Print 
PDFThe message? "Don't sign a petition."
While the emails are different, there is a consistent theme. They are not threatening, but certainly intrusive.
Before I share more on this and some content, I received an email from Kirby Wilber, State Republican Party Chair yesterday afternoon.
He was wanting to clarify something in the press regarding the caucuses on Saturday. I told him I would share it with our readers. This is his message: "Gary, fyi,the media got it wrong. No delegates were awarded Saturday. This was a non-binding poll."
_____________
The following is part of an email one of our readers received this past weekend:
Dear XXXX,
My name is Paul Thomasson. You don’t know me, but you may soon be in a position to have an effect on my life.
I am writing to you because in 2009, you signed a petition to place Referendum 71 on the Washington state ballot. R71 was a question to the people to approve or reject a law extending the rights and obligations of domestic partnership....[He explains that he got the name from a certain web site]
Another law was recently passed to extend the rights and obligations of civil marriage to same-sex couples in Washington State, and Protect Marriage Washington has again promised to collect signatures to place another Referendum on the ballot (which has been labeled Referendum 74).
As you have probably guessed, I am gay. After many years trying to be otherwise, I came to the realization that my orientation is as innate as the color of my eyes and that it was futile and even harmful to continue trying to be something that I am not (as I’m sure several girlfriends who wasted their time on me would attest).
We can choose what we do, but we cannot willfully choose who we are attracted to or who we fall in love with. We simply do, and are we not as worthy as anyone else to have a chance to know real true romantic love (as opposed to the kind of platonic love that we may have had for members of the opposite gender)?
Thankfully, I found a partner and we have been together for almost 17 years.
We met in Washington D.C. at a country-western dance class on Friday January 13th, 1995 (we have no other date to remember or celebrate). Our meeting and ensuing romance was a revelation to me. For the first time in my life, I understood what the term “falling in love” meant (a concept which had eluded me well into my 30’s).
After a period of dating, even though we didn’t have a license or ceremony or a party or any of the other things that society uses to formalize and recognize a life-long commitment, we made a pledge to each other and we have stayed faithful.
We both served in the military (I, for almost 10 years). We pay our taxes and we try to be good citizens and good sons to our parents.
We don’t understand how extending the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage to us would harm (or even affect) anyone else’s marriage. And in your heart, I’m sure you know that it would not.
We’re not asking for special rights or for you to agree with the morality of the way we live our lives. All we want is for our government to provide us access to the single commonly understood institution that will make it easier for us and people like us to form and perpetuate the kind of stable life-long partnerships which surely benefit society.
I can’t know what motivated you to sign the petition for R71, but I sincerely hope and pray that you will not sign the petition for R74.
Thank you for taking the time to consider this. You are very welcome to reply to this email or to call me if you have any questions about why this is important to us and/or how it would affect us.
Sincerely,
[ name and phone number]
Another email I reviewed, had a similar message from the same person, to another one of our readers. It also contained a lengthy overview of his life with this message, "We don't understand how extending the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage to us would harm (or even affect) someone else's marriage. And in your heart, I'm sure you know that it would not."
Our reader responded simply with this message:
"Marriage is between one man and one woman."
"I did not create the world nor the rules that govern it. I am not able to change the Truth and neither are you."
"I will stand for the Truth and pray that some day you will do the same."
"In Christ"
Well said.
In fact, what is being sought through the passage of the "redefining marriage" law is not "marriage equality," it is "special rights." It does not and can not achieve "marriage equality" because there are still many different groupings that would be discriminated against and refused marriage.
Marriage between one man and one woman predates civilization. It has been affirmed by history and every major religion. It is the cornerstone of every successful civilization.
It must not be redefined for one special interest group.
Thank you for standing with us as we all stand for marriage.
Your financial support is essential.
If you have not signed up to circulate petitions to put both I-1192 and R-74 on the November ballot, please do so here.
Be Vigilant. Be discerning. Be Prayerful. Be active. Be Blessed.