Thursday, October 20, 2011

Death Threats to Elizabeth Scott

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Elizabeth Scott ran for the WA State Legislature this past election. She was also very active in the R-71 campaign, circulating petitions and gathering signatures.

She was also one of those deposed by Attorney General McKenna's office regarding the R-71 names.

She and her children received multiple death threats during the campaign because of her position on defending marriage.

Many have written to me expressing support and appreciation for running R-71 and the efforts to seal your names. Some, a very few, have suggested that McKenna and Reed were only doing their job in upholding transparency and disclosure laws.

We strongly support and advocate transparency and disclosure.

However, sometimes there are exceptional circumstances. We feel this was one of them. You read our joint press release and know that Stickney, myself, Steve Pidgeon and James Bopp all strongly disagreed with the judge's ruling. Reed and McKenna have celebrated. And I fear that some citizens who support natural marriage have been compromised by the immediate (within minutes) release of their names and other information.

We must now move on in defense of marriage. However, if you receive contact from homosexual activists regarding your support of natural marriage, please contact us with the details.

There was another aspect that became evident during the R-71 depositions.

It was the open hostility expressed by McKenna's staff toward, not only myself, but all those from our side who were deposed. Pidgeon and Bopp both said the depositions were beyond what they have seen in their law career. I personally have been deposed in several high stake entertainment cases and had never experienced the level of hostility in a deposition displayed by McKenna's staff toward myself, and in comparing notes, toward others, including a Russian Pastor who said the deposition reminded him of another place and another country where Christians are not looked upon very kindly.

This ruling not only puts citizens at risk who had a reasonable expectation of protection under law in participating in the initiative process, but provides a chilling effect on all Christian and conservative citizens who may be asked to sign petitions to repeal Ed Murray's homosexual marriage law in 2012, should he succeed in cramming it through the Legislature.

We are presently preparing and organizing for that possibility.

Elizabeth Scott once told me she shared with AG McKenna the information she has written below in a conversation during her campaign.

This is what she had to say following McKenna and Reed's big win.

In her own words:

For release: immediately

Contact: Elizabeth Scott, 206-330-1066

Elizabeth Scott “concerned” for safety and freedom of signers Elizabeth Scott, who ran for State Legislature last year, said she is “disappointed” in the decision of Judge Benjamin Settle to release the names of those who signed the Referendum 71 petitions. R71 allowed Washington voters to have their say about the Legislature’s “Everything But Marriage” law passed in 2010.

“Extremists issued multiple death threats to me and my children due to my being publicly questioned about my personal beliefs,” Scott said Monday. “I am greatly concerned for both the safety and the freedom of speech of those who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, a definition that Americans have upheld in every state that has put it on the ballot.” Although threats, harassment, and intimidation are illegal, these crimes are not being fully prosecuted, as numerous plaintiffs in Doe v. Reed declared in their depositions.

With the County Sheriff and the State Attorney General failing to prosecute death threats, the 138,000 R 71 signers are undoubtedly wondering whom they should call for protection under the law. Scott added with a chuckle, “I guess when the First Amendment is eliminated, we drop back to the Second.”


I personally wish we were not in this place, however, this is where we are and why.

Thank you for standing with us in these challenging times.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Blessed.


  1. "NATURAL Marriage" What in God's Name is "Natural Marriage"????

    Gary - How about Biblical Marriage - how about say an Abraham or a David???

    I realize the Bible is an inconvenient book for the post modern evangelical such as yourself....

    BTW - God authorized death for those engaged in actions against His word all the time - I wouldn't worry about it too much - you could be thwarting His will.

  2. Apparently the hypocrisy of anti-gay activists knows now bounds! Scott's closing statement: “I guess when the First Amendment is eliminated, we drop back to the Second,” is EXACTLY the type of statement that Gary's lawyers characterized as "death threats". I can't think of any action that would show just how correct Judge Settle was in his opinion than Gary's whole hearted embrace of what two short weeks ago were "death threats" and probably still would be today, if they came from lips of equality advocates.

    Further, contra Gary's claims, the court found that Scott had presented no evidence what so ever to connect the alleged "death threats" with her advocacy of Referendum 71, in fact Settle mentioned in his opinion that after the Herald ran a story about her support for and signing of referendum 71 - a story that included her contact info- she received exactly zero calls(harassing or otherwise) about here support for the referendum. In short the only evidence to connect the alleged "death threats" and supporters of Domestic Partnership rights or "gay activists" is the anti-gay animus of Gary, Larry, Elizabeth and company- that and a desire to waste hundreds and thousands of taxpayer dollars to defend against a lawsuit, that in the end turned out to nothing more than a cynical attempt to use our court system to launch a PR campaign smearing their opponents.

    I'd say for shame, but you folks clearly have none! In fact my guess is you will cowardly censor this post.

  3. Note that Gary makes a point of including Scott's phone number. Could that be because Gary - no doubt in collusion with Scott- is hoping for harassing or threatening phone calls?

    I'll say it now any alleged threats against R-71 supporters need to be fully investigated - not least of which to ensure that they were not perpetrated by R-71 supporters looking for fodder in their anti-gay PR campaign.

  4. You knew 2 weeks in advance when the decision was going to be handed down. Mr. Bopp had plenty of time to prepare a request for a stay in case you lost. If he had been prepared, he could have gone over the 9th Circuit within 5 minutes of getting Judge Settle's decision to ask for a stay. He didn't. Don't blame Secretary Reed for responding to requests for the petitions. He was doing his job and following the law. In the absence of a stay, he had no basis to refuse any request for DVDs with the petitions. Now, thanks to your dilatory response, your entire appeal is moot.

    Also, I would love to see some specific examples of the unprecedented hostility you or others experienced in your depositions. I have read those portions of those depositions that are public and I saw nothing but a professional, courteous proceeding. If there was such hostility or any kind of intimidating or discriminatory atmosphere, Mr. Bopp would have and should have called the court to intervene and put a stop to it. Did he?

    Since you make this accusation against McKenna's staff, please post some paragraphs from your deposition or that of the Russian showing this hostility. Otherwise, apologize for bearing false witness.

  5. I'm sorry, but given what your legal team has construed as death threats, shouldn't your headline read "Death Threats FROM Elizabeth Scott"?

    Or do you really expect folks to believe that if a marriage equality advocate talked about the second amendment in response to a court loss, you wouldn't be shouting to everyone who would listen that you'd received death threats?

  6. This is a pretty laughable article. The "death threat" allegations seem to just be a distraction to the fact that more and more Americans and Washingtonians alike are coming out in support of marriage for lesbians and gays. It is time to let freedom ring and stop this hypocrisy and bigotry.

  7. Pastor-
    Still waiting on some lines from one or more depositions demonstrating hostility or anti-Christian animus towards you, the Russian pastor or other witnesses.

    If you can back up what you say, I will admit that a wrong was done to you by McKenna's office. But if you can't back it up, then say so and apologize.

  8. Ok having looked through a number of the petitions I have a couple questions:

    Did you redact the email addresses before submitting them? They are in scribbly felt marker as opposed to the simple pen stroke when the state has redacted an invalid entry.

    Why are some non-redacted entries, presumably considered vaild, missing a signature?

  9. Concerned Citizen2:24 PM, October 24, 2011

    Anonymous: "Still waiting on some lines from one or more depositions demonstrating hostility or anti-Christian animus towards you, the Russian pastor or other witnesses."

    Funny how you (and I!) can hide behind our anonymity but not see how revealing the names and contact info for hundreds of thousands of average people might possibly be an act that chills the 1st amendment. As to death threats and what Scott says about the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution - it will be interesting to see if more details emerge and if authorities are able to or care to pursue the matter.

    Elizabeth Scott (and you and I!) have every legal right to defend herself and her family from harm.

    Don't you agree?

  10. [b]Elizabeth Scott (and you and I!) have every legal right to defend herself and her family from harm.[/b]
    Of course they have the legal right to defend themselves legally which rarely involves the second amendment.

    Lets face it, a single phone call received by a child, short, no rant, no mention of R71 to an unlisted number. And even though the news article of the day listed the campaign's number no call to it. And oddly right after they had been briefed to have the AFA number to call if there was any 'problem'.

    How could someone get the unlisted number so quickly? Why not call the campaign too? Why use it only once? Why such a short generic threat?

    I personally wouldn't be surprised if it turned out someone who already knew the unlisted number was 'helping' in their own twisted way.

    Which is the issue isn't it? Reading through all the depositions other than the odd issue like this nothing illegal happened and these were the faces of the referendum effort.

    Again you can't make the timid feel 'safe' and we certainly can't center our political system around the concerns of the timid. Signing a petition is no different than having a yard sign, bumper sticker, wearing a button, or making a donation.

    Be involved or not - isn't there a Christian parable about how damnable are those that are neither hot nor cold?


Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.