Arizona | Gay Marriage | News | Vandalism

Signs for Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amended in Arizona


More than 100 campaign signs near Phoenix urging voters to vote yes for an amendment that would define marriage in Arizona as between a man and a woman were themselves amended over the weekend, indicating that a "yes" vote would be a vote for hate:

"A spokesperson for the campaign said the damage has totaled nearly $6,000. A spokesperson for the group that opposes Proposition 102 said they condemn the vandalism and that it has no place in a rational debate."

Watch a report on the incidents from ABC15, AFTER THE JUMP...

(via queerty)

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. If there was $6000 damage to roughly 100 signs, then that means each sign cost $60. Unfortunately, that isn't the only thing the Yes on Amendment 2 people are lying about...

    Posted by: peterparker | Oct 13, 2008 11:45:19 AM

  2. Those hateful signs are all over this town, Phoenix, every street corner, in front of just about every church, and, in my and my partners mailboxes daily and at a house down the block. The Mormon "church" has put $7 million dollars into this thing, and, the thing, I don't get, is why is salt Lake City telling voters in this state how to vote? I realize that the state of Arizona, like Utah, Nevada and Idaho are run by Mormons, but, they and the rest of the hate going church goers need to sty out of government, but, the voters here are falling for it hook line and hate, so, it will win, even though, the constitution already says this trash.

    Posted by: Oliver | Oct 13, 2008 11:47:18 AM

  3. Those fucking signs are everywhere. I'm glad someone changed them... the message is more honest now.

    Posted by: crispy | Oct 13, 2008 11:53:09 AM

  4. Rational Debate..REALLY? Let's speak rationally about TAKING AWAY OTHER TAX PAYING citizens RIGHTS to LOVE & Marry the person of thier choice? Sorry - There is NO Rationality in that Un-American Proposition whatsoever! EQUALITY FOR ALL!

    Posted by: Disgusted American | Oct 13, 2008 11:56:54 AM

  5. they are right, that behavior has no place in a rational debate. luckily there is nothing rational about "defining" marriage.

    Posted by: jeanluc | Oct 13, 2008 11:56:54 AM

  6. "Rational Debate" - that caught my eye also.

    I am 100% for FREE SPEECH, including my right to vandalize and/or remove hateful signs that (ultimately) threaten my family's security and well-being. But maybe that's too "edgy" and "irrational".

    OK - let's see, what POWER do I have as a US citizen. Oh yeah - my tax dollars. THAT is one thing that these ANTI-EQUALITY BULLIES cannot touch or take from me.

    TAX RESISTANCE IS RATIONAL and allows me to maintain a modicum of self-respect in this INSANE atmosphere where we are trying to PURCHASE our due civil rights.

    Posted by: John Bisceglia | Oct 13, 2008 12:46:40 PM

  7. There is no place for HATE in a rational debate...

    Posted by: general | Oct 13, 2008 12:58:40 PM

  8. I don't think anyone wants this to escalate.

    Posted by: anon | Oct 13, 2008 1:06:18 PM

  9. Hmmm, I think I will copy this brilliant idea here in California. Pass the spray paint!

    Posted by: Josh | Oct 13, 2008 1:29:46 PM

  10. Again, this is why getting more liberal judges on the Supreme Court is critical. Loving v. Virginia was the Supreme Court decision that ended prohibition of interracial marriage across the country.

    The battles on the state-level are important to win but the reality is that there are lots of states with bans in place. We have to destroy those bans with federal legislation and a Supreme Court decision.

    The Log Cabin Republicans can try to spin the fact that "some" Republicans are against these laws, but the reality is that the Republicans' national position is ANTI-gay: no marriage/no civil unions, no ENDA, or hate crimes legislation.

    We have to think about this strategically: how can GLBT Americans have a substantial say in federal government? The answer is getting Congressmen and women and a president who are beholden to our votes. The greater the Democratic majority in the Senate, the easier it is to get the kinds of judges we'll need on the Court.

    Posted by: noah | Oct 13, 2008 1:35:41 PM

  11. If the constitution says it's trash then go fight it in the courts and not in the court of public opinion. You can't criticize the Mormons from out of state in one post and then implore people from out of state to donate money to California's defense in another story. That's called having your cake and eating it too and that only applies to invest bankers and shitty mortgage borrowers who lie.

    How "edgy" and "irrational" would it be for signs to be vandalized saying "No Fag Laws" or better yet an Obama sign to say "No terrorists" It's very easy to let emotionalism and anger to cloud judgement and then it all goes to hell.

    Until the gay community gets a national organization that is more concerned about what goes on in politics and less concerned about the cocktail circuit and handing out awards we're stuck with what we've got.

    Posted by: Las Vegas | Oct 13, 2008 1:39:21 PM

  12. If she did it, I just wish Ellen DeGeneres would knock off these comedic shenanigans and instead make a monetary contribution to No on 8 here in California!

    Posted by: JJ | Oct 13, 2008 1:43:36 PM

  13. Civil disobedience lies at the foundation of our country. We have a right, nay, a duty to stand up for our beliefs and make them known through extraordinary means. We must protest injustice in all its forms, be it through government oppression or majority tyranny disguised as "democracy." Keep up the good work!

    Posted by: Jerry | Oct 13, 2008 2:15:09 PM

  14. So Jerry where does your brand of "Civil Disobedience" begin and end?

    A couple of signs painted, maybe a rock through a window, burning a church...where does the civil obedience being in your book and where does it end? Civil Disobedience does not condone acts of destruction.

    Posted by: Las Vegas | Oct 13, 2008 2:40:55 PM

  15. Las vegas

    I'm guessing you would have rounded up the founding fathers and arrested them for damging someone else's property at boston Harbor.

    Heck, those pesky founding fathers also disrespected King George's property rights to the colonies and thus should have been shot for treasonous rebellion and disregard to king George's divine right of ownership to his property/ colonies

    You can not lionize, laud, sanctify the violent civil disobedience of the founders in schools across america and not expect people to feel inspired.

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Oct 13, 2008 3:03:12 PM

  16. I tore up 3 Yes on Prop 8 signs in my neighborhood yesterday. If I see more, I will destroy them as well. Arrest me. I don't really care. I cannot bear the idea of driving past those for the next 3 weeks. They put up more, I will tear them down as well. Fair warning.

    Posted by: Zephyr | Oct 13, 2008 3:16:56 PM

  17. I've seen plenty of those signs near my house and I'd be lying if I said I hadn't thought of doing the same thing. That said, I'm willing to respect others' right to express their views (even though I disagree with them) in the same way that I expect my right to express my views be respected.

    Posted by: Marc | Oct 13, 2008 4:47:23 PM

  18. Damage? What damage?! I think somebody CORRECTED those signs free-of-charge.

    Posted by: Drew | Oct 13, 2008 4:50:12 PM

  19. @Zephyr,

    Boy, I wish I had the nerve to do what you have to do man!

    Posted by: John | Oct 13, 2008 6:30:55 PM

  20. there are millions of dollars behind this campaign, Focus on the Family is a major contributor.
    Taking the signs is a way to exercise our right to privacy.
    Keep up the good work guys and gals !!!

    Posted by: Tyler | Oct 19, 2008 3:33:13 PM

Post a comment


« «Lance Bass: 'I Don't Have a Boyfriend'« «