Referendum 71 foe contends opponents are stealing signs

By CHRIS BRISTOL
Yakima Herald-Republic

 

YAKIMA, Wash. -- Organizers of a campaign to reject Referendum 71 accused opponents of stealing the campaign's political signs, spotlighting an emotional debate over gay rights that is heating up as Election Day nears.

Signs urging voters to reject R-71 have all but disappeared in Yakima over the past week, said Skip Schoff, vice president of Christian Broadcasting of Yakima.

The referendum asks Washington voters whether to approve or reject the so-called "everything but marriage" law for domestic partners -- gay couples and heterosexual couples with at least one partner age 62 or older.

Out of 350 "Reject R-71" signs staked out by the group last week, all but about eight appear to have been stolen or destroyed, said Schoff, who added he filed a theft report with Yakima police on Monday.

That figure included 30 signs that disappeared Thursday night in Selah.

"I've never seen anything like this where they got that many that fast," he complained. "It's horrible, and I hope the public sees that this is what we're up against. ... This is the militant homosexual lobby at its finest."

Larry Stickney, campaign manager for Protect Marriage Washington, said the thefts are a problem statewide. He blamed gay rights supporters and accused the news media of "turning a blind eye" out of sympathy to their cause.

"It doesn't matter where (in the state) you are, they've got crews out there tearing them down," he said, adding, "I don't know who's organizing this, but they're angry. It's really something."

The Rev. Jane Newall, founder of Yakima's Rainbow Cathedral Metropolitan Community Church and an opponent of the Reject R-71 campaign, said she was unaware of any efforts to steal political signs.

Newall was among nearly a dozen protesting outside a Tea Party event last week at the Yakima Convention Center where the referendum came under heavy fire.

Schoff suggested one or two of the protesters were responsible for the thefts. Newall said none of the other protesters, about 10 in all, were from her congregation.

She said that while she doesn't condone the thefts, she understood "some people are feeling personally attacked."

Josh Friedes, campaign manager for Washington Families Standing Together, a Seattle-based group that supports the approval of R-71, said he also is unaware of any organized effort to steal political signs.

"The conversation needs to stay civil, and we have to stay very very focused on the reality that rejecting R-71 would harm gay and lesbian families," he said. "Activities like that (sign stealing) detract from the conversation."

Schoff said he and a friend put out most of the 350 "Reject R-71" signs in Yakima early last week and that by the weekend most were gone.

"We put out 45 (signs) up and down 40th Avenue, and the next morning every one of them was gone," he said. "I'm not sure where they're dumping them. I'd love to know, because we really need them back."

Stickney accused opponents of the Reject R-71 campaign of "extreme arrogance and anger" and said he's been surprised that Yakima has not been as "favorable" to his campaign's message as he thought it would be.

Friedes, manager of the Approve R-71 campaign in Seattle, accused Stickney, Schoff and other supporters of the Reject R-71 campaign of having a disturbing lack of perspective.

The theft of political signs is nothing compared to discrimination against gays, he said.

"I do think there is a belief among the radical right that freedom of speech means there is no cost of speech," he said. "The things they are saying, their goals and objectives, they should expect to be met with a degree of anger."

 

* Chris Bristol can be reached at 509- 577-7748 or at cbristol@yakimaherald.com.

 



Commentsicon2
Posted by lobo at 10/20/09 01:56AM        Post ID#: #15640

(This comment has been removed by a Yakima Herald-Republic moderator)

Posted by ChrisR at 10/20/09 06:15AM        Post ID#: #15648

I think the homosexuals and the elderly should have all the same rights as married folks and heterosexuals. (put that in your pipe and smoke it lobo) In this day and age there is no point in living with your head in the sand and pretending this does not exists. As for the elderly this is what breaks my heart...when our government makes it hard for a couple who have been married for 50 years and it costs them to much that they loose out on medical benefits entitled to them because between the two of them that they have to much income (what a joke) with their social security or retirement that if they divorced and continue to live together they can survive.I hope that its someones grandparents that is going around stealing the signs and heating their home with them. I hope all those signs disappear. I pray that each person out there really considers the consequences of what could happen if these benefits are denied. If you all are whining about free medical care to the income challenged then this is a step in the right direction to slow it down make those benefits allowed and available to all.

Report Violation
Posted by Nick at 10/20/09 06:15AM        Post ID#: #15649

It is truly unfortunate that this bill has been tagged as totally about gay rights when it also effects many others. I would gladly trade off rights for gays in "domestic partnership" to see those same rights extended to committed, unmarried couples of opposite sexes.

Laws that regulate business practices, (and don't forget, this one is a biggy in that area) and anything that requires a license by a government, should apply equally to all the constituency. Why should "married" couples, (a term relating to those joined officially in a church, by the church) get special tax, insurance, and other financial considerations over a single person, or those "living in sin" as the church calls them? I, personally, don't think a representative of a government, (judge, for example) should be able to legally perform a "marriage". That term and action should fall only within a church by an ordained minister. Any and all others should have been called "Domestic Partnerships" since the beginning, since that arrangement carries no religious connotation, but a business one instead.

That said, no matter that a few of these couples who would benefit from this designation and arrangement might be of the same sex. I could care less. What really bothers me is that the government is currently allowed to discriminate against unmarried, (by the church) people, against the rights of others who choose to live together as partners in order to save expenses that are cheaper for two than one.

These are often Social Security pensioners who, if married, would collect only one benefit, regardless of their separate personal contributions into the system. Others are single people, who for one reason or another, choose to live together - that reason being nobody's business but theirs.

For the government and businesses directly involved, its all about the money, nothing else, including religious preferences and wedding licenses, (really taxes for the privilege of getting married) really matters.

Report Violation
Posted by sourdough at 10/20/09 06:25AM        Post ID#: #15650

(This comment has been removed by a Yakima Herald-Republic moderator)

Posted by YakRob at 10/20/09 06:29AM        Post ID#: #15651

Chris Bristol - did you, as a good reporter should, question any of the business owners or private property owners along 40th to find out if they removed the signs themselves? If you had done that, you might have heard what I did - several people I know along 40th and 16th were offended to find a sign in front of their home/business and removed it - no one asked permission to put it up, they didn't feel they had to ask permission to take it down. But instead of good reporting you give time and a soap box to angry people like Skippy - who, instead of looking at the reasons for their own anger, try to pin it on others. By the way lobo - I was one of the counter demonstraters at the the tea party last week - we greeted people with signs like "Love Thy Neighbor", said nice things to people coming in like "good evening, enjoy the event". You know what we got back "@#$%, abomination, burn in hell". Nasty, angry people - it must be hard to wake up in the morning hating people.

Report Violation
Posted by RWBSocks at 10/20/09 07:01AM        Post ID#: #15656

The ultimate goals of the religious crowd that posts here is no different than the Taliban. Were they to have their way, they would dictate every aspect of our lives...the music we listen to, the modesty of our dress, the establishments we are allowed to purchase coffee at, and who may have a relationship with whom. They should sicken any person dedicated to the ideals our Republic was founded on.

Report Violation
Posted by NetAmigo at 10/20/09 07:15AM        Post ID#: #15658

These are nothing but accusations coming from the supporters of R-71 without any proof to back them up. The public has been inundated lately with all kinds of accusations by the religious right supporters of R-71 trying to portray themselves as victims. Their demand for exemption from the political disclosure laws requiring the release of referendum signer names is a case in point. They make wild accusations of harm yet provide no proof of harm.

Let's go to the source of the problem. It is the religious right's day in and day out attacks on the gay minority and their advocacy of legal discrimination against the gay minority. If the religious right would respect those who lead their lives by different beliefs, stop attacking the gay minority and stop trying to use government to force everyone to go by their beliefs, they would not have to worry about this.

Report Violation
Posted by AlLoveShawn at 10/20/09 08:01AM        Post ID#: #15663

Poor, poor bigots think that democracy is a sterile process. While they seek to destroy thousands of families and put children at risk they whine about electioneering.

The idea that there is some sort of organized gay mafia is laughable and paranoid. It is probably individuals who are sick of the lies of the Reject Referendum 71 campaign.

Isn't anyone else sick of these ignorant folks nailing themselves to the cross every other day? "Poor me" should be the anti-gay folks rallying cry.

Protect families, protect children, Approve Referendum 71.

Report Violation
Posted by AriVango at 10/20/09 08:23AM        Post ID#: #15665

I consider and interpret this as "special rights" for gays while still discriminating against the normal "heterosexual" couples. As I read the referendum, it wants the voter to approve everything but "marriage" for homosexuals. What I recall from the last 35 years, heterosexual couples were not given everything but marriage benefits. At present, they continue to be left out in this referendum unless one of them is over the age of 62. Where are the proponents for the "committed" heterosexual couples who have been discriminated against from the beginning of time and continue to be discriminated against? If those aren't special rights for "gays" then I don't know what are.

Report Violation
Posted by rheitzm at 10/20/09 08:26AM        Post ID#: #15666

Just because people want the bill repealed does not mean they're bigots. That's pretty narrow minded. In this bill you are eligible for the same rights as a married couple just because you live with someone. So someone can go from significant other to significant other and they are entitled to the same rights as a married person who would get taken to the cleaners in divorce? No, I don't think so. This is a poorly written piece of legislation.

Report Violation
Posted by tk421 at 10/20/09 08:41AM        Post ID#: #15669

Wow!! After reading this, a couple of observations:

1. It must have been a really slow news day for YHR to spend this much time on "stolen" political signs. When did that become news? Contact the rest of the candidates who are running campaigns on funds much more limited than the R-71 crowd and ask them how much money they've lost in lost/vandalized signs. That's the real story. The people who put themselves out there to serve our community, regardless of political affiliation, and spend their limited campaign contributions or personal funds on advertising materials only to have them vandalized or thrown away. Is this news because it's a hate organization...errrr, Christian Broadcasting??

2. Does the reject crowd really think that they have a chance of winning? The I-5 corridor will carry this election, but seeing how many supportive comments there are on this site seems that the conservative east side of the state is supporting it as well.

Report Violation
Posted by LetUrVOICEbHeard at 10/20/09 10:14AM        Post ID#: #15678

I live on this road and when I woke up somebody put one of these signs sign on my yard without asking and I TOOK IT DOWN AND THREW IT AWAY.

Report Violation
Posted by YakRob at 10/20/09 10:55AM        Post ID#: #15685

"So someone can go from significant other to significant other and they are entitled to the same rights as a married person who would get taken to the cleaners in divorce? No, I don't think so. This is a poorly written piece of legislation." Not that it will make any difference to you, but you shouldn't make statements on something you don't know anything about - this legislation gives ALL of the STATE rights and responsibilities to domestic partnerships that are afforded in STATE law regarding marriage. Dissolution of domestic partnership will be as difficult as divorce and will be conducted in Superior Court, just as divorce is - child support, alimony, etc. will have to be addressed the same as divorce. What this legislation DOES NOT grant any of the FEDERAL rights afforded to married couples to domestic partners - these partnerships WILL NOT be valid in any other State. Please, please - try to speak about things you know, not what you have heard.

Report Violation
Posted by NetAmigo at 10/20/09 11:14AM        Post ID#: #15686

This is dedicated to those who argue we should deny freedom and equality to the gay minority. Those who work in human behavior overwhelmingly support equality and freedom for the gay minority.

The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers state: “In 1952, when the American Psychiatric Association published its first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, homosexuality was included as a disorder. Almost immediately, however, that classification began to be subjected to critical scrutiny in research funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. That study and subsequent research consistently failed to produce any empirical or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality, rather than a normal and healthy sexual orientation. As results from such research accumulated, professionals in medicine, mental health, and the behavioral and social sciences reached the conclusion that it was inaccurate to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder and that the DSM classification reflected untested assumptions based on once-prevalent social norms and clinical impressions from unrepresentative samples comprising patients seeking therapy and individuals whose conduct brought them into the criminal justice system.

In recognition of the scientific evidence[72], the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973, stating that “homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities.” After thoroughly reviewing the scientific data, the American Psychological Association adopted the same position in 1975, and urged all mental health professionals “to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientations.” The National Association of Social Workers has adopted a similar policy.

Thus, mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships."

From May 2008 California Supreme Court Marriage Case brief (Page 8) submitted by the above mentioned professional organizations. You may download it here.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf

Also, a good source is Wikepedia under "Homosexuality". It provides links to strong support for its positions such as the Supreme Court brief. Another excellent source is the American Psychological Association site:

http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html

Report Violation
Posted by rheitzm at 10/20/09 11:44AM        Post ID#: #15690

YakRob, no matter what I say you won't agree with me anyway. Thanks for your input but it's my opinion.

Report Violation
Posted by YakRob at 10/20/09 12:05PM        Post ID#: #15692

rheitzm - it's not your opinion I was questioning - it was your statement, disguised as fact, about the rights and responsibilities of domestic partners under this legislation that I am contesting. To repeat - your statement indicating that, under this legislation, domestic partners will have no "divorce" responsibilities is completely wrong. There is no reason to create falsehoods to make your point.

Report Violation
Posted by Jay at 10/20/09 01:09PM        Post ID#: #15698

I have an idea to solve this issue. All civil unions, for hetero's or homo's should be granted. If someone wants to get "married"- go to a church. A 2 person committed relationship does deserve the same rights, regardless if same sex or opposite sex relationship. The gov't needs to get out of Marriage and only support civil unions. Oh, and this comes from a conservative. Ya know, those who truly believe in less gov't. The radcial religous right has made a mockery of true conservativism.

Report Violation
Posted by overfifty at 10/20/09 01:36PM        Post ID#: #15701

Glad to see you back YakRob. :)

Report Violation
Posted by isitfriday at 10/20/09 01:56PM        Post ID#: #15702

Jay:

"I have an idea to solve this issue. All civil unions, for hetero's or homo's should be granted. If someone wants to get "married"- go to a church. A 2 person committed relationship does deserve the same rights, regardless if same sex or opposite sex relationship. The gov't needs to get out of Marriage and only support civil unions. Oh, and this comes from a conservative. Ya know, those who truly believe in less gov't. The radcial religous right has made a mockery of true conservativism."

As someone on the FAR left- I totally agree with everything you just said. That was a very well articulated argument.

Report Violation
Posted by johnny99 at 10/20/09 02:02PM        Post ID#: #15704

Yeah me too isitfriday/Jay/Nick, it is nice to finally agree on something for a change.

Report Violation
Posted by lobo at 10/20/09 02:36PM        Post ID#: #15706

I commented on this news story and had my comment clipped. The rest of you are commenting on another topic. A couple of you have even represented my views for me, which I have never stated on the R71 topic.

I hope the owners of the sign set up a camera and try to have the thieves arrested by the keystone cops. Don't put political signs on private property without permission. There was a news story the other day about a guy that goes around town taking down political signs because he doesn't like them. Why hasn't he been charged?

The R71 crowd will get further by having a civil debate of the issues and refraining from personal attacks of their philosophical opponents.

Report Violation
Posted by lobo at 10/20/09 02:37PM        Post ID#: #15707

(This comment has been removed by a Yakima Herald-Republic moderator)

Posted by KirkGroenig at 10/20/09 02:50PM        Post ID#: #15708

Marriage is between a Man and Woman!
Marriage ceremony performed by minister, pastor with the blessing from God.
A Christian isn't a Christian by mere words, its by following the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
Its time we confront sinners and call homosexuals by their true bilbical name "Sin".
The Bible is the highest law, not man's law's.

Report Violation
Posted by tk421 at 10/20/09 03:09PM        Post ID#: #15712

Not to get too far off topic, but regarding the releasing/not releasing of R-71 petition signatures. Isn't it interesting that the signers are fearful of retribution by the gay community if their names are released, yet not too long ago the gay community was fearful of retribution by the anti-gay community if their sexual orientation was released? Who's in the closet now??

Report Violation
Posted by Aurelius at 10/20/09 04:53PM        Post ID#: #15719

Stealing signs! Now I've heard it all. Were they gonna sell them? Get some cash from the recycling station, now thats good thinkin!

Report Violation
Posted by Aurelius at 10/20/09 04:54PM        Post ID#: #15721

This comment has been removed....

Report Violation
Posted by Jay at 10/20/09 05:04PM        Post ID#: #15724

glad to see some of us agree, too bad politicians spend too much time fighting and not working on solutions that make sense!

I forgot to add, the people who put the signs on private property without permission are guilty of trespass...I hope they realize that. I've always had a pet peeve about political signs, no matter the issue. There are so many of them its ridiculous. I've seen 10 or more of the exact same sign right next to each other. Anyway, hope this passes. Again, the govt should only provide civil unions, marriage is for the church.(which also means someone can get married in the church and it still not be a legal wedding.)

Report Violation
Posted by johnny99 at 10/20/09 05:41PM        Post ID#: #15726

Kirk:

You only prove what Obama said about how if we excluded all non-Christians from the US and only allowed Christianity here, whose Christianity would we follow? My Christian church-going friends would really object to your views...hence we would be back at square one again.

I'd be interested to know what your opinions are regarding what Jay and Nick had said. Are you saying that the government should only recognize a civil union/"business" partnership between opposite sexes only too, even if the government doesn't call it "marriage"?

Report Violation
Posted by Just_Bob at 10/20/09 06:06PM        Post ID#: #15727

Skip Schoff, vice president of Christian Broadcasting of Yakima "This is the militant homosexual lobby at its finest."

"Militant homosexual lobby" is that anything like the Gay Mafia? I would hope that most people with an ounce of sense realize how ridiculous these terms are. You create a phantom to sell your fears and fail to realize that maybe the community is just tired of your crap.

If we keep in mind that this Referendum is asking us to undo what our elected representatives have hashed and re-hashed for many years. It will not allow "gay marriages" nor will it impact 90% of us in anyway.

What a No vote will do is say that we think that it is OK that a small part our communities continue to be hurt by our laws based solely on something they are or how they live.

Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is in an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob, and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.
-- Frederick Douglass (1817 - 1895)

Report Violation
Posted by RWBSocks at 10/20/09 07:01PM        Post ID#: #15730

I think Kirk Groenig took the signs when the lord came to him and told Kirk that his beliefs are idiotic and hypocritical.

Report Violation
Posted by ChrisR at 10/20/09 09:43PM        Post ID#: #15735

lobo..LOL...you know darn good and why your first comment was removed. It was totally inappropriate. Bounties and head-hunting are things that should not be used in a sentence when it it regarding a person. By the way Jane is a very nice person regardless of what her beliefs are. I have been to a few of her ceremonies and they are far from being stuffy and fluffy.
RWBSocks...I could not agree with you more on your comment.Good job.

Report Violation
Posted by lobo at 10/20/09 10:33PM        Post ID#: #15738

(This comment has been removed by a Yakima Herald-Republic moderator)

Posted by isitfriday at 10/21/09 12:41AM        Post ID#: #15751

^^^Lobo, I don't understand why you seem to be taking this argument so personally and have targeted your response at Rev. Jane. I'm sorry that you are so angry. I hope you find peace with whatever made you so, but making sweeping accusations and calling for bounties is really sick.

It seems that many were nailed to wooden street advisory posts, which is illegal, or were placed on private property without permission. Those that were placed in public areas, as with any political sign run the risk of being taken EVERY YEAR. There is always a news story about it.

It happens.

While I have seem some Reject signs that were defaced, I've seen some for candidates stolen/vandalized as well. It does not mean that the opposing candidates/campaigns took them, it means there gone and they are just SIGNS.

Report Violation
Posted by SciPhiMom at 10/21/09 04:14AM        Post ID#: #15756

Kirk wrote:

"Its time we confront sinners and call homosexuals by their true bilbical name "Sin". "

He that hath no sin can cast the first stone.

I'm sure that Kirk and Elect would be at the front of the line.

Report Violation
Posted by over65 at 10/21/09 10:59AM        Post ID#: #15789

I know for a fact that sign taking has been going on for years. Kids love to smash them and knock them down. Someone started to walk away with one of our signs while we were sitting on our front porch. He obviously didn't see us and was dumbfounded when we yelled at him. But he wasn't an opponent or was a volunteer for them. He just didn't like who we supported.

As said from another poster -- it happens every election time.

Report Violation
Posted by commonman at 10/21/09 03:01PM        Post ID#: #15802

sciphimom,
nice to see your so perfect.

your so comical.

Report Violation
Posted by commonman at 10/21/09 03:03PM        Post ID#: #15803

(This comment has been removed by a Yakima Herald-Republic moderator)

Posted by commonman at 10/21/09 03:04PM        Post ID#: #15804

click on other side

Report Violation
Log in or Register to leave a comment.

Posting Guidelines - Updated Aug. 21 2009
Readers are encouraged to use these forums to discuss issues affecting the Yakima Valley. Debate the ideas presented in stories and other comments, but refrain from personal attacks and offensive remarks aimed at others; e.g., you may call an idea idiotic, but don't say the person is an idiot. The Herald-Republic reserves the right to remove any comment for any reason. Examples include material that is obscene, encourages illegal activity or stereotypes based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs and other factors. Continued violation of these guidelines can lead to suspension or revocation of your ability to post comments. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, you can bring it to our attention by clicking the "report violation" link by each comment. Guidelines revised Aug. 21, 2009.

Registered User?