Demonstrating the intolerance of ‘the tolerant’ and the power of ‘the powerless'

I agree and disagree but mostly agree.  You too can be informed of what is going on around you by subscribing to the protectmarriage.com newsletter

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In public, the leaders of the same-sex marriage movement portray themselves as tolerant and loving, seeking only to access marriage as a way of validating their “loving and committed relationships.” In court, they claim to be politically powerless, requiring judicial intervention to overturn our state constitutional provision defining marriage as between one man and one woman, thus forcing homosexual marriages onto society.  However, outside of court they are anything but powerless or tolerant. Two recent examples illustrate this.
In Oakland, Mayor Ron Dellums re-nominated Lorenzo Hoopes to continue to serve on the board of directors of the nonprofit Paramount Theatre of the Arts, where Hoopes serves as president. At 96 years of age, Hoopes is a revered figure in the Oakland community and has been credited with helping save the Paramount from bankruptcy and the wrecking ball. He was a top executive with Safeway, served on the local school board and also was a local leader of the LDS church, where he helped lead numerous charitable and community improvement projects. None of this matters, however, to those who oppose Proposition 8, because Hoopes donated funds to support its passage. As far as they are concerned, his perspective on marriage and support of Prop 8 makes him ineligible for community service and should subject him to protest and public ridicule. “It’s so insulting,” one homosexual rights leader told the Oakland Tribune about the re-nomination of Hoopes.  “Outrageous,” said another. Homosexual activists immediately began to organize, including forming a Facebook group to coordinate their efforts to derail the continued service of this venerable community volunteer. And they succeeded when Mayor Dellums withdrew the nomination before it came to a vote.
Aggressive protests like the one aimed at a 96-year-old community volunteer are, unfortunately, all too representative of the type of intimidation and harassment that has consistently been demonstrated by the homosexual marriage movement during and since the Proposition 8 campaign.  In fact, the examples of harassment are so extensive and have become so well documented (they were chronicled in this report by The Heritage Foundation) that they have begun to be mentioned by various commentators, experts and courts, including the United States Supreme Court.
When the backers of Washington state’s Referendum 71 turned in their petition signatures last year, they sought protection in federal court from having to reveal the identity of those who had signed the petitions, fearing that they would be subjected to harassment by pro-homosexual activists. They cited the extensive harassment of supporters of Prop 8, in addition to documented harassment of Referendum 71 backers, and in an 8-1 ruling secured an order from the United States Supreme Court protecting the privacy of the petition signers until the court hears the matter. In our own Perry v Schwarzenegger case, the US Supreme Court’s ruling preventing the broadcast of the trial was based, in part, on the extensive record of harassment of Prop 8 supporters.  Of course, the issue of harassment toward those who participate in the political process is not limited to same-sex marriage cases. In their recently decided case Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, the court said that forcing the disclosure of the names of  campaign contributors, "would be unconstitutional as applied to an organization if there were a reasonable probability that the group's members would face threats, harassment, or reprisals if their names were disclosed."
ProtectMarriage.com is also involved in a lawsuit concerning disclosure of initiative backers, ProtectMarriage.com v Bowen. This case, brought following the passage of Proposition 8, seeks to protect the identity of initiative contributors and is currently pending in the federal courts. When an initial request for a preliminary injunction was denied, ProtectMarriage.com fully disclosed all information as required by law. However, the case remains pending and is being undertaken by the able legal representation of the Alliance Defense Fund.
The issue of public disclosure was the subject of a February 6th opinion column in the Sacramento Bee, authored by California Fair Political Practices Commissioner Ronald Rotunda. Mr. Rotunda noted the inherent tension between disclosure laws and privacy rights and, speaking purely from a personal point of view and not in his capacity as a Commissioner, opined that the First Amendment may trump disclosure laws in an initiative campaign. He said the First Amendment, “prevents the government from aiding those who disagree in a most disagreeable way.”
The response from homosexual marriage radicals like Equality California was swift and, well, radical. Like those who demand the scalp of a 96-year-old community volunteer in Oakland, Equality California has demanded that Rotunda be removed from the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). On February 11th they demanded that California’s governor and legislature immediately begin impeachment proceedings against the commissioner. Equality California also falsely claimed that the FPPC will be asked to decide if Protectmarriage.com has failed to disclose its contributors, which we have already done.
Perhaps Equality California hasn’t gotten the memo from the plaintiff attorneys in the Perry case, that homosexuals are politically powerless. The impeachment threat against Commissioner Rotunda is no idle one. It is an exercise in raw political power by one of the most powerful special interest groups in the entire state. They know that they have the political strength and reliable legislative allies to make this a very viable threat against a dedicated public servant.
This is what we are fighting, and why we continue our multi-pronged effort to preserve marriage in California. Not only have we had to wage epic initiative and court battles, we must also battle our radical opponents in the legislature and court of public opinion, where with a straight face and a sympathetic media, the intolerant demand tolerance, and the powerful feign powerlessness.
Please help us continue our fight. We need your prayers, activism and continued financial support.
Sincerely,
Ron Prentice, Executive Director