Anti-gay petition signers afraid to have their names made public

Political Junky

Gold Member
May 27, 2009
25,793
3,990
280
Cons show they're wimps, by not wanting their names made public.


Supreme Court to decide whether Wash. can release names of anti-gay rights petition signers - latimes.com


JESSE J. HOLLAND Associated Press Writer

January 15, 2010 | 1:42 p.m.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday got involved for the second time this week in a case in which opponents of gay rights fear they will be harassed if their views are made public.

The high court will consider whether Washington state officials can release more than 138,500 names on a petition seeking a vote on overturning the state's domestic partnership rights.

Protect Marriage Washington, which unsuccessfully opposed the law giving gay couples expanded rights, wants to shield from disclosure the signers of the petition for a referendum on that law. The group says it fears harassment by gay rights supporters, some of whom have vowed to post signers' names on the Internet.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has said before the Nov. 3 vote that the names could be made public, but the Supreme Court blocked their release until it decided whether to hear the case.

Arguments will be heard later this year.
<more>
 
After the attacks made on people and property during the Prop 8 debacle in California, can you blame them?

Immie
 
I can see why they don't want to deal with the loons showing up at their house, ect.

I do have a question though, is it standard practice to reveal the names of the signers of a petition? My understanding was that the petition signatures are generally only available to those in authority that check the validity of the signatures.
So is it normal to publicize the names of those that sign petitions?
 
I see it as, they lack the courage of their convictions.

Abortion providers like to keep their names out of the public light too. Not that I can blame them. Is this because they lack the courage of their convictions?

Immie
 
Last edited:
Abortion providers like to keep their names out of the public light too. Not that I can blame them. Is this because they lack the courage of their convictions?

Immie

Can't blame them, they might be murdered by some whackjob. How many people have been murdered because of their lack of support of Gay Marriage? :confused:

While I don't think the people who are cowardly enough to deny other people equal rights should have their names released, this is different than women who get abortions or people who give abortions.

Though considering the responses in this thread, will be interested if the same people keep the same positions when it comes to Abortion.
 
I can see why they don't want to deal with the loons showing up at their house, ect.

I do have a question though, is it standard practice to reveal the names of the signers of a petition? My understanding was that the petition signatures are generally only available to those in authority that check the validity of the signatures.
So is it normal to publicize the names of those that sign petitions?

There wouldn't normally be any reason NOT to release the names of the signers of a petition. There's nothing protected about it as far as I know.
 
Abortion providers like to keep their names out of the public light too. Not that I can blame them. Is this because they lack the courage of their convictions?

Immie

Can't blame them, they might be murdered by some whackjob. How many people have been murdered because of their lack of support of Gay Marriage? :confused:

While I don't think the people who are cowardly enough to deny other people equal rights should have their names released, this is different than women who get abortions or people who give abortions.

Though considering the responses in this thread, will be interested if the same people keep the same positions when it comes to Abortion.

Certainly.
 
Why would someone want to post these names if not to open these people up to harassment.

They should not be released. No way shape or form.

It's essentially a potential witness list. Also, it allows them to ascertain if they're real people or phony names. And, frankly, it puts in front of the court what the agenda is of people who want to deny them equal rights.

there's nothing privileged about it.
 
Why would someone want to post these names if not to open these people up to harassment.

They should not be released. No way shape or form.

It's essentially a potential witness list. Also, it allows them to ascertain if they're real people or phony names. And, frankly, it puts in front of the court what the agenda is of people who want to deny them equal rights.

there's nothing privileged about it.

So if a judge believes a witness list may be harassed he/she would never order that list be sealed?

You fail to realize that posting the names on the internet (as has been threatened) and having the names verified by authorities is not the same thing. Anyone can find my real name on google, And i am not so worried about it, I understand that someone on this board has already used my true name in posts. But that's me, I can protect myself and my family, maybe others cannot.
 
A license, by definition, isn't a right.

*ahem*

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and surviva
l. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes
 
Why would someone want to post these names if not to open these people up to harassment.

They should not be released. No way shape or form.

It's essentially a potential witness list. Also, it allows them to ascertain if they're real people or phony names. And, frankly, it puts in front of the court what the agenda is of people who want to deny them equal rights.

there's nothing privileged about it.

So if a judge believes a witness list may be harassed he/she would never order that list be sealed?

You fail to realize that posting the names on the internet (as has been threatened) and having the names verified by authorities is not the same thing. Anyone can find my real name on google, And i am not so worried about it, I understand that someone on this board has already used my true name in posts. But that's me, I can protect myself and my family, maybe others cannot.

I would think the judge would balance the risk of harassment against whatever purported need there is for the plaintiffs to obtain the names. same as in any other case where the issue is such that it is volatile.

you think they should be in witness protection? we're not talking about a crime family... we're talking about a bunch of gays who want to get married.
 
I don't see them ever releasing the names, they have been fighting this for over a year, maybe two.
 

Forum List

Back
Top