Judge shields signatures in gay rights referendum

[WillParkinson]

Judge shields signatures in gay rights referendum
By The Associated Press
09.11.2009 8:54am EDT

(Olympia, Wash.) A federal judge on Thursday ordered the state of Washington to keep shielding the identities of people who signed petitions to force a vote on expanded benefits for gay couples.

U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle in Tacoma granted the preliminary injunction involving petitions for Referendum 71 while a related case moves forward on the constitutionality of the state public records act.

The referendum, sponsored by a group called Protect Marriage Washington, asks voters to approve or reject the “everything but marriage” domestic partnership law that state lawmakers passed earlier this year.

In his ruling, Settle said he was “not persuaded that waiver of one’s fundamental right to anonymous political speech is a prerequisite for participation in Washington’s referendum process.”

Brian Zylstra, spokesman for Secretary of State Sam Reed, said that the judge’s decision “is a step away from open government.”

http://www.365gay.com/news/judge-shields-signatures-in-gay-rights-referendum/

[Boojatta]

1. Activist judges are again at work while we the people...

pay them to do their real job, the job that they refuse to do. Their job isn't to defend so-called "rights." Their job is to assist people who have power and/or money.

:sarcasm:

[HillbillyBob]

2. Its ok for those b--tards to push hate agenda that denies us rights,

but its their right to hide their names on a public document.

I guess they don't realize or maybe they do that we some times get fed up and sick drag queens on them...and thems some scary beatches!

[Boojatta]

3. Is it safe to judge the constitutionality issue based on tactical complications of one case?

Unless I'm mistaken, the facts behind this story are more complicated than they might appear on first reading. Also, the way the story is worded is itself potentially problematic.

A federal judge on Thursday ordered the state of Washington to keep shielding the identities of people who signed petitions to force a vote on expanded benefits for gay couples.

Is that completely accurate? Are we talking about "benefits" or are we talking about getting closer to providing equal protection for and respecting the equal rights of same-sex couples?

U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle in Tacoma granted the preliminary injunction involving petitions for Referendum 71 while a related case moves forward on the constitutionality of the state public records act.

The referendum, sponsored by a group called Protect Marriage Washington, asks voters to approve or reject the “everything but marriage” domestic partnership law that state lawmakers passed earlier this year.

The injunction was to prevent disclosure of names, but the story says that the referendum is "sponsored by a group called Protect Marriage Washington", which sounds suspiciously like a group against equal protection and in favor of maintaining the legal status quo, regardless of fundamental rights.

However, if the petitions were to trigger a referendum on "expanded benefits for gay couples" (again, we need to ask whether we're talking about benefits or rights), then it would seem that the group is providing an opportunity for citizens to vote for what the group itself presumably opposes.

If you believe that legitimate government authority is derived from the consent of the governed, then it's not clear that there's anything categorically wrong with a referendum, or any reason to punish members of the group by disclosing information that they would prefer to keep undisclosed. After all, they aren't accused of a criminal offense.

This seems to be a matter of timing. The group expects that a referendum conducted some time soon will fail, and expects the status quo to be maintained. However, the group might be disappointed.