October 20, 2012
Gay-marriage proponent harrasses woman opposed and attacks bystander

A man attacked a woman who had anti-Referendum-74 signs on her car in a Safeway parking lot in Burien Sunday, October 14. He first tore a sign off her car and tore it up. When another woman got out of her car to help he attacked her and used the strongest racial slur. King County Sheriff's Office says a 23-year -old man was arrested Wednesday morning.

Did the pro-gay-marriage campaign renounce this attack? Washington United for Marriage issued a statement on Monday, October, 15:

"Let me be clear. We condemn any act of this sort and we have been explicit with our supporters -- we respect everyone, no matter where they stand on Referendum 74. In fact, we sent an email to our entire list in early September calling for respect and restraint, and another to our staff.

"Having said that, this sort of claim is, sadly, a well-worn, cynical political tactic by the National Organization of Marriage (NOM) that began in California in 2008 and has been regularly trotted out ever since. They have neatly turned the basic argument -- that they and their supporters are subject to harassment -- into a near constant lament in the final weeks of these campaigns."

Get that? Being attacked is a political tactic. How does one arrange that? That's the only news or statement on the WUFM web site today.

This story was not well covered. I didn't see it in my daily news trolling.

Seattle Times on October 17. The Seattle PI reported the arrest October 17. Fox News 13 reported the story: KCPQ 13

It's not news at KIRO TV - recent stories about R-74. Not news at KOMO TV - recent stories about R-74

Not news at KING TV - recent stories about R-74. Not news at NWCN - recent stories about R-74

Hat tip to John Carlson at KVI AM 570.

Posted by Ron Hebron at October 20, 2012 06:51 AM | Email This
1. Perhaps the attacker has been working deep-cover for years. The Commies did it so why wouldn't the Tea Party? Must have been hard for this guy to pretend he was a lefty wacko just waiting for years until just the right election came along and he could launch his attack on this woman. I smell block-buster movie!!!!!!

Posted by: Moondoggie on October 20, 2012 10:52 AM
2. It's heartening to see this blog so concerned about harassment related to sexual orientation.

Posted by: Bruce on October 20, 2012 12:33 PM
3. Can campaign signs claim harrassment? Our R-74 signs have been torched, spray-painted or stolen. Yet..their signs remain untouched. Doesn't this speak about their character, not to mention the illegal action? I recall the angry mob attacking the older lady at the rally in Palm Springs....the militancy!!

Posted by: Susu on October 20, 2012 01:19 PM
4. Let's be perfectly clear about what we learned in 2009: gay-marriage proponents are some of the aggressively hateful people in our society today.

Posted by: Dave on October 20, 2012 04:33 PM
5. Bruce @ 2:

Perhaps if militant sodomites and their hard-left apologists would cease their 24/7/365 effort to ram their filthy and perverted "lifestyle" down the rest of our throats we could all get along.

Posted by: Saltherring on October 20, 2012 06:04 PM
6. #3: I put up two NO on 74 signs and they were stolen in less than a week! These people steal from the NO campaign with impunity. Leftists are nasty and try to intimidate in order to get their way. This should NEVER be rewarded. People who put up NO signs are doing so peacefully, yet the YES people are being, quite frankly, thugs. This is not some 'tactic' for those of us who put signs up. And that was a very feeble statement for the Yes campaign to make. They know they have no excuses for their nasty behavior. Leftists are increasingly bullying in their tactics and have to be stopped. They can campaign for whatever they want, but there is no right to steal from others (which is exactly what sign-stealing is) campaigns b/c they feel like it. Leftists need to stop the stealing and nastiness.

Posted by: Monterey on October 20, 2012 09:35 PM
7. "...that they and their supporters are subject to harassment -- into a near constant lament in the final weeks of these campaigns."

THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S TRUE, LADY! 'No' folks ARE being harassed. How does she even take the truth and try to make it something bad on the harassment victims' side of all this?

Posted by: Monterey on October 20, 2012 09:47 PM
8. Asked a 74 supporter if he supported equality for cousins to marry tonight. He told me that was sick and perverted. Funny

Posted by: dengle on October 20, 2012 09:49 PM
9. Reading the strongly negative comments above makes me ask, so what is it about gay people that you're afraid of? That you will turn gay? That your kids will?

I guess I could understand your fear if it had any rational basis behind it. Do you all really believe that homosexuality is a choice? If so, when did you choose to become straight? Do you remember the year or even the day?

"Gee, maybe I'll ask Susie to be my girlfriend or maybe I'll ask Bobby to be my boyfriend. I can't decide, but I better do so soon." Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it.

If you're truthful with yourself, you know that you were born straight. Why would gay people be any different?

And since they are born that way, why call them sodomites and worse?

Posted by: Progressive on October 21, 2012 04:56 AM
10. "Gee, maybe I'll ask Susie to be my girlfriend or maybe I'll ask Bobby to be my boyfriend. I can't decide, but I better do so soon." Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it."

Yes, ridiculous...except that why would Gays exclude poly marriage from R-74? Are they bigots against Bi-sexuals? Do they have something against consenting adults in a group of more than two people, who want to express their love for each other through marriage? Many cultures across the globe have recognized and practice poly-marraige for centuries, are the Gay's behind R-74 bia's against them for some reason? If you want to change the Govenrment's difinition of marriage, you had better be prepared to open it up to all of those who should be qualified to participate, not just the one's you feel are politically viable. See you in court.

Posted by: Smokie on October 21, 2012 06:32 AM
11. "Get that? Being attacked is a political tactic. How does one arrange that?"

How does one arrange that? By setting up a bogus attack and reporting it to the media to get that shop-worn "We're the real victims" response from wingnuts.

C'mon. Who are you trying to kid?

Posted by: red hiney monkey on October 21, 2012 07:32 AM
12. "Progressive", we noticed you didn't at all address the stealing and intimidation tactics being used by the yes on 74 people.

Posted by: Monterey on October 21, 2012 02:43 PM
13. This type of violent thuggery is what passes for political discourse in a liberal Democrat head. Always has. In fact, my change of political support was based on a union thug attacking an old lady that was protesting with a sign about Bill Clinton. He walked up to her and grabbed her sign (she looked to be in her 70's) and knocked her to the ground in the process (could have been accidental, I don't know). He walked away and never looked back. It was then that I realized that I was allied with the wrong group . . . Democrats. Haven't been back since.

Posted by: Oscarphone on October 21, 2012 04:02 PM
14. People like smokie@10 and dengle@8 who claim to be all worried about polygamous marriage and cousin marriage aren't fooling anyone. It's not like they were out there fighting for those rights. Even if you support these rights, they're not on the ballot. Why not vote for what is on the ballot? We know the answer -- they're against gay marriage -- but they realize their arguments against gay marriage are baseless and mean-spirited, so they pretend to be concerned about polygamists and cousins.

Posted by: Bruce on October 21, 2012 08:38 PM
15. Why is being against gay marriage being called is mean spirited? Why is it baseless? What value does it bring to society? Gay people have the same rights now in WA and I hope they have a wonderful life. But the gay lobby want being gay to be normal and legitmate. It isn't. It is adnormal sexual behavior and I'm fine with that. Just like any sexual behavior. If you need to do something to get your orgasm...then go for it, but changing marriage from a man and women isn't going help you feel better. Just accept who you are. Why do gay people need to feel accepted? How about goth. Do they? Are they descriminated against? I would say yes....even more so than gays. Again....74 isn't about rights...gays have them....it's about acceptance. I accept you like to be with another person of the same sex.....heck, it might not even be sexual relationship. You just like the person and want to be with them and have them in your life. But again....not marriage.

As for cousins and the like...I'm not really fine with that, but that is your choice to do it and they should be covered maybe by the current laws, All but marriage. Again, I think it's wrong, but then again their choice. Bruce....your a Pro-Choice person. Why do you deny them? 74 is touted as marriage equality. it just isn't, as Pudge has stated in other posts. It's let's make my sexual preference accepted. Again, gays are accepted by many, especially here in the PNW. Actually, gays are more accepted than Christians.

Posted by: Dengle on October 21, 2012 09:36 PM
16. It will be interesting to see how the final vote on R-74 matches the latest polling results.

With the sort of intimidation, harassment, and vandalism by the pro-homosexual marriage bunch, one could imagine that what people say they'll do may not match what they will actually do once they mark their ballot in the privacy of their own home.

Here's a report from the Heritage Foundation that chronicles some of the harassment and intimidation experienced in California when Prop 8 was on the ballot a few years ago:


Posted by: Smoley on October 22, 2012 12:16 AM
17. If the harrassment and assault were perpetrated by an anti-homosexual "marriage" activist our local "news" media and civility police would be all over it.

Posted by: Attila on October 22, 2012 05:33 AM
18. People like Bruce, who make assumptions about how individuals feel about Gay Marriage are part of the biggoted group that hold down progress. Why go through multiple campaigns and litigation to get to allowing Poly marriages along with Gay Marriage? I have asked people who support R-74 why they didn't include it, it only makes sense.
Anytime you open up legal definitions for change, you might as well make provisions for all of the possibilities or you are going to be in court, paying lawyers, defending an indefensibile position, quite possibly with both sides using public funds. So to the Bruce's of the world if you want to see who opposes what, look in the mirror and ask yourself why you oppose true marriage equality for ALL consenting adults in our society.

Posted by: Smokie on October 22, 2012 06:39 AM
19. The real war on women revealed. Militant male sodomite attacks defenseless women expressing their 1st amendment right. Liberal's love free speech, as long as they approve of it, really tolerant eh?

Posted by: Rick D. on October 22, 2012 09:03 AM
20. Let's shake up (the recently sorta boring) SP a bit and go off topic to the WAR on WASHINGTON CITIZENS:

Washington Chris Gregoire (D) 38 F

That 38?

That's our queens ECONOMIC SCORE.

Yep, on the Fiscal Policy Report Card on America's Governors: 2012,, our queen managed to land at the very top of the very bottom five with a great big resounding F


Chris Gregoire, Democrat

Legislature: Democratic

Grade: F

Took Office: January 2005

Governor Gregoire earned a well-deserved "F" on the last Cato report card. Under Gregoire there has been a never-ending stream of proposals to raise taxes. In her first year, she approved tax increases on cigarettes, gasoline, liquor, and vehicles. She also re-established an estate tax after a previous version had been struck down by the state supreme court.In 2009 she signed a large tax package that included increases in business and occupation taxes, sales taxes, cigarette taxes, beer taxes, soda taxes, and candy taxes. In 2010 she signed a package including a dollar-per-pack increase in cigarette taxes, a new hospital tax, higher beer taxes, and an increase in business and occupation taxes. In 2011 she proposed a half cent increase in the state sales tax rate. In 2012 she proposed a new $1.50 per-barrel tax on crude oil to raise $275 million annually.Gregoire's big government approach has also played out in Washington's referendum process. In 2009 Gregoire opposed a ballot measure (I-1033) that would have put a legal capon government revenue growth. In 2010 she supported a ballot measure (I-1098) to create a state income tax. But Washington voters have turned down an income tax numerous times in the past, and they did so again in 2010 by a large margin. Finally, Washington voters have approved legislative super majority requirements for tax increases a number of times, but these past limits have either been put aside by the legislature or by the courts. Gregoire has repeatedly opposed these limits. Voters will try again this November with a ballot measure(I-1185) to create a legislative super majority requirement for tax increases

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on October 22, 2012 09:29 AM
21. Let's face the music Neo-cons: R-74 is gonna pass, so you may as well start your repeal initiative now.

Posted by: Politically Incorect on October 22, 2012 10:27 AM
22. The press coverage would have been very different if the attackers were part of the "No to Ref 74" group and the woman was part of the pro side.

Posted by: Burdabee on October 22, 2012 12:42 PM
23. OK, Progressive, I will play.

Homosexuality is a choice, and here is why.
We, as the human animal, are sexual creatures. Sex is how we procreate. Procreation involves a male and a female of the species. That is the natural tendancy programmed into the DNA to propogate the species. It is instinct to be attracted to the opposite sex.

If people are "born gay" then there is only one possible explanation. The human animal is going through a genetic change that is going to bring about a new way to procreate that will no longer involve two creatures of the opposite sex.

So, when I see a same sex couple have a child with each other (and I do not mean adoption, or a surrogate sperm donor) then I will believe the "born gay" argument.

And as far as choosing to be straight, I think it is more that I chose to follow my natural instinct to being attracted to women.

I am not saying we make homosexuality illegal, punishable by stoning. I am not saiying that I hate homosexuals. I am saying that I wish that we could just agree it's a choice, and not try to fool the world otherwise.

Posted by: DBWoodley on October 23, 2012 05:11 AM
24. @23, does the human genome contact you to get your OK before it hands out functionality? That's the only logical basis I can think of for your assertion that "there is only one possible explanation." Of course it's a flawed assumption. Not every genetic variation has an obvious and useful purpose that conforms neatly to what you want it to.

It's pretty easy to build a logical house of cards when you start with an assumption that rules out any opposing explanations.

Posted by: RookieRick on October 23, 2012 06:46 AM
25. DBWoodley@23, your "only one possible explanation" statement indicates a total misunderstanding of natural selection.

Then you say "I chose to follow my natural instinct to being attracted to women", which I believe. But if a gay person says they chose to follow their natural instinct, you don't believe them, because it contradicts your simplistic view of natural selection.

Posted by: Bruce on October 23, 2012 09:16 AM
26. It's all that tolerance and diversity in action.

Harassment vandalism, escalating violence, arson, and general mayhem are all part of the Marxist playbook. It's all in the Communist manifesto.

Vote NO on R-74. Protect your free speech and freedom of religion.

Posted by: JoeBandMember on October 23, 2012 12:06 PM
27. JoeBandMember @ 26:

And that is what homosexual marriage is all about, a blatent attempt by Bolshevist extremists to circumvent the first amendment rights of Judeo/Christians. Otherwise "civil union" laws would have sufficed. But weren't we told that at the time civil union laws were passed that such laws were all that the sodomites wanted? Simply more lies from the hard left whose true intent is that we all live chained to the walls of the sewer of a world they created and shoved down the rest of our throats.

Posted by: Saltherring on October 23, 2012 04:20 PM
28. The Gay Bullies Are Being Exposed
--- Barely 25 years ago, two gay strategists stated that it was essential to "Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers." They explained that, "In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector."

To be sure, there have been more than enough gay men and women who have been victims of hatred and violence, and they deserve society's protection as much as any other citizens. But today, more and more gays are becoming the victimizers while it is civil-minded, decent straights who are becoming the victims.

The gay bullies are being exposed, and their very own strategy is working against them. It's time for society to stand up for the victims of gay bullying.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on October 24, 2012 10:13 AM
29. Saltherring@27 rhetorically hallucinates, "weren't we told that at the time civil union laws were passed that such laws were all that the sodomites wanted?"

I can't say what the voices inside your head or on Fox News told you, but I defy you to tell us who said civil union laws were all that were wanted by gays and civil libertarians -- whether they resided in Sodom or elsewhere.

Posted by: Bruce on October 25, 2012 11:24 AM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?