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

[Dante]

This will come back and bite you in the ass.

So does a lot that humans do, so, SO WHAT!

Anyone who doesn't have the cojones to stand behind what they sign petitions for ought not to sign the petitions, the nasty little cowards.....

So what is your real name and telephone number?

I'm in. A member here get's our numbers...verifies...and they we exchange in a phone call...by real name.

what say you?

 

[Immanuel]

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.

If I knew you personally, I'd kick your ass and if you are bigger than me, I'd find someone else to do it for me, for the Cheney comment.

Proof has already been given, I think it was even earlier in this thread regarding the vandalism perpetrated upon Prop 8 supporters.

If you guys don't want to review the links, I can't help that.

Immie

I started a immie thread and there is one that show a major figure in Proo 8 lied about being afraid of pubkic exposure.

anecdotal evidence is insufficient..

btw...Ted Olson...GOP Lawyer..

“Separate is not equal. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are not the same as marriage.

We’re not inventing any new right, or creating a new right, or asking the courts to recognize a new right.

The Supreme Court has said over and over and over again that marriage is a fundamental right, and although our opponents say, ‘Well, that’s always been involving a man and a woman,’ when the Supreme Court has talked about it they’ve said it’s an associational right, it’s a liberty right, it’s a privacy right, and it’s an expression of your identity, which is all wrapped up in the Constitution.”

You started a thread for me? Hot Damn! I'm thrilled, no body seems to even notice me around here

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I support Prop 8... note I said mistaken impression.

I do not. I am a person of faith and frankly, I believe homosexuality to be a sin. I do not however believe that it is the place of the U.S. Government to discriminate against some citizens because the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin.

I provided evidence that there are gay activists who are damaging property. Whether you like that or not, it is there.

I don't care whether or not someone who supported Prop 8 lied about being afraid of public exposure. The question before us is not whether people are afraid of being exposed. The question is what do those who are exposing those people intend to have happen to them.

And WTF do I care what a GOP Lawyer said about marriage? I'm not GOP.

As I said before, I would have been on the Civil Union side of the Referendum in question. In other words, I would have been on the side of those who are asking the courts to let them publish names of petitioners so that the petitioners can be harassed and/or assaulted.

Immie

 

[Modbert]

Your point didn't stand in the first place.

Race and sexual orientation are two completely different things.
No rights are being denied to gay people, except the right to call themselves a man and a woman, when they aren't.

You obviously are being obtuse and stuck in the past. When you care to join the rest of us here in the future, let me know!

 

[Immanuel]

So does a lot that humans do, so, SO WHAT!

Anyone who doesn't have the cojones to stand behind what they sign petitions for ought not to sign the petitions, the nasty little cowards.....

So what is your real name and telephone number?

I'm in. A member here get's our numbers...verifies...and they we exchange in a phone call...by real name.

what say you?

Point is, however, to make it public so that you have to deal with crazy people like me that will call you at strange hours in the middle of the night and hang up, or paint homosexual slogans on your garage door, or yell at your children when they are in school telling them that their daddy is a homophobe, or having their kids beat the shit out of your kid because you didn't agree with them.

Immie

 

[Missourian]

Not a single real name?

Color me not surprised.

All the brave and courageous posters fear posting THEIR names while simultaneously calling OTHERS cowards for not wanting their names posted on the internet.

True hypocrisy at it's finest.

My real name is on here, along with my picture. Your move.

Edit: So is my Facebook if you look hard enough.

Again, your move.

First, I don't see your name posted here.


Second, I don't blame you...you'd be a fool to post it.

Third, I made "my move" in post #223. You musta missed it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How should the USSC vote, and why?

Is it standard for the names of people signing political petitions to be made public?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Isn't signing a petition an open declaration of your support? Who ever signed an anonymous petition?

I think that's the operative question here. ARE petition signatures open, or private? Not being a lawyer, I have no idea.

 

[Modbert]

First, I don't see your name posted here.

Second, I don't blame you...you'd be a fool to post it.

Third, I made "my move" in post #223. You musta missed it.

Unless your name is SFC Ollie, Post #223 makes no sense in terms of what you're telling me.

And my information is there if you look hard enough. I made the decision about that when I joined. And I sealed it when I pretty much posted my facebook on here to promote my PTSD Awareness page. I'm proud of that though, over 14,000 members as of this moment.

 

[Dante]

You started a thread for me? Hot Damn! I'm thrilled, no body seems to even notice me around here

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I support Prop 8... note I said mistaken impression.

I do not. I am a person of faith and frankly, I believe homosexuality to be a sin. I do not however believe that it is the place of the U.S. Government to discriminate against some citizens because the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin.

I provided evidence that there are gay activists who are damaging property. Whether you like that or not, it is there.

I don't care whether or not someone who supported Prop 8 lied about being afraid of public exposure. The question before us is not whether people are afraid of being exposed. The question is what do those who are exposing those people intend to have happen to them.

And WTF do I care what a GOP Lawyer said about marriage? I'm not GOP.

As I said before, I would have been on the Civil Union side of the Referendum in question. In other words, I would have been on the side of those who are asking the courts to let them publish names of petitioners so that the petitioners can be harassed and/or assaulted.

Immie

The man who asked to withdraw from the case was nitified he cannot. His testimony will now be part of the public record. People MIGHT harrass him because of that.

Should the courts shield his testimony?

You are being duplicitous...whether willingly or not.

btw, Madeline the atheist woman was harrassed her whole life...by Christians. Nobody ever demanded she be kept hermeticallt sealed off...well maybe a few good christian soldiers did for differing reasons.

anectdotal evudence will not win your argument in the courts

 

[Cecilie1200]

I would agree with BM here: what is the usual standard? If the purpose of publicizing the names is simply to allow intimidation then that is wrong. One of our rights is petition for redress of grievance. Anything that impinges on that right is wrong.

From what little I can find on the Internet so far, it appears they WERE private in Washington, until a law was pushed through making them public record, which is now being appealed to the USSC. And it appears that the petition sparking all of this IS about "gay marriage". It further appears that "gay rights" advocates are using the argument, "If you don't want it to be public, then don't sign the petition."

So yes, on balance, I'd say the point here is to intimidate people.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

And I would imagine you also think, then, that if a person believes strongly in something enough to vote for it, then they should be willing to have their votes made public as well.

Hey, anything I'm not ashamed of doing, I should be willing to do right out in public, right? A desire for privacy must indicate a sense of guilt and shame, yes?

Think hard before you answer this.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How should the USSC vote, and why?

Public Petitions Are Public Property.

Petitioning the government is a public act. When gays pushed to get rights enacted by statute, I don't remember an argument for keeping names secret. Gays and their suppporters have always been inconvenienced, harrassed, and treated badly. Goes with the territory.

I remember supporting an openly gay candidate way back in the 70s...Elaine Noble. First openly gay state legislstor in US. She and many supporters had their lives threatened. Made some of us support her even more.

Elaine was and is, a wonderful woman. Her being gay was irrelevant to most. Her being hated and threatened was sickening

Um, that's a completely different issue. She herself made her lifestyle public by running for office as an openly gay candidate, and advocates for "gay rights" ALSO make themselves and their issue public. No one is dragging them and their opinions, kicking and screaming, into the public spotlight. Signing petitions and voting are very, VERY different from being a public advocate or a political candidate.

And if what happened to Elaine is so "sickening" to you, why do you want to force it upon legions of simple private citizens?

 

[Dante]

So what is your real name and telephone number?

I'm in. A member here get's our numbers...verifies...and they we exchange in a phone call...by real name.

what say you?

Point is, however, to make it public so that you have to deal with crazy people like me that will call you at strange hours in the middle of the night and hang up, or paint homosexual slogans on your garage door, or yell at your children when they are in school telling them that their daddy is a homophobe, or having their kids beat the shit out of your kid because you didn't agree with them.

Immie

Nice stories, but that is what christian anti legal abortion protesters do.

If anyone in CA were truly threatened it would be big news.

Plus, when one starts or viocally enters the public square to debate controversial issues...you get pushed back.

Prop. 8 sponsors and mouth pieces would never have made good Patriots. They are cowards...who went public and now don't like the repercussions. They thought everyone agreed with them. Typical populist delusional thinking.

The fact is...there are no legitimate threats that rise to the level needed to shield public records from public view.

Democracy is messy. Just ask abortion providers, gay activists and any other enemy of people like Rush, Hannity and rabid, child raping Catholic Priests.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Petition signers become part of the pubkic record. The government does NOT publicize names of signers. People who do use the public records....like publicizing the names of people who get arrested.

People who get arrested are innocent by law. Yet their arrest record is public info. why?

It's interesting that you think one "gets to debate" by, apparently, getting in the face of someone who has not requested to debate with you. Who, by all appearances, simply wishes to communicate quietly with his government and representatives thereto.

Has it ever occurred to you to look for debates with people who want to debate you? Oh, wait, I forgot. Leftists avoid debate with opponents actually requesting them like the plague.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

IF that is the current standard, then cool. If it is not, then there is something fishy about choosing just this one issue.

My understanding here in Oregon is they just count the names in the local courthouses, then they choose two names and verify the validity of the signature, and use a sampling of 1/15th of the names to determine if the petitions are valid. Then they toss them.

I think the same practice obtains in CA. I think CA has a higher threshold for petitions than we do here in OR.

I have signed several petitions on making marijuana legal. I have never had a visit from the cops because of this. Lets make that the rule. If you signed a petition to eliminate what you thought was a bad law would have repercussions like that, would you sign?

This seems less about how petitions are done, and more about intimidation. And we can't allow intimidation into the process

Intimidation is in the eye of the beholder.

The CÁ petition signers have not proven intimidation. A few backers...funders of the petitiin drive...were boycotted and such.

Just because a few people abuse a system is no reason to keep names secret.

If there were a petition to lock up Italians or Jews or Arabs...would you want the signers names kept secret?

Intimidation is in the eye of the beholder, is it? Just a few boycotts and such? Tell me, Einstein, what is the purpose of a boycott?

No, I don't need to have some busybody tell me the names of people who sign a petition to lock up Italians, Jews, Arabs, whoever. What would I do with them? Go to their houses, knock on their doors, and tell them off? People who hold such noxious views usually do a bad job of keeping them a secret, anyway.

The only names I want to know in that case are the names of any public official dumb enough to act on such a petition. Fortunately, THAT really is a matter of public record.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

According to whom? Because I KNOW you don't think we're just going to take your word for it.

 

[Missourian]

Rob you know for a fact that I know your name.

I think that should say post #224. I'll check.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Validation is not public posting.

In Washington State petitions are public record.

I love it. "The USSC should rule that this law is valid because of this law." Circular reasoning at it's finest.

 

[Immanuel]

You started a thread for me? Hot Damn! I'm thrilled, no body seems to even notice me around here

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I support Prop 8... note I said mistaken impression.

I do not. I am a person of faith and frankly, I believe homosexuality to be a sin. I do not however believe that it is the place of the U.S. Government to discriminate against some citizens because the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin.

I provided evidence that there are gay activists who are damaging property. Whether you like that or not, it is there.

I don't care whether or not someone who supported Prop 8 lied about being afraid of public exposure. The question before us is not whether people are afraid of being exposed. The question is what do those who are exposing those people intend to have happen to them.

And WTF do I care what a GOP Lawyer said about marriage? I'm not GOP.

As I said before, I would have been on the Civil Union side of the Referendum in question. In other words, I would have been on the side of those who are asking the courts to let them publish names of petitioners so that the petitioners can be harassed and/or assaulted.

Immie

The man who asked to withdraw from the case was nitified he cannot. His testimony will now be part of the public record. People MIGHT harrass him because of that.

Should the courts shield his testimony?

You are being duplicitous...whether willingly or not.

btw, Madeline the atheist woman was harrassed her whole life...by Christians. Nobody ever demanded she be kept hermeticallt sealed off...well maybe a few good christian soldiers did for differing reasons.

anectdotal evudence will not win your argument in the courts

And how does any of this apply to the discussion on Ref 71 and the withholding of petitioners names?

I never once mentioned this guy until after you brought him up.

The discussion centered around the reason the gay activists wanted to publicize the names of the petitioners. It seems pretty obvious that the only reason is to intimidate those who have already signed the petition. That can only lead to violence which is the reason this is being discussed. Most people who sign petitions like that do not expect to be drug out into the public square to be flogged for exercising the right to sign a petition.

I think the name of "Madeline" that you were looking for is Madeline Murray O'Hair. She was a lead figure in the atheist movement for a long time. A public figure and a contentious one at that. She put herself in the public light. She was not "outed" to use an over used phrase. And no, she did not deserve to be harassed.

Immie

 

[Cecilie1200]

Isn't signing a petition an open declaration of your support? Who ever signed an anonymous petition?

Not sure what purpose this petition served. If it was to get a measure on a ballot. The only purpose of that petition is to gather enough valid signatures for making the ballot. I have signed a petition so that the question can be up for a vote, even though against the measure. I have also signed petitions that were to be published in support of a cause. Most documents that a person signs these days have a privacy protection, particularly if your address or other personal information is on the document.

I will say it again, in Washington State where this started petitions are public record.
If someone wanted to target a person for being against gay rights, they could of just asked to see the petitions. Of course going to the website would have made it easier.

I will say it again. Arguing in favor of a law by citing the very law under consideration is ignorant.

But at least you're consistent.