Protect Marriage: Ron Prentice Reminds Us, “WHAAAAHHHHH!”

Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+0Share on Reddit0Share on Tumblr0Email this to someone

That’s right, Ron Prentice has another post up on the Protect Marriage blog to remind us what cry-baby-sissy-pants the Yes on 8 supporters are. As always, I’m here to offer a paragraph by paragraph analysis and response. This post was quite petty, so I rely on some humor and snark to get us through it. Let’s see what the anti-equality folks have to say this week!

Demonstrating the intolerance of ‘the tolerant’ and the power of ‘the powerless’

They never get tired of the mocking quotes. I’d rewrite this headline as ‘Demonstrating’ the ‘intolerance’ of the tolerant and the ‘power’ of the powerless. But that’s just me.

In public, the leaders of the same-sex marriage movement portray themselves as tolerant and loving, seeking only to access marriage as a way of validating their “loving and committed relationships.” In court, they claim to be politically powerless, requiring judicial intervention to overturn our state constitutional provision defining marriage as between one man and one woman, thus forcing homosexual marriages onto society. However, outside of court they are anything but powerless or tolerant. Two recent examples illustrate this.

Let me take a moment to confirm everything Ron is telling us here. First, all same-sex interactions are carnal and sporadic, and second, the queer equality movement is secretly tyrannical and Christian-hating. It is actually the fact that we are so secretly powerful that we need judicial intervention to force every single person into getting married to someone of the same sex, regardless of whether they claim to be heterosexual.

As an activist, I do confirm that this is the image I see in the mirror every morning.

In Oakland, Mayor Ron Dellums re-nominated Lorenzo Hoopes to continue to serve on the board of directors of the nonprofit Paramount Theatre of the Arts, where Hoopes serves as president. At 96 years of age, Hoopes is a revered figure in the Oakland community and has been credited with helping save the Paramount from bankruptcy and the wrecking ball. He was a top executive with Safeway, served on the local school board and also was a local leader of the LDS church, where he helped lead numerous charitable and community improvement projects. None of this matters, however, to those who oppose Proposition 8, because Hoopes donated funds to support its passage. As far as they are concerned, his perspective on marriage and support of Prop 8 makes him ineligible for community service and should subject him to protest and public ridicule. “It’s so insulting,” one homosexual rights leader told the Oakland Tribune about the re-nomination of Hoopes. “Outrageous,” said another. Homosexual activists immediately began to organize, including forming a Facebook group to coordinate their efforts to derail the continued service of this venerable community volunteer. And they succeeded when Mayor Dellums withdrew the nomination before it came to a vote.

Awww… but Mr. Hoopes is such a nice man! He does charity and stuff!

Let me say that I’m a little bit of a theatre queen. I have a music degree, after all. The theatre community is incredibly gay-friendly. Not every single male actor is a queen, but it doesn’t matter that some are. The entire community has been very supportive of gay rights issues for a long time. Now, I don’t know much about nonprofit theatre company boards, but I do know how I feel about dirty money. I don’t want it.

And while we’re talking about money, let’s talk about these trifling funds Hoopes donated to Prop 8. It was $26,000. Yes, twenty-six thousand dollars.

So, I can’t speak for the Paramount Theatre of the Arts, but if they are even the least bit supportive of the gay community, I think it’s easy to see why they wouldn’t want someone like Hoopes representing them anymore. For a struggling gay actor, $26,000 could be a year’s worth of income. That is outrageous.

Aggressive protests like the one aimed at a 96-year-old community volunteer are, unfortunately, all too representative of the type of intimidation and harassment that has consistently been demonstrated by the homosexual marriage movement during and since the Proposition 8 campaign. In fact, the examples of harassment are so extensive and have become so well documented (they were chronicled in this report by The Heritage Foundation) that they have begun to be mentioned by various commentators, experts and courts, including the United States Supreme Court.

Really, Ron? Aggressive protests? Demanding a hateful old, rich, white guy not be allowed to represent the theatre community is “intimidation and harassment”? Do you sue people who poke you on Facebook? I mean, how sensitive are you?

I love the way they cite that Heritage Foundation report. You know, the one that ignored any anti-gay harassment and only documented the little incidents here and there against Prop 8 supporters? Real thorough investigation, that Heritage Foundation report!

When the backers of Washington state’s Referendum 71 turned in their petition signatures last year, they sought protection in federal court from having to reveal the identity of those who had signed the petitions, fearing that they would be subjected to harassment by pro-homosexual activists. They cited the extensive harassment of supporters of Prop 8, in addition to documented harassment of Referendum 71 backers, and in an 8-1 ruling secured an order from the United States Supreme Court protecting the privacy of the petition signers until the court hears the matter. In our own Perry v Schwarzenegger case, the US Supreme Court’s ruling preventing the broadcast of the trial was based, in part, on the extensive record of harassment of Prop 8 supporters. Of course, the issue of harassment toward those who participate in the political process is not limited to same-sex marriage cases. In their recently decided case Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, the court said that forcing the disclosure of the names of campaign contributors, “would be unconstitutional as applied to an organization if there were a reasonable probability that the group’s members would face threats, harassment, or reprisals if their names were disclosed.”

Yes, Ron, very good. Defend your paranoia by comparing yourself to corporations in the Citizens United case. That is sure to win over more supporters. is also involved in a lawsuit concerning disclosure of initiative backers, v Bowen. This case, brought following the passage of Proposition 8, seeks to protect the identity of initiative contributors and is currently pending in the federal courts. When an initial request for a preliminary injunction was denied, fully disclosed all information as required by law. However, the case remains pending and is being undertaken by the able legal representation of the Alliance Defense Fund.

Yawn. A whole paragraph about nothing, just to remind us of another way PM is some kind of victim.

Ron Prentice always neglects to remind us of all the ways ProtectMarriage tried to intimidate businesses who openly opposed Proposition 8. (Hey, Jeremy, can we see that again? Yeah, that’s the one. Thanks buddy.) Yeah, Ron, that’s your signature right there intimidating Prop 8 opponents. There’s a saying about pots and kettles. You’re a smart guy, I’m sure you can figure it out.

The issue of public disclosure was the subject of a February 6th opinion column in the Sacramento Bee, authored by California Fair Political Practices Commissioner Ronald Rotunda. Mr. Rotunda noted the inherent tension between disclosure laws and privacy rights and, speaking purely from a personal point of view and not in his capacity as a Commissioner, opined that the First Amendment may trump disclosure laws in an initiative campaign. He said the First Amendment, “prevents the government from aiding those who disagree in a most disagreeable way.”

Nobody, certainly not Mr. Rotunda nor Mr. Prentice, has yet explained to me how someone who signs a public legal document like a petition is entitled to privacy. Ironically, it is surely the intention of disclosure laws to prevent the government from allowing anyone to utilize political power without public accountability. That’s a good thing. Democracy without disclosure laws would become oligarchy. Of course, that’s what Ron wants.

The response from homosexual marriage radicals like Equality California was swift and, well, radical. Like those who demand the scalp of a 96-year-old community volunteer in Oakland, Equality California has demanded that Rotunda be removed from the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). On February 11th they demanded that California’s governor and legislature immediately begin impeachment proceedings against the commissioner. Equality California also falsely claimed that the FPPC will be asked to decide if has failed to disclose its contributors, which we have already done.

Radical radicals? You’re so witty, Ron!

So now we’re scalping a man? Is Ron playing “telephone” by himself?  What is the bounty these days for a Mormon elder’s scalp? Let’s meet up at the trading post and make a deal!

Apparently we have power just because we speak up when people put us down. Does that make sense? We’re being put down to reinforce that we don’t have power. So the mere fact that we try to defend ourselves means we actually are powerful. Get it? Let me know if you do and I’ll help you un-get it.

Perhaps Equality California hasn’t gotten the memo from the plaintiff attorneys in the Perry case, that homosexuals are politically powerless. The impeachment threat against Commissioner Rotunda is no idle one. It is an exercise in raw political power by one of the most powerful special interest groups in the entire state. They know that they have the political strength and reliable legislative allies to make this a very viable threat against a dedicated public servant.

I like it when Ron talks us up. He makes us sound so epic. It’s a “threat,” an “exercise in raw political power.” You know Ron doesn’t actually think Equality California’s one of the most powerful special interest groups, because he knows Prop 8 passed. He’s not intimidated at all, but he has to pretend to be so he looks vulnerable. He says such nice things about us for his own gain!

When I hear the words “exercise,” “raw,” “power,” and “strength” together like that, it makes me think of the Rocky Horror Picture Show when Dr. Frank N. Furter first unveils his creation. Ron Prentice, in just seven days, I can make you a man!

This is what we are fighting, and why we continue our multi-pronged effort to preserve marriage in California. Not only have we had to wage epic initiative and court battles, we must also battle our radical opponents in the legislature and court of public opinion, where with a straight face and a sympathetic media, the intolerant demand tolerance, and the powerful feign powerlessness.

Please help us continue our fight. We need your prayers, activism and continued financial support.

Yes, paranoid haters often use pitchforks when they’re chasing people out of town. Is that what you meant by “multi-pronged,” Ron?

This backwards portrayal is just bizarre. If I didn’t know better, I’d wonder if it was a Poe. I mean, I could write the same thing about ProtectMarriage and it would actually be true. Here, watch, I’ll do it: Not only have we had to wage epic initiative and court battles, we must also battle our radical opponents in the legislature and court of public opinion, where with a straight face and a sympathetic media, the intolerant demand tolerance, and the powerful feign powerlessness. Our faces aren’t as straight, but we’re the ones discriminated against. We want everyone to have the same rights; that’s tolerance. PM doesn’t; that’s intolerance. It’s just bizarre how Ron and his PM minions see things.


Ron Prentice, Executive Director

The scariest part is that Ron might really be sincere. My bet is that he’s a manipulative bigot, but there is always the disturbing possibility that he actually sees truth in everything he’s written here.

Whatever the case, he doesn’t want to know what you think. Comments, as always, are closed on the ProtectMarriage blog. Not here, though! Please, comment away!

Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+0Share on Reddit0Share on Tumblr0Email this to someone
Back to Top | Scroll down for Comments!

There are 4 Comments to "Protect Marriage: Ron Prentice Reminds Us, “WHAAAAHHHHH!”"

  • Marzie says:

    Wonderful analysis and rebuttal. I’m having a bit of difficulty with the sincerity aspect, though. (with respect to Mr. Prentice, not you ZF) Perhaps he is sincerely prejudiced? And fearful, of course. What happens if gays and lesbians can get married and have more stable partnerships and <gasp> can adopt children who need homes and appear (clearly only on the surface) to be successful human beings? Oh my.

  • Alan E. says:

    I like your Walker “pot and kettle” reference.

  • Buffy says:

    Excellent dissection of yet another one of Prentice’s pieces of BS.

  • Colt says:

    I don’t know what I’d do without your analysis. Keeps me sane when all the crazy bigots make me want to tear my hair out. Oh man, and the Rocky reference was PRICELESS.

Write a Comment