Monday, October 03, 2011

R-71 Summary Judgement Begins Today --The Hate Continues

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
R-71 summary judgement review begins today. Judge Settle will review all the evidence and make a ruling or summary judgement on whether the names of those who signed the R-71 petitions should be protected or, as Attorney General Rob McKenna and Secretary of State Sam Reed contend, should be released to several homosexual activist groups.

These groups have promised to circulate the names publicly and to contact signers to have a "conversation."

Meanwhile, while the judge considers the evidence, the hate continues---this time toward the church where Pastors Roy and Valerie Hartwell serve. They, as you may recall, led the oversight of the name verification on the R-71 petitions.

Be sure to vote in the GOP presidential candidate poll.

Many of us who led the R-71 effort felt one of the major factors that ensured the Referendum being on the ballot was the work of Roy and Valerie Hartwell and their oversight during the name verification process in the elections office.

The church building in Olympia that they rent for their congregation has been a Free Methodist Church for many years. There has never been any vandalism or tagging of the building--- until lately.

Recently, the building was tagged with graffiti that read, "Fags Hate God." The next morning two females were out on the sidewalk laughing, talking about the tag and taking pictures of it.

The Hartwells have filed police reports. They are convinced this is related to their involvement in defending marriage.

They believe the tagging is an expression of hate toward their position on marriage, done under the guise of anarchists.

With the full force and financial strength of the state, McKenna and Reed will make their final effort today to convince the judge to release the names of 138,000 citizens who stood for marriage and signed a petition.

Attorneys James Bopp, Steve Pidgeon and those of us who led the R-71 effort have done all we can humanly do to protect the names of those who signed.

We are asking you to pray today that God will intervene and that families will be spared the experience of being contacted and confronted by homosexual activists. It is, however, in His hands. May His will be done.

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

:: Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.


  1. While Gary hypes this case, he completely ignores the extensive vandalism and religously based hate note left at the home of a gay couple in west Seattle. Since these two men are in a domestic partnership, clearly this is a case of religiously motivated attacks against proponents of marriage equality. If Gary were truely interested in a civil debate, rather than merely scoring cheap points for his side, he'd mention and condem this assault on free speech, rather than studiously ignoring it.


  2. Thanks Gary for all you do to inform and advance Christian values.

  3. "If Gary were truly interested in a civil debate..."
    I read this blog daily and I have never seen that Gary is interested in a "debate", I think he, as I, believe Scripture to be the final authority on homosexuality and all moral issues of life. He is trying to inform and influence people not debate with them over biblical truth.

  4. Question? If the judge rules against protecting those of us who signed the petitions how soon will the gays start contacting us?

  5. if that were the case since:

    1) the bible never mentions homosexuality as a sexual orientation,

    2) Jesus praised the Roman centurion who asked for his 'pais' to be healed, a companion kept by active duty military in social and sexual meanings of the term.

    it would seem he would be much more considerate than he appears.

    Regardless, the R71 case is one that they should lose at - allowing people, any people, to legislate in secret is such a horrible precedence why would anyone even want this to happen?

    As we know the over 850 people who donated have had their names, addresses, and some even occupation and employers on line in a searchable database just days after they made the donation. If nothing happened to them because of that during the heat of the campaign what rational person is worried about releasing mere petition signers 2 years after their massive defeat?

    Do we even know if anyone is going to go to the considerable expense of collating the raw petitions and putting them online so long after the fact in a case the signers lost?

    No one is at risk other than all Washingtonians if this case erodes our right to open government.

  6. "sexual orientation" is a new term. the bible calls it sodomy.
    why were hands off washington names protected by the public disclosure comm. a few years ago? because they were gay? of course.

  7. Yeah, names of a communist party in the state were also sealed a while back to protect them.

  8. why were hands off washington names protected by the public disclosure comm. a few years ago?
    They weren't. All that was suppressed for 6 weeks only was the reporting of the new and never before done employer and occupation on donors above a certain amount.

    The irony is at that time YOUR side said their concerns were baseless. :)

    And 'sodomy' wasn't a word back then either. At most the bible, old and new, refers to specific acts (like eating shrimp, wearing cloth, behavior during menses') and Jesus made it clear that more important than acts were intents.

    The Centurion came to have his pais saved because he loved him dearly and Jesus saw that as being the important thing.

    Probably a lesson in there somewhere.

  9. They weren't. All that was suppressed for 6 weeks only was the reporting of the new and never before done employer and occupation on donors above a certain amount.

    Today, reporting names is tantamount to reporting the employers, as it takes very little effort to find that information online once you have a name and address. Do you really believe that nobody in the Seattle area would use that information the way they did in California?

  10. Hmmm the information that was released in California has already been released here - the donors. No problem documented.

    Again, if no one cares about the people financing the effort in the heat of the campaign, why would anyone care 2 years after a ignoble defeat?

  11. The supposed hardships "Christians" face in opposing same-sex marriage pales in comparison to the hardships gays and lesbians face every day simply trying to navigate society.

    Opposing gay rights is no more a "biblical truth" than the other "biblical truths" we no longer follow: slavery, polygamy, separation of the races, the inferiority of women, etc. What you call biblical truth is merely the personal interpretation of biblical verses heavily influenced by personal prejudices.

  12. Oshtur is on the right track.

    This has nothing to do with protecting anyone from any threats, real or perceived. This effort is part and parcel of a coordinated effort on the part of the anti-gay right to portray themselves as the "real" victims, not those people, whose rights they are trying to take away.

    That's why every and anything that can be construed as a threat against anti-gay activists is hyped constantly, while actual property damage and attacks are studiously ignored (when they happen to the other side of course).

  13. Vishanti. are you saying the word sodomy was not used in the Old Testament?

  14. No problem documentated? The Seattle Times noted a number problems that have been documented.

  15. That is really the point - the Times article lists not a single illegal act that has prompted police action.

    Mooned? Not illegal as long as thongs are legal. Disturbing phone calls to a state senator? As with all the phone calls our cyberstalking laws stops that and modern tech would be able to identify the caller in virtually all instances. Was there a single police report filed, investigation made? Again, even the harshest talk is protected speech and not illegal.

    And one guy's crying because he got 'flipped off' while he was engaged in flipping off others right to equal treatment. Hard to feel too sorry for him.

    Again where are the real examples - if there were illegal phone calls or acts where are the arrests? In an era of every phone having a camera, most having a sound recorder, the dearth of any evidence at all is incredibly suspicious.

    Unlike the other side that has videos on YouTube of signature gatherers lying to prospective signers trying to get them to sign R71.

    This 'someone did something totally illegal and terrible and yet I have no proof other than my word' in every single case really is suspicious to the reasonable mind, right?

  16. Question? If the judge rules against protecting those of us who signed the petitions how soon will the gays start contacting us?

    Or the Associated Press, or the Coalition for Open Government, or any number of other people and groups who have pending requests for copies of the petitions. Shoot is far more likely you'd be contacted by groups looking for your support in their anti-equality efforts.

    I would think that Gary's lawyer would have set up a nice handout for you on how to do this. Personal real world interaction are just like any others, phone or any other electronic media falls under RCW 9.61.260, the cyberstalking law, that basically makes it so a person can only contact you once by this method if you've told them to stop and have many things they aren't legally allowed to say even once. Read it.

    Most importantly is understanding RCW 9.73.030 about recording conversations. What you MUST do to do so legally is outlined in 0.40 (3):

    Where consent by all parties is needed pursuant to this chapter, consent shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted: PROVIDED, That if the conversation is to be recorded that said announcement shall also be recorded.

    If they continue talking you have their consent to record, if they hang up, well that might be what you want all along. Do tell them to never call again regardless (if you don't want them to) because if they do then they are in violation of the cyberstalking law.

    Really even the most timid cowardly person can easily protect themselves from illegal unwanted contacts nowadays there isn't anything to be scared of.

    Remember that stepping in the shoes of a legislator is big kids work and so we all have to be able to act like big kids if we plan on doing it.

  17. "With the full force and financial strength of the state . . ."

    Oh come on Pastor. This is a summary judgment motion. To win, it requires neither force nor financial strength. It requires evidence. If you have it and the other side can't dispute it with its own evidence, you will win. If you can't come forward with evidence to meet the requirements of your claim, you lose. Stop spinning.

    I note that the judge was not fooled by your attempt to turn this into a case about California. He specifically asked your side to cite evidence concerning harassment here in WA arising out of people signing R71 petitions. Your crack lawyers admitted that there was no such evidence.

    Your side offers no evidence to link the very few instances of actual criminal acts to R71 or R71 petitions. Just saying it must be so is not sufficient.

    When it comes down to it, you are complaining about criticism, lawful acts such as boycotting or protests, and a few incidents of scuffles and the like in the context of public demonstrations during the campaign. Both sides have engaged in all of this behavior. Goodness, conservative Christians have practically turned the boycott into a daily practice. When will you be writing to AFA to tell them that boycotting is a form of harassment and intimidation?


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