Claims that LGBT community harassed same-sex marriage opponents not supported by courts
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 at 1:17 pm
- 21 Comments
Photo: Opponents of Proposition 8 in California protest. Source: Dannyman, Flickr
The Minnesota for Marriage coalition, a group that is is urging voters to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, has told the media and the Minnesota campaign finance board that if they have to disclose their donors, they will be subject to violence by supporters of marriage equality.
But a string of court cases across the country have shed serious doubt on those claims, with courts finding that conservative leaders were unable to provide credible evidence of threats or violence.
Avoiding disclosure in Minnesota
The Minnesota Family Council and the National Organization for Marriage lobbied the campaign finance board to loosen disclosure on campaign spending by arguing that their donors will be targeted if their names are disclosed.
“To require groups, non profits like the Minnesota Family Council, to disclose their donors and make their donors names public would have a significant chilling effect on free speech. Even in Minnesota already it’s gotten heated in some respects,” Tom Prichard, president of MFC, told the board in June. “The concern is harassment, property damage, a chilling effect. If I know I have to disclose my name, I’m not going to get involved with the Minnesota Family Council.”
Prichard said he had knowledge of violence against donors to the Prop 8 campaign in California.
“They went after their employment, by challenging their employers. There was vandalism on certain organizations. I can think of one individual that his business suffered because he had to disclose,” he said. “I don’t think our organization should have to disclose our donors, period. We just don’t believe we should be forced to.”
Conservative Catholic columnist for the Star Tribune, Katherine Kersten, recently echoed the Minnesota Family Council’s claims.
“A block thrown through a home window. Cars vandalized. Hate-filled anonymous phone calls at home and work. Swastikas scrawled on houses of worship. Physical assaults. Dismissal from employment because of political views,” wrote Kersten. “[T]his is the sort of intimidation that Americans who support marriage as the union of a man and woman can face today. Persecution of opponents is becoming a tool of the trade for some gay-marriage activists, who—ironically—seem to view themselves as beacons of tolerance.”
She added, “Now, the groundwork for such intimidation is being laid in Minnesota.”
The groundwork is actually being laid for a lawsuit by NOM and the Minnesota for Marriage coalition against the state of Minnesota. When the campaign finance board rejected Minnesota for Marriage’s arguments that full disclosure of donors would put them at risk, the coalition announced that it would not follow the board’s disclosure rules.
But history shows that launching a lawsuit in Minnesota based on the possibility of violence against marriage amendment supporters would be an uphill battle.
Protect Marriage Washington falsified or exaggerated about threats
NOM’s claims were tested this fall in Washington state when Protect Marriage Washington (PMW), a group affiliated with NOM, lost its case in court. PMW wanted to overturn that state’s domestic partner laws through an initiative called R-71. The group was successful in gathering enough signatures to put the repeal on the ballot, but it did not want those signatures to be public arguing that “militant homosexual activist groups” would target them.
After a local paper did a feature with state legislator Elizabeth Scott, a feature that included her contact information and talked about her support for repealing the domestic partner law, she said she received death threats.
“Extremists issued multiple death threats to me and my children due to my being publicly questioned about my personal beliefs,” Scott told the Faith and Freedom Network. “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.”
The court found that Scott’s story did not stand up to scrutiny.
“However, other than speculation, Scott does not attribute to R-71 this death threat or any other incident that she claimed could be considered harassment,” the court wrote.
After the court decision, she wrote, “I guess when the First Amendment is eliminated, we drop back to the Second.”
Gary Randall, who runs the Faith and Freedom Network that spearheaded the effort to repeal the domestic partner law, also had his own complaints about death threats, which he later retracted.
“Randall testified that he received death threats via a blog site; however, when asked to demonstrate where in the copy of the blog posting he believed a threat of his or another’s life was made he could not do so without relying on assumptions,” the court wrote, adding that Randall “finally conceding that no actual death threat was made on the website”
The court noted that Randall was referring to the website, PinkPistols.org, which is a group for LGBT people who hold conceal and carry licenses.
“This website appears to advocate for homosexuals to be armed if desired to use only in self defense,” the court said in a footnote. “[Randall] has not supplied competent evidence to the contrary.”
As a matter of fact, the website no longer exists and according to the Wayback Machine hasn’t been updated since 2006, well before Washington’s enacting of the domestic partnership law.
Other witnesses provided testimony in the Washington case that the court found lacking. One witness testified that he was harassed when two women came up to him while he was gathering signatures for R-71 and one said “we have feelings too.” Another said he found three Post-It notes on his car with vulgar language. Still another felt harassed when a passing motorist made offensive gestures at him.
In the court’s conclusion, Judge Benjamin Settle wrote:
Applied here, the Court finds that Doe has only supplied evidence that hurts rather than helps its case. Doe has supplied minimal testimony from a few witnesses who, in their respective deposition testimony, stated either that police efforts to mitigate reported incidents was sufficient or unnecessary. Doe has supplied no evidence that police were or are now unable or unwilling to mitigate any claimed harassment or are now unable or unwilling to control the same, should disclosure be made.
The court did say that they’d demonstrated that there was some hostility to a same-sex marriage ban in the state, but not that it could lead to threats or violence, and that there had been no evidence that advocates had been harassed in the two years since the ballot question was introduced to Washington state voters.
California and Prop 8
In October, NOM and ProtectMarriage.com lost their bid to keep donors to the Proposition 8 campaign anonymous. The groups worked to pass Proposition 8, which repealed the state’s legalization of same-sex marriage in 2008. NOM had argued that disclosing its donors would chill free speech and that widespread violence against Prop 8 supporters would put its donors at risk.
But the judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Morrison England, a Bush appointee, found the evidence a bit thin.
[T]he vast majority of the incidents cited by Plaintiffs are arguably, as characterized by defendants, typical of any controversial campaign. For example, picketing, protesting, boycotting, distributing flyers, destroying yard signs and voicing dissent do not necessarily rise to the level of “harassment” or “reprisals,” especially in comparison to acts directed at groups in the past.
Moreover, a good portion of these actions are themselves forms of speech protected by the United States Constitution.
The court also rejected the idea that any activity directed at entities that backed Prop 8, such as the Mormon church, necessarily meant it was due to Prop 8.
“Plaintiffs have produced insufficient evidence that the more incendiary events on which they rely were connected to Proposition 8 or to gay marriage at all,” the judge wrote. “Rather, a number of these incidents were directed at the Mormon church, which, though a backer of California’s proposition, may also have been a target for any of a number of other reasons.”
And while NOM and other anti-gay marriage amendment backers said that the violence against them was widespread, the judge disagreed.
Accordingly, while Plaintiffs can point to a relatively few unsavory acts committed by extremists or criminals, these acts are so small in number, and in some instances their connection to plaintiffs’ supporters so attenuated, that they do not show a reasonable probability plaintiffs’ contributors will suffer the same fate. Given the grand scale of plaintiffs’ campaign and the massive (and national) support they garnered for their cause, plaintiffs’ limited evidence is simply insufficient to support a finding that disclosure of contributors’ names will lead to threats, harassment or reprisals.
The future in Minnesota
Government transparency advocates have been watching NOM’s actions in Minnesota very carefully. In addition to California, Washington, and Minnesota, NOM has also unsuccessfully challenged disclosure laws in Iowa, Maine, New York and Rhode Island.
“Proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage certainly are engaged in a heated debate,” wrote Common Cause Minnesota’s Mike Dean and Mark Ladov of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York Universtiy School of Law in a column for the Duluth News Tribune. “But it is insulting to claim transparency would leave major campaign donors vulnerable to the violent intimidation tactics civil-rights activists faced in the era of Bull Connor.”
Dean and Ladov pointed back to the outcry when Target Corporation gave money to a group supporting an anti-gay marriage candidate.
“[R]emember how these same groups howled about so-called ‘harassment’ when gay-rights advocates called for a boycott of Target over contributions supporting Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. But that isn’t harassment. It’s a boycott — one of the time-honored ways in which ordinary people, without access to wealthy corporate treasuries, can organize for change and make sure their voices are heard in the political process.”
Follow Andy Birkey on Twitter21 Comments
Comment posted November 15, 2011 @ 2:22 pm
the people who are trying to discriminate against gays are afraid of what the gay community will do? Hahahaha outrageous, if you have the guts to discriminate and fund hate organizations, then guess what, your contribution will be made public. Minnesota is not about hate, this is why I am so confused by those who discriminate…sad day it will be if the hateful people ban same sex marriage
…even though its not legal now, they just want to reinforce the fact… Just remember 60 years ago interracial marriages were illegal…now 1 in 9 marriages are interracial in MN…just think about that
Comment posted November 15, 2011 @ 2:28 pm
The Romans had the right idea, feed these naysayers to the lions….
Cheers, Joe Mustich, CT USA
Marriage Officiant & Justice of the Peace.
Onward to full civil and marriage equality rights MN.
Comment posted November 15, 2011 @ 3:02 pm
The “fear factor” has always played really well with the conservs. Why should be expect them to hang it up now?
Comment posted November 15, 2011 @ 3:58 pm
Kersten automatically ignores, of course, the groundwork of bigotry that she and other social and religious conservatives have been laying for as long as LGBT issues have been in the public eye.
However, contrary to the evidence-less case cultivated by religious conservatives, there’s overwhelming evidence of attacks on LGBT individuals: physical violence, murder, vandalism to property, not to mention untold cases of job discrimination, youth being disowned by parents and resulting homelessness, suicides due to bullying, and psychological and emotional suffering.
This reality doesn’t come out of nowhere. It grows in the night soil of religious prejudice and hatred. It results from the atmosphere of dehumanization created by religious and social conservatives against people they fear and whose lives they don’t understand, nor wish to. This vileness is propped up by public voices like Kersten’s, who under the shabby guise of family values and traditional values hopes to perpetuate discrimination, exclusion and, even though she might publicly oppose it, violence against LGBT individuals.
Comment posted November 15, 2011 @ 5:16 pm
Perhaps we need to introduce a constitutional amendment that effectively bans religion from government. Sure the founding fathers wrote about separation of church and state and advocated for it for good reason, but perhaps now is the time … of course that would probably never pass because too many conservative evangelicals want to turn our democracy into a theocracy.
Personally I don’t feel like the soft, tolerant approach to gain full equality is working anymore. If the religious boneheads want to paint us as unruly then let’s get unruly. I don’t advocate violence or vandalism, but our community doesn’t make enough noise.
Comment posted November 15, 2011 @ 8:18 pm
Mike,
If we can ever get a serious critical thinking curriculum going in the public schools* the problem of religious stupidity and extremism will fade away over time.
*See for instance http://cehs.montclair.edu/academic/iapc/ the philosophy for children program.
Comment posted November 15, 2011 @ 8:30 pm
Several comments here have got it right, particularly Eric’s. Gay people are beaten half to death in incident after incident nationwide; they are harassed and their property defaced; they are set on fire; they are clubbed and bludgeoned; where is the evidence — in light of the marriage equality culture wars — that ANYTHING of this sort has happened to any anti-gay person? One incident? Anyone? A single incident? Even if anyone were to come up with a single incident, the darker point remains: In light of the aforesaid culture wars, can you come up with FIVE such incidents? … and why on earth haven’t these been reported in the news?
On another online board, I saw several people making fun of the fact that in one of these court cases, an anti-gay individual claimed harassment because s/he received a dour text message. Yeah, you read right. These are honest-to-god idiots, no more and no less, who are hell-bent on preventing marriage equality in any way they can. They are all but sociopathically obsessed with denying rights to gay people. They hate you. They hate what you stand for. They will never be caught dead admitting in front of any judge that they hate you so passionately they’d have you executed. I have no doubt whatsoever that they would, if they could get away with it.
The anti-gay need to be challenged in court case after court case, again and again and again, with this gathered evidence, the mass of it, which indicates that they are repeatedly and knowingly lying to the courts and attempting to manipulate the justice system. Do not let them get away with it.
Thank you.
Comment posted November 16, 2011 @ 2:25 am
For them to play the victim card is very disconcerting. My husband died in Florida and since the coroners office was concerned that his Minnesota Will might violate the state constitution since it resembled marriage, I was not allowed to see him. When they got it straightened out, they had already cremated him so I to go pick up my soul mates body at the post office in a card board box! How they can compare this kind of anguish to a dirty look is beyond me!
Comment posted November 16, 2011 @ 10:44 am
Lies are about all these people have. When you discriminate you’re not only un-American but must hide from public view. That’s why the KKK wore hoods. These anti-marriage groups are no different.
Pingback posted November 16, 2011 @ 11:58 am
[...] Minnesota Independent has an illuminating piece this week about the claim made by Minnesota for Marriage, a traditional marriage group, that [...]
Comment posted November 16, 2011 @ 12:10 pm
Its ironic, no make that outrageous that NOM and these other groups cite harassment of donors when they do the same thing:
- the boycotting of ABC for having Chaz Bono on Dancing with the Stars
- AFA boycotts Home Depot
- AFA boycotts Ford
- Southern Baptists boycott Disney
And those are just a few. But its ok for them to do…
Comment posted November 16, 2011 @ 1:15 pm
The court of public opinion for the anti gay, is much more fertile and idiotic than a court of law.Courts of law which, they seem to essentially try to AVOID, with the ‘gays threaten us’ excuse.
In our age of digital and instant capture, photography, the preservation of sound recordings and information sharing on the internet: it’s fair to expect that EVIDENCE of any threats, or photos of damage that could be ATTRIBUTABLE directly to ‘militant homosexuals’ would be easy to obtain and give to the proper authorities.
However, apparently there IS no such evidence.
And then what happens?
Those who represent marriage and family orgs blame the police for insufficient investigation. They blame the courts for being biased, and the judges as ‘activist’.
They blame gay people for making threats and keeping the anti gay fearful of appearing in court, when well BEFORE any court dates, they are in the media, having very public rallies and conferences. They hold press conferences and travel unimpeded from place to place.
Their very own claims INEVITABLY become ironic, hypocritical, contradictory, irrational or just plain ridiculous.
I think it’s high time that the anti gay be held accountable for forcing local law enforcement into investigating false claims. Taking up courts and lawyers with frivolous lawsuits, and using millions of dollars through religious institutions that’s better used for charity and support of more urgent issues like domestic violence.
The resources the anti gay use up, (theirs and ours), and the liability their constant messaging is against loving gay families and their supporters is a disgrace against decency.
Even their damage to the creed of the Constitution is dangerous and uncalled for.
The real threat, certainly isn’t gay people who hope to and want to marry.
But the war on gay people itself.
Comment posted November 16, 2011 @ 1:39 pm
The time of religion holdiing a priviledged and determinative status in law and policy
in the U.S.A. is finally coming to an end. I graduated high school in the same year (1969)
as the Stone Wall Uprising in New YorK City. It is my sincere hope that young gay
people will never have to face the hatred, put downs and discrimination that my
life has witnessed. Do not catholics understand that their own priesthood has
a substantial number of gay priests? What is behind the desperate push against
LGBT rights by their hierarchy? And I won’t even get started on the Republican party.
Comment posted November 16, 2011 @ 2:23 pm
Greed, power and control. It’s time to OCCUPY THE VATICAN.
Comment posted November 16, 2011 @ 5:42 pm
As a Californian, it was so heart-warming to read some of your comments. Thank you, Minnesotans.
During the election of 2008 (and Prop 8), NOM and protectmarriage.org spread such unbelievable and hateful lies… literally scaring voters into passing Prop 8. They even used school children in their ads (which, I’m surprised, they haven’t already tried on your Minnesotans).
I had my rights ripped away from me on November 4, 2008. And, to this day, I still don’t know if my marriage will become null-and-void. These Amendments DO hurt people. They DO take Citizen’s rights away. No matter what NOM says.
It just gives me hope to see that you folks aren’t falling for their scare tactics. Thank you , Minnesota. The nation is watching. Please, be our example. Stand up to NOM.
Comment posted November 16, 2011 @ 11:07 pm
Birkey, save your obscurantist rhetoric. The harassment is well documented, including the protests outside churches. It is objective fact.
Comment posted November 17, 2011 @ 9:19 am
Nachman,
Are you suggesting that first amendment rights of free assembly and speech should be curtailed when it comes to public criticism of religious institutions?
Comment posted November 17, 2011 @ 10:22 am
Andy – Where will we find your reporting on LGBT issues now that MN Independent is defunct? You will be sorely missed here. I hope you will continue in another venue.
Comment posted November 17, 2011 @ 3:26 pm
Just because those bullying tactics have been used by conservatives towards people and groups (i.e. Planned Parenthood, Pro Lifers) over the last 20 odd years, doesn’t mean that those of us that support marriage equality will do the same things. They are simply having a hard time seeing that people who believe differently than them can actually have higher moral standard than them.
Pingback posted November 19, 2011 @ 5:27 pm
[...] http://minnesotaindependent.com/90511/claims-that-lgbt-community-harassed-same-sex-marriage-opponent... [...]
Comment posted November 22, 2011 @ 3:41 pm
Andy B… you are fantastic and I’m so thankful that you make such wonderful contributions. Thank you for taking a stand against those who are low and miserable with nothing else to do but to find ways to limit the basic rights of other good people with their fairy-tale religious garbage or their self-serving, small minded view of what the human race “should or shouldn’t” be for everyone. I love my gay friends. Who they love and how they love is really none of my business just as they give me respects that I deserve. The NOM folks are seriously F’ed in the head. I’d LOVE it if Muslims or Hindus forced their religious beliefs onto them for a while so they could get a wake up call as to the BS they’re pulling with other people.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
