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?"
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.
What a load of utter bullshit. I'm sorry but rarely have I ever heard such a fountain of total nonsense spew forth, here or elsewhere on the internet (with the possible exception of /b/).
False equivalence. One is a conscious, sentient adult, the other is an animal. Or an inanimate object. You're an idiot.
So if skin colour was a choice you'd be happy to discriminate? Gotcha. You're a hateful, dumb, bigot.
Totally irrelevant. If it's a choice it's their choice, not yours, and doesn't affect you in any way.
Nobody's asking for special treatment, they're asking for equal treatment, and you're clutching at straws to try and deny it.
Where to begin?
Liberal used as an invective (sure sign of an underdeveloped brain), non-sequiturs galore and yet more crap.
Why is sexual preference linked to responsibility? What is irresponsible about homosexuality? And I'm not inviting you to spew more stereotypical nonsense about promiscuity here, what is irresponsible about the fact of homosexuality itself?
Basically, you're wrong and pretty dumb. Or a troll, I'm not sure which.
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 following that logic inter-racial marriage wasn't discrimination either. Blacks weren't allowed to marry outside their race, but then nether were whites.
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
this is not an unintended consequence.
Petitions have always been public, and sunshine laws let the public see public records.
The only unintended consequence is that some activists are unhappy that they're being associated with the movement they support.
>>>some activists are unhappy that they're being associated with the movement they support.
Wow.
Terrible.
The horror.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
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 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.
Yes, because historically we've had mobs of gay rights activists who have rioted, killed, and otherwise physically assaulted and intimidated straight folk. That's what "gay rage" means, right? ...
What? You mean it doesn't?