I am not one who is afraid to say what I think and publicly put myself out in support or opposition of matters about which I believe passionately. Some, however, are cowards and prefer to work against others and figuratively stab them in the back while safely remaining anonymous - or at least hoping to stay anonymous. Such is the case of the anti-gay Christo-fascists in Washington State who signed petitions to set the stage for the potential extinguishment of civil rights for same sex couples but who now don't want the world to see their handiwork and know that they are bigots. I n short, they are the worse kind of gutless cowards. One of the supposed keystones to America's legal system is that one have the right to know the name of your accuser and to have the ability to cross examine them. In the context of ballot initiatives, the Christianists want to do their dirty work unseen and without any accountability. It's not right and one could even argue that it's un-American. The New York Times looks at the legal efforts of those in Washington State who seek to undo the rights of other citizens, but lack the balls and decency to be identified. Here are some story highlights:*
At a time when voters in many states are using petitions to qualify ballot measures on issues from gay rights to property rights, a legal dispute over the identity of 138,000 petition signers here is raising new questions about privacy, free speech and elections in the Internet age.
*
On Tuesday, voters in Washington State will decide whether to extend to registered domestic partners the same rights married couples have, short of marriage. But the campaign over the referendum, placed on the ballot by opponents of same-sex marriage, has been overshadowed by one issue: whether the individual names of the petitioners should be made public, and ultimately, circulated on the Web.
*
The case, legal experts say, could chart new territory well beyond Washington State. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had ordered the release of the signatures, said the case presented “novel questions of whether referendum petition signatures are protected speech under the First Amendment.”
*
Some advocates for releasing the names who support the expansion of the state’s domestic partnership rights say they want to post the names of petition signers as a check against fraud but also to encourage potentially “uncomfortable” conversations with the people who signed the petitions.
*
Signing a petition, these groups say, can be a step toward making law, and in fact, many ballot measures are intended to bypass or override the legislative process. That argument echoes one made by the Washington secretary of state’s office, which was barred by the courts from releasing the names even though the state’s public records law does not exempt the signatures from release; the office has released names of petition signers on other ballot measures in the past. “Our disclosure law demands that we know who’s influencing the legislative process,” said David Ammons, a spokesman for Secretary of State Sam Reed, a Republican.
*
Opponents of releasing the names, led by Protect Marriage Washington, the group behind the referendum, say gay rights groups are threatening free speech by intimidating petition signers.
*
The names need to be released and if the anti gay Chritianists are too cowardly to have their names disclosed, then maybe they need to rethink what they are doing. Their lack of courage of their convictions is telling.
No comments:
Post a Comment