Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Homosexuals, Marriage and Referendum 71

Homosexuals have a right to live as they choose,
they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us

Referendum 71 has successfully exceeded the 120,577 valid signatures needed to qualify, and Secretary of State Sam Reed has certified Referendum 71 to the Nov. 3 statewide ballot in Washington state.

Barring a successful 11th-hour court challenge, voters will decide the fate of a newly adopted state law that gives state-registered domestic partners the full rights and responsibilities that married couples have.

It is described by state Elections Director Nick Handy as possibly the narrowest margin ever for a measure winning a ballot spot.

From here our resolve to protect marriage in Washington State only intensifies as we will work tirelessly to inform and educate every citizens on this important and pivotal vote in November.

Three important reads:

"Spin a globe and pick virtually any place on earth at any previous time in human history; you will find that they do marriage one way — between men and women. There may be other differences, but marriage has always required a husband and a wife.

Why? Marriage teaches that men and women need each other and that children need mothers and fathers. A loving and compassionate society comes to the aid of motherless and fatherless children, but no compassionate society intentionally deprives children of their own mom or dad. But this is what every same-sex home does — and for no other reason but to satisfy adult desire.

Same-sex marriage advocates want to force everyone to dramatically and permanently alter our definition of marriage and family. The great, historic, cross-cultural understanding of marriage as the union of husband and wife will be called bigotry in the public square. The law will teach your children and grandchildren that there is nothing special about mothers and fathers raising children together, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a bigot."

~ National organization For Marriage

"It is often difficult to determine gay activists' true intentions since, from the beginning, most have been less than honest about their goals or the facts. In addition to their co-opting the Civil Rights Movement as an extension of the gay cause, let us examine some of the other falsehoods they have advanced over the past decade.

Ten years ago, gay activists claimed they had no interest in pursuing gay marriage. They asserted that all they wanted was equal protection under the law, hospital visitation rights and the right to transfer property in the event of a death -- all of which I support.

It is now obvious that their goal all along was the advancement of gay marriage. How else can one explain the methodical way in which they have worked to change marriage laws in small, liberal states initially, and later in as many other states as possible."

By Gwen Richardson

"Back in April, homosexual activists in Montpelier, Vermont's state capital, managed to get 100 votes in the state's House--the bare minimum necessary--to legalize counterfeit "marriages" for homosexuals.

That law took effect today, but the number of same-sex couples who had applied for marriage licenses in Montpelier was--zero. The same for Brattleboro and Manchester. In Burlington , the state's largest city, there had been only three.

Again, we see that the push to legally recognize homosexual unions is not based on any need for the "benefits" of marriage, or desire to "marry." Instead, it's about providing affirmation of homosexuality itself."

by Tony Perkins

No comments: