Despite the fact that the news has decidedly not been riddled with stories of fundamentalist Christians being bullied to death or being injured or maimed or killed for “standing up for murrrge,” aka using their culturally supremacist beliefs as an excuse to hurt gay people and our families, there are always going to be stories where they try to claim the mantle of victimhood. The crime committed against them? They simply are having to learn how to live in a secular society where their beliefs are not considered the norm. Welcome to grown-up land, fundies.
Right now, they are freaking out over the fact that a judge has ruled that the names of the petition signers for the Protect Marriage Washington ballot initiative to repeal domestic partnership benefits in that state [which failed] must be made public. They claim numerous threats have been made against them, which seem to amount to a few angry internet comments without any follow through. As always, we at Truth Wins Out remind our readers that, you know, making threats in comments sections is stupid and immature and shouldn’t be done, but it’s worth noting, again, that poorly thought out comments on the internet from gays don’t seem to lead to fundamentalists actually getting hurt. Anyway, here is some whining:
A federal judge has ruled that individuals who signed a petition seeking the repeal of a 2009 Washington State law expanding homosexual partnerships have no right to keep their names private. The ruling prompted fears that radical homosexuals will follow through on promised retaliation against the individuals.
There they go again, treating us like supervillains with immense power.
U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle ruled October 17 that Protect Marriage Washington (PMW), the conservative, pro-family group that had organized the petition drive, had not demonstrated “serious and widespread threats, harassment, or reprisals against the signers of R-71, or even that such activity would be reasonably likely to occur upon the publication of their names and contact information.”
“Had not demonstrated.” You see, this is the thing: if they HAD demonstrated that they have a reason to be soiling their adult diapers, and the judge had ruled this way anyway, that would be a problem. But they didn’t make their case!
The ruling, noted PMW in a press release, left the signers open to the wrath of radical homosexual activists who had earlier promised retaliation. Wrote the group’s president, Larry Stickney: “Evidence brought forward by Protect Marriage Washington included death threats, extensive vandalism, overt threats of destruction of property, arson and threats of arson, intimidating emails and phone calls, hate mail, mailed envelopes containing white suspicious powder, blacklists, loss of employment and job opportunities, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry, including vandalism and threats directed at religious institutions and religious adherents — all for doing nothing more than standing up for traditional marriage. Nevertheless, Judge Settle wrote that Protect Marriage Washington was unable to prove ‘a reasonable probability that the threats, harassment, or reprisals exists as to the signers of R-71.”
Oh, quelle horreur. The “wrath of radical homosexual activists!” Sounds to me like Protect Marriage Washington is really exaggerating a few internet comments here, and it also sounds like the judge agrees.
Here’s the leader of a pro-gay group involved, being soooo scary:
Meanwhile, at least one homosexual activist group, Know Thy Neighbor, said that it would begin to leak the names, made available by the state for $15, to homosexuals who were looking for people they may know. The group’s director, Tom Lang, told Washington’s NPR radio station KUOW that the group would publish the names in an online searchable database, allowing homosexuals and their friends to search out petition signers they are familiar with and confront them.
Lang cited examples of “people who’ve been in people’s weddings parties and they’ve signed, people in families where the grandmother signed knowing darned well that her grandson was gay. These are the types of conversations that are being had.”
Note that he said that the release of these names will cause something that probably truly is a wingnut’s greatest fear: conversations. Words are hard and are known to have a liberal bias. But I will say that I appreciate when I find out that a friend or family member has affixed their name to an anti-gay proposition of any sort. In my life it leads to neither violence nor conversations, but rather a simple severing of the relationship. Maybe that’s what the wingnuts are afraid of — bigotry doesn’t really like the light of day, does it?
If the release of these names somehow does lead to a sudden spate of violence against Fundamentalists, I’ll be the first to rethink my opinion on this, but until then…
Yeah, don’t hold your breath.
I think that we do a huge disservice to ourselves and to the fundamentals of humanity when we belittle the emotions of others, like we are doing in this article.
First, it is important for us to realize that there is the potential for violence against fundamentalists by queer people. Threats of violence, no matter the source, are to be taken seriously. (At a time when we are strongly fighting against bullying, I am surprised that I have to point this out.) It is especially concerning when the potential violence is coming from a marginalized group, as their marginalization many times has led to emotional distress (exacerbated by family and religious discrimination, among others) and, therefore, a higher propensity for violence. If I were one of those fundamentalists whose name was about to be made public, I would be very concerned as well. And, if the situation were reversed… and queer people’s names were prepared to be released, we would all be concerned for our well-being.
You’re correct that there aren’t any active cases of violence by homosexuals against fundamentalists. But that does not mean that it isn’t possible. And it doesn’t make those fundamentalists unjustified in their fears.
It is my opinion that, by perpetuating the idea that their fears are humorous or unjustified, we are doing exactly the kind of bullying we try to stop when it is against us. And, importantly, we are extending the very behaviors that would cause someone who opposes us to become fearful…
@cylest Brooks..
really? you harbor the belief that “queer people” have the potential to use violence against those that are trying to marginalize and even criminalize us?
you think that we are bullying the christians?
you are obviously someone trolling the gay blogs trying to stir up trouble and make your lies in to some sort of perverted truth.
Are the threats, the claimed acts of vandalism, etc, backed up by police reports and were these reports, if any, provided to the judge? Or did they expect the judge to simply take their word for all of this? As for the petition, if a person wants his or her name to remain anonymous, that person shouldn’t be signing petitions. People wanting to hide behind anonymity are simply cowards.
Cylest–are you on drugs? You’re really pretending to be worried about potential violence against bigots by gay people when there are actual cases of violence by fundamentalists against gay people all the time–both physical and emotional. You’re either on drugs or your joking.
“Lang cited examples of “people who’ve been in people’s weddings parties and they’ve signed, people in families where the grandmother signed knowing darned well that her grandson was gay. These are the types of conversations that are being had.”
Yeah, those conversations might just happen. Also might find out that those folks in the wedding party and grandma DIDN’T sign the petition. Consider the track record of the groups getting the petitions signed . . .
^What Daniel said.
People should have the courage of their convictions, even if they are bigoted and hateful. If wingnuts are so afraid (ashamed?) that others will find out about their homophobic activities, than they shouldn’t sign the damn things or contribute money to them in the first place. And cylest, are you freakin crazy? Gays are probably the most non-violent people on earth. It’s a well known fact that police enjoy working security for gay pride events because they are so trouble-free. They get paid overtime for an easy and probably fun as well day. The last time I can remember a large number of gays being violent, besides the Stonewall riots, was in San Francisco when the guy who murdered the mayor and Harvey Milk got off with a slap on the wrist. That trial was in 1979—I’d say we have a fairly good record when it comes to non-violent protest.
There is one surefire way for the chritianazis to avoid the wrath of us radical homosexual activists. They can shut up and mind their own damn business.
They had no evidence. They did not lose after a trial. They lost on summary judgment, which means that they could not even come forward with evidence sufficient to warrant proceeding to trial. It was a complete failure on their part to make their case. And they had a very sympathetic judge, a GW Bush appointee who initially was inclined to accept their argument that the WA law was unconstitutional (an argument rejected by the US Supreme Court).
Stickney’s litany is really just a few incidents, stitched together and distorted. Most of the things he complains about, such as boycotts or protests, are perfectly lawful and are in no way “harassment”. Other incidents he references were minor scuffles where competing protests took place in close proximity. Both sides engaged in this sort of nonsense, such as name-calling, shoving, etc. These things can occur in any hot button campaign on any issue.
Lastly, there were a few allegations of serious unlawful acts. But these are never linked to gay marriage or R-71. The famous “white powder” allegedly sent to a Mormon temple in 2008 has never been tied to Prop 8 or anything else.
Another example from the case: one of the WA anti-gay witnesses was a Tea Party candidate for the state legislature. She went to a GOP convention with her family, which was taking place in a hotel far outside her district. At some point, her son was walking on the side of the road alone. A car passed him by and someone tossed some soda on him. How can this be linked to Referendum 71? She insisted at her deposition that the driver must have seen her son, looked at the cap he was wearing, recognized the generic logo on the cap as relating to her campaign for state legislature in a district in another part of the state, recalled that she was against gay civil unions, and then tossed soda on her son in retaliation for her position on R71. And the driver deduced all of this in 5-10 seconds as he passed a boy walking on a road.
This is the sort of nonsense that these people rely upon. They count on dullards like Cylest Brooks to accept that, since their complaints are loud and frequent, they must have merit. Fortunately, in court you can’t just make assertions. You have to offer evidence, assessed by a trier of fact and tested under cross examination. That is why they failed.
Note to Cylest: do not call gay people “queer”. We aren’t. Even if you think you are using that term in the 1990s fashion of ironically “reclaiming” a slur, you aren’t. You are misrepresenting gay people and suggesting that they are inherently marginal. That’s offensive.
There is always a “potential” for violence. People go whacky and shoot up a McDonalds for no reason other than they are angry over something. Yea, there is the potential that a rogue asteroid might hit the planet during the week. One thing is a certainty: violence has been perpetrated against innocent gay people for a long, long time for no other reason than that they are gay and the whack-job fundies have banged the drum of our being an “abomination in God’s eyes” incessantly. They have literally “given” permission for the weak-minded and sanctimoniously uncontrolled to take their frustrations and animosity out on us. We live with the fear to one degree or another each day, what the f**k is your problem? A few angry comments on the internet?
As a staff member of knowthyneighbor.org I would like to assure the public that our intent has never been to promote anything but dialog and understanding between the two sides. We cannot have dialog unless we know who to talk to, and since petitions are voluntarily signed it makes sense that those who have participated in signing know that their information shared on this document is and always has been made available to the public.
One of the primary reasons that we make this information public is to prevent voter fraud, which occurred in great numbers in Massachusetts when Massachusetts Family Institute had Arno Political Consultants run the signature gathering process for them. This firm used con artists familiar with bait and switch methods to fool the public into signing for a petition they wouldn’t have normally done.
Knowthyneighbor.org did the community a huge service by providing the names on this petition in an easily searchable online database where they could see if their signature had been stolen. Thousands of complaints were filed with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, and a criminal investigation led to new laws being implemented to prevent such future misuse of the petition process.
Having these names public serves a good that is greater than the value of the unfounded fears of our opposition. In the end it is up to the individual to decide for themselves which topics they want to voice a public opinion on, and which opinions they prefer to keep to themselves.
For the record, no one has ever committed an illegal act that can be associated with knowthyneighbor.org and their efforts, and this fact dates back 6 years now.