Thousands of people gather at state capitol to rally for
morality
By Lois Krafsky-Perry
Citizen Review Online
March 10, 2005
Olympia, WA - The sun was shining, the grass was green, and the dome
of the State Capitol building, was sparkling in the bright sunshine,
as the words of “God Bless America” echoed across the landscape. It
was a beautiful
spring day March 8, as approximately 10,000 people came to voice their
opinions about traditional marriage.
The Defense of Marriage Act of 1998, which defines legal marriage
as between a man and a woman, was voted
on by legislative representatives, for the people of Washington State.
A challenge to the statutory law (RCW 2.04.010) has reached the Washington
State Supreme Court, brought by 36 plaintiffs who are questioning
the constitutionality of the decision, because it limits marriage
to heterosexual couples.
The attendees listened to speakers, sang Judeo-Christian and patriotic
songs, and discussed the issue with those around them. Speakers from
various groups spoke about the sanctity of marriage and exhorted people
to continue to defend God’s laws. Speakers representing various groups
spoke of the importance of defending the law, which was founded years
ago by God and the U.S. and State Constitution. They asked for careful
protection of these laws for the future of our children and grandchildren,
who help hold the future of our state and nation.
Signs
were seen all over the Capitol grounds, but most of them were in defense
of marriage with one man and one woman. As people dialogued, some
wanted the current law to stand, while others disagreed. Sean Saffold
of Sequim was impressed by some of the conversations he was engaged
in and said, “If you look back at different nations and how they fell---throughout
history, immorality has been a major poison in the death of every
great society.”
Washington Evangelicals for Responsible Government (WERG) had a booth
where literature and t-shirts were supplied to volunteers. President
of the organization, Rev. Joe Fulten, spoke to the larger crowd, with
words of encouragement and an exhortation to uphold the law. A few
people in the crowd carried wooden crosses.
Approximately 300 people gathered on and near the steps of the Temple
of Justice building. Across the walkway was the Legislative building,
capped with the American Flag, blowing in the soft breeze. Law enforcement
vehicles were parked between the buildings as well as several television
crew vehicles. A large representation of law enforcement officers
graced the entire grounds and also the steps of the justice building.
The atmosphere was fairly
calm.
Occasionally a man dressed in a type of military garb and carrying
a sign supplied by the conservative voice, traveled between the crowds
and sent a mixed message by an occasional chant. “One man--- one woman,
one woman --- one man. Equality!” he hollered. It was unclear to many
what his actual statement was meant to be.
Many of the people who gathered on the steps of the temple were friends,
family, and supporters of the plaintiffs. Every few minutes, some
of the plaintiffs would parade up and down the steps drawing shouts
and applause from their comrades. Many of the young people were clad
in white shirts, painted with rainbow colors. Some sported words on
the back of their shirt, often misspelled, about, “equality” and supporting
statements about same sex marriage. Many conservative people and Judeo-Christians
also made statements with signs and many sang and prayed, as they
observed the scene.
As the morning progressed, the area became flooded with other signs,
as people placed themselves around the protestors with signs, which
read, “Trust God” and posters carried by groups of teenagers and adults
carried other Words (Scriptures) of the Bible. Some people stood in
small groups singing and some prayed in various places near the crowd.
Law enforcement personnel were particularly relieved that the area
was peaceful and not unruly, which gives much credit to the citizens
of Washington State.
One man asked a plaintiff supporter, if he had considered the medical
problems associated with their lifestyle. He appeared to not understand.
Teri Schweithale of Port Angeles asked a woman who was wearing Jewish
prayer shawls, as she hugged her female partner. “How do you view
your stand with the Torah? Do you believe in the Torah?” she asked.
The woman said she knew the Torah, as she paid homage to her Rabbi,
and then she listed a litany of sins in the Torah, and compared homosexuality
as only one of them. This seemed to be her argument that her current
lifestyle is acceptable, and apparently is in her Seattle church.
Many from her church family were in attendance on their behalf.
Kris Hallis of Sequim observed the conversation and said, “that Jewish
woman wearing prayer shawls, yarmulkes, and robes was one of the most
disturbing scenes of my day. No humility, just rebellion. We all need
to get involved in helping to maintain the integrity of the laws that
protect marriage.”
A young man challenged Schweithale about her strong beliefs and defended
his own lifestyle beliefs, although he is married to a woman, who
he clung to as he conversed. It was interesting, in that she had not
said anything about her beliefs as she asked them questions. A boy
beside him said he wanted to get insurance for himself and his boyfriend.
“You can indeed get insurance by contract,” said Schweithale, who
told them they do not need to marry to buy insurance.
Many of the individual conversations were interesting to observe.
One young lady argued with a man about
how she wanted to show her children that they could accept the lifestyle
of her possible marriage to a woman. Someone asked her, “Where will
you get your children?” She said she was young and did not have to
think of that now.
As the time came for the nine Supreme Court judges to hear arguments,
most of the crowd began to leave the premises. There was not much
room in the courtroom and chairs and a television monitor were supplied
in
the foyer of the temple for viewers to watch the proceedings. Much
of the argument is using the constitution as a basis for both views.
The judges are not expected to make a final decision for several
months.