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?"

Comments

Re:No one should have expected

[d3ac0n]

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.

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.

Re:Political correctness assaulting opposers

[buddyglass]

Food laws were explicitly repealed in the new testament.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.

Re:Turn the tables

[ElectricTurtle]

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).

Re:The Law of Unintended Consequences

[WNight]

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.