"At issue is whether signing a referendum is a form of political speech protected by the First Amendment and whether there is a right to sign it without public disclosure... Some supporters of gay rights had vowed to put the names of those who signed the petition on the Internet."
On one side, the argument is that these voters have a right to not be harassed for signing, and that we should protect them from any possibility of harassment. On the other, these petitions belong to public records, and when you sign a petition, you have an understanding that people will be able to see if you signed it. The referendum, by the way, failed.
I'm unsure what to think of this. I certainly think that the group "Protect Marriage Washington" has a significant case. It seems to me that they do have the right to avoid any possibility of harassment. On the other hand, I think the idea of an "anonymous petition" for anything takes the power of it away. It's very difficult to take anything an anonymous group says seriously, because they're not willing to step forward for their beliefs. The point of a petition is to be able to attach names to numbers, and this is what gives it weight. I'm kind of annoyed with the few gay rights supporters that want to post these names on the internet, because it seems to imply some kind of desire to have these people harassed. It doesn't actually help the gay rights cause. Ideally, the names could be published as a part of public records, and no one would be threatening to harass these people. Unfortunately, that's not what will happen. Either the nature of a petition will change (and I think make it weaker, but who am I to say?), or people will be harassed.
7 comments:
"The point of a petition is to be able to attach names to numbers, and this is what gives it weight."
True, but after reading this, "Some supporters of gay rights had vowed to put the names of those who signed the petition on the Internet," I don't see how you can think that in this particular case. This kind of behavior is absolutely unreasonable. You don't see any Defense of Marriage Act supporters behave this way, unless there was something just recent that I do not know of. I don't think anybody socially conservative who's against gay-marriage has behaved this way at all, however, I could be wrong. I just haven't heard anything proving it.
"I'm kind of annoyed with the few gay rights supporters that want to post these names on the internet, because it seems to imply some kind of desire to have these people harassed. It doesn't actually help the gay rights cause."
This.
"Either the nature of a petition will change (and I think make it weaker, but who am I to say?), or people will be harassed."
Well, you moderate it, reasonably enough. People who want to harass will effectively weaken the purpose of a petition, in hopes of scaring off the opposition. This is where the government, or some kind of authority steps in. You should be able to have a professional petition to take place, but with some assurance you won't be harassed or violated in any way.
Well, in 2007 about 16 percent of hate crimes were committed against homosexual or bisexual people because of their sexual orientation. This can be checked on the FBI website, link provided.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/incidents.htm
I believe that the petition itself is meant so that people who do support "protect marriage washington" will voice that opinion by signing the petition. They knew the risk in signging something like that just as those during the second red scare took risks in signing anti- U.S. war petitions. The petition is just one way to voice how you feel and you should stick with what you believe. I mean, it's a corny idea but it's true.
Sam, I think this is what you mean:
Sexual-orientation bias
In 2007, law enforcement agencies reported 1,460 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias. Of these offenses:
59.2 percent were classified as anti-male homosexual bias.
24.8 percent were reported as anti-homosexual bias.
12.6 percent were prompted by an anti-female homosexual bias.
1.6 percent were classified as anti-bisexual bias.
I don't know where you got 16 percent. Anyway, those who committed these hate crimes did not demonstrate true Christian behavior. I don't see how committing a hate crime delivers your message in an appropriate and professional manner but whatever. They are losing sight of the real objective and getting carried away in their own aggressive wrath.
16% was a rounded number. It wasn't perfectly accurate, and next time I'll make sure to put down all the info.
To you this isn't true Christian behavior, and I agree with you. But to be perfectly fair, if the Bible didn't say that being a homosexual is evil, the people committing these crimes would not have had as much justification. People interpret the Bible in violent ways, and unfortunately that isn't likely to change.
To Sam:
"People interpret the Bible in violent ways, and unfortunately that isn't likely to change."
That's very true. Look at the crusades. I thought the Catholics were humiliating and shaming the Gospel. However, I have different bones to pick with the Catholics and I'm not going to mention them here. People may interpret the Bible however they want. It may not be what it says or what it's truthfully implying and commanding but people go on and misrepresent the Gospel everyday, so there's really nothing new under the sun.
I think that although the "Protect Marriage Washington" group's petition will be less effective if the names of those who signed it remain anonymous, I feel that this is possibly a safer way of making their case and preventing hate crimes against their supporters.
However, in all fights for equality and civil rights there have been people who have sacrificed their safety and in many cases their lives in order to fight for what they believed in. These sacrifices have also helped many of these movements to progress and create some type of change. I am not saying that the people's names who are on this petition should be released so they can experience brutality in order to create progress for the gay community, but I do think that their petition might be more effective if their willing to put their names out there and face those with opposing views. However in this case it might be better to be safe and less effective than put people in danger of getting harassed.
I know it seems like i keep flip-flopping back and forth here, but I am trying to see the pros and cons of both sides of this situation.
Post a Comment