This piece of the anti-marriage pledge is of particular interest to me, as yours truly (or at least, my Web site) was actually cited in
NOM v. McKee, NOM's attempt to overturn Maine's already-existing campaign-finance disclosure law; my use of the word
"bigots" in a subject line of a blog post listing the then-latest donors to Maine's anti-gay ballot measure, complained NOM, "caused distress and fear of reprisal, and ... they (four donors) either will not donate to any controversial referendum causes in the future, will think long and hard before doing so in the future, or would not have donated to the Stand for Marriage Maine PAC had they known their information was going to be publicly released." Mind you, these records were publicly released by the state of Maine; I merely reprinted them in abbreviated form.
Of course, NOM lost the suit.
See:
"
When the Scariest Thing NOM Can Come Up with is One of Our Posts, They're Really Scraping the Bottom of the Barrel," Lavender Newswire, May 25, 2010
"
Great News: NOM Loses NOM v. McKee, Democracy Wins!," Lavender Newswire, February 20, 2011
Now, as for NOM's claims of "increasing reports of harassment and threats to supporters of traditional marriage," let's see how well those "reports" hold up.
Doe v. Reed was Protect Marriage Washington's attempt to hide the names of signatories to Washington state's Referendum 71 (which ultimately gave Washington domestic partnerships; however, the people who wanted it on the ballot thought it would be voted down; thus, if you signed the petition, you wanted to outlaw DP rights).
The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which shot down PMW and upheld the lower-court decision that the signatures must be released. (They haven't been yet, but that's another story.) Only Thomas dissented; what tickled me was Scalia's statement during the hearing: "The people of Washington evidently think that this is not too much of an imposition upon people's courage — to stand up and sign something and be willing to stand behind it. ... What about just wanting to know their names so you can criticize them? Is that such a bad thing in a democracy?"
PMW based its complaint on a collection of affidavits in yet another suit,
ProtectMarriage.com v. Bowen, claiming "harassment and threats" by supporters of California's Proposition 8. In other words, PMA was saying: "Look at what those horrible gays did in California! That's what
might happen in Washington if the R-71 signature are made public!"
And what were these alleged incidents?
From Lambda Legal, et al.'s
amici curae (also summed up nicely
here):
Petitioners and certain like-minded groups ... (accuse) the lesbian and gay community and its supporters of subjecting opponents of legal protections for same-sex couples to a systematic and coordinated “intimidation campaign.”
. . .
This tale is false and unsupported by the record. Because of this case’s procedural posture, as well as the procedural posture in other cases where this narrative has been presented, the Court has not been provided with a complete and accurate presentation of facts so much as a series of one-sided accusations and hearsay never subjected to adversarial testing. Petitioners and their amici rush to characterize a handful of alleged incidents during the Proposition 8 and Referendum 71 campaigns as representing a systematic victimization crusade. A closer look reveals but a handful of allegations which, although serious if true, are of the sort endemic to many hardfought political contests. A closer look also shows that Petitioners’ and their amici’s hyperbolic story of a systematic campaign of “intimidation” and “reprisal” marries these incidents to a pool of trivial grievances and mere discomfort at the zealous but constitutionally protected speech used by some individuals to respond to the attack leveled at lesbians and gay men by the discriminatory initiatives. Moreover, not a single allegation on which Petitioners rely involves the signing of a petition. In effect, Petitioners and their supporters are trying to demonize and silence vigorous advocacy in support of equal rights that they disagree with – not protect their own right to speech.
. . .
At the outset, Petitioners fail to link the experience of Proposition 8 with the issue presented in this case: there is not a single alleged incident of retaliation based on signing a petition opposing legal protections for same-sex couples. The best Petitioners have been able to come up with is that a lesbian couple “glared” at a woman signing their petition and tried (unsuccessfully) to lobby her not to sign by telling her that “(w)e have feelings too.”
. . .
Petitioners do not allege and present no evidence of actual physical violence against Proposition 8 or Referendum 71 supporters. ADF charges there were “many” such incidents but cites only two. ... These and the handful of incidents alleged in news reports presented to the Court in Perry, while condemnable if true, fall short of severe.
ADF makes much of the allegation that a woman named Phyllis Burgess was shoved, and had her styrofoam cross broken, at an anti-Proposition 8 rally in Palm Springs. ... However, Ms. Burgess appears to have deliberately staged the incident for media attention: she was a frequent protester at gay events, informed officials prior to the rally of her intent to attend, and allegedly shoved her way to the front of the crowd in an attempt to get on camera, knocking a disabled man to the ground in the process, before others in the crowd pushed her in response.
. . .
The other incident alleged by ADF is no more helpful to their “intimidation” narrative. ADF alleges that someone shoved and hit someone with a bible and threw coffee during a “prayer walk” by a group that tries to “convert” gay people to heterosexuality, who decided to hold this walk through a gay neighborhood during the emotionally charged days immediately after the passage of Proposition 8. As with Ms. Burgess, it equally involves people who deliberately thrust themselves into a position where an unfriendly reaction was foreseeable.
ADF also inappropriately suggests that supporters of marriage equality should be blamed for the highly-publicized mailing of suspicious powder to two Mormon temples and a Knights of Columbus printing plant in Connecticut. ... Although the churches themselves were quick to blame these incidents on lesbian and gay opponents of Proposition 8, “the FBI had no evidence that linked the threats to Proposition 8 or its opponents.” ... ADF’s other accusation, of a church service disrupted in Michigan ... alleges no violence but at most a juvenile stunt and possible trespassing – and law enforcement officials dispute ADF’s account.
. . .
Many of the complaints Petitioners use to augment their “harassment” narrative involve hypersensitivity and unwarranted claims of feeling “threatened” by innocuous disagreement. We will let some of these complaints of “intimidation” speak for themselves:
* A declarant complains that “members of the country club have made rude comments to me about my sign (supporting Proposition 8)” and that “(t)he openly gay members of the country club have changed their attitudes toward me. They used to greet me warmly; now, they give me looks of disdain and do not greet me as I pass."
* The business at which one declarant works received an email questioning whether the business’s support for Proposition 8 “will prove true the axiom - any PR is good PR.” ... The declarant claims to “feel threatened and uneasy” as a result.
* Another complains that a “young woman” videotaped her publicly gathering signatures, and stated her intent to post the video on “MySpace and Facebook” so that others could “see what you are doing.” ... The declarant “took this comment as a threat.”
* Another claims to be upset that some people “pointed and whispered to one another in disapproval,” during trick-or-treating, ostensibly because of a yard sign.
* Petitioners also complain of a supporter whose pastor “told her to find another church.” ... She is upset that her pastor “was not going to tell (the congregation) how to vote” on Proposition 8, even though she lobbied him to and thought he was required to, and “didn’t think he had any right” to tell her that.
* Another complains that her gay brother “will no longer speak to” her after she told him she might vote for Proposition 8. She accuses the brother’s partner of an “ugly and inflammatory email,” which merely explains that the brother is upset because “(y)our views, among others, on proposition 8 has placed you in the camp of opposition to civil rights.”
* Another complains (s)he “heard (co-workers) talking about me in ways that are not complimentary” after (s)he published writings advocating Proposition 8.
* Another is upset that a woman at her church expressed disapproval of putting up signs at their church in support of Proposition 8. ... The declarant claims that this disagreement “shook (her) to the core.”
. . .
A woman’s voicemail “(u)sing sarcasm” that “told (declarant) we must be proud of our decision to donate to Proposition 8” is characterized as a “hate call.” A letter explaining how Proposition 8 affected the life of the author and civilly criticizing the declarant’s choice to support it is characterized as “insulting me personally.” ...
And so forth.
. . .
...a number of supporters received emails that used insulting language to criticize their support for Proposition 8. See, e.g., ER 214, 217 (email calling declarant a “terrible person” for supporting Proposition 8 because it is “unforgivable” to support “tak(ing) away people’s rights”); Dkt. 4 Ex. 13 at 76, 79 (voicemail at work saying “it’s really disheartening to know one of my neighbors supported Proposition 8 so heavily. What a scumfuck.”); id. at 239, 243 (email stating “Someday you will have to account for the fact that you refused to love your neighbor, but in the meantime I hope your life is full of oppression and injustice as this is the kind of life you wish for others. You’re a queerhating douchebag. Fuck you.”).
Such language is not polite. But opponents have every right to express their belief that Proposition 8 was offensive. Moreover, many of the supposedly “harassing” emails were not sent to Proposition 8 supporters personally, but rather were complaints to businesses submitted through public websites. ...
Similarly ... alleged “obscene gestures” encountered by supporters took place while supporters were out waving signs in support of Proposition 8 on public streets and intersections, evidencing the nonthreatening context as well as the complainants’ own actions in directing their speech at a potentially unfriendly audience.
The brief then goes into constitutionally-protected boycotts and "exaggerated threats to supporters' employment" (two of my favorite subjects), concluding:
The allegation that a small minority of lesbians and gay men has somehow managed to intimidate the majorities that have successfully targeted them for unequal treatment, in ballot initiative after ballot initiative, is outlandish. A handful of allegations made during the heat of the Proposition 8 campaign may have attracted extensive media attention because claims of ‘pro-gay’ harassment and violence were so novel, but that does not change the fact that the coordinated and sweeping campaign of reprisal painted by Petitioners and their amici does not exist and never has. They are telling this story cynically to demonize speech opposing their political efforts and to strip away the few protections that minorities have against the hostile initiatives they sponsor.
See also:
- the
264-page collection of complaints in
ProtectMarriage.com v. Bowen -- which are, indeed, outlandish.
- "
Gay-on-Bigot Violence, or Just Another Sick Lie from the Yes On Proposition 8 Camp?," Lavender Newswire, October 14, 2008 (about the phantom Super-Gay who "managed to grab 75 yard signs, punch out (an) alleged victim, and vanish without a trace ... with cops on the scene")
- "
Mormons Have Embedded Police Officials Watching Out for Them?," Towleroad, November 17, 2008 ("The Mormon church blamed white powder it received in envelopes on gay activists, calling it domestic terrorism...")
- "
Another Round of Anti-Gay Attacks Coming Down the Pike?," Towleroad, December 2, 2008 (The Becket Fund and Jonah Goldberg push the "harassment" meme and the white-powder false flag)
- "
While We're Waiting for the Next Prop H8 Installment...," Lavender Newswire, January 13, 2010 (the real reason the H8ers blocked televised coverage of the Prop H8 trial; "The official excuse: They’re afraid such exposure will open them up to harrassment, even violence, from those horrible, radical, militant homosexuals")
- "
We Can All Go Back to the Los Angeles Film Festival Now — Richard Raddon Has Resigned," Lavender Newswire, November 26, 2008 (lying liars lying about Prop H8 supporters being fired from their jobs, when in truth they resigned voluntarily -- one "
after prayerful consideration")
I have a feeling this "harassment commission" business is the first thing Mr. Romney, should he (gawd forbid) become president, will abandon the moment he gets wind of the true nature of these specious claims.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
