Attempted voter blackmail?

[Broken Glass Can]

Pair vows to out anti-gay wed signers: AG certifies ballot measure (http://news.bostonherald.com/localPolitics/view.bg?articleid=101507)

A pair of gay activists are raising the stakes in the fight over same-sex marriage, vowing to post on the Internet the name and address of anyone who signs a petition to ban gay marriage and civil unions in Massachusetts.

``I have the fight in me now, and if people I know, or that I support, or that I do business with are on that list, I might not support them or their philanthropies or their businesses,'' said Tom Lang, who launched knowthyneighbor.org with his spouse, Alex Westerhoff.

Lang, 42, said he and Westerhoff, 36, are only providing via the Internet public information that any citizen could obtain at the secretary of state's office. But anti-gay marriage activists are outraged.

``We think that it is intimidation by no other name,'' said Kristian Mineau, whose name was listed as one of the first 30 signers of the petition. Mineau said he will explore the rights of people who have signed or plan to sign the petition.

``Certainly it raises my concerns. This is the first I have heard of it,'' said Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute.

Mineau and his wife are listed on the site, along with their address. Also listed: former Mayor Raymond L. Flynn; Dover Selectwoman Kathleen W. Weld and her husband, Walter Weld; and Richard W. Richardson, spokesman for the Black Ministerial Alliance.

Yesterday, the anti-gay marriage ballot measure passed another key legal hurdle when it was certified by Attorney General Tom Reilly.

If backers of the petition are to get the measure on the ballot, the next step is to get 65,825 signatures of registered voters. The necessary signatures must be turned in to Secretary of State William F. Galvin by Dec. 7 for the amendment to be placed on the 2008 ballot.

Galvin said posting the names of the signatories on the Web is legal. ``That is fine. That is the American way if they want to do it,'' he said.

Lang said he was not advocating that gay marriage backers use the Web site as a method of intimidating the signers, but rather as a way to ``open up communication'' on both sides of the debate. ``We are not telling people what to do. We are letting people become their own armchair activists,'' he said.

Marty Rouse, campaign director for the gay-rights group Mass Equality, said: ``We have neither sanctioned nor encouraged this action. These are private citizens and these are private actions.''

The volatile gay marriage debate promises, with Reilly's ruling yesterday, to become more inflamed in the next two years as the fight over the amendment ramps up.

Gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts in May 2003 by the Supreme Judicial Court. The new ballot initiative would not only forbid that, but also ban civil unions. An amendment to the state constitution up for debate next week would allow such unions.

Reilly, who is running for governor, enraged gays by deciding to certify the petition even though he said he is personally opposed to it.

``Today Tom Reilly threw the entire gay community in front of the bus at the altar of his political aspirations,'' said Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. She said she could not comment on the Web site because she hasn't seen it.

Reilly held up the state constitution in saying his office interpreted state law to allow the petition forward. ``The constitutional amendment to define marriage should not be excluded from a vote of the people of Massachusetts,'' he said.

of their actions. Sunlight is a disinfectant. That is why your ilk are trying to prevent the media from showing the dead in New Orleans.

[Broken Glass Can]

So why have the Secret ballot on election day? Make people publicly declare who they are voting for. Is that the type of Sunshine you want?

There is a difference between sunshine on a legislative committee or meeting, and going after thousands of normal people just because they have signed a petition.

[ QUOTE ]
So why have the Secret ballot on election day?

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahahahahahahahahaha

Nice try, but signing a petition that is publicly available is not voting.

Now, if the website is intended to incite violence or could reasonably be interpreted as a threat (by, say, for example, putting the names of those on the list that have been wounded in greay and striking through the names of those who have been killed), that's another thing. A right-wing (http://www.xs4all.nl/~oracle/nuremberg/aborts.html) thing, as I recall.

[Broken Glass Can]

I think the implied threat is that the roving Gay Gangs will be breaking kneecaps of people on the list. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

So if a sympathetic Human Resources employee checks this list for everyone his company is considering hiring, you would have no problem with that?

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the implied threat is that the roving Gay Gangs will be breaking kneecaps of people on the list. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

So if a sympathetic Human Resources employee checks this list for everyone his company is considering hiring, you would have no problem with that?

[/ QUOTE ]


....the "roving gay gangs"?

Please elucidate?

[ QUOTE ]
So if a sympathetic Human Resources employee checks this list for everyone his company is considering hiring, you would have no problem with that?

[/ QUOTE ]

No more than I would someone googling a prosepctive hire or checking their political contributions.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]


....the "roving gay gangs"?

Please elucidate?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're from Massachusetts, you probably know more about them than I do. Barney Frank provides them political cover, and Tom Reilly (the AG) knows he can't win the Governorship if he messes with them. We hear things about Massachusetts, but they can never be confirmed. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


....the "roving gay gangs"?

Please elucidate?

[/ QUOTE ]


You're from Massachusetts, you probably know more about them than I do. Barney Frank provides them political cover, and Tom Reilly (the AG) knows he can't win the Governorship if he messes with them. We hear things about Massachusetts, but they can never be confirmed. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


lol....you are a piece of work, however, innuendo and pot shots don't count in the court of reality.

I again ask for specifics, other than what appears to be your over-generalized, ignorant, virulent political point of view, which is nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinon.

; /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[MtSmalls]

[ QUOTE ]
Galvin said posting the names of the signatories on the Web is legal. ``That is fine. That is the American way if they want to do it,'' he said.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
are only providing via the Internet public information that any citizen could obtain at the secretary of state's office.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a real bitch when the process works against you isn't it?? Welcome to America

[STLantny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if a sympathetic Human Resources employee checks this list for everyone his company is considering hiring, you would have no problem with that?

[/ QUOTE ]

No more than I would someone googling a prosepctive hire or checking their political contributions.

[/ QUOTE ]


So, then you also must have no problem, with a company choosing not to hire someone because they are Gay? If you dont I dont see how your reasoning/logic works. If you are not going to hire someone for being "anti-gay" and proud enough to sign a petition, you CAN NOT reasonably have an objection to an employer not highering somone because they are "gay and proud". I cant wait to hear an answer on this....do you need me to get you some gas for your spin machine????


Edit: I have no problem with your political views, just your logic to reach the decision.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
A pair of gay activists are raising the stakes in the fight over same-sex marriage, vowing to post on the Internet the name and address of anyone who signs a petition to ban gay marriage and civil unions in Massachusetts.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's so not on, they should get the [censored] chair, just for threatening that.

Yuck Mack

[STLantny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A pair of gay activists are raising the stakes in the fight over same-sex marriage, vowing to post on the Internet the name and address of anyone who signs a petition to ban gay marriage and civil unions in Massachusetts.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's so not on, they should get the [censored] chair, just for threatening that.

Yuck Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont get what you are saying? The gay couple should get in trouble for it??? Its is very well within their rights to do that though, thats why its a public petition.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A pair of gay activists are raising the stakes in the fight over same-sex marriage, vowing to post on the Internet the name and address of anyone who signs a petition to ban gay marriage and civil unions in Massachusetts.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's so not on, they should get the [censored] chair, just for threatening that.

Yuck Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont get what you are saying? The gay couple should get in trouble for it??? Its is very well within their rights to do that though, thats why its a public petition.

[/ QUOTE ]

It hardly seems much different from painting 'queer' on their doors. It's offensive and threatening behaviour, whether permitted or not. Incase you wonder I could care less about the 'sanctity of marriage' or whether they are allowed to get married, I just think this is out of order.

Mack

[STLantny]

The gays putting putting up the website, dont really "do anything" to the straights property. All they are doing is hosting a website with a list. I think its wrong to do, but I will defend their right to do it (see flag burning).

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
The gays putting putting up the website, dont really "do anything" to the straights property. All they are doing is hosting a website with a list. I think its wrong to do, but I will defend their right to do it (see flag burning).

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, again let me say I don't have a probelm with what they want, their way of going about it is not clever though. People should be entitled to disapprove of it without being branded bigots.

Mack

[STLantny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The gays putting putting up the website, dont really "do anything" to the straights property. All they are doing is hosting a website with a list. I think its wrong to do, but I will defend their right to do it (see flag burning).

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, again let me say I don't have a probelm with what they want, their way of going about it is not clever though. People should be entitled to disapprove of it without being branded bigots.

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I think that is the whole point, brand them as bigots. I just do not think I can ever defend squelching speech. BUT! I think that if a private citizen, wanted to list a bunchc of Gay people at his work/neighboorhood/city, on a website, there should be nothing wrong with that.

[ QUOTE ]
So, then you also must have no problem, with a company choosing not to hire someone because they are Gay? If you dont I dont see how your reasoning/logic works. If you are not going to hire someone for being "anti-gay" and proud enough to sign a petition, you CAN NOT reasonably have an objection to an employer not highering somone because they are "gay and proud". I cant wait to hear an answer on this....do you need me to get you some gas for your spin machine????

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you, five years old? You don't see a logical distinction between discrimination based on an essentially immutable characteristic likely not related to any job function and discrimination based on someone's bigotry, which bigotry may well result in the company having legal problems down the road? Never mind that in many places, discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal. Do you know the difference between legal and illegal discrimination?

[MtSmalls]

[ QUOTE ]
People should be entitled to disapprove of it without being branded bigots.


[/ QUOTE ]

If Archie Bunker's shoe fits....People who are against this initiative are no less bigots than people who were against school integration.

[CollinEstes]

If this situation was reversed and it was a petition in favor of legalizing gay-marriage and those against it used the names on the list to boycott services or publicly brand those as gay on the internet then there would be nothing but outrage from society.

Yet when a gay person uses this to discriminate against someone else against gay-marriage then everything is fine and dandy.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People should be entitled to disapprove of it without being branded bigots.


[/ QUOTE ]

If Archie Bunker's shoe fits....People who are against this initiative are no less bigots than people who were against school integration.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry man, i respect your opinion and all, but i think you are way off the mark.

Mack

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
If this situation was reversed and it was a petition in favor of legalizing gay-marriage and those against it used the names on the list to boycott services or publicly brand those as gay on the internet then there would be nothing but outrage from society.

Yet when a gay person uses this to discriminate against someone else against gay-marriage then everything is fine and dandy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats it. It's completely unreasonable.

Mack

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
If this situation was reversed and it was a petition in favor of legalizing gay-marriage and those against it used the names on the list to boycott services or publicly brand those as gay on the internet then there would be nothing but outrage from society.

Yet when a gay person uses this to discriminate against someone else against gay-marriage then everything is fine and dandy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Liberals are allowed to be bigoted against marriage, and they are allowed to be racist. Didn't you get the memo?

[MtSmalls]

[ QUOTE ]
i think you are way off the mark.


[/ QUOTE ]

How so?

[MtSmalls]

I think this is an outrageous statement, based only on supposition.
First, it wouldn't intimidate the majority of the gay population. Most of them are proud of what they do and who they are, despite condemnation from the fundie crowd. Secondly, you don't have to be gay to be pro equal rights.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i think you are way off the mark.


[/ QUOTE ]

How so?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not think a lot of people who object to Gay Marriages do so on religious grounds? To blanket cast them as bigots just because you disagree with them seems quite narrow minded to me. Maybe you are suggesting that all people who follow their respective faith rigidly are bigots, my guess is you aren't trying but that is effectively what you are saying.

Mack

[cardcounter0]

The roving gay gangs bust into your house in the middle of the night and rearrange all your furniture.

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i think you are way off the mark.


[/ QUOTE ]

How so?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not think a lot of people who object to Gay Marriages do so on religious grounds? To blanket cast them as bigots just because you disagree with them seems quite narrow minded to me. Maybe you are suggesting that all people who follow their respective faith rigidly are bigots, my guess is you aren't trying but that is effectively what you are saying.

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because a certain belief is a tenet of a given religion does not mean that it is not also bigoted.

As an example, I am a Catholic. The Catholic Church does not allow women to be priests. Although this is a belief of the Church, it also happens to be, by definition, sexist.

IMO, anyone who follows this tenet without vocally expressing disagreement is also, to some extent, a bigot.

<disclaimer> I am not trying to speak for MtSmalls (who's posts I have a lot of respect for). This is solely my own opinion.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i think you are way off the mark.


[/ QUOTE ]

How so?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not think a lot of people who object to Gay Marriages do so on religious grounds? To blanket cast them as bigots just because you disagree with them seems quite narrow minded to me. Maybe you are suggesting that all people who follow their respective faith rigidly are bigots, my guess is you aren't trying but that is effectively what you are saying.

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because a certain belief is a tenet of a given religion does not mean that it is not also bigoted.

As an example, I am a Catholic. The Catholic Church does not allow women to be priests. Although this is a belief of the Church, it also happens to be, by definition, sexist.

IMO, anyone who follows this tenet without vocally expressing disagreement is also, to some extent, a bigot.

<disclaimer> I am not trying to speak for MtSmalls (who's posts I have a lot of respect for). This is solely my own opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do think Catholics are guilty of bigotry, however I suspect most of them would disagree. They have their own illogical reasons for not finding homosexual marriages acceptable, for me what people decide to do in their own time makes no odds.

If you wish to be married or whatever in a church it makes sense to expect to have to follow the teachings of that church to a certain degree, homosexuals by default cannot do this, so i see no reason for them to expect a church to bless their partnership. I don't see why they need it, except to prove some childish point, no one cares what they do, except for a few idiots.

Mack

[ACPlayer]

I too would not want my name published for signing an anti-gay marriage petition. I would be much to ashamed to let the world know that i hold that kind of bigotted viewpoint. I can see why the signers are upset.

When I sign a petition, I believe in it and will shout it from the rooftops.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
I too would not want my name published for signing an anti-gay marriage petition. I would be much to ashamed to let the world know that i hold that kind of bigotted viewpoint. I can see why the signers are upset.

When I sign a petition, I believe in it and will shout it from the rooftops.

[/ QUOTE ]

It threatening behaviour, no other way of looking at it. Say a lumberjack set up a webpage detailing the names and addresses of all the people who signed an anti logging petition, what purpose except to threaten and stifle any counterpoint. People are not ashamed, at least I doubt it, they are afraid.

Mack

[ACPlayer]

Publishing a list is hardly threatening behaviour, IMO.

I will let MMMMMM elaborate.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Publishing a list is hardly threatening behaviour, IMO.

I will let MMMMMM elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]

What would happen if these same people published a list of homosexual people, given that they are obviously against them, think about it? The left wing press would have a field day on it and you know it.

Mack

[ACPlayer]

Well, for one thing there is a difference between a list of homosexual people and a list of homosexual people who have signed a petition requesting the government to take some action.

Uf you believe in something enough to sign for it, stand up and be counted.

But, I really should let 6M elaborate as he understand this best.

[MtSmalls]

[ QUOTE ]
If you wish to be married or whatever in a church it makes sense to expect to have to follow the teachings of that church to a certain degree, homosexuals by default cannot do this, so i see no reason for them to expect a church to bless their partnership. I don't see why they need it, except to prove some childish point, no one cares what they do, except for a few idiots.


[/ QUOTE ]

They (meaning homosexuals who wish to get married) DON'T WANT THE CHURCHES BLESSING. They could care less. They want to be treated equally with the thousands of other marriages recognized by the state and federal governments, and have the same rights as married people. In the US today being married conveys more than 100 legal rights, not the least important of which are hospitalization visits, rights of inheritance, taxation, etc.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you wish to be married or whatever in a church it makes sense to expect to have to follow the teachings of that church to a certain degree, homosexuals by default cannot do this, so i see no reason for them to expect a church to bless their partnership. I don't see why they need it, except to prove some childish point, no one cares what they do, except for a few idiots.


[/ QUOTE ]

They (meaning homosexuals who wish to get married) DON'T WANT THE CHURCHES BLESSING. They could care less. They want to be treated equally with the thousands of other marriages recognized by the state and federal governments, and have the same rights as married people. In the US today being married conveys more than 100 legal rights, not the least important of which are hospitalization visits, rights of inheritance, taxation, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why the indignation, like I said I think they should have those things, but threatening ignorant people isn't the best way to get public support (which is needed imho). Also yes 'they' means homosexual people who want to get married, I thought we knew what we were talking about. If they don't care about getting the churches blessing then what is the problem, the government should stop moralising and fix the injustice, be prepared for this to create a whole new bunch of problems when it does come in though.

Regards Mack

[Meech]

[ QUOTE ]
If Archie Bunker's shoe fits....People who are against this initiative are no less bigots than people who were against school integration.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bullseye.