If You Can't Win at the Ballot Box or Legislatively: INTIMIDATE INTIMIDATE INTIMIDATE

PittsburghAfterDark

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
Gay Marriage Advocates To Post Names On Internet

Petition Could Lead To Statewide Ban

POSTED: 7:40 am EDT September 8, 2005

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 KnowThyNeighbor.org.

"Everyone's scrambling to know who in their town would sign this," Lang told the Boston Herald. "And this Web site will give gay people the tools to know, to defend themselves and their families, to let them go neighbor-to-neighbor and say, 'I don't appreciate your signing this."'

"I'm going to be aggressive personally," he said. "I want to know that the people I do business with are not against (gay marriage). This is going to be won by economics."

Gay marriage opponent Kristian Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said the Web site is "intimidation by no other name."

Mineau is listed on the site, along with the first 30 people to sign the petition, including former Boston mayor Ray Flynn.

Westerhoff already introduced himself to one of the first petition signers, Madelyn Shields of Beverly. Shields told the Herald she found the meeting "a bit odd," but described Westerhoff as gracious. She said she hopes other exchanges between gay marriage advocates and petition signers are as gracious.

"I have a number of gay friends and I treat people the same regardless, but that does not change my position of what I believe marriage is," she said.
Link

What do you think would happen if a religous group tried to post the names and addresses of known homosexuals?

Is this what the gay lobby has come down to? Threats of intimidation? You now have to fear people will come to your home, call you or send you hate mail for a moral, religous and political belief?

Absolutely disgraceful.
 
people desperate for their rights will try desperate measures, I dont condone their actions but I can see where they are coming from
 
If there is as little support for gay marriage as PAD often claims, then it shouldn't matter. You'd essentially be outing people to a populace that agrees with those being "shamed."

Otherwise, admittedly reprehensible. I suppose that, if you were legally recognized as a second-class citizen, you'd get desperate too.
 
I think it is neither a threat or intimidation as most anti-gay people are actually pretty proud of the fact. Names aren't that big a deal but address shouldn't be posted (not everyone at the address may agree with the signee). At least they'll get a hit when they google their name. Really though, sleazy tactic.


The larger issue the the abuse of the petition process.

People use this tactic quite often and (I hate to say it) it usually pro-lifers filming/ posting pictures of license plates and anti-pornography people outside of strip clubs.




bonus points for the usual "I have several gay friends" card.

bonus bonus points for lumping to gay "activists" as the entire gay lobby. Weak sauce
 
I gotta agree that this a sleazy tactic on the activists' part, but, as usickenme said, some anti-abortion and anti-pornography groups take pictures of people at abortion clinics and porno stores. So this is just the other side using the same kind of tactic.
 
Conversely... Should you be allowed to express your opinion by voting if you're not willing to deal with the consequinces?

Annonymity is often blamed for the crudeness and rampant stupidity on the internet. Would you really call someone a stupid ass cock sucking goat raping donkey fucker if you knew they knew where you lived? If people would be held acountable for their actions, I be they'd think more about it.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']How do you know some militant gay rights activist won't do just exactly that now that they know who the "bigots" are?[/QUOTE]

No one can be sure someone won't kill hillary clinton, george bush, schwarzenegger etc., because of particular stances. But, gay rights activists aren't encouraging it by publishing hit lists and praising murderers.
 
It's a part of the political process that's why annonymity is more important. If the ballot process requires signatures to get on an electoral slate it's part of our democracy. You can't register ballot initiatives for a primary and if they pass make a final vote on the issue ensuring secret balloting.

This is half a step away from making voter choices public record.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']This is half a step away from making voter choices public record.[/QUOTE]

Is there something you're ashamed of us knowing you support/oppose?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Is there something you're ashamed of us knowing you support/oppose?[/QUOTE]

Oh come on, you can't seriously think it's ok for an ordinary persons voting history to be public knowledge, do you?
 
BUnch of gay activists making names of petition-signers public doesn't exactly sound like the first step to your vote choices being made public. Not even the government knows that.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Oh come on, you can't seriously think it's ok for an ordinary persons voting history to be public knowledge, do you?[/QUOTE]

You don't seem to be sarcastic. I don't think it's a pressing issue, necessarily, but I don't see what the problem would be with it.
 
>>you can't seriously think it's ok for an ordinary persons voting history to be public knowledge, do you?

Id be ashamed if I were a Bush voter and others found out.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You don't seem to be sarcastic. I don't think it's a pressing issue, necessarily, but I don't see what the problem would be with it.[/QUOTE]

I'm 100% serious. I don't have an issue with a petition list being posted, IF it is accessable to the public anyway (which I assume this is). But, voting is supposed to be private, so people are not intimidated, threatened, or, for some other reason, feel they need to change their vote out of fear.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I'm 100% serious. I don't have an issue with a petition list being posted, IF it is accessable to the public anyway (which I assume this is). But, voting is supposed to be private, so people are not intimidated, threatened, or, for some other reason, feel they need to change their vote out of fear.[/QUOTE]

Myke hasn't thought this one through. Here's an example he can relate to. What if you worked for the government and you didn't vote for Bush? Would you want your voting record made public? Of course that's a mild example. More serious things would be threats of physical harm for voting a certain way.
 
Yeah it blows.

It also blows when holy leaders tell their sheep to vote a certain way, but noone minds that. And certain mainstream religions get federal protection from taxation - so it's a hand-in-hand relationship. That's the real scary stuff - not this fringe activist tripe that won't get any attention beyond Rush L and the dittoheads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top