Fight Back Against Prop 8 Harassment//

The National Organization for Marriage and Protect have filed a lawsuit to protect the identities of Prop 8 donors. They were not successful in getting a preliminary injunction, which is difficult to get, but the Judge’s Order indicated that he needed more evidence of reprisals against our donors. They need your help to win this suit!

If you or someone you know has been a victim of harassment for their support of Prop 8. Even removal of yard signs or intimidating e-mails are enough to warrant a formal declaration.

We need more donors to sign declarations giving evidence of harassment and intimidation, and are asking you to come forward and help us by giving those declarations.

The Judge did enter an Order protecting the identities of all declarants. Therefore, if you file a declaration, your identity will be protected.

If you have evidence and want to help us win this lawsuit, please contact Sarah Troupis at the Law Offices of Bopp, Coleson, and Bostrom at 812-232-2434 or

Tolerance??? oh really...

Tolerance??? oh really...

Source: letter from NOM

Brian S. Brown
Executive Director
National Organization for Marriage

16 thoughts on “Fight Back Against Prop 8 Harassment//

  1. Hey MattyMatt, thanks for showing the pro-marriage Chronicle some love! We appreciate it!

    First of all, stealing signs is illegal. Secondly, exercising your Constitutional Right to Vote is not! Every Californian who voted for Prop 8, campaigned, donated money and time was well within their legal and Constitutional rights to do so. And the other side was within their rights to hang their own signs (not steal ours), hold their own rallies (just not deface LDS Church property) and vote how they wished.

    I understand that some people don’t like that Prop 8 passed, but too bad, we don’t like that the homosexual agenda is trying to take over our country. Sometimes people aren’t happy, that’s just life. And fighting for what you believe in is also a right in this country. You can exercise your rights and we’ll exercise ours. We don’t happen to believe that indoctrinating America’s youth with GLBT propaganda is within their right, so it’s within our right to try and protect our children. Stealing signs is “dreadful” as you stated. It showed a lack of self respect, tolerance and respect for the rights of others and the laws of our land. But nice try…

  2. I think we’re all in agreement that everyone just wants to live the lives of their choosing without interference from strangers. It would be really nice if that was possible to do right now.

    I also think we’re arguing about two different things. We started by talking about taking things that don’t belong to you; and how the Yes-On-8 campaign wants the state to rescind 36,000 peoples’ marriages, which seems like a cruel thing to do — crueler than stealing a sign.

    If you feel like the worst thing about GLBT marriages is that children might become aware of them, well, fine, pass a law that makes it illegal to tell children about gays. It’s still as easy as ever for teachers to tell kids about gays or take them to lesbian weddings or whatever — Prop 8 didn’t change that.

    It would be nice if everyone was allowed to do what they want — whether it’s hang a sign or have a wedding — without some stranger stepping in to try to stop them.

  3. Mattymatt, the court erred and the People corrected that error. The court rushed to impose SSM despite the pending vote on the amendment. Those who rushed to SSM did so knowing the matter was not settled. The gambled and lost.

    The so-called “marriages” of which you wrote were null and void anyway. Nothing has been taken away.

    And, the amendment did not repeal domestic partnership. The legislature can simply transition those who rashly SSM’d.

    Besides, the legislature expanded domestic partnership to become a localized merger with marriage. This was contrary to premise of the man-woman criterion that was reaffirmed in California’s Proposition 22 vote.

    Meanwhile, the No side had a large margin and victory for them seemed inevitable, they said. The court’s high-handedness probably gave the No side a 5-10 point advantaged; the AG’s rewrite of the amendment title and description, probably another 5-10 points. Yet the No side squandered its big lead.

    But you want to blame the Yes side for taking something away that was not there in first place and for correcting the errors produced by the rush to SSM by people who should have known better?

    Doesn’t fly, kiddo.

  4. Once again, we’re arguing about two different things. The word marriage means something different to us.

    You’re talking about religious marriages, which churches get to define. And I’m talking about civil marriage licenses, which the state controls, and which have changed and improved many times over the years.

    Marriage — civil marriage — changes all the time. What couldn’t be a marriage 100 years ago can be a marriage today. And again, I’m talking about the state’s definition, not a church’s.

    By every legal test, those 18,000 civil marriages are definitely real, recognized, existing marriages as far as the state is concerned. Couples share health benefits, inherit property, file taxes, and meet every other measure of a civil marriage. They may not meet the measure of a religious marriage, but that fine. Nobody would claim that any religion would ever be forced to recognize any marriage it doesn’t want to. In fact, the Prop 8 campaign wrote in a court filing, “no one expects these religious adherents or their ministers to be required actually to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies.”

    It’s the state definition in which gays want to be included. Not the religious definition. They’re different.

    Legally, those marriages exist. And the Prop 8 campaign wants to force the state to take them away. And as we all can agree, it’s not nice when a stranger takes something of yours away.

  5. Regardless of what the state says marriage between people of the same sex is impossible. Marriage is a part of human nature and the state can not change human nature. All it can do is name a union as a marriage but it is just a work of fiction.

  6. Sure, that’s good enough for me. Let the state “name a union as a marriage,” as you say, and provide the accompanying legal status. You should feel free to consider it a nonbinding fiction; just as the state should feel free to continue considering it a legal contract.

    The important thing here is that everyone’s allowed to consider it whatever they want.

    Legally, California calls these things “marriages.” I welcome you to call them whatever you want; but I don’t see how it benefits you to try to control what everyone else is allowed to call them.

    And again, let’s acknowledge the distinction between civil marriage — a legal contract — and religious marriage, which is a totally different animal.

  7. The law could be rewritten to coerce society into treating people in homosexual unions as if they were married but this would not give them the reality of marriage. It would not change the nature of their union to correspond to what marriage actually is. All society would be doing is playing a word game.

    Social policy needs to be in line with reality for a society to be successful and function smoothly. Treating homosexual unions as something they are not will defeat that goal.

  8. Once again — we are talking about two different things. I do agree that a gay union does not correspond with what you consider marriage to be. But gay people do not want the kind of marriage that you are referring to — they want the kind of marriage that is a legal contract. That’s all. It’s the kind of marriage that has been changed and improved many times throughout history.

    I also agree that this feels a bit like a word game, since the word “marriage” means two different things to the two different sides. The key here is recognizing the difference between religious-marriage and civil-marriage.

    And once again — all that either side wants is to be free to live the lives of their choosing, without interference from others. It’s important to remember that we have that in common.

  9. I will admit that I’m fairly ignorant with regard to the current laws regarding same sex unions.

    But gay people do not want the kind of marriage that you are referring to — they want the kind of marriage that is a legal contract.

    Isn’t a same sex union already a legal contract that imparts marriage like benefits? I thought this type of thing already existed. It depends where you live I suppose but I thought “same sex unions”, “civil unions” whatever, were geared to allow homosexual people to experience similar legal benefits as those who were married.

  10. That’s the idea, but it hasn’t worked in practice. People keep finding new loopholes in domestic partnership laws, and every single year the legislature has to pass new laws to try to make them equal. But even after all these attempts, there are still differences today.

    Historically, we’ve seen that separate-but-equal institutions never really provide true equality. Domestic partnerships don’t provide the same legal status as marriage, and probably never will.

  11. Mattymatt, you are misrepresenting the disagreement. Perhaps that is due to misunderstanding. Perhaps it is due to an inadvertent mistaken reading of my comment or of the secular argument in favor of the man-woman criterion. I hope, really, that your misrepresentation is not due to a deliberate effort. So, let’s give each other the benefit of the doubt.

    We can begin with small steps and proceed together so we don’t head-off in different directions. I’ll seek first to understand you; and then I will ask to be understood by you. How’s that?

  12. I’m impressed at how far away from the original blog intent this discussion has gone. The original blog was a call to action for folks who had experienced illegal activities at the hands of gay rights activists. Disagreements are fine. Protests are fine. Vandalism, hate crimes, abuse, blacklisting, trespassing, intimidation – these are not fine. The line was crossed and aimed at Mormons and other religious groups. There is no defense for these behaviors, just as there is no defense from any whacks who attack gays.

    The problem as I see it, is that gay activists will not acknowledge the qualitative difference, having stepped over the line to promote illegal and harassing actions. Their justification for such actions is based on an ideology which is not generally accepted in the US, not even in California. All they have left is to rant about how unfair the vote was, how unjust, how discriminatory, when, in fact, they have no substantive claim against the law.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s