Friday, September 05, 2014

Mayor Murray Leads The "Marry Me In Seattle" Outreach To Homosexuals

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

King 5 TV reports that Mayor Ed Murray, along with the tourism marketing arm of the City of Seattle, is heading up an effort to draw homosexuals from all over the world to Seattle and western Washington.

The campaign "Marry Me In Seattle" is advertising nationally with winners being drawn each week. The ads run in various homosexual newspapers, web sites, etc., with catch phrases like, "Hey, come get married in Seattle."

Mayor Murray, himself openly homosexual, officiated the "marriage" of Zacery Baker and Samuel Bush from St. Paul, Minn. Wednesday night at Canlis restaurant.

They were winners of the weekly drawing from over 300 entries.

Mayor Murray told King 5 the attraction to Seattle and western Washington "says a lot about our city as a place of tolerance."

Many activists in Seattle want the city to be known for its "tolerance," but is it?

And how does Mayor Murray define tolerance?

Recent studies and past remarks from a then prominent State Senator suggest tolerance may be seen as a one way street.

Tom Norwalk, President of Visit Seattle, the non profit tourism marketing arm of the City of Seattle, told King 5, "We knew this would be an attractive place to get married, to come visit."

He says, "It's just so emblematic of how warm and welcoming Seattle is to same-sex marriages and relationships."

He says the goal of "Marry me In Seattle" is to "invite the whole world here."

He and others also claim that 10% of the traveling public are homosexual. Then have also been claiming that up to 10% of the population is homosexual as well. However, the CDC came out with its most definitive numbers ever this past year revealing that perhaps only about 2% of the population is actually homosexual.

Sam Bush says, "Seattle has just opened its arms to us."

Those living in the city may have noticed this week that Seattle's Great Wheel has turned rainbow colors to welcome the couple.

Baker is glowing. He says, "If I was to go back to my hometown community and say 'Hey, I'm getting married,' there would be some awkwardness. Maybe we don't even tell them. Here, when you tell somebody the mayor is marrying us on Wednesday---they're like ah, that's great, and they don't miss a beat."

This move to get homosexuals to "marry" in Seattle, and/or move to Seattle is not surprising. Several of us during the R-71 and R-74 campaigns predicted this would happen---and that was before Seattle elected an activist openly homosexual mayor.

There's no question the couple from St. Paul are carried away with the embrace of homosexuality in Seattle. And I'm sure the mayor believes it is not only the "happiest place of earth" but the most tolerant.


A recent FBI study shows Seattle has the 3rd highest rate of hate crimes against homosexuals in the country. Only Washington DC and Memphis have higher rates.

I personally take no joy in this, but it is a fact, even though the Seattle Times in their reporting of the study is trying with great effort to explain away the results of the FBI report.

While the Christian community was deeply saddened to see marriage legally redefined in the State of Washington, the response of the Christian community has been sadness, prayer and resolve to elect people who reflect our values in coming elections.

I do not condone, in any way, any kind of expressed hate or hate crimes toward anyone, under any circumstances. The Christians I have know and am working with across the state share that belief.

I am merely pointing out that, according to the FBI, everyone is apparently not on board with the mayor and his activist colleagues.

The mayor says the attraction to Seattle "Says a lot about our city as a place of tolerance."

This too, raises the question of how the mayor defines tolerance.

Last year when Chick-fil-A announced they were coming to Seattle and the Puget Sound area, then Senator Ed Murray (and mayoral candidate) reacted publicly saying he was "stunned" that they would consider coming to Seattle.

The head of Cick-fil-A, Dan Cathy, you will remember publicly supported marriage as only between one man and one woman. Following his public statements to that effect, the homosexual community launched a boycott against the very successful 2,000 + store restaurant chain.

KIRO TV 7 reported that Murray said, "I'm stunned...If they want to be in Seattle, they have to obey the civil rights laws that protect our citizens, civil rights laws that I passed."

Essex Porter, reporting for Kiro 7, said in his report, "Neither Murray nor McGinn [then mayor] wants to see Chich-fil-A in Seattle."

I have known Essex for a long time, while I don't agree with some of his views, he is a good and honest reporter.

Is the reaction by Murray and McGinn one that displays tolerance?

McGinn promised to process them according to the rules, "because the land use code doesn't have a provision about bigotry of owners."

Is it not bigotry and intolerance for elected leaders in the State, now mayor, and then mayor of Seattle to publicly express that because Dan Cathy believes in biblical values, specifically biblical marriage, he is not welcome in Seattle----but they have no legal means to stop him?

Even the zoning commission was weighing in publicly complaining that there was probably no way to stop him because of the existing zoning of the lot on Northeast Northgate Way and Roosevelt Way Northeast, suggesting that if Chick-fil-A needed a zone change, "then" they would have some leverage to shut him out of the city.

Now Mr. Cathy and Chick-fil-A are planning to open restaurants in Bellevue, Lynwood and Tacoma in March of 2015.

The Seattle Weekly is continuing to echo Mayor Murray's brand of tolerance, as they hopefully write, "It will be interesting to see if the lingering ill will affect sales in our super gay Puget Sound region---although admittedly, Bellevue, Lynwood and Tacoma are a bit different than Seattle.

Indeed they are.

And the generally understood definition of "tolerance" is more than a bit different than the definition Mayor Murray and his colleagues are attaching to it.

Seattle may be a "warm, welcoming and tolerant" city, as Norwalk and Murray claim---if you're a homosexual. If not, you better not express any views that differ from their new normal.

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


  1. He would do better to invite more Christians to come to Seattle. He could open a Bible and read what God did to institute marriage into his creation that he had made. It would do his some good to learn about God's civil law.

  2. It is difficult for me as I wonder how long God will withhold his judgment of Seattle, Washington, and actually, the entire United States for our grievous indifference to His standards of righteousness. God used other invading nations to punish Israel when she fell away--who or what will He use to judge us? 9/11 is coming up--I am holding my breath.

  3. Well, the statistics are the rate per the general population. But DC is only 10% GLBT, Memphis 3.5% and Seattle is 12.9%. So restating the rates as hate crimes per the 100,000 LGBT citizens they are 0.72, 0.91 and a mere 0.23 in Seattle.

    And the idea that tolerance should be tolerant of intolerance is a bit funny. One side says people should marry their spouse - husband or wife, and the other is saying there should be special rights and only some citizens can have a husband, and others a wife. Equal rights vs special rights.

    Oh I was at Zac and Sam's wedding at Canlis. It was beautiful, their vows from the heart and the mayor was on the spot - there were many pastors there ready to give him lots of advice.

    1. Homosexuality is profane. There's nothing good about it.

    2. That's not my definition of tolerance, Oshtur. And if you apply your definition without reservation, you'll find yourself accepting of everything, including Christians rights to publicly display their faith, the marrying of multiple partners, the elimination of gated communities, the right of those under the age of 21 to buy alcohol, the right of ..and on and on.

      Marriage as an institution that signals the merger of a male and female who can consumate the relationship using their reproductive organs appropriately and naturally is being changed to a genderless institution for love. Tolerance is not the issue. The issue is the changing of an institution into something entirely different from what it's original purpose. And yes that purpose is procreation and creating family. Exceptions do exist. But that's the main purpose.

      In my eyes, you are not married.

      And in my eyes, you are very intolerant.

    3. And that is why we have laws, to set the legal limits on tolerance. And since most of the things you mentioned are things that can happen legally I get the feeling you still don't understand the basic issues.

      As to your opinion Zac and Sam aren't married well that and $5 bucks will get you a latté - this is America and every American has a right to their own religious views on marriage. Do not confuse the civil contract titled Marriage and your religious rite - they are two different things. Shoot my next door neighbor is the concubine of a Somali Muslim man, no law being broken in Washington or Oregon.

      And same goes for your opinion that I'm intolerant, without something to explain it its as valuable as your previous one. Am I saying you can't marry your husband or wife because of your sex? Am I saying you must marry someone of the sex of my choosing and not yours? At most all I'm saying is what our constitution sets as an absolute - I have a right to not share your religion, its tenets, or its views within the limits of the constitution and the law. Live your life by your opinion within the law and let me do the same.
      tol·er·ance noun
      1. the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

  4. Mr. Randall, thank you again for keeping us informed and exposing the "left" for the hypocrites they are, even tho they seem gleefully unaware of that fact.

  5. The mayor's call for tolerance is a tacit admission that he knows the homosexual lifestyle is wrong. "Tolerance" is not an appropriate word to apply to positive virtues like love, patience, honesty, justice, and moral purity; we don't "tolerate" those, because they partake in God's righteous nature and standards, and they are appreciated as part of the best fabric of our society. "Tolerance" is only an appropriate word to apply to deviations from such positive virtues; we only "tolerate" -- in varying degrees, and yet seeking remedy of such -- negative virtues (vices) like lack of love, impatience, dishonesty, injustice, and moral impurity -- all of which fall short of God's nature and standards, and all of which weaken the fabric of our society. Someone once said, "The law of love tolerates no vice, and patronizes [supports / defends] every virtue." Homosexuality is a vice and the call to "tolerate" it is a tacit admission that it falls short of God's standard. -- PJ, Grandview

    1. Yes, they seem to know that it's wrong and can not find real peace about it, though they seek the affirmation of the entire world. Let us not be used for his worldly quest for true comfort.

  6. Not only do they know it's wrong and rejoice in those that go wrong with them, they even make a game of it now with prizes and rewards.


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