Gay Marriage Advocates To Post Names On Internet

[ruggerson]

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/4947655/detail.html

<snip>

Gay Marriage Advocates To Post Names On Internet
Petition Could Lead To Statewide Ban

BOSTON -- Two gay activists are promising to post on the Internet the
names and addresses of anyone who signs a petition that could lead to a statewide ban on gay marriage.

The move by Thomas Lang and Alexander Westerhoff, one of the first gay couples married in the state, came after state Attorney General Thomas Reilly on Wednesday certified a ballot question that bans gay marriage and civil unions.

Now, the question's supporters must collect 65,825 signatures from
registered voters, and approval from 25 percent of state lawmakers to
get the question on the 2008 ballot.

Lang, 42, said the name, street address, hometown and ZIP code of
everyone who signs the petition will be posted on the Web site
www.KnowThyNeighbor.org.

<snip>

[mike_c]

1. oh that's a good one....

They need to make sure that information is well destributed, so that every time some bigot thinks about signing the petition, he or she KNOWS in advance that their names will be posted publicly. Petitions are public documents.

[SmokingJacket]

2. Er, questionable tactics.

I am a tremendous advocate for gay marriage, but I think frightening people out of signing a petition is wrong.

Though it is a matter of public record... hmmmm...

[ToolTex]

3. Why should we not provide a chilling effect on hate mongers

and their supporters? They certainly try to intimidate and control us.

[Kelvin Mace]

12. Using the same tactics as your enemies

lowers you to their level.

[iverglas]

13. same tactics?

When was the last time an anti-gay bigot got bashed for being what s/he is?

What exactly would anyone whose name was on that list have to fear?

Social disapproval ... gosh, what outrageous persecution.

Right, okay, there might be some loon somewhere who would use the list to shop for a victim for some reason, and yes, there's a glimmer of a legitimate concern there. Probably enough of a glimmer that decent people should object.

Still, "same tactics" it really ain't.

[Kelvin Mace]

19. That is the implied threat

You and I know that they are much less likely to be attacked by us, they us by them, but it is still an implied threat of violence.

[iverglas]

24. maybe so ...

I don't think there is necessarily an implied threat.

But I don't think there needs to be, for us decent people to object, no matter how much we have to hold our nose to do it.

The people who print such lists could have no intention at all of making a threat, and mean only to expose the signers for what they are for everyone to point fingers rather than throw rocks at. Nothing wrong with threatening to publicize someone's bigoted actions.

But their acts could facilitate rock-throwing by someone else, and that would be wrong, even if it were their right to do it and they didn't intend to do it.

Wienies, aren't we?

[mondo joe]

14. Fuck levels. I'm interested in WINNING.

And trying to be the nice guy has gotten us fucked in the last few elections.

[Kelvin Mace]

18. I don't have to to blacken my soul in order to win

You can be tough and still fight fair. Once you cross the line and join the dark side, you've lost.

[mondo joe]

25. I don't think honesty is not fair.

[drduffy]

26. in the end

it will be internecine war. You don't win war by being nice and honorable. That's for the movies and grade school. In the end it will come down to them trying to kill us if we do not fall into lockstep. In the end we will have to fight. I really have come to the bleak realization that our country and the world are moving inexorably to that end. And if I am still alive at that point (I am old but not that old) I will fight any which way I can to prevent bigotry, corporatism, fascism and the neocons from controlling the world. And to protect my family and justice in the world.

sorry.... i am feeling very bleak tonight. But bleak doesn't mean 'wrong'.

[Vickers]

46. "I don't have to to blacken my soul"

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:











Oh, you were serious....sorry.

[Seeking Serenity]

50. Amen. n/t

[Tesha]

40. "Losing", of course, can lower you six feet under.

Sometimes it might be better to adopt their tactics and win than
to continue to maintain "the moral high ground" and lose every time.

Tesha

[Book Lover]

59. That is a trite saying and a naive position

These people (the anti-recognition haters) are organized better than we are and have been winning the game. It is high time we strike back, and I for one applaud the gentlemen who started knowthyneighbor. They will strike winning blows. What would *you* do to win this fight?

[funflower]

36. Welcome to DU, ToolTex!

:bounce:

[ret5hd]

4. if they are not proud of their position...

why would they sign it?

hell, they oughta carry a sign that says they signed it. REALLY show the world where they stand.

[SmokingJacket]

5. Okay... actually, I've changed my mind.

If you're ashamed of a position you hold or are actually afraid you'll be targeted for that belief... well, too bad. You don't get to have it, in that case.

In a normal world, I'd say that intimidating tactics are wrong... but this is NOT a normal world anymore, dammit...

[NuttyFluffers]

34. thank you. logic. bless you!

sometimes we need clarity to see through veiled hypocrisy.

and now, may the secular auto de fey begin! :evilgrin:

[SemperEadem]

6. exactly.. it's a matter of public record

so let's have everyone see where they stand on this discriminatory issue. What's wrong with standing in their truth? Why hide?

Gay marriage in no way impacts marriages of heterosexuals. This is a matter of fundamental homophobes inventing yet another attack so they can pimp a non-exsistent victimhood.

[bemildred]

7. It's great tactics. It's public business. nt

[Tesha]

9. It's long past time to worry about niceties...

It's long past time to worry about niceties when dealing with
neocon scum who would deny *ANYONE* basic human rights.

Tesha

[Maven]

27. The attack they're perpetrating on people like me

is very personal. They're attacking people's personal lives, their homes, their most intimate relationships. Their relationships with their children, for God's sake.

Why should they be able to do so anonymously?

[davidinalameda]

8. if they sign the petition, why not publish their names

they want to take away people's civil rights, they should do so in the full light of the day

instead of the darkness like the cockroaches they are

[The Animator]

10. Even better,

Sell their information to professional spammers, and sign them up for every embarrassing junk mail catalogue in the world.

I'm sure stores that sell gay porn and "toys" have catalogues.
Recruitment flyers for the Klan, American Nazi's, Al Queda, and Amway.

I'm also sure their wives would be very interested to know why thier husbands are getting information packets about mail order sex slaves.

Damn I love being evil.

[Kelvin Mace]

11. If this tactic were being used against us

we would be outraged.

[karlrschneider]

15. You never heard about names & address of doctors published?

:eyes:

[Kelvin Mace]

21. Yes, I did. And I objected

to it then for the very reason that it is an intimidation tactic. Why would we want to copy such a tactic.

Some folks are making the argument that we must win at all costs, which is EXACTLY what we criticize the opposition for. When you set aside what you know is right in order to win, you have lost.

[Occulus]

41. Um. Nope, wrong.

They want to split apart our families. We just want to have one.

They want to deny us housing. We just want roofs over our heads.

They want to be able to fire us from our jobs. We just want to work hard.

They want to keep us from being teachers, and doctors, and mentors. We want to better the world through those acts.

They want to kill us. We want to live, and let live.

I could go on and on and on. There does indeed come a point when one must ask, "does this perpetually kicked dog now have the right to bite?"

[mondo joe]

16. It's well past time for us to come up with the tactics FIRST.

nd we don't have the luxury of being nice.

[Kelvin Mace]

20. Again, I am NOT advocating

being nice, just ethical.

[Robb]

38. I don't see anything unethical about it

Not unlike a court report or a police blotter, a bored enough newspaper could publish the same list. It would fall under the editor's scalpel of "does it serve the reader?"

It would serve a reader to know where, say, a business owner or civic leader stood on a position like this.

[Occulus]

42. Especialy if they wind up working for one.

I personally would be very interested in knowing my small-business boss signed such a petition. Knowing thus would very likely help me keep my job.

[ruggerson]

44. First of all

it has been used against us.

And secondly, if it's ok to publicly list sex offenders, why not bigots?

[Seeking Serenity]

45. And abortion providers? n/t

[ruggerson]

47. That's what I was referring to

when I said it has been used against us. The rightwingers perfected this tactic. So what's the problem with us using it?

[Seeking Serenity]

49. Did you approve of it then?

How can one's brain stand the cognitive dissonance: "I hate it when it used against my team" "I love it when my team uses it."

No thank you.

[ruggerson]

51. I hate Lee Atwater, Karl Rove style political tactics

Would I encourage the Democrats to use them and use them so viciously that the rightwingers would never know what hit them?

You bet I would.

[Seeking Serenity]

52. Like I said,

the coginitive dissonance would dive me batty.

Gandhi, Christ, MLK never lowered themselves to their enemies tactics. I'll cast my lot with them.

[IndyJones]

60. True - I think it will backfire.

[IndyJones]

61. This is the very type of tactic that will turn people away from dems.

[jkappy]

17. MA. yes.

It should be very effective in a very liberal state like MA.

I might think twice if it were most any but a few states, however.

[redtapeblues]

22. 65,825 Names & Addresses...

Well, at least text is bandwidth friendly.

[420inTN]

23. Drag these hate-mongerers out of the closet! n/t

[Seeking Serenity]

29. Maybe the signers aren't all hatemongers.

I have a tendency to sign just about any petition for a ballot initiative, whether I agree with the proposition or not.

I have this thing about small-d democracy and allowing people to vote on things. I just rely on the folks to make the right decisions.

[closeupready]

33. But tyrannies of the majority often do NOT make the right decision...

that's what the Bill of Rights is all about, what it recognizes, that direct popular democracy often oppresses minorities and strips them of their rights. Mob rule.

[NuttyFluffers]

35. thank you. it's why we are a democratic republic.

democracy was not favored by aristotle, he looked at it quite jadedly. i'm a little kinder, but i know that any good thing needs to be in a controlled system, hence democratic republic. too bad political parties and political candidate advertising weren't explicitly banned in the constitution...

[Seeking Serenity]

37. If it violates the Constitution,

then it'll get struck down anyway. I say, let 'em vote.

[420inTN]

39. That's what is called "democracy" n/t

[Baconfoot]

54. That's not the point.The point is - signing does not NEC. indicate bigotry

It might merely be an indication that the person wants the initiative on the ballot.

[ruggerson]

55. So if someone circulates a petition to invalidate all interracial marriage

there might be people who sign it just because they want to see it on the ballot to have it voted on?

If someone circulates a petition to reinstate slavery, there are democratic minded people who will say "hey, I don't like slavery, but it should be voted on"?

I don't buy it.

You sign it, you own it.

[Baconfoot]

56. What exactly is it that you don't buy?

Is it that you don't buy that people DO sign petitions just so that things can be voted on?
If this is you what mean then you are simply mistaken.

But I think you probably mean that they SHOULDN'T sign a petition just so that an issue can be voted on.
In that case, you should still see the difference between their making that MISTAKE, the mistake of unwisely signing ballot initiatives, and their being a bigot.

Often times too, when people go around collecting signatures for ballot initiatives they STRESS the point that the person signing is technically only agreeing that the initiative/proposition/whatever should appear on the ballot and not agreeing to the initiative itself. Faced with such a pitch, even someone who doesn't always sign ballot initiatives might say "ok fine... let the voters decide." or even "You will see that the voters, myself the ballot initiative signer included, widely disagree with your crazy agenda. I think you need to see that this state is against this crazy idea."

The question is whether SUCH people (and people will sign any initiative) deserve to be harassed and called bigots.

They don't.

[ruggerson]

58. I think if you put your name and address and signature

on something, you damn well should know what you're signing. And if you don't, and your stupidity leads to your name being published on a website, then you may think twice before signing a petition without understanding its ramifications.

That said, I would guess that the overwhelming majority of people who sign this understand fully well what they're signing and the people in their neighborhoods deserve to know if a bigot is living next door to them or near their children.

[geniph]

28. The anti-gay bigots

for the most part, claim to be proud of their homophobia. So, hey, if you're a hater and proud, stand tall and claim your place on the list! I don't see that publishing PUBLIC information about signatories is in any way questionable. If you believe in an initiative, you shouldn't be ashamed to have your name associated with it.

[Stinky The Clown]

30. Good. Damned Good. Glad to see someone doing something like this

I suppose I could be all sanctimoniuos and shit .... but I will stop myself. Whatever it takes, so long as its legal.

[Bill McBlueState]

31. There are thirty names there already.

Nice.

[JackieO]

32. I like how the site has an easy way for people to remove their names

http://www.knowthyneighbor.org/remove.html

[Bill McBlueState]

43. actually, it's not that easy!

You'll notice that the button they click is to contact the Secretary of the Commonwealth. So they have to legally attest that they didn't sign the petition, or that they were misled into signing it.

There's no option for, "I'm a bigot, but I don't want people to know about it."

That's the way it should be. If you sign an initiative petition, it's public record.

[Vickers]

48. Bwahahahaha, the "Morans" signed it!

:rofl:

[Baconfoot]

53. In CA,signing a petition does not indicate that one is FOR the proposal

It only indicates you want it on the ballot.
Many people, rightly or wrongly, will sign any of these petitions that come their way, reasoning that the voice of the citizens should be HEARD on the issue.

I don't know if MA is like CA but if it is, then publishing the names is not only in poor taste, it will likely result in the harassment of people who are opposed to the proposition.

As far as I'm concerned at this point, signing these proposition petitions just makes more work for me as an active democrat. But many people, decent concerned citizens, WOULD sign petitions just to get measures (even ones to which they are opposed) on the ballot.

[ticapnews]

57. Try googling some of those names...

Some interesting results.
A few samples.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Kristian+M.+Mineau%22
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Philip+D.+Moran%22
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Carole+A.+Moran%22
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Ronald+L.+Barndt%22

Ironic that a woman who runs a company catering weddings would want to limit her own business...

Not surprising to see a lawyer who defends pedophile priests though.