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?"
I think you have a ways to go though before intimidation or especially violenc gets called up for use. I don't think we've quite reached that level.
Personally I think I have great way to solve this problem; eliminate completely the concept of legal marriage. Its not needed, and the issue is causing us to waste time better spent on other work. Make it a purely religous or spiritial cermemony, that means nothing legally.
Personally I think I have great way to solve this problem; eliminate completely the concept of legal marriage. Its not needed, and the issue is causing us to waste time better spent on other work. Make it a purely religous or spiritial cermemony, that means nothing legally.
That would be the ideal, but that would defeat the reason gays want marriage in the first place. If all they were looking for was a symbolic ceremony of their life together, they'd just go down to their local Unitarian Universalist building and get married. They want marriage specifically for the legal protections: so they can force employers to provide health insurance, get estate rights when their partners die, tax breaks, etc. Of course, there's no reason why much of this couldn't be done on a contractual basis in the absence of legal marriage, but the state always finds a way to mess things up and make things difficult for people.
I'm sure that I will be modded down because it will perceived it as an anti-homosexual comment, but it's not. I believe in the equality before the law for all people, I simply don't think we should have the laws that make this a battle in the first place.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
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.
The problem isn't discrimination against gays, it's discrimination against single people whether gay or straight. As a divorced straight guy I face the same discrimination as any gay.
Why is discrimination based on marital status legal? It's not only legal, it's institutionalized; married paople pay fewer taxes. Take away discrimination against singles and the problem of "gay marriage" goes away completely.
Why should government have anything to do with marriage? Isn't marriage a religion thing? Doesn't the Constitution protect both religion and its absense? Government should have nothing to do with marriage. I should not need a license, for instance.
Free Martian Whores!
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
Just because they don't want their names to be seen does not mean that they are ashamed.
Perhaps they're afraid of what might happen to them personally if their name is found.
For example, if a southerner had signed a petition favoring the right of black people to vote, they would damn well hope that it was anonymous. Not out of embarrassment, but out of personal safety.
Anonymity is the better option in these situations, since it provides an accurate count of how many people actually agree with the cause, not the number of people who will openly admit to it.
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.
Sorry, you're way off base. A petition is NOT an attempt to influence a legislator. A petition is a CALL FOR A VOTE. Once the issue is on the ballot, then EVERYONE GETS A VOTE. The legislators don't get a say, as legislators - they only get one vote, the same as every other citizen who exercises their right to vote.
You are obviously confusing a lobbyist with a citizen who signs a petition. Lobbying efforts aren't even transparent (despite laws to the contrary) so why should a petition be any more transparent?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Show me where in the New Testament homosexuality, including lesbianism, is forbidden. I'll wait while you look that up. I'll want a passage that restricts all forms of homosexuality, not just certain types of sexual practices. Otherwise, we'll need to make some exceptions.
You do understand that people have differences of opinion over what scripture means, right? Luther thought one thing, the Pope thought something else. Who decides who is right? Last I checked, God doesn't seem interested in making those calls, so it is up to fallible human beings to make the decisions as to the correct interpretation of scripture.
I already mentioned religions that approve of gay marriage. I assume you would be fine with religions that approve of it performing it and calling it 'marriage.' If not, please explain why fundamentalist Muslims should not be allowed to tell you that your wife needs to wear a bhurka at her marriage. Either you want to dictate what other religions consider marriage, or you don't, and if you do want that, it can work against you far easier than it can work for you.
I can't 'show you the rights that would be lost' because very few states even have domestic partnership laws. Those that do, do not confer all of the rights of marriage. As far as I'm concerned, the major right that is lost is the right to practice your own religion. If you say that NO RELIGION can practice gay marriage, no matter what their beliefs, you are limiting my religious freedom and infringing on my rights.
You may change your stance now, thank you very much.
Freedom of religion is enshrined in the Constitution. My religion recognizes gay marriage. You have no right to limit my practice of religion, according to the Constitution, and my religion practices gay marriage, and calls it marriage. You have no right to limit my freedom of religion, get it? And you have no right to say what is and what is not a legitimate religion, says so in the Constitution.
I'll be awaiting your change of stance with bated breath.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton