Slog
News & ArtsSaturday, December 10, 2011
Homo Anti-Gay-Marriage Activists Hold Training Meeting at Bellevue City Hall, Call Security Guards to Remove Nonbelievers from the Room
Posted by Dominic Holden on Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 6:32 PM
The meeting on Friday night, held in the Seattle suburb of Bellevue, was billed as one of 13 activist training nights this month aimed at preventing Washington from becoming the seventh state to legalize same-sex marriage. Promoted by virulently anti-gay Focus on the Family, the agenda promised to cover the difficult-to-articulate “potential impact" of same-sex marriage, how state lawmakers intend to push a marriage bill come January, and a strategy to stop them. So I went.
My presence, at first, seemed fine.
Wearing a red knit blazer with a fat American flag broach, gun-rights activist Elizabeth Scott flew into the room at Bellevue City Hall 25 minutes late with an accordion-style manila case stuffed with talking points and the names of senators to target. But before we would cover a strategy for mobilizing Christian congregations to lobby Olympia (I'll get to that part down below), Scott impressed upon the 14 of us who’d been waiting just how dire the stakes are.
“I received death threats for my stand for ‘one man, one woman’ marriage,” Scott explained.
For nearly an hour, Scott riddled us with a central theme using as many factually blemished examples as she could recollect: Legalizing same-sex marriage would not simply entitle gay people to special rights, but rather gay marriage laws would expose Christians to an onslaught of lawsuits, boycotts, and arrests. “The government becomes an advocacy organization” for a gay lifestyle and will impose harsh penalties on dissenters, she warned.
It wasn’t far off from the group’s sentiment. As we sat around a massive triangular table used by the Bellueve City Council, one man from Antioch Bible Church said he feared “the American Dream, the white picket fence, and the 2.5 kids will become illegal.” A woman with banana-colored hair was worried for children raised by two parents of the same gender: “Kids living in that environment, it must be horrible,” she said. “It’s not normal. We have to stop it.” And an elderly veteran lamented that “don’t ask, don’t tell” was the policy when he served in the US military during the Korean War (in fact, Congress didn’t approve DADT for another 40 years).
Facts weren’t the important thing here—it was the specter that anyone practicing Christian values would be punished. We were told that county clerks who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in New York were being fired, even though the highest-profile cases involve two clerks who quit on their own and one clerk who retained her job. We were told of a printer in Tacoma being sued for refusing to print a flyer for a “gay wild party,” but, while The Stranger broke the story, I can’t find any record of a lawsuit.
Even Scott’s claim that she had a "death threat because Referendum 71," an effort she supported to repeal domestic-partnership rights, didn't hold water.
“I ran against a gay opponent and I received death threats,” Scott said about her run for state representative last year in the 21st legislative district again Marko Liias. She explain that after she stumped to repeal domestic partnerships, one person allegedly phoned her 13-year-old child to threaten the family’s lives, and someone else allegedly made a threat related to an online video. But Scott acknowledged that “nothing happened” and “we can’t prove” that alleged threats were related to politics. (Her complaint was part of the famous Supreme Court Doe v. Reed case, which failed to prove threats.)
As a quick aside, replacing the word "gay" in Scott's examples of supposedly persecuted photographers, printers, and churches with the words "African American" and "lunch counter" showcase the extent to which we're talking about basic forms of discrimination. Of course you can't pick and choose customers based on bigotry.
Now that were fully educated on the ostensible gravity of the situation, we moved on to the “strategy” session. It was at this point that Scott scanned the room, reviewed the sign-in sheet (that I didn't sign), clarified who went to church, and sought to weed-out any secular onlookers.
“If you are not sure that you are willing to be a point person in a church, I would ask that you leave,” Scott announced, staring at me. I explained that I was just there to observe and I planned to stay. “If it feels like I’m twisting your arm, it’s best to call it a day and go home,” she pressed.
Briefly, the conversation veered to the subject of targeting senators—as I remained mostly silent next to intrepid news intern Marley Zeno—but then Scott locked my eyes.
“I am concerned about you,” she said. “I don’t believe that you are here to defend traditional marriage, so I am asking you to leave.”
“I intend to stay because I’m a reporter,” I said. “This is a public meeting in a public building—Bellevue City Hall—so I believe it’s my right to remain.” Indeed, the meeting was also posted online by the Washington Family Policy Institute (the Focus on the Family state affiliate), and we were in a public building where all the doors were open. Scott threatened to call security three times. I didn’t want to disrupt, I said, so they could continue, or she could call the guards. But if I was to report on the event accurately, I needed to see the entire meeting. She called security on her cell phone and walked out of the room for several minutes.
“Okay, you can stay,” said Scott, walking back into the room and slapping down her phone. Whoever she spoke to seemed content with the presence of nonbelievers. I told her not to worry—I was raised a nice Catholic boy. “Whatever,” she spat.
I’ll get to the strategy portion in a second, but the incident made something seem clear: The bar for participating in their movement is apparently being a church member (staying in the meeting required being a “point person in a church” and registering for the event online included a required field listing your church name). This reveals an implicit admission on their part: This is strictly a holy war. They present no logical, policy-based, nor scientific rationale to oppose same-sex marriage. Only through a pastor’s interpretation of scripture can you justify this crusade. Also, these people just howled for an hour about being discriminated against, silenced, or otherwise bullied for their own political beliefs. Yet Scott was trying to do the same thing to anyone else in the room who didn't devotedly embrace their agenda.
It turns out, Marley and I weren't the only watchdogs present.
Karen Gold and two members with PFLAG were embedded among us, I found out when Gold emailed me this afternoon. She and a man left before the strategy session. "As a Bellevue resident, I was horrified that the city allowed this group to use public space for their meeting," Gold said. Reached by phone, she added, "They are totally using scare tactics. They were factually incorrect on most things that they said."
But they do have a political strategy, and here is how it works: Stop the measure in the state senate. They will target 13 senators, including members from both sides of the aisle, who they believe are on the fence by sending a constituent from his or her district to lobby every single day of the session. The senators are: Cheryl Pflug (R-5), Mary Margaret Haugen (D-10), Curtis King (R-14), Brian Hatfield (D-19), Paull Shinn (D-21), Jim Kastama (D-25), Derek Kilmer (D-26), Tracey Eide (D-30), Steve Litzow (R-41), Steve Hobbs (D-44), Andy Hill (R-45), Joe Fain (R-47), and Rodney Tom (D-48).
“The goal is not to change minds,” Scott told us, “but to say that you have thousands of constituents who will not vote for you if you vote the wrong way on this.”
She circulated talking points to use when addressing these lawmakers: “If marriage is redefined: (1) public schools will teach that there is no difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships, (2) the idea that kids don‘t need a mother and a father will be reinforced, and (3) conscience rights will be lost as those who do not support same-sex ‘marriage’ will be at odds with state law.”
The group then spent 30 minutes reviewing a list of churches in the 45th Legislative District and identifying people to contact members of their congregation. The intend to persuade members of the flock to approach their pastor with an appeal to "encourage their congregants to take action" on a "biblical issue," according to an instruction sheet. The sheet stresses that "this is totally legal" because they are not asking pastors to join a rally or a political action committee.
Meanwhile, the marriage equality movement is one step ahead. Washington United for Marriage, a coalition of 60 groups, already held more than a dozen meetings in the same districts last month to pass a marriage bill this winter.
"Gay activists are already doing it, so it’s time to step up our game," Scott concluded. Despite her gusto, some seem resigned to a potential loss. A man named Phil admitted, "It’s possible that this is a losing battle, but we fight because it’s the right thing to do."
UPDATE at 1:00 p.m. on December 11: Scott sent me an email this morning declaring that she didn't call security, even though she said three times that she would call security and, when she picked up the phone to make a call, said she was calling security. Scott writes, "when I came back into the room, I said that I had spoken with Joseph Backholm, who was the organizer of the meeting for Family Policy Institute of Washington. I request that you print this clarification. I did not call security, and did not at any point claim that I had called security." I'll print her request, sure. There's no way of knowing who she called. But she never said she was calling Backholm—just security. Just to check, I talked to Marley Zeno, who was sitting with me a few feet from Scott before she made the call and after she returned. Scott both threatened to call security and then said that's what she was doing.
Sure, that combo worked swell for them when they could keep gays in the closet, but daylight is making the religous cockroaches squirm and scatter.
Bye-bye bigots, you're eventually going to have to find another theocracy. May I suggest Iran?
3
7
8
In the Qunited States of Gaymerica teaching that homosexual behavior is immoral is considered hate speech.
And Danny wants to change the beliefs of all Gaymericans so that, even in their heart of hearts, they can not believe that homosexual behavior is wrong.
enjoy them while you can.
Danny is probably feverishly waking
the Tech Support droids to delete the posts.....
17
Thanks for this account. I take some solace in the fact that some of these "holy warriors" seem, well, not-too-bright. Still, that's no reason to be complacent. We've got a fight on our hands.
20
And also agree with Knat that the troll always keeps things entertaining (the "Quinited States of Gaymerica" comment = comedy GOLD!)
21
What I can't understand is how they can make a bloody holy war out of it. I mean, fucking look around, people! There are six states now with marriage equality, and zero sign of fire and brimstone raining on those states, no sign of marriages or families breaking up at a higher rate, no new social problems.
Bible-thumpers: look in the Bible. Look at the several admonitions where you're directed to mind your own fucking business and worry about your own god-damned soul and stop trying to pronounce judgment on others. If you can't love your brothers and sisters, and see that there is that of God in everyone, at least stop going out of your way to hurt them.
24
25
Why aren't they Freedom Riding all over the country staging marriages in each and every state?
Because Bellevue rents city hall to private groups, you probably don't have the right to show up at a meeting such as this. BUT, since they register anyone and the contract with Bellevue requires them to follow all state and federal.law and WA RCW 49.60 states that you can't discriminate based on creed, the mere fact that they asked for church affiliation leaves you with a textbook winnable discrimination lawsuit.
28
29
And the group did publicize these as "community meetings", and did not require registration beforehand. They had nothin'.
http://www.fpiw.org/about/family-policy-…
30
BTW no representatives from my district in Spokane (District 3) are on that list. Also they are all Democrats, or "Demoncrats" as we like to call them over here.
Hahaha "Qunited States of Gaymerica" (I'll be generous and give it a 3/10). I don't really understand why you're so against homosexuality since it seems like you got a few gay brain cells yourself (they ain't reproducing).
33
The centerpiece of their "Our Mission" page is a graphic which is a gutbuster to rival the Gingrich doodles. Presumably, Newt at least knows the difference between a Venn diagram and a pie chart – which, judging from the filename, these clowns don't.
Nice work, Dominic.
27
so if someone rents space in a public building for, say, their daughter's wedding reception then Dom and any and all riff raff are free to waltz in?
In the HomoLiberal Utopia all your stuff is mine; right?
Well. let us help you out there, Padowan.
We're not against homosexuality;
we are against behavior that destroys individuals, families and societies.
And we are especially against society being conned into endorsing and subsidizing dangerous destructive behavior.
And declaring it benign and "NORMAL".
And teaching young kids the same.
You apparently don't know the difference between your ass and your elbow. I fear for the state of your bathroom.
Trolly-troll trolls, doesn't see irony or hypocrisy in position. Film at 11.
People tried dragging science into their biblically based arguments, but that eventually failed. They tried dragging out the idea that "the law is based on the bible", and that has failed. So now they're left with nothing but scare-mongering and flailing about.
Also, if there were only 11 people who showed up at this meeting as genuine participants, there's want more sound and fury than significance.
41
That graphic is very confusing. Are they trying to say that the combination of education, leadership and accountability will do - what? - ignite the flames of Hell? That sort of seems counterproductive to their goals, doesn't it? Unless those flames are meant only for the Godless Sodomites and their supporters, I guess, in which case the confluence of their Venn Diagram REALLY doesn't make any sense.
42
thanks dominic for sounding the alarm.
No genius, organizations and renters can control who they let in but it has to be a blanket standard. If in your hypothetical the requirement is the Bride or Groom needed to invite you, they can keep out everyone else.
If you put a meeting notice on the web and the only requirement to attend is signing in when you get there (or pre-registering on the web, etc.) absolutely no one can be denied admission who has signs up day of. Basic non-discrimination laws apply.
Thank you for being stupid.
And, to be absolutely fair, I'm sure someone once wished Elizabeth Scott would die on the Internet somewhere, so the "death threat" thing isn't *totally* implausible. Not that it justifies her masturbating to her sense of righteousness all over everyone else.
And another thing: How awesome is it to know that the Founding Fathers intended the Establishment Clause to be for decorative purposes only? And that they *actually* wanted American laws to be based on conservative Christian beliefs? I mean, *I* studied law and *I* didn't know!
Obviously, I am too ignorant to be a good American citizen. It's amazing I haven't been stripped of my voting rights. Maybe the blessed just haven't gotten around to it yet. Give them time.
51
In God's Name I Trust Eternally
Must be a well-known code word in those circles, since it's not referenced anywhere else on that page.
Even with that kernel of knowledge, though, the graphic still doesn't make any sense.
Society isn't being conned into endorsing and subsidizing dangerous destructive behavior of marriage, because marriage isn't that.
And declaring marriage benign and "NORMAL"? And teaching young kids the same? I'm not sure what is taught, besides facts.
I mean, you said you weren't against homosexuality, 37, so you must be against marriage for gays and straights.
58
Same sex marriage is NOT destructive to families, society, or individuals. Here is my FACTUAL basis for that statement.
"A published literature review (which for the uninformed means she gathered data from published studies that had already undergone the rigorous peer review process and compiled the findings, and then submitted her own findings to the same process) by Charlotte Patterson (1992, 2006) reviewing more than TWO DECADES of research failed to reveal significant differences in the adjustment or development of children or adolescents reared by same-sex couples compared to those reared by other-sex couples" (2006, p. 241). They are no different from children raised by heterosexual parents in activity preferences, interests, popularity, social skills, occupational goals, sociability, hyperactivity, emotional difficulty, behavior problems, moral maturity, or measures of intelligence (Bos, van Balen, & van den Boom, 2005; Golombok et al., 2003; MacCallum & Golombok, 2004). This same literature review found no differences in gender identity or in sexual orientation between children raised by same-sex parents and heterosexual parents.
SO . . . if you must spew your ignorant chyme (semi-digested crap) at least own it for what it is, and don't state it as if it were proven fact. Because it's not. It's opinion based on nothing but hatred and ignorance.
well alex, what we mean is that we suspect you are working on making a point but you don't seem quite there.
perhaps you could explain to an adult what you are trying to say and have them proofread your post before you hit 'return'...
Oh dear. You're so busy ASSuming and sputtering self-righteously butt you've missed the point.
A behavior that infects 20% of those who practice it with HIV is DESTRUCTIVE.
A behavior that drives those who engage in it to suicide at 8X the rate of normal people is DESTRUCTIVE.
And those are just the highlights, rates of any and all STDs and mental illnesses are greatly elevated as well.
Teaching children that this behavior is NORMAL and HEALTHY is a vile LIE.
(and we aren't even getting into the fact that part and parcel of allowing homosexuals to "marry" will be accepting and normalizing adultery which DESTROYS FAMILIES.....)
62
Approximately 3% of homosexuals have HIV, not 20%. The CDC's nationwide numbers confirm this.
There is no evidence that homosexuals are inherently more likely to commit suicide, or suffer from psychological disorders; the positive excursion in the rate can be fully explained by the well-known phenomenon of minority stress.
And if acceptance of homosexuality destroys marriage, why is it that the Deep South and Mountain West, where support for gay equality is lowest, suffer from the highest rates of out-of-wedlock births and divorce?
You're going to make me wear out the "BITCH PLEASE" keys on my laptop at this rate.
"explain to an adult"
And I may register, this is my first time commenting on the Slog, since I went to the Redmond meeting which was a little different than the Bellevue one.
Marriage doesn't drive people to suicide at a super high rate. We do see teenagers are at a high risk of suicide, especially self-identified LGBT people and others who people think are LGBT even if they do not identify as it. And since many people at this age are not active in sexual activity or relationships, it's the bullying discrimination and stigma bundled with hormones that explain suicide.
Marriage does nor raise rates of many STDs and mental illnesses are often higher in many people who have not had great parental upbringing - as many gays have had parents that have troubled them greatly.
Teaching children that marriage is normal and healthy isn't what this is about, and people aren't even teaching that any orientation, or sex, is normal or healthy. If you want to complain about something, at least know what's up to complain about.
Allowing same sex marriages does not have anything to do with adultery, how absurd.
65
I've been with my partner for over two years so far, and haven't contracted any diseases, haven't been driven to suicide by falling in love with my partner and fortunately haven't faced any discrimination or hatred among friends and family which drive many to that, and haven't had any mental illness either. If I did, I don't know how being unmarried would help in any way with any of those issues, or how being celibate would help mental health.
Marriage has benefited my friends and family, and my friends and family are excited to see me marry one day too, for the benefit of us all and my stepson. So many people keep inviting themselves to our future wedding, it may be a lot bigger than I'd prefer.
People aren't forced to endorse Britney Spears' marriage or Kim Kardashian's or mine. However, the government should give us all equality under the law when we apply for a marriage certificate.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell was indeed the de facto policy; but only codified in to law during the 90's.
70
It helps if you hold your hands over your ears and shout loudly "I can't hear you!..." when you make that argument.
72
Scientist?
wow.
What did the CDC report about the HIV rate of sexually active homosexual men in 20 surveyed cities?
74
...this is wrong, Alleged. Someone like you and someone like me, we could get in big trouble, you know. The world will never accept someone as psychologically competent as me being with someone of your mental caliber.
I apologize if she was teasing, but one thing I have seen time and again is how the one family member who's closest to accepting without being all that close or as close as (s)he thinks believes (s)he is due all kinds of deference from the "deviant" - and what really depresses me is how often (s)he gets it.
But she has no intent of holding me back when I am ready, and eventually she will I'm sure be wanting to raise her kids among her own friends kids. She has always enjoyed growing up at the same time as our cousins have, and wants the same for her kids.
I have a relationship up and running, but with a stepson turning 11 this month, my partner is not too keen on more kids. I can wait for friends- who arent raising any yet, as much as I can wait for my sister.
Thank you very much for your reply, I really like that you listened and brought your understanding as a point of concern. That is very nice!
79
80
Ultimately, these sorts of (bigoted) religious individuals are extremely insecure and hypocritical.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (84) RSS