Comments on: SCOTUS to decide if WA’s Referendum 71 signatories to be made public

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 01:12:46 +0000

Neon… because they are exactly that, hypocrites.

By: Neon Genesis

Neon Genesis — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:18:01 +0000

Doesn’t the bible tell Christians that they should not be ashamed of the gospel? If these homophobic Christians believe that the gospel promotes homophobia, then if they truly believe in the bible, why are they ashamed of it?

By: Scott P.

Scott P. — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 06:53:01 +0000

Gee, homer, that’s so cynical. Something like that would never happen in say, Florida, would it????

By: homer

homer — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 04:15:13 +0000

First it will be the petitions, and then we won’t be allowed to know who contributed to campaigns, and then who knows what. It would not be that difficult for the political party who controls the Secretary of State’s office to submit fraudulent petitions. How would anyone ever know?

By: Lynn David

Lynn David — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 08:18:51 +0000

Whoops…. thought sure I was on the Bahati/NPB thread…

By: Lynn David

Lynn David — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 08:14:16 +0000

I’m surprised they’d let a man into the country who wanted to revoke a class of people’s first amendment right to free speech.

By: Rob Lll

Rob Lll — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 03:36:03 +0000

Totally agree, Burr. I would add that this case has potentially huge implications that go way beyond LGBT issues. Anyone who cares about transparency in politics should be concerned about the possibility of initiatives going on the ballot without a public record of voter signatures. The potential for fraud and manipulation is truly scary.

By: Burr

Burr — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 03:26:41 +0000

How can we be sure that “Mickey Mouse” didn’t sign the petition a few thousand times if we don’t see the list of names on what SHOULD be a public document?

If the names are illegally kept private, then it’s clear the only recourse for the next petition drive for hate is to send people with cameras to photograph everyone who signs and crowdsource their identification. Or take an image of the documents themselves wherever signatures are collected.

By: Sparky

Sparky — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 03:11:39 +0000

Having a belief that you truly believe in, you would be proud for everybody to know about, and would have no shame in letting others know. Just ask John Hancock, whom wrote his name in huge letters on the Declaration of Independence.

The Founding Fathers that so many revere and invoke without much thought, were said to be traitors to England, and were to be killed on sight.

Many of them were financially ruined, and unable to return home because of their opposition to England. (Luckily, their families were spared, something that I do not believe would happen under todays US anti-terror laws)

So tell me again, why is it that people that are against Gay Marriage are doing everything they can to hide their names from public view?

By: Joe in California

Joe in California — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 00:26:21 +0000

Public disclosure of signatories should have been from the very beginning.

I should be able to know if The Gas Company or The Power Company are supporters of gay rights. Then I should have the right to have my gas turned off and use candles!
Perhaps women should never have gotten the right to vote through the legislative process either. Nor interracial couples the right to marry through the legislative process. It should have been mob rule! Referendums are mob rules and give rights to only some of the people and not ALL THE PEOPLE… Remember, it reads “WE THE PEOPLE”…..
WTFWJD
We need to separate church & state!