Thursday, June 5, 2008

Republican Supreme Court Justices See nothing Wrong with Reverends Call to kill Homos

In the Capital Times story “State justices say lawsuit over gay remark is frivolous,” was the stunning revelation that the conservative activist Justices ignored an outright call to kill gays. To them, it didn’t happen.

Milwaukee lawyer James Donohoo, who represented an anti-gay activist, must now pay $87,000 plus interest in court costs and attorney's fees to the gay rights group Action Wisconsin, after the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that his lawsuit was frivolous.($120,000)

The attorney told the AP, "I'm a Christian. I believe in Jesus Christ as my lord and savior. I'll have life everlasting. I can use that assurance to try to deal with this decision and the ramifications of it."

Attorney Tamara Packard, representing Action Wisconsin, said "This is a vindication of our client's ability and need to bring to the public's attention threatening and scary statements made by a public figure."
Donohoo's client, the Rev. Grant Storms “gave a speech the same year at the
‘International Conference on Homo-Fascism’ in Milwaukee where, according to a recording, he told gay rights opponents that the failure of petitions and lobbying meant they should ‘start taking it to the streets." Storms then mimicked gunshot sounds and said ‘There's twenty! Ca-ching, glory, glory to God, let's go drive through the McDonald's and come back to get the rest."

Stating the obvious, “an Action Wisconsin press release said Storms was advocating murder of gays and lesbians. Donohoo filed suit against the group, saying their assertions were false and defamatory.”

WHAT THE…! This is a recording of Rev. Storms telling his audience to shooting gay people. But here’s the problem. As you’ll see, the courts payed little attention to the Reverends rant; telling his audience to hit the streets and kill 21 gay people, ca-ching, eat at McDonalds, and shoot some more. Instead, they focused on the gay rights groups wording, as if to say they may have fabricated some other meaning from the Reverends speech.

The state Supreme Court's 4-3 majority opinion, stated “Donohoo failed to provide any evidence that Action Wisconsin acted with malice. As such, the court was within its bounds to declare Donohoo's lawsuit frivolous.

Get ready to dive into the rabbit hole, as we check in with the 3 conservative Justices dissenting opinon:

“Stated otherwise, a reasonable jury could find that Action Wisconsin knew the statement was not true or made it with reckless disregard as
to its truth, because the statement was part of Action Wisconsin's attempt to promote one side of a highly charged political issue.' Roggensack wrote in the dissenting opinion."

In what country is it a free speech right to promote murdering gay people, while prosecuting the targeted victims for yelling “stop, don’t kill us?”

I’ve been told to respect the ideological differences people have politically. I’m beginning to think that it's just another Republican talking point to put me on the defensive, and get away with murder.


  1. Please correct your usage of the apostrophe s to indicate the plural. "Homo's" should be homos and "gay's" should be gays. You come across as illiterate and a bad advocate for anyone.

  2. Lucky day! Apparently they would find no malice if someone suggested that we start taking it to the streets and start (mimicked gunshot sounds) bigoted Republicans and mouth breathing neocons.

    Ca-ching! Glory, glory to God, let's go drive through the Starbucks and come back to get the rest.

    Evangelically yours (in a completely heterosexual way),
    Super Jesus

  3. to the previous commenter.
    so what your saying is that a person's argument is nullified if proper grammar and punctuation is not utilized?
    how intellectually weak!
    thank god my readers are not as anal as you.
    i am the run-on-sentence KING.
    using your premise,George Will would be a consumate advocate.
    having impeccable grammatical discourse.
    of course mr Will is also a bold faced liar,and propaganda whore.
    but hey!
    he can write his sentence structure with perfection.
    i am glad i stumbled upon this piece.
    every piece of the puzzle gives us more context.
    the improper use of apostophe's doesnt take away from its validity.

  4. enoch said: "grammar and spelling do not matter" (paraphrase).

    While I get your argument, enoch, I think you miss the point. It is not about being "anal" it is about being professional and putting forth the most compelling argument possible.

    If I cannot understand you, then your argument is moot. Period. While I am not claiming that your writing is beyond comprehension, the argument that "the point is all that matters" is logically weak, at the very best.

    In addition, I don't care what your argument is, how salient and moving, if it was presented in a format that I would admonish my 6th grader for, than I am going to not even pay attention to you, and your point will be lost.

    For a writer to say writing doesn't matter...hmm..."i am the run-on-sentence KING" is neither compelling or explatative. It is a subjegation to laziness and half-heartedness and anyone who can simply say, "Yah, I suck and am happy with that" should not taken serious in really any endeavor. To say, "I suck but am working on it" is admirable and worthy. But to say "deal with it". put it blunty, most won't. We have talented and, more importantly, self-concious authors overflowing the 'net. We really don't need yours. The scary part is...those other turds on the other side of the aisle are presenting a far more compelling argument, simply because they give half a poot about their work and efforts.

    Just some food for thought.

  5. anonymous,
    are explatative. subjegation and self-concious, real words or ones you just coined?

  6. "anonymous,
    are explatative. subjegation and self-concious, real words or ones you just coined?"


    Enoch has a well taken point.
    Merely because grammar,punctuation and structure aren't perfect doesn't mean the idea or thought invested in it aren't valid.

  8. As Anonymous wrote:

    In addition, I don't care what your argument is, how salient and moving, if it was presented in a format that I would admonish my 6th grader for, than I am going to not even pay attention to you, and your point will be lost.

    Perhaps you should address your own grammar issues.