From an email forwarded to me, chronicling one family’s experience in trying to express their constitutionally protected political and religious opinion in California’s 2008 election, photos below the jump:
In response to having lawn signs stolen on a regular basis in our area, we decided to display our position on Prop 8 with a large banner.
This afternoon a couple of women pulled up in front of our home and started painting on the windows of their car. I guess they disagreed with us.
As they were painting these messages, my husband came out and asked them if they would like to have a conversation. The “conversation” consisted of them calling us bigots, promoters of hate & prejudice, parents who didn’t protect their children and un-Christian (this last comment causing my 11 year old son to cry because he IS a Christian and is so very proud of it!) My husband and children tried to engage in conversation to share our concerns and point of view and were met with increased intensity and anger. Their entire message was that we were closed-minded, motivated by hate and prejudice. In the end, we left them to their project…knowing that sharing and trying to understand one another’s point of view was NOT something they were interested in.Here’s what we were left with in front of our home. By the way…we live across the street from a kindergarten playground…what a nice thing the kids will be able to see at recess and as they walk to and from home.
Now for the good news…since this happened this afternoon we’ve had all kinds of people drive by taking pictures, talking with us and expressing support. In fact, a wonderful family from our school stopped by to tell us how sorry they were. They are voting No on 8 and long ago we decided that we would be that balancing force for each other in the universe. I was impressed by the way they went out of their way to make sure all was well with us and to let us know that they supported us even though we disagree on this issue. THIS is the American way… I wish this whole election process would be designed to promote these types of feelings among neighbors instead of the hate and intolerance that seems to be becoming such a prevalent part of our daily lives.Well, that’s what’s happening at our house this weekend. Hope all is well with you and…don’t forget to VOTE!!!
All in all, they seemed to take it pretty well–for being the hateful bigots they were described to be, eh?
Messenger and Advocate 
October 26, 2008 at 8:26 am
Hmmm, what would make the world better. Less war? Reduced government? Feed the hungry? No, all those problems are already taken care of, I guess we better concentrate on reducing the agency of others.
Bigots indeed!
October 26, 2008 at 8:30 am
Pretty sad.
October 26, 2008 at 8:31 am
Your experience has been the same as mine whenever I have engaged in “discussion” with liberal “thinkers”.
In my case the topic was about national and foreign policies. While I had given facts, figures, documented quotes, studies, charts, graphs, etc. etc. I was always met with tirade, rant, yelling, name calling, hateful remarks and also being accused of being narrow minded. Clearly they were shooting the messenger.
In the end I am always left with the thought that I am arguing with an emotional 4 year old throwing a tantrum in the middle of the grocery store. You can’t win with emotionally charged and intellectually lazy individuals who go out of their way to tear down traditional institutions. When confronted with facts they can’t repute they unleash their emotions and launch into personal attacks. Your case is no different.
In my final analysis I blame the lazy voters who stays home the first Tues. in November. We get what we deserve.
The way our country is evolving, in a few more decades Islam will be well established and their leadership will deal with the types who visited your neighborhood.
In the meantime, brace yourself. If Obama gets in office, nothing is sacred.
October 26, 2008 at 8:34 am
You can always tell a Bigot.
Deep Thoughts by Jack
October 26, 2008 at 8:57 am
Wow Ben have you given some thought to look in the mirror on occasion?
Tirade? Check.
Rant? Check.
Yelling? Well, you didn’t use capitals, but it sure felt like it
name calling? Check.
hateful remarks? Check.
Narrow minded? Check.
In each of those six cases, your post fulfilled the case.
October 26, 2008 at 9:14 am
I was recounting the behavior. I wasn’t engaged in the behavior. Open your mind. Read it again.
October 26, 2008 at 9:17 am
[…] You can read the post here […]
October 26, 2008 at 9:22 am
3: “If Obama gets in office, nothing is sacred.”
I’m not sure what Senator Obama has to do with the topic, since, as I understand it, he has come as not being in favor of same-sex marriage.
October 26, 2008 at 9:35 am
Reminds me of high school parking lot antics.
October 26, 2008 at 9:55 am
The family who painted the car should have tried a little humor; maybe “Archie Bunker lives here” would have done the trick.
If one is convinced that someone is in favor of unequal rights, of course they’re going to think of that someone as a bigot.
October 26, 2008 at 11:03 am
Very sad. How silly it is that people cannot simply converse.
A person is not a bigot for seeking to preserve their understanding. A bigot is someone who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
Sounds like the folks in this post were trying to show respect to the other side, whereas as presented here the SUV owners are acting with a sincere lack of character.
The Book of Mormon teaches that when the voice of the people choose unrighteousness, the nation is to be scourged. I can think of no greater test in our time than the current propositions on the table.
How sad, how inexpressibly sad it is, for such a vocal minority to choose wickedness over happiness.
It is my hope that homosexual marriage is outlawed in the land. Not because I dislike people whom choose to live this way. It is because I know with a surety it is against the what God wants.
My friends who oppose that thought–your desires to coerce acceptance of this practice does not change the truth of it. Wanting something to be true does not make it so.
October 26, 2008 at 11:06 am
Ben,
Let me try again. This time so you can see.
1. Tirade.
That’s called a tirade.
2. Rant.
Well your whole comment is a rant.
3. Yelling.
Well that’s probably one you didn’t do, but it’s hard to tell from the Internet.
4. Name Calling.
5. Hateful Remarks.
See #4.
6. Narrow Minded.
See #5.
And then you add in this attack on Obama for who knows what reason. You also throw in a bit of fearmongering about Islam controlling America. I’m surprised you see America that weak that I’m tempted to call you anti-American, but I don’t stoop to Republican levels.
Frankly, it is you, sir, who are showing to be intellectually lazy. And that isn’t name calling.
October 26, 2008 at 11:22 am
Frankly, it is you, sir, who are showing to be intellectually lazy. And that isn’t name calling.
Yes, it is.
October 26, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Has anybody run the license plate (clearly visible on one of the pictures)??? Bet you a dollar that the family arranged to have that white truck to gin up sympathy and support.
October 26, 2008 at 1:55 pm
If somebody were trying to amend your state constitution to invalidate your marriage, I wonder how “tolerant” you would be.
October 26, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Kurt
My marriage has a definition older than the state. Ergo I do not need state sanction.
Same-sex marriage, however, can never be a real marriage. Who is the husband? Who is the wife? Who is to lead the family? Who is to nurture the family? Which has the children? Should homosexual marriage be the norm, and heterosexual couples increasingly ostracized and/or marginalized until only lesbian couples attending sperm banks be the viable reproductive members of society?
You need to understand that wickedness never was happiness. At it’s root, wicked and wicker has the same origin–means bent, not straight (no pun for heterosexuality or homosexuality intended). The counsel of the Lord is the Proclamation on the family. Gender is an essential part of the soul and predates birth–messing with that is against what God would have.
But don’t take my word on it friend. James 1:5 from the New Testament says that if we ask God, when we lack wisdom, He will answer. Do so. Do so knowing that He will answer. Do so knowing that if He answers, He holds you accountable for that answer. Do so knowing that this thought will eat at you until you do so. And when you do so, practice the wisdom He grants to you.
Let that suffice on the matter. This really is a silly argument. This family supports one side–they should not be accosted by the other side simply because of a sign. This really is a rude way to handle things. Incivility is no way to act in a civilization as ours.
October 26, 2008 at 2:18 pm
How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) when I read this book I’ll be back. 🙂
October 26, 2008 at 2:24 pm
“You need to understand that wickedness never was happiness.”
The other side doesn’t think of themselves as wicked, you know. They believe that they are fighting against the wickedness of intolerance, bigotry and those who are trying to take the rights that the court has affirmed for them away.
If you see it as black and white, so do they.
October 26, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Mark N.
True. But the arguments presented show that they see the people as being in the black and the white, whereas my view is upon the action itself.
Moral relativism doesn’t hold when there is an ultimate authority, you know.
Further, the court has always taken it upon itself to declare what is right and what isn’t, even without explicit authority.
October 26, 2008 at 2:47 pm
“My marriage has a definition older than the state. Ergo I do not need state sanction.”
Yet you seek to withhold state sanction from others.
“This family supports one side–they should not be accosted by the other side simply because of a sign. This really is a rude way to handle things. Incivility is no way to act in a civilization as ours.”
This isn’t just some sort of game, where two sides compete and if Prop 8 passes the losers shrug their shoulders and say, “Oh well.” This is a direct assault on families and personal identities through the power of the ballot box.
“Incivility”? “Rude”? One family openly attempts to invalidate another family’s right to exist, and you call the family being attacked “uncivil” and “rude” for not wanting to sit down and talk with those people? I applaud them for having the tolerance and self-control to make words their only weapons.
October 26, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Kuri
You betcha.
And of course it’s a game.
October 26, 2008 at 2:54 pm
No Tom, it’s a game for your side. For the other side, it’s their lives and families. I won’t ask you to change your views on homosexuality, but at least, at very least, try to understand that Prop 8 will have real effects on real people.
October 26, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Incorrect again, by contradiction. It is a game to both sides. Games are by definition engagements of two or more sides whereupon a strategy is employed to gain the goal away from the other side. Prop. 8 falls squarely into this definition.
It’s not lives. No one will be slaughtered in the making of this bill. You may mean the lives in the sense of privileges, or granted availability of services. In the which case, see the next paragraph.
Families? Define family. If it is parents and children, working together for the increase in size of society, then yes, things will change. If it is simply a group of people living together in a home, then nothing changes from 1 year ago to now, just a small blip where one person’s opinion in some small stuffy court opened up a floodgate.
Wickedness never was happiness and the guilty/wicked take the truth to be hard. I’m not apologizing for this truth, simply stating it. Vice embraced by a society does not make it acceptable, conscionable, or right.
Now, let us ponder exactly what is being asked by those against Proposition 8. They are requesting to be married. Why? Simply because they were granted this by a court with political indigestion? What does marriage really even mean then? Is it equal health-care rights? No taxes when the partner dies? The opportunity to adopt and raise children? Cosign on homes? What is it about “marriage” that homosexuals actually want for themselves? A word?
Granted these arguments can be posed for those saying YES on Prop 8 also.
However, those with Prop. 8 have two things on their side, one of which those against prop. 8 vehemently deny:
(1) The will of God (ask Him yourself if you doubt this–He’ll answer)
(2) Biological imperative
Simply put, homosexuals cannot together produce children. Yes they can produce them, but not as a couple. It is for the security and in the economic interest of the state to provide incentives for another generation to be born and raised, knowing their parents.
This is the heart of the question as I understand it–should the state grant the same incentives mentioned above for less payoff to stop the yelling?
Now, when that is realized, one can see that parking a harassing vehicle in the personal domain of another is, although fairly inconsequential and petty, still fairly icky.
October 26, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Well, I tried.
October 26, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Nobly.
October 26, 2008 at 7:56 pm
MARRIAGE – a Union between 2 Human Beings,
embodying Love, Trust,
and a Mutual Respect and Responsibility
for the other.
Isn’t quibbling about WHOM has WHAT plumbing called SEXISM?
BTW – For those of who fidget and squirm every time I use the term “marriage”, you need to understand that committed relationships between 2 members of the same sex have existed since Time Immemorial – it’s just that these Sacred Unions have not had the legal protection that The Exalted Heterosexual Marriage enjoys.
October 26, 2008 at 8:02 pm
All in all, they seemed to take it pretty well–for being the hateful bigots they were described to be, eh?
Well, you know how it is, Guy. It’s all well worth being a bigot, so long as you get to crown yourself as a “religious martyr,” right? Talk about social brownie points in your ward!
October 26, 2008 at 8:32 pm
John
Capitalizing to emphasize fails to prove your point. Get past the rhetoric and give us some analysis.
October 26, 2008 at 10:06 pm
You seem to be trying to make your religious definition of marriage into law. I somehow suspect you would be less than happy if, say the muslims in the area were doing the same. Sharia law anyone? It’s an extreme example, but of the exact same nature.
Besides, isn’t your real marriage in the temple? And doesn’t this have nothing to do with who the state decides who can or cannot be married? Do you really want religion to decide? Mormons are only 1.7% of the population, I suspect they’d lose. Good luck.
October 27, 2008 at 10:38 am
Djinn
Your comments don’t relate to the discussion at hand. Again I say: analysis, not rhetoric. See the above comment #23
October 27, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Tom,
Have you heard the phrase “Mormon Taliban”?
By your logic the WoW ought to be law applied to all. Are you seriously advocating that the prophet’s word become law?
Brother Rod, I see you did not do your home teaching last month, that’s now punishable by 30 days in jail and a $500 fine.
October 27, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Or, instead of the fine and jail time, you can take another wife.
October 29, 2008 at 9:25 am
Ok, the last few comments are just plain ridiculous. Prop. 8 is not a Mormon issue at all. Just because they are the only ones brave enough to heavily support it despite the attacks (see above) coming from the opponents doesn’t make it their bill or anything. djinn, 1.7% of the population is Mormon as you state, but *61%* of California’s population voted yes on 22 in 2000. Where did all those Mormons go??? Or wait, maybe they weren’t all Mormons!!! This isn’t about forcing Mormon beliefs on anyone, it is simply about upholding a definition that has existed since… I guess forever so far.
I wish there was more discussion in general about judges with agendas. It just sickens me to know that we have judges in California who think they have the right to overrule the will of the people without sufficient justification from the state’s constitution.
October 29, 2008 at 9:54 am
As to those activist judges, the bulk are Republicans, appointed by Republicans interpreting the state constitution. Just because they disagree with you does make them activist.
Second, the bulk of the money in favor of Prop 8, to a huge degree has come from Mormons; out of state mormons have donated, run phone banks (i’ve heard Utah and Nevada, maybe there are others) Mormons are told in no uncertain terms that this is a moral issue, by their prophet in innumerable church meetings, mormons have, under the aegis of the mormon church organized to go door-to-door, etc. Of course you are trying to get your personal definition of Marriage put into the law. Just like Brigham Young did when he got Utah Territory into the union as a slave territory (OK, low blow)
But why? As shown by the big-ol-van parked in front of your house, this is serving the purpose of teaching people, rightly or wrongly, that Mormons are gay-hating bigots. Those that agree with your position, by and large, are evangelicals, who hate you for other reasons. Way to marginalize the church. Good luck with that.
October 29, 2008 at 10:49 am
Hate crime charge in Prop. 8 sign attack
TORRANCE, Calif.—A Torrance man has been charged with a felony hate crime assault for allegedly using an anti-gay marriage “Yes on Prop. 8” lawn sign to attack a gay man wearing a “No on 8” button.
Prosecutor Janet Wilson says 23-year-old Joseph Storm and the 22-year-old victim got into a squabble early Sunday on a Torrance street.
The prosecutor says it’s unclear if the dispute centered on same-sex marriage ban Proposition 8. Storm told investigators he was angry because the man had tossed the pro-proposition sign into the street and was littering.
Wilson says Storm allegedly used the “Yes on Prop. 8” lawn sign to knock down the victim, who was then punched and choked while Storm allegedly uttered a homosexual slur.
October 30, 2008 at 3:38 pm
No On 8 has their website attacked with DOS.
http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4061163&content_id=A93FFFDA-05E7-42DF-BB8F-F3AC39ED50AA¬oc=1
Seems like there are plenty of examples of people lacking tolerance on both sides.
November 2, 2008 at 7:09 am
RE:
“As to those activist judges, the bulk are Republicans, appointed by Republicans interpreting the state constitution. Just because they disagree with you does make them activist.”
Forgive my admitted ignorance on this one.
I don’t live in California so I do not know about the makeup of the courts there. If the above is true it just comes as news to me. Is this the 9th Circuit Court to which you refer?
November 3, 2008 at 2:37 am
The latest Protect Marriage Yes on 8 television ad in California shows an incredibly cute 8 year old Hispanic girl bringing the book King and King home to her mother saying “Guess what I learned in school today. . . I can marry a princess!”
The anti-Prop 8, pro gay marriage crowd is running ads charging this whole idea that public schools will teach gay marriage is just a “lie.”
The latest press release from the Protect Marriage Yes on 8 campaign in California rather cleverly points out the same groups now charging its a lie public schools will teach about gay marriage whether parents like it or not — were just in court in Massachussetts filing amicus briefs arguing parents don’t have any right to opt their children out of the pro-gay marriage curriculum.
From the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Amicus Curiae Brief:
“In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents.” [p 5]
From the Human Rights Campaign Amicus Curiae Brief:
“There is no constitutional principle grounded in either the First Amendment’s free exercise clause or the right to direct the upbringing of one’s children, which requires defendants to either remove the books now in issue – or to treat them as suspect by imposing an opt-out system.” [pp1-2]
From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief:
“Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children’s book…King and King.” [p 9]
Which side is really telling the truth here about its aims?
November 14, 2008 at 11:11 pm
[…] Traditional Marriage, Voting | For my other tolerance posts see Tolerance I, Tolerance II, Tolerance III. Well, its been almost two weeks now since election day, and amazingly one issue remains in the […]
February 23, 2019 at 10:17 am
[…] Note: For the story on the picture, visit Messenger and Advocate […]