Jun 01 2009
Intimidation tactics at the hands of gay rights supporters taints our referendum process
I heard this on the radio in passing earlier today, and confirmed it on Hot Air this evening.
This sort of intimidation pisses me off.
Let me say before I post the story details that until I read this, I had no intention of joining the fray for referendum 71, which seeks a public vote to overturn the recently signed same sex partnership laws here in Washington.
If anything, I thought that addressing this out of the marriage arena brought back the reality of what this is about without the rhetoric.
And since so many companies are already providing this, I was not surprised to see it pass the Washington legislature and be signed by the Governor.
When I heard about the attempt to overturn it by Referendum, it just made me tired. I am all for churches wanting to maintain their religious doctrines but I also see no problem with the State imposing equality in benefits, while leaving marriage alone.
But now…quite frankly even though I don’t really care about overturning it, I plan on signing the petition.
Why? Because our State has a constitution and that constitution provides for a referendum process. If peaceful citizens feel strongly and can gather the required signatures, then they deserve to have the matter decided by the people, who are (supposed to be) the ultimate authority in matters of law.
The referendum allows for a public vote. So appeal to the people, who I would expect to uphold the law, and then have done with it. Obviopusly the gay rights groups do not trust the average citizen of Washington.
Why else pull this sort of chicken sh*t intimidation? Why try and brand people bigots?
Many people like me sign petitions because they support the referendum and initiative process, and the right to bring it before the people on the ballot, not because they support the specific issue.
I believe in our process.
WhoSigned.org and their partners KnowThyNeighbor.org are cowards who rather then argue their case at the polls have to resort to cheap threats.
Groups to ‘out’ those who sign petition against same-sex unions
A group called WhoSigned.org says it will publicize the names of people signing petitions for Referendum 71, which seeks a public vote to overturn a new expansion of Washington’s same-sex partnerships.
WhoSigned.org says it’s partnering with the gay rights group KnowThyNeighbor.org to put the names online.
In a statement Monday, WhoSigned.org says it expects people who see the names online to contact the signers for what may be uncomfortable talks about gay rights.
Sponsors of Referendum 71 have until July 25 to collect about 121,000 signatures to make the fall ballot. The referendum seeks to overturn the latest expansion of the domestic partner law, which would give partners the same state rights as married couples.
Hot Air notes:
In a statement Monday, WhoSigned.org says it expects people who see the names online to contact the signers for what may be uncomfortable talks about gay rights.
That’s as good as euphemism as any for what they have in mind. If it’s all about pressuring opponents of gay rights with boycotts and “direct action” of various sorts, legitimate and otherwise, why allow a secret ballot at all? Force everyone to sign on the dotted line at the polling place and then publish their names. That’s what this amounts to in practice anyway.
Someone hand me a pen…
Trackposted to The Pink Flamingo, Rosemary’s Thoughts, third world county, Dumb Ox Daily News, The World According to Carl, and DragonLady’s World, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
One Response to “Intimidation tactics at the hands of gay rights supporters taints our referendum process”
I believe in everyone’s right to pursue happiness. But perverting the word “gay” from “happy, carefree” to mean “angry, neurotic, violent homosexual activist” seems beyond silly.
So, I’m all for everyone’s right to be gay (heck, sometimes my own life approaches gaiety, you know?), but this silly “angry homosexual rights” thing masquerading under the term “gay rights” is harmful to simple reason and simply must go… If someone’s rights as a human being aren’t enough for them and they seek special “rights” as a _____-human, then what they’re seeking is definition as a special person as against all other persons. That’s plainly and simply wrong.
As to “marriage” between two homosexuals, as soon as two homosexuals can–between themselves–produce offspring, then I’ll admit they can be married. If they cannot, then boo-hoo all over the poor babies.