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

[Gatekeeper]

All these people want to do is get the names so they can post them on the net. Now tell me for what purpose would they want to post these names? It is not for any good reasons. I say the law should protect those names.

I would have to agree, but even if the law protected those names, the list would 'leak out' in time anyway. Is there anything like this on the net any longer that isn't used for some underhanded purpose as the primary agenda?

As most of us already are aware of, there are those around who's only 'thing' is to gather databases on others using Polls, Petitions, etc. They rely on the honesty of most in answering truthfully to these schemes or tactics and know that people, in many cases, love to talk about their accomplishments,beliefs, financial prominence or lack of, the list goes on.

The only solution to curb the majority of this privacy interrogation is to use Common Sense.

 

[SFC Ollie]

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.

They have the same right as any of us to marry someone of the opposite sex. or to remain single. Same as anyone else.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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'.

And no more political ads paid for by some silly named group (ad paid for by Americans for apple pie and baseball, for example). Each and every person who paid for ad - full disclousure.

 

[SFC Ollie]

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?

I can see publishing the petition and the number of voters who signed it. But to list their names and possibly address and phone number on the net? I don't think so. How many people are always whining about privacy? Seems to be a Democrat thing these days.

 

[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'.

And no more political ads paid for by some silly named group (ad paid for by Americans for apple pie and baseball, for example). Each and every person who paid for ad - full disclousure.

I'm for that, I'd love to see it.

 

[Shogun]

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.

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

Completely equal.

I hope you realize how stupid such qualifiers are.

 

[Shogun]

you do realize what the word "publish" means

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

I can see publishing the petition and the number of voters who signed it. But to list their names and possibly address and phone number on the net? I don't think so. How many people are always whining about privacy? Seems to be a Democrat thing these days.

a conservative crying about PRIVACY? now THAT is fucking rich. So, lemme get this strait.. PRIVACY only concerns you when it's a matter of hiding those who sign a petition... yet, when a pair of people want to fuck each other in their own homes and have a valid relationship that is observed by the state THEN your opinion on morals matters more than their intimacy?



give me a fucking selective break.

 

[Shogun]

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.

They have the same right as any of us to marry someone of the Altered quote removed. or to remain single. Same as anyone else.

Again, your qualifiers are pretty fucking stupid given where this nation has been in the marriage authorization game. Maybe it's time that you let your version of cultural ****** enjoy whatever bus seat they choose to sit on, tex.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

I have to take the opposite stance.

When you are discussing an extremely contentious issue as this, there can only be one reason to ask for those names to be released and that is intimidation.

I don't beleive that these names should be released, just as I would not want the names of someone who signed a pro-choice petition that was hotly debated.

The only thing that can come out of this is violence.

Please tell me, what is the purpose of publicizing the names, other than voter intimidation?

Debate? Knowing who is backing petitions is how one gets to debate and persuade.

Don't you really mean intimidate?


Immie

 

[Missourian]

I'll say it again...this short-sighted reactionary course will come back and bite it's supporters in the ass when they least expect it.

Here's an example.

Did you know that the Governor of Massachusetts used to appoint Senators to fulfill the remainder of unexpired terms?

There was no Special Election at all, just that appointment.

But the Massachusetts Legislature passed a law to change that appointment to an election, fearing then Governor Mitt Romney would appoint a Republican to fill Senator Kerry's unexpired term if Kerry was elected President.

Kerry lost so nothing was gained by their political maneuvering, but that law was the first domino in the chain that may put a Republican in the senate tomorrow.

So be careful what you wish for in this petition case.

This first link you are forging will likely be the first in a chain of events that will end with it's supporters steeped in regret.

 

[Shogun]

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.

I have to take the opposite stance.

When you are discussing an extremely contentious issue as this, there can only be one reason to ask for those names to be released and that is intimidation.

I don't beleive that these names should be released, just as I would not want the names of someone who signed a pro-choice petition that was hotly debated.

The only thing that can come out of this is violence.

Please tell me, what is the purpose of publicizing the names, other than voter intimidation?

Debate? Knowing who is backing petitions is how one gets to debate and persuade.

Don't you really mean intimidate?


Immie

I am not for rocks being thrown through windows or crosses being burned on lawns... but, signing a public petition and then hiding behind anonymity is disingenuous as hell. Gays should be informed of who their detractors are in order to avoid these types of people. If you own a business in gaytown, california and you have the balls to shit on your consumer base then you have no reason to cry when gays boycott your business or avoid your presence altogether. Signing a petition is not a state vote on anything other than conveying a collective will of specific people who, by virtue of SIGNING A PETITION, make their wills public.

I garentfuckingtee that if this were a petition by Acorn affiliates to convey ANYTHING we'd already have the list of names public and scoured by fox news.

Votes should remain secret... but signing a petition is a very public action.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

I have to take the opposite stance.

When you are discussing an extremely contentious issue as this, there can only be one reason to ask for those names to be released and that is intimidation.

I don't beleive that these names should be released, just as I would not want the names of someone who signed a pro-choice petition that was hotly debated.

The only thing that can come out of this is violence.

Debate? Knowing who is backing petitions is how one gets to debate and persuade.

Don't you really mean intimidate?


Immie

I am not for rocks being thrown through windows or crosses being burned on lawns... but, signing a public petition and then hiding behind anonymity is disingenuous as hell. Gays should be informed of who their detractors are in order to avoid these types of people. If you own a business in gaytown, california and you have the balls to shit on your consumer base then you have no reason to cry when gays boycott your business or avoid your presence altogether. Signing a petition is not a state vote on anything other than conveying a collective will of specific people who, by virtue of SIGNING A PETITION, make their wills public.

I garentfuckingtee that if this were a petition by Acorn affiliates to convey ANYTHING we'd already have the list of names public and scoured by fox news.

Votes should remain secret... but signing a petition is a very public action.

If it were a petition by ACORN affiliates, I would still oppose the release of their names. There is only one reason people are asking to have these names released and that is intimidation.

The outcome of something like this is that it will keep people from signing petitions and silence their voices. People will be afraid of signing a petition because of the possibility of their names being released and their kids being attacked in school.

Immie

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Liberals don't want to debate anything... look at the "health reform" debate. It involves closed door, late night one-sided meetings. Sure put my name on the petition. Dime gets you a dollar I get some loon show up egging my house in the middle of the night.

 

[SFC Ollie]

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

I can see publishing the petition and the number of voters who signed it. But to list their names and possibly address and phone number on the net? I don't think so. How many people are always whining about privacy? Seems to be a Democrat thing these days.

a conservative crying about PRIVACY? now THAT is fucking rich. So, lemme get this strait.. PRIVACY only concerns you when it's a matter of hiding those who sign a petition... yet, when a pair of people want to fuck each other in their own homes and have a valid relationship that is observed by the state THEN your opinion on morals matters more than their intimacy?



give me a fucking selective break.

No dumbass, privacy would concern me any time that the lack there of would or could cause harm to people. Or doesn't that make any sense to your little bitty brain?

 

[SFC Ollie]

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.

They have the same right as any of us to marry someone of the SAME RACE. or to remain single. Same as anyone else.

Again, your qualifiers are pretty fucking stupid given where this nation has been in the marriage authorization game. Maybe it's time that you let your version of cultural ****** enjoy whatever bus seat they choose to sit on, tex.

Don't edit my quotes dumbass, I say what I mean and who are you to change it?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

All this from the loony left who shit themselves thinking Bush and Cheney were reading mail from Aunt Martha? Apparantly national security pales in comparison to gay marriage. Oh, we already knew that.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The Democrats... the party of taxes, homosexuality, transgenders, welfare, unions, drugs, euthenasia, big government and silencing the opposition. Ah...

 

[Luissa]

All this from the loony left who shit themselves thinking Bush and Cheney were reading mail from Aunt Martha? Apparantly national security pales in comparison to gay marriage. Oh, we already knew that.

So you are alright with a political group getting special treatment?

 

[Shogun]

I have to take the opposite stance.

When you are discussing an extremely contentious issue as this, there can only be one reason to ask for those names to be released and that is intimidation.

I don't beleive that these names should be released, just as I would not want the names of someone who signed a pro-choice petition that was hotly debated.

The only thing that can come out of this is violence.



Don't you really mean intimidate?


Immie

I am not for rocks being thrown through windows or crosses being burned on lawns... but, signing a public petition and then hiding behind anonymity is disingenuous as hell. Gays should be informed of who their detractors are in order to avoid these types of people. If you own a business in gaytown, california and you have the balls to shit on your consumer base then you have no reason to cry when gays boycott your business or avoid your presence altogether. Signing a petition is not a state vote on anything other than conveying a collective will of specific people who, by virtue of SIGNING A PETITION, make their wills public.

I garentfuckingtee that if this were a petition by Acorn affiliates to convey ANYTHING we'd already have the list of names public and scoured by fox news.

Votes should remain secret... but signing a petition is a very public action.

If it were a petition by ACORN affiliates, I would still oppose the release of their names. There is only one reason people are asking to have these names released and that is intimidation.

The outcome of something like this is that it will keep people from signing petitions and silence their voices. People will be afraid of signing a petition because of the possibility of their names being released and their kids being attacked in school.

Immie

YOU may oppose on the basis of trying to be consistent here but you know damn well how quickly we'd have those names.

and, you'll have to forgive me for not considering boycotts an equivalent to cross burning in the front yard.

You do realize that petitions are NOT VOTES, right? that there will always be a secret ballot regardless of public petition, yes? If you can't make public the very act of signing a public petition then maybe you should ask yourself why you are afraid to be socially lampooned over your opinions. It's not like gays are some A-Team out to blow up your driveway in 30 minutes. The mellow drama is a bit laughable. How many fucking hetero bashings like Matt Shepherd can YOU name before you start crying about big, nefarious fags hiding in the bushes?

 

[Shogun]

I can see publishing the petition and the number of voters who signed it. But to list their names and possibly address and phone number on the net? I don't think so. How many people are always whining about privacy? Seems to be a Democrat thing these days.

a conservative crying about PRIVACY? now THAT is fucking rich. So, lemme get this strait.. PRIVACY only concerns you when it's a matter of hiding those who sign a petition... yet, when a pair of people want to fuck each other in their own homes and have a valid relationship that is observed by the state THEN your opinion on morals matters more than their intimacy?



give me a fucking selective break.

No dumbass, privacy would concern me any time that the lack there of would or could cause harm to people. Or doesn't that make any sense to your little bitty brain?

clearly, your standard of "harm to people" is as selective as your silly fucking qualifiers on a valid marriage option.