Should Signers of Anti-Gay Rights Petition Be Exposed?

(CBS/iStockphoto)

Voters in Washington state will decide today on a referendum that could effectively roll back legislation passed in May to extend domestic partnership rights and responsibilities to gay and lesbian couples similar to those granted married heterosexual couples.

In addition to the fierce battle over the referendum itself, there has been another bitter fight: One over whether the names of the more than 120,000 people who signed a petition to get the referendum on the ballot should be made public.

On one side of the debate is Larry Stickney, the campaign manager of Protect Marriage Washington and one of the main people who got the referendum, known as Referendum 71, on the ballot. Stickney opposes releasing the names, arguing that doing so opens signatories up to intimidation and harassment.

In an interview, Stickney said he has been hit with "numerous death threats," threatening phone calls in the middle of the night, and "obscene, vile emails" for being the public face of his cause.

"We've feared for our children's lives," he said.

Stickney characterized the people who signed the petition are "a bunch of little old ladies and nice people who go to church," and said that "obviously we want to protect them from this kind of thing."

He added that efforts to release the names amounted to a modern-day version of voter intimidation.

"This is no different than the Klan standing outside of voter booths in Alabama when blacks would dare to go vote," he said.

On the other side is Tom Lang, director of KnowThyNeighbor.org, a Web site that has published the names of signatories on similar measures in states around the country. Lang rejected the claims of intimidation – "it doesn't happen," he said – and says he is interested in starting a conversation between neighbors, coworkers and family members.

"This is about meaningful dialogue between those that are going to have their rights stripped from them and the people that are doing it," he said.

Lang said he isn't afraid to publicly back his position, noting that he puts his name and photo prominently on his Web site. Asked if he considers it cowardly to sign Referendum 71 but keep the decision to do so private, he said yes.

The two sides have been engaged in a legal battle that could continue even after the outcome of the referendum is known. After pro-gay rights activists and media outlets filed a request for the names to be released, opponents won a court ruling to keep them secret; the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit then overruled that decision and declared that the names should be released.

But last month the Supreme Court placed a hold on the release of the names that will remain in effect until the Court decides whether to take up the issue.

The Washington affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union filed a brief supporting the release of the names on the basis of state law, under which the names of signatories on other state petitions have been released in the past. But it has declined to take a position on the larger question of whether, in cases like this, the names should be released to the public.

Jennifer Shaw, the deputy director the Washington ACLU, said in an interview that there are two competing considerations at play.

"The right to privacy that individuals hold, that's one thing that we fight for," Shaw said, arguing that anonymous speech should be protected. On the other hand, she said, "there's a government accountability function as well."

"The only reason this thing is getting on the ballot is a certain number of validly registered Washington voters put their names on the petitions," she said. Shaw argued that if the names aren't released, it's impossible to perform oversight on the state's verification of the legitimacy of the names. (When it comes to the referendum itself, the ACLU has worked on behalf of gay rights and has donated to the cause.)

The Washington secretary of state, as well as gay rights activists, have argued that signing a petition to get a measure on a ballot amounts to playing a part in making law, as the New York Times reports, and should thus be subject to public scrutiny. But while getting access to the names was once an arduous process – interested parties in Washington state could secure a DVD that offered scanned images of the petitions – there are now searchable databases posted in places like KnowThyNeighbor.org and a similar Washington-based group called whosigned.org.

After Proposition 8 passed last year in California, repealing gay marriage rights, gay rights activists organized boycotts of donors to the cause, prompting complaints of harassment.

"This is permanent," said KnowThyNeighbor.org's Lang. "As long as I'm alive, I want people to be able to see who signed these petitions. It serves as a testament that I wish, during the other civil rights issues in this nation, we were able to have."

Stickney of Protect Marriage Washington complained that the move to release the names was tied to "liberal tyranny" and "bullying tactics" by his ideological opponents and said "ideological background checks to me aren't out of the picture at all."

"You have to swear allegiance to the gay lobby if you want to do business in Seattle at this point," he said.

What do you think? Should the names of those who signed the petition to get Referendum 71 on the ballot, and those who sign similar petitions, be made public? Let us know below.

Pop Question

Should the names of those who sign petitions be made public?
Yes
No

202 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 202 Comments


by armyoftwelve November 5, 2009 10:46 PM EST: If petition singers are being harrassed it is a very serious issue. Might be time to file a RICO lawsuit against homophile groups. They certainly have proven to be a vindictive bunch of self-righteous creeps.; Reply to this comment


by stevedobkowski November 5, 2009 3:58 PM EST: In Michigan all election petitions are Public Documents. Petitions are open
for public viewing. It seems the right thing to do. Just how many states have open viewing of election petitions ? Why is the "radical right" so
concerned about this issue ? What is there to hide ?

by Steve Dobkowski, Jr., Dearborn, Michigan; Reply to this comment


by cainch November 5, 2009 1:58 PM EST: I can't believe this is even an issue: the signatures should already be public record. These people are taking part in a public process of overturning a duly passed act of legislation. They are attempting to affect state law. It's a form of collective political speech. If you're afraid to have your name associated with the statement, don't make the statement.

And Larry, your comment is humorous, though I don't think you intended for it to be so.; Reply to this comment


by Larry Fafarman November 5, 2009 10:38 AM EST: To me, it's like a secret ballot. Signers who wish to remain anonymous should be allowed to remain anonymous. And some signers are more vulnerable to harassment than others. And I am very suspicious of the motives of those who are demanding the names. To me, this is a no-brainer.; Reply to this comment


by 6591Hou November 4, 2009 6:22 PM EST: CBS News - "For supporters of same-sex marriage, the Election Day loss in California seems to be energizing their campaign rather than ending it.

Demonstrations against Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage, have been growing, CBS News correspondent John Blackstone reports.

Now the anger is moving to the Internet, where supporters of same-sex marriage are posting blacklists - the names and businesses of those who gave money to help Proposition 8 pass.

Chris Lee, an engineer who is an immigrant from China, was shocked to see his name on the Web site AntiGayBlacklist.com after he gave $1,000 to the campaign to end same-sex marriage.

"I was completely disgusted," Li said. "This sort of blacklist should only appear in communist countries, should not be found in the United States."

In Los Angeles, demonstrators called for a boycott of a restaurant whose manager made a personal donation of $100 to the "Yes on 8" campaign.

"She didn't think it would be public record," said Jeff Yarbrough.

Anger over the blacklists brought out demonstrators in Sacramento, where Scott Eckern resigned as musical director of a local theater when he was identified as a donor.

While it isn't clear who is behind the blacklisting Web sites, political donations are public record and publishing them is legal. But this campaign is making even many supporters of same-sex marriage uncomfortable.

"I understand the anger, but I think we need to channel it," said Molly McKay of Marriage Equality USA. "Into conversations, into moving forward because, you know again, hate vs. hate produces more hate."

Those campaigning to end same-sex marriage drew up their own blacklist, sending letters to large donors to the campaign to save same-sex marriage, demanding equal money or threatening to publish their names.

The Internet has made open political financing even more open - and perhaps more intimidating."; Reply to this comment


by mcwmemphis November 4, 2009 5:26 PM EST: This is all about truth. If you're willing to sier your conscience and deny the truth, then no one is going to be abe to lead you to the light. Even after all the death and decease that came thru AIDs, and you still insist on sticking your pns in someone's a hole. I'm surprised female homos aren't walking around with open sores all over thier mouths.; Reply to this comment


by mcwmemphis November 4, 2009 5:15 PM EST: I cann't believe grown men and women don't see anything perverted about grown men participating in sodomy with each other, and women having oral stimulation of the vagina with one another. One orifus is made for excrament expulsion and the other is for supplying nutrition and the third is of the reproduction of human life itself. This is queer, perverted. diviant and detramental to our society.; Reply to this comment


by lindalds November 4, 2009 8:08 AM EST: Everyone's right to swing their fist ends where everyone else's nose begins.
The GLBT might have the "right" to know who's working against their agenda, but those working against that agenda also have the right to do so without fear of intimidation, vandalism, etc.
I would have thought that grown people would have gotten the message by now that temper tantrums get you no where. I never gave into my kids when they did it, and I refuse to be cowed by anyone now. If anything, I would just dig in my heels and fight harder.
I have always been ambivilent about "gay marriage" but the actions of those who are for it are making me want to say to them, you know, forget it. If this is how you're going to act when you don't get your way, then I'm not going to help you get your way.; Reply to this comment


by saturn05 November 3, 2009 9:54 PM EST: The anti-gay side has tried many times to expose the names of pro-gay petition signers. So why is it when they are asked to do the same thing they act so indignant. What a bunch of two-faced idiots. I think when a person signs a petition it automatically becomes public record like many others things we sign and so be it. No one should be ashamed of signing their name to something like pro-gay marriage petitions since it is all about equality and fairness. Educate yourself and you will feel better about yourself and others. Just think why you would be so full of hate and ignorance and think it is a god-given right to take away rights of others. It makes no sense. No one is asking for special rights, we are asking for equal rights, rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution and the very issue of being human.; Reply to this comment


by kansas1946 November 3, 2009 8:27 PM EST: In addition to the fierce battle over the referendum itself, there has been another bitter fight: One over whether the names of the more than 120,000 people who signed a petition to get the referendum on the ballot should be made public.

*******************

Why not. They should be proud to be ****-phobic and being instrumental in trying to harm families. Why else would they have signed such a thing.; Reply to this comment

See all 202 Comments

Report offensive content:

E-mail this comment to a friend.

Follow Political Hotsheet

CBS This Morning