Posts tagged ‘Same sex marriage’

February 2, 2012

Senate Approves Homosexual Marriage With The Help of 4 Republicans

by lewwaters

As Washington State flounders in this ongoing “Great Recession,” with a $1.5 Billion budget gap, failing schools, court decisions demanding more school funding, double digit unemployment in several counties for 3 straight years, all has been put on the back burner as the top priority for the Washington State Legislature is to approve Homosexual Marriage in our state.

Last evening, February 1, 2012 the senate held a brief debate and voted to approve homosexual marriages after Democrats defeated amendments that would place the notion before the voters of the state and protections claimed to be in the bill for clergy and religions being extended to private citizens who may decline assisting in or participating in homosexual marriage ceremonies if they felt it violated their religious convictions.

For example, if you are a baker or photographer and decline to bake a wedding cake or take the photos for a homosexual marriage ceremony, feeling that your assistance or participation may violate your deeply held religious views, you may be held liable in a lawsuit for violating their civil rights.

That same protection is also denied judges, justices of the peace and others authorized to perform secular marriage ceremonies if they feel such participation may violate their deeply held religious views.

I also find claims of an $88 Million boost to the state’s economy by approving homosexual marriage specious at best.

Voicing opposition to an amendment proposed by Democrat Senator Brian Hatfield (19th district) that would have placed the final word on this before voters in the state, Democrat Lisa Brown of the 3rd district, relying on the announcement of her lesbian sister stated that such matters should not be left “to the whims of a majority.”

read more »

January 27, 2012

Occubride to Wed Seattle Building

by lewwaters

We don’t call them the looney left for no reason 😉

From reports by and KOMO News

Babylonia Aivaz who boasts of being arrested weeks ago as one of the occupiers who seized the building, now proclaims her love of the building by announcing her plans to marry it. She states, “I’m doing this to show the building how much I love it, how much I love community space and how much I love this neighborhood. And I want to stop it from gentrification,” after trying for a stretch equating her marriage to the building to the Citizens United Supreme Court decision where corporations were equated to people.

Not to Babylonia, corporations are comprised of people. Buildings are comprised of brick, mortar, wood, steel and other materials.

As the state is focused on same sex marriage in the legislature, Babylonia states she will have an ordained minister officiating at her “Gay Wedding.”

Wedding March for Babylonia

UPDATE: Photos of the “Gay Wedding” here. The “Bride” declared this as a “Gay Wedding” based her also declaring the warehouse to be a woman.

January 4, 2012

Gregoire’s Quandry, Deal with a Growing Budget Gap or Push Gay Marriage?

by lewwaters

With the state facing a $1.5 Billion budget gap, after a few years of contentious budget cuts (supposedly), unemployment remaining high, taxes and fees rising, and being unable to close the budget gap, what is the priority of lame duck Democrat Christine Gregoire?

Full session may be seen at

Not explained in her announcement, if she is really all about “ending discrimination,” why does the proposed “Equality in Marriage” bills all continue to discriminate?

What does she say to the majority of the states citizens who continue struggling in this economic morass who will be most affected by more budget cuts and tax increases?

Does the middle class ever really mean anything to these pandering Democrats?

January 3, 2012

As the Economy Collapses, Gregoire to Announce Support of Gay Marriage

by lewwaters

As we all know, or economy continues collapsing around us.  The debt grows along with interest payments on it. Unemployment remains high, Clark County entering our 4th year of double digit unemployment numbers.

With taxes, fees and rates increasing while wages decline, our governor called a special session to deal with a projected $2 Billion budget deficit. When they convened, we only face a $1.6 Billion budget deficit.

So what it our lame duck governor’s chosen move now? To publicly announce her support for same-sex marriage at an announced Wednesday, Jan. 4, 2012 news conference.

“Leaders of Washington United for Marriage, a coalition of gay-rights, civil-liberties, labor and religious groups, announced in November they plan to pressure the Legislature this coming session to pass a marriage equality law in 2012.”

read more »

November 16, 2011

So Choose Another Baker and Show Your Tolerance of Others Beliefs

by lewwaters

The Iowa Supreme Court legalized same Sex Marriage in April 2009.

Did they also invalidate the First Amendment right to freedom of religious expression?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Is it really a civil rights violation if you, a private business owner, decline to do business with someone based upon your religious convictions?

With the issue once again being pushed in Washington State, does 10% of the population have a right to dictate to 90% of the population that their private businesses will do business with them, regardless of personal convictions?

Christian Baker Faces Boycott For Refusing to Make Lesbian Cake

March 5, 2011

Bigotry Reigns in the Washington State Legislature

by lewwaters

For all of the cries of “equal rights for all” and “end discrimination” coming out of the Democrat controlled legislature in Washington State, I am surprised, shocked even to realize we actually have a legislature filled with bigots when it comes to civil marriage.

Jim Moeller, Jim Jacks, Tim Probst, Ed Murray, Craig Pridemore, nearly every single Democrat in Olympia falls in that category as they sign on to bills to legitimize same-sex marriage, yet continue to deny civil marriage, or even domestic partnership to other consensual relationships.

Two bills proposed and introduced by Rep. Moeller and Sen. Murray, HB 1963 and SB 5793 are both summarized as, “Ends discrimination in marriage based on gender and sexual orientation in Washington.”

The problem is, they do not “end discrimination” in marriage in Washington as both bills contain language still restricting marriage rights in consensual relationships that do not fit into the narrow definitions of traditional marriage or the new definition proposed by Moeller and Murray.

The Time Has Come To End ALL Discrimination in Marriage

read more »

February 27, 2011

Is the Silence of Same Sex Marriage Proponents a Sign of their Approval of Bigotry?

by lewwaters

First we saw SB 5688, “Expanding the rights and responsibilities of state registered domestic partners” passed and the subsequent brouhaha over R-71 to place it on the ballot for voter approval, finally being passed with supporters claims of it was not an incremental step towards same-sex marriage, even though the author, state senator Ed Murray said it was.

Then, during a lame-duck session as Democrats were losing their stranglehold on the House, a repeal of the Military Policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was passed, ending prohibitions on gays serving in the Military openly.

And now, we have Barack Obama deciding that the Justice Department will no longer defend challenges against the Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, during challenges in federal court. Editorials around the state wasted no time praising the decision since 2 bills are currently introduced in Olympia that will throw the doors open toward same-sex marriage.

Even Senator Patty Murray has come out praising Obama for such a bold step and adding her withdrawal of support of the law she once voted for in 1996. Murray now says, “I support and I applaud the President’s decision because it is time to end this 14-year policy,” and “No American and no American family is treated as a second class citizen . . .” alluding to same-sex unions, but carefully avoiding the use of the word “marriage.”

read more »

February 15, 2011

The Time Has Come To End ALL Discrimination in Marriage

by lewwaters

As predicted in 2009, as the debates on SB 5688 and R-71 were raging and supporters of enhanced domestic partnership were crying they were not incremental steps towards full-blown same-sex marriage, a bill was introduced February 14, 2011 to legalize same-sex marriage in Washington State.

HB 1963, “Concerning civil marriages” was introduced by openly gay Democrat representative of the 49th legislative district, Jim Moeller and immediately gained the support of 41 fellow Democrats, giving the bill 42 sponsors out of the 56 Democrats in the house.

Likewise, openly gay Democrat senator Ed Murray introduced SB 5793, “Addressing civil marriage equality” in the senate. It too immediately gained the sponsorship of 14 out of the 27 fellow Democrats in the senate.

No Republicans have signed on to sponsor in either house at the time of this writing.

Believe it or not, I’d like to support these bills, but cannot in good conscience as they still discriminate.

read more »

January 8, 2011

“Gender Neutral” Parentage?

by lewwaters

Political Correctness has attained a new low (height to some) that has Gay Activists applauding the State Departments decision to revamp Passport Applications with the deletion of the designation “mother” and “father” under parents and to soon be designated as “parent one” and “parent two.”

A Fox News article states the State Department website noted: “These improvements are being made to provide a “gender neutral” description of a child’s parents and in recognition of different types of families.”

Brenda Sprague, deputy assistant Secretary of State for Passport Services said, “We find that with changes in medical science and reproductive technology that we are confronting situations now that we would not have anticipated 10 or 15 years ago.”

read more »

February 9, 2010

Proposition 8 Opponents Assault on Religion

by lewwaters

Pro same-sex marriage proponents are challenging proposition 8, the controversial and much hated measure banning same-sex marriage in California in court. The case is currently paused while U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker reviews the documents and testimony given to date.

That proponents of same-sex marriage would challenge this vote was pretty much a given. Gay activists have resorted to intimidation, harassment and forms of violence in their quest to shove same-sex marriage down America’s throat. A court challenge comes as no surprise.

What does cause me to raise my eyebrows is reading how plaintiffs frame their argument. They seem to have centered their case on voters voting based upon their religious beliefs.

Let me say here that no one knows why an individual votes as they do, nor should they. That is the essence of the secret ballot, voting based upon our individual values and yes, beliefs. Why we select the cause or candidate we do is flat out no one’s business.

Let me explain a little.

The Baptist Press placed daily summaries of how the case was progressing. In nearly every summary, we read of how religion was responsible for voters approving Proposition 8 and banning same-sex marriage in California.

A Time article quotes longtime conservative litigator Mathew Staver saying, “What has struck me is that the plaintiffs have tried to put Christianity on trial rather than Prop 8.”

Even David Boies, plaintiffs attorney says, “the trial has shown that legal discrimination against gays, in particular rules banning their marriage, starts with simple prejudice, in the form of religion-inspired views about the morality of homosexuality itself.”

Day 8 of the trial saw Chinese Christian Hak-Shing William Tam on the stand that lead to the comment from general counsel of, Andy Pugno,

“For the first time (we believe) ever in a court of law, a proponent of a voter initiative was put on the stand to be interrogated under oath about his own political, moral and religious views. Not only was the Prop 8 supporter forced to reveal his political and religious views under penalty of perjury, but he was further forced to defend and substantiate his views so the court can decide whether his views are improper.”

He continued on to note,

“ Clearly the plaintiffs will go to any lengths, even if it means sacrificing the precious protections of the First Amendment, to achieve their goal of invalidating the vote of the people.”

Almost laughable was Day 12as it was seen “plaintiffs are attempting to argue that the gay community has no reliable political allies and is politically powerless in this country,” in spite of President Barack Obama’s call for ending the so called ‘Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy of the United States Armed Service that bans gays from serving openly in the Military.

If that isn’t a “political ally,” what is?

New Catholic Register quotes attorney Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defense Fund saying, “The votes of Christians and other people of faith are without question on trial in California” as it is mentioned that plaintiff’s attorneys presented a “section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other Catholic teachings on homosexuality as evidence, presumably implying that these teachings display unconstitutional ‘prejudice and hostility’ toward an allegedly powerless minority.”

Gay activists have long erroneously equated their plight to that of Black during the struggles for Civil Rights in the 1960’s. One of the right denied Blacks in America was the right to vote was the use of literacy tests designed in such a way to ensure Blacks would fail, thereby denying them their right to vote.

Should Gay Activists succeed now, will we see them return and be used to deny Christians their right to vote because it is assumed they vote in accordance with their deep held beliefs that gays disagree with?

Should such a precedent be set, where would it end, if ever?

Oddly enough, while Christians and their deeply held beliefs have been put on trial in San Francisco, left out of the arguments are Muslims who share a deep opposition to homosexuality based upon their religious beliefs.

It’s bad enough that we have to contend with people like Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, teaching that “Paul Was Condemning Homosexual Acts by Heterosexuals” in the book of Romans (1:22 – 27), but trying to throw out votes they don’t like because they assume people voted based upon religious beliefs is abominable.

To take this to its logical conclusion, should the election of Barack Obama be nullified because many feel he was elected solely based upon his skin color?

Of course not!

The First Amendment guarantees each and every American citizen the free practice of religion. Should it be limited if it is felt by the power elite that you might vote in accordance with your beliefs?

Completely missed is that many people oppose same-sex marriage for multiple non-religious reasons. Will the ferret out those reasons to deny a vote by those people now?

This is the dangerous slippery slope many have spoken of for so long. Our right to free beliefs and even a secret vote is being endangered just as it is currently in Washington State with the Supreme Court Case on state sanctioned harassment and intimidation of opponents to same-sex marriage here.

We can no longer afford to remain quiet and hope this all goes away or that judges will follow long established law. Our very liberties are under open assault and if we wish to keep them, we better begin speaking out and making sure we vote according to our beliefs, while we are still allowed to.

One thing I am absolutely certain of, regardless of how Judge Walker rules, this is headed to the United States Supreme Court. Will it be put to rest once and for all?

With the calls from opponents that Judge Walker recuse himself because of his poor handling of the case and being gay himself, you can expect loud calls of Justice’s Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas to recuse themselves, leaving a favorable court to hear the case and likely approving same-sex marriage from the bench, as was done with Roe v Wade.

January 15, 2010

Supreme Court Will Hear R-71 Petition Case

by lewwaters

Just announced today, the United States Supreme Court will take the case filed over gay activists wanting the names, addresses and signatures of the 138,000 people in Washington State who signed the R-71 petition last year released to them so they may place the names on a searchable web site for the public.

At stake in this case is whether or not opposing sides may seek to intimidate or seek retribution against their fellow citizens for the support of any citizen initiatives in the future.

Most disturbing in this case is the desire of Washington’s Secretary of State, Sam Reed and Attorney General Rob McKenna to release those names, addresses and signatures to Gay activists.

R-71 was a citizen initiative to block enhancements to Washington States Domestic Partnership law in 2009 that failed statewide in the election. Almost as soon as the measure qualified for the ballot, Gay activist began their push to have the information on those who signed released so they could make it known publicly who opposed their agenda. This was covered at Traditional Marriage Foes Try To Intimidate Washington Voters.

Gay activists initially challenged R-71 in court over a claim of signatures being improperly accepted. When that failed to keep the initiative off of the ballot, the quest for the release of the signers’ information began.

Gay activist such as John Bisceglia were openly advocating “violence against property” of those who supported the R-71 initiative, but has since removed the calls for violence from his website.

In September, U.S. district judge Benjamin Settle ruled the information should not be released to the Gay Activists, followed by an appeal from AG McKenna.

Another federal court ordered the names and information released, but an appeal to the US Supreme Court resulted in an injunction being placed on releasing the information by Justice Anthony Kennedy while the Supreme Court considered whether or not to take the case.

While so-called scholars say the case could have broad implications for public disclosure laws, should the names and information be released, it could have broad implications on citizen involvement in government and petitions drives, regardless of what they may represent.

If this type of intimidation is allowed to stand and is approved by the courts, it is my opinion that citizens will shy away from involvement in almost any issue whether citizen input is needed out of fear of retribution by opposers.

Should the Supreme Court rule against those wishing to protect citizens who sign petitions, can the secret ballot being nullified be far behind, given the Unions and Democrats push for ‘Card Check?’

October 16, 2009

Columbian Misleading Voters On R-71

by lewwaters

Kerry ClintonDripping of left-winged bias, Thursdays In Our View column in the Columbian, In our view: Approve R-71 also tries to mislead voters about the measure.

They are right in saying, “Voters are being asked if they support Senate Bill 5688, which passed this year in the Legislature and expanded domestic partnerships,” but little else.

Where they actually begin misleading is when they say, “It’s also key to know that R-71 is not about gay marriage, despite dire warnings from those who advocate rejecting the measure.”

Technically, although SB 5688 says nothing about same-sex marriage and is called “everything but marriage,” that is the ultimate intent, as admitted to by Senator Ed Murray, the author of SB 5688 who has repeatedly stated SB 5688 is but one more incremental step to same-sex marriage.

Therefore, this particular measure will not make same-sex marriage legal, at this time, but it is just another step closer to it according to the author of the bill. So, it does have everything to do with same-sex marriage in Washington State, just not at this time.

A parable capturing wild pigs applies here. Although about losing freedoms to socialism, it also applies in how small steps eventually lead to a societal change society does not want. They just aren’t aware of it being changed due to deception.

You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again.

You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat; you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught.

Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

This is the second “domestic partnership” bill we’ve had in two years with more planned until we have the fence of same-sex marriage around us and the gate is slammed shut. Our constitution will be changed. Where we now have a Defense of Marriage Act in place, that will be gone and what will we have in its place?

Maybe nothing because once we throw away the definition of marriage being “one man to one woman,” the Pandora’s box is opened. Once opened, how can it be closed again when others who “lifestyle” is not fully accepted today decide they are discriminated against?

Could we see Pederasty, Bigamy and Polygamy accepted and become the norm?

Not by this bill, no. But what about the future moves to approve of same-sex marriage?

How can the Columbian split hairs saying, “The truth is, R-71 will have no impact whatsoever on your marriage or anyone else’s?” What about the institution of marriage itself?

A Long-Term Strategy To Legalize Gay Marriage

This is the strategy for winning gay marriage in Washington. Pursue incremental change but talk frankly and frequently about the ultimate goal.

State Senator Ed Murray, an openly gay Seattle Democrat, is a key architect of this approach. He says gay rights advocates are borrowing a page from the civil rights movement.


With Democrats in control, the expanded domestic partnership bills in Washington are likely to pass this session. It will be another step in Senator Ed Murray’s plan to legalize gay marriage within a decade.

Lawmakers announce everything but marriage bill

A measure legalizing same-sex marriage measure also has been introduced to the Legislature, but is unlikely to go anywhere this year, and supporters have made no secret of their desire in that effort.

Washington expands domestic partnership law

Senator Ed Murray, one of six gay lawmakers in the Legislature and the author of SB 5688 said, “We needed to have a multiyear discussion with the state on gay and lesbian families. I believe DOMA won’t long be the law of the state because those conversations are changing hearts and minds around the state.”

In classic liberal “attack the messenger, not the message” tactic, the Columbian’s editors demean and denigrate Larry Stickney and Gary Randall, the men who authored R-71 and worked to have it placed on the November 3 ballot, giving voters in Washington State the choice of whether they support SB 5688 or not.

And for a second time, to emphasize their canard I suppose, they again state the misleading, “But again, as the ballot states, this is not about marriage at all. It’s about domestic partnerships.”

The Columbian ends with, “Voters should reject such narrow views and mark ‘Approve’ on Referendum 71.” The “NARROW VIEW” is really in their masking the true intent of SB 5688.

When you look at your ballot, it’s actually very simple. If you desire to see same-sex marriage legalized in Washington’s future, approve R-71.

If you wish to stop same-sex marriage from eventually becoming legal in Washington, reject R-71.

It’s really that simple.

I’m voting to reject R-71.

October 6, 2009

Microsoft Donates $100,000 To Support Washington Gays

by lewwaters

Gay Pride - 02, 2007It was announced today that Computer Software giant Microsoft Corporation has donated $100,000 to the campaign advocating approval of R-71, which will grant more benefits for Washington state gay couples under SB 5688, the so called “everything but marriage bill” passed earlier this year by the legislature.

Although called “everything but marriage,” sponsors of the bill openly admit it but an incremental step towards full-blown same sex marriage within Washington State.

A citizen’s referendum, R-71 obtained enough signatures on petitions to place SB 5688 on the November ballot, placing the matter in the hands of voters, angering Gays throughout Washington.

Microsoft’s donation against the citizens of Washington gives the pro-gay group calling themselves Washington Families Standing Together some $780,000 to support campaigning to vote for same-sex marriage one step at a time.

How much money has flooded into Washington from outside the state coffers is unknown at this time.

Protect Marriage Washington; the group opposing this one step at a time move into same-sex marriage reportedly has only raised some $60,000.

Clark County resident Chuck Miller says,

“The citizens of Washington passed into law the Defense of Marriage Act. The Democrat controlled legislature has continued to chip away at it with the goal of over riding the will of the people. They passed SB 5688, which Gregoire signed. This bill takes a huge leap toward their final goal, redefining and destroying marriage! Against great odds, Washington citizens, lead by Faith and Freedom and Protect Marriage Washington collected the required signatures to put it to a vote of the people. Citizens were dispatched to oversee the counting and too be certain that Secretary of State Sam Reed be faithful in his duty to apply the strict letter of the law in counting the ballots. Opponents of traditional marriage filed two lawsuits to try and stop it from even making the ballot. Both failed.”

“Webster’s dictionary defines marriage as ‘the institution whereby men and woman are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family’.”

“California voters said NO to the destruction of traditional marriage. Washington voters can save marriage by voting NO on Referendum 71 in November.”

It is disappointing to see Redmond based Microsoft turn their backs on the majority of citizens of Washington who depend on their products for computers in favor a small minority of those who feel they are entitled to special rights.

As disappointing was seeing Washington States Attorney General, Rob McKenna, file suit against “a federal judge’s ruling that granted an injunction to keep the names of people who signed a petition to put Referendum 71 on the ballot private.”

As shown at Traditional Marriage Foes Try To Intimidate Washington Voters, gays demanded the names so they could place them on a searchable web site to make their names and addresses known and that some gays have openly threatened violence against those who oppose same-sex marriage.

This move cost McKenna the support of this blogger should he try to run for governor in the future, as well as his ‘pro-choice’ position on abortions. This was the ‘straw that broke the camel’s back.’

With Microsoft’s support, the pro-gay groups hell-bent on doing away with the traditional views of marriage now have a massive treasure chest to mount a propaganda campaign in favor of “everything but marriage.”

Do not let them fool you when they come out saying it isn’t same-sex marriage. The author of SB 5688, Seattle Democrat Senator Ed Murray, who also authored the 2007 domestic partnership law, has openly admitted this is but incremental step of A Long-Term Strategy To Legalize Gay Marriage.

Vote NO on R-71

August 31, 2009

Washington States R-71 Qualifies For November Ballot

by lewwaters

Sure to outrage the Gay community, R-71, a citizens initiative to block and overturn Washington States ‘everything but marriage’ act has qualified for the November ballot. Received in email,

R-71 qualifys for November vote!

With the Referendum 71 signature-check now nearly complete, state election officials say they’ve now confirmed that sponsors turned in more signatures than needed to qualify for a spot on the November statewide ballot. Signature-checkers passed the 121,000 mark on Monday, the 23rd day of an exhaustive hand check of all 137,000-plus signatures submitted on July 25.

It takes 120,577 valid Washington voter signatures to qualify a referendum to the state ballot. Voters will now have a choice of accepting the new law or rejecting it.

The numbers still are unofficial and not final, as checkers do one final check of hundreds of previously rejected signatures of people who weren’t initially found in the voter registration records. That should extend the margin a bit, but the final margin could be in the range of 1,000.

Final certification is scheduled for Wednesday morning by Secretary of State Sam Reed.

Faith & Freedom Network
Gary Randall
President & Chairman

More coverage at R-71, gay partnership foes make ballot

The measure may have qualified based upon signatures, but there is a court challenge to it pending. King County Superior Court Judge Julie Spector is hearing arguments from lawyers representing the secretary of state, proponents of R-71 and Washington Families Standing Together.

WFST claims Secretary of State Reed has not complied with the law. Their attorney claims there are petitions with over 2,000 signatures in which there was no name and no signature from the person collecting them, as required by law.

They claim he also ignores the law requiring only registered voters be allowed to sign the petitions, claiming had he done so the measure would not have qualified for the ballot.

We also have to remember that foes of R-71 wish to obtain the entire list of signers of the petitions to be placed on their web site with a searchable engine. An obvious attempt to intimidate signers.

Traditional Marriage Foes Try To Intimidate Washington Voters

Isn’t it strange that those who oppose R-71 are crying about the law, when they resort to such tactics as intimidation, threats of violence and denigrating supporters of R-71, instead of building a cohesive campaign to convince voters to support their view?

I guess that is easier than working within the law they cry others may violate.

Or, is it that they know they cannot maintain a supportable position with the public, so they resort to more unsavory tactics to force their views on others?

See also The Camel’s Nose Is Inside The Tent

UPDATE: King County Superior Court Judge Julie Spector will not block the certification of R-71 that will place it on Novembers ballot. The Seattle Times

The misnamed ‘Washington Families Standing Together’ has stated they will now file a lawsuit against the referendum before the Thurston County Superior Court challenging the certification.

I see that building a campaign to convince voters to reject R-71 remains out of the question.

Intimidation and court rulings take precedence over the will of the people still, I see.

July 26, 2009

Traditional Marriage Foes Try To Intimidate Washington Voters

by lewwaters

A group has sprung up in our state calling themselves and whose sole purpose appears to be intimidating people who may disagree with the recent Domestic Partnership law passed by our legislature.

Citizens in disagreement with the passage of SB 5688 exercised their rights by beginning a petition to place the matter before voters statewide and not just the legislature.

Referendum 71 was required to obtain just over 120,000 signatures to qualify for the November ballot and supporters claim to have gathered 130,000 signatures.

As could be expected, groups opposed to R-71 have sprung up utilizing their rights to lobby against the effort by forming an argument against it, not by proposing intimidation.

The official campaign opposing R-71 does not support this effort at citizen intimidation.

This fringe group, claims on their website,

What we are doing

Once signature petitions for initiatives and referenda are submitted and verified by the Secretary of State they are part of the public record. When signatures for Referendum 71 have been verified WhoSigned.Org will:

· Work to make this public record signature information accessible and searchable on the internet.
· Flag the 3% signature sample that is certified by the Elections Division of the Secretary of State.
· Provide Washington State Voters with a way to check that the public record of their advocacy is
· Provide Washington State Voters with a way of reporting when their signature has been recorded
either fraudulently or in error.

As has become the norm with fringe leftist groups, knowing following proper procedures all too often fails their agenda, intimidation becomes their next step.

While they try to hide their true intent with words as seen above, they really desire to expose citizens who disagree with their agenda and subject them to possible harassment, if they are persons of note.

It is obvious this group fears a similar outcome as we saw in California’s Proposition 8 as California citizens overwhelmingly voted to overturn their same-sex marriage law imposed by the legislature, not the voters.

To date, no state passing same-sex marriage has done so by a vote of the people, only by Judicial Decree or state legislatures caving in to a small minority.

Where was this group as hundreds of fraudulent votes turned up to propel Christine Gregoire in the governorship in 2004?

Do you really think they would want the signatures of voters who signed a petition to grant same-sex marriage made public and subject them to possible harassment or boycotts?

We must stand up to the intimidation tactics employed by and preserve our Representative Republic.

While I disagree with those groups who oppose Referendum 71, I applaud their distancing themselves from this fringe group and opposing the initiative by the proper and legal methods.

March 10, 2009

Who Cares About The Will Of “The People?”

by lewwaters

Not Washington State Senator, McDermott.

Received in email this evening from Faith and Freedom Network;

March 10, 2009
10:30 PM

Dear Lew Waters,

Senate Bill 5688 Passes at 9:51 PM Tonight

This is a sad day in Washington State. Standing against economic concerns, religious concerns, tradition and marriage itself, the Washington State Senate passed SB5688 at 9:51PM tonight, thus setting the stage for homosexual marriage in Washington State.
I cannot tell you how profoundly saddened I was, personally, as I watched the proceedings tonight.
Sen. Dan Swecker attempted to pass an amendment to send the matter to the people for a vote. The amendment was defeated.
Sen. McDermott said, “No. We’re elected to vote on behalf of the people.”
Senators Swecker, Stevens, Roach, and Holmquist spoke in opposition to the bill pointing out this bill creates an equivalency to marriage.
I will have more detail and where we go from here in tomorrow’s blog. I have included the roll call vote below. Please note how each senator voted tonight. Also note that Senators King, Pflug, and Brandland abandoned their own Republican party and voted against traditional marriage.

E2SSB 5688
Registered domestic partners
Senate vote on 3rd Reading & Final Passage
Yeas: 30 Nays: 18 Absent: 0 Excused: 1

Voting Yea: Senators Berkey, Brandland, Brown, Eide, Fairley, Franklin, Fraser, Haugen, Hobbs, Jacobsen, Jarrett, Kastama, Kauffman, Keiser, Kilmer, King, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Marr, McAuliffe, McDermott, Murray, Oemig, Pflug, Prentice, Pridemore, Ranker, Regala, Rockefeller, and Tom

Voting Nay: Senators Becker, Benton, Carrell, Delvin, Hargrove, Hatfield, Hewitt, Holmquist, Honeyford, McCaslin, Morton, Roach, Schoesler, Sheldon, Shin, Stevens, Swecker, and Zarelli


Excused: Senator Parlette

Sen. Dan Swecker attempted to pass an amendment to send the matter to the people for a vote. The amendment was defeated.
Sen. McDermott said, “No. We’re elected to vote on behalf of the people.”

And here I thought they were elected to “Represent” us, not dictate to us.

Why is McDermott afraid of a public vote? Because he knows the public consistently rejectes same-sex marriage.

Like it or not, it is coming to Washington State.

February 2, 2009

Jim Jacks Co-Sponsors Same-Sex Marriage Bill, HB 1745

by lewwaters

Our newly elected Representative for the 49th Legislative District is off and running in his new office. He has his web site up including contact links.

If you recall, Jacks was most known for his blurb during the League of Women’s Voters debate in August against Debbie Peterson.

Jacks easily won the election, though, regardless of his admission about our tax problems of, “I don’t know how to fix it.”

I do see, looking over his site under Sponsored Bill’s that he has prominently affixed his name as co-sponsor on HB 1745, Concerning civil marriages.

The Bill, introduced and sponsored by openly Gay Representative, Jim Moeller, also of the 49th Legislative District, states it is an “AN ACT Relating to civil marriage equality, recognizing the right of all citizens of Washington state, including couples of the same sex, to obtain civil marriage licenses.”

No surprise that it isn’t going before voters as across the nation voters reject Same-sex marriage. So, it is either courts or legislatures forcing acceptance of same-sex marriage on citizens.

40 Democrat Representatives have signed on as co-sponsors of this bill!

We we treated to S5336, Domestic Partnership in 2007, but now the push is for full same sex marriage.

It was just days ago we were being told the desire was to “only expand domestic partnerships,” or, “Everything Except Marriage.”

HB 1745 cannot be any clearer to me. This is a full and outright sanctioning of same-sex marriage supported by Democrats.

Don’t be fooled thinking it is about “equal rights,” it is special right that no one has yet to explain what benefit society receives for such a drastic change.

I urge you to contact Jim Jacks, or your Representative to oppose this step. Inch by inch and ever so slowly, same-sex marriage is being forced upon Washington State, regardless of what citizens over have said.

November 13, 2008

“He’s” Pregnant Again, But It Is Still A Hoax

by lewwaters

ron-paul-screwballIt was just this past March that RIALW exposed the hoax of a “pregnant man”, revealing that in actuality, this so-called “man” is a lesbian activist living as a man and went to court to have herself declared “male” by judicial decree.

In July we reported that the lesbian couple had given birth to a healthy baby girl, reminding all that the notion of a “man” carrying and delivering a baby, even by ‘C’-Section was not worthy of all the International attention paid to a rather ordinary birth.

Not too unexpectedly, our own media, dumbed down as they are, perpetuated the myth of a pregnant man by bringing on this confused woman, who underwent radical mastectomy and took testosterone, but retained full female genitalia and reproductive organs, to broadcast to the world and our nation that at long last, a man was pregnant with a child.

Thomas Beatie, aka Tracy LaGondino was the hit of the left-winged talk show circuit, making a big splash on the Oprah Winfrey Show, among others, who told us this confused woman’s pregnancy is “a new definition of what diversity means for everybody.”

Now, we have ABC’s Barbara Walters, throwing away what smidgen of credibility she might still have retained by informing the world, Pregnant “Man” Expecting Second Child, in a new interview continuing the myth and blurring the lines between the sexes.

Most ridiculous is that throughout the interview Thomas/Tracie is continually referred to as “he” and “his,” and includes a video beginning with her strategically standing before a mirror, shirtless, flexing her muscles, as if that makes one more masculine.

Included with the article are several photos presumably taken at the lesbian couples home, most with Thomas/Tracie shirtless, as if to drive home to readers that her breasts have been surgically removed.

Walters interview reveals that the birth, first reported to be by Caesarian Section actually wasn’t, a feat physically impossible for any male.

Thomas/Tracie also says of her original story, “I was shocked that it looped around the world in 24 hours,” after Walters tells us she wrote about it in a popular Gay Magazine.

Thomas/Tracie claims to have been living a “quiet life in Bend, Oregon,” but “keeps the blinds drawn and monitors surveillance cameras that surround the property,” due to “death threats” she claims she and her partner receive.

Any pretense of “quietness” is thrown out he window with their desire to stir it up again with yet another public television interview.

Maybe to those on the left this is seen as an “enlightening occurrence,” but Thomas/Tracie reveals her confusion when she was asked why she makes people uneasy and she answered, “I think that people are not used to seeing the image of a pregnant man. And it’s causing a lot of people to think,” adding the most confused statement she has ever uttered, “I used my female reproductive organs to become a father.”

Think, if you will, ahead a few years when these children are in school around other children who are born from a man and a woman in a more normal family setting and who know that Daddy is different than Mommie and that Mommies have the babies and Daddy’s place the babies in Mommy. Children can be the coldest and most heartless of all, any parent can tell you that. So, what do you think will happen when one of the couple’s children states that they were born from Daddy?

What sort of confusion will result when the teacher is forced to tell the students that Daddy’s can have babies, when they can’t, and the children go home to tell their parents and it all has to be explained.

I imagine that trying to explain what a ‘blow-job’ was, after Bill Clinton’s affair to Monica Lewinsky was revealed, to a six-year-old will have been easier than trying to explain this one to small children.

The thought of that flies in the face of Thomas/Tracie’s claim of, “We are a man, woman and child. It’s ironic that we are so different but yet, we’re just a family, just the same as anyone else.”

Not hardly.

In today’s world, even though the majority opposes same-sex marriage, Gay relationships are accepted and most people don’t give them much attention. Lesbian couples have children all the time, becoming impregnated by artificial insemination and giving a normal female birth.

Given Thomas/Tracies history of activism for the Gay lifestyle, I have to suspect that her efforts here are not as pure as she once claimed they were when she said, “Wanting to have a biological child is neither a male nor female desire, but a human desire.”

Such a rapid second pregnancy, after the hoopla died down and making sure she appears on National TV again, takes this beyond just a “human desire to have a biological child.”

I see this more attempts at shoving the Gay Agenda down the throats of heterosexual society as well as blurring the lines between genders even further than they have been.

If Thomas/Tracie isn’t a very confused individual, then she is a very deceitful individual. I don’t care if you believe in Creation, Evolution or Intelligent Design; Male and Female are here for a reason. While in some lower life forms the male might be the child bearer, in the Human species that doesn’t happen naturally.

So long as “HE” retains female genitalia and reproductive organs, it’s “SHE.”

Judicial decrees do not over rule the laws of nature. Claiming otherwise and agreeing with it is not only naïve it is down right deceitful.