Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Were it as cut and dried as y'all make it out to be, it wouldn't be headed to the USSC.
Were it as cut and dried as y'all make it out to be, it wouldn't be headed to the USSC.
Here is an article from my local paper, it explains it somewhat. There is also other articles at the link if you want to read more.
U.S. high court to take up referendum signatures case - Spokesman.com - Jan. 16, 2010
Shawn Newman, an attorney for the Initiative and Referendum Institute, told the committee the information should remain private because citizens have a constitutional right to privacy and to petition their government anonymously, and a constitutional right trumps a state statute like the Public Records Law.
Fine, in the future every petition will be made public with all the signatures on it. Sound reasonable?
In Washington State any petition can already be made public. Are you for taking away state rights? If the Supreme Court rules for these people, it will take away the state"s right to determine what is a matter of public record.
How should the USSC vote, and why?
How should the USSC vote, and why?
They should vote that gays already have the exact same rights everyone else does.
How should the USSC vote, and why?
They should vote that gays already have the exact same rights everyone else does.
irrelevant to the OP
not true
next
Obviously you are clueless to the fact RGS likes to talk about state's rights quite a bit, which was the point of my post. I have taken American History and Civil War history, I am quite aware of what happened in the south. I am also aware that making a petition public is not taking away anyone's right to vote, and that Washington State has the right to decide what is a matter of public record.Fine, in the future every petition will be made public with all the signatures on it. Sound reasonable?
In Washington State any petition can already be made public. Are you for taking away state rights? If the Supreme Court rules for these people, it will take away the state"s right to determine what is a matter of public record.
the right to vote is a US constitutional/fundamental right.....
as such, the states cannot interfere with that right. you're obviously clueless as to how this right interfered with the southern states and the black right to vote. else you wouldn't have made your post. or, do you really want states to have the power to decide who votes and who doesn't?
Yeah publish there address as wellHow should the USSC vote, and why?
They don't have the right to marry the person they want to, so obviously they don't have the same rights as everyone else. And Washington State already voted to allow civil unions, this is not what the case is about. For someone is all about state's rights also you should be for allowing the petition to be made public, because in Washington State it is a public record.They should vote that gays already have the exact same rights everyone else does.
irrelevant to the OP
not true
next
Obviously it IS relevant to the OP since it directly responds to it.
It is true.
Next.
If I'm going to take the time to read, and sign a petition, then I fully believe in what I'm signing. If someone finds out my name, and what I'm supporting, more power to them. What're they going to do? Tell me I'm wrong? Threaten to kick my ass?
Whatever.
what if you owned a small business....say a coffee shop.
If you own an establishment that serves the public (or more specifically offers a service for sale to), and you felt strongly enough about the issue to sign a petition limiting the rights of certain people, shouldn't they be able to know that, and avoid your establishment? Hell, feeling that way, wouldn't you want them to?
The issue has gotten out of hand because these people wanted special treatment, petitions are apart of public record and other's have been made public.what if you owned a small business....say a coffee shop.
If you own an establishment that serves the public (or more specifically offers a service for sale to), and you felt strongly enough about the issue to sign a petition limiting the rights of certain people, shouldn't they be able to know that, and avoid your establishment? Hell, feeling that way, wouldn't you want them to?
Yet you would not want these business owners establishments discriminating against anyone else. Very hypocritical.
People do not have the right to harass another or their businesses whether they like their opinions and thoughts or not. Publishing addresses names and phone numbers of people who do not support gays on the Internet has already been shown that rabid gays are willing to harass people viciously who are not on their love train. Personally I could care less if they had my address as I have been threatened many times for standing up for what I believe is right. I have also been harassed and worse locally for renting to a transvestite, a white and black couple and the handicap when it should have been solely my business and choice whom I rented my property to. When I operated my business I was harassed by state employees for hiring hispanics and indians simply because a few of the supervisors did not like hispanics or indians.
This issue has gone beyond ridiculous.
what if you owned a small business....say a coffee shop.
If you own an establishment that serves the public (or more specifically offers a service for sale to), and you felt strongly enough about the issue to sign a petition limiting the rights of certain people, shouldn't they be able to know that, and avoid your establishment? Hell, feeling that way, wouldn't you want them to?
Yet you would not want these business owners establishments discriminating against anyone else. Very hypocritical.
People do not have the right to harass another or their businesses whether they like their opinions and thoughts or not. Publishing addresses names and phone numbers of people who do not support gays on the Internet has already been shown that rabid gays are willing to harass people viciously who are not on their love train. Personally I could care less if they had my address as I have been threatened many times for standing up for what I believe is right. I have also been harassed and worse locally for renting to a transvestite, a white and black couple and the handicap when it should have been solely my business and choice whom I rented my property to. When I operated my business I was harassed by state employees for hiring hispanics and indians simply because a few of the supervisors did not like hispanics or indians.
This issue has gone beyond ridiculous.
They should vote that gays already have the exact same rights everyone else does.
irrelevant to the OP
not true
next
Obviously it IS relevant to the OP since it directly responds to it.
It is true.
Next.
Obviously you are clueless to the fact RGS likes to talk about state's rights quite a bit, which was the point of my post. I have taken American History and Civil War history, I am quite aware of what happened in the south. I am also aware that making a petition public is not taking away anyone's right to vote, and that Washington State has the right to decide what is a matter of public record.In Washington State any petition can already be made public. Are you for taking away state rights? If the Supreme Court rules for these people, it will take away the state"s right to determine what is a matter of public record.
the right to vote is a US constitutional/fundamental right.....
as such, the states cannot interfere with that right. you're obviously clueless as to how this right interfered with the southern states and the black right to vote. else you wouldn't have made your post. or, do you really want states to have the power to decide who votes and who doesn't?
If the petition is on a state issue, the state has every right to decide whether or not it should be allowed to be published. And making petitions public is not infringing on voter's rights. For petitions have to be checked to make sure people are registered to vote, therefore the county and state auditor or election board will see the signatures anyways making it not private. There is also nothing in the constitution regarding petitions, only regarding voting. A petition does not define any laws, only puts it on the ballot.Obviously you are clueless to the fact RGS likes to talk about state's rights quite a bit, which was the point of my post. I have taken American History and Civil War history, I am quite aware of what happened in the south. I am also aware that making a petition public is not taking away anyone's right to vote, and that Washington State has the right to decide what is a matter of public record.the right to vote is a US constitutional/fundamental right.....
as such, the states cannot interfere with that right. you're obviously clueless as to how this right interfered with the southern states and the black right to vote. else you wouldn't have made your post. or, do you really want states to have the power to decide who votes and who doesn't?
i didn't need your so called pedigree
voting rights, in terms of national elections are not state rights. state issues are state rights voting elections. however, the supremacy clause in the US constitution trumps any and all state voting laws that interfere with the constitution.
what is hypocritical and dumbfounding in your argument is that, you argue....on the one hand....WA has the state right to choose their petitions, fair enough....however, as you should know, if those rights infringe on voting, as the south experienced and all of america at one point, states rights mean diddly when it comes to national elections and the right to vote.
This law has been effect for ten years in Washington State, voters have not had their votes published yet.What is next? Demanding open voting so you can see whom voted for what? Same concept indeed.
Obviously you are clueless to the fact RGS likes to talk about state's rights quite a bit, which was the point of my post. I have taken American History and Civil War history, I am quite aware of what happened in the south. I am also aware that making a petition public is not taking away anyone's right to vote, and that Washington State has the right to decide what is a matter of public record.the right to vote is a US constitutional/fundamental right.....
as such, the states cannot interfere with that right. you're obviously clueless as to how this right interfered with the southern states and the black right to vote. else you wouldn't have made your post. or, do you really want states to have the power to decide who votes and who doesn't?
i didn't need your so called pedigree
voting rights, in terms of national elections are not state rights. state issues are state rights voting elections. however, the supremacy clause in the US constitution trumps any and all state voting laws that interfere with the constitution.
what is hypocritical and dumbfounding in your argument is that, you argue....on the one hand....WA has the state right to choose their petitions, fair enough....however, as you should know, if those rights infringe on voting, as the south experienced and all of america at one point, states rights mean diddly when it comes to national elections and the right to vote.
No you are just being ignorant. I am not a progressive and would never claim to be.If you own an establishment that serves the public (or more specifically offers a service for sale to), and you felt strongly enough about the issue to sign a petition limiting the rights of certain people, shouldn't they be able to know that, and avoid your establishment? Hell, feeling that way, wouldn't you want them to?
Yet you would not want these business owners establishments discriminating against anyone else. Very hypocritical.
People do not have the right to harass another or their businesses whether they like their opinions and thoughts or not. Publishing addresses names and phone numbers of people who do not support gays on the Internet has already been shown that rabid gays are willing to harass people viciously who are not on their love train. Personally I could care less if they had my address as I have been threatened many times for standing up for what I believe is right. I have also been harassed and worse locally for renting to a transvestite, a white and black couple and the handicap when it should have been solely my business and choice whom I rented my property to. When I operated my business I was harassed by state employees for hiring hispanics and indians simply because a few of the supervisors did not like hispanics or indians.
This issue has gone beyond ridiculous.
Reeeeally? Where is any proof of "rabid gays" harassing the populous? And hell, if you're so progressive, why are you so upset about equal protection rather than special protectionism? People who sign petitions in favor of gay rights are subject to the same scrutiny. A petition is a public record. If you don't feel strongly enough to have your community see your name attached to the thought, don't sign the blasted thing. It isn't rocket science.
And how am I hypocritical? People boycott businesses all the time. The fah fah right boycotted the Dixie Chicks and considered it an age old and respected political tradition. Suddenly its not so traditional or respected if the rabbits got the gun? What a surprise. I'm shocked, I tell ya, and appalled.
These maps were put out to show where anyone who donated even $100.00 to the campaign supporting prop 8. A lovely way to profile and harass anyone who does not agree with you.Excerpts;
CNSNews.com - Prop 8 Supporters Say Theyâre Being Harassed; Challenge Campaign Finance Rules
"The homosexual advocacy group says on its Web site it was established in July 2000 to draw attention to the major donors to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign who spent millions of dollars to take away the right of same-sex couples to marry.
"The Protect Marriage lawsuit cites examples of threatening and harassing emails, phone calls and postcards received by Prop 8 supporters, including:
"Burn in hell."
"Consider yourself lucky. If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter."
"I just wanted to call and let you know what a great picture that was of you and the other Nazi's [sic] in the newspaper....Don't worry though, we have plans for you and your friends."
The lawsuit also details acts of vandalism, property destruction, distribution of harassing flyers, and threats to ruin businesses employing Prop 8 donors.
"The United States Supreme Court has ruled that campaign disclosure laws can be invalidated if it subjects supporters to threats, harassment or reprisals from government, or private parties," Prentice said. "That is exactly what has happened with supporters of Proposition 8."
The suit alleges that California's Political Reform Act is unconstitutional on numerous grounds, including the following:
-- The right of contributors to exercise their First Amendment rights free from threats, harassment and reprisals outweighs the state's interest in compelled disclosure;
-- The Act's requirements that committees report all contributors of $100 or more is unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment because it is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
-- The Act's requirement for ballot measure committees to file any reports after the election is unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
-- The Act is unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it does not contain a mechanism for purging all reports related to a ballot measure after the election has occurred...
Court Stops Release of Petition Signers in Washington
James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel for the Plaintiffs stated, "The federal court has taken a welcome step toward protecting citizens who simply want to participate in our democratic process and have their public policy positions considered by the people. No one should have to suffer vandalism and death threats just because they support government protection of traditional marriage. Keeping the petition signatures confidential will protect these people from the harassment and intimidation that has now so frequently characterized the response of the gay rights lobby."
The Washington Secretary of State argued that the names had to be released because of the Washington Public Records Act. The groups who sought the release of the names of the petition signers under this Act included several groups who wished to place the petitions on the internet, so that people could easily access the names and addresses of those who signed the petition in order to threaten, harass, and intimidate those individuals.
This situation in Washington is part of a larger, concerted campaign of harassment and intimidation of supporters of traditional marriage by the gay rights lobby. The campaign has involved gaining access to the names of pro-marriage supporters, posting their names and addresses on the Internet, and inviting people to contact them. This has triggered hundreds of cases of harassment, vandalism and threats of violence directed at marriage supporters throughout the nation. Such personal attacks occurred in large numbers after the adoption of Proposition 8 in California last November.
Obviously you are clueless to the fact RGS likes to talk about state's rights quite a bit, which was the point of my post. I have taken American History and Civil War history, I am quite aware of what happened in the south. I am also aware that making a petition public is not taking away anyone's right to vote, and that Washington State has the right to decide what is a matter of public record.
i didn't need your so called pedigree
voting rights, in terms of national elections are not state rights. state issues are state rights voting elections. however, the supremacy clause in the US constitution trumps any and all state voting laws that interfere with the constitution.
what is hypocritical and dumbfounding in your argument is that, you argue....on the one hand....WA has the state right to choose their petitions, fair enough....however, as you should know, if those rights infringe on voting, as the south experienced and all of america at one point, states rights mean diddly when it comes to national elections and the right to vote.
Where did she say the state had the right to "choose their petitions?" Any state must accept a petition, though they don't have any requirement to act on it. Petitions are not votes.
