Skip to comments.

Posted on 10/26/2001 2:06:12 PM PDT by RobertBauman

From Texas to Michigan to Massachusetts, homosexual activists are using lawsuits and sophisticated anti-petition strategies — including direct and even illegal harassment of pro-family leaders and signature-gatherers — in a gambit designed to keep homosexual issues off the ballot.

The win-at-any-cost tactics are not new — homosexual militants and others on the Left have employed them for decades — but they have been honed over the years. And their continued use by “gay” activists is in jarring contrast to the movement’s smugness over its unparalleled power in the cultural and political arena.

Moreover, the “gay” strategy, which often relies on technicalities to thwart a popular vote, belies the rhetoric of the 2000 presidential election crisis, during which Democrats and liberals who supported Al Gore repeated the battle cry: “Let every vote count!”

Curiously, the desperate and, at times, dirty campaigns to undermine ballot initiatives are having a boomerang effect — highlighting the “gay” lobby’s Achilles Heel and re-energizing grassroots pro-family activists nationwide who are asking: Why is the homosexual movement so petrified of seeing “gay” issues go before the voters?

“They don’t want the people to decide,” said Gary Glenn, president of American Family Association of Michigan, who has galvanized social conservatives in the state, helping win two separate citywide initiatives dealing with homosexuality. “I have to wonder: What is it that they fear?”

Some homosexual leaders even question the right of Americans to vote on “gay”-related matters. In a July 2 radio debate against a pro-family leader in Maryland — where homosexuals are trying to reverse the state’s validation of a pro-family referendum — Matt Coles, head of the ACLU’s homosexual project, said:

"I think it’s worth recognizing that we rarely put civil rights bills on a referendum like this. … And the reason we rarely do that is because the point of civil rights bills is to guarantee everybody equality of opportunity. A lot of people feel strongly that basic equality or the ability to have the same advances or same opportunities that everyone else has shouldn’t be subject to popular vote. After all the purpose of civil rights laws is to protect unpopular minorities."

NATIONAL STRATEGY

According to Glenn and other regional pro-family leaders who spoke with C&F Report, the tactics used by homosexual militants against opposing ballot drives encompass some or all of the following strategies:

Challenge the wording of the pro-family ballot language in the courts, saying it would mislead voters; Demonize pro-family activists as bigots and haters who favor “discrimination”; compare them to fringe extremists such as the KKK;

Harass pro-family petition gatherers using “direct action” techniques in the field: “shadowing” and yelling at signature-collectors; haranguing local businesses like WalMart to kick them off their premises; getting between the petitioner and the signer; etc.

Illegally harass and smear pro-family ballot leaders: create forgeries that portray them as racists or extremists; make threatening phone calls; attack their property;

Sabotage the referendum’s signature drive using assorted dirty tricks, e.g., pose as conservatives who support the petition as part of a subsequent challenge to it: see next item;

Challenge the legality of the petition itself, claiming that the citizens were not aware of what they were signing; use frivolous lawsuits to delay or thwart ballot drives. In some cases, the militant homosexuals’ methods are merely a reflection of their famed aggressiveness, exploiting all available means to secure victory. For example, there is nothing illegal about lobbying businesses to deny space to pro-family petitioners, pointing out the errors of the other side, or filing a legal challenge.

However, pro-family advocates say, a pattern has emerged of “gay” activists using bullying political and legal tactics to accomplish their goals — blocking the will of voters who are getting involved in the electoral process through initiatives.

The following is a snapshot of the methods used by homosexual activists to thwart grassroots voter initiatives by citizens opposed to homosexuality:

ATTEMPTING TO UNDO A PRO-FAMILY WIN IN MARYLAND

Pro-family activists with the coalition group TakeBackMaryland.org thought they had forced a ballot vote on a “sexual orientation” law that had been signed by Gov. Parris Glendening (D), after collecting nearly 60,000 signatures to put the law up for referendum in November 2002. The Maryland election board certified 47,539 of the signatures — 1,411 more than the 46,128 required by law to qualify for a referendum. Then homosexual activists challenged the certification in a lawsuit that provided little actual evidence of malfeasance by either state officials or Take Back Maryland volunteers.

The initial 27-page filing contains just 1.3 pages of supposed evidences for “deficiencies” in the TakeBackMaryland.org petition. The rest of the document is filled with extraneous matters, such as more than four pages of listings of “gay” plaintiffs who complain that they do not have the “protections” offered by the law in question. (The pro-homosexual law would have gone into effect October 1.) The following is typical:

14. Plaintiff Tim Hurley is a resident, taxpayer, and citizen of Hampstead, Maryland. He has no protection where he lives from discrimination based on his sexual orientation with respect to housing, employment, and places of public accommodation.

AN ALCOHOL CONNECTION?

In a stunning demonstration of chutzpah, the homosexual lawsuit even claims that the Take Back Maryland referendum violates the Maryland Constitution because of a supposed link to alcohol, since alcohol-related measures may not be taken to referendum in the state. The lawsuit states:

… because the Antidiscrimination Act prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in, among other things, places of public accommodation, which sell alcohol, the Act may not, under the Maryland Constitution, be referred to an election ballot, nor may it be repealed through referendum.

Despite the anemic filing by the homosexual plaintiffs, the state Attorney General supported the appointment of a special court master to reexamine the petition signatures approved by the state election board. The court master — operating under an expedited timetable ordered by the presiding Circuit Court judge — has already found thousands of supposedly problematic signatures that could be disqualified.

Brian Fahling, an attorney for the American Family Association Law Center, who is representing TakeBackMaryland.org in the case, said it was extraordinary that a court master was ordered despite the lack of evidence.

“All the other side had was a complaint,” Fahling told C&F Report. “Normally, plaintiffs bear the burden of providing the proof.”

He said the Attorney General “did the plaintiffs’ job for them” by acquiescing to the court master.

Fahling and other Take Back Maryland leaders question whether the Attorney General is compromised, since Gov. Glendening has made passage of the pro-homosexual law a personal crusade. The governor, whose brother died of AIDS, has called the referendum campaign “mean-spirited” and compared it to racism and anti-Semitism.

After the court master issued his ruling questioning over 6,500 of the previously certified signatures, the Attorney General did not file any exceptions to the ruling. Meanwhile, Take Back Maryland officials were not given enough time to review all of the 6,500 signatures in question.

To add insult to injury, homosexual attorneys are now asking the pro-family defendants to help cover the cost of the court master report, which could total anywhere from $15,000 to $20,000 split between three leaders of TakeBackMaryland.org. Should they prevail, it could send another chilling message to anyone contemplating a ballot campaign in the future.

“Thus far it has not been a fair process,” Fahling said, noting that nearly 5,000 of the contested signatures were on petitions in which the wording of the proposed referendum was stapled to the back of the form. State law says that the petition wording is supposed to be printed on the reverse side of the sheet containing the petitions.

Tres Kerns, who co-founded TakeBackMaryland.org, said he received assurances from state election officials that since his group’s petition campaign was based on the Internet, it was OK to download both the page for the petition signers and the actual referendum wording, and staple them together.

“In my wildest ideas, I can’t imagine that that would serve as a basis to exclude signatures,” Mr. Fahling told the Associated Press.

Kerns and Fahling said that by contesting the stapled petitions, homosexual activists in Maryland have revealed their true motivations: a desire to prevent a vote, regardless of the obvious intent of the petition signers.

“They’re trying to do anything possible to thwart the democratic process,” Fahling said.

‘GAY’ LAWYERS SUBPOENA SIGNATURE GATHERERS

Another wrinkle in the Maryland lawsuit is the legal strategy — novel, to say the least, in election politics — of subpoenaing signature gatherers as part of the effort to uncover errors and irregularities in the petition process. Several TakeBackMaryland.org volunteers received subpoenas last week from the attorneys for the pro-homosexual groups, according to Take Back Maryland officials.

Maryland homosexual activists have welcomed the court master report, which even TakeBackMaryland.org officials acknowledge uncovered some problematic signatures that were previously approved by the state election board. For example, in 580 cases, a “witness to a signature signed on a different date from one or more individuals who signed the petition,” a violation of signature-gathering rules, The Washington Blade, a newspaper for homosexuals, reported.

“We’re building a case that TakeBackMaryland used misinformation to demonize our community and to get people to sign a petition,” Blake Humphreys, managing director of the “gay” group Free State Justice, told the Blade. “[However], we’re proceeding with a winning campaign to take this to the good people of Maryland.”

Kerns said if anyone is being demonized, it is TakeBackMaryland.org. He and his family have received a death threat over the phone, and he receives regular hate e-mails. In addition, someone is sending out forged, hateful letters under his and Take Back Maryland’s name. (Police tell Kerns there is nothing they can do to find out who is responsible.)

Ironically, a staffer from the Blade itself may have been involved in efforts to subvert the Take Back Maryland petition drive. Matt Sine, a pastor and assistant chairman of TakeBackMaryland.org, told Culture & Family Report that he used “caller I.D.” to trace one phone call from an ostensible supporter to The Washington Blade. The caller allegedly said he was interested in submitting petitions. Sine also told C&F Report that Take Back Maryland’s computer system was hacked into by opponents.

Click the banner above to see what has been going on for years. There is a homosexual plan and it is working.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.