Now on ScienceBlogs: Spirited Debate with Ray and Kirk
Thoughts From the Interface of Science, Religion, Law and Culture
Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)
Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb
« Stupid Lies About Don't Ask Don't Tell | Main | Appeals Court Denies Justice to Torture Victim »
Posted on: November 5, 2009 9:16 AM, by Ed Brayton
From Larry Stickney, campaign manager of Protect Marriage Washington, speaking of an attempt to make the signers of a petition seeking to deny marriage equality for gays and lesbians made public:
"This is no different than the Klan standing outside of voter booths in Alabama when blacks would dare to go vote."
Riiiiight. Because the landscape is littered with the bodies of anti-gay bigots who were lynched by gangs of violent pro-gay extremists.
Find more posts in: 
Politics
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
Neurophilosophy 11.19.2009
The Island of Doubt 11.20.2009
Greg Laden's Blog 11.20.2009
The World's Fair 11.19.2009
Laelaps 11.20.2009
Comments
Hmm. I guess I had always assumed that the signatures, and thus signatories, of such petitions were a matter of public record. Is this not the case?
Posted by: Spidergrackle | November 5, 2009 9:27 AM
Well, Spidergrackle, I'm sure they wouldn't mind the petition being public, you know, if it actually had real signatures.
Posted by: Abstruse | November 5, 2009 10:05 AM
Poor Larry. Bigots and haters should be proud to have their names be public. Stand up for the hate you believe in.
I'll bet his wife has a girlfriend and the only way he can get her to stay with his sorry ass is to make the alternative financially painful.
Posted by: MikeMa | November 5, 2009 10:32 AM
When I sign a petition, I do so with the acknowledgment that it will be made public - otherwise, what's the point of signing a petition?
Posted by: Lauri | November 5, 2009 11:23 AM
Great. This guy is taking essentially the same tack as Mormon general authority Dallin Oaks, who made similar comparisons between LDS supporters of Prop 8 in California and African Americans during the civil rights era in a recent talk he gave at BYU-Idaho. But Oaks (who is an attorney and, as I recall, a former law professor) went so far as to claim that what he called "religious actors" have, or should have, more protection for their speech and actions than those who are not religious.
Posted by: Elaine | November 5, 2009 11:37 AM
"Because the landscape is littered with the bodies of anti-gay bigots who were lynched by gangs of violent pro-gay extremists. "
Don't give me any ideas, Ed.
Posted by: Jim Bob Cooter | November 5, 2009 12:08 PM
While he is obviously using inflammatory rhetoric which is unacceptable, the point he is trying to make here is that it seems like a form of intimidation.
Posted by: Jim | November 5, 2009 12:24 PM
"the point he is trying to make here is that it seems like a form of intimidation."
While campaigning to strip a group of American citizens of their civil rights isn't intimidation at all. Nosiree.
The mor(m)ons feel the same way. Apparently, making a list of businesses who contributed funds to prop 8 in Cal. public so people can decide for themselves to avoid giving their dollars to bigots is "intimidation".
They can kiss my ass.
Posted by: Rick R | November 5, 2009 1:22 PM
"While campaigning to strip a group of American citizens of their civil rights isn't intimidation at all. Nosiree."
That's nothing, I've seen people simultaneously argue that giving marriage rights to homosexuals mean Christians lose marriage while saying that the homosexuals didn't really lose anything because they didn't have any marriage rights before the vote anyway. Everything is ok because no one lost anything! The mind baffles at that logic.
Posted by: Jonathan | November 5, 2009 1:44 PM
And by the way, can we now please bury that ridiculous lie that the fight against same sex marriage is about the redefinition of a word, and the protection of marriage's "sacredness"?
This fucking referendum was to deny gays the supposedly-just-peachy-keen, separate but equal "domestic partnership".
These bigots just want gays to disappear, and they're lying if they say otherwise.
Posted by: Rick R | November 5, 2009 1:53 PM
Rick, et al, they might be lying, and they might want them to disappear (though I'd argue that they do not, that they love gays because gays give them a cause of disapproval), but I'm still a bit leery of the mixing of this argument. Either petition signatures are public or they're not. Washington has a law, or it doesn't. That might be lawyer business or it might be executive business; it may even be an untrod path, but it's still the type of thing that bureaucrats place before officials for deliberation and decision.
The bigotry of the signers isn't relevant, plain and simple. Clearly they should not be able to intimidate officials or judges, but I don't think that's on offer. The rhetoric that surrounds the court case is just rhetoric. If there's a claim that the signatures are fraudulent or insufficient or whatever, that claim must be heard in proper venues and without emotional arguments; any emotional arguments made on the courthouse steps are just gas.
The alternative is Orly Taitz-style litigation, in which the political motive trumps any civil process. I'm as impatient as anybody, but let's not go all Orly.
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | November 5, 2009 4:47 PM
Petitions are public, votes are private, right?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 5, 2009 6:04 PM
ice9- True. My response is to the hypocrisy of Stickney calling attempts to make the signatures public "liberal tyranny" and "bullying tactics".
Because finding out who signed a petition like this is EXACTLY like getting beat up in an alley or being sent to an interment camp.
And you're right, if gays disappeared, who would they rally round to hate? I should say, they want to harm gay people, which is exactly what is happening every time one of our civil rights is rolled back or blocked.
As far as I'm concerned, they can still be bigots. I just want them to do it in the light, where everyone can see. I want to know who I should avoid, both socially and financially.
Posted by: Rick R | November 5, 2009 6:17 PM
Ice9,
If the petitions in question were efforts to get a measure on a ballot, recall an elected official, attempt to repeal an existing law, or otherwise elicit a legislative or public vote, the petitions are public record. Calling for that information to be kept from the public is asking (or demanding) that government officials break what are often constitutional requirements.
In this case, from what I've been able to glean from here in AZ, this is a legal battle to stop the release of what is, according to the secretary of state, a public record. In other words they are trying to suppress documents claiming voter rights protection but are, at the same time, arguing in favor of secret petitions and referendums that would make it very difficult, if not impossible, to challenge signatures on questionable petitions. This is a case where they are trying to challenge the law that makes this a public record and instead make a public document secret. Both hypocritical and unethical.
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 5, 2009 6:47 PM
All good. My only point is to let the system do the thing it does.
By the way, there's a second point. There is an infinite supply of mushmouth gaybaiting jesus freaks out there, and there is no limit to the ugliness they'll pull out of a hat.
But far right zealot screechers have just impaled another Obama nominee, who did nothing particularly bad, because he signed a petition outside of a grocery store several years ago. That was bad behavior on their part; exploiting every tiny component of a person's record regardless of context is the politics of destruction writ large. If the Washington plebiscite was based on fraudulent petition signatures, that's one thing. But to exploit the signatures for any other reason--even if the list contains rank hypocrites--is wrong, and probably bad politics. Whether the measure passes or fails, it's still wrong.
People get to make their own political decisions, of course, but for my money patience and public dignity are the best approaches to solving this problem. In a few years only the most grotesque anti-gay bigots will be left, those people who happily self-identify--think of Archie Bunker's astonishment at the idea that anyone could disagree with him. The mainstream abetters of this long and disgusting chapter in our civil rights history will soon convert to sanity; most of them are already close, and will soon regret their signatures and votes. The best and deepest shifts in the minds of men come from within, unbidden by governors or priests. A prolonged fight over public humiliation of signatories to a legal document is next door to a witch hunt (even if perfectly legal) and reeks of the sanctimonious multiple-standard of Jonah Goldberg and Dick Cheney. Plus it won't hasten the legal establishment of full civil rights for gay people one moment. In fact all the campaigning and legislating is a distant second in progress-making to the simple gradual process of showing the bigots that gay and lesbian people are no different from anyone else.
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | November 5, 2009 9:40 PM
I use a Briggs umbrella. Full length, hardwood, brass tip, long and strong enough to use as a cane. Or a bludgeon.
I also keep a brick in my handbag.
The two are an awesome combination for use on these zealots; I do it all the time.
Posted by: Uncle Glenny | November 5, 2009 9:40 PM