From: Gww1210@aol.com
To: "pat" (email address redacted)
Sent: 10/17/2008 1:33:11 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subject: Re: Where do you stand on marriage?

Now, concerning marriage, Pat, it is expedient and appropriate, in my personal opinion, that people who have not found "the right" person to remain single if at all possible (I discuss that below). But because of the temptation to impurity and to avoid immorality, if a person can't control themselves, then it is best they get married -to another person of like-minded pure faith. *This* is merely my opinion (albeit a good one, I trust), but it is *fact* that people (A "Law of the Universe," like the Law of Gravity, if you will -a Law of God, in my personal view), once married, should *not* cheat on one another -and, of course that they should marry only man and woman -period. I am exceedingly conservative in all regard, and I'm not just saying that because I see you indicate you are part of a conservative religious group. You can verify my claims with my campaign page: http://www.GordonWayneWatts.com/Campaign.html or http://www.GordonWatts.com/Campaign.html Regarding marriage, it is between a man and a woman -whether or *not* we define it that way; perhaps it is best that we not buck these immutable and unchangeable laws, and I believe that a man and a woman should raise a child unless there are no other alternatives available -any other combination (2 men, 3 men and a baby, 2 women, or a single adult) are simply not equipped -Why, even I, myself, am not equipped to raise a child all by myself, and that is because of the Laws of the Universe set up by God in advance. However, if the child is about to be living in the street, then anything is better than that: I am pro-life in this regard that I would not want to endanger the life of the child -and (on a similar subject), since I view the *unborn* child as alive, also, like those already born, I don't justify killing this child for ANY reason other than genuine self-defense. (However, in rare self-defense cases, it is appropriate, albeit a last resort.) I am probably more conservative than Kelli Stargel (Republican) and Dr. Alton Smith (Democrat), but they give me a run for my money... Because the liberal, activist courts are so unpredictable I honestly don't know whether passage of Amendment 2, the "Marriage Amendment" would further our collective cause of protecting -and advocating marriage -or, rather, as some allege, create court challenges and setback. One thing is important in marriages: Prevention is the best medicine -and an ounce of prevention (in picking the right person, the proper time, proper planning) is worth a pound of cure, and Dr. Neil Clark Warren, who has www.E-Harmony.com the Christian dating service, says that, among other things, men and women should be mature, know each other well, and be similar, which agrees with Biblical wisdom on not be unequally yoked -how can 2 walk together if they are not in agreement? (Amos 3:3; 2nd Corinthians 6:14) -I am not psychic and can not predict the ramifications of passing Amendment 2. What we do know is that both Florida State law and the Federal Defense of marriage act already define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, implying that we may not need to do anything else: 741.212(3), Florida State Law, a "good" law, by the way, satates: "For purposes of interpreting any state statute or rule, the term "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the term "spouse" applies only to a member of such a union." Critics of this proposal claim that it would threaten the continuation of health insurance and other benefits that employers provide to non-married couples. I don't see how this would be so, since legal contracts do not require a person to be married, but that is alleged -and we can be sure it would cause court challenges from the ACLU. At first, I admit, I thought that the Marriage Amendment you mention would be wholly unneeded since current laws (state and federal) already protect marriage, however, I now recall California and Massachusetts, where the courts were permit same-sex marriages. Now, that said, Pat, I don't think homosexuals should ever be mistreated or hated -and I think that any legal contracts that might extend benefits to them should not be cut off because they happen to be homosexual, but I don't think that any "hate" crimes legislation (a similar topic to this one) should be needed -ALL crimes are "hate" crimes -I never knew a "love" crime, if you know what I mean. After deep contemplation (not because I want to "get votes" from straights and gays, but, rather, because I don't wish to offend my neighbors unnecessarily), I must support Amendment 2, the marriage amendment. This hearkens to a similar situation: Several friends are disabled and would have their disability reduced if they got a "legal" marriage, like people of faith believe should happen. I don't believe benefits should be either increased *or* decreased based on marital status -financial only! However, I don't like the idea of a free handout anyhow -that is not the purview of the government -Government almost always makes things worse when it intrudes -it should stick to national defense, police, ambulance, and fire rescue, perhaps best. I don't think this amendment, if passed, would prohibit gay people from visiting their "partners" in the hospital. In fact, hospitals often let NON-relatives visit one another -likewise, benefits should not logically be threatened by Amendment 2 -and, if they *are* threatened, then it was for reasons already preexisting -and not the marriage Amendment's fault.
 
Sorry my answer is a bit long, but I had to do some more studying while replying, I admit honestly, and I had to explore the matter fully.
 
Unless a pro-homosexual group can show me where this would promote prejudice or mistreatment, I support its passage -while I understand that all types of thinggs can be "wrong" (homosexual and heterosexual relationships, such as adultery, spousal abuse, etc.), we can legislate only *so much* or morality, but we can not legislate 100% of morality, and we must accept free will of imperfect humans. PS: I am certain to not win, as write-in candidates seldom get enough votes (my name doesn't appear on the ballot), but I encourage you to vote for me anyhow, since this will put needed pressure on my competition (both also pro-life, pro-family, pro-second amendment gun rights supporters and both very conservative) -Voting for me, "win or lose," will "raise the bar" of the standards -and send the signal to Tallahassee that we mean business in conservative Polk County.
 
Does this clarify my sentiments to your satisfaction?
 
In a message dated 10/16/2008 10:01:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, "pat" writes:
pat (last name redacted)
(redacted) road
lakeland, FL (exact zip redacted)


October 16, 2008

Gordon Wayne Watts
821 Alicia Road
Lakeland, FL 33801-2113


Dear Mr. Watts:

Perhaps the most important issues on state ballots Nov. 4 concern the
meaning of marriage and family. I have been following these issues
closely, and would like to know where you stand on these critical issues
as I decide whom to vote for to represent me in Congress.

So I ask you: how should we define marriage - as the union of one man and
one woman, or some other way? Should children be placed in any type of
home environment, or only in families headed by a legally married couple?
If we are concerned about the next generation, we should be able to have a
ready defense for our answers to these questions, and I'd like to know
your answers.

As a member of the Center for Moral Clarity, a national Christian
grassroots organization, I look forward to hearing your perspective on
these critical issues. Thank you in advance for your answer.

Sincerely,


pat (last name redacted)
(phone number redacted)
Gordon Wayne Watts
www.GordonWayneWatts.com / www.GordonWatts.com

ALWAYS FAITHFUL - To God - And God bless my friends who made me this picture.
BS, The Florida State University, Biological and Chemical Sciences
AS, United Electronics Institute
821 Alicia Road
Lakeland, FL 33801-2113
www.Members.AOL.com/Gww1210 or www.GeoCities.com/Gordon_Watts32313
Home: (863) 688-9880 Work: (863) 686-3411 Voice&FAX: (863) 687-6141
See also: http://Gordon_Watts.Tripod.com/consumer.html
Gww1210@aol.com ; Gww12102002@Yahoo.com
Truth is the strongest, most stable force in the Universe.
Truth doesn't change because you disbelieve it.
TRUTH doesn't bend to the will of tyrants.
Gordon Wayne Watts
Get Truth.

"First, they [Nazis] came for the Jews. I was silent. I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I was silent. I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was no one left to speak for me." (Martin Niemoller, given credit for a quotation in The Harper Religious and Inspirational Quotation Companion, ed. Margaret Pepper (New York: Harper &Row, 1989), 429 -as cited on page 44, note 17, of Religious Cleansing in the American Republic, by Keith A. Fornier, Copyright 1993, by Liberty, Life, and Family Publications.

(Actually, they may not have come for the Jews first, as it's far more likely they came for the prisoners, mentally handicapped, and other so-called "inferiors" first -as historians tell us -so they could get "practiced up;" But, they did come for them -due to the silence of their neighbors -and due, in part, to their own silence. So the general idea is correct: "Speak up now, or forever hold your peace." --Gordon)

*
*