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

[Immanuel]

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...

I suppose you would like to point out where I have approved of the hunting of medical records as well? No, probably not.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Selective restriction?

Information given out to people who clearly have intimidation, if not down right violence, in mind?

Immie

 

[Shogun]

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...

I suppose you would like to point out where I have approved of the hunting of medical records as well? No, probably not.

Immie

the point being how death-like quiet you've been over every other instance of public lists despite interests in privacy. I guess only certain issues cause some to show concern.

 

[Shogun]

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.

Selective restriction?

Information given out to people who clearly have intimidation, if not down right violence, in mind?

Immie

CLEARLY nothing. THAT is your ASSUMPTION. Welcome to reality until you have evidence to cite beyond vandalism so easily, apparently, generalized to an entire segment of our population.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

In order to enact a selective restriction on public information...a case with proof of harm must be made, that is overwhelming. Anecdotal evidence will not suffice.

I wonder why would people who want to take away a legal right...(in CA. gays marriages were legal)...want to do so in secrecy?

Prop. 8 seeks to deny a legal right already granted.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I wouldn't mind if my name was made public.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Selective restriction?

Information given out to people who clearly have intimidation, if not down right violence, in mind?

Immie

Information is NOT given out. Some people have chosen, on their own, to make public reciords more widely accessable to the public .

Do you think threats warrant the sealing off of public access to public records,

The information on anti abortion sites is another issue. Anti abortion leaders have called murdering abortion providers both just and deserving. Name anyone who advocates such for Prop. 8 backers.

 

[Shogun]

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.

In order to enact a selective restriction on public information...a case with proof of harm must be made, that is overwhelming. Anecdotal evidence will not suffice.

I wonder why would people who want to take away a legal right...(in CA. gays marriages were legal)...want to do so in secrecy?

Prop. 8 seeks to deny a legal right already granted.

clearly, for the same reason the good ole boys club enjoyed private, back rooms to maintain their status quo in the south.

 

[Immanuel]

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...

I suppose you would like to point out where I have approved of the hunting of medical records as well? No, probably not.

Immie

the point being how death-like quiet you've been over every other instance of public lists despite interests in privacy. I guess only certain issues cause some to show concern.

I disagree with you. I typically am opposed to such issues all the way around especially when there is a threat of violence.

Immie

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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 might be one of the biggest, if not the loudest chest thumpers on this issue. I've started a few threads and jumped in with arguments based on reason and facts. I've listed what the lawyers on BOTH sides are arguing and I've listed the opinions of opposing views by Justices.

and I have rarely hid behind anonymity on the web or elsewhere.

question: what side are you on regarding this issue and why?

 

[Shogun]

I suppose you would like to point out where I have approved of the hunting of medical records as well? No, probably not.

Immie

the point being how death-like quiet you've been over every other instance of public lists despite interests in privacy. I guess only certain issues cause some to show concern.

I disagree with you. I typically am opposed to such issues all the way around especially when there is a threat of violence.

Immie

tiller's ghost commends you on your initiative to convey your displeasure with named targets.

as it is, you still must provide evidence that there will be a violent backlash above economic boycotts.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

In order to enact a selective restriction on public information...a case with proof of harm must be made, that is overwhelming. Anecdotal evidence will not suffice.

I wonder why would people who want to take away a legal right...(in CA. gays marriages were legal)...want to do so in secrecy?

Prop. 8 seeks to deny a legal right already granted.

clearly, for the same reason the good ole boys club enjoyed private, back rooms to maintain their status quo in the south.

Petition drives occur out in public view. People will follow and video tape signers if this secret stuff stays.

Public debate should nit be shielded from public view. Signing a petition is a public act.

Voting occurs in a private booth...petition signing occurs in public view.

 

[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 might be one of the biggest, if not the loudest chest thumpers on this issue. I've started a few threads and jumped in with arguments based on reason and facts. I've listed what the lawyers on BOTH sides are arguing and I've listed the opinions of opposing views by Justices.

and I have rarely hid behind anonymity on the web or elsewhere.

question: what side are you on regarding this issue and why?

i don't have one on the petition issue. if you're asking me about gay marriage, i don't care one way or the other.

 

[Immanuel]

Selective restriction?

Information given out to people who clearly have intimidation, if not down right violence, in mind?

Immie

Information is NOT given out. Some people have chosen, on their own, to make public reciords more widely accessable to the public .

Do you think threats warrant the sealing off of public access to public records,

The information on anti abortion sites is another issue. Anti abortion leaders have called murdering abortion providers both just and deserving. Name anyone who advocates such for Prop. 8 backers.

My concern is why?

Why are they posting those names? Is it to set up a "wanted" website?

That is where my problem with this lies.

It is clear to everyone except for maybe Shogun that the people who want to post names want to do so in order to intimidate those who oppose them. This can only lead to violence.

Immie

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...I typically am opposed to such issues all the way around especially when there is a threat of violence.

Immie

What threats of violence? These anecdotal cases must be vetted in a court of law before they get the weight needed to allow restrictong access to public information.

You are starting to sound like Cheney/FOX and friends whne it comes to keeping everything SECRET. Trust me, they say.

We demand proof in this country.

 

[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.

I might be one of the biggest, if not the loudest chest thumpers on this issue. I've started a few threads and jumped in with arguments based on reason and facts. I've listed what the lawyers on BOTH sides are arguing and I've listed the opinions of opposing views by Justices.

and I have rarely hid behind anonymity on the web or elsewhere.

question: what side are you on regarding this issue and why?

i don't have one on the petition issue. if you're asking me about gay marriage, i don't care one way or the other.

Not that you asked me either but i've been watching and want to chime in.

I support the law and the law says those names are public. If people want to change the law and petition (irony) to do so I would support the new law if they got it changed. i dont care if my name is, or is not, kept secret on a petition.

As far as gay marriage I dont care. As long as no one passes a law forcing a church that is against gay marriage to marry gay people...that would be my only forseeable issue but I dont think that type of law would ever even get written.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Would immie have kept blacks and freedom riders from sitting at lunch room counters because them doing so constituted intimidation?

 

[del]

Would immie have kept blacks and freedom riders from sitting at lunch room counters because them doing so constituted intimidation?

no, i don't think so.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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 might be one of the biggest, if not the loudest chest thumpers on this issue. I've started a few threads and jumped in with arguments based on reason and facts. I've listed what the lawyers on BOTH sides are arguing and I've listed the opinions of opposing views by Justices.

and I have rarely hid behind anonymity on the web or elsewhere.

question: what side are you on regarding this issue and why?

i don't have one on the petition issue. if you're asking me about gay marriage, i don't care one way or the other.

The petition issue is simple. It has to do with access to public records. It's like asking about democracy and open government. You have an opinion. You just want it kept hidden.

Gay marriage is about civil rights.. I don't care about individual couples getting married or not...but equality and access to government benefits as well as societal ones are big issues....you must have an opinion.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Selective restriction?

Information given out to people who clearly have intimidation, if not down right violence, in mind?

Immie

Information is NOT given out. Some people have chosen, on their own, to make public reciords more widely accessable to the public .

Do you think threats warrant the sealing off of public access to public records,

The information on anti abortion sites is another issue. Anti abortion leaders have called murdering abortion providers both just and deserving. Name anyone who advocates such for Prop. 8 backers.

My concern is why?

Why are they posting those names? Is it to set up a "wanted" website?

That is where my problem with this lies.

It is clear to everyone except for maybe Shogun that the people who want to post names want to do so in order to intimidate those who oppose them. This can only lead to violence.

Immie

Your conclusion doesn't even follow your false premises.

What lies are on the website listing the signers info?

The signers signed a public petition to take away an already legal right. The neighbors, family members and friends and coworkers should know who these people are. How else would one try to convince/intimidate those who signed petitions that were pushed by people using deceit, deception and lies?

The proponents of Prop. 8 will be caught in their lies in court.