Homosexual Marriage in Washington State

by

Remember a few years back, when the people voted to give domestic partnerships the same rights and privileges as married couples, save for the right to call themselves “married”? We were told that this is the compromise between homosexual activists representing a fraction of a percent of our people that believe they have the power to redefine marriage, and the vast majority of the people of Washington State who believe that marriage is not only something the state should participate in, but something that we shouldn’t redefine.

We were told that that would satisfy the minority of minorities among us. After all, they have all the same privileges and are respected under the law equally as a married couple if they choose to join themselves under a domestic partnership.

But apparently that’s not enough. Now, they want to take the word “marriage” from us as well.

Let me help people understand why they want to do this. It is not about equal rights; they are and have always been equal under the law. There is no law anywhere in our books that discriminate between homosexual or heterosexual and marriage. We do not care what the sexual preference of our married couples are; it is completely irrelevant. The institution they want to take upon themselves is not the institution that describes their relationship. It’s like a corporation who wants to file as a limited liability partnership. It simply does not apply. Yet that seems wholly irrelevant to them.

What they want is they want to change our minds. They want us to treat homosexual relationships the same as heterosexual ones. That is, they want us to pretend that when a man and a man love each other, and decide to live together, that we should give them the same honor and respect that we give to a man and a woman who decide to live together. We all know why those two relationships are different, except, perhaps, the very young among us who do not know where babies come from.

They want to change our religion. They want to make it a crime to say, “God does not proscribe homosexual relations; God instead blesses heterosexual marriage.”

What happens if this law is passed is we will see a lot of people punished simply for their belief.

Now, when a flower arranger, a wedding planner, a wedding cake baker refuses to provide their services to homosexual unions, they will be sued for discriminating against someone because of their sexual preference. Except they’re not; they don’t care what they do with their sexual organs. They believe that heterosexual unions, man and wife, is a very special and honorable relationship, because it builds families and continues the chain of family relations that gave rise to our lives in the first place.

Now, when a church or counselors say they will offer services to married couples that are man and wife only (because the other form of relationship is a perversion and not to be supported), they will find themselves sued and perhaps paying fines, forced to offer counseling to people they believe are living in sin, or even that they cannot teach that one form of “marriage” is a perversion of the true form of marriage.

Imagine what would happen in my church, if a couple, man and man, join the church but are told they cannot receive a temple recommend because they are committing sins of a sexual nature, and will never receive a temple recommend until they divorce and cease from their sexual sin. What will happen? Why, our church could be sued, because we are discriminating against people based on their sexual preference. Perhaps one of the punishments will be that we have to issue temple recommends to these couples, and perform the wedding ceremony in our holy temple in front of God, angels, and the witnesses surrounding the altar. Of course, rather than commit such a blasphemy an desecration of God’s holy temple, our church would likely abandon marriage altogether, saying that the higher marriage reserved for those who obey God’s plan of happiness cannot be had because of violations of our religious rights. Perhaps our couples will have to fly to foreign countries or flee to other states to perform these sacred ordinances.

This is the heart of homosexual marriage. It is not, and has never been, about obtaining for themselves the same legal rights and privileges. It is about forcing others to accept their point of view as normal. It is about making us feel bad for believing that those who control their natural sexual urges, and who restrain themselves for the sake of their family, society, and their religion and God, are wrong and instead, we should all allow our sexual proclivities to dictate to us our identity and behavior. Ask any homosexual marriage activist what they think about churches that teach marriage is between a man and a woman, and whether they believe, in their heart of hearts, that this teaching should be allowed, and you’ll see their true colors.

This is not the same as allowing interracial marriages. States have exerted their rights to limit who is allowed to marry who, and that only because they thought they were doing a service for society. If you believe that racial purity is a good thing, then you would naturally conclude that a law which prohibits a mixing of the races to also be a good thing. Those who proposed interracial marriage did so because they did not believe that race mattered even a little. As people adopted this attitude towards race, interracial marriage bans were lifted.

What is it that the homosexual marriage activist disagrees with us on? They believe that a family with two dads who have homosexual relations with each other is morally equivalent to a family of a married man and a woman. They believe there is no difference between these two relationships, anymore than a black man is different than a white man. If you agree with him, that it really doesn’t matter what you do in the bedroom, and no behavior is superior or preferable to another, then you likely think the same as the homosexual marriage activist.What is morality, and why does it matter? Who cares what we do, as long as we “live and let live” and harm no one but ourselves and consenting adults?

If you believe, instead, that marriage between man and woman is ordained of God, not only to propagate life but provide for the children of such a union with the ideal atmosphere to grow into adulthood, then you stand opposed to homosexual marriage. If you believe we need to exercise self-control in our daily lives, not just in mundane things but sexual things as well, then you don’t believe that homosexual marriage is good.

Do you know what they think of you, who have natural sexual relations with your spouse in the bonds of marriage, for the purpose of raising another generation with a loving father and mother? They hold you with ultimate contempt. I cannot describe to you what they feel about you. You need only listen to them talk to each other to know. They hate you with a hatred you cannot imagine, just as you cannot imagine why someone would abandon their family and engage in all sorts of gross perversions of the sickest kind. Their hatred is the hatred of good by those who embrace evil; that is what this war is about. They intend to destroy you and your society, and replace it with their immorality and perversions of the same. They think they know better than God, and our ancestors, and all that is or was good in this world.

Ask yourself: Is a family built on love between man and woman preferable to all others?

I’ll be opening my pocketbook, and vocally and publicly campaigning for the initiative to overturn what the Washington State legislature is doing today. I’ll also vow to fight against any candidate who would support such a thing. We used to think such a thing could not happen in our state, but what fools were we! Now this will be the issue in 2012, and it will be an all-out political war between those with no sexual morality and those who hold it sacred, just as they intended.

Those who intend to hurt me will need to know that I take the pain with joy and celebration. I’m glad I can be counted worthy to be persecuted as Jesus was.

Advertisements

4 Responses to “Homosexual Marriage in Washington State”

  1. tensor Says:

    Remember a few years back, when the people voted to give domestic partnerships the same rights and privileges as married couples, save for the right to call themselves “married”?

    It was a bill, passed by a vote of our legislature, and signed by Governor Gregiore; it was not a popular Initiative or Referendum.

    We were told that this is the compromise between homosexual activists representing a fraction of a percent of our people that believe they have the power to redefine marriage…

    Why does the number of persons denied marriage benefits matter? The entire membership of the LDS Church is a tiny minority in this state; would that justify the state declaring that all marriages performed in an LDS Church were legally null and void?

    We were told that this is the compromise between homosexual activists representing a fraction of a percent of our people that believe they have the power to redefine marriage.

    Domestic partnership legislation for gay couples was always presented as a step toward full marriage equality:

    The bill’s key sponsors, a coalition of gay lawmakers in the House and Senate, have said they see the measure as the first step to gay marriage law.

    Now, they want to take the word “marriage” from us as well.

    Please explain how State Sen. Murray’s upcoming marriage to his partner of twenty years has any effect upon your marriage at all.

    It is not about equal rights; they are and have always been equal under the law.

    Homosexual acts were illegal in most states until well into the 20th Century, i.e. for most of the time the United States has existed. People were jailed, careers were ruined, lives were lost because of our bitter persecution of homosexuals here, in “the land of the free.”

    What they want is they want to change our minds.

    Not only does Senator Ed Murray not care one little bit of what you think of his upcoming marriage, but no sane person who reads your blog could ever possibly maintain for an instant the slightest hope of ever changing your mind.

    Now, when a flower arranger, a wedding planner, a wedding cake baker refuses to provide their services to homosexual unions, they will be sued for discriminating against someone because of their sexual preference.

    I’ve met some serious “bridezillas” in my time, but even for them, suing the flower arranger would have been pretty hard-core!

    (Why would the Mighty Awesome Free Market fail to provide another flower arranger for the gay marriage customer? Is the Free Market an abject failure? Is every champion of the Free Market thus a pitiable dupe? Discuss.)

    Why, our church could be sued,

    Why, you could actually learn something about some subject, before you decided to comment upon it:

    …the exemption in the measure that doesn’t require religious organizations or churches to perform marriages and doesn’t subject them to penalties if they don’t marry gay or lesbian couples.

    As people adopted this attitude towards race, interracial marriage bans were lifted.

    As liberals defeated conservatives in the culture wars the conservatives had declared, inter-racial marriage became legal in liberal states. In conservative states, our federal Supreme Court legalized all inter-racial marriages in 1967, in the deliciously-named “Loving v. Virginia” decision. (Before you lecture anyone else on history, you might want to learn some yourself.)

    I’ll be opening my pocketbook, and vocally and publicly campaigning for the initiative to overturn what the Washington State legislature is doing today. I’ll also vow to fight against any candidate who would support such a thing.

    It would be a Referendum, not an Initiative. And you might get a lot of resistance from this guy:

    I absolutely, POSITIVELY, DO NOT WANT democracy. Democracy is a plague. It is a sickness, a disease. It is a rot, a cancer. Democracy destroyed Athens, and it destroys every culture where it has been introduced. Democracy is mob rule. It is two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner. Democracy preys on people’s ignorance and animal instincts. It brings out the worst in us, and destroys the best. Democracy murdered Socrates. Democracy corrupts all it touches. Democracy turns whites against blacks, poor against rich, male against female, old against young, taxpayer against government. Democracy divides families and communities and churches and states and nations into Side A and Side B. It turns politics into warfare.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      I normally don’t approve comments so long or with such weighted language. If you want to get approved more often, you’ll have to learn how to treat other people with respect who have a different opinion than you.

      First: Referendum 71 was the vote in 2009 where Washington State voters approved what the legislature did. The literature at the time DID present this as the final step, and not as a stepping stone to taking the word “marriage” to mean something else.

      Second: This is how you are injuring me. I have worked to “earn” my marriage. I spent a great deal of time, my whole life, even, preparing myself through self-control and education to become the type of person whom a woman would want to marry. I spent a great deal of time and money finding the right woman to marry and who wanted to marry me. I spend almost my entire life keeping that marriage sacred. You want to take away a word that I hold sacred, and redefine it to mean something else.

      Let me put it to you this way. Let’s say I earned a gold medal in the olympics. Then you come along and say, “I think everyone should have one of those, whether or not they meet the criteria.” And then you give everyone olympic gold medals. What does that do to me? It ruins the honor and recognition I had fought for and sacrificed for.

      Yes, you are taking something away from me, a word, a title, an honor, a recognition, something that our society universally admires and exalts as the most important and most moral course of action for any individual to undertake.

      I understand, you do not care for things that are good or are designed to make us sacrifice our own lives for the people around us, or to build families and children ready to bear the awesome responsibility that is adulthood. That’s fine, you don’t have to participate in marriage and family raising and child-rearing. Don’t take away from me what I have earned and what I hold as most sacred.

      Third: the republicans in the senate offered an amendment that would prevent the discriminatory lawsuits that are inevitable. When people get sued because they refuse to give the same honor and reverence to homosexual marriage as heterosexual marriage, whose side will you be on? Or do you think it is right and just to treat people differently because they believe different things than you? Let me put it to you another way: Do you like it when other people treat you differently because you believe differently than them, and do you think it is right to treat people differently than you would want to be treated?

      Fourth: I will use whatever political tools are available to protect marriage. Just because I find something disagreeable doesn’t mean it will not be useful and I will be morally obligated to use it from time to time. In that regard, I am also working to make sure every legislator who thought it was a good idea to redefine marriage to be removed from office through elections. I cannot rely on democracy to always protect the rights of the individual, although many times it will.

      Fifth: On homosexuality, I am fine with people who have homosexual tendencies as I am fine with people who have alcoholic tendencies. We each have our own burdens to bear. That does not excuse sexual immorality. There was a time, long ago, where we agreed that sexual morality, at least in the public realm, was an important thing. Remember, no matter what law is on the books, or what enforcement mechanisms exist, people are free to do whatever they like with people as long as others don’t find out. This is true today and it was true a thousand years ago. Any legislator who thinks they can change people’s actual behavior with laws is deceived. People will always be free to obey or disobey. The benefit the laws had was suppressing those things which we knew to be universally wrong out of the public sphere. You simply don’t go around bragging about how cool it is to murder and rob and rape, and expect the people around you to keep those laws. You have laws to keep those things out as best you can.

      It is a sad, sad, SAD state we are in when people see no problem with sexual promiscuity and in breaking marriage vows. Is it any wonder that our families are suffering in this day and age? Where is the love at home and the bond between husbands and wives among those who practice these abominations? Of course we are dying as a culture and a nation, we are doing everything possible to expedite our own destruction as we practice gross sins and even revel in them, and boldly declare good to be evil and evil to be good! Do you think that human nature is any different today than it was a hundred, a thousand, or even three thousand years ago? Suddenly, is modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens able to cope with sexual promiscuity while ancient Homo Sapiens Sapiens could not? Or do you think something has changed around us? Will our society, our government, or technology save us from ourselves and our own depravity?

      Where is the moral line we will refuse to cross? Will we one day embrace other moral sins as legal? Robbery? We are working on that, with government programs that punish people who create wealth and reward those who destroy it—and look at the economic chaos that has resulted. Murder? We see millions of babies aborted every year because they are no more than a nuisance to their mother. We also completely ignore two cultures among us that celebrate murder openly and proudly. (Can you name them?)

      One day, will we build temples in the center of our cities where we sacrifice thousands of people a day like the ancient Americans did? Will we build concentration camps where we commit unspeakable horrors against people who are different from us? Will we starve 50 million of our own people to death as Soviet Russia did? Will we institute policies that leads to even more massive starvation as China did?

      Why will we not do these things, while other humans did? What makes us different from them?

      After all, if it feels good, DO IT! Am I right? As long as it’s different from what we used to do, it must be progress, and it must be a good thing!!!

      What made us different, and the reason why we survived so long, is because our society was built on Christian principles. The center of our lives was our individual worship and obedience to God. Over time, when we no longer have that as the center of our lives, what will make us different from every other failed culture in the earth’s history?

      Sure, let’s embrace homosexuality and sexual promiscuity! Every other culture did it! The Romans, the Greeks, the Chinese, everyone! What could possible go wrong in embracing the morality of failed civilizations?

  2. tensor Says:

    First: Referendum 71 was the vote in 2009 where Washington State voters approved what the legislature did.

    I stand corrected. The law was passed by our Legislature, signed by our Governor, and ratified by our popular vote. Thank you for reminding me of that last act of validation.

    The literature at the time DID present this as the final step,

    From the 2009 Voter’s Guide for Ref. 71:

    Reject Senate Bill 5688 to Preserve Marriage!

    SB 5688 is primarily about homosexual marriage – not benefits.

    Senator Ed Murray told the Seattle Times (Jan. 10, 2007), when announcing the Domestic Partnership Bill, “The goal is marriage equality. It’s an important statement that our eyes are on the prize, and the prize is marriage.” Representative Jamie Pederson told the Times (Jan. 28, 2009) that SB 5688 will give homosexuals “a bridge until they can legally marry.”

    Senator Murray told the Times (May 17, 2009) that the domestic partnership expansion (SB 5688) is an “incremental approach…a strategic plan.”

    5688 is the last incremental step to same-sex marriage in Washington State.

    Please cite the literature you keep describing.

    This is how you are injuring me. I have worked to “earn” my marriage. I spent a great deal of time, my whole life, even, preparing myself through self-control and education to become the type of person whom a woman would want to marry. I spent a great deal of time and money finding the right woman to marry and who wanted to marry me. I spend almost my entire life keeping that marriage sacred.

    In other words, we are neither picking your pocket, nor breaking your leg. We are doing you no harm.

    You want to take away a word that I hold sacred, and redefine it to mean something else.

    The state does not decide what is or is not “sacred”. No one else is responsible for your decision on how to interpret this change in our laws.

    Let me put it to you this way. Let’s say I earned a gold medal in the olympics. Then you come along and say, “I think everyone should have one of those, whether or not they meet the criteria.” And then you give everyone olympic gold medals. What does that do to me? It ruins the honor and recognition I had fought for and sacrificed for.

    (Describing yourself as a Gold Medalist is one of those manifestations of Christian humility, right?)

    Gay couples have raised children successfully, without the raft of legal benefits you and your spouse have always had. Therefore, maybe they resent you, the Silver Medal holder in the Marriage Olympics, demanding that we regard your Silver Medal as the equivalent of their Gold Medal?

    (I do like your definition of sportsmanship including the idea that an Olympian should run around, waving his medal under everyone else’s noses, yelling, “I’m greater than you are!!” The medal is a symbol, not the athletic record itself.)

    Fourth: I will use whatever political tools are available to protect marriage. Just because I find something disagreeable doesn’t mean it will not be useful and I will be morally obligated to use it from time to time.

    Yes, you right-wingers always believe that ethics are situational, that your ends always justify your means, and that you can freely and eagerly spread “plague”, “disease”, and “rot” in the service of your self-proclaimed moral superiority.

    On homosexuality, I am fine with people who have homosexual tendencies as I am fine with people who have alcoholic tendencies.

    Your insulting equation of homosexuality with a crippling disease shows nothing but your own hateful ignorance. We don’t make laws on that basis anymore.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      I’m glad you uncovered that for me. See, when I was campaigning in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2010, no one believed that democrats would want to force homosexual marriage on the people of Washington State. I guess now we know they weren’t kidding.

      Folks, a vote for a democrat, anywhere in our state, is a vote for homosexual marriage.

      In other words, we are neither picking your pocket, nor breaking your leg. We are doing you no harm.

      So, too, I am doing you no harm by refusing to change the definition of marriage to satisfy your perversions of nature.

      That argument cannot work, since turned on its head, it has equal power.

      The state does not decide what is or is not “sacred”. No one else is responsible for your decision on how to interpret this change in our laws.

      Au contraire! You seem to live in the fantasy that there is no state religion. There is, and always has been, and forever will be. Look at the history of statecraft, and you see a history of religion, and vice-versa. The two are inseparably connected.

      Why? Because you need a definition of “good”, and only religion can provide that.

      Now, my government has told me, “Homosexual relations are not only to be tolerated, but celebrated with equal jubilence as heterosexual ones.” I cannot agree with that. That is not good. I can show you in a million different ways, in a million different philosophies why it is not good.

      By the way, the First Amendment says “establishment of religion”, eg, “a church”.

      Gay couples have raised children successfully

      So have murderers, drunks, adulterers, child molesters, and evil dictators. Shall we celebrate evil in all its forms, if it isn’t completely and wholly evil?

      Therefore, maybe they resent you

      Evil always resents good. The suppose I am the reason they cannot find happiness, when it is I and people like I who show them why their own actions and choices are leading them into despair. We did not define the Natural Law, we simply verbalize it.

      Yes, you right-wingers always believe that ethics are situational, that your ends always justify your means, and that you can freely and eagerly spread “plague”, “disease”, and “rot” in the service of your self-proclaimed moral superiority.

      Hah! This is rich. Was it the right-wingers who put on white hats and burned crosses? Was it the right-wingers who strung uppity blacks from trees?

      And my “situational ethics” justifies my use of democratic processes to change the law to suit my desires. And that’s equivalent to the Trail of Tears? My religious and political ancestors were busy trying to write down the native american languages and to justify their humanity via scripture, while your political ancestors were too blind to see what they were doing to a proud and noble race.

      Our “situational ethics” said that peace wasn’t worth slavery, that we would rather have war than slavery.

      Our “situational ethics” said that we cannot tolerate a world with Hitler and Hirohito.

      Our “situational ethics” saved millions upon millions of lives, while the ethics of the left has murdered countless hundreds of millions via communism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: