Watch What You Sign
by Matt Kaufman on 11/02/2009 at 1:12 PM
Say that you sign a petition to put a controversial issue on an election ballot -- the sort that inflames passions and provokes reactions from the rage-filled fringe. How would you like it if your name had to be splashed onto the Internet for anyone and everyone to see?
That's what will happen if some gay activists get their way, The New York Times reports.
The case in question comes in Washington State, where opponents of "domestic partner" laws gathered 138,000 signatures to put such laws on the ballot for Tuesday's elections. Some gay groups want courts to order all those names to be published online. And some of them semi-candidly say that the purpose is to force signers into "uncomfortable" conversations, to "shame" them.
I say "semi-candidly" because if they were really candid, they'd use the word that fits best: intimidation.
Lots of Californians who supported last year's Proposition 8, which affirmed marriage as a union between one man and one woman, can tell you all about intimidation. Widespread harassment has been amply documented. Now just imagine what would happen if anyone who so much as signed a petition could be a target of any angry person with a search engine. How many people would risk signing then?
Right.
It's tragically ironic that gays -- who so long have complained (often with good reason) of being victims of intimidation, living in fear, feeling forced into the closet -- should now seek to use it as a weapon themselves against those who hold to dissenting viewpoints on the issue of homosexuality in our culture. If anyone should understand how wrong these tactics are, it's gay activists and their allies. And a few of them do. But most of them don't. Or they just don't care.
It's not clear whether petition signers will be thrown to the wolves. That's in the courts right now and no doubt will be for a while. But something else should be crystal clear. Christians and others who warn that gay activists threaten their freedom are far from paranoid. And this is just the latest example. People who try to label the moral consensus of most human history as "hate" aren't just trying to expand their own freedom. They're also trying to shove their critics into the closet.
1. khalil said the following at 2:08 PM on Nov 2:
This is the same tactic that unions in the US are trying to do with "card check". Roguish behavior and has no place in a democracy or where votes are valued.
2. James said the following at 2:34 PM on Nov 2:
I don't think this is the dire situation you're trying to paint it as Matt. If it makes people think about what they sign and to have an answer for what they believe, all the better. As of now, it looks like the initiative will pass and make this a non-issue anyways.
3. Ted Slater said the following at 2:47 PM on Nov 2:
FWIW, I *never* sign a petition. People knock on my door, asking me to sign them. I don't. People try to flag me down outside the grocery store. I don't stop, other than to tell them no thanks. Who knows what they're going to do with my name, address and signature? Seems like a great opportunity for identity theft.
4. DannieA said the following at 2:58 PM on Nov 2:
I find that signing petitions is the best way to land yourself on jury duty....while I'm all about doing my "civic duty", I really just avoid signing petitions like the plague...my co-worker ended up on a jury for a trial lasting 7 months....nope, no signing for me.
5. Morghan said the following at 3:11 PM on Nov 2:
I think it IS an issues. Would you like to be confronted at your home at 3 am by a group of angry protesters? As it was, in California during the summer before the Prop 8 vote giant crowds gathered around churches and harassed congregants and after they started verbally and sometimes physically harassing people who voted Yes. It's not just a matter of being held accountable for your viewpoint. I think you can get enough of that from your friends/family who ask you how you voted. I don't want random strangers coming after me 'cause they think differently than I do.
6. k. said the following at 3:15 PM on Nov 2:
Some observations:
1. One opinion piece written by someone with an axe to grind does not constitute "ample documentation."
2. Despite reading the article three times, I'm not sure how you reach these sweeping generalizations: "If anyone should understand how wrong these tactics are, it's gay activists and their allies. And a few of them do. But most of them don't. Or they just don't care." Where in the article do you find a basis for those assertions? How many is "a few"? Who are "most"? Could you possibly be more vague?
3. It appears that Washington, among other states, considers petitions to be public records, available to the public (including organizations for realtors, teachers, etc). Until the courts rule otherwise, don't sign a petition unless you're willing to become part of the public record.
7. k. said the following at 3:20 PM on Nov 2:
DannieA - No, signing a petition is definitely not the best way to "land on jury duty." While it varies, the most likely ways to get jury duty appear to be registering to vote, and obtaining a driver's license.
8. BDB said the following at 3:49 PM on Nov 2:
It's very important that people in power and in leadership continue to emphasize the importance of civility in political discussion. Because as soon as one side starts down the path to inimidation and violence, the other side usually responds and these things can get out of control quickly.
The Supreme Court has consistently drawn the line on freedom of political speech stopping before advocating violence - intimidation and violence are not protected speech. That's why the anti-abortion site with the names and home addresses of abortion doctors, (a.k.a. the Nuremberg Files) was so contentious.
Personally, I think we need laws that make it illegal for people to be out in public with masks on. If you look at security camera footage of riots, it is those masked people who are setting fire to things. They are clearly concealing their identity in order to escape justice for engaging in violence.
9. Rachael said the following at 4:55 PM on Nov 2:
You know, I don't send many mass e-mails, but just last night I sent one (well, it was 'kind-of mass').
It was something where I added my name and my city, state, and country.
In response, from 2 family members, I got this:
"I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU SIGNED YOUR NAME ON A PETA LIST!!! OR AN ANY EMAIL FOR THAT MATTER.
Signed, Yours truly,"
and this is the beginning of another of the two responses I got from another family member:
"Yeah, ditto to what [person's name] said!! HA! What's the point of e-mails like this, where a signature isn't even required?"
Anyway...
do petitions ever do any good, and do e-mail petitions ever amount to anything...
Signed,
Rachael
10. Rachael said the following at 4:56 PM on Nov 2:
[oh - p.s. I was not clear: 2 family members responded to me, but only one of them sent the top message]
11. Befuddled said the following at 4:57 PM on Nov 2:
"If anyone should understand how wrong these tactics are, it's gay activists and their allies. And a few of them do. But most of them don't. Or they just don't care."
Do you have a citation for this? Personally, I see little evidence of this sort.
This is an odd and likely unconstitutional case, no doubt, but it need not be used to hatefully stereotype all gays.
12. Nathan said the following at 6:43 PM on Nov 2:
While I see this as definitely a bad thing(letting information get into the hands of people who are rage filled), where is the resolve to stand up and be counted?
If people are not willing to stand up for a righteous cause because if it might cause some discomfort to them, I believe that they need to review what Christ said in Matthew 5:10-12.
" Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you."
13. pass the ammunition said the following at 7:07 PM on Nov 2:
This will make people truly stop to think about the actual impact on people's lives of the campaign they are supporting.
Are you anti-gay marriage enough to risk being publicly shamed?
Interesting if the lives of people supporting things like Prop 8 were affected negatively just as much as the lives of the people they're voting against.
14. Chris said the following at 7:10 PM on Nov 2:
DannieA writes (#4):
I find that signing petitions is the best way to land yourself on jury duty....while I'm all about doing my "civic duty", I really just avoid signing petitions like the plague...my co-worker ended up on a jury for a trial lasting 7 months....nope, no signing for me.
Jury duty selection is usually pulled from official registration rolls (voter, driver's license, etc.) Signing a petition for a political cause or ballot issue does not get you on the list.
That being said, jury duty is one of the fundamental duties of a citizen. How would you feel if you were accused of a crime and a "jury" of your "peers" were a bunch of people who didn't want to be there?
15. Chris said the following at 7:30 PM on Nov 2:
Matt writes:
And a few of them do. But most of them don't. Or they just don't care.
Interesting claim. Any proof beyond the railings of some gay activists?
16. J.T. said the following at 8:37 PM on Nov 2:
Nobody, and I mean nobody, should use a trait or characteristic (e.g. gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc.) as an excuse to be an annoying jerk. Okay, end of my soapbox speech.
17. twilley said the following at 3:15 AM on Nov 3:
Well, as a gay person, I kinda agree with you. Part of the reason people want to publish these names is to shame people who vote against civil rights, to show the world who they are and record their deeds for posterity. And some gay people are angry, and they show that anger by picketing churches and acting out against those who oppress them.
I mean, what knowthyneighbor.org does is perfectly legal, of course--but that's not really the question. The question is a moral one.
To me, this recalls the two wings of the civil rights movement by African Americans in the '60s--The Black Panthers vs. Dr. King. Peaceful, godly tactics vs. occasionally acting out in violent rage. Were the violent actions by civil rights protestors godly? Nope. Not in my opinion. But knowing the oppression they faced helps me understand why they did what they did. The only thing we can do is continue to respond to violence, intolerance, oppression, anger, and stereotypes with love, understanding, and compassion.
Intimidation tactics will help the cause sometimes, sometimes hurt it. In the end, both tendencies probably cancel each other out. The only way to work for civil rights for all is on an individual basis, through love and honest communication.
I think it is helpful for me to think about this the other way around. I mean, I sign petitions for gay rights and other human rights issues whenever I get a chance, and if someone was to publish my name I'd be perfectly happy with it! But surely not everyone would--people with children to protect would have just cause to fear, as would people who aren't out at work and can lose their jobs because of their orientation or beliefs. So I can surely understand what some of these people are feeling.
18. adam said the following at 7:14 AM on Nov 3:
The whole point of signing a petition is to PUBLICLY declare your support for a cause, for all to see. Petitions only carry merit and weight if the names on them can be verified to be real people living in the relevant place, or of the relevant background. A petition that is submitted to a government office becomes a matter of public record. Names on petition should be available. If you don't like it, then vote secretly at the ballot box. But petitions are not ballots.
How narrow and partisan is it to be against publishing petitions just because some people you don't agree with wants to publish the list of names?
19. Kevin Gleeson said the following at 9:10 AM on Nov 3:
DannieA, jury pools are drafted from voters registrations, not petitions. But please don't let that stop you from voting.
The people I fear harassment from after signing a petition is the friendlies, not the enemy. The sponsoring organization mines the signature roll for donors. I always leave the phone number blank, or fill it in with zeros.
20. Kit said the following at 9:29 AM on Nov 3:
I don't see the big deal. A petition, by definition/nature, is a public document and you don't have the right to 'privacy' if you've signed it. So, yes, your name might end up online. If you don't want to take that risk, then don't do it, or write a letter to your congressman instead.
21. Zusanne said the following at 9:40 AM on Nov 3:
When I'm approached with surveys, I generally ask a few questions to the people who are looking for signatures. Often I've noticed that the signature collectors have been scripted (ask a specific loaded question) with no real information. I tell them I don't sign anything unless I read more carefully about it.
22. Diana said the following at 9:48 AM on Nov 3:
A petition isn't supposed to be a secret thing. It isn't like voting. Signing a petition is a public statement. If we want more transparency in government and demand that more official documents and information online be put online, we can't expect to draw the line at allowing the public to see our own government involvement. Stand up against intimidation, by all means, but also be willing to stand by your own signature.
23. BDB said the following at 10:26 AM on Nov 3:
Reading the comments about which types of activists use intimidation tactics, it's not any particular group. The book they're following is Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, which is what leftists read in order to acheive change, often through intimidations tactics.
But the wind blows both ways. Thurgood Marshall successfully used the Courts for change, but he was very, very quiet and respectful in person, especially when traveling through the South. He definitely earned his place on the Supreme Court.
And his work started a wave of left-wing litigaton, which now has been responded to with right-wing litigation.
I submit for your consideration that the use of itimidation tactics by the left, ranging from the Battle for Seattle to the Prop 8 vandalism (I had 9 signs destroyed), these intimidation tactics have already resulted in a counter-movement in the tea-party crowd.
The NY-23 House race will be interesting to watch today.
24. BDB said the following at 10:29 AM on Nov 3:
twilley (#17) - yeah, I was thinking about the Black Panther's, too. I saw an old speech with one of them talking about how the 2nd Amendment gives citizens the right of self defense, and it sounded like they got the speech from the NRA.
25. Renee said the following at 11:06 AM on Nov 3:
Well peter carried a sword for his travels, so ......
I guess now christians should be in the closet.
26. DannieA said the following at 11:22 AM on Nov 3:
Yeah I know voter registrations and Driver's license is where your name gets pooled from....however, I found it extremely odd....maybe coincidence??? but I don't believe too much in coincidences that the very few times that I've signed a petition...those were the years that I got called in to jury duty....not when I registered to vote.
And yes I'll admit it....I don't want to miss work for Jury Duty....if I were a SAHM or retired then ok, but if I'm called, I go....but because of the job I have...I am prime candidate for LOOOOONNNNNG trials like my co-worker was and I don't have patience for that.
27. Jeremy said the following at 11:52 AM on Nov 3:
Rachael (#9):
Petitions are semi-useful for demonstrating a certain amount of public support for a cause, although I imagine very few people (either signers or readers) take them seriously.
And no, e-mail petitions do not ever amount to anything more than clogged inboxes and annoyed friends.
28. Adam said the following at 2:20 PM on Nov 3:
I am all for signing a petition in order to get something on the ballot. I think this country is served well by a little more input from the people than the suits at the capitol.
The tricky part is - I don't have a problem signing a petition for something that I disagree with. The sole purpose for petitions I've seen is to get an issue on the ballot. I think I would prefer the chance to vote - even if a consequence of that is that something I don't like would get passed. This could make me a "target" for harassment. As long as its harassment within legal bounds - I don't have an issue with it.
If this is about petitions for psychological impact (aka a million signatures against a health care overhaul, or sending empty red envelopes to petition for a change in abortion laws) then I am with the majority here and don't bother.
29. Ted Slater said the following at 3:59 PM on Nov 3:
A few people take issue with the following sentences in Matt's blog post:
Originally, before it was published, Matt had written the following:
I made the editorial tweaks after asking someone to help me review Matt's blog post (we never publish anything without review).
I wanted it to be clear that we are not simply talking about those who experience same-sex attraction, but specifically about *activists* who use "intimidation" and "harassment" as a "weapon." Those who do these things, apparently, don't see how wrong these tactics are, since these activists are engaging in them.
I frankly don't see the big deal, don't understand why there's a concern about "most of them" vs. "many of them." If you have a problem with my wording change, point your frustration toward me, not at Matt.
30. BDB said the following at 4:08 PM on Nov 3:
The criminal enterprise ACORN tried some intimidation tactics at a city council meeting last week. They didn't get very far.
First, because members of the city council started asking if it was their intent to bring prostitution and child sexual slavery to the city. I don't think the ACORN representatives were prepared for the push back.
Second, they apparently were trying to use some KKK history in the town to "shame" the city council into refusing to comply with the Federal immigration law - I think they were protesting that the police department was cooperating in terms of turning in illegals that were arrested for the commission of a crime.
The thing is, the mayor is a much more recent arrival to the town than the checkered history. And his right-hand supporter on the council is a black woman who is a Republican. And both of them go to my church, where the sin of racism has been discussed and confronted, rather than being swept under the carpet.
You can google "Obama get in their face" and see the candidate telling people to do exactly that on You Tube. So, those who see the world differently from the current occupant should expect a certain amount of conflict.
But do we know who we are in Christ? If people are advocating public policy to make sinful behavior a protected class, we should do what Gov. Huckabee does and speak the truth in a civil way. In the end, the independents in the center are the swing voters. They will vote against the people who scare them.
Speak straight up to the protestors and calmly ask them if they understand that advocating sinful behavior will result in eternal punishment. God is infinitely Holy and He will not accept those who embrace sin - even if they get the laws changed to say "sin is good."
My pastor generally avoids politics; there are people from across the party spectrum who attend our church. But he does not shy away from calling sin sin. He did come out strongly in favor of Prop 8 and signs were handed out at the church. There were no protesters who showed up at the church. But then again, there are 5000 of us on a given Sunday. Better bring a lot of protesters...
Galatians 6:7
Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.
31. Jim H. said the following at 5:31 PM on Nov 3:
Sometimes I wonder: if we are NOT being persecuted in some way large or small, then maybe we are viewed by the Enemy (Satan and his minions) as nothing to worry about - they see us as an ineffective and/or lukewarm Christian.
While I would never condone seeking out persecution, I believe the presence of persecution can sometimes validate your effectiveness as a Christian and we should not shy away and avoid persecution when it happens, but stand firm.
Matthew 5:10-12 (NIV)
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
2nd Timothy 3:12 is particularly direct on this matter:
12 In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13 while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.
So yes, I would sign such a petition. And I also marched in a pro-family rally several years ago which was organized to show support for the legal declaration that marriage is between a man and a woman (that rally was sponsored by CPC, Center for Arizona Policy if I recall correctly).
32. Jethro said the following at 6:57 PM on Nov 3:
First, yet another unpublished comment. No surprise, Boundless' inconsistent editorial policy strikes again.
Ted (#29),
Are you a Christian activist? You, FoTF and your ilk use many of the same tactics... More to the point, your language is perjorative and inflammatory, and deliberately so. It's really annoying.
33. Chris said the following at 7:08 PM on Nov 3:
Ted writes (#29):
I wanted it to be clear that we are not simply talking about those who experience same-sex attraction, but specifically about *activists* who use "intimidation" and "harassment" as a "weapon." Those who do these things, apparently, don't see how wrong these tactics are, since these activists are engaging in them.
I frankly don't see the big deal, don't understand why there's a concern about "most of them" vs. "many of them." If you have a problem with my wording change, point your frustration toward me, not at Matt.
The problem is that you're lumping everyone together and being lazy with your wording. There are lots of people who could be considered "activists". People who work to get signatures for a petition can be "activists." Organizations that lobby the government/media/public on behalf of their cause can be "activists."
"Allies" is also an overly broad term. I'm sure you could consider PFLAG an "ally" of the people who are working to have the names published as they are both working to get the same voting result.
This was also written:
It's tragically ironic that gays -- [snip] -- should now seek to use it as a weapon themselves.
It wasn't "gay activists". It was "gays".
This was also written:
And a few of them do. But most of them don't. Or they just don't care.
This is sloppy and unsupported.
I think what you really need to use is "radical gay activists." The adjective of "radical" is really important as you're specifically calling out a subset that is engaging in a given set of behaviors. Otherwise, you're just playing loose and fast with terms and end up (intentionally or unintentionally) smearing a larger group with the actions of a small subset.
34. Craig M. said the following at 8:47 PM on Nov 3:
Ted writes: "FWIW, I *never* sign a petition. People knock on my door, asking me to sign them. I don't. People try to flag me down outside the grocery store. I don't stop, other than to tell them no thanks. Who knows what they're going to do with my name, address and signature? Seems like a great opportunity for identity theft."
Wow, Ted, way to man up. For a blog supposedly devoted both to a Christian view of sexuality and to authentic, bold masculinity, you folks are awfully easily intimidated. I guess if someone might actually ask you to stand up for your beliefs, they're not worth having, huh?
35. Ted Slater said the following at 8:49 PM on Nov 3:
Jethro (#32) -- I can feel the love. Keep in mind that this is our living room, and you are a guest. You're welcome to stay, but if you find it so annoying, you are free to find fellowship elsewhere.
Chris (#33) -- the term "gay activists" as it is used in Matt's post is made clear by the context: those who are in favor of redefining marriage, and who use "intimidation" and "harassment" as a "weapon." That's how that term is being used here.
Merely being an "activist," as you point out, is not wrong. Indeed, if you feel strongly about something, it's probably a good idea to promote your ideas through "activism."
I agree that Matt could have used a better term than "gays." The context, though, indicates that he's referring not to those who simply experience same-sex attraction, but to those who are using intimidation as "a weapon." I suppose it would have helped to add the word "these" before the word "gays" (although, like I said, I don't like the word "gays" -- I think it reduces someone made in the image of God to a label based on one set of orientations and behaviors).
Your accusation that Matt is "smearing a larger group with the actions of a small subset" is unsubstantiated, as I've already explained. He's talking about these particular anti-family activists, not about the larger group of those who experience SSA.
Can we get beyond this contentious game of trying to "catch" either Matt or me? It's really tiring to have to explain that what you think he said is not indeed what he said.
36. Ted Slater said the following at 9:00 PM on Nov 3:
Craig M. (#34) -- Do you really think that I am too intimidated to stand up for my beliefs? Really?
Or are you simply looking for a way to get a cheap shot in? It feels like the latter.
Identity theft is real, Craig. Each member of my family is signed up to two separate identity theft prevention services, so I really shouldn't worry too much about it. But I still take precautions. It's a new world. I've weighed the benefits of signing my name on a line on some stranger's clipboard against the potential negatives, and determined that the negatives outweigh the positives.
Now that I think about it, I do need to clarify that I have signed petitions through our church, where I know the people collecting the signatures. But I don't give strangers my name, address, and signature.
37. Jeremy said the following at 9:50 PM on Nov 3:
Jim H. (#31):
I agree with your basic premise, but I am a bit confused by your appplication. You realize that persecution might be good for believers, and so ... you sign petitions and march in rallys to try to more closely align the law with Christian beliefs? That seems more like fighting tooth and nail against even the slightest of persecution.
But again, I think your underlying point is exactly right. Persecution for the believer is in some ways healthy; we as Christians don't need to have life made ever easier for us, we don't need to fight for more and more political power. Simply living out obedience to God is a far more powerful witness than all the wasted effort on political bickering and lobbying that seems to occupy and distract so many American believers.
38. BDB said the following at 9:52 PM on Nov 3:
Given the other criminal activities engaged in by ACORN, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they hired criminals to collect signatures. They've demonstrated through various incidents that their internal controls are either poor or nonexistent. And those individuals could easily use the information as a step towards identity theft or another form of fraud. ACORN doesn't seem to have the systems in place to detect or deter fraud by their employees.
In California, most petitions to get things on the ballot are deceptive. They tend to say they're for something popular, like term limits or cutting taxes, but the actual text does something completely dishonest. That's why I never sign them. I'll just have to vote against them if they get on the ballot.
39. Jo said the following at 11:23 PM on Nov 3:
Ted, 35:
"Can we get beyond this contentious game of trying to "catch" either Matt or me?"
I thought Chris's post was very respectful and articulate. I think we all understand that you/Matt aren't intending to lump all gay people in with the radical activists you're referring to. But I think Chris is right that the wording could be clearer. I know that you're very careful about what you publish and rightly so. Sometimes little things get through the net though, and it's worth picking up on those things because it's not just conservative Christians and regular commenters who are going to read the blog. We might know where you're coming from, but the gay non-Christian who stumbles across the site might not. So honestly, I think when things like this are raised it's not an attack, it's just us wanting things to more precisely reflect your real position.
40. twilley said the following at 1:27 AM on Nov 4:
Well, the results are in in Washington and Maine, on a related note.
Looks like we gay activists win in Washington (and Kalamazoo), but lose in Maine. I feel the Maine loss as a personal blow, but know that the fight there isn't over. Time is on our side. We don't need to shove our critics into the closet, just to be honest, ask our opponents for honesty, and let the world judge who is on the side of right. In ten years the popular votes will swing our way, if we are still putting civil rights up to popular vote.
So it seems those Washington petition signers won't have much to worry about except a bunch of happy gays who can finally relax and enjoy their (limited) rights in their home state.
Focus on the Family spent around 100k in Maine and 300k in Washington, from what I can google. Money well spent?
41. Jim H. said the following at 6:44 AM on Nov 4:
Jeremy,
It's not about fighting persecution, but standing up for what you believe in and what is right. If you do this, then persecution usually finds you as a natuaral consequence.
42. BDB said the following at 11:32 AM on Nov 4:
#40 wrote:
>>and let the world judge who is on the side of right. <<
The world clearly believes that gay marriage is absurd. How can people pretend that biology doesn't matter?
Referendum 71 in Washington was somewhat confusing. It states clearly that domestic partnerships are not marriage. I think that this might be where the political consensus falls: a large majority of Americans, and the World, recognize that gay marriage isn't really marriage.
At the same time, I think a majority of Americans are OK with allowing people to visit other people in the hospital, designating a non-relative to make health-care decisions, and a few of the other things that domestic partnerships allow.
Just don't try and pretend it's a marriage.
As a result of the Rebecca Schaeffer case in California, there are lots of restrictions on publishing people's home addresses and other information by government entities. While in theory things like property ownership are public record, the laws were changed to prevent that information from being published on the Internet in order to protect people from stalking and violence.
If I remember the rules on petitions, they also require a residence address to match with voter records. It lookes like the Supreme Court voted 8-1 to keep the names from being published until after a hearing. I suspect they will have something to say about posting residential addresses on the Internet, just as they did about abortion doctors having their home addresses posted on the Internet.
43. Matt Kaufman said the following at 2:22 PM on Nov 4:
For those who ask if we're suggesting timidity about taking a stand, the short answer is: nope. We certainly don't follow that advice, or we wouldn't write about this stuff.
"Watch What You Sign" means a couple of things. "Don't take risks" isn't one of them. It means be aware of the risks, count the cost, then take a stand. It also means understand your opponents: You may think you're just exercising your right to vote, but some of them think your vote justifies them in harassing you.
History (especially recent history) shows that people who claim to seek only freedom and tolerance often turn out to be bullies. Take the 1960s. When campus radicals were weak, they claimed they were fighting for free speech. When they gained power on campus, they gave us political correctness and speech codes.
I'd just as soon not repeat that history. And that means warning about bullies before they've got the power to shut us up.
44. Matt Kaufman said the following at 2:53 PM on Nov 4:
K. (#6),
You write: "One opinion piece written by someone with an axe to grind does not constitute 'ample documentation.' "
The author has a point of view. He also has footnotes -- well over 100 of them, including mainstream media sources and pro-gay sources. Many of the footnoted items (especially court documents) have documentation of their own.
Take a look again. It's not the only piece I could have cited with evidence, but it's a pretty good round-up.
45. Craig M. said the following at 9:29 PM on Nov 4:
Ted-- I'm not questioning the existence of identity theft. I'm just saying that if we actually care about the direction of our nation, citizenship may require us to go ahead and take the risk--both of obloquy and of theft--inherent in publicly stating our position on marriage. It's rather precious to complain about the degenerating course of civil society if one isn't willing to take a few small personal risks to exercise the most basic duties of citizenship. For what that's worth.
46. twilley said the following at 2:30 AM on Nov 5:
BDB, #42:
I believe most of the world could tell you who was on the side of right in the Civil Rights movements of African Americans in the '60s. Even the black panthers were on the side of right, although their methods were not godly.
If we had put African Americans' Civil Rights up to a vote, they would have lost, just as we do. That's why their rights were granted through the courts. They were still on the side of right, even though the majority did not agree with them then.
When you tell gay people to "Just don't try and pretend it's a marriage," you come off as rude and patronizing. I'm sure it's not what you meant to be, but to the ears of a gay person, it sounds belittling. Insulting.
Matt, #43:
The fact is, there are bullies on both sides of the debates over Gay Rights. And that not all activists are bullies. I want you to take a second and try and see this through someone else's eyes. The average gay person. The person who isn't a bully. I'm not a bully, but I am an activist. Why? Because I have stopped being afraid to wear the clothes I like. Because I have decided to ignore the harassment that my partner and I experience when we go out in public, and show her how much I love her anyway. Because I point out discrimination when it happens to me, rather than allowing my superiors to pretend they're treating all their employees equally. Think about the average gay person serving in the army, who only wants to serve free of the fear of beatings and court-marshal, which can happen even if they've neither asked nor told. Think about the gay teacher who's petrified someone will slip up in talking to the wrong administrator, and cheat them out of a job.
These are real people, these are my friends. They're not bullies, but they are activists. They don't hurt other people. But they do work for their own freedom.
Sure, there are a few bad apples out there who just want to hurt the other side, who just want to shut people up. But those exist on both sides. You yourself are probably not a bully, but this organization you work for might be. Think about it: FotF even fought against the Lawrence vs. Texas case of 2003. That was the one that made it legal for gay people to have sex in the privacy of their own home. Consider it. Does allowing gay people to have sex in the privacy of their own home have any negative impact on this organization's religious liberty? I'd say no, probably not. I'd submit to you that what they were really after was intimidation. Police control of our sex lives. Bully tactics.
I can point out plenty more evangelical bullies. But not all of you are bullies. Most of you are real people with real concerns. Some of you are motivated by hate, but not the vast majority of you. Try and remember that the vast majority of gay activists are not bullies either.
Now, all of you, cast your votes and write your blog posts with those average gay people, as well as the graffiti-sprayers, in mind.
47. BDB said the following at 10:55 AM on Nov 5:
twilley (#46) wrote:
>>I believe most of the world could tell you who was on the side of right in the Civil Rights movements of African Americans in the '60s.<
Make no mistake, it was African-American Obama voters who also voted for California's Prop 8 to make sure that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman. Many African-Americans find it deeply offensive that homosexual activists are equating their behavioral choices with their trying to get the right to vote without being harassed. No one is saying homosexuals don't have the right to vote. This is NOT a civil-rights issue.
Africans still in Africa think that the pro-gay-marriage Westerners have lost their minds. Many Asians feel the same way. In their minds, marriage and children are inextricably intertwined. Pretending biology doesn't matter is ridiculous. It is ONLY possible in wealthy nations by using chemicals and other methods to disrupt natural biology.
From a secular, biological perspective, if you don't believe in God, the only purpose for a species existence is biological reproduction. Natural marriage is between a man and a woman, and the only public policy purpose in recognizing marriage is to encourage biological parents to take responsibility for their children.
If you do believe in God, homosexual behavior is a sin.
Just like racism is a sin.
If the Republicans can ever get out of their own way and support a path to citizenship for more immigrants, there wil be PLENTY of immigrants ready to vote to uphold the definition of marriage as one man and one woman. They recognize this foolishness for what it is.
48. Marie said the following at 10:56 AM on Nov 5:
I happen to live in Washington state and the results are in...Ref 71 has been approved. I believe the race was close, 52-48. This makes Washington the first state in the nation where voters approved the expansion of gay rights.
49. BDB said the following at 11:16 AM on Nov 5:
twilley (#43) wrote:
>>Consider it. Does allowing gay people to have sex in the privacy of their own home have any negative impact on this organization's religious liberty?<<
The public policy purpose of sodomy laws is so that the legal PRESUMPTION is that it's not consensual.
So, for example, when someone like Roman Polanksi sodomizes a child, he can't claim it was "consensual."
50. BDB said the following at 11:41 AM on Nov 5:
Marie (#48) - when I first read R-71, one of the things I noticed is that it very specifically stated that domestic partnerships were not marriage. I think that's what put it over the top. Because to a large extent, many people realize that the concept of "gay marriage" is absurd. If the law specifically states that it's not marriage...well, I consider domestic partnerships to be part of "freedom to contract."
California's legislature has given the same kinds of domestic partnership benefits the force of law. There was no outcry.
I do think that a public policy consensus will form around tolerating the existence of domestic partnership laws, as long as the law doesn't try to pretend it's a legitimate marriage.
51. pass the ammunition said the following at 12:03 PM on Nov 5:
BDB: What does African Americans voting for Prop 8 have to do with twilley's point? Her point still stands: Had rights for African Americans been put up to a vote, it would have failed miserably.
52. k. said the following at 1:11 PM on Nov 5:
Matt - I see. Your link went straight to footnote #58, an article by Maggie Gallagher.
There's no question that wrongs have occurred on both sides. As you noted, gay people have also experienced harrassment. Probably more, historically speaking.
53. James said the following at 1:57 PM on Nov 5:
BDB, I agree and thats why I voted in favor of it. I think it'll actually strengthen my position which is still against marriage (a vote which will surely come up in a yr or two) We need to be able to give a better answer than "I don't want it" when it comes to this issue. There are two schools of thought at work here I think... 1) The Bible says it therefore that's how i want my government 2) I agree with The Bible but recognizing we live in a secular society, have no issue voting for people to have freedom to do things I would not. Both are valid, but one is much better for engaging conversion with nonbelievers. We'll never bring people to Christ if we hold our politics up with our religious beliefs. They have to be separate.
54. Jo said the following at 2:18 PM on Nov 5:
BDB 49:
"So, for example, when someone like Roman Polanksi sodomizes a child, he can't claim it was "consensual.""
To be fair, child abuse is child abuse whether the perpetrator and victim are the same sex or not... Why would you need specific laws about homosexuality, in order to convict a child molester?
Twilley 46:
I think your voice on this blog is really valuable, and I hope you stay. I don't think race and sexuality are comparable issues, but I completely understand that to you and other gay people they are. It seems like opposing perspectives are so incompatible that it's almost impossible to even discuss the issue, because the two 'sides' just aren't on the same page at all.
And while I don't like the way much of society sees us as intolerant for our view on homosexuality, I really do get where they're coming from. If you're on the page where sexuality is just the same as race (and they do look like similar issues in a lot of ways), it's as appalling to think of someone condemning a gay partnership as it is to think of them condemning a mixed-race one.
I don't know what the answer is, honestly. I appreciate people like you who are open-minded enough not to brand us all as bigots. I appreciate Christians who are honest enough to admit that it's a difficult issue and one where compassion and respect are needed. I do think it's one of the hardest things Christians have to deal with right now, both in our own minds and hearts and in our behaviour towards others.
55. BDB said the following at 2:47 PM on Nov 5:
pass the ammunition (#51) is shooting blanks:
>> Had rights for African Americans been put up to a vote, it would have failed miserably. <<
This statement is false.
It's true that Democrats voted against Civil-rights legislation in the 1960's, and President Johnson got it pushed through with the Republicans voting for it.
But by all means, study the Civil War. What you will find is that MANY people were in favor of equal rights, it depended on the state. Forcing the changes on states that weren't there yet shed a lot of blood. To my knowledge, the U.S. Civil War is the only historical example of a majority ethnic group fighting amongst itself about the status of a minority ethnic group.
But for 350 years there were voices advocating equal citizenship for non-white persons. The first draft of the Declaration of Independence ended slavery, but the vote was 11-2. They wanted a unanimous declaration, so they took that part out. But Abraham Lincoln knew about this, which is why he talked about the way the nation's founders had set America on the course to eliminate slavery. See the text of his Second Inaugural speech.
Notice how Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 16 refers to the family being the natural unit of society, yet nowhere in the document does it endorse the unnatural acts of homosexual behavior.
The world definitely does NOT agree that gay marriage is a fundamental human right. If it did, it would have been in the UDHR.
56. BDB said the following at 3:10 PM on Nov 5:
Something that maybe people have forgotten is that the Constitutional basis for all Civil-Rights legislation are the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Note that those amendments had to pass through a legislative process. Without those amendments, passed with the support of the people, there would be no basis for any of the civil-rights court decisions.
But it's quite clear from the writings of the Founders that they never contemplated something so contrary to the Bible as gay marriage. Previous generations always understood that the biological basis for marriage was understood.
57. BDB said the following at 3:24 PM on Nov 5:
Jo (#54) wrote:
>>Why would you need specific laws about homosexuality, in order to convict a child molester?<<
The law is on sodomy, a specific act. It would be used the same way a law against rape would be used. When things are consensual, there is no victim to press charges.
That may not be how the specific Lawrence law was written.
58. BDB said the following at 3:29 PM on Nov 5:
James (#53) wrote:
>>We'll never bring people to Christ if we hold our politics up with our religious beliefs. They have to be separate. <<
Why would they need to be separate?
The laws providing welfare for the poor with children are based on the Biblical principle to care for widows and orphans.
Besides, no one on the Left believes that. You see Prius owners flipping off Hummers. You see climate-change legislation designed to impose taxes on people who use electricity. There are attempts to pass legislation outlawing incandescent light bulbs in favor of flourescents to force people to use less electricity in their lighting. The Left has absolutely no qualms about imposing their beliefs on those who don't share those beliefs.
59. James said the following at 10:10 PM on Nov 5:
BDB (58), sorry I wasn't very clear... of course we live out our faith and beliefs... but when it comes to political ideology, that is unfortunately how Christians are viewed now. And it's likely to be one of the first questions asked if you start a discussion about religion with someone. That's why I try to have political reasons for my voting, not "cause it's in The Bible!" And my answer to neutralize this issue is that Christians can vote however they want, some are conservative, some more liberal...than hopefully once that hurdle is over we can get to the truly important business of talking about Christ.
60. Matt Kaufman said the following at 9:59 AM on Nov 6:
K. (#52),
Thanks for pointing out my original link's jump to a footnote (now fixed). I'd been reading the note, then jumped up the page to review other parts. Forgot I was still on the note when I cut-and-pasted the link.
61. twilley said the following at 3:15 AM on Nov 7:
BDB, #57:
I don't think you understand what the Lawrence vs. Texas case was all about. Before that case, there were laws which varied from state to state in America. There were laws against:
1) rape
2) forcible sodomy
3) consensual sodomy.
The Lawrence v. Texas case repealed all state laws against consensual sodomy (which included acts by both straight and gay people--in other words, many states had the power to arrest straight people having relations with each other for specific consensual sex acts).
Forcible sodomy has never been and will never be legal. The Lawrence v. Texas case had nothing to do with forcible sodomy, it simply legalized consensual sex acts which were illegal before the case.
62. twilley said the following at 8:46 AM on Nov 7:
BDB, #47:
There are also plenty of African Americans who are in favor of gay rights, and see our cause as a civil rights issue. Like Coretta Scott King, and Bayard Rustin, who was an openly gay man and close advisor to MLK Jr. I can provide many more names, if you are interested.