We in the pro-marriage movement know how often our pro-marriage yard signs are stolen.
This is not an isolated or rare occurrence -- it is an epidemic of theft and free speech suppression.
And yet, this Minnesota man chose to respond with love and forgiveness when his sign was stolen:
To the person(s) who stole our Vote Yes yard sign in support of marriage between one man and one woman:
I forgive you.
Are you really so afraid of democracy that you would break the law to silence my voice?
You can steal all of my yard signs, but you will not steal my vote.
Has someone stolen your yard sign? I hope not! I believe in free speech … even if I disagree with it.
I’d like to know how putting a yard sign out is hateful and bigoted ... and your action … is out of love and respect. -- Winona Daily News
46 Comments
It's not bigoted or hateful to have a sign up in your yard. It's bigoted and hateful to use your vote to take away someone's civil rights.
I don't approve of stealing yard signs, as I also believe in free speech. In 2008, my family's Obama signs were stolen and defaced. I've had pro-marriage equality stickers on my car ripped off and anti-gay slurs written in their place.
I'm glad this guy wouldn't want the opposition's sign stolen, but why does NOM never show what can happen to same-sex marriage supporters? What about the guy in North Carolina who shot a bullet through his neighbor's anti-Amendment 1 sign? Why didn't NOM mention or condemn that?
Katie, it's because traditional marriage supporters are the victims, and us marriage equality supporters are the criminals.
In 2008, Californians for marriage had to set up night watches to keep their yard signs from being stolen. In our neighborhood, hundreds of pro-marriage signs were defaced, stolen and property vandalized. One guy was so enraged at our "Yes on 8" pro-marriage bumpersticker, he tried to run us off the road, repeatedly. While standing on the corner with a pro-marriage rally group, all donned in yellow, waving pro-marriage and family banners with smiles on, my family was spit at, flipped off, cursed, and one woman even sent a half filled bottle of coke sailing over my son's head as she drove past at 30mph. Thankfully she missed. Four of our pro-marriage signs were vandalized, and our house was sprayed with paint as well. We ended up liberally applying pepper spray to the remainder of our signs in the neighborhood. Works great. FYI don't rub your eyes.
The sheer rage over the yes on 8 position was widespread, these were not one-time loonies. No one is allowed to disagree with the activist LGBT position without recrimination.
I'm sorry that happened to you, TC, and to anyone else in your neighborhood. I disagree with your views, but I believe in civil debate, not vandalism or threats.
In my opinion, no one should have these signs up in their yard. It's hateful and you have to expect some sort of reaction to having a sign that want's to take peoples rights away.
Signs are an exercise of 1A.
So is the belief that children deserve a mother and father.
@Katie
What about the guy in North Carolina who shot a bullet through his neighbor's anti-Amendment 1 sign? Why didn't NOM mention or condemn that?
NOM has put out many notices that they condem violence by either side. However, this is a traditional marriage site and they will report on incidents that affect their side. I'm sure you can go to any of the 'equality' sites and they will have examples of their own that they are touting. Regardless of what you believe, these incidents only serve to reflect poorly on the side of those who incite these acts.
@Equality- no one's rights are being taken away. Gay men and women have the right to marry, just like I do. I'm able to marry a person of the opposite sex, and they're able to marry people of the opposite sex. There are no rights being taken away by supporting marriage.
What the LGBT community is seeking to do is to give homosexuals a different set of rights than what is currently in place.
Katie, I appreciate your sentiments. I wish all on your side were so reasonable. Unfortunately like "Equality"'s post demonstrates, the Dan Savage approach seems to be the prevalent face of the LGBT activist movement.
I think he should put up more signs, i wish there were some here in California again, I could use the kindling.
Exactly katie. I wouldn't want my sign vandalized or the other sides vandalized. I just feel that they are distracting and are not helpful.
excuse me? TC, i have been accused in my town of vandalizing the vote yes sign just because I am gay. I am 100% against vandalism to use as a scare tactic.
@Equality & Katie - Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution that it states that marriage or even gay marriage is a civil right. If there is - please show me those exact words if it does.
Jeff, first of all, none of my comments mention that marriage is a civil right, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. The Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia, did call marriage a "human right."
Second, marriage may not be in the Constitution, but equal protection under the law is. Right now, under law, LGBT couple are denied over 1,000 federal benefits of marriage that opposite-sex couples are able to enjoy. I'd hardly call that "equal protection."
The only government interest in marriage is uniting children to their mother and father. Male-female couples receive incentives to get and stay married for the good of the children they're likely to conceive.
The government has no interest or investment in any other type of relationship.
@Katie said: "The Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia, did call marriage a "human right."
Yes it did, and when it used the word "marriage" it contemplated the only marriage that existed at the time: the union of a man and a woman.
Equal Protection applies to individuals; it does not apply to couples. All individuals have the equal opportunity to get married right now; every one.
Baker v. Nelson, which upheld the traditional definition of marriage, came after Loving v. Virginia. Baker v Nelson was argued on the basis of equal protection. The Supreme Court didn't buy the argument.
The U.S. Supreme Court in the Loving case did declare marriage to be a right because it was essential for survival (“fundamental to our very existence and survival” in their words). This only makes sense if marriage is connected to procreation. People can survive without government benefits and papers. They can’t survive as a people without a next biological generation being created by and connected to the parents--a key function of marriage. But if marriage is redefined to be essentially disconnected from procreation, then logically it is no longer a basic right. It becomes just a program of government benefits from which singles (and multiples greater than two) are excluded, and some might say unfairly excluded. Why shouldn't singles get more of the thousand benefits? Why should threesomes be jailed if we value all behaviors equally?
The 1,000 benefits claim appears to come from a large number of federal regulations which are related to gender. But the so-called ERA amendment failed to pass, so the Federal Register and the U.S. Code have not been de-gendered.
Actually, Katie, no couple is denied marriage rights, if they are, in fact, married. If a gay man marries a lesbian woman, they receive all the rights of any other married couple. Their sexual orientation has nothing to do with their marriage rights.
@CCD & SSA & DoE
I'm still confused as to why you're defending such an obviously flawed argument. Do you really not understand that under anti-miscegenation laws, your defense would remain exactly the same? "Everyone has the same right to marriage as I do. I can marry someone of my own race, and they can marry someone of their own race. We are all equal."
It would be no less true, and it would also be no less -pointless-. What you are describing is semantic equality. We don't want to marry "someone" that you can marry. We want to marry the person we -love-. Is it hard for you to understand the importance of love in marriage? Or will any opposite-gendered individual do for you, as you apparently expect it to do for us?
Along with Andy King's flawed argument he forgot to address the fact that the only government interest in marriage is uniting children to their mother and father.
Just an oversight, I'm sure.
@TC Matthews
You decry the "Savage Approach", which, if I understand it correctly, is something to the effect of "if our opposition insists on continuing their approach, they ought not to be surprised when bad things start happening to them". I agree that this is a tasteless and rude approach.
NOM might disagree, as Orson Scott Card of their Board of Directors would have that if SSM is recognized by the federal government, that people on his side have a duty to overthrow that government. Similarly, a commenter here regularly implies that "the poor homosexuals don't know what's coming" if we insist on encouraging marriage equality.
As such, I would say "Savage behavior" is by no means limited to our side, and your implication that that's the "prevalent face" of marriage equality activists is unfair.
The whole point of everything (as i stated many times before) is that gay people want "special rights" over eveyone else / they want to redefine the term 'marriage into their sick & twisted view / they want us who oppose them to accept their sick & perverted lifestyle & force little kids in school to be taught to accept their perverted lifestyle / they want those who speak out against them to be considered "hate speech" & put in prison just like in Europe. they'll stop at nothing to spread their sick & perverted agenda.
@Barb
I'm a she, for the record.
If you say that's the government's interest, that's your opinion: I wouldn't presume to know what "government", that amalgamation of elected officials from every political spectrum, has as its interests. I would say that every child has a right to be cared for by its parents, whether those parents be opposite-sex or same-sex. No child I know that has two same-sex parents has felt deprived. They don't live in a commune: they live in the normal world where the influence of both genders is recognized and encouraged in their lives.
How many same-sex couples raising children do you know personally, or are you claiming intimate knowledge of the well-being of children you've never met?
And, Ms. King, do you not understand that SSM creates a "separate but equal" situation, just like race biased laws, where two men or two women can discriminate against the opposite sex in their individual unions? "Sure," says a "gay" man." Women can still get married--just not to me." Your argument for SSM is flawed.
How many same-sex couples are unrelated? Of those who are, how many engage in homosexual behavior? Of those, how many claim to be "gay?" Not all individuals with same sex attraction choose to engage in homosexual behavior. Of individuals who engage in homosexual behavior, not all claim to be "gay." Out of all of the above, none are prohibited from marriage on the basis of either behavior, or sexual orientation.
"How many same-sex couples raising children do you know personally, or are you claiming intimate knowledge of the well-being of children you've never met?"
Interesting--you question Barb's arguments by insinuating that because Barb doesn't know ALL same-sex couples raising children, she can't make any judgements. However, because you know at least one or a few, you imply that your views are more accurate than Barbs, even though you can't possibly know ALL same-sex couples raising children, either. Your words:
"No child that I know....."
Isn't that contradictory of you?
Ms. King, you turn a blind eye to the realities of marriage law. We can't/don't marry based only on love. If "love" were the only eligibility factor for marriage, we could marry our siblings, our parents, or more than one person at a time. Obviously, this is not the case. So that argument is flawed.
Equality, exactly how are we to identify your class? By the color of your skin? Via a geneology check? Blood test? What, exactly, identifies you as a class? And, once identified, what legislation exists which specifically names your class, and makes it a disqualifier for any particular civil right? Freedom of speech? Freedom of religion? Freedom to associate with whom you will? Freedom to vote? To own a fire arm? What, exactly?
As frequent readers of this blog already know, it was my close involvement in support of the gay community that literally forced me to change my mind about a few things.
I no longer support redefining marriage, nor do I support manufacturing babies with the premeditated intent to separate them from their rightful parents.
Live however you want, but the damage to society caused by the deconstruction of marriage is a bridge too far.
Re comment nr 24. "I wouldn't presume to know what "government", that amalgamation of elected officials from every political spectrum, has as its interests."
That is why we have elections (including yard signs). We the people determine what the government's interests are. The alternative is usually a king or a dictator determining what the government or public interest is.
Of course, the courts have a role. See Murphy v. Ramsey, where the Supreme Court very strongly endorsed the traditional definition of marriage as the "foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization." You may disagree, but the court stated a public interest quite clearly.
For the record, when this issue came up in the state where I live, signs were routinely and illegally removed. We just put up replacements.
i think I will put up a sign that says no jews and then get upset and report it when the sign vanishes........
You people don't know what hate speech is.
So, supporting marriage is now equal to anti-Semitism?
I'm just curious, Chris, are you serious?
Wow, somebody's lawn sign was stolen, how terrible, because that NEVER happens on either side. (Where's the roll eyes icon?) But let's see, I've been punched while being called an anti-gay epithet, had a beer bottle thrown at me from a moving car (same epithet), had that epithet spray-painted on my car in my own driveway, all while I was doing nothing more than minding my own business. My parents cut me off while I was in college because they found out I was gay (and it took years to repair that relationship). My partner (now husband) and I were turned away late one night from a motel where we had reservations for a room with a single bed when they saw we were two men. Oh, and then there was the guy who put up a big sign quoting from the bible that homosexuals are "worth of death" in his front yard on a road where I drove frequently. When things like that start happening to you guys, pretty much all the time, and to pretty much all your friends, get back to us (and let us know how forgiving you're feeling).
Daughter of Eve, my husband and I are a couple who are denied marriage rights even though we are, in fact, married. We have the exact same District of Columbia-issued marriage license that our very nice next door neighbors do, yet the federal government recognizes their marriage while refusing to recognize ours. It give them all the legal privileges and protections (and responsibilities) of marriage but considers my husband and me to be legal strangers to each other. That is not equal treatment under the law, and that is why DOMA has already been ruled unconstitutional by several federal courts and will eventually be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
No one-sexed scenario is an authentic marriage. When a law treats such a scenario as marriage, it does so arbitrarily ... without just reason. It imposes a legal fiction that is anti-marriage.
Vandalizing campaign signs is vandalism and NOT legitimate political expression. It is NOT justified by any means. No matter the supposed cause one is passionate about.
It is such a little thing to tolerate each other's campaign signs. It takes a basic level of sel-regard and self-respect to show that modicum of respect.
The principles of ggood governance and the principles of social peace and the principled basis for freedom of conscience ... all are readily accessible without religious beliefs, but are well-foundedand well-guardedby the basics that the National Organization for Marriage espouses to all of society.
The SSM campaign's heavy dependance on the supremacy of identity politics leads its supporters astray on all these points. Many SSMers act as if they deserve medals for giving the mere superficial appearance of public civility. That is not even skin deep. We saw that in MA and in CA and so we will see it again and again elsewhere. And how we respond is about us rather than them.
But SSMers typically believe that they are entitled to react harshly at the least provocation or no provocation at all. That is what the SSM campaign teaches even as it holds up a mask of moderation. The supremacy of identity politics corrupts all that it touches.
John B., a mistake was made. You and your male partner should never have been granted a marriage license in the first place, as your relationship doesn't include all of the factors that make marriage a unique relationship. DOMA is right to recognize only male/female public unions as marriage, for the sake of any laws regarding marriage. Other loving male/male relationships are not recognized as marriages, such as brothers, or fathers/sons, though they are as loving and commited as your relationship with your friend. If not all states treat your relationship as a marriage, it is not because you have a same-sex attraction. It is not because you engage in homosexual behavior. It is not because you subscribe to the gay political identity. It is because states recognize marriage as a male-female union, and your relationship doesn't include a female. the D.C. area has caused a lot of confusion by treating same-sex relationships the same as married opposite-sex relationships. That is regrettable, and we'll work to correct that mistake, by working to repeal the choices made by a few to neuter marriage.
As for those who have treated you with violence or threats of physical harm, that is, of course, reprehensible. I am truly sorry to hear of that.
John B.,if you really think it to your advantage to engage in a pissing contest over who has experienced the worst mistreatments,you have no clue about the principles I described in my previous comment (still in the cue). Supremacy of identity politics eventually turns against the liberties and safety of its own. I suppose we might compare notes but the details of living under such a regime would give you nightmares at night ... and mean my reliving those too real nightmares. Such comparisons are simply not appropriate and neither side has good cause to engage in a pity-fest.
The original blogpost is about campaign signs, for Pete's sake, so focus on that instead.
@DoE
I'll keep it pretty short this time.
"If "love" were the only eligibility factor for marriage, we could marry our siblings, our parents, or more than one person at a time. Obviously, this is not the case. So that argument is flawed."
If you honestly have trouble discerning the difference between the love of two romantic partners and the love of a parent for their child, or a brother for his sister, you should probably get counseling.
Um, Andy, the point is that there are restrictions on marriage.
Btw, why would you judge consensual adult incestuous relationships as wrong? I thought it was all about any combo of two consenting adults? Why leave out incestuous couples and hate on their relationships?
@Andy #37:
No, I am sorry, you have not answered DoE.
Insinuations of "counseling" do not answer her point.
Can you answer it?
I suspect you cannot.
Ms. King, why should the government favor relationships based on romantic love for marriage benefits, over those based on other types of love? Is romantic love superior to franternal or paternal/maternal love? Isn't that discriminatory?
You really never addressed the heart of the issue. I suspect you are hedging.
Ms. King, if romantic love is, as you imply, an eligibilty rquirement for marriage, how is the government intended to license and regulate that, and do you support the marriages of those whose romantic love extrends to more than one individual?
Andy, Daughter of Eve's question is not about her ability to discern "the difference between the love of two romantic partners and the love of a parent for their child, or a brother for his sister".
It is about your inability to justify your prioritization of this or that type of love over all other types of love. If love is the basis for eligibility, as you claimed, then, how can love be outside of bounds?
I mean, if it is a non-requirement, and it is up to the participants to discern what you say is of the utmost importance to eligibility, then, what has love got to do with it.
It being the SSM law you have in mind.
Thusfar no place that has imposed SSM has bothered to add such a legal requirement for those who'd show-up to SSM. You may not have discerned this factual contradiction to your remark.
In my city, they put up "Yes on 8" all around the city and the next day they were all gone.
This had been going on all over.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LX-3hjILRs
Chris wrote,
>
> i think I will put up a sign that says no jews (sic) and then get upset and report it when the sign vanishes........
>
> You people don't know what hate speech is.<
This is not hate speech:
http://tumyeto.com/images/uploaded/Yes-On-8_opt.jpg
Marriage is for a man and a woman. It is not a right to get married. It is a privilege and a ceremony based on an institution of the church. If you do not fit the qualifications, then you can't marry. Why is it so difficult to understand. If you don't have a Sams club card, you can't shop at Sams club. If you don't fit te qua;lifications as set out by the church, you can't marry. Feel free to call it whatever you want, but leave our institution alone. Noone needs to be forced to have to accept a lifestyle that is chosen. There are plenty of organizations that can help people break free from the homosexual lifestyle. I suggest you seek help.