When this came to the attention of our collective consciousness, we saw evangelicals, Catholics and Mormons taking it on the chin day after day, yelled at, screamed and harassed, accused of homophobia and worse by the likes of Russell and her cohorts as the legislation was finally passed. Proponents for heterosexual marriage won the day...at least for the moment.

Now Ms. Russell is back in full throttle speaking out on Proposition 8 as though she were storming the Berlin Wall. She delivered herself of the following the statement sent out from the All Saints Communication office. (Was the church ever invited to vote or approve her unilateral actions?)

Clearly mad over the United States Supreme Court decision to block the broadcast of opening arguments in the Proposition 8 trial, she said "the landmark case will help move California to the right side of history on the issue of marriage equality."

That all depends on who his calling the shots about the "right side of history." Totally ignoring well-documented charges of of harassment and intimidation, Russell lashed out saying, "The only potential victims here are fair minded Californians who deserved to have the important issue of marriage equality tried on its merits - not tried in the court of public opinion in political campaigns designed to tell lies, distort facts and distract the voters from the real issue at hand. And that issue is whether or not we are going to continue to strive to be a nation of liberty and justice for all - not just some - Americans."

Like a dog in heat she screamed, "This last ditch effort by supporters of discrimination against gay and lesbian families is nothing less than another smokescreen fueled by the flames of homophobia."

Not willing to let this pass unnoticed, the Family Research Council weighed in on the "harassment/discrimination" issue. They issued this statement: "Reality television may be a huge success, but the U.S. Supreme Court is more than happy to leave the courtroom drama to Judge Judy.

Yesterday, the high court pulled the plug on a controversial broadcast of Perry v. Schwarzenegger until at least Wednesday when the justices have had a chance to weigh the arguments on both sides. The order came just days after Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker agreed to an unprecedented webcast of the Proposition 8 case, ignoring a ban on courtroom cameras that had been in place for years.

For the defendants, who are understandably concerned about becoming targets of harassment because of their testimonies, it was a temporary victory. Only one high Justice objected to the court's intervention--Stephen Breyer, who disagreed that the cameras posed a risk to the impartiality of the trial.

"With all due respect to Justice Breyer, where has he been these last three years? This isn't a question of whether conservatives will face harassment but how much.

After all, this is a state where militant homosexuals have a long rap sheet of " harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, angry protests, violence...death threats, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry" against locals who vote or donate to pro-marriage causes. In truth, the only video this court should allow are security cameras outside the defendants' homes. Maybe then the country could see what these 'agents of tolerance' are really capable of."

The Heritage Foundation's Thomas Messner took a crack at documenting the abuse conservatives took during the 2008 campaign in his "The Price of Prop 8" paper. It took him sixteen pages to outline the assaults on businesses, churches, and individuals. Simply posting "Yes on 8" bumper stickers or yard signs resulted in all kinds of backlash--ranging from trespassers urinating on homes and spray-painting cars to being egged, toilet papered, threatened, vandalized, stalked, and sworn at in the classroom.

Others who dared to show up at rallies were punched in the face, hit over the head, forced to resign, or had their pictured plastered on public posters. Of the 25,000 "Yes on 8" signs distributed, at least one-third were destroyed. "Unfortunately, this campaign of intimidation isn't unique to California.

The public square isn't any safer for Christians in Maine, Washington, Massachusetts, or anywhere else Americans have a vote on this issue. In any given state, the Left will try to sabotage a person's accreditation, business, career, house of worship, or safety. Are these witnesses right to feel camera shy? You betcha."

This week Pope Benedict weighed in on gay marriage and linked the Church's opposition to gay marriage to concern about the environment, suggesting that laws undermining "the differences between the sexes" were threats to creation.

"To carry our reflection further, we must remember that the problem of the environment is complex; one might compare it to a multifaceted prism," he said.

"Creatures differ from one another and can be protected, or endangered, in different ways, as we know from daily experience. One such attack comes from laws or proposals which, in the name of fighting discrimination, strike at the biological basis of the difference between the sexes," he said. "I am thinking, for example, of certain countries in Europe or North and South America.

"Yet freedom cannot be absolute, since man is not God, but the image of God, God's creation. For man, the path to be taken cannot be determined by caprice or willfulness, but must rather correspond to the structure willed by the Creator," he continued.

This was a clear reference to legislation either enacted or proposed in several parts of the world.

Gay marriage is legal is several U.S. states and some European countries.

Evangelicals, Catholics and Mormons were united over gay marriage in November 2008 and may well come together again even though serious theological differences exist between them. In the Culture Wars, new bonds are formed if only temporarily to fight a higher evil.

Catholics, Mormons and evangelicals are all united around the proposition that the creation ordinance declared in Genesis is God's unalterable word on humanity, "male and female created He them."

For all her efforts, Ms. Russell can never overturn what God has made and irrevocably declared. Having consistently lost at the ballot box in 31 states (most recently, Maine) and also in the New York and New Jersey legislatures in recent weeks, Ms Russell and her friends think they can overturn the clear will of the people in every state which has rejected same-sex marriage. She won't and can't. In the end, God always wins. Ms. Russell's "victories" are temporary at best. She can never overthrow what God has written into the warp and woof of the universe. Only a fool could think otherwise.

END

ProtectMarriage.com says Prop 8 supporters get death threats

General Counsel Andy Pungo Issues Statement on U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Against Television Prop. 8 Trial

SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. 13 /Christian Newswire/ -- The following statement can be attributed to Andy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com on the stay issued by the United States Supreme Court prohibiting televising the Prop 8 trial:

We are relived that the United States Supreme Court intervened today to protect our witnesses from the harm that would come with televising the Prop 8 trial. As we have said from the start, televising the proceedings in a high-profile case is unprecedented in federal court, and impedes our ability to get a fair and impartial trial. Most importantly, putting Prop 8 supporters on the witness stand and broadcasting their testimony worldwide would virtually guarantee a serious risk of harm threatened by anti-Prop 8 extremists.

In fact, the Supreme Court decision expressly acknowledged that there is already a track record of Prop 8 supporters being subjected to "harassment as a result of public disclosure of their support," including death threats, confrontational phone calls and e-mail messages, lost jobs, Internet blacklists, boycotts, vandalism and physical violence.

The Supreme Court said it intervened to prevent the televising of the Prop 8 trial because the trial court, with help form the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, had violated federal law by suspending the current rules prohibiting the televising of trial "at the eleventh hour" without going through the proper legal process.

Other statements from the Court's decision include:

The Court's interest in ensuring compliance with proper rules of judicial administration is particularly acute when those rules relate to the integrity of judicial processes. The District Court here attempted to revise its rules in haste, contrary to federal statutes and the policy of the Judicial Conference of the United States. It did so to allow broadcasting of this high-profile trial without any considered standards or guidelines in place.

This case, too, involves issues subject to intense debate in our society. The District Court intends not only to broadcast the attorneys' arguments but also witness testimony. [...] This case is therefore not a good one for a pilot program.

The District Court attempted to change its rules at the eleventh hour to treat this case differently than other trials in the district. Not only did it ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue. If courts are to require that others follow regular procedures, courts must do so as well.

END