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?"
Please sign the petition here...
And please also fill up this form with your name in capital letters, your social security number, your date of birth and your bank account number for our records so we can demonstrate the number of people having signed our petition is real.
Thanks for supporting our cause.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
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. 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.
This is just another step down that path.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
There is also no legal reason he has to perform ANY marriage. Ever.
He may be a racist bigot, but at least he stands on his own principles.
To bring this more on-topic: if I were a JotP, I would refuse to perform marriages for gay couples. I don't believe the State need recognize any rights for a union that cannot create a biological family, even in theory. (I know that not all heterosexual couples can or even want to have children, but the law is not about individual cases.)
Really?
Apparently you missed the "prop 8" debacle in California. Sunshine laws were used to create maps to the HOMES of people who donated to support prop 8.
That's not intimidation?
Or how about when Vandals sprayed anti-prop 8 graffiti on a church in San Fran?
That's not intimidation?
Or how about the tragic story of El Coyote restaurant? and what has happened to the elderly owner because she was following her beliefs. THAT IS NOT INTIMIDATION????
Or what happened to a group of Christians who were following their beliefs and went out, in kindness of spirit, to PRAY for the Gay community. They were surrounded by an angry mob, had DEATH THREATS hurled against them and were ASSAULTED. That is not Intimidation? That is not VIOLENCE?
Come on. Where have you been?
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.
P.S. To mods: Negative mod points do not equal "I disagree with you". If you disagree, have the courage to log in and post. You demand sunshine on votes and political support, it's only consistent to shed sunshine on your opinions. Show courage, be consistent.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
The ability for two people of the same sex to marry has never been recognized as a natural right. It's just that simple, and your rhetoric doesn't change that. Of course, in the USA (unlike in the UK) we recognize that the rights not held by the federal government belong to the States or the people.* That's why an amendment would have to be made to the US Constitution to define marriage. As it is, right now that definition is made at the state and local levels. We may be a republic and not a direct democracy (fortunately), but yes, here we believe in having occasional referendums on things that ordinary people might be concerned about rather than ridiculing, abusing, or imprisoning them for having an unpopular view. And no, we don't include the world in our decisions. How does it harm you who is married here? I don't care much for the neofascist thinking that demands we kow-tow to a One World Government.
* Of course, the progressives disagree and think it's the other way around.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
How can something be taken away which really hasn't existed historically? I can use a similar argument: "Let's take away your ability to fly by flapping your arms..."
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.
From my point of view, the state/government should get out of the "marriage" business all together. It should be a religious state. Just have civil contracts to define "partners" rights.
When a law is passed, as happened in WA, suddenly a state exists which previously did not. That, by the magical thing called 'time' becomes 'history' whereupon another effort to rescind that state would logically be considered 'taking it away'. Same thing in CA.
If that stupidity wasn't enough, the next guy to use the symantic asshattery of 'gay people can heterosexually marry anybody they want' gets punched right in the mean bean machine.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Food laws were explicitly repealed in the new testament. The prohibition on homosexuality, however, was reiterated in the new testament.
The system of punishments which includes stoning for not honoring the sabbath was specifically given to Israel. While there are a few who do, the vast, vast majority of Christians do not consider this system of punishments to be a universal template for all human government. Or that it was ever intended to be used as such.
Because marriage is a religious ceremony. If you were "married" before a judge, you had a civil union, stop trying to hijack a ceremony if you don't believe in the religion and there won't be problems with it.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
You said something somebody didn't have couldn't be taken away, no antecedent explicitly stated. In the context of natural rights, that's debatable, in the context of legal rihgts, it's a mistake or a lie.
And rather than address my points, you address my manner. Believe me, I know and consciously choose when to lower myself to an ad hominem level and accept all responsibility for it, but you ARE illogical, and I have yet to see any argument constructed by you in your defense. Believe me, I'm waiting for all the tired old bullshit about how gay marriage isn't a natural right but straight marriage is (and if they're both not, then only the legal remains, making the 'taken away' point moot and sealed).
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
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.
Gays have the exact same right to Marriage that straight couples have. I as a straight man can marry a woman. If I were a gay man I could still marry a woman. No discrimination here. All people are indeed treated equally. STFU.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
gay people can heterosexually marry anybody they want
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/reader_feedback/public/display.php?thread=198053&offset=0&column=create_date&direction=DESC
Join the discussion. Refute the arguments.
Name and shame? I'm quite proud that I oppose the gay agenda. Peter puffing ain't American. And, I'll thank you to stop comparing queer to being black, or Baptist, or Catholic, or male or female, or whatever else.
A "lifestyle" is not an inherited condition of your being.
"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
Oh, right, thanks for reminding me of all the liberal violence out there. Anti-gay activists are being lynched and beaten all the time, just like integrationists in the segregated South. Good job there.
Tom Geller
Good call....because...you know....disease isn't rampant throughout the gay population. *cough*AIDS*cough*
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Imagine I tell my young children to stay out of my toolbox. Then they get several years older, and I tell them "you can use my toolbox responsibly". By your logic, I've contradicted myself; in reality, I've merely changed the rules because the circumstances have changed.
So you're saying that the Old Testament only applies to children, and the New Testament applies to adults?
Or are you saying that prior to 2000 years ago, the world was entirely populated by toddlers? If that was true, how exactly did they procreate if they hadn't hit puberty?
Parents do it all the time - why is it perfectly logical for parents to do it, but it's somehow completely illogical for God to do it?
Please show the part of the Old Testament that states "the rules will change once you're old enough". Please show how your absurd analogy is in any way true.
I you vote to restrict your neighbors doing something harmless, I'm not sure they shouldn't get to burn your house down...
Why is telling people who they can "marry" your right? Should I tell you that you can't watch TV simply because I find it mind-numbing?
Vote *only* on things that directly impact you.
I you vote to restrict your neighbors doing something harmless, I'm not sure they shouldn't get to burn your house down...
This is why we don't let Libertarians run rampant. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with a law, the fact that it restricts something you consider to be harmless (though it doesn't seem to run afoul of constitutional rights -- ie, it's a valid,legal law) does not give you any sort of right (legal, moral or otherwise) to burn someone else's house down.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
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?
Example: ACORN's collecting of signatures for petitions..... which were later discovered to be filled with lots of non-existent persons. If the petition had been kept secret we'd have never known about those fake names, but thanks to public disclosure we caught the organization red-handed.
Aside -
ACORN will be eligible for U.S. government funding again on November 1st. Apparently you ca do illegal things like advise prostitutes how to setup illegal businesses, and lie on IRS tax returns, and not have any real consequences. :-(
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall