---

---

QUEERLY BELOVED
Lawsuit seeks safeguards from 'gay' harassment
9/11 cited, marriage supporters told: 'You haven't seen anything yet'

---

Posted: January 09, 2009
12:30 am Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A pro-'gay'-marriage protester in Palm Springs

A California organization that promoted a successful ballot measure last fall to protect traditional marriage now is challenging the constitutionality of a state campaign finance law used to harass and threaten supporters of the initiative.

The Alliance Defense Fund filed a lawsuit on behalf of ProtectMarriage.com to protect financial contributors to the Proposition 8 campaign from retaliation.

Personal information about individuals who gave a little as $100 in support of Proposition 8 has been made public under the campaign law, resulting in threats and intimidation from advocates for homosexual marriage, the lawsuit said.

(Story continues below)

Individual situations that already have been reported include:

• "John Doe #4," who got multiple threatening e-mails including one that read: "hello propagators & litagators (sic) burn in hell" and "You have won our tampon of the year award."
  
  
• "John Doe #6," who got a postcard chastising her for supporting Prop 8 ("In some instances, such phone calls and e-mails were accompanied by death threats, a threat made all the more plausible by the compelled disclosure of the addresses of the donors.")
  
  
• Another Prop 8 contributor who was told, "Consider yourself lucky. If I had a gun I would have gunned you down" and, "I've got a little surprise for Pasor [sic] Franklin and his congregation of lowlife's [sic] in the coming future … He will be meeting his maker sooner than expected."
  
  
• Also issued as a threat to Prop 8 suipporters was: "If you thought 9/11 was bad, you haven't seen anything yet."
  
  
• Yet another missive, listing the donor's home and business contacts, said: "I just wanted to call and let you know what a great picture that was of you and the other Nazi's [sic] in the newspaper … We have plans for you and your friends. … I hope you rot in hell, you f---ing c---."

"Putting the names and employers of the people who supported Proposition 8 on the Internet for anyone to see has caused serious problems," said James Bopp Jr., the lead attorney for Prop. 8 supporters. "No one should worry about getting a death threat because of the way he or she votes.

"This lawsuit will protect the right of all people to help support causes they agree with, without having to worry about harassment or threats," he said.

The election saw more than 7 million Californians support Prop. 8, which defines marriage in the state constitution as being between only one man and one woman. It pulled the rug out from under plans adopted just months earlier by the California court system that created homosexual "marriage" by fiat.

But under state law, people who gave money to support Proposition 8 had their names, employers and other personal information listed on the website of the secretary of state of California

After their election failure, Prop. 8 opponents then used the list of names to go after people who supported the measure.

"Some people who supported Proposition 8 had their homes and churches vandalized, were forced to resign their jobs, and were even threatened with violence and death. To stop this harassment and these threats, this lawsuit asks the court to stop the release of the names and personal information of people who gave money to support Proposition 8," the ADF said.

"Our laws should ensure free participation in the democratic process, and not result in compromising the free speech and association rights of guaranteed to all Americans," said ADF Legal Counsel Tim Chandler, a local counsel in the case.

"Citizens shouldn't have to choose between being involved in the democratic process and subjecting themselves to acts of vengeance," he said.

The lawsuit challenges parts of California's campaign finance laws that require people who donate as little as $100 to have personal information revealed on the Internet as unconstitutional violations of free speech. The lawsuit also challenges parts of the campaign finance laws that require reporting of donations after a proposition has been voted on as unconstitutional.

WND reported earlier when pro-homosexual activists physically intimidated and badgered a woman for supporting traditional marriage.

A video of that event is embedded here:

WND also reported earlier when another public interest law organization, Pacific Justice Institute, brought a related complaint.

PJI's action alleges a San Francisco woman was fired for voting for Prop 8.

"Californians have been shocked by the aggressiveness of radical homosexual activists who have ousted several individuals from their jobs and livelihoods based solely on their support for traditional marriage," states Brad Dacus, president of PJI, on the group's website. "These tactics of fear and intimidation in retaliation for supporting a lawful ballot measure are completely unacceptable."

PJI also claims to be advising several others seeking settlements after they, too, were fired for supporting Proposition 8.

WND also reported earlier that two radio hosts were fired, they believe, because they questioned on air a local politician's call to boycott businesses that supported Prop. 8.

"I voiced my opinion," radio host Marshall Gilbert told WND. "I voted yes on Prop. 8, and I was fired over that." Radio station officials denied the claim.

Advocates for homosexual marriage have set up a website, AntiGayBlacklist.com, which lists hundreds of California residents, churches and businesses that donated money to the Proposition 8 campaign, urging sympathizers not to patronize those on the list.

---

Related offers:

"The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom"

"The Gay Agenda: It's Dividing the Family, the Church, and a Nation"

"See how Americans and their Constitution have been betrayed by judge-made law"

---

Previous stories:

Voted for Prop 8? You're fired

Talk show terminated after Prop 8 discussion

Supremes to review 'gay' lawsuits against Prop. 8

Watch church lady meet same-sex 'marriage' protesters

Watch sparks fly as 'gay' activist mob swarms Christians

'Gays' demand endorsement of lifestyle

School holds surprise 'Gay' Day for kindergartners

School takes 1st-graders to see lesbian teacher wed

'Gay' marriage battle goes to kindergarten

'Bride,' 'groom' can't marry in California

County surrenders in same-sex marriage war

Counties to Supreme Court on 'gay' marriage: Drop dead

'Gay' rights group to Supremes: Don't let people vote

It's voters vs. black robes in November

County clerks urged to ignore same-sex marriage ruling

'Gay' marriage ruling to spark lawsuits nationwide

Whoa! Marriage laws aren't changed – yet

Supremes asked to give voters a chance

City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'

California battle over same-sex marriage not over

Black robes trash traditional marriage

California's 'judicial fiat' condemned – by judge

Plan pushes for last step in eliminating marriage

Court asked to protect 1-man, 1-woman marriage

Pro-marriage groups: 'Don't trust courts!'

Gov. Arnold 'terminates' man-and-woman marriage plan

Gov. Arnold says 'marriage' can be terminated

California handing out marriage privileges

'Marriage' to become museum piece

Homosexual marriage minces west to California

Court will decide if California voters were right

Vote or pay us damages, group tells lawmakers

7 more states say no to 'gay marriage'

Same-sex rulings will 'echo' across U.S.

Senate rejects 'gay marriage' ban

California Senate OKs 'gay' marriage

Mayor faces trial for same-sex marriages

60% of polled Americans: No homosexual marriage

It's 'gay' marriage in Massachusetts

Poll: Massachusetts opposes 'gay' marriage

'Gay' marriage ruling's consequences 'dire'

'Gay' marriage ban struck down in Massachusetts

Bush to block 'gay' marriage

Poll suggests backlash on 'gay' issues

Court strikes down Texas sodomy law

Supreme Court hears 'right to sodomy' case

High court to give 'gays' their own 'Roe'?

---