Slashdot Mirror
Legal War For WA State Sunshine Law
joeszilagyi writes "In a major battle in Washington State, anti-gay rights groups created and got R-71 on the 2009 election ballot. This is a public initiative to put same-sex civil unions up for public vote. The real legal war then erupted: activists created WhoSigned.org to take advantage of WA state's Public Records Act, and put the names of all people who publicly endorsed R-71 on a public, SEO-optimized website. Lawsuits quickly followed, and today it reached the United States Supreme Court, in a matter of months. The records appear to have always been public, but have only been available in digital form since 2006. An assault on civil rights, an assault on marriage, or an assault on sunshine laws and freedom of information?"
is passed in every legislative session.
Best Slashdot Co
Since you asked.
Did anyone really expect their participation to be secret? It's a public vote; they should be tracked for verification. Anyone who signed should have understood that as well-informed adults. Anyone who didn't has no excuse for being upset over this. If they didn't want people to know they support gay rights they shouldn't have signed it.
-SaNo
Shame that's not true. Oh well...as they say, it's the old people that are opposing gay marriage the most. We just have to wait a few years, then we can re-send gay marriage laws all over the country and finally get this biblical fear knocked out. I mean really, what year is it?
It's interesting that the poster was quick to point out that the website is SEO-optimized. Taking a look at the HTML it looks pretty clean to me with plenty of links but nothing out of the ordinary. The poster should also point out that the website uses lots of text, favors the color black and leans towards blue-colored-links because it's equally irrelevant.
I'm not sure what his point is by this other then to make the post sound more emotional. I'm all for a good sensationalize but pointing out SEO-optimization in this context is stupid.
put the names of all people who publicly endorsed R-71 on a public, SEO-optimized website.
So you're telling me that you can sue someone for publicly telling everyone (via a website) something you publicly told everyone?
Look, mate, when you sign a petition, what you're doing is saying to anyone who cares to listen in the world that you endorse the views of the petition. If you aren't willing to attach your name to what the petition says, don't sign it.
I am officially gone from
that their signature remained secret, however no one should have to put up with an organized intimidation process which is the new method of choice. Seeing the pubic exercise their opinion has so offended certain elements out there. As such these same elements intend to use intimidation while expertly avoiding stepping over the line or just not getting caught to get any big names on their to back down or pay up.
In other words, the names should be protected based on what we know these elements will do with them. We cannot have the democratic process circumvented by threats and intimidation. I am all for treating these signatures like votes, off the public record. keep them private. If only to stop the new tactics.
This is similar to why Unions want Card Check, to intimidate their way into power. Freedom of expression is freedom from fear
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I do not know about others, but I have got a wrong impression from this summary that the names have been already made public on the aforementioned "SEO-optimized website". There is no such website yet.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Canada legalized gay marriage and now the TSX is 1500 points bigger than the DOW Jones.
The anti gay movement's logic is just about as valid as what I just said in favour of gay marriage.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
This is in the context of any issue, not just the issue at hand. I'm not sure what the down side is to being listed on this web site. The site should actually be a recruitment site for those who did sign. I'd be like "Yeah, I signed this petition. Look at all the other people who did too."
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
While I understand sunshine laws are important, I can't help but think there should be a tag for bewardoftheleopard.
Save us from your followers.
Why is this even an issue?
I don't want to see you getting it on in public, but that goes for straights too. What you do behind closed doors is none of my business just as what I do is none of yous.
If nothing else, just be smug about it and think on the inside how there'll be more room in heaven for you and your family.
It's all about gay marriage. Neither group involved cares about any of the rest of that stuff.
Personally, I don't get it; so long as you don't make me marry a person of the same gender against my will, why do I care what you do? Don't pretend there aren't same-sex families already; according to one of the links, 18% of same-sex couples in Washington state are raising a child under 18.
I do have a tiny little bit of sympathy for the signers of the petition; I don't think people really understand the legal details behind the signing of a petition, and many of them many have assumed that it was as anonymous and protected as voting.
One shouldn't take a stand that involves limiting someone else's rights but only be willing to do it anonymously. That's just chicken shit.
And if you just shrugged and signed because your neighbor, coworker or fellow church goer asked you too without actually believing it, that's chicken shit too.
The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
This is an appalling attempt at intimidation and coercion of those who would vote a given way. The public has a right to vote any damn way they want, and it has long been precedent that it was no one's business. I'm married, should I somehow be able to demand to know how my wife voted? Of course not, it's not my business, it's hers and hers alone. Similar stunts in the past have cost people vandalism to their home, their jobs, and their businesses. Your vote should be yours alone and not subject to public intimidation. It's your right, it shouldn't cost you to exercise it.
This is not about how your public representatives voted - public representatives who represent the public should have their votes known. This is a thinly veiled attempt at public coercion of those who don't want to vote a certain way on a certain public issue. The fact that you may happen to agree with the view of those who are pulling this stunt should be put aside. What if it was a conservative state and such a stunt was pulled? All of a sudden your in an area that doesn't approve of your vote and you get to be the one who is harassed by nutcases in the public.
A vocal minority should never be allowed to control the population, regardless of cause or locality. That's the entire point of putting something like this on a ballot, to show if a certain issue is getting coverage simply because of a vocal minority or media bias, or if that's the way the public really feels. The ballot allows the vocal minority to be exposed and for the public to speak it's will. For example look at approvals for medical marijuana in places like California.
People need to learn that a vocal minority is just that regardless of the issue and not let such people unduly intimidate the public at large. The issue the vocal minority supports shouldn't matter, it might be one you agree with this time but could just as easily be one you disagree with next time.
Get most people talking long enough and it'll come back to "well the Bible says". If this is a religious issue than the laws themselves against gay marriage are illegal. If they insist on being able to push religious agendas in government and law then they need to loose their protections. Tax church property and take away any government protection for religion then you can push your agendas until then shut up and go back to hating people in private the way God intended.
Why is everybody acting within their rights given by law an assault? Has WA legalized assault? Be careful what you wish for and twice for what you accuse.
From the very first codification of law, that of Hammurabi, marriage has been specified as a contract between two people. Nobody can block that on moral grounds and they'd be hard pressed to nullify a contract of partnership onany grounds without having the business community up in arms. The ceremonies are only that; next time, I'm jumping a broom.
The license is not a license to get married/contracted/etc., it's a tax stamp. It is the Fuck Tax. Nothing prevents you from fucking, but they want to tax it, same as nothing prevents you from parking your car in your driveway in Virginia, but you have to have your parking sticker up to date or you can get a parking ticket. They'll tax anything that lots of people want or what to do. Fuck the Fuck Tax. Paying a tax doesn't make a marriage "legal", it makes it paid up. A legal marriage is a binding contract of partnership between two people with possessions.
I am not a lawyer. But I can and have "legally" performed that ceremony for people, "legal" or not, "Fuck Tax" or none, and had to examine the relevant laws. By the way, you want to know how to qualify to "legally" marry people? Say so. The government has no right (they've specifically divorced themselevs from the ability) to dictate, determine or oversee who is and is not "qualified".
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
So... my only real religious belief is in the Streisand effect, so someone please provide a torrent and a wikileaks link to the list of names.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Note, that some people on the list did not sign the petition, if you know what I mean. Someone could have sat down with the parish directory, or my kids elementary school family book, or my employers phone directory, or my ham radio club mailing list, etc, and "helpfully" signed me up, to "save me the time of signing myself up". I think that is the real reason they are fighting the publicity, heck, I'd file suit if I learned someone put my name on that list of ignorant hillbillys, as that would obviously defame my reputation...
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
In Missouri, federal funding was issued to the ADAP program (AIDS Drug Assistance Program) to provide life giving medicine to people who could otherwise not afford the $4000 a month in medicine bills. Various groups opposed to gays and people with AIDS (including the goobers who think it all a fake disease) would often times use sunshine laws to intimidate such people who received the benefits. Meetings were held to help determine the best way to help people with the meds money and often times, the recipients of the funds were invited to attend since the decisions made impacted their benefits, health, life etc... People with these groups would find out where the meetings were with sunshine law request and then come and photograph everyone there, write down their license plates, etc... They would then publish the information on the internet and in some cases local newspapers. This led to people losing their jobs (unfortunately, in Missouri, it's legal to fire someone based on pretty much anything.) The sunshine law was used for the harassment and intimidation of people. It eventually meant that people stopped coming to meetings. Some of them had families harassed and lost everything due to this harassment. The state now just unilaterally decides for people what they can and cant have. Often turning people away that are in dire need of this medicine to stay healthy. I do believe that sunshine laws have their place but there should be limits. Using them to harass people is wrong and it should be illegal.
I'm probably the only one who read the title as beeing about Western Australia's debat about daylight savings.
It's not often that the posted story qualifies a a troll/flamebate all by itself.
But when two people marry, I don't have to marry the same person they do, do I.
Because two women get married doesn't mean my wife has to get married to a woman.
Because two men get married doesn't mean I have to marry a man.
If the problem is that there is extra benefit to marriage that will be garnered by same-sex-marriages then there is extra benefit to same-sex marriages which the single are missing out of.
In which case, it would be "ban marriage".
Not "ban same-sex marriage".
that their signature remained secret, however no one should have to put up with an organized intimidation process which is the new method of choice
There is nothing "new" about it: so-called "Christians" and "conservatives"--probably many of the same kind of people who have signed this petition--have been using organized intimidation of minorities for two centuries. And they haven't stopped at intimidation: they have killed, injured, and discriminated.
Seeing the pubic exercise their opinion has so offended certain elements out there. As such these same elements intend to use intimidation while expertly avoiding stepping over the line or just not getting caught to get any big names on their to back down or pay up.
That is outrageous. For decades, gay rights activists have put their lives on the line to fight for safety, security, acceptance, and civil rights. Many have been murdered, more beaten up merely for speaking out, and many have lost their jobs. They have been vilified and persecuted. But finally, they have been making some headway.
Now a minority of bigots wants turn back the clock and they don't even have the decency and honesty to stand up and identify themselves when putting a referendum on the ballot?
This is similar to why Unions want Card Check, to intimidate their way into power. Freedom of expression is freedom from fear
This has nothing to do with "freedom of expression". These people can spew their bigotry in complete anonymity if they like; our laws and our Constitution guarantee that.
But once they want to put a referendum before the voters, they do not have a right to do so anonymously. The public has a right to know where these kinds of referenda come from.
The people putting this referendum on the ballot are not "the public", they are a bigoted minority. And their attempts to shield their names is like the robes of the Ku Klux Klan. Any legal issues aside, it is despicable, and it is despicable that you would defend them.
Or perhaps he really was a good ol' racist boy and was thinking "Geez we sure don't want any more half castes becoming President"
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Statements such as these:
"Against such a threat... I think anything is justified."
Public condemnation and exposure is a tactic used by most groups, and particularly favored by those who support Washington Senate bill SB5688, which would institute civil unions in Washington state between persons without restriction on gender.
Somehow, when it comes to 'outing', it doesn't feel very good after all.
I personally believe the law permitting access to the signatures should stand. It was a petition, not a ballot. And you should at least have the courage to proclaim your convictions.
And presenting referenda proposed virtually in secret will lead to more than just increased fraud and abuse of the system. It will virtually invalidate the process.
One more reason I don't sign those well-meaning but misguided petitions that infest balloting places here in Arizona, and didn't when I lived in Maine, where the initiative is the favorite tool of the intense and driven minority that is convinced they are not merely right, but chosen as the singular instrument of justice on Earth. Such pleas are designed to take full advantage of our misinformation culture. A pox on them. Let them eat the same cake they baked.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I'm still having a hard time finding any mention of GAY MARRIAGE in R-71. Just a lot about DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS. Can't help but feel quite lied-to when I hear the anti-gay crowd saying R-71 is threatening "the sanctity of marriage" somehow.
Signing a petition to get a measure put on the ballot for the next election does not indicate support of that measure. I have often signed many petitions just to bring the issue up for vote so that the will of the people can then be heard. Stupid Republicans.
How about if you're a normal liberal who does believe in personal responsibility, believes that the scientists are right and that not only are there gay human beings but that many other species have an analog, that this is a result of genetic makeup and prenatal environment, and that gay people can no more help being attracted to the same sex than I, for instance, am attracted to the opposite one? How about if you're a Liberal who believes you right wingers are a collection of mindless buffoons endlessly repeating what your shock radio cheerleaders tell you, and that it's us Liberals who are responsible for almost all human progress, while your lot, from Southern Baptists to the Taliban, want to drag us back screaming and kicking into the Dark Ages?
Well, then we might think you're just another racist/homophobe spouting a load of offensive bullshit. And your point is?
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
The matter of public record is that elected official cast vote X on referendum Y at time Z. Any spoken or published speculation on the reasons for that vote going one way or the other sits precariously on the border of libel/slander.
For example, suppose Representative Good from District 1234 personally believes A, but his constituents elected him to vote ~A. His vote (I'll let you guess if he voted A or ~A) is a matter of public record, but it's not necessarily an indication of his personal opinion. Now suppose Good is running for re-election against challenger Nefarious. Nefarious advertises Good's voting record and takes personal stabs at Good for voting the "wrong way."
This is exactly what's happening here. We don't know why someone voted the way they did; all we know is what they voted. Adding speculation beyond the fact of the vote for the purpose of harming the person's reputation is the fucking definition of slander. This is an open and shut case. Sue the bastards who put up the website and get it removed. Then C&D the search engines too.
p.s. I live in WA, but I don't vote, and I didn't even read TFA. I think all politicians are lying SOBs, so it doesn't matter to me who ends up in office.
Gay rights activists go too far. It's one thing to demand a right to do what seams right to you, its another thing to lash out against those who express any kind of disapproval. .
Let's take away your ability to marry, and then see if you might be so inclined to lash out in any way. Perhaps when your loved one is dying in the hospital, and you are not allowed to go see her. Would you sit quietly by? I doubt it.
Reply to That ||
And here in Europe, we have farmer's EU subsidies online. So now each farmer can browse and see how much his neighbor gets! Groovy!
Please do...prevent me from making yet another stupid mistake next time I visit Vegas!
What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas. Couldn't you have left the marriage there? :P
Reply to That ||
So what Judge Settle is saying here is that First Amendment rights mean that not only can you say whatever the hell you want, but no one is allowed to dislike you for saying it.
Linux sucks. Software patents are vital to innovation. Comcast provides great service. Long live the RIAA! SCO was right! Don't chill my First Amendment rights!
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
I say we take away the right to be married from everyone.
This is an appalling attempt at intimidation and coercion of those who would vote a given way. The public has a right to vote any damn way they want
You have a right to a secret vote in an election, and you have a right to anonymous speech.
You do not have a right to put a referendum on the ballot anonymously, and I see no reason why you should have that right.
A vocal minority should never be allowed to control the population, regardless of cause or locality.
So, if the majority votes to enslave blacks or exterminate the Jews, that's OK with you? Can the majority vote Mormons or Catholics out of their community? Maybe those things are OK with you, but they are not OK with me or the US Constitution.
We's in Vurginia are desceminated against becauz we cant marry ours own sisters... they says its illegal.
THats just rong. If two adults want to marry each other why cant we just because were related?
So instead most poeple do like the gays and do it on our own.
You cant tell me I love my sister/wife or children/nieces less than someone else.
You may laugh and call us names but we will fight until were allowed to legally marry our kin.
Google Map mashup of those who donated money to California's Proposition 8 (banning same sex marriage): Eight Maps
These are the same people, or at least same mentality, of who live their lives in fear that the Russians are going to come over here and take their bibles away.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
For some time now, the gay lobby has been trampling on everyone else's first amendment rights. Even going so far as to take on pastors for reading those parts of the bible which explicitly forbid homosexuality and filling legal action against parents who remove their children from the class of a gay teacher.
I do agree that pastors should be able to publicly state their interpretations of the bible. It's their job. I don't think that anyone should take bible's anti-gay phrases any more literally than they should take the phrases about sacrificing goats, stoning to death those who have committed adultery, etc... But if pastors think that people should, they should have the right to say so... within limits. Even so, there are different ways to speak. It is legal to say "I think that the world would be better without gays". It is also legal to say "Based on my interpretation of the bible, I believe that god hates fags.". However, if you are trying to directly incite the crowd to violence against gays, it isn't and shouldn't be legal.
And how is it expressing your first amendment right to deny your child going near homosexuals for no other reasons than their sexual orientation? It is not as if their orientation had anything to do with their ability to teach math, for example.
I find it ironic that the pro-gay-rights faction preaching tolerance is intolerant of those who vote against their position. They are so intolerant that they select those who don't hold their views and ridicule and excoriate them. Isn't that what they are fighting against?
This is the only good reason I've seen for making the names public, and the solution is relatively simple: have a standard non-disclosure agreement for any person or organization that want to view the list for the purpose of verifying signatures, with significant penalties (jail time AND fines) for disclosure, even through negligence, and even larger penalties if used in the commission of a crime.
Otherwise, the importance of anonymity serves a much greater role in protecting our freedoms.
The way such laws always have to be considered is to assume a large, well-funded, and morally corrupt entity (read: organized crime) has vested interests in a particular issue.
If they are for the referendum, they threaten to kill anyone in a certain area who doesn't sign it. If they are against the referendum, they threaten to kill anyone who does sign it. In either case, the public nature of the referendum gives them significantly more power. A private referendum with the above private disclosure options would reduce the ability to influence in this way. While the private disclosures would still allow some intimidation, the benefits could outweigh the potential abuses.
Also, a key thing to realize is that, in general, democracy is much better served by referendums calling for a vote favoring passing in error instead of failing in error. Elections are much better protected from external influence than the signature gathering process. Anonymous referendums serve this goal far better than public ones, where people would choose not to sign to avoid their viewpoints on a certain issue being disclosed. If a person wishes it to be public that they favor a certain issue, they are always able to declare their views separately from the referendum process, just as a person is always able to tell others how they choose to vote.
If you tell people their signatures are confidential, that makes it harder for newspapers to double-check for fraud.
If you tell people their signatures are public, it can create a chilling effect, especially for those whose friends, employers, or supervisors are opposed to the issue on the petition.
Yes, signing a petition may mean "I think this should be voted on, even if I disagree with it" but your friends, employer, or supervisor may read it as "I agree with the issue" and no amount of explaining will say otherwise.
Also, if signatures are made public and easily searched, NOT signing a petition may also get you into trouble with friends, employers, or supervisors. Imagine a work environment where NOT signing petitions that relate to certain issues gets you shunned by your peers, with the result that your boss, not knowing what is really going on, thinks you are not a team player and sidelines you and your career stalls.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
We're not talking about politicians here, we're talking about private citizens, so yes, it's obvious you didn't RTFA.
So if I don't want to give a man the right to take a standard tax deduction as a married couple because he decided to marry a sheep
The only difference between a gay and a straight couple is the gender of the individuals involved. The law prohibits discrimination based on gender, hence gay and straight couples should be treated legally the same.
Sheep are not persons and not protected by non-discrimination laws, hence the law can discriminate against them.
Certainly, restricting adults from marrying 9-year-olds is something I agree with.
That's not analogous either. People who are not adults, by default, do not have the legal capacity to enter into marriages at all; they can only marry under specially created exceptions from the usual rules. Therefore, nobody needs to be "restricted" and no special law is needed to keep 9-year-old from marrying.
Except that these are not votes. They're signatures on a petition to schedule a vote.
Oh you know who else checked who didn't vote for him? Winston Churchill. This system is equal to British democracy during World War II. (What?)
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
Marriage is between a man and woman.... anything else can NEVER be called marriage... Period...
Why can't we call it marriage? I do and 48% of Californians agree with me. Ask us again in 2010 and it will be 49%. Ask us in 2012 and it will be 50.1%. Inevitably, Gay Marriage will be recognized as a right and our grandchildren will be shaking their heads that this was really ever a debate.
EVER. I side with the gay community on civil mariage, but I do nto agree with them releasing names of people that signed the peition. Next, they will want the names of people that voted AGAINST what they want in the referendum. Never again will I sign a petition. Thank you gay activits for taking away what I considered a right to privacy for what you consider your right. And yes, I did read the story. I know that these names were public before. Like I said, never again will I sign a peition. Those names should be private, unless needed for verification in the case of fraud.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
The only difference between a gay and a straight couple is the gender of the individuals involved. The law prohibits discrimination based on gender, hence gay and straight couples should be treated legally the same.
I agree completely. But that has nothing to do with my response to the poster above me.
He said he didn't want anyone voting on what rights anyone else would have or any restrictions on the marriage of others.
Sheep are not persons and not protected by non-discrimination laws, hence the law can discriminate against them.
I agree completely... but again this has nothing to do with the post I responded to or what I said.
You put your own context on and falsely assumed I was speaking out against gay marriage. I was not. I was speaking in favor of the existance of some laws about something as opposed to no laws about anything: which is what the poster I responded to advocated.
This is the problem with the current state of play for Gay Rights in the United States. Their rights and their struggle for equality too often get folded into broader, basically and wholly unrelated legal issues. This is now a discussion about freedom of information, privacy rights, defamation, etc. The struggle for Gay Rights too often gets shuffled under the rug because of the stress it puts on our federalist, states vs. centralized government republican democracy. During the African-American Civil Rights movement of the 1960's, the high court did the same thing, because the U.S. Supreme Court avoids addressing constitutional questions if they can, and instead defer to the states to determine what is best. Its happening again. I hope the Gay Community takes a lesson from the African American community. They need a leader. They need to rise up, begin a campaign of civil disobedience. Demand equal rights and protection under the laws of the United States. Make it so that the high court can no longer ignore the obstruction of their rights in favor of religious law. Otherwise, these petty and distracting legal issues will continue to burden their cause.
Children and animals can't enter legal contracts. Adults can. If you want to claim that some adults can't enter into legal contracts with other adults, then it's up to you to make the case, without nonsensical comparisons to children or animals.
You paid no attention to what I was responding to and have falsely characterized my position.
I did not say that two (or three) consenting adults should not be able to get the legal protections of marriage: I said that there should be some limits (as opposed to none) as to what should get those protections.
Do you actually disagree with my statement?!?
Right now, your argument is that gay people should be treated like children and animals in terms of their ability to enter a contract - and that says all we need to know about your argument.
I have absolutely not made any such argument. You are hacking at a straw man.
Brilliant Troll! Now that you have made your point, I would move on quickly if I were you. The locals are readying torches and acid as we speak.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
I immediately replied to my own post with:
"Actually, this discussion is over a website listing in a searchable way those who signed a petition to put gay-civil-unions on a ballot."
So yes, I do know I was off topic. I was responding to a different poster who seemed to be advocating anarchy.
Voting against another human being's civil rights earns you a spot in the neanderthal group, IMHO.
if the majority of the public really DOES agree with them there should be no risk of ostracism.
So this is what "the land of the free" now becomes. You are free to do whatever you want, say whatever you want, as long as the majority of the public agree with it.
Whatever happened to the "I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it" ideal?
Use something else.
Marriage is a term defined by the church and I don't think any union in the government's eye should be called marriage anyway. This should already happen due to Separation of Church and State. This goes for Man and Woman, Man and Man, & Woman and Woman. The government should have no right to determine what the guidelines for civil union are anyway. To the government we are just tax paying numbers, anyway.
The main point for most homosexual civil unions are to retrieve the same benefits that heterosexual couples receive. Most are not looking to recognized by the church, only the state, and the government should not be able to deny those rights based on religious/bigotted beliefs.
IMHO that is one of the biggest problem with our government is that so many religious beliefs are used in making these kind of decisions. Look at Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice. Basic human rights should allow for Pro-Choice (with certain guidelines, but things like the morning after pill, and early term abortion should be allowed).
My views may be tinted by beliefs, or lack thereof, but logically it seems that because of Separation of Church and State that this should not be an issue.
Just my two cents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
You want to keep your opinion secret? Then express it inside the voting booth. When you make it public, you have to answer for the consequences, which may include other people pointing out that you're a complete idiot.
Petitions are public actions, voting is a secret action. Simple as that. If you aren't prepared to stand up for your opinion, keep your mouth shut -- or write an anonymous flame on the Internet that nobody will care about.
I piss off bigots.
And to split hairs, homosexuals currently have the right to marry. A homosexual man can marry any woman who sees fit agree, and a homosexual woman can marry any man who sees fit to agree. As a heterosexual man, I do not have the right to marry any man. Seems pretty clear and equally applied. Man marries Woman.
You make me sick. Homosexuals currently have the right to marry....only within the context already defined. They do not have the right to marry the person they love. You do.
The state has a sunshine law. They used the sunshine law. They shared the results.
I don't see what is potentially damaging about people knowing you signed it anyway. It doesn't make you a gay-bashing red-necked evil conservative. In fact, it could simply mean that you prefer a direct vote to a vote of representatives.
If you ask me, marriage is one of the dumbest inventions of mankind. It was invented by religion, it rarely has anything to do with love in my experience.
Why on earth would you put arbitrary boundaries and conditions on love? Who are you to dictate to anyone who they may or may not love, when, whyfor and whatever? Moreover, who are you to tell your lover they can't love someone else?
But forget all that - why enter an "agreement" where both of you have only the vaguest notion of what the other thinks it entails? Way to set yourself up for all sorts of problems.
No, more...why are you marrying THAT PERSON? Fuck, they just want the ring, house, car, 1.5 kids, it's the status they want, because it's fashionable to be married, or there are financial benefits to it, you're merely secondary to that, collateral.
It's a pathetically boring script - A meets B, A and B date for a while, A and B get engaged, A and B get married, get a house, car, pop out some kids, etc. Because, well, because that's just how it's done, how everyone else does it, because, y'know?
So that they can be as miserable as the rest of us married folk!
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Perhaps it was you who did not read the entire article. A petition is not some sort of super special secret document that is somehow protected, private information. It's not like voting. It's a public document. And the reason why it's public is because petitions are documents that are proposing substantive legislation.
I mean, shit. Don't YOU want to know who is proposing legislation that may or may not affect you? Or do you want a bunch of anonymous cowards telling you how to live your life? Because that, sir, is not freedom.
I don't think a person's rights and privileges are up for "vote". I don't want other people deciding how I can and cannot live my life - CERTAINLY when it doesn't involve them.
Siblings have hinted that this is about when it *does* involve others (even the Supreme Court has recognized that bans on things that occur strictly privately i.e. sodomy are unconstitutional).
But the broader issue is, isn't this what a representative government DOES? Isn't its function, in some way, to place limitations on the population at large in response to popular support? Most of the time we don't find these limitations objectionable, though, right? Murder, theft, etc. But at the most basic level a person's rights and privileges are always up for vote.
Maybe we need a newer form of government that somehow protects the rights of the minority while performing useful governmental functions supported by the majority (or super-majority). The US Constitution is a good stab at it, but the States, aside from enumerated restrictions in the USC amendments, have pretty much free reign to trample all over minorities. I don't know the answer...
I do not choose to be heterosexual. But I do choose not to indulge my sexuality with every attractive other-gender person I encounter.
The important thing to know about the situation in Washington is that no one is actually looking to change that. R-71 is not in any way shape or form about gay marriage. It's about domestic partnerships. In May of 2009, Washington governor Christine Gregoire signed into law Senate Bill 5688, the "everything but marriage" bill, which makes it so that within the state of Washington, domestic partnerships will have the exact same legal rights and responsibilities as married couples. Hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, power of attorney rights, the right to adopt and raise children... All the things that two consenting adults who love each other and are genuinely committed to each other oought to have. This bill did not in any way shape or form suggest that domestic partnerships should be recognized as marriages, though. (See this article and the actual text of the bill).
And before someone tries to argue with me about the right to adopt... I'd like to point out that the reality of the situation is that there's tons of kids out there growing up in foster care, and that growing up in a home with 3-4 other children you aren't related to, some of whom were taken from their parents because the parents were neglectful or abusive, is known to frequently be a very traumatic experience. Whereas being raised by a gay couple would, at most, subject you to some teasing from other children at school.
R-71 is an attempt to overturn SB 5688. Plain and simple. It has nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage. It is not in any way shape or form related to any religious belief. Washington State has never contemplated the issue of gay marriage. I've seen plenty of conservative literature claiming that gays "already have all the same rights" so that the "attack on traditional marriage" has to be about something other than basic human rights.
Well, at least in Washington, it very definitely isn't. (Oregon has actually had similar legislation in place for a few years now.) Gays are in no way shape or form interested in being allowed to legally use the word "marriage" to refer to our relationships here. We're only interested in having all the equivalent secular, legal rights. And R-71 is a vote about whether or not we should have those rights. But of course... There's a highly deceptive campaign going on with regards to it... And many of the people going in to vote on it may in fact have been led to falsely believe that they're voting on something related to gay marriage.
The thing about this that really makes it so sad is that a lot of the time the politicians and well known religious spokesmen who are the MOST outspoken against ga rights, and the most fervent in their anti-gay votes and speeches are, more often than not, actually gay themselves, but are in the closet and can't deal with it.
I don't think that making public records available is a threat. If the people are that concerned about it being known that they support discrimination, then maybe they shouldn;t have signed it.
It's not like people are making threats. Now if this was private information that was NOT public and it was being released, I would have a problem with that.
If they were the same it would be called 'voting'. It is not. It is a public record and should be treated as such. If people do not have the strength of their convictions then they shouldn't sign it. That is the point of peer pressure. It molds society into what is acceptable and what is not.
If someone steps over the line and takes illegal retribution against someone who signed a petition after that info was made public then they would be in the wrong and handled under the law. If someone signs onto a discriminatory petition and is treated badly (but legally) as a result, once it becomes known, then they've reaped what they've sewn.
Look at the larger picture and don't be instantly knee jerk about it, logic it out further jus *one step more*.
The government should have *nothing* to do with who you live with or "marry" in any outside ceremony. If the straight and gay folks would realize this, that they have a 100% common beef with STATE PERMISSION to marry, they could lobby TOGETHER to get all governmental laws about marriage just removed from the books. Instead, once again like they always do, the governmental goons use that old tired 'divide and keep them conquered' routine to keep you in serfdom.
Any sort of personal economic or custody issues can be addressed by *private contract*. YOU and your partner(s) decide how to run your affairs entirely, fullstop.
I mean really, say from the religious and very hetero side, which keeps fighting to stop gay marriage, what business of government is it that you need a PERMIT, permission, and LICENSE to get married? None, you can do it like they did in ye olden days, with your pastor and community, and that's it. The heteros are suffering under that same delusion that they need "permission" to marry, and keep fighting for less freedom for themselves! And now all the gay folks want that same thing?!? Nuts! Crazy! "Please government, we beg you and petition you, take away more of our rights and sell us a piece of paper permission slip, signed by one of your useless kommisars!"
See how crazy that is?
Get the stupid state and government out of the marriage "permission" business entirely, FOR EVERYONE, all of the above, "we the people", it is no longer needed, if ever it was, and it should be illegal because of freedom of association born with rights.
And if you look back in history, a lot of the first state "licenses to get married" were jim crow racist laws designed to prevent interrace marrying, now they are the "norm" when they should have all been repealed. (incidentally the same with some of the earlier "gun laws", they were racist in origin then got extended to the population in general)
Repeal the marriage "license" entirely, and all the ancillary stupid laws around that, (like tax issues and your hospital visit issues, etc) don't seek and fight and lobby to extend that abomination of statist power and control. What the heck do you want governmental restrictions for? Makes no sense, the better solution is end it entirely.
Straights, gays, Bis, and all the otherwise out there, the polygamists and polyandrous-ists, all of the above, could all unite behind that, and end this state control nonsense once and for all.
That's FREEDOM, that's EQUALITY.
It's like the department of redundancy department!
Well, you can't get to the safely anonymous "voting" stage without going through the dangerously exposed "petition" stage. Voting is anonymous for good reasons. Why don't the same reasons apply to the petition that allows the voting? Especially since your signature is going to predict your vote.
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
. . . Signing a petition is very similar to voting - it's no one's business how I mark a ballot, nor is it anyone's business that I signed the petition. . . .
You bring up what may be important questions core to this topic. Are petitions public property or legally private (privileged) information? Is this different from US state to US state? Are the US practices different than those in Canada and Europe?
I'm not asking about your opinion (which is very clear). I am asking if anyone reading this string actually knows the relevant law. (I don't know and my limited search turned up nothing.)
Live Long and Prosper - Thanks Leonard. You are missed.
But thankfully it will only be 'recognized' in CA anywhere else with sense will continue to deny you. Just like when you people tried (and failed) to make marijuana legal, just because the state says so doesn't make it so. Federal law trumps state law every time.
Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
This entire firestorm is a smokescreen for the real issue: in a democratically elected representative republic, our representatives create laws that are either voted into existance, or dissapear. I'm a conservative, and a resident of WA. I believe that the public petition should be public, as all it does is bring the initiative to the voter. It's conceivable that somebody signed the petition that doesn't agree with R71, just to have it brought before the voter and be dismissed. The entire gay marriage argument is moot, as this ref. has nothing to do with gay marriage, but civil unions. If the gay community wants the laws and traditions of our state to change, they need to change enough minds to make it happen on the ballot, or move to where it's already legal/in place. My beliefs as well as those who disagree with me are irrelevant in our country and state, as beliefs aren't law. You want it changed, change it the legal way. I'm not a bigot, I moved here to raise my children in a way that I want, around people that think like I do, because it's a free country and I sill have the right to do that. I chose this area for a reason, and there are plenty of places in this nation that are not like this place. I didn't stay in a highly liberal area and try to change their minds. I guess my point is that if you don't like the way things are where you are, try to change them the legal way or move. Why is it impossible to believe that there are always going to be different types of people in the country who can't agree on everything? Is it really wrong to live around those who believe likewise by choice, instead of trying to strong-arm those around you into adopting your way of life? Even as a conservative, I make no judgement calls on how others wish to live their lives, I simply choose to live mine differently, and away from those who I disagree with.
I agree completely. But that has nothing to do with my response to the poster above me. He said he didn't want anyone voting on what rights anyone else would have or any restrictions on the marriage of others.
But it does have something to do with it: in a free and just society, a majority cannot simply vote away other people's rights.
I was speaking out against gay marriage. I was not.
Neither am I. I'm pointing out that there are many rights in a democracy that a majority of voters simply cannot take away, no matter what.
While supporters of traditional marriage use legal and ethical means to promote their agenda
You mean beat, torment, demonize, and murder homosexuals for the last several thousand years while in control of the government's definition of what is 'legal'?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
where do you get that viewpoint from? If marriage were about religion, then you should be fighting why any marriage is allowed outside a religious belief and joining, not just picking and choosing a "oh that sounds in-appropriate" I'll be offended if they use the same term.
Then again I think gays wanting the "marriage" title, and not just the same rights seams just as stupid. And I do think it is more of a "we hate the typical religions, so were going to shove this in your face for attention" statement by gays than anything else.
But all history that I find of marriage, and ceremonies seams to be predated by any religious text, by government requirements. Other than a more general religious context of a committed partner, the churches becoming involved has always been a recognization of the governmental bond, not the opposite.
Why would 'anyone with sense' deny the right of marriage to a gay couple?
method of doing so that 100% does not involve the government, but would also be recognized as a legal marriage just the same.
now that's funney, you want government recognition, without government recognition. FYI sounds like you have a Common-law_marriage If you live in a state with that, all you have to do is submit a tax return (at least in AZ, where I live) as a married couple, and it's legally recognized. So choose whatever hippey gathering, flag burning, anti-government ceremony, or whatever you want, and come April 15th it'll be recognized as a "legal marriage." (assuming by reference to "her" and "significant other" that means a person already legally recognized as the opposite sex as yourself, and not a man who likes it on the bottom, or your not a woman with a strap on, or she doesn't require a occasional re-inflation...)
But it does have something to do with it: in a free and just society, a majority cannot simply vote away other people's rights.
Then, in a free and just society, how are individual rights determined?
Do I have the right to set my land on fire? How do I determine if I do or do not?
That is really quite an appalling display of ignorance and lack of compassion. Quite frightening that someone who works as patient support can dismiss an individual's rights with the glib explanation "you are in an anti-gay city and state".
This is /. not some venue for rationality thought. You might as well as asked, "does he want to discuss the topic, attack the person or marry Cowboy Neil?"
WOW:
CAPTCHA: hateful
I think that is very appropriate all around.
What if this was a petition for a law that would, say, close a legal loophole that allowed corporations to pollute/abuse workers/skate out of large quantities of taxes? We could easily be looking at signers being permanently blacklisted from employment if they sign such a petition.
Overall I'm a fan of transparency in government processes, but there are very real risks in other contexts that should be considered.
Reminds me of a local petition that went around to stop some construction project. A small group managed to get the required signatures to delay the privately funded project (but approved by city counsel) and indirectly raised the costs. Once the petition list was made public it was found the first 10 people on the list where dead and well over 100 where people in senior homes who had significantly reduce mental capacity. Some 15% of the people on this list where disqualified when they stopped looking into the petition. Sadly it delayed the project by a month to work it out. In the mean time the same group started to circulate a second petition that was vague and very poorly written. Once again it was thrown out after another month delay. After their third interruption the group was barred by the city. The ‘leader’ of the group tried unsuccessfully again to create another group and circulate another petition. BTW the group consisted of 7 people and delayed a privately funded and city counsel approved project by 6+ months.
For those looking in from outside the US borders, an initiative petition is a document filed by a group of ordinary citizens asking that a particular issue be put up for election. Amongst other things, it is required that a certain percentage of voters sign the initiative indicating that they feel it should come up for a vote.
I have signed referendums and initiatives both for causes I intend to vote for and for causes I intend to vote against. My signature on an initiative is an indication that I agree that we should vote on it. It is not an indication of which way I will vote.
TFA states "signers of the petition fear hostile confrontations". If true, this must be addressed. The courts seem like a good place to determine if the fear is well founded, and if so, the legislature ought to figure out how to address it.
BTW, I am not a resident of Washington, so my name can not appear on this initiative. Please don't confront me hostily :-).
The rights and privileges had already been passed in what is known here in Washington as the "Everything But Marriage Bill." Governor Gregoire signed the bill this summer. The Referendum 71 Petition would roll-back an already passed bill. Therefore, signing to put "gay marriage" on the ballot via Referendum 71 can only result in either the maintenance of the existing statues, or the retraction of a comprehensive civil unions bill. Those who signed Ref 71 signed a petition aimed to deny rather than expand access to domestic partnerships. I for one revel in the cowardice of those who think it right and good to obsess over the consensual, private affairs of others. "Do as I say, just don't look me in the face!"
I was one of those who modded you flamebait. Just so we're clear, I understand that "flamebait" does not mean "I disagree."
The whole tone of your post is incendiary. You have a hypothesis, that the gay marriage issue is all about religion and control, which I partially agree with (the religion part). But then you go on to paint all religious people, a group to which I used to belong, as hell-bent on indoctrination and control. This is either a gross misunderstanding or a deliberate provocation. You leave no room for genuine belief that homosexuality is wrong, no matter how misguided that belief may be. Words like yours only further polarize the positions instead of trying to guide the people who hold those beliefs into a more enlightened practice of their religion.
You also nullified your whole argument when you brought masturbation into the picture. Some churches do teach against that as well, but by your logic they should be crusading harder against masturbation or single men than anything else, since they are supposedly the hardest to control. Let's not forget the hint of misogyny buried in there as well.
Your last sentence is unequivocally flamebait, since you apparently fail to recognize that religion has benefits as well as drawbacks, and you show a complete lack of respect for anyone who shows any inclination to religion. That is sad, and represents a prejudice of your own that is as onerous as the one you're railing against.
Respond if you like, but since I'm AC there's little chance I'll browse this thread again. This was not an act of censorship, but an attempt to use the moderation system correctly; that is, to make the comments with true worth stand out. Phrased differently, yours would have been left alone or maybe even elevated, but as it is, you're spouting bile.
Both are about societal command and control.
Though I did want to point out that it wasn't until almost 1900 before secret ballots were used over the entire US.
Indeed. The history of voting and ballots in the U.S. is quite interesting. Check out this article from 2008.
... of the conservatives here in WA state, some of them are afraid of being outed by their gay lovers. I mean if you give gays the right to marry, some guys are going to expect their sugar daddies to leave their wives, come out of the closet and make 'honest men' out of them.
Have gnu, will travel.
it's no one's business how I mark a ballot, nor is it anyone's business that I signed the petition.
In fact, it's everyone's business that you signed the petition... by law. That's what "public record" means. Sorry if that's inconvenient, but it's still true.
When hordes of cousins, sisters and brothers, etc, start demonstrating for the right to get married, we can worry about those questions. In the meantime, there's an entire class of unrelated people who'd like to get married, but are being prevented from doing so because certain religious groups think it's icky. I think it's rather silly to muddy the issue with a bunch of hypothetical problems that are unlikely to ever come up in the real world.
... is that you need some way of officially establishing your relationship with someone to whom you're not related by blood. Otherwise, 1) how would a hospital decide who could visit a sick person? 2) who could inherit property (without going through probate). You can probably think of other examples. I agree that most of the laws involving marriage mostly amount to cruft... but there's still some value there.
I'm 53 and my gonads have been exposed to enough environmental issues (like the daystar) that I wouldn't trust them to another roll of the dice. My wife had her tubes tied years ago, having procreated to her satisfaction.
Would you forbid us matrimony?
A few years before, I would have been in the same situation, except with a male partner.
The distinction?
Next thing you know, the story will be picked up by the Mainstream MSM Media.
include $sig;
1;
What? This isn't the state making things difficult for people, it's making things EASIER for people. Sure, you do all the legal legwork required to get contracts in place to cover all of this stuff... or you could just trot down the courthouse and get married, which takes care of all that easily and cheaply. Not to mention the fact that a lot of states now have constitutional amendments the SPECIFICALLY PROHIBIT entering into contracts that are "designed to simulate the benefits of marriage". Which was done specifically to screw with gay people.
The implications could not be clearer; While supporters of traditional marriage use legal and ethical means to promote their agenda, supporters of gay marriage use illegal and unethical means the moment it appears that doing it the legal way isn't winning support. It was all over California during the prop 8 battle, and now it's going to start in WA. I guarantee.
While the above statement is true, it is also retardedly misleading to support your agenda (read: Troll). Try something more like:
"While *most* supporters of traditional *or gay* marriage use legal and ethical means to promote their agenda, *some* supporters of either side use illegal and unethical means the moment it appears that doing it the legal way isn't winning support."
People on both sides of this argument do messed up things. This doesn't make one side right, it just makes a lot of individuals wrong. You would be *extremely* hard pressed to argue that gays haven't been on the receiving end of most of the hardship in this debate. Now, from your post later on in discussion...
So, because some OTHER people, in the past, have wrongly beaten up and attacked (or, worse, killed) some Gays, then it is OK, to do the same to OTHER completely innocent people who had nothing to do with, nor condone the violence perpetrated against some gays?
I agree with you here-- Actions of individuals should reflect on actions of the group. For example, a few folks running a name and shame campaign shouldn't necessarily reflect on the entire gay rights movement.
And lastly the sunshine on my opinions: proposition 8 (along with all anti-gay-marriage efforts) is a blatant attempt for one group of people to deny another group of people rights which they themselves enjoy for *religious* or *personal moral* reasons. I would debate against them for days but in the end concede that it is their right to keep their religious and personal moral opinions on whatever topic. However, I can not and will not concede that it is their right to deny somebody else's rights for religious reasons. I can't condone a name and shame campaign, but the individuals (and particularly politicians and organizations) involved in the anti-gay marriage campaigns have lost sight of the American ideal of liberty and should be ashamed. A gay couple getting married does nothing to impinge upon your rights or the sanctity of your own marriage. Get over it.
+1 Disagree
...I always see the best posts right after I blow all my mod points.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Because marriage has always been a man and a woman, since the dawn of time, why should it change now?
Besides if they start getting rights then everyone will want them.
Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
R-71 is an attempt to overturn SB 5688.
Just to clarify and avoid any confusion among potential Washington voters: While the petition signers wanted R-71 to be on the ballot, they are hoping for a "Reject" vote to overturn SB 5688.
Supporters of domestic partnerships should APPROVE R-71 to preserve the domestic partnership law.
This sig intentionally left bl- oh, wait.
By sense, he obviously meant "people who share my beliefs, doctrines, and religious ideology". The reasoning goes: I am smart. Smart people would never willingly believe in something that isn't true. Therefore all my beliefs are true. I believe x. Therefore x is true.
If x is true, and you don't believe x, there is something wrong with you. Therefore you lack in common sense, while I am currently swimming in it.
This is pretty universal, no matter what x is.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Then, in a free and just society, how are individual rights determined?
By the Constitution and the courts, but not by voting.
Do I have the right to set my land on fire?
The basic principle is that you can do with your property whatever you like, unless you infringe on the rights of others in doing so.
How do I determine if I do or do not?
If you really can't figure it out, ask a lawyer.
...private contracts. As an adult, you make your own decisions. As per the government and Tax BS,, every individual is the same, no advantage OR disadvantage to being in a relationship or not. As to your private business, you negotiate that with your employer, insurer, your estate advisor, whatever you want. A lot of those things can be done just with a notary for that matter, ie., cheap. If you are in a relationship covered by contract, that you are the "closest" next of kin as per a living arrangement and your self proclaimed friendship and love, because you agreed to it, the hospital (one of the examples above as being "unfair") can't deny you visitation. And so on, right down the line.
It's none of the government's business who you hang out with or sign a contract with, short of you cannot legally sign away your rights, you cannot sell yourself into bondage or slavery or any situation where you lose born with rights. Other than that, they shouldn't have any say in it whatsoever.
I see no reason to regress, we used to have discriminatory laws on the books about race, gender, etc, and right now, the marriage laws are discriminatory against *everyone*, noit just gays or plurals,, but everyone, because they are predicated on you seeking a marriage permit, the stat'es permission, to do something that is your born with right in the first place, to associate with whomever you like in your private life, and as such, all those discriminatory marriage laws should be stricken from the books. What we DON'T need is MORE discriminatory laws.
So the answer isn't more laws, it is the same as the others, remove the bogus unfair and unequal and illegal laws that are still on he books. End the discrimination. Extremely traditional hetero couples would want this as well, they shouldn't need some lame government "permission" to get married and have a loving union, that is between those people, and it can be recognized inside their own community, with whatever ritual they want.
Same with anyone else. If they want zero ceremony, just an official notification of some arrangement, again, just write up a contract with the agreed on parameters and sign the thing in front of a notary, done. If you don't want to do anything, that is your right as well, just live together or whatever. It is no one else's business ethically, so it shouldn't be any government's business either, one way or the other.
No discrimination, for or against this or that, the laws stays strictly neutral and out of your affairs. There just shouldn't be 1,000 "laws" on the books for a basic human right, freedom to be you and to associate with whomever you want in any manner you want.
All they need is one law, to right a long overdue wrong, any previous law that has the word "marriage" in it is now stricken, null and void, and it would be that simple. One sentence, clean all this up as pertains the government. You can still "marry", just the government has no say in it one way or the other, and there's no economic or tax or visitation or nuthin discrimination allowed against people then.
No, it's exactly the same. Excuse the oversimplified terms:
- A black man can marry a woman of the same race; he can not marry a woman of a different race.
- A white man can marry a woman of the same race; he can not marry a woman of a different race.
Compare:
- A homosexual man can marry a woman; he can not marry a man.
- A heterosexual man can marry a woman; he can not marry a man.
I see, so if something has been true since the dawn of time then we should not change it.
Let's apply that reasoning to other recent history societal changes. How about slavery? In 1860 I could say the same thing. Slavery has existed since the dawn of time. Why should it change now?
ImYourVirus is for slavery.
By the Constitution and the courts, but not by voting.
How is what is in the constitution determined if not by voting? The courts decide against what? The law? How is the law determined if not by voting?
The basic principle is that you can do with your property whatever you like, unless you infringe on the rights of others in doing so.
How do we know what the rights of other are if not by law, and how are those laws determined if not by voting?
Can I build a wall on my land that blocks my neighbor's view? Can I burn trash on my land that fills my neighbor's air with soot? Where are the cutoffs?
It's fine to expouse a basic tennent: but determinging which tennant will be followed, and the specifics, require a body of laws. These need to be created somehow.
It is definitional to democracy that they are created by the vote of the people.
Excpet it hasn't.
Marriage has had many, many different forms. Some societies even embraced homosexual couples.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
{you also don't havea reason *why* gay couples shouldn't be able to marry, but I guess that might tax those brain cells you're jealously guarding}
Fill it with 'super macho' fags. Recruit at the body builder gym.
Then we use if for propaganda.
No dictator's government could survive after their army got their (now reamed out) ass handed to them by the 'pink battalion'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The only unintended consequence is that some activists are unhappy that they're being associated with the movement they support.
Yes.. The "rainbow" people are unhappy that the "sunshine" laws are giving them visibility.
Would they prefer a more "cloudy" and obtuse government?
How is what is in the constitution determined if not by voting?
You seem to have slept through civics: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." These rights are unalienable and self-evident; they don't derive from voting.
How do we know what the rights of other are if not by law, and how are those laws determined if not by voting?
In the US, your rights aren't given to you by law, you are born with them. You have a right to your property and life, and your neighbor has a right to their property and their life. As long as you aren't in conflict, there is no law that can tell either of you what to do. Any law that tried to restrict your or their rights arbitrarily would likely be unconstitutional.
Can I build a wall on my land that blocks my neighbor's view? Can I burn trash on my land that fills my neighbor's air with soot? Where are the cutoffs?
The possible choices that laws and voters can make here are pretty tightly constrained by your property rights and the property rights of your neighbor.
(Maybe what's confusing you about these examples is that any of the choices is a possible choice under some circumstances; however, the choices are not arbitrary.)
It is definitional to democracy that they are created by the vote of the people.
No, it is not. Democracy means that the power of government derives from the consent of the people. It does not mean that the majority can vote on everything.
Sometimes people forge signatures. I know, hard for some of you to believe (if your that nieve). I want to be able to find out if my signature was attached to something I didn't sign. There is no reason why we can't do that now. Cut down on fraud.
You seem to have slept through civics: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." These rights are unalienable and self-evident; they don't derive from voting.
Really? I thought that the declaration of Independance was ratified by a vote of the continental congress. Actually, I'm sure of it.
In the US, your rights aren't given to you by law, you are born with them. You have a right to your property and life, and your neighbor has a right to their property and their life. As long as you aren't in conflict, there is no law that can tell either of you what to do. Any law that tried to restrict your or their rights arbitrarily would likely be unconstitutional.
Property wasn't mentioned in your quote from the Declaration of Independance. It's not mentioned until the Constution (highest *law* of the land) which was also voted on by the continental congress and then ratified (by vote) by the states.
The possible choices that laws and voters can make here are pretty tightly constrained by your property rights and the property rights of your neighbor.
Which property rights exactly? You've not cited any. I guarentee any you do cite will be bills (or ammendments) that were voted into law.
(Maybe what's confusing you about these examples is that any of the choices is a possible choice under some circumstances; however, the choices are not arbitrary.)
The problem being that I am not confused. You are simply ignoring the entire process by which US law is created.
No, it is not. Democracy means that the power of government derives from the consent of the people. It does not mean that the majority can vote on everything.
So as long as the people choose to follow their monarch, it's democracy? Of course not.
Heck, the US isn't even a democracy, it's a republic. Why? Because we don't directly vote on issues, we have representitives. (technically, it's something of a hybrid as we vote on some issues).
Disclaimer: I have not read the petition.
I am not a resident of Washington State, but I might have signed this JUST BECAUSE it deserves to be in the public consciousness, whether I was in favor or opposed.
<opinion>
I'm an evangelical Christian. I'm also a libertarian. This means that I hold personal views about behavior and morality that are different from my opinions about behavior and legality. Things I consider immoral may or may not be illegal, and the converse holds as well. But the state is about LEGALITY, not MORALITY.
I don't think the state should sponsor gay marriage, because I don't think the state should sponsor heterosexual marriage.
From the state's point of view, these should be considered as contracts between individuals, and the participants in the contract (NEITHER of whom is the state!) can call their relationship whatever they want. All the "benefits" applied to the contractual partners by the state should be applied indifferently to the gender of the participants in the contract.
</opinion>
Edit out all those Tea-Baggers out of the reports on the TEA Parties, lest they feel the wrath of those damn gay Communists.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
There is having your name on something public and then there is splashing it on the web for all to see.
I guess you could say there is sunshine laws and then supernova laws.
Sunshine is that someone could call the state and ask about petitions i have signed, supernova is that someone takes the mass of 170k names, pumps them up on the web along with my name and address along with how i hate people.
I might not even have signed the petition out of any other motive then to ensure voters get their say.
Not chasing, as in does whatever she says, has no will of his own, like a co-dependent almost if not one.
Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
How much of the point of this is to suggest that gay folk are scary and threatening, and that social conservatives are oppressed? I don't think the intimidation argument is necessarily invalid in all cases - posting the names and addresses of abortion providers does constitute a threat. I'm not saying this is a parallel, and the petition process is rather different, but it's an interesting line to work through. But. I'm from Washington State. I grew up in the queer district in Seattle. I remember an awful lot of gay bashing. Conservative bashing? Not so much. And that would be news - it's got the man bites dog thing going for it.
Which property rights exactly? You've not cited any. I guarentee any you do cite will be bills (or ammendments) that were voted into law.
Your rights to your property are not created by law, you have them. The framers were clear about this, but the 5th and 14th Amendment explicitly clarify this point. If the government takes your property, it needs to compensate you. And if the government makes laws that affect your and someone else's property or life, it needs to be fair and equitable.
You are simply ignoring the entire process by which US law is created.
Look, you can vote on a referendum and you can get laws passed. But you can do that only for laws that are actually compatible with the Constitution, otherwise SCOTUS will just strike down the law. In addition, the Constitution itself can be amended, but that can't be accomplished simply by a majority vote. And if the Constitution is changed in the wrong way, the US would simply cease to be a democracy; yes, democracies can self-destruct through voting, and they do occasionally.
Heck, the US isn't even a democracy, it's a republic. Why? Because we don't directly vote on issues, we have representitives. (technically, it's something of a hybrid as we vote on some issues).
Oh, please, don't start that tired argument again. I mean, seriously, how do you think government in Japan, France, Britain, or Germany actually works? All democracies in the world have representatives these days. US representatives actually have less power than in most other democracies, making the US one of the least "republic" democracies in the world.
Your rights to your property are not created by law, you have them. The framers were clear about this, but the 5th and 14th Amendment explicitly clarify this point.
They 5th and 14th ammendments are laws, which were passed by votes of congress and then votes in the sates.
When you cite the constitution, you cite the law.
Look, you can vote on a referendum and you can get laws passed. But you can do that only for laws that are actually compatible with the Constitution, otherwise SCOTUS will just strike down the law.
You are acting as though the Constitution isn't law. You are listing as though it were special, that laws have heiarchies. A county law would also be tossed for conflicting with a state law.
In addition, the Constitution itself can be amended, but that can't be accomplished simply by a majority vote.
So your objection is "simple majority"? It's OK, as long as it's a 2/3rds vote.
yes, democracies can self-destruct through voting
Of course they can. Simply vote away your right to vote. That would take a 2/3rd majority and radification by the states here.
Oh, please, don't start that tired argument again. I mean, seriously, how do you think government in Japan, France, Britain, or Germany actually works? All democracies in the world have representatives these days.
Your dismissal of a simple fact as "tired argument" is irellevent.
The other countries you mentioned use various parlimentary systems, where there's a head of government (a Prime Minister) and a head of state (a president or monarch). There's a parliment, which is elected by party and percentage of vote. In England there is also a house of lords, which is heriditary.
Technically, in England, the monarch appoints the PM, but functionally they always appoint candidate given by the ruling party or coalition.
From there the PM appoints a cabinet. This cabinet basically advises and tubber-stamps the PMs rulings and laws. Stuff ends up in front of parliment, but it's a very different system from ours.
For countries like Germany, where all positions are elected or appointed by elected officials; you have a republic, like to do in the US (the proper name for "Germany" is "the Federal Republic of Germany". Notice "republic" is in the name).
All democracies in the world have representatives these days. US representatives actually have less power than in most other democracies, making the US one of the least "republic" democracies in the world.
On the national level, nothing is done by referrendum or direct vote. I would say our represtitives are the most powerful. In the other countries you mentioned, the PM holds more power then the president (constitutionally) holds here.
The point is that by claiming "orientation" as a motivation, my ex-wife is able to find a community that excuses her heinous actions. And this is not rare--there are many, many cases where men and women have walked out on their spouses and children into the arms of the GLBT community, where they found AFFIRMATION for doing heinous emotional and economic damage to those left behind.
When did sexual satisfaction become more important than caring for your kids and keeping your promises?
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
They 5th and 14th ammendments are laws, which were passed by votes of congress and then votes in the sates.
No, they are not "laws" in the usual sense, they are amendments to the Constitution. There's a difference between a law and the Constitution. And the 5th and 14th amendment don't grant you those rights, they merely affirm and clarify that you already have those rights. If those amendments were repealed, you'd still have those rights and SCOTUS would still enforce those rights, since the are the underlying basis for the Constitution and assumed to be self-evident and inalienable.
You are acting as though the Constitution isn't law. You are listing as though it were special, that laws have heiarchies. A county law would also be tossed for conflicting with a state law.
The Constitution is "law" in the sense that it is legal language, but it isn't "laws" in the sense in which laws that Congress passes during its normal operation. And there is a definite hierarchy: constitutional law is much harder to change than (regular) laws. Constitutional law is also referred to as "supreme law". It overrides any laws passed by Congress.
Furthermore, when voting on constitutional law, people don't vote on their preferences, the vote on conformance with the self-evident and inalienable rights.
Of course they can. Simply vote away your right to vote. That would take a 2/3rd majority and radification by the states here.
Great that we agree on something. What that shows is that the outcome of a democratic vote is not necessarily a democracy. And just like you can turn a democracy into a non-democracy by voting away your own right to vote, you can also turn a democracy into a non-democracy by voting away the self-evident and inalienable rights of others.
Therefore, a democracy gives you the ability to vote away the rights of others, but since it ceases to be a democracy at that point, you cannot vote away the rights of others in a democracy.
Your dismissal of a simple fact as "tired argument" is irellevent.
It's relevant, because (1) it shows you're not along in making that mistake--it's a common mistake, usually linked to some political positions--and (2) you can find plenty of explanations why you're wrong.
The other countries you mentioned use various parlimentary systems, [etc]
Yes, and none of that changes the fact that the US is a representative democracy, just like all other modern democracies.
The term "republic" has two usages, one being the American one ("representative democracy") and the European one ("not a monarchy"). All modern democracies are "republics" according to either usage. And all western republics (including the US) are democracies.
They 5th and 14th ammendments are laws, which were passed by votes of congress and then votes in the sates.
No, they are not "laws" in the usual sense, they are amendments to the Constitution. There's a difference between a law and the Constitution.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land" - The US Constitution, Article VI
Bluntly, you are just inventing your own definitions of words at this point.
And the 5th and 14th amendment don't grant you those rights, they merely affirm and clarify that you already have those rights. If those amendments were repealed, you'd still have those rights and SCOTUS would still enforce those rights, since the are the underlying basis for the Constitution and assumed to be self-evident and inalienable.
How am I supposed to argue with an unevidenced hypothetical. Certainly SCOTUS did not rule granting rights in ammendments before they were passed, which would include the 14th, 19th (women's sufferage), and the 13th and 15th (barring slavery).
The Constitution is "law" in the sense that it is legal language, but it isn't "laws" in the sense in which laws that Congress passes during its normal operation.
So things passed in special session aren't "law"? Again, you are just inventing terms and distinctions that don't exist.
Furthermore, when voting on constitutional law, people don't vote on their preferences, the vote on conformance with the self-evident and inalienable rights.
Like when they voted in term limits, or voted out alcholol? Prove your claim.
And just like you can turn a democracy into a non-democracy by voting away your own right to vote, you can also turn a democracy into a non-democracy by voting away the self-evident and inalienable rights of others.
Olny if said right is a right to vote.
It's relevant, because (1) it shows you're not along in making that mistake--it's a common mistake, usually linked to some political positions--and (2) you can find plenty of explanations why you're wrong.
Not true explanations however.
Yes, and none of that changes the fact that the US is a representative democracy, just like all other modern democracies.
The term "republic" has two usages, one being the American one ("representative democracy") and the European one ("not a monarchy"). All modern democracies are "republics" according to either usage. And all western republics (including the US) are democracies.
You are inventing words.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic
"The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America) is a federal constitutional republic" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_states
There's nothing more to say other than that you're an idiot who obviously knows nothing about politics or the US political system.