Boxer campaign hires day laborers to protest Carly Fiorina

A video has been uploaded to YouTube in late September is finally being given the media attention it deserves.

Fox News has shined some light on it. Of course you couldn't expect MSNBC or CNN to cover something that would portray their fellow liberals negatively.Here's the Fox News article.

According to that video, made by Derek Broes on September 29th prior to a Boxer - Fiorina debate, two day laborers are holding a sign critical of Republican Senatorial candidate Carly Fiorina. 

                  




Here's the catch: the sign was made by the Boxer campaign and the two laborers, one of which claims that he can't speak English, say they were promised to be paid by the Boxer campaign for their "services". If a picture is worth a thousand words, this video is worth ten times that. 

This is borderline exploitation. Here the Boxer campaign is offering money to those who would do anything to earn a dollar and who are likely in the U.S. illegally to hold a sign they can't get anyone else to hold. Is that a sign of how few supporters Barbara Boxer has in her camp? 

This reminds me of an article I came across earlier this month about a casting call for people to attend a Barack Obama event in Washington, D.C on October 13. At least that's a step up from enlisting (and paying) day laborers to support you. 

The worst part about it is that at least one of them doesn't even understand the content written on the sign he is holding, as he claims to not speak English. It is fair to assume that the ability to say one can't speak English doesn't demonstrate one's knowledge of English beyond that. I don't know Spanish beyond counting 1-10 but I can, if I needed to, say "No hablo Español".

Here's a key of advice, Barb. Maybe if your signs were more truthful, you wouldn't have trouble finding some of the constituents you represent and want to vote for you to hold them - and you wouldn't have to pay illegal immigrant day laborers.

READ MORE - Boxer campaign hires day laborers to protest Carly Fiorina

Does Wisconsin's domestic partnerships law violate the state's constitution?

In 2009 the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled against a challenge to the state’s domestic partnership law enacted three years after over nearly 2/3rds of Wisconsinites passed Referendum 1, which reads as follows:

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.

Wisconsin Family Action, a pro-family, traditional marriage group with whom I worked with during the National Organization for Marriage’s Summer for Marriage Tour stop in Madison, WI this summer challenged the legality of the domestic partnership registry as in their opinion; it was substantially similar to that of marriage.

Wisconsin banned same-sex marriage
in 2006 with Referendum 1.

Today the same pro-family group is putting forth a second challenge to the registry for same-sex couples on the same grounds: The domestic partnership registry is too similar to marriage and violates the state law created by passage of Referendum 1.

This time the challenge comes only months after the State Supreme Court ruled unanimously to uphold the constitutionality of that very referendum, which was challenged by a political science professor on a technicality that it violated the state’s laws on referendums by posing two questions in one referendum.

So the question is whether or not Wisconsin’s Domestic Partnership law is substantially similar to marriage or not and so I’d like to put forth the information to compare the two and let you decide.

Besides the fact that the applications for a marriage licenses and the application for domestic partnerships are both obtained from the County Clerk, the similarities between the two don’t stop at that.

Wisconsin state statute 765.01 states that “Marriage, so far as its validity at law is concerned, is a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable in law of contracting is essential, and which creates the legal status of husband and wife.”

In the declaration of policy for the state’s domestic partnership law, the state states the following:

The legislature finds that it is in the interests of the citizens of this state to establish and provide the parameters for a legal status of domestic partnership.

So what’s the difference between the two? The marriage law seems to specify husband and wife but besides that the two civil contracts create a “legal status” between two people. I’m quite sure that when the Wisconsin State Legislature drafted its first marriage laws, it found that it was “in the interests of the citizens of this state to establish and provide the parameters” of such legal status, too.

Moving along. Wisconsin state statute 765.02(1) states that “Every person who has attained the age of 18 years may marry if otherwise competent.”

Wisconsin’s domestic partnership has a similar requirement. Two individuals may form a domestic partnership if they satisfy all of the following criteria:

(1) Each individual is at least 18 years old and capable of consenting to the domestic partnership.

So in marriage and domestic partnerships, both parties have to be at least 18 years of age. The law stipulates that both parties are “competent” for marriage and “capable of consenting” for domestic partnerships. No big differences there. Note: The above only shows one of the criteria for a domestic partnership; I’ll go through the rest now.

Next we move on to other issues of eligibility. For example, the issue of whether or not either of the aspiring marriage applicants are currently married – or if the person they want to marry is a close-blood relative. 

Well, as you would expect, Wisconsin state statute 765.03 states that “No marriage shall be contracted while either of the parties has a husband or wife living, nor between persons who are nearer of kin than 2nd cousins…”

Wisconsin’s domestic partnership law has similar wordage:

(2)    Neither individual is married to, or in a domestic partnership with, another individual.

(4)    The 2 individuals are not nearer of kin to each other than 2nd cousins, whether of the whole or half blood or by adoption.

Above criteria 2 and 4 are mirror images of Wisconsin’s marriage law, going so far as to bring in the specificity about one’s second cousin. Look at the fourth criteria closely. It is almost as though they copy and pasted the marriage law. They both have the awkwardly sounding “nearer of kin than…” in reference to the second cousins.

Criteria three of the eligibility requirements for entering into a domestic partnership at first appeared to be a difference between the two. But honestly speaking, a criterion that you live together (literally “share a common residence” in the partnership law) goes without saying for marriage. I mean, it’s what married couples do. They live together. They have families. So there’s no difference there, either.

Criterion number five of the domestic partnership law is where a significant difference between marriage and domestic partnership sticks out like a car with five wheels. Criterion number five requires that both parties applying for a domestic partnership be of the same sex.

What? The first thing I thought was what about heterosexuals? How can, on one hand, the LGBT community be campaigning across the country against marriage laws which exclude same-sex couples but on the other hand support this domestic partnership law with excludes opposite sex couples?

It doesn’t matter that marriage may be ‘better’. Quite surely it is, to some. But shouldn’t opposite sex couples have the right to enter into a domestic partnership with their partner? What if they don’t like marriage? What if they were married once, got divorced and swore they’d never get married again, only to find and fall in love with someone else down the road?

I’ll have to revisit this issue later on. For now I want to continue comparing (there’s really not much contrasting going on, if you’ve noticed) marriage and Wisconsin’s domestic partnership law.

Wisconsin state statute 765.08(1) states that: “Except as provided in sub. (2), no marriage license may be issued within 5 days of application for the marriage license.”

That’s funny because I read that same thing in the domestic partnership law.

Except as provided in subd. 2., the county clerk may not issue a declaration of domestic partnership until at least 5 days after receiving the application for the declaration of domestic partnership.

Guess what? Subsection 2 is also very similar between the two laws.

Subsection 2 for the marriage law reads:

The county clerk may, at his or her discretion, issue a marriage license within less than 5 days after application if the applicant pays an additional fee of not more than $25 to cover any increased processing cost incurred by the county. The county clerk shall pay this fee into the county treasury.

Subsection 2 for the domestic partnership law reads:

The county clerk may, at his or her discretion, issue a declaration of domestic partnership less than 5 days after application if the applicant pays an additional fee of not more than $10 to cover any increased processing cost incurred by the county. The county clerk shall pay this fee into the county treasury.

Now that’s as word-for-word as it gets, folks. Oh, minus the extra fifteen dollars a couple seeking to get married must pay for expedited services. Please don’t tell me the difference between marriage and domestic partnership in Wisconsin lay in that little difference.

Wisconsin state statute 765.09(2) reads: “No marriage license may be issued unless the application for it is subscribed by the parties intending to intermarry, contains the social security number of each party who has a social security number and is filed with the clerk who issues the marriage license.”

Would it surprise you to find out that the domestic partnership law is a mirror image of that, too? I would hope that by this time, it would not be a surprise.

No declaration of domestic partnership may be issued unless the application for it is subscribed to by the parties intending to form the domestic partnership; it contains the social security number of each party who has a social security number; and it is filed with the clerk who issues the declaration of domestic partnership.

This is getting quite redundant, due to the fact that marriage and domestic partnership in Wisconsin are one in the same, so I’m going to pick up the pace a little. I’m going to lay out the facts and then the game will be to see if at the end of this article, you can, with a straight face, say that marriage and domestic partnerships in Wisconsin are “substantially different” as the law requires.

The marriage and domestic partnership laws both require that both parties “shall present satisfactory, documentary proof of identification and residence and shall swear to or affirm the application before the clerk who is to issue [it]. This is from Wisconsin state statute 765.09(3a).

Both the marriage and domestic partnership laws require that the respective application “shall contain the social security number of each party, as well as any other informational items,” that some government office may require. This is from the same Wisconsin state statute above.

That state statute goes on to finish “The portion of the marriage application form that is collected for statistical purposes only shall indicate that the address of the marriage license applicant may be provided by a county clerk to a law enforcement officer under the conditions specified under s. 765.20 (2).” And of course, word-for-word, with the replacement of “marriage license” with “application [for a domestic partnership]”, the domestic partnership law says the same thing. Word for word.

According to both marriage law and the domestic partnership law, both couples “must submit a certified copy of their birth certificate” but the law provides an out for both couples if a certified copy of their birth certificate is “unobtainable”. In such a case, both the couple applying for a marriage license and a couple applying for a domestic partnership may submit “other satisfactory documentary proof” of the requisite facts.

And what if the county clerk is not satisfied with the documentary proof provided? Well in that case, law stipulates that for both marriage and domestic partnership applications, the following: “Whenever the clerk is not satisfied with the documentary proof presented, he or she shall submit the presented proof to a judge of a court of record in the county of application for an opinion as to its sufficiency.”

So far the differences between marriage and domestic partnership in Wisconsin are the fact that 1) marriage is between a male and female and a domestic partnership is between two people of the same sex and 2) a more expensive fee for expedited services if you want to get married. Substantially different or substantially the same?

Not only are the fees to obtain a marriage license and to enter into a domestic partnership, but the way in which the money must be used by the County are identical for marriage applicants and domestic partnership applicants. Well, the domestic partnership law actually says it best:

770.17 Fees to county clerk. Each county clerk shall receive as a fee for each declaration of domestic partnership issued and for each certificate of termination of domestic partnership issued the same amount that the clerk receives for issuing a marriage license under s. 765.15. Of the amount that the clerk receives under this section, the clerk shall pay into the state treasury the same amount that the clerk pays into the state treasury from the fee collected for issuing a marriage license. The remainder shall become a part of the funds of the county. For each declaration of domestic partnership issued and for each certificate of termination of domestic partnership issued, the clerk shall also receive a standard notary fee in the same amount that the clerk receives as a standard notary fee in connection with issuing a marriage license and that may be retained by the clerk if the clerk is operating on a fee or part−fee basis but which otherwise shall become part of the funds of the county.

Information about the state’s domestic partnership law used in this article was obtained here.

Moving beyond the basically identical procedures of obtaining a marriage license and entering into a domestic partnership, it is necessary to go into differences in what benefits are available to domestic partnership couples versus married couples.

Bill 75 from the 2009 Wisconsin General Assembly contains a table of contents on page 6 that outlines the benefits granted to same-sex couples who enter into domestic partnerships.

These benefits include, but are not limited to, victim notification by the Department of Corrections, ownership of property and joint tenancy, health care, power of attorney, consent to autopsies, family and medical leave, and death benefits, among others. The full list can be seen here.

Most importantly, the list of benefits granted to couples in domestic partnerships is categorized by the authors of that very bill as “fairly extensive”. Altogether there are 27 areas of benefits granted.

The authors then go onto point out that there are some areas of family-relationship rights the domestic partnership law does not include. That list is on page 7 of the same Bill 75 and contains 22 areas of benefits not granted.

Altogether there are some 49 areas, or categories of benefits granted to married couples. Couples registered as domestic partnerships have access to 27, or 55% of them. But that is not actually really fair.

After all, two of the areas of “benefits” of family-relationship rights not afforded under the domestic partnership law are under the categories “marriage procedures” and “divorce”. That means same-sex couples have access to 57% of those benefit coverage areas.

Upon stating it’s opinion that the domestic partnership law was not “substantially similar” to marriage, the Legislative Council Staff, charged with the task of assessing whether or not the state’s domestic partnership law was or wasn’t “substantially similar”, the Council had this to say:

However, as noted previously, it cannot be concluded with certainty that a court would draw the same conclusions about the intent of art. XIII, s. 13 or the application of that provision to the domestic partnership proposal. Some uncertainty is inherent in attempting to determine how a court will interpret a constitutional amendment.

So you make the decision. Wisconsin’s same-sex domestic partnership law not only has almost identical procedures and eligibility requirements, but the legal status established through a domestic partnership offers nearly 6-out-of-10 of the benefits afforded to married couples and the domestic partnership status also affects how the couple can file taxes, just like it affects married couples.

The only differences between them, as I pointed out earlier, seem to be a difference in the cost of expedited services, the fact that marriage is restricted to opposite-sex partners and partnerships are restricted to same-sex partners.

Beyond that, registered same-sex couples have a greatly easier ability to terminate their domestic partnership whereas married couples must go through an official divorce. I would content that is a difference not in legal status between domestic partners and married couples but in the termination of said legal status.

Wisconsin Family Action is leading
the fight to protect the integrity of
marriage in the State of Wisconsin.

The new lawsuit filed by Wisconsin Family Action claims that the rights afforded to registered same-sex couples and the procedure for entering into a domestic partnership are too similar to marriage and gay rights groups in Wisconsin have come to the defense of their domestic partnership law.

We laid out our opposition to any form of same-sex relationship recognition in September. 

READ MORE - Does Wisconsin's domestic partnerships law violate the state's constitution?

Charlie Crist Supports Same-sex Civil Unions and Why it's Wrong

Most of the talk about compromising on the issue of same-sex marriage revolves around legalizing civil unions for homosexual partners as an alternative to same-sex marriage. This is a compromise that should be avoided if you value the traditional meaning of marriage between a man and a woman.

Some are saying that
the once Republican,
now Independent
Charlie Crist will say
anything to get elected.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist, a candidate for Senate running against Republican Marco Rubio and Democrat Kendrick Meek as an Independent after bowing out of the Republican primary after facing defeat, has recently come out clarifying his support for gay rights, including support of civil unions and same-sex adoption.

On the other hand, Crist underscored his opposition to same-sex marriage. To support same-sex civil unions in the place of same-sex marriage is a losing stance to take, historically speaking and here's why.

Currently, five states and the District of Columbia recognize and perform same-sex marriages. Three of these states – Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire – all started with civil unions for same-sex couples.

On July 1st, 2000 Vermont became the first U.S. state to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples which provided the same rights and status as marriage. Nine years later, when Vermont would legalize same-sex marriage in the spring of 2009, Jennifer C. Pizer, the national marriage project director for Lambda Legal, praised Vermont for its ‘important steps forward’.

“Vermont opened an important back door,” she said, referring to the civil unions. “Now it has invited gay people to enter through the front door of marriage.”

In neighboring New Hampshire, there is another same-sex-civil unions-to-same-sex-marriage pattern. In 2007, the New Hampshire House and Senate passed its civil unions bill, which provided the same rights and status of marriage. Governor Lynch said he supported same-sex civil unions because it was a matter of “conscience, fairness and preventing discrimination,” and the new law became effective January 1, 2008.

It would be only two short years before New Hampshire state legislature passed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage and on January 1, 2010, the law took effect. Per the same-sex marriage law, couples who entered into civil unions will see those civil unions legally designated and recorded as a marriage on January 1, 2011 if they don’t manually apply for a marriage license before then.

Gov. Lynch changed his
stance on same-sex
civil unions, too: That
they weren't enough. 

Mr. Lynch, who is up for re-election this year, defended his flip flop on the issue saying that he had heard “compelling arguments that a separate system is not an equal system.” He would go on to repeat his reasoning for supporting same-sex civil unions and apply it to same-sex marriage:

“Today,” he said, “we are standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear that they will receive the same rights, responsibilities — and respect — under New Hampshire law.”

Isn’t that why the homosexual activists pushed for civil unions in 2007? New Hampshire State Senator Fenton Groen’s comments on the same-sex marriage law couldn’t be any more accurate: "The pro-gay marriage people have been very disingenuous. They told us two years ago that if civil unions were passed, that would completely satisfy them. Within two years, they have completely changed their minds."

Well, what did one of New Hampshire’s gay residents, Rob Davis, who entered into a civil union in 2008 with his partner Dean Davis, say about the civil unions? "It didn't go far enough."

In Connecticut the situation was very similar. Legalized in 2005, civil unions for same-sex couples provided for the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. By doing this, Connecticut became the second U.S. state to adopt civil unions.

Connecticut, like its neighbor to the north, brought up legislation for same-sex marriage only two short years after implementing civil unions. It passed the House Judiciary committee that year and although Governor Jodi Rell promised to veto the legislation because she felt that civil unions for same-sex couples “covered the concerns that had been raised,” the Supreme Court of Connecticut guaranteed same-sex marriage rights the following year in 2008.

So in this case the court intervened to convert civil unions into marriage. Was it a surprise? Not for lesbian Anne Stanback, president of the Love Makes a Family consortium. In 2003, she was advocating domestic partnerships for same-sex couples where she argued: “Would passage of such a bill be an important step forward? Absolutely. Would it be the end of our fight? Absolutely not!”

Brian Brown, President of the
National Organization for Marriage.

Brian Brown, who once worked with the Family Institute of Connecticut and is now the President of the National Organization for Marriage, put it this way: "Some legislators thought civil unions was a way out," he said. "They falsely think it is some kind of compromise, but the proponents have made clear that civil unions is only a stepping stone to full same-sex marriage."

That’s exactly right, Brian, and it can be seen in New Jersey, too. In fact, had Republican Chris Christie lost in his election bid to replace Jon Corzine as Governor of New Jersey, gay marriage would be legal there today and would likely be legal in New York State, too.

New Jersey legalized civil unions for same-sex couples back in 2006, which made the Garden State the third U.S. state to offer such civil unions. Saundra Toby-Heath and her partner were among the seven gay couples who sued the State of New Jersey to redefine marriage. With the adoption of civil unions in 2006, Saundra said "We acknowledge this is a huge step forward."

According to an Associated Press news article from December 15, 2006, gay rights groups also shared her sentiment, saying that not calling the civil unions “marriage” created a different and inferior institution. They did, however, welcome the civil unions as a step towards full same-sex marriage.

Then in 2008 a commission full of gay rights advocates was set up to examine civil unions in New Jersey. You know what they concluded? That the civil union law created “a second-class status” for same-sex couples.

According to a statement on one of New Jersey’s largest gay rights organizations, Garden State Equality, the goal is same-sex marriage: “Garden State Equality is fighting for real marriage equality and will not settle for civil unions, which are separate, unequal and do not consistently work to protect same-sex couples in the real world. But civil unions are a notable step forward.”

New Jersey’s state legislature voted against same-sex marriage late last year after Chris Christie was elected and lawmakers failed to rush the same-sex marriage bill to outgoing Governor Corzine’s desk in a midst of scheming that gave democratic process in New Jersey a bad stink. That was luck. Before the election, the gay marriage bill was on track for passage and approval by the governor.

Political winds at the time allowed a republican to be elected governor of one of America’s bluest states. Had Corzine been re-elected, he would have fulfilled his promised to sign same-sex marriage legislation into law in early 2010.

Civil unions have historically
not been satisfactory for
same-sex couples and have
paved the way to eventual
same-sex marriage. 

So this point here is that the homosexuals and their activists pushing the homosexual agenda are not up for compromising. Their goal is same-sex marriage; gender-neutral marriage in every state across the Nation.

Legalizing civil unions is not a good strategy because a few years later, they will use that as the framework as a steppingstone to pushing for same-sex marriage. In their own words it is clear. Barbara Cox, associate dean at California Western School of Law and co-chair of the national Freedom to Marry Organization:

“But we aren’t going to get marriage until we get civil unions. You know, the people that I have talked to in Vermont, the people who are doing this nationwide, keep saying we need to do that [civil unions] as an important first step. But what I believe that what we have to do as a community is that each one of us has to
walk out of here tonight saying. ‘This is something that I can do to make a step forward.’”

Don’t allow same-sex civil unions. Supporting same-sex civil unions is the same as supporting same-sex marriage. If you value marriage between a man and a woman you must oppose any form of relationship recognition for same-sex couples that mirrors or mocks marriage.

READ MORE - Charlie Crist Supports Same-sex Civil Unions and Why it's Wrong

"Seven Senators" Video Targets Boxer, Feingold

This week we decided to focus our 2010 election efforts on defeating incumbent Senators Barbara Boxer of California and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. The two of them are among the fourteen Senators who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

Their opponents are Carly Fiorina and Ron Johnson, respectively.

Carly supported and voted for Proposition 8 while Barbara Boxer was a vocal opponent of it. Ron Johnson supports marriage between a man and a woman along with 60%+ of his fellow Wisconsinites, who went to the polls in 2006 to approve a statewide ban on same-sex marriage by nearly 2/3rds.

Accordingly, we have donated to their campaigns and intend on doubling, if not tripling, our contributions in the coming weeks. We are also pushing our newest video on the Internet.

This year we have a real chance to vote them out of office. It is our goal to work and to continue to work to ensure that each politician who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act is voted out of office.

Republican Dino Rossi is challenging incumbent Democrat
Patty Murray in a close senate race in Washington.

We've also been donating and working to support Dino Rossi's senate campaign in Washington State to defeat and retire incumbent Senator Patty Murray and will continue to do what we can to help on that front as well.

Patty Murray has been rated 100% by the Human Rights Campaign, which means her support for gay rights goes well beyond 'rights'.

Although there is no right to same-sex marriage, Patty Murray continues to think otherwise.

As a side front along these same lines, we've decided to reach out to Boxer and Feingold's small donors. We feel as though these people can't fully understand to whom they are donating their money. If they did, then we don't see any conceivable circumstance that they would continue donating to them.

Using a similar strategy thought up by advocates of same-sex marriage in Washington State in the Referendum 71 battle, we will be using public records available from the Federal Elections Commission and encourage people to hold their neighbors accountable. We are going to be asking people to explain themselves.

In our view, if you support a politician who votes away the foundations of our country one vote at a time, then you are just as guilty and you have some explaining to do. This is no longer just an issue of supporting one party over another. There are bad politicians in both parties.

This is not a call for violence or confrontation. This is a call for civil engagement. If someone in your neighborhood is donating to someone like California Senator Barbara Boxer or Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold or Washington Senator Patty Murray, it isn't out of malice or disdain of country. We truly believe they have the best of intentions.

However, they do not know thy senator. Thus, we've begun using the #KnowThySenator hashtag on our Twitter posts for this topic and we will engage them and ask them for an explanation for their political actions.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in Doe V. Reed that the names of those who sign a petition can not be hidden from the public eye. In that April, 2010 ruling, Justice Alito wrote ''Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed,'' and this is exactly what we seek to do.

Take a look at our video (above) and spread this message.

READ MORE - "Seven Senators" Video Targets Boxer, Feingold

Providence sparks infighting among homosexual activists

Well, we had our longest drive of our marriage tour thus far. It wasn't too bad, though. Trenton to Annapolis is only a couple of hours. Along the way we stopped for a late lunch/early dinner at a nice little restaurant in Pennsylvania. Being a native of Buffalo, I had a Buffalo Chicken Wrap but everyone else was insisting on getting Cheese Steak this or Cheese Steak that. Not for me.

Anyway, I have been monitoring our opponents response to their behavior in Providence the other day and saw pretty strong split in opinion.

Some praise the radical homosexual activists who stormed our podium and yelled in the faces of our speakers, who rattled water bottles filled with little stones, who engaged in lengthly tongue kissing in front of a crowd of parents and their young children, who made sexually suggestive gestures with their hands (again in front of a crowd of parents and their young children), who targeted those same very children with their hateful rhetoric, among other things.

And then there were some who saw the error in what the counter-protesters did in Providence. It was good to see that at least some of our opponents have common sense and reason and were able to see even when those on their own side had made a mistake and I would like to take the time to applaud such integrity. Of course, I am specifically referring to this blog entry from the Box Turtle Bulletin.

Now of course there is going to be differences of opinion not only between opposing sides of an issue but also amongst those of the same side. This happens all the time and for practically every politically divisive issue. However, I would like to draw to your attention the extent to which those those who actually support what happened in Providence went in response to BTB's blog post.

In this first image, which may or may not still be viewable on the aforementioned blog entry, you can see a perfect example of how quickly the most radical of the homosexual agenda, the ones who support the protesters actions in Providence, turn on one of their own the moment he doesn't stay on message.

Look at first post from Wendy. First off all, she is incorrect about the man speaking in tongues. That was not Brian Brown and someone corrected her on that further down in the comments.

But let's look at what she wrote after that. "I find your article severely more damaging than a couple of protesters...". So here she recogizes the damage caused by the radical protesters. Here's where she goes too far, just like those in Providence did.

"Take this [expletive] down and write a supportive piece and stow the caninbalization and sell out." Here she is scolding one of her own because he had the audacity to tell the truth, the audacity to admit a mistake. She turned on him. According to who was once a 'fan', the author of that article is a sell-out. Nice. Tolerant.

Wendy continues. "I'm normally a devote fan but this is a terrible anti-community piece." So does this Wendy girl want to hear only one-sided stories? Is she only interested in pro-LGBT propaganda? Is she really saying that it woud be better if the writer put a spin on everything to paint the LGBT community in only positive light?

 OK, so I guess the writer's name is Jim Burroway. Well, props to you Jim for writing this article and for keeping it posted after pressure to remove it and replace it with something less-truthful but more positive for 'the community'.

So even though Mr. Burroway has some integrity, as you can see in his response to Wendy, reading through his response demonstrates the rational side of the divide in 'the community' over what happened in Providence.

Mr. Burroway comes right out and says what the protesters did in Providence was stupid. I was there and I am for the other side, as you all know, and even I didn't use such strong language to describe their actions. Not that I object to his choice of words.

Mr. Burroway says something about the fact that principles matter. I agree. What I do everyday is stand for the principle that marriage is between a man and a woman because it is what is best for society, best for families, best for children, best for everyone as a whole. Now I realize that this causes problems for 'the community' which seek fair and equal treatment. This too, is a principle for which we should all stand for.

When it comes to fair and equal treatment of homosexuals, I am going to clearly state that I and the National Organization for Marriage and every other rational person believes in the fair and equal treatment of all people. This was one of the points Brian Brown emphasized during our rally in Manchester, NH.

Let's clarify. There are some benefits and protections afforded to married couples which same-sex couples can not obtain while same-sex marriage remains illegal.

The solution to this is not the redefiniton of marriage, not the changing of family structures but the legislation of due rights for this 'community'. There are rights and protections same-sex couples ought to have - fair and equal treatement - but we don't have to redefine marriage in order for them to obtain them.

So back on track. Here, AdrianT calls "babyish" and "infantile" what the protesters did in Providence. He even calls Wendy out on her statements and her speaking for the LGBT 'community'.

Well good for you AdrianT.

I am honestly impressed with the overall concensus from your side of this issue, from 'the community', that what your friends and allies did in Providence was inappropriate. I am glad to see that both of us are able to draw the same conclusions on this matter and find something to agree on.

But that doesn't change the fact that there are members of your 'community' who condone and were excited by what happened in Providence. Unfortunately, I believe we will see more of that type of behavior during the rest of the Summer Marriage Tour.

I've already seen some homosexual activists vowing to come out to protest our rally in Annapolis later today. It's 1AM so I am referring to the Annapolis rally as today for that reason. I still have yet to go to bed and wake up on the day of the Annapolis rally.

We'll have to see if reason and respect win out as it did in New Jersey today. Garden State Equality did a good job at keeping their members at bay and away from our rally in front of the Statehouse in Trenton today.

We were expecting problems but were relieved when we came across a message from GSE President telling their members not to harrass us. They obviously did not want to see a repeat of Providence.

This picture shows how bold GSE's members were willing to go during our rally.

Yet on the other hand that just further demonstrates the divide on the issue, the difference in opinion on strategy and tactics. I am thrilled to see that the majority of that 'community' is standing with people like myself and the National Organization for Marriage in opposition to the kind of behavior we witnessed in Providence.

READ MORE - Providence sparks infighting among homosexual activists

Gay activists deal blow to homosexual agenda at Providence rally

So strangely enough, the blogs last night were not full of updates and commentary about yesterdays's National Organization for Marriage rally in Providence, Rhode Island. The reason is simple. The gay rights activists who marched onto the rally were such an embarressment to their overall nationwide agenda that no one wants to praise what they did. I thought I'd sit on this story over night and see what was said. Not much.

Forming a line of about a hundred-fifty dressed in red shirts, bearing rainbow flags and multiple signs, the activists marched from the side of the Statehouse in Providence down and away from the location our rally was set up. This is what they told the police they planned to do.

No more. Well, that was quite the understatement.

Once again, during Dr. Morse's speech, the red shirts made their way towards our rally. They stopped just before where the police had parked their vehicles.

Their goal was to shout as loud as they could, some using bull horns, so that those attending our rally could not hear our speakers. We turned up the volume and Dr. Morse led us in loud cheers of our own.

Upon noticing that the police were not going to do anything to stop them, the activists got bold and sent out a subgroup of them to take over the territory behind our podium.

Bearing signs, cameras and rainbow flags, a couple of them made their way around the rally and set up camp behind where Dr. Morse was speaking.

They immediatey began shouting as loud as they could to draw attention to themselves over the Doctor's speech and were quickly joined by more, fare bolder activists who came shaking water bottles filled with little stones to rattle around. There goal was to make it as difficult as they could to hear our speakers, our message. It worked against them.

Brian Brown took to the podium again. The protesters were getting out of control and they were about to do exactly what would be their undoing. This photo has already gone viral over the internet as it shows the hate and militant tactics the homosexual activists use in their 'civil rights' movement.

The reality is, as Brian Brown has said many times, the real civil rights movement is for us to stand up for not only what we believe in, but to stand up for our ability to express our beliefs - exactly what these people were attempting to prevent us from doing.

These people hold parades about things like tolerance and respect and equality for all. These are just words to them. Just slogans. They have no grasp as to what they actually mean. They are just the kids of civil rights activists looking to join a movement.

They sincerely believe in what they do and I'm sure it is with the best of intentions. I believe people are generally good people at heart but there are always some who, for one reason or another, fall off the deep end. In Providence, those same people gathered in masse.

Are these the faces of tolerance? Of equality? Of love and respect? Are these the faces of a movement which prides itself in acceptace of all and of comstitutional freedoms? Ironic how, the very same man in the blue shirt stayed on site after our rally trying to quiz us on whether or not we knew what the amendments to the Constitution were. He wanted us to tell him what certain amendments were, specifically the 3rd, 4th or 14th Amendments.  I would like to suggest to him that he go home and read the first amendment as it pertains to the right to assembly - he might learn a thing or two about how this country is supposed to work.

At that point, although the Providence Police did little to enforce our right to assembly, they did finally remove the protesters from in front of the podium but not completely. Our speakers were at least able to approach the podium without being shouted down by gay activists with rainbow flags on their backs.


That, however, did not apply to these lesbian activists, one of which wearing a shirt that wrote "I love female orgasms" who sat in front of the podium kissing and touching each other right in front of our marriage supporters - many of which brought their children. They did not care whatsoever.

We've got pictures of them and their indeceny - including pictures of them making-out and making sexually suggestive gestures.


Now we get into the part where the remaining horde of the activists formed two flanks and approached our stage area from the left and right to take over the steps behind us. They assembled on the steps yelling and screaming and rattling their water bottles.

By this time, their leader had approached the two kissing and fondling lesbians pictured above and had them move from the stage area. Seems like maybe one of them was seeing the error in their ways.

The climax of the rally was amazing. The protesters were rattling their stones and chanting their chants and trying their best to drown out our speakers. Brian Brown stopped his speech and led our supporters in a chant of our own. While our opponets were chanting "Get your hate out of our state," Brian led our supporters in an amazingly loud and effective "One Man, One Woman!" chant.

The protesters and the might of their stone-filled water bottles were no match. Their signs, one of which you can see to the right, give an insight as to what their line of thinking is. Is this really what they think? This sign goes right along with one of their chants when they said "Heterosexuality is a sin."

The rally ended wiithout any arrests or any physical altercations but I would like to highlight the extent to which the activists went to spew their hate and the remarkably dispicable tactics they used.

Towards the end of the rally a group of them converged onto a mother and her four or five young kids.

The activists went right after the kids asking them questions like "Hey, is your mommy and daddy raising you to grow up to be bigots just like them?" The kids, the youngest of which an infact and the eldest about nine were escorted away from the activists by their mother and another woman. I approached them shortly afterwards and they were visually shaken up. Again, a movement of tolerance, love and respect for all.

So much happened yesterday that I may have left out some important details but if something comes to mind I'll definately add it to this post so everyone can really understand which side is spewing the hate. Which side is attacking who? As you can see in this video, the hate and bullying tactics weren't confined to the activists out of Providence and unfortunately, I suspect we are in for more as this tour continues.

READ MORE - Gay activists deal blow to homosexual agenda at Providence rally