Child Gets Death Threats For Marriage Views

Mark Shea found this story about Sarah Crank, who is facing death threats for her testimony for the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee in support of traditional marriage.

Here’s what Sarah said:

YouTube Preview Image

Yes, I know. I can feel the pure hatred just radiating off her.

And here’s how the Forces of Tolerance(TM) reacted:

From YouTube:  “My god I hate people like this. Most (not all) Americans are [expletive] retards.  If I ever see this girl, I will kill her.  That’s a promise.”
Other entries:  “Her parents should be exterminated.”

“The [sic] is why abortion must stay legal – to prevent little bigots like this from being Born…”

“Kill this child and his [sic] parent, for my 11 birthday would be a wonderful gift, thanks.”

“Her belief is hurting other people.  I will attack her as much as I please.”

“Parents like hers should be sterilized…”

“I’m gonna kill ‘er!”

Of course, I remember all those traditional marriage supporters who threatened children with death for speaking in front of a legislature for a couple of minutes. Here are their hated-filled, spittle-flecked comments:





Just remember the dominant narrative: we’re the “haters.”

The Earliest Known Depiction of Witches On Brooms, and What It Tells Us About Evil
Let’s Choose Not To Be Manipulated
The “Thank You God the Synod Is Over” Post
“Everything is diverted from its proper course”
About Thomas L. McDonald

Thomas L. McDonald writes about technology, theology, history, games, and shiny things. Details of his rather uneventful life as a professional writer and magazine editor can be found in the About tab.

  • Jon Zimmer

    Rule 1 of civilized political debate: No death threats. No exceptions.

    But they called me a “slut!” Doesn’t matter. No exceptions.

    But they are/are not a Catholic/authentic Catholic/Christian/believer in God! Doesn’t matter. No death threats. No exceptions.

    But people like that are ruining America! Doesn’t matter. No death threats. No exceptions.

    But they support abortions! Doesn’t matter. No death threats. No exceptions.

    But they support unjust wars! Doesn’t matter. No death threats. No exceptions.

    But if I don’t, people will ignore me! Doesn’t matter. No death threats. No exceptions.

    Any questions may be directed to <a href=" 5: 21-22.

    Dictated, not read.

    The Management.

  • A Random Friar

    Forces for Tolerance calling for the death of a child.

    Reminds me of that Colbert interview, where he keeps going back out each time the interviewee makes a similarly ironic statement.

    Terroristic threats like this [a legal term, against a person, not having anything to do with jihad or anything religion necessarily] can end someone in the pokey with a few years to cool off.

  • Gerry

    How convenient that neither you, nor any of the “sources” (all of them fundamentalist, religious and sometimes documented anti-gay bloggers and sites) talking about this “case” post any hyperlink, permalink, screenshot or otherwise proof that such things were said.

  • Thomas L. McDonald

    So you’re not capable of reading HuffPost comboxes or YouTube comments all on your own? Are you saying this was all made up? Are you denying that these things get said on a routine basis? Because I know for a fact they are.

    The thuggery and intimidation tactics of the gay-marriage forces are not an open question. Any blogger who’s written on the subject can assure you of that.

    Just curious: does opposing gay “marriage” make one “anti-gay”?

  • Gerry

    I Google’d several variations of the phrases. None offered anything but the same paragraphs from the same site. If you have links to the Youtube video or the Huffpost article with the comments, or screen-shots of those, or the police report made regarding the threats, it would add to your credibility.

    As for the “tuggery” and “intimidation”, the same can be said from the “traditional marriage” side. I have been told I should have been aborted myself because I am gay; is that not tuggery and intimidation, or good old catholic “justified discrimination”?

    Finally, yes, opposing civil marriage equality for LGBT people is anti-gay, since (plainly) it opposes rights (hence the “anti”) to be given to LGBT people (hence the “gay”.)

  • Thomas L. McDonald

    My credibility is just fine, thanks. I’m satisfied with the sourcing of the story. If you want to debunk it, knock yourself out.

    As for being “anti-gay”: you must live in a fascinating world where, without any knowledge of how I treat the gay people in my life, you can somehow magically diagnose me as being “anti-gay” because I don’t embrace a “right” that no one even conceived of ten years ago. Marriage as a union between a man and a woman is, obviously, the biological, legal, and historical standard. If you’d like to reverse several millenia of understanding of a fundamental concept of civilization in less than a decade, you’re going to need to do something more than paint your opponents as bigots while stomping your feet and shouting “not fair!”

    You can’t really redefine entire concepts at whim. Changing the word “marriage” to include people of the same sex is like changing the word “red” to also include “green”. A person can no more “marry” a person of the same gender than I can give birth or lay eggs. You can form some kind of legally-binding partnership, have it blessed in the church of your choice (there are plenty out there willing to do so), and go merrily about with your life. Doesn’t impact me even a tiny bit. Just don’t expect everyone else to consider what you have as a marriage that is the equal of the marriage between a man and a woman. It’s simply not. It never can be.

    This has never been about “rights”. (How can it be, since all rights have their foundation in natural law?) We have civil unions in New Jersey that are the exact equal of marriage in all things but name, for the quite sensible reason that a marriage is a union of opposites. So what happens? The gay lobby tries to strike down this law to replace it with the exact same thing, only called “marriage.” This was never about “equality” under the law. This was always about getting mainstream society to see gay unions as identical to heterosexual unions.

    You really must send me links to the Church’s theological statements on “justified discrimination.” Since you put it in quotes, I assume you mean it’s a real thing and not a figment of your imagination.

  • Gerry

    1. So, no links, screen shots or proof. Just gossip, because that’s more convenient to you.

    2. I don’t recall calling you personally anti-gay. I said “sometimes documented anti-gay bloggers” referring to some (hence “sometimes”) of the sites running the carbon copy of your story, none giving any sort of documentation either.

    3. Marriage is not defined at the biological standard, since a male human does not suddenly becomes unable to impregnate, have sexual contact, rear children, with non-wife females once married.

    4. Marriage is not defined by historical standards. More than “one man-one woman” familiar systems have appeared in human history. They even have special names.

    5. Marriage IS defined at the legal level, and laws defining it are different across time and across cultures around the world. Nowadays more than one interpretation of marriage law exist throughout the world, some including more than one woman, some including property, some banning divorce. Some not.

    6. Yes, concepts can be defined and redefined. It happens all the time. Concepts are logical instruments whose existence is dependent on the description of the abstraction they refer to. It’s basic logic.

    7. Whatever laws you have in NJ, they are not the exact equivalent to civil marriage. DOMA guarantees that.

    8. According to the Catechism of the RCC, unjust discrimination against homosexuals is to be avoided, which logically implies that there exists just discrimination which is practiced in a regular by your church.

  • Dale Price
  • Gerry

    Thanks a lot for the link to the Huffpost. article. However, after going through several pages of comments, I fail to see any death threat, or credible cause of call for violence. Of course, many of the comments are highly critical of the kid. Some downright rude. Same as those who oppose marriage equality.
    Now, in case you have already read the 2000+ comments, do you have a permalink to an actual violence treath?


  • Dale Price

    Oh, Gerry, you wacky goalpost mover, you! Have a noogie!

    I’m kinda puzzled–if nothing else, here’s your chance to prove all those evil people on the other side wrong.

    Tell you what, though. I’ll look through it over the next few days (my schedule’s pretty busy), and you can prepare your dismissive responses telling me why what I find doesn’t matter. Deal?

  • Thomas L. McDonald

    Yeah, I gave up on this one, Dale. It’s one of those whack-a-mole, shifting goalposts things: explain a point here, he moves it over there. Show him where the comments are located, and he expects YOU to comb through them all and produce screenshots of the evidence. (He DID go through several whole pages of the 2000+ comments, however.) I decided to cut this one short when he lied (saying he didn’t call me anti-gay when he did exactly that), made a complete hash of rudimentary logic, and kept writing sentences that didn’t make any sense: “According to the Catechism of the RCC, unjust discrimination against homosexuals is to be avoided, which logically implies that there exists just discrimination which is practiced in a regular by your church.”

    {TLMcD NOTE TO DALE: Wow, we posted pretty much the same idea at the same time. I think I’m adding him to the spam filter. Based on his syntax and his tedious, rote arguments, I’m beginning to think he’s a bot.}