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

[Shogun]

In fact, I would not be surprised if these names are released, if we didn't begin seeing "wanted posters" on the net for the people who signed the petition as we saw on that so-called "pro-life" site that posted names and addresses of abortionists.

I also suspect some on the left would be thrilled to death to see such a thing.

Immie

I bet the ghost of Tiller the Killer would laugh at your selective standard when it comes to public disclosure.

That is funny, you almost make it sound as if I approved of that "pro-life" website or the killing of Tiller.

I'd like to see where you came up with that doozy!

Immie

it's not that you approve of the website but you sure as hell have NEVER sounded out against naming abortion clinic doctors on THIS website. And, ironically, we've seen who is actually willing to kill for their beliefs on THAT front.

 

[Immanuel]

In fact, I would not be surprised if these names are released, if we didn't begin seeing "wanted posters" on the net for the people who signed the petition as we saw on that so-called "pro-life" site that posted names and addresses of abortionists.

I also suspect some on the left would be thrilled to death to see such a thing.

Immie

Well giving the fact it is Washington State policy, that petitions are public record why shouldn't the names be published? And as for abortionist, they are protected by federal Hipaa laws, so it would be against the law to post their personal information. It isn't against the law to make petitions public.

Luissa,

You and I discussed this in the other thread although not about the posting of abortionists infomation.

The only reason activists are asking for these names to be released is for intimidation purposes. Those threats will lead to violence. It won't lead to debate. It will lead to someone getting hurt or killed and that someone could just happen to be a child.

I don't think that in order to further debate on this issue, it is necessary to release the names of these people. The debate is going to continue whether or not these names have been released. Releasing them will lead to violence.

That cannot be a good thing no matter how you look at it.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

I bet the ghost of Tiller the Killer would laugh at your selective standard when it comes to public disclosure.

That is funny, you almost make it sound as if I approved of that "pro-life" website or the killing of Tiller.

I'd like to see where you came up with that doozy!

Immie

it's not that you approve of the website but you sure as hell have NEVER sounded out against naming abortion clinic doctors on THIS website. And, ironically, we've seen who is actually willing to kill for their beliefs on THAT front.

I don't know of any threads discussing the issue of naming abortionists.

Maybe you would like to point one out?

I have many times spoken out against those who have killed abortionists.

Immie

 

[del]

i find all the chest thumping about how cowardly people are because they want to remain anonymous more than a little amusing here on the anonymous message board.

carry on.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

i find all the chest thumping about how cowardly people are because they want to remain anonymous more than a little amusing here on the anonymous message board.

carry on.

IRONY....the spice of life eh del

 

[Immanuel]

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?

Except we are not talking about boycotts.

The radicals in the movement have already proven that they are more than willing to go to the next step of vandalism of private property when they began destroying church property in California. The next thing will be violence and possibly even someone (on one side or the other) ending up dead. This is a heated debate. People are angry over this issue and violence is going to happen sooner or later.

This is not about boycotts or debate. This is a clear threat of violence.

Immie

Violence has already happened, it is called gay bashing. I don't know any christians beat up by gay people, I do know a few gays that were beat up by so called christians. These groups pulled a fire alarm and handed out leaflets, that is alittle different than beating the crap out of someone, and leaving them to die.

Don't forget Matthew Sheppard.

The point is that this is intimidation tactics and a threat of violence.

And Shogun, I said nothing about firebombing. To date, I only know of vandalism. That won't keep someone from getting killed over this.

Immie

 

[Luissa]

In fact, I would not be surprised if these names are released, if we didn't begin seeing "wanted posters" on the net for the people who signed the petition as we saw on that so-called "pro-life" site that posted names and addresses of abortionists.

I also suspect some on the left would be thrilled to death to see such a thing.

Immie

Well giving the fact it is Washington State policy, that petitions are public record why shouldn't the names be published? And as for abortionist, they are protected by federal Hipaa laws, so it would be against the law to post their personal information. It isn't against the law to make petitions public.

Luissa,

You and I discussed this in the other thread although not about the posting of abortionists infomation.

The only reason activists are asking for these names to be released is for intimidation purposes. Those threats will lead to violence. It won't lead to debate. It will lead to someone getting hurt or killed and that someone could just happen to be a child.

I don't think that in order to further debate on this issue, it is necessary to release the names of these people. The debate is going to continue whether or not these names have been released. Releasing them will lead to violence.

That cannot be a good thing no matter how you look at it.

Immie

If they were going to do something here they already would have, for one we had Christian groups protesting on the street corner, there was one minister who spoke against civil union quite a bit with his name and church being published. The only group to use smear ads during campaigning was the group against the civil unions. So I really don't feel bad for these people. The gay people here in Washington that I know of, never once spread any lies about the people against civil unions.
Also there were signs for Ref 71 ( mean against civil unions) in people's yards all over my city, and I didn't hear one story of those people being targeted. It could of been different on the Westside but I doubt it since the east side of the state is where most people voted to ban civil unions.
The only thing that has happened here recently is groups in North Idaho have passed leaflets attacking homosexuals and minorities, they also spray painted cars, and I think there might have even been a cross burning.

 

[Luissa]

i find all the chest thumping about how cowardly people are because they want to remain anonymous more than a little amusing here on the anonymous message board.

carry on.

I find it amusing that people who say that homosexuals shouldn't have special privilages like civil unions want special privilages.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

I think the names should be published.

Among other things, why should those who support gay rights inadvertantly even do business with the sort that discriminate against others.

All citizens should have the same rights, including GLBT people to be just as miserably married as everyone else, have a 50% divorce rate, and pay alimony and whatever!

 

[del]

i find all the chest thumping about how cowardly people are because they want to remain anonymous more than a little amusing here on the anonymous message board.

carry on.

I find it amusing that people who say that homosexuals shouldn't have special privilages like civil unions want special privilages.

i live in massachusetts.

i stopped caring about gay marriage a long, long time ago.

 

[Immanuel]

Well giving the fact it is Washington State policy, that petitions are public record why shouldn't the names be published? And as for abortionist, they are protected by federal Hipaa laws, so it would be against the law to post their personal information. It isn't against the law to make petitions public.

Luissa,

You and I discussed this in the other thread although not about the posting of abortionists infomation.

The only reason activists are asking for these names to be released is for intimidation purposes. Those threats will lead to violence. It won't lead to debate. It will lead to someone getting hurt or killed and that someone could just happen to be a child.

I don't think that in order to further debate on this issue, it is necessary to release the names of these people. The debate is going to continue whether or not these names have been released. Releasing them will lead to violence.

That cannot be a good thing no matter how you look at it.

Immie

If they were going to do something here they already would have, for one we had Christian groups protesting on the street corner, there was one minister who spoke against civil union quite a bit with his name and church being published. The only group to use smear ads during campaigning was the group against the civil unions. So I really don't feel bad for these people. The gay people here in Washington that I know of, never once spread any lies about the people against civil unions.
Also there were signs for Ref 71 ( mean against civil unions) in people's yards all over my city, and I didn't hear one story of those people being targeted. It could of been different on the Westside but I doubt it since the east side of the state is where most people voted to ban civil unions.
The only thing that has happened here recently is groups in North Idaho have passed leaflets attacking homosexuals and minorities, they also spray painted cars, and I think there might have even been a cross burning.

It is escalating. Things are getting worse not better.

I've already made it clear I am pro-civil unions which would mean then that I would be opposed to Ref 71 from my understanding.

I still believe the intention here is to incite violence, maybe even from people who are to cowardly to actually do so themselves. It would be much like what the pro-life leaders were accused of doing. They were accused of promoting the murder of abortionists by their language even though they had not actually participated in the murders.

Immie

 

[Toronado3800]

Names shouldn't be made public but court officials or SOMEONE needs to go verify them. Then if that SOMEONE leaks the information its considered treason against our democracy and :whap: capital punishment time.

The earlier explained Oregon regulations make sense.

For no other reason than imagine if I signed all you all's names to any petition I want!

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

i find all the chest thumping about how cowardly people are because they want to remain anonymous more than a little amusing here on the anonymous message board.

carry on.

Can't speak for others, but my real name is Sharra, LOL.....

and admin has all my info......


So not so very anonymous!

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

i find all the chest thumping about how cowardly people are because they want to remain anonymous more than a little amusing here on the anonymous message board.

carry on.

I find it amusing that people who say that homosexuals shouldn't have special privilages like civil unions want special privilages.

i live in massachusetts.

i stopped caring about gay marriage a long, long time ago.

A warning: never drive the 128 during the morning rush hour, as those people are lunatics loose on that road!

 

[kyzr]

WTF is the problem? About 3% of the population are deviates, so how much "retribution" do you think they can muster compared to the "majority"? When push comes to shove we know who loses. Its all about how the MSM spins the "news". IMHO the dems "some people are more equal than others" policy is losing ground.

 

[Ravi]

i find all the chest thumping about how cowardly people are because they want to remain anonymous more than a little amusing here on the anonymous message board.

carry on.

Good one.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I find it amusing that people who say that homosexuals shouldn't have special privilages like civil unions want special privilages.

i live in massachusetts.

i stopped caring about gay marriage a long, long time ago.

A warning: never drive the 128 during the morning rush hour, as those people are lunatics loose on that road!

try 93 through boston sometime and get back to us, if you survive

 

[Shogun]

That is funny, you almost make it sound as if I approved of that "pro-life" website or the killing of Tiller.

I'd like to see where you came up with that doozy!

Immie

it's not that you approve of the website but you sure as hell have NEVER sounded out against naming abortion clinic doctors on THIS website. And, ironically, we've seen who is actually willing to kill for their beliefs on THAT front.

I don't know of any threads discussing the issue of naming abortionists.

Maybe you would like to point one out?

I have many times spoken out against those who have killed abortionists.

Immie

so.. was a fag holding your hands from the keyboard every time conservatives have hunted for medical records? You seem rather loquacious on THIS thread...

 

[Shogun]

i find all the chest thumping about how cowardly people are because they want to remain anonymous more than a little amusing here on the anonymous message board.

carry on.

Internet message forums have a political impact on the rights of Americans? Who knew?

 

[Shogun]

Except we are not talking about boycotts.

The radicals in the movement have already proven that they are more than willing to go to the next step of vandalism of private property when they began destroying church property in California. The next thing will be violence and possibly even someone (on one side or the other) ending up dead. This is a heated debate. People are angry over this issue and violence is going to happen sooner or later.

This is not about boycotts or debate. This is a clear threat of violence.

Immie

Violence has already happened, it is called gay bashing. I don't know any christians beat up by gay people, I do know a few gays that were beat up by so called christians. These groups pulled a fire alarm and handed out leaflets, that is alittle different than beating the crap out of someone, and leaving them to die.

Don't forget Matthew Sheppard.

The point is that this is intimidation tactics and a threat of violence.

And Shogun, I said nothing about firebombing. To date, I only know of vandalism. That won't keep someone from getting killed over this.

Immie

and neither will paranoia prove as accurate as Nostradamus. You assume too much over a selective restriction on public information.