You sign a petition to curb gay rights. Should your name be public?

[Yurt]

Obviously you are clueless to the fact RGS likes to talk about state's rights quite a bit, which was the point of my post. I have taken American History and Civil War history, I am quite aware of what happened in the south. I am also aware that making a petition public is not taking away anyone's right to vote, and that Washington State has the right to decide what is a matter of public record.

i didn't need your so called pedigree

voting rights, in terms of national elections are not state rights. state issues are state rights voting elections. however, the supremacy clause in the US constitution trumps any and all state voting laws that interfere with the constitution.

what is hypocritical and dumbfounding in your argument is that, you argue....on the one hand....WA has the state right to choose their petitions, fair enough....however, as you should know, if those rights infringe on voting, as the south experienced and all of america at one point, states rights mean diddly when it comes to national elections and the right to vote.

If the petition is on a state issue, the state has every right to decide whether or not it should be allowed to be published. And making petitions public is not infringing on voter's rights. For petitions have to be checked to make sure people are registered to vote, therefore the county and state auditor or election board will see the signatures anyways making it not private. There is also nothing in the constitution regarding petitions, only regarding voting. A petition does not define any laws, only puts it on the ballot.

you're not following the bouncing ball....

i never said the state didn't have the right to decide. i said, that if the issue is a "national" issue, then the constitution comes into play. as i said before, imo, petitions should be as private as votes. now, i understand the process is different, i am talking about the publishing of those petition signatures.

somehow i am not surprised that you keep avoiding the a key issue raised by avatar....................

what or why is the reason you want those petitions public? if not to intimidate, then why?

 

[Luissa]

i didn't need your so called pedigree

voting rights, in terms of national elections are not state rights. state issues are state rights voting elections. however, the supremacy clause in the US constitution trumps any and all state voting laws that interfere with the constitution.

what is hypocritical and dumbfounding in your argument is that, you argue....on the one hand....WA has the state right to choose their petitions, fair enough....however, as you should know, if those rights infringe on voting, as the south experienced and all of america at one point, states rights mean diddly when it comes to national elections and the right to vote.

Where did she say the state had the right to "choose their petitions?" Any state must accept a petition, though they don't have any requirement to act on it. Petitions are not votes.

i never said different.....tell me, why shouldn't they be private?

You do realize if they were private it would pretty much elliminate the purpose of a petition? If they were private the person who is collecting the signatures could not look at them, you would have to probably sign it and put it in a ballot box, and how would they check the signatures to make sure the person is a registered voter. When you vote the election board has no idea who voted for whom or what. And like someone else said, it would give ground to lobbyist to make their donations private. There is a reason why petitions are public records.

 

[Yurt]

Where did she say the state had the right to "choose their petitions?" Any state must accept a petition, though they don't have any requirement to act on it. Petitions are not votes.

i never said different.....tell me, why shouldn't they be private?

You do realize if they were private it would pretty much elliminate the purpose of a petition? If they were private the person who is collecting the signatures could not look at them, you would have to probably sign it and put it in a ballot box, and how would they check the signatures to make sure the person is a registered voter. When you vote the election board has no idea who voted for whom or what. And like someone else said, it would give ground to lobbyist to make their donations private. There is a reason why petitions are public records.

you do realize what the word "publish" means

 

[Luissa]

i didn't need your so called pedigree

voting rights, in terms of national elections are not state rights. state issues are state rights voting elections. however, the supremacy clause in the US constitution trumps any and all state voting laws that interfere with the constitution.

what is hypocritical and dumbfounding in your argument is that, you argue....on the one hand....WA has the state right to choose their petitions, fair enough....however, as you should know, if those rights infringe on voting, as the south experienced and all of america at one point, states rights mean diddly when it comes to national elections and the right to vote.

If the petition is on a state issue, the state has every right to decide whether or not it should be allowed to be published. And making petitions public is not infringing on voter's rights. For petitions have to be checked to make sure people are registered to vote, therefore the county and state auditor or election board will see the signatures anyways making it not private. There is also nothing in the constitution regarding petitions, only regarding voting. A petition does not define any laws, only puts it on the ballot.

you're not following the bouncing ball....

i never said the state didn't have the right to decide. i said, that if the issue is a "national" issue, then the constitution comes into play. as i said before, imo, petitions should be as private as votes. now, i understand the process is different, i am talking about the publishing of those petition signatures.

somehow i am not surprised that you keep avoiding the a key issue raised by avatar....................

what or why is the reason you want those petitions public? if not to intimidate, then why?

I could really careless if they are made public, I am so sick of hearing about it I just want it to go away. I do however agree that they are a public record according to our state laws, and it is not a national issue, it is a state issue. Ref 71 was voted on in Washington State, and the petitions were collected in our state. I also think anyone as the right to see the petition, for one no one else has got the special treatment of keeping their petition private. Whatever group wanted to see them, broke no laws, paid a fee for the records, and should be allowed to do whatever they want with them.

 

[Barb]

Yet you would not want these business owners establishments discriminating against anyone else. Very hypocritical.

People do not have the right to harass another or their businesses whether they like their opinions and thoughts or not. Publishing addresses names and phone numbers of people who do not support gays on the Internet has already been shown that rabid gays are willing to harass people viciously who are not on their love train. Personally I could care less if they had my address as I have been threatened many times for standing up for what I believe is right. I have also been harassed and worse locally for renting to a transvestite, a white and black couple and the handicap when it should have been solely my business and choice whom I rented my property to. When I operated my business I was harassed by state employees for hiring hispanics and indians simply because a few of the supervisors did not like hispanics or indians.

This issue has gone beyond ridiculous.

Reeeeally? Where is any proof of "rabid gays" harassing the populous? And hell, if you're so progressive, why are you so upset about equal protection rather than special protectionism? People who sign petitions in favor of gay rights are subject to the same scrutiny. A petition is a public record. If you don't feel strongly enough to have your community see your name attached to the thought, don't sign the blasted thing. It isn't rocket science.

And how am I hypocritical? People boycott businesses all the time. The fah fah right boycotted the Dixie Chicks and considered it an age old and respected political tradition. Suddenly its not so traditional or respected if the rabbits got the gun? What a surprise. I'm shocked, I tell ya, and appalled.

No you are just being ignorant. I am not a progressive and would never claim to be.

The proof is on the net in actually phone record, tapes of businesses being trash and other various forms of harassment to people who have sign petitions, held signs or given money to these campaign issues, take the time to research it, it is there. I put some of those links in some post here last year so the links are even here on USMB if you care to take the time to search it out.

I'm sure you don't like the comment rabid but that is exactly what some are. There are also rabid women haters. I have came across a few in my history.

"Subject to scrutiny" bullshit. Subject to be harass by having there names, addresses and phone numbers listed on the Internet for again the "rabid" gay extremist can harass them.

Excerpts;

CNSNews.com - Prop 8 Supporters Say They’re Being Harassed; Challenge Campaign Finance Rules

"The homosexual advocacy group says on its Web site it was established in July 2000 “to draw attention to the major donors to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign” who spent millions of dollars “to take away the right of same-sex couples to marry.”



"The Protect Marriage lawsuit cites examples of threatening and harassing emails, phone calls and postcards received by Prop 8 supporters, including:

"Burn in hell."

"Consider yourself lucky. If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter."

"I just wanted to call and let you know what a great picture that was of you and the other Nazi's [sic] in the newspaper....Don't worry though, we have plans for you and your friends."

The lawsuit also details acts of vandalism, property destruction, distribution of harassing flyers, and threats to ruin businesses employing Prop 8 donors.

"The United States Supreme Court has ruled that campaign disclosure laws can be invalidated if it subjects supporters to threats, harassment or reprisals from government, or private parties," Prentice said. "That is exactly what has happened with supporters of Proposition 8."

The suit alleges that California's Political Reform Act is unconstitutional on numerous grounds, including the following:

-- The right of contributors to exercise their First Amendment rights free from threats, harassment and reprisals outweighs the state's interest in compelled disclosure;
-- The Act's requirements that committees report all contributors of $100 or more is unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment because it is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
-- The Act's requirement for ballot measure committees to file any reports after the election is unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
-- The Act is unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it does not contain a mechanism for purging all reports related to a ballot measure after the election has occurred...

These maps were put out to show where anyone who donated even $100.00 to the campaign supporting prop 8. A lovely way to profile and harass anyone who does not agree with you.
eightmaps

Court Stops Release of Petition Signers in Washington


James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel for the Plaintiffs stated, "The federal court has taken a welcome step toward protecting citizens who simply want to participate in our democratic process and have their public policy positions considered by the people. No one should have to suffer vandalism and death threats just because they support government protection of traditional marriage. Keeping the petition signatures confidential will protect these people from the harassment and intimidation that has now so frequently characterized the response of the gay rights lobby."

The Washington Secretary of State argued that the names had to be released because of the Washington Public Records Act. The groups who sought the release of the names of the petition signers under this Act included several groups who wished to place the petitions on the internet, so that people could easily access the names and addresses of those who signed the petition in order to threaten, harass, and intimidate those individuals.

This situation in Washington is part of a larger, concerted campaign of harassment and intimidation of supporters of traditional marriage by the gay rights lobby. The campaign has involved gaining access to the names of pro-marriage supporters, posting their names and addresses on the Internet, and inviting people to contact them. This has triggered hundreds of cases of harassment, vandalism and threats of violence directed at marriage supporters throughout the nation. Such personal attacks occurred in large numbers after the adoption of Proposition 8 in California last November.

According to Californians Against Hate, “If our opponents want to take away our rights, then we will fight back. We will let the world know who these donors are, and then our millions of friends and allies can decide if they want to support their businesses or not.”

The Protect Marriage lawsuit cites examples of threatening and harassing emails, phone calls and postcards received by Prop 8 supporters, including:

Refusing to spend $$ at a place that hates you is not harassment. As to the second paragraph above, they "cite." Do they offer any proof to back it up? Didn't think so.

Tere is supposedly this war against Christmas too. Oddly enough...no one who doesn't claim to be on the receiving end ever heard any shots fired. Go figger.

A petition is a public document. It really doesn't get any simpler than that. People sign it to show public support for the cause above their signatures. They're passed around like a box of tissue or a cheap bottle of whine (spelling intended in this case). Everybody and their uncle Syd sees the damned thing.

What this is, exactly, is the opening salvo to keep corporate lobbying activities private. And you know what, it will, no matter how much you might support it now, come back to bite you on the ass. Because if corp.s are off limits and hidden, then interest organizations YOU don't like will be too, and so will where any and all of their money comes from. I know you don't see the connection, but the next round of musical chairs at the USSC, if this passes, you get back to me.

 

[Luissa]

i never said different.....tell me, why shouldn't they be private?

You do realize if they were private it would pretty much elliminate the purpose of a petition? If they were private the person who is collecting the signatures could not look at them, you would have to probably sign it and put it in a ballot box, and how would they check the signatures to make sure the person is a registered voter. When you vote the election board has no idea who voted for whom or what. And like someone else said, it would give ground to lobbyist to make their donations private. There is a reason why petitions are public records.

you do realize what the word "publish" means

What is the point of public records, if you cannot publish them?

 

[Avatar4321]

Once again:

Is there a point to making these name public other than for intimidation purposes?

 

[RodISHI]

Reeeeally? Where is any proof of "rabid gays" harassing the populous? And hell, if you're so progressive, why are you so upset about equal protection rather than special protectionism? People who sign petitions in favor of gay rights are subject to the same scrutiny. A petition is a public record. If you don't feel strongly enough to have your community see your name attached to the thought, don't sign the blasted thing. It isn't rocket science.

And how am I hypocritical? People boycott businesses all the time. The fah fah right boycotted the Dixie Chicks and considered it an age old and respected political tradition. Suddenly its not so traditional or respected if the rabbits got the gun? What a surprise. I'm shocked, I tell ya, and appalled.

No you are just being ignorant. I am not a progressive and would never claim to be.

The proof is on the net in actually phone record, tapes of businesses being trash and other various forms of harassment to people who have sign petitions, held signs or given money to these campaign issues, take the time to research it, it is there. I put some of those links in some post here last year so the links are even here on USMB if you care to take the time to search it out.

I'm sure you don't like the comment rabid but that is exactly what some are. There are also rabid women haters. I have came across a few in my history.

"Subject to scrutiny" bullshit. Subject to be harass by having there names, addresses and phone numbers listed on the Internet for again the "rabid" gay extremist can harass them.


These maps were put out to show where anyone who donated even $100.00 to the campaign supporting prop 8. A lovely way to profile and harass anyone who does not agree with you.
eightmaps

According to Californians Against Hate, “If our opponents want to take away our rights, then we will fight back. We will let the world know who these donors are, and then our millions of friends and allies can decide if they want to support their businesses or not.”

The Protect Marriage lawsuit cites examples of threatening and harassing emails, phone calls and postcards received by Prop 8 supporters, including:

Refusing to spend $$ at a place that hates you is not harassment. As to the second paragraph above, they "cite." Do they offer any proof to back it up? Didn't think so.

Tere is supposedly this war against Christmas too. Oddly enough...no one who doesn't claim to be on the receiving end ever heard any shots fired. Go figger.

A petition is a public document. It really doesn't get any simpler than that. People sign it to show public support for the cause above their signatures. They're passed around like a box of tissue or a cheap bottle of whine (spelling intended in this case). Everybody and their uncle Syd sees the damned thing.

What this is, exactly, is the opening salvo to keep corporate lobbying activities private. And you know what, it will, no matter how much you might support it now, come back to bite you on the ass. Because if corp.s are off limits and hidden, then interest organizations YOU don't like will be too, and so will where any and all of their money comes from. I know you don't see the connection, but the next round of musical chairs at the USSC, if this passes, you get back to me.

You are in denial about the violence, threats of violence and vandalism that has gone on and the harassment of people that has transpired over this issue. (obviously ignorant or to lazy to search out the actual photos, videos and tapes online for yourself) That is okay and it is your right to be in denial if you like. Fairly simple for the court to or law disallow to any exemption for corporate or any other special interest lobbyist in the same note when this decision is handed down for protecting the actual real people that signed this particular petition. If you were truly concerned about freedom of choice you would be admonishing those people who are publishing these list for rabidly nasty left to harass these people. So it comes back too you are a hypocrite who desires protection for a small group of people who want special laws made for them but yet will deny others protection from harassment and vandalism for using their freedom in this country to help in the decision process of where people decide what rules and regulatory laws for the communities they live in will be voted on.

 

[Barb]

No you are just being ignorant. I am not a progressive and would never claim to be.

The proof is on the net in actually phone record, tapes of businesses being trash and other various forms of harassment to people who have sign petitions, held signs or given money to these campaign issues, take the time to research it, it is there. I put some of those links in some post here last year so the links are even here on USMB if you care to take the time to search it out.

I'm sure you don't like the comment rabid but that is exactly what some are. There are also rabid women haters. I have came across a few in my history.

"Subject to scrutiny" bullshit. Subject to be harass by having there names, addresses and phone numbers listed on the Internet for again the "rabid" gay extremist can harass them.


These maps were put out to show where anyone who donated even $100.00 to the campaign supporting prop 8. A lovely way to profile and harass anyone who does not agree with you.
eightmaps

According to Californians Against Hate, “If our opponents want to take away our rights, then we will fight back. We will let the world know who these donors are, and then our millions of friends and allies can decide if they want to support their businesses or not.”

The Protect Marriage lawsuit cites examples of threatening and harassing emails, phone calls and postcards received by Prop 8 supporters, including:

Refusing to spend $$ at a place that hates you is not harassment. As to the second paragraph above, they "cite." Do they offer any proof to back it up? Didn't think so.

Tere is supposedly this war against Christmas too. Oddly enough...no one who doesn't claim to be on the receiving end ever heard any shots fired. Go figger.

A petition is a public document. It really doesn't get any simpler than that. People sign it to show public support for the cause above their signatures. They're passed around like a box of tissue or a cheap bottle of whine (spelling intended in this case). Everybody and their uncle Syd sees the damned thing.

What this is, exactly, is the opening salvo to keep corporate lobbying activities private. And you know what, it will, no matter how much you might support it now, come back to bite you on the ass. Because if corp.s are off limits and hidden, then interest organizations YOU don't like will be too, and so will where any and all of their money comes from. I know you don't see the connection, but the next round of musical chairs at the USSC, if this passes, you get back to me.

You are in denial about the violence, threats of violence and vandalism that has gone on and the harassment of people that has transpired over this issue. (obviously ignorant or to lazy to search out the actual photos, videos and tapes online for yourself) That is okay and it is your right to be in denial if you like. Fairly simple for the court to or law disallow to any exemption for corporate or any other special interest lobbyist in the same note when this decision is handed down for protecting the actual real people that signed this particular petition. If you were truly concerned about freedom of choice you would be admonishing those people who are publishing these list for rabidly nasty left to harass these people. So it comes back too you are a hypocrite who desires protection for a small group of people who want special laws made for them but yet will deny others protection from harassment and vandalism for using their freedom in this country to help in the decision process of where people decide what rules and regulatory laws for the communities they live in will be voted on.

No, it would NOT be "simple." It would be damned near impossible. Equal protection under the law. Look it up. Meanwhile, it is the ones who want to be anonymous after signing their names to a public document who are now petitioning (behind a lawyer) for "special protection." You do dance divinely. Good night.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Petitions are open records. Each signature is open to validation. There is no such thing as an anonymous petition

Validation is not public posting.

Any member of the public has a right to examine a petition. It is a public record

Exactly. as I said before..people who are preumed innocent in court...have arrest records that are public records. Arrest records are public.

Non profits get tax breaks...so the names and salaries of top employees and Directors are...public records.

Sales of homes..tax liens....other So called personal info is public records.

Signing a petition is NOT voting.

 

[Luissa]

Once again:

Is there a point to making these name public other than for intimidation purposes?

Anyone could have ask to see the petition, if someone wanted to intimidate them they could of got their names without making a website and seek them out. If someone was that crazy, and really out for revenge they would have done this without the fan fair, or just gone after the minister who was in the papers all the time speaking out against civil unions in Washington. The State of California also denied cameras in the courtroom in the case regarding Prop 8 to protect the witnesses. I guess these people feel that they deserve all kinds of special treatment. I am still waiting to hear about crimes being commited against anti gay marriage activists, with the exception of vandalized signs.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

you're not following the bouncing ball....

i never said the state didn't have the right to decide. i said, that if the issue is a "national" issue, then the constitution comes into play.

The Constitution comes into play because of what exactly?

BTW, the Constitution does not address this at all.

Any constitutional issues raised by the petition process have nothing to do with voting.

...as i said before, imo, petitions should be as private as votes.

petitions express the public case to the government.

I wonder what the power of the Declaration of Independence would have been if the petitioners kept their names private?

...now, i understand the process is different, i am talking about the publishing of those petition signatures.

somehow i am not surprised that you keep avoiding the a key issue raised by avatar....................

what or why is the reason you want those petitions public? if not to intimidate, then why?

 

[Avatar4321]

I wonder what the power of the Declaration of Independence would have been if the petitioners kept their names private?

I wonder what the power of your analogy will have if someone points out that the Declaration of Independence was a petition.

 

[sitarro]

This question is soon to be debated in the USSC. I'm of the opinion that a petition is not the same as a vote, and ought to be made public. If someone believes strongly in changing a law by the initiative process, they ought to have the courage of their convictions.

So you are saying that the names of homosexuals that sign a petition to change the laws of marriage should be published........ have you asked them if they want that? Bet they don't but if it's alright to publish the names of those against that change.......guess what?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Where did she say the state had the right to "choose their petitions?" Any state must accept a petition, though they don't have any requirement to act on it. Petitions are not votes.

i never said different.....tell me, why shouldn't they be private?

You do realize if they were private it would pretty much elliminate the purpose of a petition? If they were private the person who is collecting the signatures could not look at them, you would have to probably sign it and put it in a ballot box, and how would they check the signatures to make sure the person is a registered voter. When you vote the election board has no idea who voted for whom or what. And like someone else said, it would give ground to lobbyist to make their donations private. There is a reason why petitions are public records.

Your argument is retarded as hell.

 

[chanel]

If I'm going to take the time to read, and sign a petition, then I fully believe in what I'm signing. If someone finds out my name, and what I'm supporting, more power to them. What're they going to do? Tell me I'm wrong? Threaten to kick my ass?

Whatever.

No, but they can print your phone number and address with directions to your house. I don't think they'll be visiting to tell you you are wrong.

Find Your Neighborhood Prop 8 Supporters

Find Your Neighborhood Prop 8 Supporters / Queerty


It's bullshit. How about if we map out directions to pro-choice supporters or any old gay person? It's wrong, and anyone who supports it is inviting violence.

 

[Ravi]

When my state recently voted against gays people that supported voting against gays put signs declaring their beliefs in front of their homes.

What cowards these people that signed the petition in question must be.

 

[Dis]

irrelevant to the OP

not true

next

Obviously it IS relevant to the OP since it directly responds to it.

It is true.

Next.

They don't have the right to marry the person they want to, so obviously they don't have the same rights as everyone else. And Washington State already voted to allow civil unions, this is not what the case is about. For someone is all about state's rights also you should be for allowing the petition to be made public, because in Washington State it is a public record.

Men have the right to marry any women they want to. Women have the right to marry any man they want to.

Completely equal.

 

[Xenophon]

Absolutely should be named in public.

Also, if you get sweet deals for the gov for being in Unions in the form of tax breaks, kick backs for voting the way the gov wants, payoffs to protest in favor of the government, all of that should have names attached.

Full disclosure.

Starting with everyone paid by political parties who shows up at 'rallies' and 'protests'.

 

[rightwinger]

i never said different.....tell me, why shouldn't they be private?

You do realize if they were private it would pretty much elliminate the purpose of a petition? If they were private the person who is collecting the signatures could not look at them, you would have to probably sign it and put it in a ballot box, and how would they check the signatures to make sure the person is a registered voter. When you vote the election board has no idea who voted for whom or what. And like someone else said, it would give ground to lobbyist to make their donations private. There is a reason why petitions are public records.

Your argument is retarded as hell.

No it isn't