After a decade of defeats and dozens of rejections by voters across the United States, campaigns for same-sex marriage have found friendly voters in Maine, Maryland and apparently in Washington state, according to early returns.
There likely will be lawsuits against churches. Justices of the peace or other officials could have a bull’s-eye on their backs. Small businesses, such as photographers, venue operators and cake bakers will be hit with claims under anti-discrimination laws. And more.
That’s according to Frank Schubert, who has worked on campaigns to defend the traditional definition of marriage.
He worked on the four defense campaigns for the 2012 election in Maine, Maryland, Washington and Minnesota. In the first three, voters agreed with the concept of same-sex marriage, and in Minnesota voters declined to embed the traditional marriage definition in the state constitution. It already is a state law there.
Schubert noted that the 2012 votes don’t really indicate a significant change of attitude, because the votes all were in liberal enclaves around the nation. Massachusetts, New York and a handful of other states already had imposed the practice on populations through court or legislative fiat, while more than 40 others have banned it either in their constitution or their law.
Schubert noted that what will happen now in America already can be seen in Canada, which approved same-sex marriage in 2005.
In Canada, according to a report by National Review, there have been hundreds of formal complaints pursued against people who hold to the biblical instruction that marriage is between a man and a woman. They include a well-known television anchor on a major sports show who was fired only hours after he tweeted his support for “the traditional and TRUE meaning of marriage.”
The report said he had only been defending a hockey player’s agent who was getting death threats for refusing to support a “gay” marriage campaign.
In the case, Fred Henry, the Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, was threatened with litigation and charged with a human-rights violation after he wrote a letter to local churches on the church’s teaching on marriage, the report said.
The report noted there have been an estimated 200 to 300 proceedings against those people who defend traditional marriage.
“A considered and empathetic opposition to same-sex marriage has nothing to do with phobia or hatred, but that doesn’t stop Christians, conservatives, and anybody else who doesn’t take the fashionable line from being condemned as Neanderthals and bigots,” the report said.
Schubert said he sees that attitude coming to the U.S.
“I think we’re going to see the conflict that these laws create. They’re going to manifest themselves in a whole host of ways,” he told WND.
He said the laws affecting individuals and small businesses in hospitality, like a recent case involving a Christian couple in Vermont attacked for not wanting to have a lesbian event at their private inn.
“People who have any connection to governmental licenses could be impacted certainly,” Schubert said, such as notaries public, justices of the peace, mayors and commissioners.
“They will find themselves being forced by the power of government to participate in same-sex ceremonies or give up their government licenses,” he said.
Churches, too, will be targeted. He cited a case involving a plan by the Catholic Church to dispose of a parcel of property. Officials did not want to sell it for the purpose of holding lesbian ceremonies and were sued.
“There’s no room for religious consciences in this type of debate. It’s not live and left live. It’s a one-way street,” he said.
He also said violence is bound to follow. In fact, he said that on Election Day, a small church in Maine was hit by graffiti, including a swastika, simply for displaying pro-marriage signs.
Similar events happened several years ago in the state of Washington, when a petition to limit marriage to a man and a woman was circulated.
The names of the petition signers were made public, and death threats followed some who had supported traditional marriage. In that fight, homosexual activists promised they would get the names of those who wanted to protect traditional marriage and post them online so that they could encourage supporters of homosexuality to create “uncomfortable conversations” with the signers.
Then came, according to hundreds of pages of sworn statements, the death threats to those who, in one way or another, already had been identified as petition supporters and signers.
Among the many documented threats was the statement, “I will kill you and your family,” which was delivered to the young son of a political candidate, Elizabeth Scott, who had signed the petition.
The same thing happened during the fight over Prop 8 in California.
There, threats that were documented included:
- “I’m going to kill the pastor.”
- “If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter”
- “We’re going to kill you.”
- “You’re dead. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon … you’re dead.”
- “I’m a gay guy who owns guns, and he’s my next target.”
- “I warn you, I know how to kill, I’m an ex-special forces person.”
- “Get ready for retribution all you bigots.”
- Burn their f—ing churches to the ground and then tax the charred timbers.”
Evidence also included churches marred by graffiti, swastikas on lawns and walls, bricks thrown through windows and doors, adhesive poured into locks, suspicious packages of white powder sent in the mail – “all for nothing more than supporting traditional marriage.”
Schubert also says Barack Obama needs to take part of the blame.
“I think that what’s happening in Washington is a contributing factor. You have the president out there actively trying to redefine marriage, and to tell the American people this is perfectly fine and we should accept it.”
Obama has advocated for homosexuality throughout his presidency, and imposed open homosexuality on the U.S. military.
In a statement on his Mission: Public Affairs website, Schubert wrote of his disappointment over the Tuesday results, but said “it’s important to consider that these battles occurred in a very difficult political landscape. ”
“We’re were contesting in four deep [Democratic] states and were outspent very badly in all of them – at least four-to-one.”