Wash. lawmaker outlines party's rationale against gay rights:"It's a sin."

[Bluebear]

OLYMPIA — The lawmaker tapped to speak for Senate Republicans opposing gay-rights legislation is an affable, soft-spoken man who believes gays will go to hell unless they change their ways.

"I just read the Bible for what it says. It basically says that homosexuality is an abomination," said Dan Swecker, a 58-year-old veteran lawmaker from the rural town of Rochester, Thurston County.

He wants gays to know they can be saved. "Somehow that message has to get out. Because if people don't realize that it's a sin or there's not an opportunity for redemption, then we're going to lose them."...

Senate Republican leaders have anointed Swecker as their main spokesman when it comes to gay rights.
"I make a point to use who I think is the best person in our caucus to be our spokesperson," said Senate Republican Leader Mike Hewitt, R-Walla Walla.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002746246_swecker18m.html


Swecker

[kevinbgoode]

1. Oh well. . .that's the only reason to impose religious authority

over other people's beliefs of conscience. . .if Swecker's particular church decides to adhere to selective biblical passages, then EVERYONE must adhere to those beliefs, and they must be reflected in the law. I'm sorry - this sounds increasingly less about the rights of gays and more about the imposition of one religious belief over others.

Since religious belief is a "CHOICE" - meaning, no one is born a member of a denomination, perhaps Swecker should be answering a few questions about why HIS choices of worship should be protected from discrimination. I mean, why should a gay business owner or an atheist be forced to employ an evangelical christian, knowing they are apt to use company time to proselytize or condemn other employees because it is "in the Bible."

When a religious belief is largely dependent on demonizing other citizens who don't subscribe to those same beliefs, and then supporting constitutional amendments which endorse his religious viewpoint, then there is an inherent problem of federal proportions with our government. Swecker's argument is nonsense - if his interpretation of scripture dictates that homosexuality is immoral, then that directive applies to HIM alone - not those who exercise their religious beliefs according to their own conscience. I am sick and tired of hearing these people tell me what their personal religious beliefs are - I'm not interested. You see, that's WHY they are protected by the constitution - because if I became too interested, I might condemn their religious beliefs and foster policies to discriminate against THEM. But when a public official attempts to use his personal religious beliefs to demand a large number of fellow citizens be denied protection of the law, then it is an imposition of that religious belief on the rights of others.

Someone needs to stand up and look Swecker in the eye and tell him that, according to their own religious belief, Swecker's existence is am abomination, and then cite every single legislative contradiction to Leviticus, focusing directly on policies that Swecker has supported that tempered the message of his own Bible. Then they need to ask him if he was a homosexual before he read the Bible, and, if not, why is that verse about abomination something which he seems so familiar and so relevant to his oath to uphold constitutional protections for ALL citizens.

No legislator takes an oath for public office to uphold their personal religious beliefs - they take an oath to uphold the state Constitution which is not an extension of Swecker's church. However, since Swecker brought this argument up, someone should find out what his church is, research the entire history of its social policies, and slap him with every one of them. And someone needs to ask him if public policy is supposed to be dictated by his religious interpretation, and if other citizens are supposed to wait for their constitutional rights until his minister gets around to deciding bashing them is no longer bringing in enough money.

[Bluebear]

3. Well said. And still, remember it is not only Swecker.

His party chief has selected him to lay out his party's platform on the issue DUE TO BIBLICAL TEACHING. Gays are only the current election-year fodder; many in our own party, including Dianne Feinstein ("Gay rights, too much, too soon...") see gays as a liability, but as you point out, the question is whether a lawmaker will uphold constitutional protections for all citizens, because after the gays come the (fill-in-the-blank)s and the (fill-in-the-blank)s.

[xchrom]

5. ''endowed by their creator'' not ''our creator''

it's past time to talk about legislating hate and discrimination.

the not so good rev is perfectly aware that reasonable people disagree with him four square -- why should his beliefs be the ones that are legislated on?

do we ask him which codes in leviticus are the ones that should make it to state law -- if we admit to legislating against gay people -- do we begin to legislate women according to cleanliness codes?


:mad:

[wakeme2008]

2. This from the party of Pedophiles.

http://www.armchairsubversive.com/

[Bluebear]

4. Rich, huh? NT

[seabeyond]

6. and divorce. oh and shellfish, and blended materials. all equally

a sin. i say we start a campaign. out law gay,.... out law polyester and cotton blend

[Bluebear]

11. What WILL those fashion-conscious folks wear?

"No! Not polyesterrrrrrrrrrr!"

[QC]

7. But...but...but...Washington is a BLUE STATE!!!???!!!???

This simply cannot be! Someone must be trying to deceive us! Everyone knows that this sort of smarmy, self-righteous cretinism is only found in places like Mississippi and Oklahoma! Everyone knows that!

[ComerPerro]

8. Oh, well, if its in the Bible, it should be a law

Because, after all, the Constitution is very clear about the founding father's desire to base our legal system and laws on the Bible.

:sarcasm:

How should be treat non-believers? Lets see what the Bible has to say about that, and pass a law accordingly. Its a sin not to believe in God and Jesus Christ. So let's pass a law.

[sinkingfeeling]

9. ...only if you believe in that crap.

[LostinVA]

10. Hey, it doesn't say lesbians are sinners

So I'm safe!

[Bluebear]

12. For the time being, lesbians were Created to entertain man.

You know, that alpha male fantasy of having TWO women entertaining him. That's exempt for now. :crazy: