U.S. Supreme Court Slams Washington State R-71 Christianist 8 to 1

While in my legal opinion all of the legal reasoning and ideals of transparency and basic principles of democracy argued for a ruling against the Christian Taliban organization, Protect Marriage Washington, given some of the conservatives on the Supreme Court, I nonetheless worried about the outcome in Doe v. Reed. Fortunately, my fears were unfounded and eight out of the nine justices ruled against the secrecy and conspiracy sought by Protect Marriage Washington. Leave it to Christianist tool Clarence Thomas, whose own marriage would still be illegal if his Christianist "friends" had their way, to be the lone dissenting opinion. Obviously, this ruling is a major blow to the anti-gay religious fanatics who want to take away the civil rights of those who fail to conform to their hate centered religious beliefs - all the while remaining safely anonymous. Just like Klan members hidden under their white robes and masks. The Seattle Post-Inteligencer has coverage on this very positive ruling. Here are some highlights:
*
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the names of people who signed petitions in an attempt to overturn a new gay rights law in Washington could be made public, a victory for state officials who said the case was a test of open government laws.
*
Justices ruled 8-1 in a case called Doe V. Reed. Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented. They heard oral arguments in Washington, D.C., April 28. The ruling dealt broadly with claims by foes of the new gay rights law that disclosing their names would violate their First Amendment rights.
*
Washington state officials praised the decision. "This is a good day for transparency and accountability in elections--not just in Washington but across our country," Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna said. "We're pleased the Supreme Court ruled in favor of disclosure, upholding the public's right to double-check the work of signature gatherers and government -- and giving them the ability to learn which voters are directing the state to hold an election on a new law. Citizen legislating is too important to be conducted in secret."
*
Protect Marriage Washington asked justices to shield the names of the 138,000 people who signed R-71 petitions in hopes of overturning the "everything but marriage" same-sex domestic partner law. In November Washington voters upheld the new statute. Gay rights groups have said they'll post the petition signers' names online, and some fear harassment or threats if their names are revealed.
*
State officials had said there are laws in place to protect people who might be threatened. When people sign petitions or referendums they are acting as legislators, McKenna said, because they are trying to enact or change laws.*
*
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said it is vitally important that states be able to ensure that signatures on referendum petitions are authentic.

"Public disclosure thus helps ensure that the only signatures counted are those that should be, and that the only referenda placed on the ballot are those that garner enough valid signatures," Roberts said. "Public disclosure also promotes transparency and accountability in the electoral process to an extent other measures cannot."
*
In addition to the positive ruling, the case also has the side benefit of diverting funds that might otherwise be spent disseminating anti-gay hatred to attorneys fees.