Comments (Page 2)
Traditional marriage volunteer, pregnant bystander, confronted by enraged gay activist
Wed Oct 17, 2012 17:04 EST
Arlene Mark discusses the alleged attack at a press conference.
BURIEN, Washington, October 17, 2012 - A volunteer working on a campaign in support of traditional marriage, as well as a pregnant bystander, were shaken up after a heated confrontation this weekend with a homosexual activist.
Arlene Mark, a volunteer for Preserve Marriage Washington, which is urging voters to reject a ballot measure to legalize homosexual “marriage,” says the attack began while she was waiting in her car to distribute literature to other volunteers.
According to Arlene, a man ran at her car, hit the back of it and ripped the Reject 74 campaign sign off the side. Arlene had taped the sign onto her vehicle so that other volunteers who were going to meet her in the parking lot could recognize her.
Arlene related in a press conference yesterday that as the man tore the sign, threw it on the ground, and stomped on it, he yelled,“This is what I think of your f—ing sign! I’m gay and proud of it.” The man then reportedly shouted profanities at Arlene calling her a “b—” and screaming “f— you!”
Nikki Davis, a woman who was sitting in a van parked next to Arlene’s vehicle, but who was not involved in the Reject Referendum 74 campaign, then tried to come to Arlene’s aid.
Nikki, who is pregnant, said the man began to hurl racial slurs at her, including calling her a “black b—” and the n-word, and telling her to “go back to Africa.” She says he also pounded on the back of her van, and kicked its tires.
Nikki, who was terrified for Arlene, for herself, and for her children who were with her in the car, called the police.
Before the police arrived the man drove away, but witnesses were able to record the license plate number of the getaway car, and turned the information over to the police.
Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.
According to a spokesman for the Reject R-74 campaign, the attack shows that those promoting same-sex “marriage” are not as tolerant and open-minded as they would like voters to believe.
“It’s outrageous that the ‘Approve R-74’ campaign call themselves the voice of tolerance and moderation and want people to feel bad for rejecting the referendum. There was nothing tolerant or moderate about attacking Arlene and Nikki,” said Preserve Marriage Washington communications director Chip White.
Arlene, who is a grandmother, said the attack only strengthened her resolve to help ensure that Referendum 74 is rejected.
“The other side wants to intimidate us, but we can’t stop standing up for traditional marriage. I’m not giving up. Protecting traditional marriage is just too important for our kids and grandkids,” said Arlene.“I don’t want my grandkids taught in public school that same-sex ‘marriage’ is the same as traditional marriage.”
A bill to legalize same-sex “marriage” was passed by the Washington state Senate, with the support of Democrat governor Christine Gregoire, in February.
However, the new law was halted one day before it was set to come into effect, after Preserve Marriage Washington collected and filed over 240,000 signatures opposing the redefinition of marriage. The measure was then placed as a referendum to be brought to a vote on the November 6, 2012 ballot.
Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage and a member of the Executive Committee of Preserve Marriage Washington, said that the successful signature campaign in Washington demonstrates the “deep support that traditional marriage enjoys” and “sets the stage for a tremendous victory for marriage this November.”
“We are… confident of victory,” Brown declared.“Thirty-two states in America have voted on marriage and every one has stood for traditional marriage, and rejected redefining marriage. We have no doubt that Washington State will do the same.”
They think their viewed as tough or something but these sissy's will only attack people weaker than them
Imagine this in a court of law.
(By the way, I plugged in text from one posted article and it led directly to ... the savagely antigay website "lifesitenews," so.)
So imagine the "opposition" in a court of law, and what a field day they could have. Wait a sec; THE PRO-GAY do this? Wow, seems we have public records of groups like NOM *viciously threatening* judges in Iowa and SUPREME COURT judges; interestingly, we also have records of this group and others like them threatening politicians and then *crowing over election results* with the declaration that their threats and attempts to "destroy" careers prevented those politicians from being reelected to office.
All a matter of extraordinarily public record.
Why, a major Republican figure in Illinois is currently supporting marriage equality! What have NOM done?... threatened his career and pledged to end it.
It's funny; by 2013, the antigay *literally can't* make these claims anymore. There is too vast and extensive a public record of their having engaged in the most psychically violent, hateful, prejudiced, rapist behavior in their repetitive attempts to destroy the lives of others.
Any google search uncovers this stuff fast.
Hey antigay people, take. your. contentions. to. court. Why so afraid?
We all know why.
*cough* Ever hear of *cough* LISA BIRON?...
Since: Mar 07
The entire US of A
Goodness, someone is a bit irrational this morning.
What idiot spends it's days examining every anti-gay website for long cut and pastes to post on gay/lesbian threads?
It would seem that some is consumed with interest in, and the need for attention from gay folks.
So far, every single article applies to almost no one, even if any of it were to be true. What's the point?
That the poster is mentally ill?
Since: Mar 07
The entire US of A
So are you, Dear. If you are attacked by a gay person simply because you are heterosexual, hate crime laws swing into place to protect YOU.
Since: Mar 07
The entire US of A
Yes, that is the way bigots operate. But there are fewer of the every day.
Interestingly, there is nothing on the FBI website to support your post but there is plenty to refute it. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr#cius...
The 2000 FBI hate crimes stats shows that 1466 hate crimes were committed against GLBTs and 22 against heterosexuals.
anti-male homosexual bias composed 68.0 percent of
those who were victims of sexual-orientation bias,
The 2001 FBI hate crimes stats shows that 1572 hate crimes were committed against LGBTs and 20 against heterosexuals.
Within this bias category,
anti-male homosexual bias motivated 69.3 percent of offenses,
anti-female homosexual bias accounted for 15.4 percent,
and bias against homosexuals as a group, 13.0 percent.
Anti-heterosexual and anti-bisexual bias accounted for the remainder.(Based on Table 1.)
The 2002 FBI hate crimes stats shows that 1438 hate crimes were committed against BLGTs and 26 against heterosexuals.
Of these, male homosexuals were the targets of 65.4 percent of the attacks.
Law enforcement attributed the remaining offenses to anti-homosexual bias, 17.7 percent;
anti-female homosexual bias, 14.1 percent;
anti-heterosexual bias, 1.8 percent;
and anti-bisexual bias, 1.0 percent.(Based on Table 1.)
More actual hate crimes stats from the FBI:
The 2004 FBI hate crimes stats shows that 1164 hate crimes were committed against TGBLs and 33 against heterosexuals.
In terms of single-bias incidents motivated by a sexual-orientation bias, law enforcement reported 1,482 victims,
most of which (60.9 percent) were victims of crimes motivated by an anti-male homosexual bias.
In addition, 21.2 percent of victims were targets of an anti-homosexual (male and female) bias.
Slightly more than 14 percent (14.3) were victims of an anti-female homosexual bias,
2.4 percent were victimized because of an anti-heterosexual bias,
and 1.2 percent were targets of an anti-bisexual bias.
The 2005 FBI hate crimes stats shows that 996 hate crimes were committed against GLBTs and 21 against heterosexuals.
■60.9 percent were anti-male homosexual.
■19.5 percent were anti-homosexual.
■15.4 percent were anti-female homosexual.
■2.3 percent were anti-bisexual.
■2.0 percent were anti-heterosexual.
(Based on Table 1.)
The 2006 FBI hate crimes stats shows that 1169 hate crimes were committed against BLGTs and 26 against heterosexuals.
■62.3 percent were classified as anti-male homosexual biased.
■20.7 percent were classified as anti-homosexual biased.
■13.6 percent were classified as anti-female homosexual biased.
■2.0 percent were classified as anti-heterosexual biased.
■1.5 percent were classified as anti-bisexual biased.(Based on Table 1.)
The 2007 FBI hate crimes stats shows that 1243 hate crimes were committed against BLGTs and 22 against heterosexuals.
■59.2 percent were classified as anti-male homosexual bias.
■24.8 percent were reported as anti-homosexual bias.
■12.6 percent were prompted by an anti-female homosexual bias.
■1.8 percent were the result of an anti-heterosexual bias.
■1.6 percent were classified as anti-bisexual bias.(Based on Table 1.)
The 2008 FBI hate crimes stats shows that 1264 hate crimes were committed against BLGTs and 33 against heterosexuals.
■58.6 percent were the result of anti-male homosexual bias.
■25.7 percent were motivated by anti-homosexual bias.
■12.0 percent were prompted by anti-female homosexual bias.
■2.0 percent were the result of anti-heterosexual bias.
■1.7 percent were motivated by anti-bisexual bias.(Based on Table 1.)
AND even more actual hate crimes stats from the FBI:
The 2009 FBI hate crimes stats shows that 1202 hate crimes were committed against BLGTs and 21 against heterosexuals.
55.6 percent were motivated by anti-male homosexual bias.
26.2 percent resulted from anti-homosexual bias.
15.0 percent were prompted by anti-female homosexual bias.
1.7 percent were classified as anti-bisexual bias.
1.5 percent were the result of anti-heterosexual bias.(Based on Table 1.)
The 2010 FBI hate crimes stats shows that 1256 hate crimes were committed against BLGTs and 21 against heterosexuals.
57.9 percent were classified as anti-male homosexual bias.
27.4 percent were reported as anti-homosexual bias.
11.4 percent were prompted by an anti-female homosexual bias.
1.4 percent were the result of an anti-heterosexual bias.
1.9 percent were classified as anti-bisexual bias.(Based on Table 1.)
The 2011 FBI hate crimes stats shows that 1277 hate crimes were committed against BLGTs and 16 against heterosexuals.
57.8 percent were classified as anti-male homosexual bias.
28.4 percent were reported as anti-homosexual bias.
11.1 percent were prompted by an anti-female homosexual bias.
1.5 percent were classified as anti-bisexual bias.
1.1 percent were the result of an anti-heterosexual bias.(Based on Table 1.)
Clearly, more than 97 percent of sexual orientation based hate crimes are committed AGAINST GLBTs.
Since: Mar 07
The entire US of A
I don't think that bigots like stats that prove them wrong.
That is the same link Luke posted and it confirms what thje article says!
What a liar!
An analysis of FBI statistics on hate crimes committed against homosexuals during the time period 2000-2008 shows that the probability of any individual homosexual being the victim of a hate crime during his or her entire life span is slightly more than one percent. Interestingly,“gays” are more likely to commit hate crimes against “straights” than “straights” are to commit hate crimes against “gays.” According to the FBI, there are 3.98 hate crimes committed by each million heterosexuals annually against homosexuals, and there are 4.44 hate crimes committed by each million homosexuals annually against heterosexuals.
What statistics prove him wrong? You haven't posted any!
Bigot, like homophobia?
Isn't the definition of "Homophobia" An irrational fear of homosexuals?
Lets see as of August 2012 homosexuals are responsible for 79% of all the Aids cases in the U.S.
For more information visit the CDC website here.
2.During the same period syphilis in homosexuals is up 134%
“Citizens need to be given the information as to options about sexuality,” Goldberg continued.“Equal access to ‘ex-gay’ information is essential.”
3. Increased incidence of infectious diseases
- gonorrhea- chlamydia - pubic lice- hepatitis A - hepatitis B
- hepatitis C - anal papilloma
Gays are still Banned From Donating Blood
4. The highest rate of anal cancer and shigellosis from eating feces.
5.The Epidemic of Parasites in Gay Men
The incidence of gastrointestinal parasites rose exponentially in gay men during the two decades The transmission of parasites was associated with sexual activity that exposed partners to feces, particularly oral-anal sex or "rimming." By 2010, the prevalence of parasites was 60% or greater for homosexual men attending STD clinics or private practice.
6.Homosexuals make up less than 4% of the population .
"The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering,"Homosexuals make up less than 4% of the population .
"Abel’s data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls."
Authorities say evidence examined disproves the assertion that child molestation is more prevalent among heterosexuals.
SOUND LIKE A PRETTY RATIONAL FEAR TO ME!
Thank You Blair.
If you turn your head for a minute they will start lying like hell!
You have to be willing to confront them with the truth.
They are all liars!
Gays Threaten Judges
Homosexuals Issue Death Threats Again Pro-Family Signers Court Orders release of signatures sought by homosexual activists promising confrontations
Posted: October 19, 2012
A federal judge has ruled that individuals do not have the privilege under Washington state's open records procedures to keep their names secret when they sign a ballot issue petition – even if they are facing death threats because of that signature.
The stunning ruling comes from Judge Benjamin Settle, who this week released the names of some 138,000 Washington residents who signed a petition several years ago seeking a statewide vote on whether homosexuals should be given essentially the same benefits as married couples.
The effort to overturn the state law granting those benefits failed, but the court dispute continued after homosexual activists promised they would get the names of those who wanted to protect traditional marriage and post them online so that they could encourage supporters of homosexuality to create "uncomfortable conversations" with the signers.
Then came, according to hundreds of pages of sworn statements, the death threats to those who, in one way or another, already had been identified as petition supporters and signers.
Among the many documented threats was the statement, "I will kill you and your family," which was delivered to the young son of a political candidate, Elizabeth Scott, who had signed the petition.
A newspaper story revealing that she had signed the petition appeared in the morning, and at 6 p.m. that evening, the telephone call with the threat was made to her unlisted telephone number.
She also was the target of the threat on a YouTube video, which included, "This woman is so f---ing stupid. Why doesn't someone just shoot her in the head again and again. And again."
She told authorities that the issue will continue, as there remain issues about children being identified to those making the threats, and the precedent will create an atmosphere of fear for anyone who may be asked in the future to sign a petition protecting family or traditional values.
Lawyers behind the traditional family supporters confirmed that the state immediately released the names of the petition signers when the judge's order came out, but they have filed an emergency request for an injunction, concerned over the precedent that such a decision will create.
In fact, the threats that came against the signers should have been reason to keep the list under cover.
"We have argued that our cause was an unusual circumstance which put pro-marriage citizens who participated in the R-71 initiative process in danger of unwanted threatening calls, contacts or worse, and should be handled with discretion and consideration.
"We have argued that releasing the signatures would create a chilling effect on all future initiative efforts regarding homosexual efforts to redefine the culture. The decision to release the names is bad news for Washington state. I believe there will be more harassment, and I pray to God there isn't more than that."
The coalition called Protect Marriage Washington, which organized the petition campaign, had filed a lawsuit more than two years ago to block the release of the names of those who signed Referendum 71 after "two militant homosexual activist groups vowed to reveal the names of signers on a pair of search able websites, whosigned.org and knowthyneighbor.org ; and to encourage their readers to initiate 'uncomfortable conversations' with signers."
The organization introduced into court evidence including death threats, extensive vandalism, threats of destruction of property, arson and threats of arson, intimidating emails and phone calls, mailed envelopes containing suspicious white powders, blacklists, loss of employment and job opportunities, gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry including vandalism at religious institution "all for doing nothing more than standing up for traditional marriage."
Settle's opinion, however, said he didn't think there was a "reasonable probability" the threats still exist for the signers as nearly two years have passed since the referendum was submitted to voters.
Protect Marriage Washington attorney Stephen Pidgeon said the decision was a "dramatic setback to the right of privacy in the state of Washington. There were death threats, acts of violence, harassment and published declarations that there would be harassment. The court erred."
The Referendum 71 effort was in response to the Washington state legislature's adoption of its "everything but marriage" act . Lawmakers granted virtually all rights of "marriage" to homosexual and lesbian duos.
Scott also issued a statement that Judge Settle's decision was disappointing.
"Extremists issued multiple death threats to me and my children due to my being publicly questioned about my personal beliefs. I am greatly concerned for both the safety and the freedom of speech of those who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, a definition that Americans have upheld in every state that has put it on the ballot."
When the dispute was at the Supreme Court, the justices ruled that the names generally should be public, but there could be exceptions when there are threats. Settle said that the plaintiffs in the case already were known as referendum supporters and none was really concerned that their personally identifying information was available.
But critics of the judge, a former general private practice attorney, noted that in order to introduce evidence to the court about the threats, the names of the threat victims were, in fact, forced into the public arena.
Attorney James Bopp of the James Madison Center has explained that the issue is more than just the revelation of some names. It is, he said, "that some groups and individuals, certainly a minority, have resorted to advancing their cause, not by debating the merits of the issue but by discouraging participation in the democratic process itself.
"The First Amendment was designed to ensure that all groups, whatever their persuasion, could participate fully in our republic," he said. "That breaks down when some groups or individuals are cowed into silence for fear that they or their families will be targeted or threatened if they speak up."
Part of the issue, too, was that the Washington issue got the public's attention only a short time after voters in California simply reversed a same-sex "marriage" mandate by that state's Supreme Court, defining in their constitution that marriage is between one man and one woman only.
A homosexual judge later overturned that law, and the fight remains in the courts.
But actual threats that were documented included:
* "I'm going to kill the pastor."
* "If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter…"
* "We're going to kill you."
* "You're dead. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon … you're dead."
* "I'm a gay guy who owns guns, and he's my next target."
* "I warn you, I know how to kill, I'm an ex-special forces person."
* "Get ready for retribution all you bigots."
* Burn their f---ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers."
Evidence also included churches marred by graffiti, swastikas on lawns and walls, bricks thrown through windows and doors, adhesive poured into locks, suspicious packages of white powder sent in the mail – "all for nothing more than supporting traditional marriage."
The court in the case was informed, "When some activists could sense that intimidation was not working … they resorted to threatening the families – even the children – of supporters. In one case, the perpetrator threated to 'kill' the supporter's child and the whole family; in another, to 'harm' the supporter's family; and in another, to rape the supporters' daughter."
56 Users are viewing the Gay/Lesbian Forum right now
|First Australian gay couples to legally marry||4 min||snyper||132|
|Gay couples flock to Australia's capital to wed...||11 min||lowprofile||12|
|Military Fights HIV Infection & Discrimination||12 min||Cordwainer Trout||36|
|Dolan: Catholics 'outmarketed' on gay marriage||1 hr||Really||218|
|How 2013 Became The Greatest Year In Gay Rights...||1 hr||Really||55|
|Children of Same-Sex Parents Speak Up on Reddit||1 hr||Really||46|
|Colo. Baker Who Refused Gay Wedding Cake Appear...||1 hr||oh well||35|
|Gay marriage (Mar '13)||1 hr||Really||11,827|
|Can These Nine Gay Celebrity Sex Scandals Have ...||3 hr||Hans||21|
|Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10)||6 hr||Paris||39,560|
|The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09)||7 hr||Dave||65,429|