We are supporting the People's Veto petition drive. Robert Emrich and Marc Mutty filed an application with the Secretary of State to obtain petitions on May 7, 2009. We are willing to make petitions available to our folks if asked to do so. At this time we haven't been asked to distribute petitions by those who are responsible for them. The Secretary of State has ten business days from the date of filing to present a petition to the applicants.
Some are suggesting that we are running a "parallel effort." This is not the case. We are not running a parallel petition drive. There is one petition drive headed by co-chairmen Robert Emrich and Marc Mutty. They issued a press release on May 7, 2009 announcing their intention to take responsibility for the petition following their submission of application to the Secretary of State. It is unwise for more than one group to be leading this signature gathering effort. A parallel effort will unleash confusion.
I have also heard that there are "philosophical differences" between the MFPC and other folks who wish to defend traditional marriage. We support the People's Veto. There are no differences of any kind on that point, philosophical or otherwise. Having become intimately acquainted over the years with the sacrifices required of those who choose to take a common sense stand on this matter, we commend all groups and individuals who are defending traditional marriage.
Financial contributions to make it possible for the Maine Family Policy Council to support the People's Veto must be designated to the Marriage Matters in Maine Political Action Committee. They can be mailed to 70 Sewall Street, Augusta, Maine 04330. Make checks out to "Marriage Matters in Maine."
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
An update on communications and the People's Veto
Thanks so much for all the supportive emails and phone calls. I still haven't had a chance to process them all. I haven't even started going through the tidal wave of emails I received offering to either sign or distribute petitions last week. I appreciate your patience. In the meantime here's a statement we put out this morning:
Monday, June 1, 2009
Homosexuals participate in killing then testify for "marriage" four days later
This story doesn't fortify the agenda of the sexual disorientation crowd so you won't be reading about it on the front page anytime soon. Here's the high points that are public. Three men are together in an apartment here in Maine handling a loaded gun. One of them shoots the other one in the head and waits an entire day to report to authorities what he has done. The two witnesses (I'm assuming here, the news story linked above doesn't make it clear who the second shooting witness was) then appear, four days later, in front of an adoring crowd of 2000 supporters in the Augusta Civic Center in support of sodomy-based marriage, and go on vacation.
Law enforcement are bringing manslaughter charges against the shooter, who apparently didn't know the gun was loaded.
Let's assume the best. The three friends were sitting around discussing firearms while handling a gun. No alcohol or jesting that would cause carelessness. The shooter isn't pointing the gun at the head of the victim and it goes off. To me, that's the best scenario here, given the facts that have been reported.
The two witnesses panic and leave the apartment. They struggle all day with what has happened and finally agree to call the police. According to the news story they tell the police they should go and "check on Wilson (the victim)."
Four days later the shooter stands in front of the whole state of Maine on the most contentious moral issue of our time and offers testimony. Is it just me or is something terribly wrong here?
Even if the description above were accurate (and we already know it is worse because the District Attorney admitted the three men were participating in "something like" Russian Roulette) this story raises so many questions.
If the shooter was a Christian man who testified at the hearing against homosexual marriage how would this propaganda opportunity be playing out publicly?
Law enforcement are bringing manslaughter charges against the shooter, who apparently didn't know the gun was loaded.
Let's assume the best. The three friends were sitting around discussing firearms while handling a gun. No alcohol or jesting that would cause carelessness. The shooter isn't pointing the gun at the head of the victim and it goes off. To me, that's the best scenario here, given the facts that have been reported.
The two witnesses panic and leave the apartment. They struggle all day with what has happened and finally agree to call the police. According to the news story they tell the police they should go and "check on Wilson (the victim)."
Four days later the shooter stands in front of the whole state of Maine on the most contentious moral issue of our time and offers testimony. Is it just me or is something terribly wrong here?
Even if the description above were accurate (and we already know it is worse because the District Attorney admitted the three men were participating in "something like" Russian Roulette) this story raises so many questions.
- What were the men doing when the shooter pulled the trigger? What is "something like" Russian roulette.
- Why did they wait all day to confess? If I were innocent in this matter I'd be either running for the hills or to the police to confess. The casual quality of both the shooting and the response of the law enforcement community is curious.
- What sort of thinking and emotions govern a man who can put a bullet in another man's head that kills him, then a short four days later testify in the most high-profile public hearing of 2009? I can't imagine what is going through this man's head.
- Did the organizers of the hearing know this happened? And if not, why not? The Attorney General appeared in the same testimony line as the shooter and his "lover." I would think they would be keeping this man from giving testimony, if they knew about the shooting. The homosexual community is pretty tight in Maine. I'd find it hard to believe they didn't know what was going on here.
If the shooter was a Christian man who testified at the hearing against homosexual marriage how would this propaganda opportunity be playing out publicly?
A comment on comments
Right now comments are moderated on this blog. In the past the volume of obscenity and hate from advocates of homosexual ideology was so intense that I turned them off. It wasn't worth taking the time to read through them all to make sure that the blog didn't fill up with filth. So, if the foul mouthed folks out there want to end the comment feature on this blog just spam me with your filth. I'm kinda interested to see if Google is going to allow this blog to remain up, since they endorsed the homosexuals in the Prop 8 fight in California. I'm believing they will leave it up, because I think they are committed to political free speech. But, with the hate crime law moving in DC this week, the unfairness doctrine etc. .... who knows.
George Tiller is dead
Shot down in church while ushering. Such was the end for George Tiller, the famous abortion doctor from Kansas. Tiller made a name for himself by killing late term babies. Now, his murder puts him on the same list as Matthew Shephard. The high-profile murder should help pass the "hate crimes" law that is moving through Congress. Nobody thinks Tiller should have been murdering babies. Nobody thinks Tiller should have been murdered. That should be the end of it.
Alas, now all of us who really do hate ... sin ... will have to contend with a public relations driven tsunami of hype aimed at getting us to prove we hate violence. The only thing I hate more than physical violence is spiritual and moral violence.
Abortion would have been resolved years ago, or it may never have become an issue, if people told one another the truth. We pretend abortion isn't about the killing of innocent human beings so that we can be relieved of the consequences of sexual sin. We do the same with all things "gay."
More and more people are growing weary of the game. Sex outside of marriage is a dead end. The Playboy culture is wearing thin. We're bored by it. Especially now that our children and grandchildren are forced by this perverted culture to look more like pierced pagans than the lovely creatures God created them to be.
The end to this fascination with sexual perversion can't come soon enough for me. I'm afraid it is likely we will be dealing with more, not less, violence before this religious conflict plays itself out.
Alas, now all of us who really do hate ... sin ... will have to contend with a public relations driven tsunami of hype aimed at getting us to prove we hate violence. The only thing I hate more than physical violence is spiritual and moral violence.
Abortion would have been resolved years ago, or it may never have become an issue, if people told one another the truth. We pretend abortion isn't about the killing of innocent human beings so that we can be relieved of the consequences of sexual sin. We do the same with all things "gay."
More and more people are growing weary of the game. Sex outside of marriage is a dead end. The Playboy culture is wearing thin. We're bored by it. Especially now that our children and grandchildren are forced by this perverted culture to look more like pierced pagans than the lovely creatures God created them to be.
The end to this fascination with sexual perversion can't come soon enough for me. I'm afraid it is likely we will be dealing with more, not less, violence before this religious conflict plays itself out.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
What is same sex anyway
I noticed in the press this week that the Secretary of State announced the ballot question for the People's Veto. Here it is;
Make a comment!
"Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?"Getting this question passed is going to be a tough sell. Yankees will just want to leave well enough alone. Proponents are going to have to give them a powerful reason to reject this law. Here's a few quick thoughts on the question:
- This "new law" must be rejected because it doesn't qualify as a law! Laws have to be fair and just. This one clearly is not just. It presupposes that something which is fundamentally wrong and immoral (homosexuality) can qualify someone for the high status of marriage. That is obviously crazy.
- The phrase "same sex" is meaningless. This should read "homosexual," not "same sex." This euphemism simply confuses people.
- The last clause is cleverly worded. The Secretary of State, Matt Dunlap, has always supported homosexual rights. The clause is subtle. It causes the reader to conclude that religious individuals and groups are intolerant. Nothing could be further from the truth. With the passage of this law the state decided not to tolerate common sense and truth. Everyone knows that marriage is between one man and one woman. You don't have to be religious to know that, but I for one think it is wonderful that Christianity upholds this important institution. It is beyond tragic that the state no longer does. It is horrific and insane.
Make a comment!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)