The militant homosexual movement is undemocratic and, despite lecturing everyone about "tolerance", is wholly intolerant of other peoples' exercising their right to vote. Especially when the movement doesn't get its way. Especially when unexpectedly losing a campaign they were convinced they were going to win easily.
Despite having the bigger, more powerful army and most brutal campaign tactics, most shock-and-awe of the two sides in the democratic campaign, they lost.
The activists pressing for the approval of same-sex “marriage” had all the heavyweights on their side of the issue: major corporations, big money, the media, the Hollywood elites, the California Teachers’ Association and the university big-wigs, the governor and the attorney general, and a fair portion of the legislature. Even the state’s high court climbed into the ring, ignoring past election results to legalize same-sex ceremonies in a controversial decision last spring.
Going into November, activists promoting the same-sex agenda were giving defenders of marriage a public pounding that even boxing legend Jack Dempsey might have found impressive.
Read all about it for yourself... Here, I'll list the tactics of the militant homosexual movement, which are explained at the link (I've highlighted one in red italics which I believe will most gain the attention of so-self-labelled "progressives" who could care less about the other bad things):
There’s a lesson there for activists who are, if anything, less willing than Dempsey to go to a neutral corner and await the judges’ decision. Faced with election results they don’t like—and stung by the upset victory of their opponents—they’ve come out swinging, filing no less than six lawsuits to have the election results nullified and attacking their foes outside the courtroom, too.
By doing so, they’re putting themselves and their cause down for the count in the eyes of a growing number of their fellow citizens. As more and more stories of retaliation and vicious persecution crowd the evening news and morning paper, you can almost hear people counting off reasons to look twice at those who’ve portrayed their cause as a monument to “tolerance”:
- denigrating Christians and the Bible
- church attacks
- mock germ warfare
- attacks on the elderly
- racist attacks and insinuations
- co-opting theCivil Rights movement
- indoctrinating children
- despising democracy
What kind of people are these who assert that they represent all homosexuals everywhere? Do all homosexuals agree with their illegal, unethical, immoral, hatefully dangerous, un-American tactics?
I wonder who is responsible for this hate crime? There's obviously motive for someone. I certainly hope that this hate crime is being investigated and the perpetrator(s), whoever they are, are caught and brought to justice, and treated no differently under the law, including having the "hate" motive considered for sentencing purposes, as long as that law is still in effect, not that I'm necessarily in favor of that provision, for I believe that unnecessary violence must be punished harshly in all cases, regardless of motive, regardless of the who the attacker(s) and the victim(s) may be. We must not tolerate violence, no matter who commits it against whom.