Uncivilized Tactics

Speaking of signs and downright mean and nasty tactics, this is what you get from people who don’t like to demonstrate civility in the political process.

This reminds me of an experiment that I heard from Dennis Prager on the radio. Here’s the hypothesis. If you park a car with liberal bumperstickers on it in a conservative neighborhood, chances are nothing will happen to it. But take the same car with conservative bumperstickers and put it in a liberal neighborhood, chance are it will get keyed and vandalized. The point is that liberals tend to act out of emotions and restrain any thought while conservatives act out of thought and restrain emotions.

Sonoran Alliance invites you to send any photos of the vandalized Prop 102 signs to us so we can keep show how wacked out these people are.


  1. Does my girlfriend tearing up a pro-102 flier she recieved in the mail count?

  2. Well, I don’t agree with destroying another side’s campaign, but you have to admit that this campaign is hurtful and frankly mean spirited in of itself.

    This isn’t a man or woman running to serve the public. This is a campaign that places discrimination into our constitution…not just law.

    So many find this offensive because it is tantamount to saying that the freedom of everyday Americans is less than that of others because some religious views don’t tolerate that…not all.

    Anyhow, I just should say that while I don’t condone the behavior, I think that this is far far different an issue…and its patently offensive.

  3. My last sentences was pretty vague. I dont condone the behavior of defacing another person’s sign. I think a constitutional amendment to keep my gay and lesbian friends from every having their marriages recognized by law…harkens to the days of Jim Crow…and is offensive.

    It is also Un-American.

  4. God, you homophobic guys are sensitive pansies!

    Gay men and women are used to a lot worse. That’s why we’re so much tougher than you are.

    What scared little pussies the homophobes are!

  5. Por ejemplo:

    Two men waiting for a taxi after a day of affirmation at a Gay Pride event in Flagstaff, Ariz., last June were attacked in what local authorities have pegged as an anti-gay hate crime.

    Four men were placed under arrest after the attack, reported the Arizona Daily Sun in a June 24 article.

    The event, called Pride in the Pines, was conducted in Flagstaff’s Wheeler Park on Sat., June 21. Hours after the event concluded, just before 3:00 a.m. on the morning of June 22, Michael Brown, 25, a r4sident of Phoenix, and an unnamed 23-year-old Okla. man were assaulted. The attackers allegedly hurled anti-gay epithets.

    Brown suffered minor facial lacerations requiring his lip to be stitched; Brown was also knocked out. The Okla. man required stitches for a laceration to his ear, the Daily Sun reported. Both men received medical attention.

    Prompt police response netted four suspects who were reportedly spotted running in the same vicinity.

    The four men placed under arrest included Flagstaff residents Travis Reiner and Michael Van Roteyn, both 24; Mark Greinke II, also 24, from Sun City; and Christopher Rose, a 26-year-old from the Colo. city of Englewood.

    Brown, a gay man, had come to Flagstaff in order to attend Pride in the Pines. He was with a group of friends when the attack took place, and the article said that he did not recall much of what happened.

    Brown was cited as saying that although he had been open about his sexuality since his teens, he had never experience anti-gay violence before.

    The article quoted Brown, who said, “I’m so naive that I just don’t feel that things happen like this anymore.”

    Added Brown, “The reason it happened is just ridiculous. It just doesn’t make any sense.”

    One of the men accompanying Brown was Equality Arizona’s public affairs director, Sam Holdren, whom the article said had not immediately witnessed anti-gay violence before.

    Said Holdren “It just creates a whole new set of emotions for you.”

    Holdren praised local police for their swift response, saying, “Flagstaff police were very professional, and that’s a really good sign for the city.”

    Added Holdren, “Hate violence happens. It can happen anywhere, and I just think that it’s really important that we really take this opportunity to really have the conversation now that it’s happened in the city of Flagstaff and really talk about steps that we can take to prevent it from happening again.”

    Witnesses described the incident as erupting suddenly, when a group of men passed by the victims. Witnesses also said that they heard the attackers shouting homophobic epithets, and one witness identified Reiner as punching Brown, knocking him to the ground.

    The article reported that one of the four men placed under arrest stated that he took the men to be gay because of the way they spoke. The suspect who made that statement was not identified by name.

    There are no state or municipal provisions for hate crimes,

  6. I don’t need the government to “protect” my marriage, thank you.

    And I wish my gay aunt, who served this country in three wars, had been allowed to marry her partner of 25 years. Maybe I’ll live to see the day that other honorable Americans aren’t “protected” from the government.

  7. The “Yes on 102” crowd has reduced the Bible to a collection of holier-than-thou bumper sticker phrases. What should we do about that obscenity?

  8. Once again, the Democrats prove they are the party of intolerance.

    Its amazing people that can talk about how “tolerant” they are, then call everyone who disagrees with them stupid and mean-spirited.

    The concept of marriage b/n one man and one woman has been the accepted norm for what, 2,000 years? Now we’re supposed to simply change that without any debate?

    It proves the old saying “liberals believe in democracy, as long as they get their way.”

  9. The Dems spray painted swatiska’s and tore up the Bush-Cheney signs in 2004. They are all about power. They don’t care about the rights of other people.

  10. All is fair in politics and war.

  11. I think all political parties should make sure we are ALL loved regardless of any ‘so-called’ differences and should never suffer any unhappiness in our short lives, ever. We will all be adored in our ‘autonomy’ having been convinced that we each deserve to be loved by everyone in the world as should every last one of the other 6-7 billion loving individuals. Oh the joy, when at last, our DNA can be so pre-determined that every new human being is a gorgeous specimen with nary a nasty thought or disagreement. Of course, sex will be practiced from the age of walking to a crescendo of 18 hour days to keep us completely entertained. What a world it will be!

  12. Richard,
    The story you tell is compelling! Hate crimes and people who commit them are horribly ugly!!
    Did you go into all of that to justify the vandalized sign?

  13. Hey, uh, Annie:

    [Citation Needed]

  14. Intolerance?

    Come on! If you believe strongly against gay people marrying then that is one thing, but to pass a law against it? To enshrine it in our constitution? I am sorry, but you are write, I won’t be tolerant of THIS kind of intolerance!

    Destroy your signs is petty and stupid. Destroying this type of logic, this type of proposed law is as American as apple pie.

    I wish more people had the guts to stand up and say no to this kind of crap. It makes me sick that the party that claims to have some kind of dominance over the term FREEDOM could use even support this.

    Yep…I am intolerant of intolerance of this type. I am intolerant of discrimination. These beliefs are not against the law, but they sure are antiquated, bigoted, and just down right Unamerican.

  15. The proper role of government shouldn’t be involved in marriage, period.

    Gay or straight.

    These props will only continue to hurt the republican party and make us the laughingstock of policy platforms.

  16. Oh, and another thing…

    The person who spray painted “NO” wasted his/her time.

    A much smarter tactic would have been to print out the words “NO” on a separate sheet and tape it over the YES.

    Wouldn’t have been vandalism, and would have been much more readable.

  17. Richard,

    What does a ballot measure which simply defines marriage have anything to do with an incident in which Mr. Brown and his associate were assaulted?

    The thugs who assaulted Brown and his colleague were rightly arrested and prosecuted as anyone in their right mind would agree was the right thing to do.

    Every act of assault is an act of violence and deserves the fullest prosecution under the law. Acts of violence are all acts of hate in some form. What would your answer to “gay-on-gay” violence be?

    No, I think you are confused about Arizona law. The incident in Flagstaff has nothing to do with the definition of marriage in the state of Arizona.

    It’s sounds like you are pushing the concept that when Proposition 102 passes, it will be open season on homosexuals.

    That could not be further from the truth and reality.

  18. Nice on the lesson in font, Get me out.

    And well said. We may not agree on everything, but it is more than good of you.

    Also, let me say this, you are right. The point of this is about both discrimination and the govt. recognition of marriage.

    Here is the point. Some churches believe homosexuality is a sin, others don’t. Some religions do, some dont.

    In the First Amendment,we gained both the freedom to practice our religion and at same time a wall between church and state so that some religious beliefs (eg. the Taliban) are not used to justify laws that constrain and tyrannize others.

    I see the battle to suppress gay marriage as very much the same.

    Have these discussions in your churches. If your church and religious doctrine does not condone same sex marriage then dont perform them. But if mine does and a couple in love form a bond that the rest of society enshrines into law and property, then theirs should be enshrined also.

    OR, as get em out says well, govt. should not be in the business of marriage at all. Contract law can supplement what a person’s beliefs, their god, their church…puts first as a human bond.

  19. James,

    Everyone knows that defining marriage as between a man a woman rules out a host of legal protections and benefits that would be provided to only heterosexuals who choose to marry. Why?

    As to what this says to many of my friends is that the state not only doesn’t condone homosexuality but would take the extra step of outlawing in constitutional law, any ability for couples to marry and to have the protections of law that go with that bond that a person does before their god.

    It also does something else. A law such as this says a lot about who we are as a people. It shows intolerance in the face of a massive social movement for equal human rights (not special rights).

    Last, economists all over the world agree that discrimination is inefficient and harms markets. It harms economic development. It was true of Jim Crow laws and it is true of anti-gay laws. States that allow civil unions nad same sex marriage have attracted wonderful people to their state who are hardworking, creative, and who boost the economy also. In states that have been harsh, we have seen less of this and even more recently boycotts of conferences held in these states.

    All of this is one of the main reasons that the business community, restaurant associations, chambers of commerce simply hate these laws.

  20. So why not broaden the definition of who can marry to include more than one person? Certain Mormon sects are already pushing for this change. Why not lower the age of marriage to 13 or 12? In the medieval ages, marriages took place very early? Why not include interspecies marriage? I know some people who love their pets and consider them “family” that they should be able to marry. By that same logic, why not allow marriage to take place between humans and inanimate objects? You see, this whole debate about marriage has gone sideways and it will only be a matter of time before marriage can be whatever you want it to be.

  21. I don’t like the slippery slope argument because it is never valid. The idea that these movements are in any way the same as this one is first not true, and is also irrelevant. I am not being asked to judge about polygamy or beastality and comparing them to this is wrong.

    Put a whole new post up if you want to talk about polygamy and we can all talk about the strengths and weaknesses, the rights/the wrongs, the civil liberties, the human rights and anything else. We can come to a concensus on that seperately and likely, they have harms to society that just do not exist in the case of same-sex marriage.

    There is not a shred of evidence that same sex marriage provides any real harm to anyone elses marriage, to society, to another person…at least not to a level to outlaw it.

    Lets start here, instead, what is the social harm to same sex couples…one man-one man, one woman-one woman…to society or another person or anyone’s marriage here?

    We can have arguments about making polygamy, underage marriage, and beastiality IF they come up. But it is fearmongering to argue that if we allow same sex marriage, then it will lead to other things that have little to no societal support.

  22. No one ever answered the question about gay-on-gay violence. Would that negate itself as a “hate crime?” Should we craft new legislation specifically prohibiting or exempting that form of crime?

    I would also argue that African-Americans do not like the association homosexual rights advocates make to the civil rights movement.

  23. Marriage is one man and one or more women.
    (Oops, scratch that.)

    Marriage is one man owning one woman.
    (Oops, scratch that.)

    Marriage is one white man and one white woman.
    (Oops, scratch that.)

    Good for the so-called “vandals.” I suppose someone who painted over this:


    Is a “vandal” too.

    Financial-benefits-bequeathed-by-the-government (i.e. “marriage”): For Heterosexual Use ONLY.


  24. P.S.:

    I parked my car in a neighborhood in Mesa (read: conservative) and had the Obama/Biden sticker ripped off, the windshield spit on, and my Human Right Campaign sticker written on (“fag”) with sharpie.


  25. Evan,

    Was that before or after you called everyone a bigot and neandrethal?

  26. So James, you’re considering matters of consent (gay marriage, polygamy/polyandry) to be of equal weight to matters of non-consent (pedophilia, zoophilia).

    This isn’t really hard to follow:

    Two men or women can agree to get married.

    A man and a box turtle CANNOT agree to get married. A child is considered by society not capable of consenting to marriage or sex until they reach a certain age.

    This really isn’t a hard concept to master.

  27. James, not sure I am going to convince you, but I think you are smart and you are willing to discuss this.

    I would like to get back to the topic of why same sex marriage is not equivalent to the kind of freedom your party and, we as Americans, hold dear.

    We all believe in the maximum amount of freedom possible unless there are clear harms to another person or clear harms to society.

    After 2000 years of tradition, we have changed a great deal after we have learned from each other. One thing we have learned is that homosexuality and bisexuality is not dangerous, harmful to society, or harmful to another person.

    So, then how can we restrict freedom?

  28. “Was that before or after you called everyone a bigot and neandrethal?”

    Because that would totally excuse the vandalism, right? And show me where Evan called anyone a bigot or a neanderthal. I know the miscegenation laws are an inconvienient part of American history, but 50 short years ago, interracial marriage was banned on the exact same arguments as gay marriage.

    And prove Evan wrong. The concept of marriage has been constantly evolving through human history.

  29. Oh…and one more important thing…about hate and hate crimes. They are indeed different. What those men did to those men in Flagstaff, what happened to at least two young men down on 4th Avenue in our own town was a product of hate that is taught. Taught from a standpoint that not only is homosexuality wrong but it is beneath some people and is something that deserves punishing with beatings. I know that most everyone here sees that as different than so called domestic violence or what some call “gay on gay violence” and that others call a fight.

    Beating someone because they are gay comes from the very same spirit that the anti-gay marriage amendment does. I would never say that those who want to illegalize gay marriage believe in beating people because they are gay, but it teaches us something. It teaches some kids that people are beneath others, that they don’t matter, that what they do in their lives is worthy of torture.

    How many of you have made an anti-gay remark? I have. I did..and I learned it was harmful. I saw it the first time when my cousin, who all loved, came to our family reunion in WV with her partner. She and everyone called her “her friend”. It was sad. Only my 70 year old grandmother had the courage to think for a second that it was really someone very different than a friend…and the fact that she had to pretend around the people who loved her the most…had to be the most hurtful thing of all.

  30. So let’s say that government got completely out of the “marriage business” and it went back to the “church.” Would that satisfy you and those who support gay marriage? If that principle applied to heterosexual marriage and even for those who were cohabitating, such that government did not recognize any legal standing for these relationships – unless there was a legal contract – would that satsify your demands?

  31. Of course, by “the church” you mean…?Catholic, Southern Baptist, Anglican, Society of Friends? Certain churches do offer gay marriage (notably, the Anglican Church), as do certain sects of Wicca and some other pagan beliefs, as well as some Bhuddists (all religions recognized by the United States). What about them?

  32. No, I actually mean all churches which would also include Episcopaleans, Presbyterians and those churches which have made scriptural exceptions for homosexuality.

    Again, if the government took a libertarian approach to marriage, would that be acceptable?

  33. James,

    Actually, that would be acceptable to me. A person would have choice what church to go to. Those that did not accept me for who I was, if I were gay, would not measure up in my mind. OR, I could do what many in churces have done for years and make my best arguments for acceptance and tolerance. I suspect that if there were not govt. sanctioning of marriage, then we would have contract relationships, ala libertarianism. I think we would also have to have some basic laws about discrimination too.

    I guess I cant go as far to say that people don’t have the freedom to believe what they would like. I think, under your idea, James, we’d have to spend a lot of time in the market place of ideas.

    Anyhoo, thank you for listening. This is obviously something I am passionate about and I appreciate to all here if they would reconsider if they planned to vote for this amendment. It is intolerant, UnAmerican (if we believe in the notion of freedom and privacy) and it is frankly hurtful.

  34. Here is one we saw at Tatum and Dynamite


  35. I never called anyone a bigot or neanderthal, my friend.

    Also, it’s spelled “Episcopal,” and only certain dioceses offer blessings same-sex unions. The sacrament of Matrimony is a different rite. The Episcopal Diocese of Arizona doesn’t bless unions, but its Bishop has spoken out against this unnecessary amendment.

    And as a gay man and a Christian (what a concept) yes, that is what I want. I want the government OUT of my church, OUT of my bedroom. And I want other people’s churches OUT of my government. A piece of paper is a civil union. A religious ceremony is a marriage. Period.

  36. GOP Boomer Gal says


    Then will you come back and demand that “mothers and fathers” , “husbands and wives” be purged from the schools as they have done in California?

  37. Gays and lesbians have the same rights that I do and hetero non-married live in couples do. Meaning, they can marry or not marry a person of the opposite sex of their choice. There are laws set up in place so that you can give power of attorney to anyone you wish. You can make a will to leave your estate to anyone you wish. GLBTs are asking for SPECIAL rights, the right to marry a person of the same sex. This amendment is not about homophobia or hatred or “stopping people who love each other from marrying”. It’s about protecting the right to worship the way I feel appropriate. There have already been people sued and persecuted over their religious choices regarding the gay lifestyle and those who live it. I, for one, do not want to have to see my church building used for a marriage that God would not sanction. I don’t think it’s a “hate” crime for me to say that I think homesexuality is wrong and against nature and God and that’s where we’re headed if we do not pass this amendment. (Against nature? Yes. The human race would be extinct if the gay lifestyle were the preferred lifestyle. No kids.)

  38. OH COME ON!

  39. You miss an enormous amount of govt. benefits given to married couples…and for what? Equality is not a special right. When you have something they do not, by virtue of government recognition, then arguably THAT is the special rights.

    Maybe we should phrase it as married couples, recognized by government, have special rights and gay and lesbian couples wish to have those same rights…and recognition of their marriages.

  40. Oh and I hardly think the human race is going to come to an end due to same sex couples.

    As you know, in some states couples can adopt (thank god) and there is surrogate motherhood. If the laws weren’t so strick, we might have more homes for unwanted children than we do now in this hetero dominated world.

  41. I said the human race WOULD have come to an end a long time ago, if the gay lifestyle were preferred, long before there was medical intervention. And yes, children are at risk, and not in loving homes as we would want them. However, I also do not feel that giving them to same sex couples is in their best interests. Unfortunately, the way the system is, it makes it difficult to get and keep good quality foster parents. The ideal is and always will be one man one woman raising a family.

  42. Kralmajales Says:”There is not a shred of evidence that same sex marriage provides any real harm to anyone elses marriage, to society, to another person…at least not to a level to outlaw it.”


    You don’t think she was harmed? That law in her state was unconstitutional because it violated her right to free enterprise and her right of free expression of religion.

  43. 2keyboards,

    So – if gays and lesbians are allowed to get marries, do you think there will be some sort of groundswell of formerly hetero people suddenly thinking “Wait, I can marry a dude… Really? Well, forget all these women I’m attracted to! It’s time for me to marry a leatherman in chaps!”

    “It’s about protecting the right to worship the way I feel appropriate.”

    How does gay marriage do that, exactly? Are you afraid you’ll be sitting in the pews and you won’t be able to see the altar because of all the homos lining up to take their vows or something?

    Question: How do you feel about divorce?

  44. Klute,

    No, I’m not talking about a groundswell of heteros realizing they’re gay. I’m talking about the legitimizing of a lifestyle I don’t think is one that was meant to be mainstream. Not just mainstream, but one that’s taught to my children in school as perfectly acceptable.

    Just one example of not being able to practice Christian beliefs when up against gay rights advocates. If you saw my other url then you would see that she was sued for exercising her Christian beliefs in not photographing a commitment ceremony.

    My belief is that divorce is a no win situation for anyone. Even when there is just cause, it’s not in the best interests of anybody. I hate the phrase “starter marriage”. I think that the reason that gay rights advocates have such a fighting chance at getting a “marriage” of their own is because heteros have treated marriage with such contempt.

  45. You don’t want gay people in your churches, fine (how Christian!) – but we gay religious folk aren’t going to be knocking down the doors of unwelcoming churches and demanding they marry us. There are plenty of accepting religious organizations.

    Ironic, isn’t it, that the same people who accuse gays of being sexually promiscuous deviants frown upon our monogamy too.

    Also, gay lifestyle? Please. I’m a human being. My lifestyle is no different than yours. Instead of a wife, I have a husband. I pay the same bills, eat the same food, and bleed the same blood. I take it you’re a Christian. Then we worship the same God, as well. There’s no gay “lifestyle.”

  46. Yeah, Evan, the world relies on stereotypes formed in the same media that they attack over and over. The hairdresser, the interior decorator, the fashion designer, the antique store owner, etc.

    They don’t see that the so-called lifestyle is no different. The big difference is that in parts of middle America, they wouldn’t know that the man or woman next to them is gay because people are afraid of living their lives freely and openly. Those who are open and out, and are lawyers, doctors, architects, professors, business leaders, choose to live in cities that are more accepting. Again, places where most anti-gay Christians don’t venture.

    Dont get your “gay lifestyle” picture from the media’s portrayal of a Pride Parade folks.

  47. I know that most gay people are not like I see in the movies or the media. I know that all gays are human beings and children of God. I just don’t agree with the idea that you’re “born” gay. All are created God’s image. I don’t believe God is gay. I believe he has a desire to see his children in happy, loving, male and female relationships, having sex when only legally and lawfully married. Why would He go to the trouble of creating two sexes if they were interchangable?

  48. Neil Schneider says

    Because most Arizona residents are focused on things that matter like the tanking economy, unemployment, getting loans, rising healthcare costs and immigration, I’d like to spotlight the efforts of the Center for Arizona (CAP) policy who is quietly spending $7 million dollars to “define” marriage in Arizona.

    They will use today’s Connecticut decision granting gay marriage rights as a scare tactic, saying that activist judges may bring gay marriage to Arizona. News flash to CAP, the world has changed and discrimination is out. Your thoughts on the issue are antiquated. Arizona’s fair-minded voters will not support your archaic ideology.

    Here is a brief refresher on the “definition of marriage” history in Arizona. In 2003 the Arizona Court of Appeals upheld current statutory Arizona law, which prohibits marriage between persons of the same sex.

    In 2006, voters defeated Prop. 107, an amendment that would have affected thousands of gay and heterosexual couples, by enshrining discrimination into the Arizona constitution. Arizona remains the only state to reject defining marriage in its constitution. There was no one trying to start gay marriage in Arizona in 2006 and to this day, no one is.

    The 2006 loss cost CAP dearly at the legislature and weakened Kathy Herrod’s political strength. They underestimated the fairness of Arizona voters.

    CAP’s 2008 quest to bring this measure back to the ballot failed with lack of support through normal legislative channels, so in the 12th hour of the legislative session, Senator Jack Harper, R- Surprise, broke longstanding Senate rules and even turned off fellow Senators’ microphones to get what CAP wanted. Harper turned off other Senator’s microphones. On the playground, that is called cheating. A formal ethics complaint could not undo the damage, so the divisive Prop. 102 was allowed to reach the ballot with just 16 votes.

    If Prop. 102 passes, you will see CAP immediately file lawsuits to stop cities, counties, universities and the state from providing any of the few benefits available to heterosexual or gay domestic partners. As a small business owner who befriends and employs several gay people, I will not stand for this and I will vote NO on Prop.102. Everyone knows a gay person or a couple in a domestic partnership. If you don’t think you do, wake up. Voting yes on Prop. 102 will directly affect them.

    Follow the money. Mormon families have been given a directive from Salt Lake City to contribute time and money to pass Prop. 102. Families are giving $10,000 at a time. What is next on the agenda after Prop. 102?

    Bishop Olmstead of the Catholic Diocese of Phoenix has produced a Web video encouraging Catholics to support Prop. 102. Doesn’t the Catholic Diocese have enough issues to worry about? What happened to the separation of church and state? It is outlined in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

    According to federal law, religious organizations cannot engage in political speech while they also accept tax-deductible contributions. Yet, a few weeks back 30 ministers intentionally violated federal law by being political in the pulpit. Mind you, these are the people who profess to be morally pure. It is time to send a message that churches don’t control our government.

    Let me expose the huge white elephant. It’s astounding that this dialog has to happen. If there were a proposition on the state ballot to define marriage in Arizona between one WHITE man and one WHITE woman, there would be marches and riots in the street. Our country has come too far on human rights, let’s not step backward. We cannot let a minority of people with $7 million dollars hijack the state constitution. They have already hijacked the state legislature.

    Gay people should have a right to the benefits a state granted marriage license. If you deny any loving couples the right to marriage, you also deny them of the financial, social and emotional benefits of marriage. This is not “twenty simple words defining marriage” as their expensive glossy flyers say. Prop. 102 is twenty words enshrining discrimination into the Arizona constitution. Separate but equal went out forty years ago.

    Fellow Arizona residents, with your no vote, we can guarantee that the Arizona constitution will grant rights, not take them away. We can keep church and state separate. Please vote no on Prop. 102.

  49. Wow, this is an interesting topic and article. I’m glad I found your article and had the chance to read it. I am very impressed.

Leave a Reply