P
Peggy_in_Burien
Guest
I understand that. I live here. I know the name of that person, too. I never said it was the Common Good. I think it is for the Common Bad, actually.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Sadly, our state is closer to Oregon in more ways than one.I understand that. I live here. I know the name of that person, too. I never said it was the Common Good. I think it is for the Common Bad, actually.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
In big metropolitan areas where gay people tend to live, Seattle is second only to San Francisco in terms of LGBT concentration, followed by Atlanta. NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago in that order have the most same sex couples.]
Concentrations in the northeast and the northwest. Hmm. Just in case the politics does not move fast enough towards legalization of SS"M" stateside.
At any rate, where there are big concentrations of gays, it is not surprising that there would be professionals from that group gravitating to positions in government where they could/would have a hand in policy making. A shorter route than just the right person or persons landing key judiciary positions, of course. Together, though, and where/when their efforts pay off, they pretty much could sew up the legislative and judiciary angles.
For the state of Washington, two gay legislators, Sen. Jamie Pedersen and Sen Ed Murray figured heavily in the push for the same sex marriage bill, getting 55-43 vote, which the governor signed into law on Feb 13 to be effective in June.
On the same day, reported the Associated Press, leaders of the pro-family coalition Preserve Marriage Washington were busy filing Referendum 73 to put the law before the voters for what they hope will be a repeal.
According to the Seattle Post Intelligencer, they have until June 6 to gather 120,577 signatures to put the referendum on the ballot in November, effectively blocking homosexual couples from getting married until the outcome of the state-wide vote.
Among the leaders in the fight to preserve marriage in Washington is Joseph Backholm, head of the state’s Family Policy Institute, who said his group is working to give voters the final say on the issue. “Marriage is the union of one man and one woman for good reason,” Backholm said following passage of the homosexual marriage bill. “Marriage is society’s way of bringing men and women together so that children can be raised by, and cared for by, their mother and father — the people responsible for bringing them into the world. It is the most-important, child-focused institution of society and we will fight to preserve it. Voters will have the opportunity to define marriage in our state.”
Among the state and national groups that are combining forces to get the referendum on the ballot are the Family Policy Institute, Stand for Marriage Washington, Concerned Women for America, and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). In addition, organizers said they expect hundreds of churches and individuals to pitch in to gather the needed signatures.
“We call on the community of faith and all citizens to join in this referendum to give the voters of Washington the right to decide the definition of marriage in our state,” said Republican State Representative Matt Shea, who is helping in the effort through Stand for Marriage Washington. “Already we have had an outpouring of support from pastors, legislators, and individuals who are ready to go to work to preserve marriage in our state.”
Shea said he was confident the people of Washington will follow the majority of other states in confirming traditional marriage. “Thirty-one other states have voted on marriage,” he said, “and every one has voted to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Washington state will do the same.”
From New American.
No surprise that there is little or no coverage by the liberal media on the wishes of the people of Washington state to preserve marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Catholics and people of faith should not cave in to the tyranny of moral relativism that is same sex ‘marriage.’ It’s another weapon by the Adversary in the promotion of the culture of death, along with killing of the unborn, and facilitating the death of the elderly sick and chronically ill. Pope John Paul left us with plenty of wise counsel and prayers, and his successor is just as ardent in the message to promote a unified message to build a culture of life. Homosexual behavior is self-evidently contrary to natural law. Same sex union even when forced on others as ‘marriage’ does not generate life; hence it is also contrary to a culture of life. The legs of morality stand and fall together.
My prayers are with the good people of Washington (like Peggy in Burien and rig94086(?)). My home state has had a bad ruling recently by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But the fight is not over.
For the state of Washington, I understand that 120,577 signatures are needed before June 6 to put the referendum on the ballot in November, effectively blocking homosexual couples from getting married until the outcome of the state-wide vote.
May God bless and protect the United States of America.
,
Concentrations in the northeast and the northwest. Hmm. Just in case the politics does not move fast enough towards legalization of SS"M" stateside.
At any rate, where there are big concentrations of gays, it is not surprising that there would be professionals from that group gravitating to positions in government where they could/would have a hand in policy making. A shorter route than just the right person or persons landing key judiciary positions, of course. Together, though, and where/when their efforts pay off, they pretty much could sew up the legislative and judiciary angles.
For the state of Washington, two gay legislators, Sen. Jamie Pedersen and Sen Ed Murray figured heavily in the push for the same sex marriage bill, getting 55-43 vote, which the governor signed into law on Feb 13 to be effective in June.
On the same day, reported the Associated Press, leaders of the pro-family coalition Preserve Marriage Washington were busy filing Referendum 73 to put the law before the voters for what they hope will be a repeal.
According to the Seattle Post Intelligencer, they have until June 6 to gather 120,577 signatures to put the referendum on the ballot in November, effectively blocking homosexual couples from getting married until the outcome of the state-wide vote.
Among the leaders in the fight to preserve marriage in Washington is Joseph Backholm, head of the state’s Family Policy Institute, who said his group is working to give voters the final say on the issue. “Marriage is the union of one man and one woman for good reason,” Backholm said following passage of the homosexual marriage bill. “Marriage is society’s way of bringing men and women together so that children can be raised by, and cared for by, their mother and father — the people responsible for bringing them into the world. It is the most-important, child-focused institution of society and we will fight to preserve it. Voters will have the opportunity to define marriage in our state.”
Among the state and national groups that are combining forces to get the referendum on the ballot are the Family Policy Institute, Stand for Marriage Washington, Concerned Women for America, and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). In addition, organizers said they expect hundreds of churches and individuals to pitch in to gather the needed signatures.
“We call on the community of faith and all citizens to join in this referendum to give the voters of Washington the right to decide the definition of marriage in our state,” said Republican State Representative Matt Shea, who is helping in the effort through Stand for Marriage Washington. “Already we have had an outpouring of support from pastors, legislators, and individuals who are ready to go to work to preserve marriage in our state.”
Shea said he was confident the people of Washington will follow the majority of other states in confirming traditional marriage. “Thirty-one other states have voted on marriage,” he said, “and every one has voted to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Washington state will do the same.”
From New American.
No surprise that there is little or no coverage by the liberal media on the wishes of the people of Washington state to preserve marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Catholics and people of faith should not cave in to the tyranny of moral relativism that is same sex ‘marriage.’ It’s another weapon by the Adversary in the promotion of the culture of death, along with killing of the unborn, and facilitating the death of the elderly sick and chronically ill. Pope John Paul left us with plenty of wise counsel and prayers, and his successor is just as ardent in the message to promote a unified message to build a culture of life. Homosexual behavior is self-evidently contrary to natural law. Same sex union even when forced on others as ‘marriage’ does not generate life; hence it is also contrary to a culture of life. The legs of morality stand and fall together.
My prayers are with the good people of Washington (like Peggy in Burien and rig94086(?)). My home state has had a bad ruling recently by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But the fight is not over.
For the state of Washington, I understand that 120,577 signatures are needed before June 6 to put the referendum on the ballot in November, effectively blocking homosexual couples from getting married until the outcome of the state-wide vote.
May God bless and protect the United States of America.
,
P
Publisher
Guest
Hopefully the referendum will go the way of Prop 8 in California…the majority DOES NOT get to vote on the defined civil rights of the minority, hopefully an “activist judge” will rule it against Washington constitution to “put to the vote” a minority populations civil rights.
S
scipio337
Guest
As was pointed out, the minority populations in CA already had civil rights through civil unions (over 10 years ago). The 9th Circuit ponted this out.Hopefully the referendum will go the way of Prop 8 in California…the majority DOES NOT get to vote on the defined civil rights of the minority, hopefully an “activist judge” will rule it against Washington constitution to “put to the vote” a minority populations civil rights.
This is a sleight of hand, and “equal protection” isn’t the desired outcome, its “sameness”, a redefinition of what “marriage” is.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
And hopefully, for Washington, the majority would understand when a minority civil right claim is being misapplied. Should the gay population and their friends not like the result of a referendum and challenge it, it is hoped that judges in the state and appellate court would rule with the wisdom and in the tradition of the founding fathers. The Civil Rights movement of the 60’s is a necessary offshoot of that tradition, but gay ‘marriage’ is not. A colorblind legal and political system is a civil right, not parallel to a claim of right based on sexual behavior.
Thomas Jefferson, a Deist and principal author of the DI, understood civil rights as the gift of the Creator, not the state. If the government is now the giver of rights, then the politically connected can grant whatever rights they choose, including a ‘right’ to gay ‘marriage.’
,
Thomas Jefferson, a Deist and principal author of the DI, understood civil rights as the gift of the Creator, not the state. If the government is now the giver of rights, then the politically connected can grant whatever rights they choose, including a ‘right’ to gay ‘marriage.’
,
O
onthisrock
Guest
The Church already does accept indirect abortions, where if during the life needed treatment for the woman is necessary, and the baby dies…it is not considered immoral for the woman to have her life saved. that obvious issue stated…what does that have to do with gay “marriage” ESPECIALLY when they adopt a child…children need a mother and a father…not just tow “nice” people. Know what the statistics are on gang members and absent fatherhood?Because government needs to protect marriage.
O
onthisrock
Guest
So if the judges are all “activists” in the direction of traditional marriage, you will accept it? I’m sure if prop 8 wasn’t successful, you would be praising the people as “We the people have spoken”!!! It just has to go the way of the radical homosexual agenda…however that way is, will be the “just” way of coming across that decision. I have several gay friends who were pro prop 8…there’s already domestic partnership laws…and they see NO point in “marriage” My one gay friend is paying the price even for that…He is loaded and has to pay his ex domestic partner $3,000 per month and a new car every four years “close to his previous standard of living” You can guess he wished now there weren’t even the domestic partnership laws that have been in place in CA for years…This goes on for another 7 years as his palimony…they were together for 18 years He says NEVER again. I have two more gay couples who are my good friends and they don’t see the point. If gay people aren’t seeing the point why do heterosexuals care so much? You do realize that Obama only won the presidency by the same vote as prop 8 won… should we have the court rule on that decision too? One can always wish.Hopefully the referendum will go the way of Prop 8 in California…the majority DOES NOT get to vote on the defined civil rights of the minority, hopefully an “activist judge” will rule it against Washington constitution to “put to the vote” a minority populations civil rights.
P
Publisher
Guest
If the judges ruled in favor of Prop 8 I would accept their ruling…it doesn’t effect me either way…I don’t live in CA…nor do I live in WA…however this is an issue of constiturtional interpretation and precedence…so I am in favor of the ruling as I do not believe gay men and lesbian women should be denied their civil rights due to religious beliefs of some.So if the judges are all “activists” in the direction of traditional marriage, you will accept it? I’m sure if prop 8 wasn’t successful, you would be praising the people as “We the people have spoken”!!! It just has to go the way of the radical homosexual agenda…however that way is, will be the “just” way of coming across that decision. I have several gay friends who were pro prop 8…there’s already domestic partnership laws…and they see NO point in “marriage” My one gay friend is paying the price even for that…He is loaded and has to pay his ex domestic partner $3,000 per month and a new car every four years “close to his previous standard of living” You can guess he wished now there weren’t even the domestic partnership laws that have been in place in CA for years…This goes on for another 7 years as his palimony…they were together for 18 years He says NEVER again. I have two more gay couples who are my good friends and they don’t see the point. If gay people aren’t seeing the point why do heterosexuals care so much? You do realize that Obama only won the presidency by the same vote as prop 8 won… should we have the court rule on that decision too? One can always wish.
I too have gay friends who see no need for marriage for their relationships…they have “formalized” their relationships thru their respective religious communities and celebrate their marriage with their friends. I have atended weddings of a dear lesbian couple held at MCC…I have been present and witnessed the marriage after the manner of Friends, and signed their marriage certificate of two men I am acquainted with…along with the rest of those present at Meeting. I have been the “best man” for one lesbian friend at UCC…they have filed for dometic partnerships all…and would like to have the rights and benefits on a federal level…but until that is granted see no reason to pursue marriage in a state they do not reside in which would offer them no benefits…they celebrated their marriage already.
However I find them in the minority among gay people…who do not wish “separate but equal”…but “equality under the law”…as was discussed, while state to state has different laws governing same sex partnership/marriage, there still are restrictions on the federal level which they wish to rectify.
J
Jerome_Fan
Guest
This is a Catholic Answers Forum. Why are homosexuals on here discussing the ways in which they can sodomise each other ‘lawfully’? Where are the Catholics to tell these sodomites that their actions will take them all to hell?
R
rossum
Guest
Sodomy, whether heterosexual or homosexual is no longer illegal in the UK.This is a Catholic Answers Forum. Why are homosexuals on here discussing the ways in which they can sodomise each other ‘lawfully’? Where are the Catholics to tell these sodomites that their actions will take them all to hell?
You will probably find that lesbians are responsible for less sodomy than heterosexuals.
rossum
J
Jerome_Fan
Guest
You seem to be missing the point. This is so stark; is it deliberate? Are you a Catholic? Your focus seems to suggest not.Sodomy, whether heterosexual or homosexual is no longer illegal in the UK.
You will probably find that lesbians are responsible for less sodomy than heterosexuals.
rossum
J
Jerome_Fan
Guest
I just noticed that you are in fact a Buddhist. This is why you will have missed the point so badly. My concern is a Catholic one. Homosexual acts of any kind are an abomination in our religion. Homosexual activity is part of the culture of death - it is not life-giving, it destroys the concept of marriage and family; these are enough for any reasonable person to acknowledge that homosexuality is abnormal and unnatural. However, this is not my concern. I am a practising Catholic and our Church states that homosexuals are disordered and homosexual acts are an abomination against the one True God.Sodomy, whether heterosexual or homosexual is no longer illegal in the UK.
You will probably find that lesbians are responsible for less sodomy than heterosexuals.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
We are not discussing Catholic beliefs about marriage, we are discussing civil laws covering marriage in America. Those laws are already non-Catholic, since they recognise divorce and allow divorced people to remarry. There are many different forms of marriage in the world, and have been many in the past. How many wives did Solomon or David have?I just noticed that you are in fact a Buddhist. This is why you will have missed the point so badly. My concern is a Catholic one. Homosexual acts of any kind are an abomination in our religion. Homosexual activity is part of the culture of death - it is not life-giving, it destroys the concept of marriage and family; these are enough for any reasonable person to acknowledge that homosexuality is abnormal and unnatural. However, this is not my concern. I am a practising Catholic and our Church states that homosexuals are disordered and homosexual acts are an abomination against the one True God.
The UK has civil partnerships. Various US states have either same sex marriage or civil partnership. The same with some European states. Can you show any harm that has arisen from those changes in the civil laws of those countries/states?
rossum
J
Jerome_Fan
Guest
My point exactly. This is a Catholic Answers forum. Please ask questions about Catholic beliefs. These are what should be discussed here. These questions should be from a Catholic perspective. The Catholic definition of marriage is the sacred union of one man to one woman. Within this sacred union, put together by God, through the sacrament of marriage performed by a Catholic priest, children are created by God. Any other ‘union’ is not of God; therefore is of the Devil. Homosexual unions of whatever sort are against the teachings of our Church. For answers to your questions about homosexuals, please go elsewhere.We are not discussing Catholic beliefs about marriage, we are discussing civil laws covering marriage in America. Those laws are already non-Catholic, since they recognise divorce and allow divorced people to remarry. There are many different forms of marriage in the world, and have been many in the past. How many wives did Solomon or David have?
The UK has civil partnerships. Various US states have either same sex marriage or civil partnership. The same with some European states. Can you show any harm that has arisen from those changes in the civil laws of those countries/states?
rossum
R
Robert_Bay
Guest
MODERATOR NOTICE
Please post charitably. No name calling. Also note this is a Catholic forum, to evangilize Catholics away from Church teaching is against forum rules. If it continues members will find their accounts closed.
Please post charitably. No name calling. Also note this is a Catholic forum, to evangilize Catholics away from Church teaching is against forum rules. If it continues members will find their accounts closed.
L
Lokabrenna
Guest
I’d also like to add that not all gay couples practice sodomy. Some just don’t like it. On the other hand, couples of all orientations enjoy it.Sodomy, whether heterosexual or homosexual is no longer illegal in the UK.
You will probably find that lesbians are responsible for less sodomy than heterosexuals.
rossum
M
Midwest88
Guest
Where’s CNN on this news? I remember when NY state made gay marriage legal everyone from ABC to CNN to MSNBC made it known. It was world news, but since it’s the state of Washington it gets no coverage? No wonder people abroad think only tCalifornia and NY exist - the media pays special attention to them.
I post on a movie forum and these are some of the responses:
I post on a movie forum and these are some of the responses:
Eventually same sex marriage will be adopted by every state, as Christianity slowly dwindles, eventually leading to everyone being atheist or agnostic once religion is abolished, and the US will be the last country to do so, as religion is deep-seated in the country’s culture.
J
Jerome_Fan
Guest
To evangelise Catholics away from Church teaching…what does this mean? Example, please. Neither of the posters I replied to were Catholics and my answers were in strict keeping with Church teaching. I am genuinely puzzled by this reply from the moderator, but I am giving you the benefit of doubt - please be specific in your reply.MODERATOR NOTICE
Please post charitably. No name calling. Also note this is a Catholic forum, to evangilize Catholics away from Church teaching is against forum rules. If it continues members will find their accounts closed.
Is it more than ironic that my Catholic answer is the only one edited? Calling someone out for their abominable beliefs is a Catholic thing to do. According to your way of moderating, Jesus would have been considered uncharitable when he threw the money lenders out of the temple or when he called the Pharisees ‘hypocrites’. He was name-calling, but it was a charitable thing to do. It is most uncharitable not to call a sin a sin. Please keep your perspective, it should be Catholic not pro-homosexual.
M
Midwest88
Guest
Did anyone click on the sole commenter’s link below the article?After just passing same sex civil unions this summer, the Glorious People’s Republic of Illinois™ is now considering same sex marriage legislation.
wjbc.com/quinn-not-sure-of-his-support-for-gay-marriage/
Hey, I thought it was about “equal protection”?
Got slippery slope?
Here’s the link: mymarriageruinsyours.com/ (NOTE: it’s tongue and cheek/parody so don’t take it seriously; this what free speech gives to people - mocking power.)
I live in the state of Illinois, and I don’t see why the government just can’t give the same benefits of traditional marriage to same sex civil union. It gives those who want to get ‘married’ but are gay the same benefits as well as those who are agnostic or atheist who don’t want a religious ceremony. But then again, the liberals are way too concerned on what Europe and the rest of the world thinks about America so it’ll probably be at the expense of the religious. Go figure.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.