That is the absurd message from Know Thy Neighbor, a pro-gay marriage group that, sadly, relies on intimidation rather than dialogue to promote its dogmatic philosophy that anybody who disagrees is a "hater."
Sadder still, the group's intimidation tactics have now shut down a chance for dialogue in Gloucester between those of different views.
Cape Ann Marriage and Family, a group that has been active in seeking a statewide referendum on gay marriage, had planned a meeting this Saturday at Valentino's, a Main Street pizza parlor, that was to feature a lecture by David Parker of Lexington.
Parker is suing the state for the right to be notified when issues regarding sexuality, including gay marriage, are taught in his young son's school. His case was initially dismissed but is on appeal.
His complaint arose in 2005, when his 5-year-old son came home from school with a children's book that portrayed families headed by same-sex couples.
This, in the view of Know Thy Neighbor's Tom Lang, of Manchester, means that Parker finds "the mere existence of gay people" to be harmful to children - a vast distortion of Parker's complaint.
Lang contacted Armando Marnoto, co-owner of Valentino's, and told him that if the restaurant hosted the meeting, Know Thy Neighbor might organize a protest.
There is some dispute about why the event will not happen there. Marnoto says it is because Cape Ann Marriage and Family had not confirmed the event or made a deposit. The group says it was due to pressure from Know Thy Neighbor.
But the Know Thy Neighbor tactic is typical. During the petition drive seeking to put gay marriage on the ballot, the group posted on its Web site the names of those who signed the petition. Lang claimed this had nothing to do with intimidation - a laughable assertion, since the whole idea was to help gay marriage advocates accuse any neighbors who supported the referendum of being haters.
Lang and others who object to Parker's message have every right to protest and oppose that message. But if they truly think they have a convincing case to make, they could do it much better by arguing the merits, rather than waving signs that hurl blanket epithets at those who disagree with them.
One wonders what Lang would do if his own young son came home with a book from school that declared that the only legitimate families were those headed by a father and a mother. Surely he would demand to know what his son was being taught, so he could argue his own case.
The issue, on the surface, is about gay marriage. But the deeper issue is parental rights. The topics could be war and peace, the environment, gun control or any of a host of others.
Does Know Thy Neighbor really think parents should have no right to know what their children are being taught in school? If so, that is a debate well worth having.
It is sad that it won't happen because some would rather intimidate than debate.