Brutalized and Censored by the Opposition

Love?  Tolerance?  Acceptance?

These words are the war cry and mantra of our opposition.  But who exactly is showing love and tolerance? There are many (not all) who are against Prop 8 who have forgotten to follow their own war cry, evidenced by several new incidents of hatred, vandalism, theft, and even violent intolerance against those supporting Proposition 8.

Example 1:  The Prop 8 Sign Guy Gets Smashed in the Face

A Proposition 8 supporter was violently attacked for distributing lawn signs this week.  The story came out in the Los Angeles Examiner yesterday, but was removed from the examiner’s website that afternoon.  Prop 8 people got a copy of it and put it on the website before it was erased.  If this had been a gay man who’d been attacked, we’d have seen it all over the national news.  Since it’s our guy, they squashed the story.  I searched their whole website, even the pictures were taken down from their archives.  You can see a copy of the story (without pictures) here:  Prop 8 Supporter Violently Attacked for Distributing Lawn Signs.  The LA Times is likewise silent on this story.  Not a peep from any major news outlet in California.  This is an outrageous example of the hate on the other side.  This man was attacked and brutalized for his beliefs, and this example doesn’t stand alone.

Example 2:  A Mother and her children verbally abused, Property Destroyed.

It is more than the woman who stopped her car at a busy intersection to curse at a woman and her children holding prop 8 signs at a demonstration.  She was so engrossed in her ranting tirade that she missed the green light and held up traffic for another few choice words.  It’s more than people giving us the one finger wave, that sort of stuff just shows bad character, but that’s not the extent of it.  The opposition in our area went to work last night in a big way. Signs were stolen, property vandalized, and supporter’s tires were slashed in my neighborhood by those against proposition 8.  This is a free country.  To our opposition I say, look around.  Tolerance is a two way street.  Fight ideas with ideas, not with violence.  To the good guys, Keep fighting! It’s a cause worth fighting for.

You can destroy our signs, we’ll just make more!  AND BIGGER ones too!

Families Working Together to Protect Families!

Support Prop 8!



  1. lacatira said,

    October 15, 2008 at 9:54 pm

    I saw the photos of the man who was attacked a few days ago. He had quite a few stitches. That’s crazy that they were taken down!

  2. Leslie said,

    October 15, 2008 at 10:08 pm

    You would think that the gay community would be the leaders in promoting tolerance and peaceful expression of one’s opinion, but that has not been my experience. I have been called all sorts of names ( bigot, stupid, hateful, uninformed, etc, plus all those that are to obscene to print) for expressing my opinion that 1)same-sex unions have legal rights (if you want more rights, lobby for them!) 2) those of us who support prop 8 are not acting hatefully (no one I know has assaulted anyone, torn down their signs or sworn at them) 3) God ordained marriage between a man and a woman as HIS way to bring children to the earth (one man expressed his opinion that we got here by reproducing asexually and athen evolving. We listened respectfully and did not argue, degrade him or slit his tires).

    I think there are just a lot of people out there who don’t understand the definition of bigot. Screaming obscenities at a stranger for peacefully holding a “Yes on Prop 8” sign in public sounds like bigotry to me.

    They don’t understand the definition of hatred either: beating a stranger while he delivers political signs (Yes on 8) to a friend. Assault is pretty hateful.

    And they don’t don’t understand the meaning of tolerance: sending hate mail, inciting a boycott slandering, and posting untruths about a local business because they made a donation to Yes on 8 is no tth eleast bit tolerant.

    So why would Californian’s want this group of people to redefine an institution as important as marriage? Changing the definition of marriage in the state constitution will have effects that last for generations to come.

  3. KrazyDave said,

    October 16, 2008 at 1:37 am

    Good writing leslie, thankyou

  4. beetlebabee said,

    October 17, 2008 at 4:33 am

    Today we went out to a “wave” party. We took our families, kids and all, and went to go wave pro-family signs in our neighborhood(see Awesome Friendly Signs above). By and large, it was a good event. The mood was high and many people honked and waved, a few actually took pictures of our group as they drove past.

    We had lots of firefighters in town today, left over from the big fires. Our town has firemen from the whole state. Sacramento trucks seemed the most prevalent. We love the firemen. Firefighters are awesome. Every time an engine went by, they’d give us a big blast from their horns and wave at all the kids. One burly guy called out, “We’re not supposed to take political positions!” and secretly gave us a thumbs up and a big horn honk.) Those were the best. The kids were practically swooning over those trucks! We had probably twenty go past over the course of the evening.

    It was amazing to me though the capability of some people to take a happy smiling situation and totally abuse it. One lady was really letting us have it, we could tell by the near demonic expression on her face and of course the corresponding obligatory gestures. We couldn’t quite catch her choice phrases, but we could tell she was yelling because her lips were moving. Thankfully a fireman went past at the same time and gave us a signature grin and an awesome horn blast that lasted the entire length of her tirade. I love firemen!

    We had not many, but ten or fifteen passersby that yelled obscenities, more that did the one finger salute, and one younger woman, probably 23 or so, actually hurled a water bottle at us along with her expletives as she sped past. Luckily, it didn’t hit the kids or anyone near the curb. My son looked at me and was so confused at her behavior. We were out celebrating families. What can be more innocent than that? Smiling waving families. It’s surprising how threatening that can be to some people.

  5. beetlebabee said,

    October 18, 2008 at 2:29 am

    ALRIGHT!! That’s it!! My two little prop 8 signs were STOLEN today in BROAD DAYLIGHT! This means war.

    Police e-mails Citizen Watch about Stolen Political Signs

    “Now that the Presidential debates are over, all campaigns, from local to state initiatives to national decisions, are getting into high gear. We value the liberties that this country offers to all its inhabitants, but unfortunately, some feel that the personal beliefs and opinions that are different from their own should not be considered, shared, or taken into consideration. Throughout the city, many candidate campaign signs and support initiatives signs are either being taken or vandalized. Be aware that although this crime is a petty theft, the actions go against the core beliefs of this nation, and the thefts should be reported”.

    What kind of people would steal my free speech rights??

  6. abbyearth said,

    October 18, 2008 at 9:05 pm

    Wow. Thanks for blogging this information it goes right along with what I saw at and and Prop. 8 really is about freedom for everyone. I sure don’t want to empower a special interest group that doesn’t respect freedom and tolerance for everyone. That’s why I’m voting YES! On Prop. 8.

  7. beetlebabee said,

    October 19, 2008 at 6:40 am

    Yesterday two of my signs were stolen in broad daylight! I can’t even believe someone would do that. I can’t imagine taking someone else’s stuff. I guess it just goes to show who we’re up against right? Tolerance is a two way street!

    They can steal my signs but they can’t steal my vote!

    The kids and I painted a Super Sign last night. When the police officer came to take the report about the stolen signs, we showed him the Super Sign. He thought it was pretty awesome. That was last night, the super sign went up today, 4ft by 8ft painted plywood, same design as above pictures. It’s mounted on a 15 foot retaining wall with floodlights on it. They won’t be toting this baby away in the back of an unmarked honda civic.

    Go Prop 8!!!

  8. Jackie said,

    October 22, 2008 at 10:37 am

    Way to go, Anna, & family. The “signs” have it. I’m collecting a picture of all the unique signs created in the area. GREAT JOB! The Family is the foundation of our great country.

  9. whabbear said,

    October 28, 2008 at 6:55 pm

    I fully support freedom of speech and freedom of expression, and condemn those who seek to perpetrate violence against, or verbally abuse, those of you who are just expressing your opinion.

    However, I married my long-time partner on October 4th, and I am completely mystified. Why do you want to take away my right to marry the person of my choice? It is exactly because I believe in basic rights and freedoms that I would never dream of trying to take away your right to marry who you choose.

    Why do you want to remove my right to something that you take for granted?

  10. beetlebabee said,

    October 28, 2008 at 7:42 pm

    whabbear, for me, this is not a gay rights issue. You are free to do as you please in your own private life. That is your choice. I object to calling it marriage, for legal reasons as well as moral reasons.

  11. beetlebabee said,

    October 28, 2008 at 8:09 pm

    Roseville Police officers arrested three young people on suspicion of stealing political signs from yards throughout Roseville. At 12:32 a.m. Tuesday morning, October 28, a resident of the 200 block of Sierra Boulevard called police to report seeing suspects taking a political sign from his neighbor’s yard. The resident provided police with a description of the suspects and their vehicle, a green four-door sedan.

    Minutes before the call was dispatched, a Roseville Police officer on routine patrol spotted a sedan parked in the 700 block of Shasta Street. The vehicle had all doors and its trunk opened. As the officer watched, two people walked to the vehicle, put something in the trunk, and drove away. Suspicious, the officer began to follow the vehicle, and then heard the report of the stolen political sign being dispatched. The officer stopped the vehicle and contacted the occupants. A search of the vehicle produced 53 “Yes on 8” signs.

    Kacey Elizabeth Flieder, 18, of Sacramento, Brian Joseph Greene, 18, of Roseville, and a 17-year-old girl from Roseville were arrested on suspicion of possession of stolen property, conspiracy, and petty theft. The two 18-year-olds were also charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Flieder was booked into the Roseville Police Department Jail and released on a $5,000 bail bond. Green remains in custody in the RPD jail on $5,000 bail. The 17-year-old was cited and released to her parents.

  12. richard said,

    November 6, 2008 at 12:17 am

    I am shocked, apalled, & awakened! First of all, I am black and proud of it. Obama was failry elected for president of the USA by the will of the people. Now, there are only few folks who want to overturn the legal passaged of proposition 8 by an illegal act of force! Proposition was legally passed by the will of the people, for the people, & by the people! Why don’t they also just overturn OBAMA’S legal election that was won by the will of the people? In addition, being gay is fully 100% free CHOICE that they are making for themselves. They are crying to the world for more special rights and treatments for their act of choice. They are NOT born gay or lesbians. They are choosing to live a UNnatural sexual lifestyle. Yet, they want us to give them more special rights. They are already have millions of dollars in their bank accounts! Gays drive the most expensive cars. They are actors, singes, movie stars and they want more special treatments! Give us a break! We had enough of their rich spoiled life. We around the world are struggling to make ends meat while they are spending over 70 MILLION dollars in no prop 8 for more special protection of a free CHOICE of sexual living that they are making for themselves! Why don’t they give some of their $$$ millions of dollars by helping the poor? Why don’t they help homeowners pay off their mortgages? Why don’t they help create more jobs? Why don’t they donate millions to childrens hospitals? Why don’t gays come out to donate more of their money to inner citys? Instead, they keep buying more toys, more gold, more mansions & more mercedes while we americans are suffering in these hard economic times! I say we had enough of their tricks, manupilation, & perverted lifestyle and special treatments! They never had fallen under the discrimanatory act because they werre not BORN that way. They made a choice of being gay! Therefore, we shouldn’t pay, and support their choice of unnatural lifestyle. We are tired of their nonsense! They must stop comparing themselves with black americans. And start waking up to their foolishness! We want a better economy! we want common sense! We want truth! We want purity for America!

    It is time for America to wakes up! & Defends her little childrens!

  13. Nora said,

    November 6, 2008 at 3:26 pm

    I am outraged that people support propostion 8 in the name of GOD.
    The scriptures read: “Give back to Ceasar’s what is Ceasar’s and to GOD’s what is GOD’s” These are the words of JESUS, and if we are to follow them, we should NOT take away anyone’s constitutional rights for religious reasons, or we will become like Iran. Yes, just like Iran.
    The constitution grants equal rights to homosexuals, including the right to get married. Violating our constitution is unpatriotic and dangerous, and puts us all at risk loosing ALL our rights, like in Iran. Women will be next, then, minorities, then, the disabled, like in Nazi Germany. Then, who knows …
    If we really wanted to protect our children, proposition 8 should have failed, because 10% of today’s children will be homosexuals no matter what we do, and we want them to be happy and to be treated equally under our glorious constitution.
    GOD is about love and compassion. GOD loves all the creatures of his creation and only GOD has the power to judge.
    Religion has usurped GOD’s powers for their political interests. “Make not My Father’s house a house of merchandise,” said Jesus. Let us not become like Iran or Nazi Germany for the interests of a few.

  14. beetlebabee said,

    November 6, 2008 at 4:08 pm

    Nora, there are many reasons to support prop 8, many of which have nothing to do with religious ideology. For one, I believe it is reckless to go fiddling around with the basic unit of society when studies show that it is detrimental to society to redefine the family. Other countries have done it, and we can study the results from here. So far, the studies show that homosexual unions do not have the unifying benefits that traditional marriage does. They are also unequal in their benefits to children. If you are serious about implementing these societal changes then I think it’s something that ought to be studied, not jumped into blindly.

  15. Nora said,

    November 7, 2008 at 6:17 pm

    Thanks for your reply. For the record, I am not gay, and I don’t have gay children, but friends of my children, whom I saw grow up and love as if they were my family, suffer discrimination. The children of gay parents also suffer discrimination, and it pains me deeply.
    If we approve gay marriage, they will be equal in the eyes of the constitution, and discrimination will gradually diminish. As to redifining “family,” there are so many types of families! Why can’t we accept one more! The reason why homosexual unions do not have the unifying benefits you mention is mainly due to the discmitination and alientation they suffer.
    As a physician, I have seen many gay men and women who, in order to have a family, marry heterosexuals, try their best, and are miserable, and make their spouse miserable. Then comes promiscuity on both sides, and STDs.
    All gay men and women want is to live a normal loving, satisfying life and be happy. Who are we to deny a constitutional right? Who are we to judge in the name of GOD?

  16. whabbear said,

    August 27, 2009 at 10:02 pm

    Beetle: I’m sorry I have taken so long to reply to your response; I just discovered tonight that you had responded!

    You say that I have the right to live my life as I see fit, and I agree with you. Part of that right is the freedom to build a life with another human being, to have him and to hold him, in sickness and in health, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, until death do us part.

    Those are strong words, which speak to fundamental and positive traits and behaviors such as commitment, devotion, trust, honesty, and support. These are all ingredients of a successful marriage. If more people believed in these traits and took them seriously, society would be nothing but strengthened. Personally, I actually believe in them enough to have gotten married, which is not something that you can say for every gay man you meet. But I do care about my husband’s welfare, and his happiness, and I care that much.

    Another reason I support marriage is that it confers an ability to protect and look out for my husband in the event I predecease him, by transfer of material goods and transfer of pensions and the like. Such transfers would help him to remain self-sufficient, were I gone, as opposed to a drain on society. For example, these sources of income would give him more opportunity to purchase his own health care, should he come down with a catastrophic illness and have to spend a lot of his savings to try and survive. In these and a myriad of other ways, marriage helps all of us humans cope with the vicissitudes of life, and help keep society on an even keel.

    Last fall, after I got married, I filled out the paperwork to put my husband on my health care plan, which is a benefit offered to spouses of people who work for my employer.

    Sadly, my employer happens to be the federal government of this country. Because of DOMA, my husband is not eligible to go on my health benefits program, and he is not eligible to receive any of the spousal survivor benefits such as my government or my pension or my social security benenfts. Because of his ineligibility, there are many plausible scenarios in his future where he would end up consuming society’s resources, rather than his own; scenarios that are less likely to come to pass for opposite-sex spouses.

    Please help me strike a blow for the same set of traditional values that make marriage an attractive institution for you and me alike, by working to strengthen my marriage rather than tear it down, by working to champion my marriage rather than seeking to diminish its status and its value.

  17. beetlebabee said,

    August 28, 2009 at 12:04 am

    To strengthen marriage, you have to know what it is you are fighting for. What is it that marriage represents to you? I believe there is more to marriage than just our own selfish desires and wants.

  18. whabbear said,

    August 30, 2009 at 10:06 am

    I think I answered your question in my post! I agree… marriage is in large measure putting aside selfish wants and desires in favor of your partner.

  19. beetlebabee said,

    August 30, 2009 at 1:34 pm

    It sounds like your interest is for legal and health benefits, is that correct? Do you intend to have or raise children?

  20. whabbear said,

    August 31, 2009 at 8:42 pm

    beetle: No, we’re both in our 50’s, so we’re too old and settled to have children now. And my emphasis on the legal and health sides of marriage in my post was more because they are denied us than because they were front and center as reasons for getting married. I did that primarily because I love my husband and want to make a life with him.

  21. beetlebabee said,

    September 1, 2009 at 10:24 am

    So, marriage to you is simply society’s stamp of approval on your chosen relationship? I’m trying to figure out what you think marriage is. You advocate redefining it, I’m wondering what that redefinition actually looks like. Marriage is more than just society’s stamp of approval, it is more than just two people in love. It’s an institution designed to promote and protect the ideal environment for raising children and perpetuating stable society. I haven’t heard anything from you that addresses society’s concerns with promoting family stability. It seems your only concern is yourself, your feelings. In that case, marriage is simply a piece of paper, an agreement. All that society does to give benefits and protections to married couples is designed to give them the added support they may need in order to have the greatest degree of stability. Marriage and family isn’t easy, and society has a vested interest in promoting the best family situation possible.

    That is why a man and woman, married and committed for life to each other and their children is the arrangement society promotes.

  22. whabbear said,

    September 1, 2009 at 7:56 pm

    Interesting… I agree completely that marriage is an institution designed to promote and protect the ideal environment for raising children and perpetuating stable society. It is for that very reason that I support it!

    But the fact that you said “AND” perpetuating stable society is important, because I agree with you there as well. Marriage does BOTH things: it helps stabilize families with children (regardless of whether the married couple with the children is same or opposite-sex), and helps stabilize relationships between adults who don’t have children (regardless of whether the couple in question is same or opposite-sex).

    The only area where I disagree strongly with you is in your (unstated, but obvious) assumption that marriage only exerts its stabilizing influences when the married persons are opposite-sex partners.

    Take, for example, the fact that married adults are more likely to invest in, and own property together, than unmarried adults. By and large, property ownership is a stabilizing influence. Suppose there was a way of quantifying the “amount” of additional ownership in property that the institution of marriage brings about, and there was also a way of quantifying the additional increment to societal stability that this marriage-related property ownership provides. Isn’t that increment the same regardless of whether the marriages in question include opposite-sex couples with children, same-sex couples with children, opposite-sex couples without children, or same-sex couples without children?

    More generally, how, exactly, does the identical institution go from being a stabilizing influence when it involves opposite-sex couples to being a destabilizing influence when it involves same-sex couples?

  23. Chairm said,

    September 2, 2009 at 7:48 pm

    It would not be the identical institution if its core meaning is discarded.

    Also, the stablizing influence derives from the coherency of marriage; it is first and foremost a foundational social institution of civil society.

    Marriage is not one-sexed. And it does not destablize the nonmarriage category of living arrangements and types of relationships. Indeed, the social institution can and does have an oveflow effect. The source of the overflow is its core meaning.

    If society becomes blind to this, and the core of marriage is disregarded, especially if widely disregarded by people who engage in procreation and child-raising, then, the institution would lose its influence by losing its societal significance.

    Today most people marry (and do so during their childbearing years) and almost all marriages have children — even after a couple of decades of rapid rise in nonmarital trends. But unless we strengthen marriage — by affirming its core meaning — the positive influence will wane. Society suffers when marriage comes to mean less and less.

    Eventually there is a tipping point at which the source of the overflow effect on nonmarriage simply dries up and the influence is stronger in the other direction. Indeed, even our current nonmarital trends have adversely influenced marriages across the country.

    * * *

    The core meaning of marriage: 1) integration of the sexes, 2) provision for responsible procreation, and 3) these combined as a coherent whole (i.e. a social institution).

    What is the core of the type — the category — of relationship that you have in mind, whabbear? Can you distinguish it from the rest of the range of nonmarriage living arrangements and types of relationships?

    Does it have societal significance that rises to the importance of sex integration and responsible procreation?

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: