "Mullah Rick," characterizing him as a fanatic, raising issues "that were settled a long time ago." "And," she says, "he is not ashamed to admit that he wants to take the country backward."

He is shockingly talking about moral issues in terms of---God forbid, right and wrong. He believes that marriage has been undermined by cultural confusion, that marriage can only mean the union of one man and one woman and he believes in the sanctity of life. And he says that widespread prenatal testing will expand the number of abortions, which is a fact. It has. And the Santorums underlined their own personal belief by not aborting a child that was prenatally determined to have a rare usually fatal genetic condition.

He publicly questions President Obama's worldview and feels kids are indoctrinated, not educated in public schools, colleges and universities.

The press is on high alert. An example of that is this article in the Seattle Times yesterday. While the Seattle Times consistently endorses far left candidates, they save some ink to also try to manipulate the Republican primary process this coming Saturday.

Santorum and the President have actually said the same thing about marriage. Both have said they believe it should only be between a man and a woman. Oh, I know, the President's view of marriage has evolved, but initially he said he believed in natural marriage. The press never challenged him on his stand for marriage. Why is Santorum challenged in such a toxic way?

William McGurn nailed it in the Wall Street Journal a while back.

He correctly pointed out that the reason Santorum is attacked and Obama never was, is because people know Santorum really believes what he says he believes. President Obama does not.

A cursory glance at the firestorm created by Santorum also says something about the spiritual condition of America.

One of our readers sent me an article by columnist Cal Thomas yesterday. In the column, Thomas, the most syndicated columnist in the country, directly addressed the issue.

In his column titled, "The God Gap," Thomas wrote:
"There have been many "gaps" in modern politics. There is the gender gap, the generation gap and now the God gap, which is the gulf between people who take God's instructions seriously and those who don't. Which side of the gap you're on could influence your vote."

"The God gap is growing wider."
I strongly recommend you read his column and see what he thinks is the solution.

If you have not done so, please sign up to help circulate petitions for both R-74 and I-1192.

Thank you for standing with us.

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

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Marriage "Redefiners" Fear The People And The Court

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
It is apparent that those seeking to redefine marriage fear both the vote of the people and the US Supreme Court.

They prefer a state by state strategy, isolating local lawmakers and making their case for "marriage equality," while telling the local lawmakers that the general public (voters) now approve of redefining marriage.

Results? Some misled state lawmakers vote for "special rights" for homosexuals, believing it to be an expression of equality and believing they are voting with a majority of the public.

Neither is true.

While homosexual activists hail them as "courageous," forward thinking and in the majority, the activists themselves fear both a vote of the people and a ruling from the US Supreme Court on the matter.

Surprisingly, The New York Times actually tipped the hand of the "redefiners" and explained the strategy in an article, "A Slow Stroll To The Supreme Court," admitting the "redefiners" fear both the Court and a vote of the people.

They Fear The People.

While claiming Washington State is now ready to approve redefining marriage, homosexual activists do everything within their power to avoid allowing the people a vote on the matter.

Some of them, including the Governor, sanctimoniously stood publicly and before the legislature declaring that they wished it could go to a vote of the people.


Pro-marriage legislators in both the State House and Senate offered amendments that would have sent the marriage issue to the people for a vote. In every case the legislature denied the people that right and defeated the amendment.

The majority in the legislature did not "wish it could go to the people for a vote." And neither do the homosexual activists in elected office. Otherwise it would have happened.

Now, faith based and conservative organizations have been pressed into action to allow it "to go to the people for a vote."

We are committed to helping put both R-74 and I-1192 on the November ballot. Both are designed to protect marriage. The referendum in the short term and the initiative in the long term. Both must be put before the people.

Will you work with us in circulating petitions in your area? If so, please sign-up here. If you have already signed up, there is no need to do so again. The response has been terrific. Thank you.

We are finalizing our organization of districts across the state and will be in touch with all who have signed up within the next few days.

I-1192 petitions are ready. I understand R-74 petitions will be ready during the first 2 weeks in March.

They Fear The Supreme Court.

This past weekend I was catching up on some reading and noticed an article in the New York Times from last week.

Frankly, I was surprised that they tipped the hand of the homosexual activists to the degree in which they did.

In the article, "A Slow Stroll To The Supreme Court," they actually admit that the "redefiners" are trying to avoid the courts as well as the people.

The NYT reported, "The key to getting the answer you want often depends on the question you ask. And sometimes the best answer is no answer."

They say that strategy seems to have guided the appeals court ruling that recently struck down Proposition 8, after it was passed by a vote of the people, that prohibits same-sex marriage in California.

The Times story is actually admitting that should the Prop. 8 issue go to the Supreme Court it would likely lose because the Supreme Court would likely not uphold their broad argument that the Constitution guarantees same-sex marriage.

So, they are afraid of the Court.

Nan Hunter, a law professor at Georgetown, told the NYT, "I've always thought that the smart thing to do is to win this case for California and to keep the case out of the Supreme Court."

Why? Because it won't win.

The Times actually reported that, "Many gay rights advocates breathed a sigh of relief. They had long been wary of the Proposition 8 suit, preferring a state by state litigation and lobbying strategy over betting the farm on a case that was likely to end up in the United States Supreme Court. Some said they hoped the justices would now decline to hear an idiosyncratic case affecting a single state."

Senator Ed Murray, Rep. Jamie Pederson and other homosexual activists in the Washington State legislature have taken this same "slow stroll."

Over the past number of years, they have passed a little "equality" here---a little fairness there---a little more "equality" here, each a stepping stone on the path of the "slow stroll."


The frog in the kettle.

Those who have voted with them have been hailed as "courageous". Those who opposed them were haters, bigots and narrow minded. Too many preachers and politicians were silent. So were too many citizens.

This is our time.

The 2 measures, R-74 and I-1192, may well be the last opportunity for pro-marriage citizens to address the issue of redefining marriage in the state.

This is not a time to be silent or inactive.

Thank you for standing with us.

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

Monday, February 27, 2012

A/G McKenna--Let God's People Go

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

In another place, at another time, Moses, speaking for God, told a repressive government that refused to allow the Hebrew people to worship their God in truth, action and conscience, "Let my people go so they can worship me." (Ex. 9:1 NIV)

I speak only as a concerned citizen, a retired pastor and a Christian brother to the Stormans family, "Please, Mr. Attorney General, let God's people go."

Friday, February 24, 2012

The Nature Of Marriage Should Not Be Defined By Popular Whim

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Catholic priest, Father Shenan J. Boquet has written a compelling and important column on the nature of marriage and why it must not be defined by a popular whim.

He says,
The sacred institution of marriage, one of those social issues that only right-wingers supposedly care about, is under assault here in the U.S. by radical legislators, judges and a president who view those of us seeking to protect marriage as hateful and bigoted."

In the month of February alone, significant battles for the protection of marriage took place in California, Washington, New Jersey and Maryland as proponents of so-called same-sex “marriage” went on the attack.

Judges in California overruled voters who passed Proposition 8 to put into law what has long been sacred tradition that marriage is between a man and a woman. These judges said that the citizens’ vote to protect marriage only served to “lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians.”

Washington State governor Chris Gregoire, a Catholic, said, “This is one of my proudest moments,” after signing a law that redefines marriage in her state last week.

New Jersey Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, sponsor of the same-sex “marriage” bill vetoed by Gov. Christie last week, said the veto was, “[A]bout nothing but feeding into peoples’ prejudices against gays and lesbians.”

In Maryland, where opponents of same-sex “marriage” were referred to as “cowards,” legislators are close to finalizing a bill to redefine marriage that Gov. Martin O’Malley pledged to sign.

And while promoting LGBT “rights” as part of its international agenda, the Obama administration again made clear this month that it will not defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a law of the United States that the president has the constitutional duty to enforce."
Boquet points out that the battle to redefine marriage is not only raging in the United States, but in the UK as well.

Bishop Mark Davies of Shrewsbury, UK is taking a strong stand in defending marriage. He says,
"This I believe is such a moment for the British people as for the first time in our history a government is proposing to change the meaning of marriage and to re-define its identity as the life-long union of one man and one woman. What the Government now proposes to legislate into law constitutes nothing less than a seismic shift in the foundations of our society.

We face a mindset which sees progress only as a continuous shifting of our society further and further from its Christian foundations until we have nothing left for family and society to be founded upon than changing, political fashions of thought."
Boquet concludes with a thought I think every Protestant, Catholic and even person of no faith can agree with, "While opinions do change over the years, the nature of marriage – the foundational building block of our culture and country – is not defined by popular whim. The media and radical policy makers may continue to distort this basic truth, but it is out of love, not hatred, that people in the United States and United Kingdom work to defend marriage and the family, and thus, their culture and their future."

Please join us in circulating petitions to defend marriage in Washington State.

Have a great weekend.

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

Thursday, February 23, 2012

McKenna Loses Stormans Conscience Case

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

US District Judge Ronald Leighton ruled yesterday that the State of Washington does not have the right to force pharmacies---specifically the Stormans family pharmacy in Olympia, to sell abortion pills, (Planned Parenthood calls them Plan B pills) which would violate their pro-life beliefs.

The case has been in process for several years, costing the Stormans family over $500,000 in defense of their right to express their deeply held pro-life beliefs in their own pharmacy.

McKenna argued for 11 days that the state did have the right to force the Stormans to sell the abortion pills because they had to "provide timely access to medicines for people who need them."

That of course, is Planned Parenthood's line.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

What Is A Christian?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Co-host Willie Geist of MSNBC's "Morning Joe" didn't like what he was hearing from Franklin Graham yesterday morning.

Being pressed by Geist to declare that President Obama is a Christian Graham said, "I think you have to ask President Obama...he's come out saying he's a Christian. So I think the question is What Is A Christian?"

Geist didn't like the answer and continued to press. Graham said he thought the President's description of how he became a Christian was more focused on his community organizing than about a heartfelt connection with the Almighty.

Geist continued, "So therefore by your definition, he's not a Christian?"

Last Easter, Franklin Graham faced the same kind of angst over the same issue from Christiane Amanpour on ABC's "Face The Nation". Amanpour is gone from "Face The Nation" but the question persists. Is he a Christian?

Graham told Amanpour, "For him going to church means he is a Christian."

It isn't just the press thinking about this idea of what is a Christian and how that relates to the President and those who seek to become the President, the public is giving it some thought as well.

A 2010 PEW poll found that 34% of Americans said they believe President Obama is a Christian, a sharp decline from 2008 when they found 51% thought he was a Christian.

So what is a Christian?

The message Franklin Graham is taking around the world is this:

"For me, the definition of a Christian is whether we have given our life to Christ and are following him in faith, and we have trusted him as our Lord and Savior. That's the definition of a Christian. It's not as to what church you are a member of. A membership doesn't make you Christian."

Perhaps an even more poignant question would be one we would ask ourselves, "Am I a Christian? Have I given my life to Christ? Am I following Him in faith? Have I trusted Him as my Lord and Savior?"

Is my profession of Christianity merely an acceptance of a civil religion, or testimony of a new and transformed life in Christ? Is it a proclamation of philosophical acceptance or of spiritual transformation?

May God bless you and make Himself real to you.

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

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.

Friday, February 17, 2012

Marriage Update: R-74 and I-1192 - A Conflict?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Both Referendum 74 and the Initiative I-1192 are moving forward and are getting considerable press.

R-74 was filed Monday, as you know, by Joseph Backholm. There is a story being advanced that Joe Fuiten actually went to the Secretary of State's office to file a separate and different referendum earlier on Monday and was turned away because the Governor had not yet signed SB 6239 into law.

Dominc Holden, with Seattle's "Stranger" left wing, pro-homosexual newspaper which is read widely by the Seattle main stream press, published this:

Thursday, February 16, 2012

The Referendum --Egos, Errors and Omissions

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Referendum 73 (or 74, I've been told both) has been filed. It is a Referendum to overturn SB 6239, a bill that has been signed into law by Governor Gregoire, but is on hold pending the outcome of the Referendum.

Referendum 73 (or 74) was crafted by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and was filed singularly by Joseph Backholm with FPIW on Monday.

The referendum will be processed by the state and will be available in the coming days.

I think it is probably a good thing that NOM is involved. They are a national organization and have been helpful and successful in other states. They say they need to raise several million dollars for this campaign.

However, I am disappointed that other leaders in the state were not included as signers on the referendum.

It does make a difference. It is important. It can be very important. Some will remember Referendum 65, some years ago, and the public fight that followed between two individuals. It was not productive. Frankly, it was embarrassing.

I, along with many others who have been planning and working toward the effort to overturn SB 6239, have advocated that Representative Matt Shea, Senator Val Stevens and Pastor Ken Hutcherson should have been included or have even been the only signers on the Referendum.

That was a unanimous feeling among a large coalition. In fact, that same coalition expressed no confidence and opposed the current arrangement by a vote.

It was an error to omit Senator Stevens, Representative Shea and Pastor Hutcherson.

When asked why they could not be included, NOM and Backholm said these others had not been "vetted" and may have said or done something in the past that would be harmful to the campaign."

They also said Focus on the Family would not participate financially under any other terms.

While it has been downplayed, who controls a referendum is important. It is not a matter of ego, it is a matter of maximizing the effort with the broadest possible coalition. It is also a matter of responsible stewardship and trust.

Larry Stickney was the signer on Referendum 71. In the strictest sense, he owned it. He did a marvelous job including everyone who was willing to support the effort, even though there were a few within the Christian community who actively and relentlessly worked to undermine it.

Had R-71 prevailed, there would have been no SB 6239, at least not this year.

Joseph Backholm, Joe Fuiten and those most closely involved with FPIW have the ultimate control over the most important decisions regarding the referendum campaign.

Why am I being so candid? I know I'm opening myself to the wrath and public criticism of adversaries, both within and without.

Here's why.

An unexpected number of personal email and phone calls yesterday caused me to prayerfully think about this issue, have an in depth conversation with our board and ultimately respond to our readers.

While disappointment and disgust were the topic of most calls and email that I received, there was concern and the questions, "How should we respond to this? What are you going to do?"

Here's what Faith and Freedom is going to do. And I'm asking our thousands of readers to do the same.

Please look past the egos, errors and omissions. And actions, attitudes and motives.

Marriage is too important to do otherwise.

If these things are allowed to become a focus, it will lead us to the least and lowest. We must seek the highest and best.

We must not in any way, for any reason, oppose this effort or even "sit it out silently."

We are going to support Referendum 73 (or 74) in every possible way. I'm asking you to do the same.

I have been asking for those who are willing to not only sign a petition, but willing to circulate petitions in their communities to sign up with Faith and Freedom. The response has been overwhelming. In fact, if everyone who has signed up so far collects a reasonable amount of signatures, we are nearly at the 127,000+ required for the referendum.

We are organizing leaders in various parts of the state. As soon as Joseph Backholm and NOM make the petitions available, we will be in touch with you and begin the process.

I believe other organizations are ready to do so as well.

We will also be asking you to sign the petitions to put I-1192 on the November ballot as well.

Both R-73 (or 74) and I-1192 have a very important function in defending marriage. If you want to know more about how each will work, please review 2 of my blogs from last week. They explain each.

I-1192 is explained in "How To Save Marriage" Feb. 9, 2012.

A Referendum is explained in "Saving Marriage---The Referendum" Feb. 10, 2012.

This is a morally historical moment in Washington State. I personally believe each of us will be held accountable for our actions or in-actions---our motives, and the way in which we respond to this challenge to natural marriage.

Let's act as though it all depends on us and pray as if it all depends on God---because it does. God will take care of all the other matters.

This is a spiritual matter, not a political one. Neither is it about building an organization or a mailing list. It's about the Kingdom of God and His righteousness on this earth.

If you have not yet joined us to circulate petitions, please do so now.

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

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Ken Schram: "A Disaster In The Making"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

There are many voices seeking to define and change the culture. Relativism, as you know, has given us many "truths".

For our readers outside Washington State and, for that matter, outside the U.S., Ken Schram is a widely read political commentator and a personality on KOMO radio and television in Seattle and throughout the state.

Following Governor Gregoire's triumphal signature ---if you didn't see the picture, click here, Ken Schram wrote, "It's been a long time coming."

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Signing Away The Sanctity

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

"Because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God...but became futile in their thoughts and their foolish hearts were darkened...Professing to be wise, they became fools...who exchanged the truth of God for the lie." The Bible. Romans Chapter 1.

The most serious, and most divisive moral and cultural battle in the state's history has begun.

We stand for marriage and the sanctity of marriage.

Will you stand with us?

The conversation is over. It's time for prayer and action.

Donate here.

Sign up to circulate petitions here.

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


Monday, February 13, 2012

How Big Is The Republican "Big Tent"?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Thank you to everyone who has signed up to help with marriage petition circulation. Terrific response so far.

If you are willing to help and have not done so yet, please take a minute and sign up here.

If you have signed up , perhaps you could encourage friends and family members to join us in Standing For Marriage.


Today, Governor Gregoire will walk away from the teaching of her parents and her church and perhaps her own sense of what is morally right and will sign into law SB 6239, a law that redefines marriage, undermining the sanctity of our oldest and most fundamental spiritual and cultural institution. One that predates organized civilization itself.

The response of conservatives and people of faith is to seek to overturn the bill because we believe it is wrong and harmful. As you know, that process is well under way.

We believe redefining marriage in this way stands in defiance to biblical teaching, accepted social mores and the biology of normal human sexual relationships. It steals from children the right and psychological need for a male father and a female mother in their most formative years.

And it does not provide "equality." It provides "special rights."

Certainly, biblical Christians and many conservatives are committed to overturning the bill and making political corrections as best we can, which includes electing people to public office who reflect and support our deeply held social and spiritual beliefs. Most of us in that category are Republicans. Not all, but most.

So...... I received an email on Friday from Alex Hayes.

Alex is the executive director of the "Main Stream Republicans of Washington." I have known Alex for a number of years. Many of you who live in Washington know him as well. I like and respect him as a person. I believe that is mutual. However, I have profound and fundamental differences with him regarding certain beliefs. As he does with me.

The following is his email. Read it, then I have a couple of questions for you.

Dear Gary,

Yesterday I talked to my friend Maureen. She'd made a big decision and a few people were angry with her. I could tell she needed to hear a few kind words of support. I gave her a hug, and told her that I thought she'd done the right thing.

My friend is Representative Maureen Walsh and the big decision she made was to vote for marriage equality in the State House.

Maureen wasn't the only friend I talked to yesterday. I reached out to members who had voted both for the marriage bill and against. I can tell you that all of them cast their votes sincerely and conducted themselves in the debate with great courtesy and thoughtfulness. Civility prevailed in the legislature.

The Mainstream Republicans of Washington believe in a big tent for our party - a tent large enough to include both supporters of marriage equality and defenders of traditional marriage. We know that a belief in limited government, and a coalition large enough to elect majorities in the State House and Senate, depends on socially moderate Republicans.

Where civility prevailed on the floor, it's failing in some of the angry comments directed at both supporters and opponents of the bill.

This is why I need a favor from you - regardless of your view on gay marriage I'd like you to call the following legislators and thank them for their work.

Representative Maureen Walsh - 5th LD - (360) 786-7836

Representative Glenn Anderson - 16th LD - (360) 786-7876

Senator Steve Litzow - 41st LD - (360) 786-7641

Senator Andy Hill - 45th LD - (360) 786-7672

Senator Joe Fain - 47th LD - (360) 786-7692

Senator Cheryl Pflug - 5th LD - (360) 786-7608

One truth that unites us all is that the most important issue facing our state is the budget.

With the marriage bill passed it's time to refocus and deal with the profound mismanagement of the state by the Democrats. Cleaning up this mess will require every Republican in the legislature. It will also require a Republican Governor, A Republican Senate and a Republican House.

United, we will prevail in 2012.

Kind regards,

Alex Hays
Executive Director, Mainstream Republicans of Washington.

A couple of questions:

  • How "big" should the Republican Party "tent" be?
  • Should Conservatives and Christian citizens vote for and support politicians who do not support some of our most fundamental moral beliefs, such as the sanctity of life, of marriage and of the family? What if they support some of our moral beliefs but not others? What if they are fiscally conservative, but not socially conservative? Should we vote for the proverbial "half loaf?" The lessor of two evils?
  • Should I work for and contribute money to the Party in the name of unity, for the sake of "winning," even if the Party is not united in support of the moral positions that originally drew me to the Party? Many in Party leadership advocate that those social issues should not be given priority by Republicans, even though the Democrats and far left have made redefining marriage their number one priority this session---above all fiscal and budget matters.
  • Is civility the highest virtue in government? I'm not advocating otherwise, I'm asking you to think about it. What do you think?
  • Is any "future success" dependent upon electing social moderates?
  • Is the proper response to those Republicans who voted to redefine marriage, to call and "thank them for their work?" Or to look for an alternative and work to replace them in the next election with someone who represents your moral views?

Thank you, Alex, for bringing this to mind.

I know I will get calls from certain people suggesting I ought not to have said all this. It is happening more and more frequently.

I am not suggesting anything other than that people give these questions some serious and prayerful thought. Please feel free to share your thoughts, they will be read by many.

Thank you for supporting us.

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

Friday, February 10, 2012

Saving Marriage--The Referendum

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Representative Matt Shea has issued a statement on the House action approving SB 6239. Please read it.

Yesterday I wrote about I-1192, an Initiative that has been filed by attorney Steve Pidgeon, which will amend the wording of DOMA and essentially stop the state from issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

The other means we have to overturn SB 6239 is the Referendum. A Referendum cannot be filed until SB 6239 becomes law. Governor Gregoire has said she will sign it into law. As of last night she plans to sign it Monday morning at 11:30 a.m.

Following her signature, a referendum can be filed.

Secretary of State Sam Reed was on the radio earlier this week talking about the fact that there could be both a Referendum and an Initiative on the ballot this November. That is likely.

Secretary Reed's office published the following information as to how the Referendum process works and the timeline.

In his own words:

Washington’s gay-marriage legislation, Senate Bill 6239, easily cleared the House 55 to 43 Wednesday after 2 1/2 hours of emotional debate. It now heads to Gov. Chris Gregoire for her signature, probably in a big ceremony next week.

And challengers already are making plans for a ballot challenge.

How would that work? What’s the timeline? What does the filing of a referendum mean to people who were thinking about a summertime wedding?

Here is a look at how a referendum would work:

Q. When would the legislation ordinarily take effect?
A. 90 days after adjournment of the regular session, or June 7 this year.

Q. When can a referendum be filed?
A. After Gov. Chris Gregoire has taken action on the bill. She has five working days to act, once the bill is actually delivered to her desk. She has said she will sign the bill, although it is possible she could veto sections or amendments that were attached. The referendum must include the text of the bill as passed by the Legislature and acted upon by the governor.

Q. How long does it take for a referendum to be processed and ready for signature-gathering?
A. Roughly three weeks. The measure is sent to the Attorney General’s Office for preparation of a ballot title, concise description and ballot summary. The AG has five working days to complete this. Within five working days, anyone dissatisfied with the ballot title or summary may petition the Thurston County Superior Court for changes. The court is required to “expeditiously review” the request(s) and render a decision within five days. The decision of the court is final. After that, sponsors can print petitions and begin collecting signatures.

Q. What is the deadline for turning in signatures?
A. June 6.

Q. How many signatures are required?
A. The bare minimum is 120,577, or 4 percent of all votes cast in the 2008 election for governor. The state Elections Division suggests turning in 150,000 or more, to cover invalid and duplicate signatures. The average error rate is 18 percent.

Q. How long does the signature check take?
A. If sponsors submit a large enough pad, a random sample can be completed in about two weeks; a full every-signature check can take a month. Crews will be checking to make sure the signer is a properly registered Washington voter, that the signature matches the one on file, and that the person didn’t sign more than once. Both sides are welcome to have a small number of observers whenever the signature-verification is underway.

Q. What happens to the gay-marriage law in the meantime?
A. The filing of the signatures suspends the effective date. If the signature-verification process shows an insufficient number of signatures, then the law goes into effect right away. If the referendum is qualified for the ballot, then the law remains on hold until the voters make their decision in November and the General Election results are certified on Dec. 6.

Q. Is there a “window” in which same-sex couples can marry, between the bill being approved by the Legislature and governor and a vote in November?
A. No.

Q. What is the question posed to voters by the referendum?
A. The referendum places the text of the bill before them. An affirmative vote is to uphold the law as it passed the Legislature and was signed by the governor. A vote to reject wipes out the measure and it does not take effect. As with the 2009 vote on Referendum 71, the “everything but marriage” law, the sponsors who mount the effort to get the measure on the ballot will be asking for a “reject” vote on their referendum. Bottom line: a vote to “approve” upholds the new law, a vote to “reject” abolishes the bill.

Q. Does the referendum require a simple majority or a supermajority?
A. A referendum takes a simple majority to pass.


Much hangs in the balance over the next few months. This is a time for people of faith to work together. Every attempt will be made to "divide and conquer" those of us who stand for marriage.

Generations of people will be impacted---for good or for evil, by how the people respond to the sanctity of marriage over the next few months.

Thank you for standing with us with your financial support and your actions.

If you are willing to circulate petitions in your community and church, please fill out a form on our website with your name, address, email address and a phone number where I can contact you. This information will be held confidential to me and my office.

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

Thursday, February 09, 2012

How To Save Marriage

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Now that the Legislature has passed SB 6239 and will be sending it to Governor Gregoire for her promised signature, how do we save marriage? Click here to see how each Representative voted.

There are a couple of things I think you should be aware of.

There are plans that involve running both an Initiative and a Referendum.

I will make you aware of both efforts as they develop.

Attorney Steve Pidgeon has already filed an Initiative to change the wording of DOMA. It is I-1192. I asked him how this differs from a Referendum and would his Initiative reverse or overturn SB 6239.

This is his response sent to me yesterday, prior to the vote in the House.


The bill that is about to pass the House today, and will soon be enacted into law by former Catholic Christine Gregoire, is a bill that modifies the existing Defense of Marriage Act, set forth in RCW 26.04.010 (and 26.04.020). This law is consistent with the standards of the Torah found in Leviticus 18, and of course Matthew 19. The bill, at its core, modifies the restriction that states that marriage is between “a male and a female” and makes the law read that “marriage is a civil contract between “two persons” who have obtained the age of eighteen . . .

The bill as proposed also modifies RCW 26.04.020, which prohibits marriages that were formerly described as bigamous or incestuous (as delineated by the operative passages of Leviticus 18), by changing the language to eliminate the words “wife or husband” and to include “registered domestic partners” with spouses. The bill completely strikes the prohibition in RCW 26.04.010(1)(c), which prohibits marriage “when the parties are persons other than a male and female.”

It also goes on to allow for people from other states who are in civil unions to obtain a marriage license in Washington. The proposed legislation then goes on to pretend to protect “religious liberty” by carefully crafting one exception to the draconian anti-discrimination provisions of the bill as to the solemnization of marriage. The freedom of conscience to not recognize such a marriage is not protected by the act, and of course employment anti-discrimination laws also apply. To make matters worse, if the religious organization actually operates in public (offers accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public in transactions) then the “religious liberty” protection no longer applies. You have freedom of conscience as long as you give up making accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public in transactions.

People of faith and conviction who are not religious organizations, such a pharmacies, adoption agencies, counseling groups, photographers, Christian camp operators, etc., enjoy no “religious liberty” exception to the act, so you can rest assured that such businesses will be regularly sued under the “religious liberty” clauses of the act.

Contrary to some of the summary conclusions I have read, I-1192 works to defeat all of this nonsense. Let me say at the outset that I believe the language of the initiative to be Spirit breathed. It changes only four words (eight, actually, but the words are identical. I-1192 changes the language in RCW 26.04.010 from saying that a “marriage is a civil contract between a male and a female” to read that “marriage is a civil contract between one man and one woman.” In addition, the Initiative changes the language in RCW 26.04.020 from say that (1) Marriages in the following cases are prohibited: (c) “When the parties are persons other than a male and a female” to read (c) “When the parties are persons other than one man and one woman.”

This is a modification of existing law to give greater clarity to the terms of the statute. Biblically, there are several reasons for this change. While the language in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 begins with the reference that “male and female” he created them, the marriage language indicates that “therefore the man should leave his mother and father and cleave to his woman.” Now I know some of your bibles say “wife,” however, where the underlying term “wife” is found in the Old Testament, the word is “Ishaw” and wherever the word husband is found, the word is “Ish.” Ishaw means woman; Ish means man. In both references (and the initial reference is in Genesis 4) the “man” shall leave his mother and father and cleave to his “woman.”

From a legal view, the change is necessary, because the corrupted courts in this land cannot seem to discover what the meaning of the word “is” is. Recently, a Rabbi testified on behalf of same sex marriage, saying that Rabbis weren’t certain about the meaning of the word “abomination.” In Hebrew, this is the word Toanu, which means “disgusting; idolatry.” That is pretty clear. I think we all know what is meant by the word abomination, but our courts seem to be incapable of deciphering the plain meaning of the language.

You never can tell when a judge might rule that the word “a” is not limited to simply its singular application, but actually can embrace a plurality such as when it introduces a binary concept like “a deer.” Clearly, the word has a slip-sliding application, depending on the application the courts are willing to give it. See Bologna v. Hot Air, Inc., _____ U.S. _____, citation omitted. In addition, we are going to be seeing ever-evolving definitions of what is a “male.” Can it apply to an inanimate object that someone has so designated? I call my truck JoBob – is that sufficient to create a “male” for purposes of the statute? What about the term female? Does that mean someone who was born that way? Can it be expanded to someone who became that way through surgery? What about someone who just desires to be treated that way? What about a boat that is continually referred to as “old girl” and “she”? Does that qualify under the statute? All of these ambiguities are too much to deal with. Let’s simply and clarify: one man and one woman.

Although the Initiative is not being driven to overturn the bill soon to be enacted by the Legislature, it nonetheless will terminate all of its provisions should the initiative be adopted.

1.I It reverses the expanded definitions in RCW 26.04.010 and .020;

2. Therefore, no marriage license can issue;

3. Therefore, out of state civil unions will not be able to obtain a marriage license in Washington;

4. Therefore, religious organizations will only be sued if they discriminate against traditionally married couples.

5. The answer is YES, I-1192 succeeds in defeating all of the same-sex marriage bill. However, note that this push to further clarify the language of the Defense of Marriage Act also works to protect against bigamy, polygamy and incest, which are becoming more and more a concern here in Washington.

Finally, there is a question of whether the bill will be found to be “unconstitutional” as it reverses a law that has not yet been passed. This argument is not well-founded. This is not a referendum that asks voters to approve or reject an act of the legislature. This is an initiative, which creates new law, clarifying the existing definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

To be sure, there will be a “constitutional” challenge, that will probably end up before the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. Fear not! I say! Let us chip away at the battle one front at a time.


And then I asked what the difference would be between his Initiative and a Referendum in regard to the public and the ballot.

This is his answer:


Just to draw your attention to the difference between the Referendum and the Initiative:

Here is the title that is likely to appear on the ballot in a referendum on the Legislature's bill:

AN ACT Relating to marriage equality that would provide equal protection for all families in Washington by creating equality in civil marriage and change domestic partnership laws while protecting religious freedom.

[VOTE NO on marriage equality and religious freedom!]

Here is the likely title for my initiative that would appear on the ballot for the voters to vote on:


AN ACT Relating to reaffirming the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman;

[VOTE YES to define marriage as between one man and one woman!]

Doing an initiative allows us to frame the debate most favorably to our position. And it will allow us to begin NOW, putting us on offense and the other side on defense. We should have the final ballot tally by the end of this week or early next week. Petitions to follow. Thanks for being a brother in all of this.


I will keep you updated on all progress as we Stand For Marriage. This is our time. We must make our best effort.

If you are willing to work with us in the distribution of petitions, please fill out a form on our website by clicking here. I need your name, address, email and a phone number where I can reach you. Your personal information will be held confidential to me and my office.

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

Wednesday, February 08, 2012

The Tipping Point And The Remedy

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
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

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.

Tuesday, February 07, 2012

Redefining Marriage-What's Next?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
With the attempt to redefine marriage under way and premature celebrations popping up on Capitol Hill, here's an update of where we are and what's ahead.

As you know, the Washington State Senate approved SB 6239, the bill to redefine marriage, by a 21 TO 28 vote.

Most of our readers have seen the senate roll call vote list----who voted to redefine marriage and who voted against it, however, I continue to get requests to publish the list. This is it.

Note that Republicans; Fain, Hill, Litzow and Pflug voted against their colleagues in the Senate, the position of the State Republican Party and natural marriage itself, voting with most Democrats and homosexual advocates to redefine it.

Remember that. Think election time.

Also note that 3 Democrats said "no" to redefining marriage and voted with us to protect marriage. Senators Hargrove, Sheldon and Shinn should be commended for standing for what is right. Perhaps you could send them an email thanking them for their stand for marriage. You can contact them through our website.

The House of Representatives held their hearings yesterday. Thank you to all who attended and to those who testified.

I have linked the video of the entire hearings. They were a little over an hour and a half. Rep. Matt Shea, Rep. Brad Klippert, Rep. Jay Rodne did everything possible to insure protection from religious rights being undermined in this rush to redefine marriage. Rep. Rodne offered an amendment to refer the issue to the people---the homosexual activists in the House of Representatives would have none of it. That discussion is at about 1hr-30 min. on the video.

All those who testified on our side did a great job. Couldn't have been better. I would direct you to Pastor Ken Hutcherson at about 26:30 on the video. He specifically addresses the civil rights issue.

Homosexual activist Legislators Murray, Pedersen and others have predicted they have more than enough votes in the House to approve their bill to redefine marriage.

Representative Shea told me he thinks a House vote could come this week, possibly tomorrow.

Senator Ed Murray has been warning his followers in the homosexual community not to "pop the corks just yet" because it is not a done deal.


We have a strong coalition of pro-marriage organizations and individuals who are committed to overturning this law, should it pass. And we are together on this issue.

Gov. Gregoire has pledged to sign it.

We have pledged to run a referendum to allow the people to vote on the issue. For those seeking to redefine marriage, this is their greatest fear.

While the Governor and a number of legislators told the press they would prefer this issue be voted on by the people, those same legislators killed the very amendment that would have referred it to the people.

They do not want this to go to the people. They only want to say they want it to go to the people.

Thank you for standing for marriage and for standing with us at this most critical time.

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

Monday, February 06, 2012

Komen Is Cured

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
This past week we experienced "The Cure" of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation.

They were cured from the notion that they could exercise their right to "Choice" and decline sending more money to Planned Parenthood.

After announcing they were aborting their relationship with PP and vowing, "We will never bow to political pressure," they bowed to political pressure---from the left.

Within 24 hours, a well respected organization was brought to its knees by one of the most corrupt organizations, all because Komen had decided to cancel funding to it.

The far left pro-abortion forces, along with a complicit press and some members of Congress, bludgeoned and bullied Komen. Komen bowed.

ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN---you know who they are, unleashed, along with a number of pro-abortion advocates in Congress, a relentless attack, expressing shock, threatening repercussions and demanding Komen reconsider the decision to stop sending money to Planned Parenthood.

Bowing to political and social pressure and bullying, Komen was cured from breaking ranks. Nancy Brinker, Komen Founder, issued a statement the following day after the Planned Parenthood decision, "We apologize to the American public for recent decisions..."

Senator Patty Murray called the reverse, "A huge win."

Megyn Kelly at FOX News aired an interview on Friday discussing the reversal of Komen. I suggest you watch it. There is also a related FOX article you should read.

Komen seemed to leave the door open saying they would honor grants already made to PP, but would look at future requests on a case by case basis.

My guess? They're cured. They will not withhold money from Planned Parenthood in the future. The price is too great.

Some thoughts and questions:

Hopefully this was a learning moment. Last year I wrote an article saying that Komen was sending a substantial amount of money to Planned Parenthood. The reaction from some pro-life leaders was swift and strong. They told me I should not have written that and I was fundamentally wrong.

We now know that it was a little over $700,000 in 2011.

Some questions:

  • Should members of Congress be pressuring a private non-profit 501(c)3 organization as to how they should spend the money donated by their donors?
  • Were the 26 members of Congress who wrote Komen demanding they reconsider, bullying them, given the amount of power members of Congress can wield?
  • What about the "We are the Champions of Choice" the left loves to use in defining themselves? Clearly they only believe in "Choice" when one makes the "politically correct choice."
  • Does Planned Parenthood even do breast cancer screening? The abortion advocate interviewed in the Megyn Kelly interview linked above said they did 700,000 screenings last year, then corrected the number to about 140,000. Or do they just refer?
  • If Komen is truly committed to curing breast cancer, and I believe they have been, why would they help fund the largest abortion provider in the US when there is scientific linkage between abortion and breast cancer?
A final thought:

I am not suggesting Komen made their decision to sever the relationship with PP on moral or pro-life grounds, however, they did say initially it was because PP was being investigated by Congress.

This episode is revealing.

Both "tolerance" and "choice" are not that at all in the world of secular progressivism.

The smiley faced, "Be tolerant of everyone" and "You have a right to choose" is a facade masking a steel hard, cold, secular agenda that is slowly exchanging the Truth for a lie. And eroding our most fundamental freedoms.

We have seen this in the issue of abortion and we have seen it in the issue of redefining marriage and family.

Whether it is abortion, redefining family, redefining marriage or simply religious freedoms, the assault is under way.

Just last week Nancy Pelosi pledged to stand with President Obama in his war on the Catholic Church over mandating birth control medication in his healthcare scheme, thus forcing them to comply with his healthcare laws or violate their faith and religious beliefs.

In the secularist world you may believe whatever you wish, but if you choose to act on those beliefs, there will be consequences.

Nancy Pelosi called President Obama "courageous" for his stand against the Catholic Church.

In a better time, those who stood for morality and Truth were called "courageous." Now those who seek to destroy the foundations of this great nation and the basis of its freedoms are considered "courageous."

King Belshazzer is one of the most tragic figures in Old Testament history. The book of Daniel records that he was, "Weighed in the balances and found wanting." And his country was destroyed.

Unless this country fundamentally changes and turns toward the God who gave us our freedoms and liberty---we will be found wanting and will cease to be free.

The handwriting is on the wall.

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

Thursday, February 02, 2012

Mocking Marriage: A Multi-Layered Deception

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Last night the Washington State Senate passed SB 6239, 28-21 with 4 Republicans voting for it. The bill alters and redefines marriage, legalizing so-called homosexual "marriage."

The House will soon pass their companion bill and Governor Gregoire has promised, although she has been morally conflicted about it, she will sign it.

And what about all those lawmakers who said they wanted to honor civil rights in voting for the bill but preferred that the issue would be referred to the people for a vote? Even the Governor agreed. Well, that was deceptive. An amendment was offered which would have referred it to the people, but the lawmakers, marching to the Seattle Times drum beat said, "no." (26-23)

Our Stand For Marriage coalition will now run a referendum. Please watch for details.

Why are the Times editors and elected officials so afraid of the people who buy their paper and elect them to their job?

The Times called the deeply held often biblically based religious beliefs about marriage, held by many, "Whims."

Those lawmakers who have forsaken the teaching of their church, their parents and the Bible to support redefining marriage are most often hailed as "courageous" heroes.

Why are those who believe in natural, biblical marriage and stand in its defense, often characterized as bigots, haters, narrow minded and worse?

Just last week, the Maryland Governor's wife, Katie O'Malley, told a national convention that they would have had homosexual "marriage" in their state except, "There were some cowards that prevented it from passing." After a public backlash, she later said she should have chosen different words.

In this brave new world of elevated and celebrated homosexual behavior, redefining marriage is "courageous" and "bold."

Standing for and defending natural marriage, the oldest social institution known to the human race, is "cowardly."

The Washington State Legislature and the Governor have chosen to mock marriage.

The basis for that decision is a multi-layered deception.

"Marriage Equality" is a deception. Both Senators Swecker and Stevens made that clear last night. The action taken by the legislature, which will be signed into law by the Governor, is not "marriage equality." It does not provide equality for a number of classes or groupings of people who may claim loving, long term relationships and a desire to marry. What about polygamists and blood relatives, to name a few? Does this law provide equality or does it discriminate?

This law provides "special rights." Not "equal rights."

But a legislature that has proven itself unable to solve a long list of problems plaguing the state, has risen to the redefining of marriage and in days pushed through legislation.

And a "courageous" governor will sign it.

Here are the 5 basic deceptions put forth by homosexual activists seeking to alter the culture and redefine marriage.

Janice Shaw Crouse is a former speech writer for President George H.W. Bush and now a political commentator for Concerned Women for America.

The following is taken from a column she wrote:

Let’s begin with the basic argument that people are “born gay.” Apparently, activists are operating under the assumption that if they say this long enough, people will believe it. Yet the science is not there to substantiate their oft-stated premise that homosexuality is genetic and is immutable. The studies that purport to support the idea have not been replicated; instead, they have been repudiated or considered inconclusive. The generally accepted theory is that some people may be predisposed to emotional vulnerabilities that can be exacerbated by external factors, such as parental approval, social acceptance and gender affirmation. Indeed, a growing number of individuals have chosen to reject the homosexual lifestyle. In addition, there is an acknowledgement, even among homosexuals, that persons can “choose” their sexuality (be bisexual or not).

Let’s look at five other myths associated with same-sex “marriage.”

Myth #1: Having same-sex couples celebrate their love does nothing to harm anybody else’s marriage or damage the institution of marriage.

The argument that “what I do is my business and doesn’t hurt anybody but me” is an old argument that has been refuted in numerous ways. The institution of marriage has existed throughout history in almost every culture to protect women and children. Marriage is already under attack from a promiscuous, me-centered culture that derides any male who “gives up” his rights for altruistic reasons and labels him a “powerless wimp.” Likewise, women who “hold out” for marriage are called “prudes” and worse. These cultural changes are bad enough. Society opens the floodgates of cultural destruction if marriage becomes meaningless. Counterfeits always devalue the real thing. Counterfeit marriage will lead to “anything goes” unions. There will be no legal reason to deny anyone the umbrella of “marriage.” The age of those seeking unions will be irrelevant; their blood relationship won’t matter; the number of partners seeking the ceremony or any other characteristic will become meaningless. The whole institution of marriage will be rendered irrelevant. Just look at Scandinavia: they legalized “same-sex marriage;” now, cohabitation rather than marriage is the prevalent household arrangement.

Myth #2: Same-sex “marriage” is an “equal rights” issue.

Activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is like the civil rights issue of racial equality, that homosexuals “deserve” the right to “marry” and have the same benefits and protections of marriage that heterosexuals enjoy. Any denial of that “right,” they say, violates their “equal rights.” The reality is that the same-sex “marriage” effort is more about getting society’s approval for behavior; it is not about benefits or protections. All American citizens have the right to marriage, and all the protections that homosexuals seek are already embedded in American law. Anyone can legally designate beneficiaries and establish who can or cannot visit them in hospitals. Clearly the push is for approval, mainstreaming an aberrant set of values and condoning certain behaviors; it is not for establishing “rights” that already exist. Marriage is more than a “legal” institution; it is an institution supported by society as a haven for children, the foundation of the family, and the well-spring of civility and national strength. The homosexual activists are seeking a special right, one that denies the human truth that male and female are designed to be “one” and are created as the natural means for propagating the human race.

Myth #3: Any group of people — including homosexual couples — can contribute to the well-being of children and form a productive unit of society.

Conveying marital status to any group of people gives them societal affirmation and establishes them as an essential element of society when the research indicates they are not capable of performing those functions. Social science research sends a clear and unequivocal message: the married couple, mom-and-dad family is best for children — not just good, but best in comparison to any other household arrangement. Other households (headed by anyone other than the married mother and father) are far inferior and damaging to children’s well-being and their futures. Already our children are at risk from the increase in cohabitation and the decline in marriage. If we add same-sex “marriage” into the mix, we are disregarding the best interests of our nation’s children. American children are at risk in carefully-documented ways when they are raised in any household but a married mom-and-dad family: They make worse grades, are likely to drop out of school, more prone to getting into trouble, have greater health problems, are more likely to experiment with drugs and/or alcohol, and will likely engage in early sexual activity and thus be more likely to contract a sexually-transmitted disease, have an abortion(s) and/or teen pregnancy.

Myth #4: Same-sex “marriage” is a matter of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

This is one of the more insidious myths related to “same-sex marriage.” There is no way to ignore the fact that same-sex “marriage” violates the deeply-held beliefs of millions of Christian, Jewish and Muslim citizens whose opposition to same-sex “marriage” is founded on central tenets of their faith. Knowing this, the homosexual activists are working through indoctrination programs for the nation’s children. Our public schools are becoming the means through which activists plan to change public opinion and the rule of law. Curriculum programs are instilling the idea that there is no legitimate opposition to homosexuality; instead, any opposition is bigoted and hate-filled. Laws are being changed to force innkeepers, businesses and even our social services to celebrate homosexuality.

More to the point, same-sex “marriage” is already used as a bludgeon to destroy the religious liberties and drive out Christian social services. One recent example: Massachusetts and the District of Columbia have both driven out Catholic adoption agencies, whose moral stand is unacceptable to the homosexual agenda. The radical politics of homosexuality requires orphans to remain without parents at all rather than to allow a Christian agency the religious liberty to find them a home.

Myth #5: “Same-Sex Marriages” are just like heterosexual marriages.

This last myth is probably the one furthest from the truth. In actuality, homosexual unions have a very short lifespan; many of the same-sex “marriages” in Massachusetts are already being dissolved. Further, the health risks associated with homosexual practice are very real and very much in evidence in the emergency rooms of hospitals. There is no denying: Homosexual sex is dangerous and destructive to the human body. Both HIV and HPV are epidemic among homosexual men. Domestic violence is a common problem — twice as prevalent among homosexual couples as in heterosexual ones. Indeed, legally creating a union does not enable two men or two women to become “one flesh,” nor does a legal ceremony give the union sanctity. Instead, the ceremony creates a sham that will devalue all marriages. The government establishes “standards” for measurement and value; to declare a sham union equal to marriage would devalue the “standard” and render all unions worthless and irrelevant. If the U.S. government establishes same-sex “marriages” under law, it will be redefining marriage — completely and irrevocably. Such a powerful statement will contradict the prevailing social science research: There is a big difference between 1) a family created and sanctioned by society when a man and a woman commit to each other and thus form a cohesive unit, and 2) a couple or group of people who live together to form a household in defiance of the prevailing moral codes to render meaningless an institution that has been the bulwark of the family and society throughout history.

Conclusion: The bottom line is that this social issue is a defining moment for mankind, not just this nation. What the homosexual activists are seeking is not a minor shift in the law, but a radical change in the fundamental institution that forms the basis for society. Will we protect marriage as the primary institution protecting women and children, or will we surrender to the forces that claim no one has obligations to others and that adults can do anything they want in their sexual lives regardless of how those actions affect society, especially children, and undermine the public good?


Faith and Freedom, along with other faith based organizations in the state will immediately begin the process of running a referendum to put the marriage issue on the November ballot.

I cannot overstate the importance of your support at this time. Please stand with us.

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

Wednesday, February 01, 2012

Seattle Times: Forget The Voters

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

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.