This is priceless. My favorite example of gay “harassment” of the religious right is the one where they allege that two lesbians “glared” at a NOM supporter and said “we have feelings too.”
Yes, the religious right sued in court to stop two ladies from glaring at them. And they’re the ones against “activist judges.”
In 2008, the owners of a Sacramento ice cream parlor donated thousands of dollars to support Proposition 8, which would ban marriage equality in California. Gay rights activists, unhappy with the owners’ actions, posted negative reviews of the company online. Protesters also stood outside the shop and handed out free rainbow sherbert and waved signs reading “I love rainbow sherbert” and “It’s a rocky road to equality.”
That is just one of the examples that the National Organization for Marriage has cited as evidence of the “countless reports of threats, harassment, and reprisals” that marriage equality opponents have faced by LGBT activists.
In another instance in Washington state, an opponent of marriage equality was collecting petition signatures to challenge a law granting legal protections to same-sex couples, when two ladies “glared at him and one said ‘we have feelings too.'” He did not report the incident to the police.
In state after state, judges are finding that these sorts of examples do not actually constitute “harassment,” and they’re rejecting NOM’s requests to therefore keep its donors secret and be exempt from campaign finance disclosure laws.
NOM’s strategy is essentially reversing the traditional argument — that gay individuals frequently face harassment — and arguing instead that gay individuals are the harassers.
But four federal judges and three state boards in seven states — California, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island and Washington — have all found NOM’s evidence to be lacking. Not a single state has backed up NOM.
NOM did not return a request for comment for this article.