If you live in the state of Washington, we are moving into the final week of collecting signatures for Referendum 71 which would strike down the recently passed law equating domestic partnerships with marriage (SB 5688). The deadline for mailing in the petitions is July 22. We need you to go into a full-court press of citizen activism to help us reach our goal of 120,000 signatures.
If you need more petitions for a last minute thrust, please call (360) 631-1894. When your petitions are filled up, please send then in by July 22nd to: Protect Marriage Washington, P.O. Box 501, Arlington, WA 98223.
The following article by Gary Randall, the head of the “Preserve Marriage–Protect Children” Coalition will fire you up to understand the issue and do the right thing. God bless you! RB
By Gary Randall
I want to address some of the questions and charges that are raised by those who want to redefine marriage. The primary source for my comments will be taken from a book titled, “Marriage On Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting,” written by Glenn T. Stanton and Dr. Bill Maier. You can buy it from Amazon for $10.20 and if you buy it through our website Faith and Freedom Foundation will receive between 4% and 8% on your purchase. (Click here for details).
If not through us, please buy the book somewhere. Every family that cares about marriage and family and its future, should have this book in their home. Particularly in these days when marriage is under such assault. Every person of faith should read it–parent and child.
One of the questions often raised by those who want to redefine marriage is, “If heterosexuals can fall in love and form committed relationships called marriage, why can’t we?” Or, “If heterosexuals gain access to legal, tax and health benefits with their marriages, why can’t homosexuals have access to these same benefits when they commit themselves to one another?”
Here’s something to consider.
I watched as homosexual couples brought their children into the hearings on SB 5688 to testify and help make the case for same-sex parenting. The adults and children argued that kids need loving parents and two men or two women can love and care for a child as well as a mother and a father can. They often point to the failures in marriage as reason to redefine it.
Here’s the problem with that.
These arguments exclusively serve the interests of those making the argument. They are never about serving the common good.
Marriage is never only about the couple. It is always about the larger community. Marriage is an agreement between a couple and the larger society. Concern for the good of all society is the primary reason social institutions such as churches and governments get involved at all.
In the great debate about marriage we seem to have forgotten that marriage is not just about benefits for the couple. It always includes concern for the next generation.
Stanton and Maier expand on this a great deal and outline why every society needs marriage and how it contributes to the greater good. Among other things, they say the institution of marriage:
*Regulates sexuality, keeping it confined to committed, loving exclusive relationships.
*Socializes men, channeling their sexuality and masculine energy in community-building ways.
*Protects women from being exploited from men.
*Ensures that children grow up with a biologically connected mother and father.
The failure of some marriages is not a legitimate argument to redefine and deconstruct marriage.
The institution of marriage serves these purposes in all known human civilizations and it does so because it brings men and women together in permanent, exclusive relationships.
Same-sex marriage is incapable of doing any of these things.
Stanton and Maier conclude, there is simply no social need for same-sex “marriage”. But all societies need what they call natural marriage.
Could society be harmed by too much same-sex “marriage”? Of course, if all or a majority of “marriages” were same-sex, a society would disappear.
On the other hand, is too much natural marriage ever harmful? No. Actually, too little natural marriage can be harmful.
Natural marriage cannot be regarded as “equal” in social value and benefit. Society needs one, but does not need the other.
“Marriage equality” cannot be achieved by simply redefining or deconstructing natural marriage.
SB 5688 is not about benefits or children, it is the final incremental step to redefining marriage. If you are unsure about the issue of defending marriage, please consider these things.
To those in the faith community who have been persuaded to sit this out and not support the defense of marriage for whatever reason, please reconsider.
If you have been led away from supporting Referendum 71 because of political calculations and economic considerations, please reconsider.
We cannot wait two years to address the deconstruction of marriage.
“If you wait for perfect conditions, you will never get anything done.”
“God’s ways are as mysterious as the pathway of the wind, and the manner in which a human spirit is infused into the body of a baby while it is yet in its mother’s womb.” Ecclesiastes 11:4-6 Living Bible.
Strategy is a good and wise action. Being faithful in standing for righteousness and righteous purposes and principles is the higher calling.
There is a time for everything and this is the time to defend marriage.
Thank you for standing with us.
God bless you.