6502271
story
Comments: 1364 +- Your Rights Online: Legal War For WA State Sunshine Law on Tuesday October 20, @07:13AM
Posted
by
kdawson
on Tuesday October 20, @07:13AM
from the public-acts-public-records dept.
from the public-acts-public-records dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicdoj.gif); width:50px; height:79px;
court
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicinternet.gif); width:70px; height:73px;
internet
joeszilagyi writes "In a major battle in Washington State, anti-gay rights groups created and got R-71 on the 2009 election ballot. This is a public initiative to put same-sex civil unions up for public vote. The real legal war then erupted: activists created WhoSigned.org to take advantage of WA state's Public Records Act, and put the names of all people who publicly endorsed R-71 on a public, SEO-optimized website. Lawsuits quickly followed, and today it reached the United States Supreme Court, in a matter of months. The records appear to have always been public, but have only been available in digital form since 2006. An assault on civil rights, an assault on marriage, or an assault on sunshine laws and freedom of information?"
Related Stories
Executive ability is prominent in your make-up.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Wait a minute here (Score:5, Insightful)
put the names of all people who publicly endorsed R-71 on a public, SEO-optimized website.
So you're telling me that you can sue someone for publicly telling everyone (via a website) something you publicly told everyone?
Look, mate, when you sign a petition, what you're doing is saying to anyone who cares to listen in the world that you endorse the views of the petition. If you aren't willing to attach your name to what the petition says, don't sign it.
Re:Wait a minute here (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they got the impression that voting was anonymous from the fact that it usually is in elections. Secret ballots are necessary for democracy to function free from intimidation - these people took part in a non-secret ballot, and now they are being intimidated, Q.E.D.
Parent
Re:Wait a minute here (Score:5, Insightful)
The are not being intimidated. If having your name put on website that lists your participation in a public action counts as intimidation then virtually anything does. I also find the argument people not understanding the difference between a circulating petition and a balloted election a bit of stretch.
Secret ballot elections make sense, because we want people to be able to vote their conscience free from social pressure. I don't think though anonymity should be an expectation when you are participating in a public debate, and a petition is a form of participation.
Parent
Re:Wait a minute here (Score:5, Insightful)
The are not being intimidated. If having your name put on website that lists your participation in a public action counts as intimidation then virtually anything does.
So what was the point of the web site then? Would you hold the same position if an evangelical Christian organization published a web site containing the names of people who signed a pro-gay marriage petition, or would that somehow be different?
Parent
Re:Wait a minute here (Score:5, Insightful)
Signing a petition does not mean that you agree with the views of the petitioner, it just means that you agree that the issue should be brought to a wider vote to decide the matter. I've known plenty of people who would sign pretty much any referendum or initiative in the states that have that process. In their view, it just airs more discussion and opportunities for democracy.
Parent
Re:Wait a minute here (Score:5, Insightful)
One could have the view that:
Marriage is a societal contract. This contract evolved so that offspring would be provided for by the 'father' and to contain the spread of venereal disease. Marriage creates a construct that will allow for public shaming for extra-marital affairs as well as legal consequences. As such, marriage is basically pregnancy insurance.
The other function of marriage is to allow for easier property transitions after a death of someone in the "family". A boilerplate legal document of sorts that existed before everyone had access to lawyers. Spouse gets X, descendants get Y, state gets Z.
The concept of romantic (or any other love) is actually foreign to marriage and should not be considered as part of it.
So to sum up: just because you "love" (or lust after) someone does not mean that you should be married to them. In fact, with modern contraceptive measures, marriage shouldn't be as necessary. Unfortunately religious and romantic ideals have become intertwined with a legal concept.
Now, for legal benefits that come with a marriage license, those options should be available through other means for people to establish a legal equivalent to a spouse or household.
Personally, I don't care who marries what, though I do wonder why same sex couples are trying so hard to be as miserable as hetero couples. Work for the legal benefits, avoid the societal drawbacks.
Parent
Re:Wait a minute here (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, there is no justification for opposition to same-sex civil marriage that doesn't (a) reduce to homophobia or (b) apply equally strongly to anti-miscegenation laws (which are much more widely recognized as undue limitations on freedom).
Except there is. As a straight man that has a roommate and friend that's a gay man, and is good friends with two lesbians, I don't believe I'm homophobic. Yet, I don't support gay marriage. It's really nothing personal. The primary reason I oppose gay marriage is because of the huge body of evidence which suggests that single motherhood produces unfit offspring. When you control for all other factors, single motherhood plays a huge role in the success of a child. In my view, many of the same issues that plague children that grow up in single parent households, will also plague those that are raised by same-sex couples. Therefore, given that marriage is designed to encourage family life, I do not support gay marriage as I feel it would be unfair to the child, and ultimately to society as a whole as they will ultimately have to pay for the child.
Parent
Thats an easy question... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all about gay marriage. Neither group involved cares about any of the rest of that stuff.
Personally, I don't get it; so long as you don't make me marry a person of the same gender against my will, why do I care what you do? Don't pretend there aren't same-sex families already; according to one of the links, 18% of same-sex couples in Washington state are raising a child under 18.
I do have a tiny little bit of sympathy for the signers of the petition; I don't think people really understand the legal details behind the signing of a petition, and many of them many have assumed that it was as anonymous and protected as voting.
One shouldn't take a stand that involves limiting someone else's rights but only be willing to do it anonymously. That's just chicken shit.
And if you just shrugged and signed because your neighbor, coworker or fellow church goer asked you too without actually believing it, that's chicken shit too.
R-71 has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriag (Score:5, Informative)
The important thing to know about the situation in Washington is that no one is actually looking to change that. R-71 is not in any way shape or form about gay marriage. It's about domestic partnerships. In May of 2009, Washington governor Christine Gregoire signed into law Senate Bill 5688 [wa.gov], the "everything but marriage" bill, which makes it so that within the state of Washington, domestic partnerships will have the exact same legal rights and responsibilities as married couples. Hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, power of attorney rights, the right to adopt and raise children... All the things that two consenting adults who love each other and are genuinely committed to each other oought to have. This bill did not in any way shape or form suggest that domestic partnerships should be recognized as marriages, though. (See this article [wa.gov] and the actual text of the bill [wa.gov]).
And before someone tries to argue with me about the right to adopt... I'd like to point out that the reality of the situation is that there's tons of kids out there growing up in foster care, and that growing up in a home with 3-4 other children you aren't related to, some of whom were taken from their parents because the parents were neglectful or abusive, is known to frequently be a very traumatic experience. Whereas being raised by a gay couple would, at most, subject you to some teasing from other children at school.
R-71 is an attempt to overturn SB 5688. Plain and simple. It has nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage. It is not in any way shape or form related to any religious belief. Washington State has never contemplated the issue of gay marriage. I've seen plenty of conservative literature claiming that gays "already have all the same rights" so that the "attack on traditional marriage" has to be about something other than basic human rights.
Well, at least in Washington, it very definitely isn't. (Oregon has actually had similar legislation in place for a few years now.) Gays are in no way shape or form interested in being allowed to legally use the word "marriage" to refer to our relationships here. We're only interested in having all the equivalent secular, legal rights. And R-71 is a vote about whether or not we should have those rights. But of course... There's a highly deceptive campaign going on with regards to it... And many of the people going in to vote on it may in fact have been led to falsely believe that they're voting on something related to gay marriage.
No one should have expected (Score:5, Insightful)
that their signature remained secret, however no one should have to put up with an organized intimidation process which is the new method of choice. Seeing the pubic exercise their opinion has so offended certain elements out there. As such these same elements intend to use intimidation while expertly avoiding stepping over the line or just not getting caught to get any big names on their to back down or pay up.
In other words, the names should be protected based on what we know these elements will do with them. We cannot have the democratic process circumvented by threats and intimidation. I am all for treating these signatures like votes, off the public record. keep them private. If only to stop the new tactics.
This is similar to why Unions want Card Check, to intimidate their way into power. Freedom of expression is freedom from fear
Parent
Re:No one should have expected (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:No one should have expected (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you have a ways to go though before intimidation or especially violenc gets called up for use. I don't think we've quite reached that level.
Personally I think I have great way to solve this problem; eliminate completely the concept of legal marriage. Its not needed, and the issue is causing us to waste time better spent on other work. Make it a purely religous or spiritial cermemony, that means nothing legally.
Parent
Re:No one should have expected (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally I think I have great way to solve this problem; eliminate completely the concept of legal marriage. Its not needed, and the issue is causing us to waste time better spent on other work. Make it a purely religous or spiritial cermemony, that means nothing legally.
That would be the ideal, but that would defeat the reason gays want marriage in the first place. If all they were looking for was a symbolic ceremony of their life together, they'd just go down to their local Unitarian Universalist building and get married. They want marriage specifically for the legal protections: so they can force employers to provide health insurance, get estate rights when their partners die, tax breaks, etc. Of course, there's no reason why much of this couldn't be done on a contractual basis in the absence of legal marriage, but the state always finds a way to mess things up and make things difficult for people.
I'm sure that I will be modded down because it will perceived it as an anti-homosexual comment, but it's not. I believe in the equality before the law for all people, I simply don't think we should have the laws that make this a battle in the first place.
Parent
Re:No one should have expected (Score:5, Insightful)
So, because some OTHER people, in the past, have wrongly beaten up and attacked (or, worse, killed) some Gays, then it is OK, to do the same to OTHER completely innocent people who had nothing to do with, nor condone the violence perpetrated against some gays?
Wow. How humane of you. I assume you also believe in punishing children for the evils of their parents?
Parent
Re:No one should have expected (Score:5, Informative)
The discussion is over the legal recognition of said marriage.
Actually, this discussion is over a website listing in a searchable way those who signed a petition to put gay-civil-unions on a ballot.
Parent
Re:No one should have expected (Score:5, Insightful)
Hiding public records is how people stack votes; doing that now just because people MIGHT be annoyed with an email or a phone call goes against everything this nation is supposed to stand for. Like I said, if someone has a problem because of this, go to the police. If not, deal with it. They signed a public document, they have no right to ask for it to be protected from scrutiny.
Parent
Re:No one should have expected (Score:5, Insightful)
that their signature remained secret, however no one should have to put up with an organized intimidation process which is the new method of choice. Seeing the pubic exercise their opinion has so offended certain elements out there. As such these same elements intend to use intimidation while expertly avoiding stepping over the line or just not getting caught to get any big names on their to back down or pay up.
In other words, the names should be protected based on what we know these elements will do with them. We cannot have the democratic process circumvented by threats and intimidation. I am all for treating these signatures like votes, off the public record. keep them private. If only to stop the new tactics.
This is similar to why Unions want Card Check, to intimidate their way into power. Freedom of expression is freedom from fear
If it really were a measure of public opinion they would not be so fast to cry foul and scream "intimidation".
For one, there are laws against anything substantive (vandalism, assault, etc), and for another, if the majority of the public really DOES agree with them there should be no risk of ostracism.
Of course, they obviously know this is NOT the case, and their efforts to conceal their signatures are no different than the white hoods the KKK used to wear.
The reality is this referendum doesn't do anything except exploit the "squeaky wheel" phenomenon to oppress gay people. The (silent) majority of the public could care less, so they won't consider it important enough to show up at the polls, allowing the "vocal (and bigoted) minority" to disenfranchise them.
Parent
Re:No one should have expected (Score:5, Insightful)
In a democracy there are two ways to participate in politics. One is to exercise your right to vote in secret. The other is to publicly organize. A petition is not a vote, it's a public statement that "I support initiative X." As a public statement the speaker assumes the risks associated with speaking out in public - such as the possibility that your friends and neighbors will find out your opinions. Intimidation and harassment are illegal and these laws should be enforced, but petitions are public for a reason and should stay public regardless of whether or not some bad actors will do bad things. Participating publicly in politics is risky, which is why you're under no obligation to do so. If signature gathering efforts for ballot initiatives or to get a candidate on a ballot become private they risk becoming about as important as internet petitions and polls. When you sign a petition, you're literally putting your name on the line - which is what gives them the impact that they have - if it's anonymous and cannot be publicly verified no one will believe you when you say we have Y signatures. What's more these are most certainly not new tactics - the declaration of independence was essentially a petition, and the signatories certainly faced consequences for attaching their names to the document. Do you suppose that the declaration would be held in such high esteem had it been signed by BenLightning and SamTEHdrunk?
Parent
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
If people are shamed by having signed the petition then they shouldn't have signed it. The people who are shamed aren't listening to their little voice.
If they are not ashamed to have signed it then what's the problem?
I don't know about you, the only petition I've signed as an adult was for a local politician to get on the ballot. Go ahead, put my name on the front page of the newspaper - all I did was agree that this nice guy on my front porch should get his name on the ballot if he wants. I guess it implies I support him, but really, I don't even know what he thinks, just that he seems OK enough to be on the ballot.
All these people did, when you get down to it, was agree that the question of gay marriage should be on the ballot. Same thing.
There's the implication that you're in favor of the measure passing, of course - but you shouldn't put your name on a piece of paper if you don't understand what could happen with that list of names.
I have no sympathy for any of the signers.
Parent
Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups (Score:5, Insightful)
It just shows you how biased judges are. If they were unbiased, the same sex marriage ban wouldn't last 5 minutes.
Parent
Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups (Score:5, Insightful)
Cannot have such a rule. The anti-gay(-marriage) people will be quick to tell you the Constitution does not forbid discrimination based on sexual preference. Indeed, you won't find the words "sexual preference" or "sexuality" anywhere in the document. But pretending that you can in any way separate sexual preference from gender, against which discrimination is expressly forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment, is nothing more than parlor-trick hand-waiving by a homophobic community intent on forcing Biblical morality on an entire nation.
If two people each have the right to marry, they have the right to marry each other. No, that does not somehow open the door to marriages with goats like some people (including, sadly, some in this very discussion) would like you to believe. Does this somehow create a strain on government programs that pay you for being married? Good. Get rid of them. It's ridiculous to incentivize marriage, for straight or gay people.
I'm sorry if this doesn't fit with some peoples' narrow-minded world view, but I'm tired of gay bashing being the last acceptable form of discrimination in the US. End rant.
(And sorry to the grandparent; most of this rant was not intended for you, merely used as a jumping-off point.)
Parent
Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups (Score:5, Insightful)
And following that logic inter-racial marriage wasn't discrimination either. Blacks weren't allowed to marry outside their race, but then nether were whites.
Parent
Thanks for explaining the mindset (Score:5, Insightful)
How about if you're a normal liberal who does believe in personal responsibility, believes that the scientists are right and that not only are there gay human beings but that many other species have an analog, that this is a result of genetic makeup and prenatal environment, and that gay people can no more help being attracted to the same sex than I, for instance, am attracted to the opposite one? How about if you're a Liberal who believes you right wingers are a collection of mindless buffoons endlessly repeating what your shock radio cheerleaders tell you, and that it's us Liberals who are responsible for almost all human progress, while your lot, from Southern Baptists to the Taliban, want to drag us back screaming and kicking into the Dark Ages?
Well, then we might think you're just another racist/homophobe spouting a load of offensive bullshit. And your point is?
Parent
Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups (Score:5, Insightful)
What a load of utter bullshit. I'm sorry but rarely have I ever heard such a fountain of total nonsense spew forth, here or elsewhere on the internet (with the possible exception of /b/).
False equivalence. One is a conscious, sentient adult, the other is an animal. Or an inanimate object. You're an idiot.
So if skin colour was a choice you'd be happy to discriminate? Gotcha. You're a hateful, dumb, bigot.
Totally irrelevant. If it's a choice it's their choice, not yours, and doesn't affect you in any way.
Nobody's asking for special treatment, they're asking for equal treatment, and you're clutching at straws to try and deny it.
Where to begin?
Liberal used as an invective (sure sign of an underdeveloped brain), non-sequiturs galore and yet more crap.
Why is sexual preference linked to responsibility? What is irresponsible about homosexuality? And I'm not inviting you to spew more stereotypical nonsense about promiscuity here, what is irresponsible about the fact of homosexuality itself?
Basically, you're wrong and pretty dumb. Or a troll, I'm not sure which.
Parent
Turn the tables (Score:5, Insightful)
Gay rights activists go too far. It's one thing to demand a right to do what seams right to you, its another thing to lash out against those who express any kind of disapproval. .
Let's take away your ability to marry, and then see if you might be so inclined to lash out in any way. Perhaps when your loved one is dying in the hospital, and you are not allowed to go see her. Would you sit quietly by? I doubt it.
Parent
Re:Turn the tables (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Turn the tables (Score:5, Insightful)
Because marriage is a civil union. You have it backwards. The whole church involvement is simply a nice ceremony. It has no authority to do anything until the government validates the marriage. You could get married all day in church and it would mean nothing until you file the proper papers. Try to get married five times and the church wouldn't know you had, and certainly couldn't come after you. The government on the other hand, certainly could.
Now from the other perspective, if you go the government, and get a marriage performed, there is no church needed.
See the difference?
This is the part that the church and organized religion fails to understand. They are taking a civil issue and trying to push their religious views into it. Granting civil unions, or even marriage to two people doesn't harm them in the slightest. It might affront their beliefs, but there is simply no harm done to them personally, and that is an important distinction.
Separation of church and state doesn't protect the government from religion. It protects you, me, and everyone else from government sponsored religion. That is what makes these "defense of marriage" acts so wrong. There is no provable harm in these civil unions, and when they state that it is 'morally wrong according to the bible', they are essentially forcing government sponsored religion onto US citizens when these acts are passed even if these citizens are not followers of the bible. The 'harm' is stated in a religious document. There is no prove-able harm outside of the bible.
Parent
Re:Turn the tables (Score:5, Insightful)
No one has hijacked anything. You can get married tomorrow, and never notify the government. You don't even have to involve them. Of course if you did so you wouldn't get any LEGAL benefits, which is where this is being argued. This has nothing to do with religion.
Same goes for getting a marriage license from the state. You don't have to involve the church either. The two are totally separate and should remain so.
Parent
Re:Turn the tables (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't marry my dog, what's your point?
Same sex marriage is not comparable to marrying your dog. Please troll in a less obvious manner.
Parent
Re:Turn the tables (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Turn the tables (Score:5, Insightful)
You should be able to marry your sister. And if genetic screenings say you won't make web footed duck babies, you should be able to have kids with her too. But you should be able to marry her in any case. Marriage isn't necessarily about procreation, if it were, then barren couples wouldn't be allowed marriage either. Your sister and you are adults, you can consent, why shouldn't you be able to marry? Just because some people think its gross? Some people think mixed marriages are gross, too.
The institution of marriage has a stabilizing effect on society. This occurs whatever the partners' sexual orientation or capacity to breed. Married couples tend to be more stable and responsible. Marriage is a positive institution. Why deny that to homosexuals?
You see, you are advocating denying people the right to marry whom they choose. That does not impact anyone else except in indirect but positive ways. You need to justify this abrogation of rights. How will denying homosexuals the rights to marry benefit society? You can't just compare homosexual unions to bestiality or incest without more complete reasoning. You appear to be trying to appeal to emotions rather than using logic. You say, 'you can't marry your sister,' but you don't state why you can't, or how the case of sibling incest is similar to homosexuality. Sure, it's a step up from comparing homosexuality to bestiality, but not by much.
You are the one making outrageous claims. You are the one advocating harmful actions against oppressed minorities. You need to justify your claims as best you can, rather than making cheap appeals to emotions. If you don't even attempt to justify your position logically, people are correct to disrespect you.
Parent
Re:Turn the tables (Score:5, Insightful)
You do not get to define religion, sorry. You don't get to say that someone's 'changes' are not legitimate. By your logic, Martin Luther had no right to change things.
But in any case, Buddhism has never had a ban on gay marriages, so any Buddhist sects performing them would have to be legitimate in your eyes, as they haven't changed anything that was originally in their religion, and they are legitimate religion recognized in the United States.
You do understand that homosexual civil unions don't exist in most states, right?
Marriage is a legal right. You see, there are two different definitions of marriage. There is marriage as it relates to the state, and marriage as it relates to a particular religion. While religious marriage might not be a legal right, one does not even need to practice a religion in order to be legally married by the state. That is a right, as recognized by the state, not a particular religion. I was not married in a church, but I am legally married and that status confers certain rights and responsibilities on my partner and I.
Historically, the word 'marriage' did not include partners of different races. We saw that that was unfair, and changed it. Just because something is a particular way does not make it right, That's known as the 'is/aught fallacy.' We used to consider black people to be property. It was part of the definition of property. We changed that too.
Your argument boils down to 'this is the way it has always been, and therefore this is the way it should always be.' You do see the problem with that line of reasoning, don't you?
Parent
Re:Turn the tables (Score:5, Insightful)
Still has some "what ifs" though:
What if a dude wanted to marry his brother? No gene pool issues there.
What if he wanted to marry his sister and one or the other were known to be infertile?
Or more realistically, what about marrying one's cousin? Some states do allow this, and some don't. Birth defect rates from such unions are barely above that of two strangers pairing, and most of the reasons for disallowing it is simple cultural stigma.
Seriously, in all the above cases there was to be a better reason given than "Ew, gross.", because that's pretty much the reason being given by the homephobic population against gay marriage.
Parent
Re:Turn the tables (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Turn the tables (Score:5, Insightful)
Since the dawn of time, the family, consisting of a husband and his property has been the fundamental unit of society.
I, for one, am glad that we altered the whole structure of that civilization - why not this one?
Parent
Re:Turn the tables (Score:5, Insightful)
And since the dawn of time, marriage was considered to be for a lifetime, yet anti-gay conservative after anti-gay conservative cheats on his wife and/or gets a divorce. If you were railing against divorce and philandering in defense of the sanctity of marriage, I would have a much easier time listening to your anti-gay rhetoric, but since the only time the "sanctity" of marriage comes up is with regards to homosexuality, I have a hard time respecting that argument. (Here's looking at you, Rush, the three time divorcee, [wikipedia.org] for single handedly making this argument for me.)
Also, as to your procreation argument, many gay couples often want to adopt children but are forbidden from doing so because of state laws that use bogus logic in order to discriminate. There have been plenty of children who have grown up with gay parents, yet there is still no evidence that this harms the children, [religioustolerance.org] whereas there is plenty of evidence that these children are better off than kids in single-parent families and foster homes. Yet people feel that these children should be put in less advantageous positions in foster homes rather than be raised by loving same sex parents.
Finally, marriage IS a right. If a white man and a white woman were denied their right to marry, there would be holy hell to pay. There’s even a considerable backlash (as there should be), when an interracial couple is prevented from marrying, as was recently the case in Louisiana. [usatoday.com] Yet when two men decide to marry, many people feel the law should be used to prevent this from happening. This even happens even though there are progressive churches that bless same sex unions. [wikipedia.org]
Personally, because of all this mess, I think the government should just back off. Marriage should be a religious choice rather than a legal one. Allow anyone to get a civil union and the legal protections afforded by it, and get out of the way when it comes to marriage.
Parent
Re:Turn the tables (Score:5, Insightful)
This is in NYS, which has NYC and Rochester, plus Toronto not far away. I can only imagine what it's like in Washington.
Parent
Re:Turn the tables (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
It is OK to call it marriage (Score:5, Insightful)
Marriage is between a man and woman.... anything else can NEVER be called marriage... Period...
Why can't we call it marriage? I do and 48% of Californians agree with me. Ask us again in 2010 and it will be 49%. Ask us in 2012 and it will be 50.1%. Inevitably, Gay Marriage will be recognized as a right and our grandchildren will be shaking their heads that this was really ever a debate.
Parent
Re:Turn the tables (Score:5, Insightful)
From my point of view, the state/government should get out of the "marriage" business all together. It should be a religious state. Just have civil contracts to define "partners" rights.
Agreed.
However, governments insist on calling those contracts "civil marriage". And because of that wrong label same-sex couples cannot enter into such a contract together.
(Personally I don't care whether they fix the criteria or the label.)
Parent
Re:Turn the tables (Score:5, Insightful)
"And to split hairs, homosexuals currently have the right to marry. A homosexual man can marry any woman who sees fit agree, and a homosexual woman can marry any man who sees fit to agree.
As a heterosexual man, I do not have the right to marry any man. Seems pretty clear and equally applied."
'And to split hairs, blacks currently have the right to marry. A black man can marry any black woman who sees fit to agree, and a black woman can marry any black man who sees fit to agree
As a white man, I do not have the right to marry any black woman. Seems pretty clear and equally applied"
Are you freaking serious?
Parent
Re:Political correctness assaulting opposers (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, have you ever worked on Sunday? Why hasn't your church stoned you?
Working on Sunday is explicitly forbidden by the Bible, and the penalty is that your community must stone you to death.
Parent
Re:The Law of Unintended Consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
this is not an unintended consequence.
Petitions have always been public, and sunshine laws let the public see public records.
The only unintended consequence is that some activists are unhappy that they're being associated with the movement they support.
Parent
Re:The Law of Unintended Consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>some activists are unhappy that they're being associated with the movement they support.
Wow.
Terrible.
The horror.
Parent
Re:The Law of Unintended Consequences (Score:5, Funny)
Hand me that petition; I'll sign it. I don't care if you marry another man, woman, or a whole bunch of women (harem), and I don't care if you find my name on it.
You may want to read the petition first, then, because it's supporting a referendum to REPEAL civil unions in Washington.
Parent
Re:The Law of Unintended Consequences (Score:5, Interesting)
Just because they don't want their names to be seen does not mean that they are ashamed.
Perhaps they're afraid of what might happen to them personally if their name is found.
For example, if a southerner had signed a petition favoring the right of black people to vote, they would damn well hope that it was anonymous. Not out of embarrassment, but out of personal safety.
Anonymity is the better option in these situations, since it provides an accurate count of how many people actually agree with the cause, not the number of people who will openly admit to it.
Parent
Re:The Law of Unintended Consequences (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, because historically we've had mobs of gay rights activists who have rioted, killed, and otherwise physically assaulted and intimidated straight folk. That's what "gay rage" means, right? ...
What? You mean it doesn't?
Parent
Re:The Law of Unintended Consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that you are mistaking a petition with a vote. Votes are and should be kept as anonymous as possible while still preventing fraud, signing a petition means you are signing that you personally are in support of the cause. If you could anonymously sign a petition, then what is to stop someone from filling a petition with anonymous #1 through #1,000,000? Votes are handled by voting authorities to try to prevent fraud, petitions can be held by the person or group supporting the cause they are petitioning for.
Parent
Re:The Law of Unintended Consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
It is people who wish to restrict gay rights behind this. It is a first in terms of arguing for anonymity in such a way on a petition-backed ballot option.
Gays who have campaigned elsewhere, and run petitions for ballot items, have put up with their names being publicly available.
If you're a raging homophobe in private, fine. If you want to sign a petition calling for a ballot on restricting the rights of people you don't like — have the balls to accept the potential consequences.
Parent
Voting != Petition (Score:5, Insightful)
If they were the same it would be called 'voting'. It is not. It is a public record and should be treated as such. If people do not have the strength of their convictions then they shouldn't sign it. That is the point of peer pressure. It molds society into what is acceptable and what is not.
If someone steps over the line and takes illegal retribution against someone who signed a petition after that info was made public then they would be in the wrong and handled under the law. If someone signs onto a discriminatory petition and is treated badly (but legally) as a result, once it becomes known, then they've reaped what they've sewn.
Parent