During the 2012
Legislative Session, the Legislature of the State of Washington passed a bill
redefining marriage and legalizing same-sex marriage. Thanks to a robust signature-gathering campaign, an
opportunity to either affirm or reverse that decision is going to the voters in
the coming General Election.
Nearly 250,000 Washingtonians signed petitions against that bill – and
the next step, if you want to protect the definition of marriage as being
between a man and a woman, is to Reject
Referendum 74 on the November ballot.
If you vote ‘yes’ on
R-74 you support same-sex marriage.
If you vote ‘no’ you are against same-sex marriage. That is the voting guideline in a
nutshell. Just think R = Reject to keep it straight.
Referendum 74 will not grant same-sex couples any new
benefits. Same-sex couples in
Washington already enjoy full legal equality. In 2009, voters approved an "Everything but
Marriage" law. This means
same-sex couples in Washington already enjoy every legal right and obligation
as opposite-sex couples. There are no exceptions. The ads being played that imply people are not being called
to a loved one’s hospital bedside could happen no matter what law is passed,
but the right to be there has already been established.
Marriage is not a
civil right. If it were, every
young person who yearns to be married but has not found a mate would be being
violated. The effort to term this
a civil rights issue is preposterous.
On the other hand, if the bill is passed, every service business who
might be asked to be involved – including wedding locations, photographers,
food service providers, etc – would be in violation of the ‘law’ if they
decline services based on their moral belief that marriage is only between a
man and a woman – and more specifically, between one man and one woman!
R-74, if passed, will
redefine marriage for everyone. If marriage is redefined, the new definition will
become the sole definition of marriage for everyone. There will no longer be a distinction
between husband and wife. Everyone
in Washington will be legally bound to the new definition of marriage or face
legal consequences. The consequences for those who refuse to provide services
if they don’t agree with same-sex marriage are absolutely unjust, as has been demonstrated
already in other states.
The Washington State law
as written offers limited protection to religious leaders who choose not to
perform such ceremonies – but not to other businesses, and not to individuals
who maintain the truth of what the Bible and other religious documents teach.
I function with a
‘live and let live’ philosophy, but this law won’t. If this law is passed, injustice will come for those whose
views are based on moral objection and those who adhere to what the Bible
teaches. They will suffer. This is not a good law.
It needs to be rejected.
Please vote to Reject – 74.
I cite the following
instances to demonstrate how others’ rights are being violated for their choice
of not participating in providing services for same-sex unions:
August
23, 2012
MONTPELIER, Vt. — Two New York women
and a Vermont country inn have settled a lawsuit that accused the business of
refusing to host the couple's wedding reception.
The American Civil Liberties Union said
Thursday the Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville agreed to pay a $10,000 civil
penalty to the Vermont Human Rights Commission and to place $20,000 in a
charitable trust.
Under the settlement, the inn also
agreed it would no longer host weddings and their receptions. The innkeepers'
lawyer, Jim Campbell, said they had decided previously to end that part of
their business.
"We're glad that the Wildflower
Inn has recognized that the way we were treated was wrong and that no other
family will have to experience what we did," said Ming Linsley in a
statement released by the ACLU. "Although we found a different location
and had a beautiful day, all families should feel welcome at any resort that's
open to the public."
The ACLU said Ming Linsley and Kate
Linsley contacted the civil rights organization after Ming's mother was told by
the inn's events manager that the inn didn't host "gay receptions"
because of the innkeepers' "personal feelings."
But Campbell, a lawyer for innkeepers
Jim and Mary O'Reilly, said Thursday the inn was willing to host same-sex
wedding receptions, despite the O'Reillys' opposition to same-sex marriage,
based on their Catholic faith. Campbell, who works with the Alliance Defending
Freedom, said an employee was acting without the owners' permission when she
emailed Ming Linsley's mother, rejecting the request.
(The
above is not the entire article – but provides the basic facts. My belief is that the suit was
unjust. It is not a civil
rights issue. It is a moral
issue. The ACLU is wrong. )
And another similar
report from a national Christian Coalition site:
Once you start down the path of
redefining marriage to include anything other than the exclusive union of a man
and a woman, it's not long before those who firmly disagree with that
redefinition begin to see their values come under assault. And that is
just what has happened in Illinois.
Christian bed and breakfast owners are
being sued by homosexuals for not allowing the use of their facilities for a
gay "civil union" ceremony. And since (as of this June) the
state of Illinois legally allows such unions, the complaint is over
discrimination, and the Illinois Attorney General's office is investigating.
The owner of the first B&B, the
Beall Mansion of Alton, Ill., had told the complainant, Todd Wathen of Mattoon,
IL, that they only let out their premises for weddings. The Christian owners of
the second, Jim and Beth Walder of TimberCreek Bed and Breakfast of Paxton, had
a similar response.
In the course of e-mail correspondence
with Jim Walder, Wathen argued: “starting June 1st, a civil union is a wedding,
you have to get a licenses at the county clerks office, it is just not a
marriage ... but a legal wedding ... so aren’t you discriminating against me
and my partner, because of our sexual orientation??”
Walder, father of five, explained that
he would not host such ceremonies “even if they become legal in Illinois.”
“We believe homosexuality is wrong and
unnatural based on what the Bible says about it,” he said. “If that is
discrimination, I guess we unfortunately discriminate.” ...
Of course this wasn't good enough for
the homosexual partners-to-be. Just like (seemingly) everyone else in
America who doesn't get their way, they threatened to take legal action and
take their case to the state's Human Rights Department and claim discrimination
based on sexual orientation. They replied by saying that the business
owners should "keep their opinions to themselves". What they
really mean is to keep the expression of their Christian values to themselves.
The story points out that owners of bed
and breakfasts have been targeted in the England for years, facing legal
challenges and even fines for sticking to their Christian convictions.
And other participants in the wedding business, such as photographers, are also
coming under attack.
A related article on the story notes how the
"couple" in question shopped around to numerous venues, contacting
many that had not problem hosting the event, until they found two that refused
out of moral principle. Then they went legal. In other words, you
have a case of liberals looking to use the judiciary to punish Christians for
their values.
It's bad enough for a state to grant
any sort of legal recognition to homosexual relationships, but it is quite
another to threaten legal action (and someone's livelihood) for refusing to
accommodate it. But this is what follows when you give in to the basic
premise of legal recognition to begin with.
In other words, it's not, as gay
marriage supporters would have people to believe, all about their
"right" to love whomever they wish, because attendant to granting any
such "right" is (eventually) a demand on the rest of the public.
Legal recognition is de facto government approval. And that results in someone else's rights, in this case religious
rights, being discriminated against. *
Their aim is to make it unacceptable
(and in some cases illegal) to disapprove of or judge them in any way. At
the end of this slippery slope, expressing or living in accordance with your
faith will be against the law.
But they knew that when they proposed
the law to begin with.
(Highlighting
and underlining are mine.)
If I, as a straight
person, went into a business run by someone who chose not to serve me because
of my beliefs, I’d just go find someone else who would. I would not hold it against them. I prefer to go where I am wanted!
One of the huge
problems with all of this is that the homosexual community wants recognition
and acceptance of their lifestyle as an affirmed, equal alternative. I am willing to ‘live and let live’, but
homosexuality is not equal in God’s
eyes no matter what they call it – and His view matters. He loves all people, but he does not
love their sin. But the good news is: He died for our sin – and He will
forgive anyone who comes humbly to Him and asks!
I previously wrote about R-74 on March 23, 2012.
