KnowThyNeighbor.org Partners with WhoSigned.org in Washington State

Washington State’s Ref. 71 Petitioners to Have Names Posted Online 

OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE:

Seattle, WA, June 1st, 2009 –

WhoSigned.org, a grassroots organization of Washington State residents, announced today that it would make the names of Referendum 71 petitioners looking to overturn the expanded domestic partnership law accessible online.  The law would grant same-sex and senior couples (over 62 years of age) in state registered domestic partnerships the same rights as married couples.

The petitioners have until July 25th to collect the necessary 150,721 signatures, a minimum of 120,577 signatures plus a recommended buffer of 25%, to place Referendum 71 on the November 2009 ballot.  If they are successful, the new law will not go into effect as expected on July 25th and could be overturned by voters on the November 2009 ballot.

WhoSigned.org will make the petitioners names accessible online once the petition has been verified by the Washington Secretary of State and has become part of the public record.

“This is about taking responsibility,” said WhoSigned.org director Brian Murphy.  “Petition signers are choosing to prolong discrimination against fellow citizens who pay taxes, contribute to their community and care for their families. This can’t be allowed to happen in secret and without a frank public discussion. We hope that potential petition signers realize the serious consequences their actions will have on gay and straight couples and their families.”

WhoSigned.org expects Washington State’s pro-equality citizens to use its online tools to find the names of people they know, and talk with those people about the real world impact of their actions.  “Conversations like these can be uncomfortable, but they are necessary for people to understand how vital these basic rights and protections are for gay and straight families alike.”

WhoSigned.org was originally formed in response to Referendum 65 which sought to overturn the bill establishing limited domestic partnership rights for same-sex and senior couples in Washington State.  Referendum 65 failed to get the required signatures and no names were published online.

WhoSigned.org is partnering with KnowThyNeighbor.org, a national gay rights group that has worked with other grassroots organizations to publish petitioner information in several other states including Massachusetts, Florida, Arkansas, and Oregon.

Comments

[Your Information]

Did you see Dick Cheney came out for gay marriage!!! Say what ya want, but he's now more enlightened and progressive than Obama. The Obamabots must be SCREAMING right now!!!

[Tom Lang]

I agree with you about Obama being an ass regarding gay rights and marriage. But let me tell you how politics works. In 2010 the gays will have a ballot measure in California to repeal Prop 8 (ie get gay marriage). A deal was struck with the Dems to do the ballot measure at the same time as Gavin Newsom's (SF Mayor) run for Governor--in other words the gay leadership will be forced to work to put a Dem in a Republican governor's office in order to get party support for gay marriage. I suspect that Cheney is leading the way for Republicans and a Republican challenger of the pro-gay marriage Newsom in California to take the wind out of the Dems sails. Ain't politics grand? Screw the Dems AND the Republicans and fight for LGBT Rights on principle only and ALWAYS!!!!

[Prop 8 Supporter]

Aren't you glad the court upheld PROP 8.

[Carl Thomsen]

I'll be sure to sign now. It's a great honor.

[Carl Thomsen]

Afraid to sign? Kinda gives homophobia a new meaning doesn't it? OOOOH I"M SCARED!

[Tom Lang]

Carl that is wonderful. You are taking part in the Democratic Process. You know what you are signing, you have decided that taking away the rights of a group of people and their children is important to you and you have reconciled the social impact of hurting families and the generational implications that your signature holds. You signed this willingly and knowledgeable.

Good for you. At least you aren't signing because like so many, you didn't read the petition and you trust the signature gatherer's word.

[Greg Rasmussen]

I'm all for gay marriage. I believe that the government should recognize any partnership between two consenting adults, regardless of sexual orientation. I think that once you get that marriage license, you should be considered married in the eyes of the state. If you want a church wedding, fine. but that should be separate.
Now, about your site...
Are you guys idiots?? I would think you'd press your message at election time. Violating peoples' privacy by "outing" them, while it may be legal, makes you and all who support equality for gays look like assholes!. I'll tell you what, if i were on the fence on this issue, I'd sign the petition as a way of saying "up yours" for trying to scare me out of signing. I think Washington voters, for the most part, support gay rights. You do all gay rights supporters a huge disservice by this action. Using fear makes you look as paranoid as the rabid right, who use fear to make the gullible subscribe to the "marriage between men and women only" cause.

C'mon, guys, wise up.

[The Patriot]

uh, yes they are idiots, as well as intimidators and haters.

[Scott]

I think KTN does a great service to our community. The information here acts like a springboard for dialogue with those who differ in opinion. Marriage equality in Massachusetts was won at a grassroots level by getting out in the community, one person at a time, and speaking earnestly about our lives and our families with people who had previously not supported equality. KTN helps to identify those in our community who are against equality, not for the purposes of intimidation, but for the purpose of conversation and discussion.

Sorry Greg, but the other side likes to call us haters and intimidators. We just don't see it that way.

[Vincent]

Why ya gotta hate?
As M/M says, Now, imagine the uproar if the roles were reversed and anti-gay marriage activists were publicizing the names of petitioners supporting same-sex partnership expansion laws.
But when they do it, they’re not creating a “climate of hate.” They’re just exercising their free speech."

Hey Thanks guys, I mean gays. You are helping our cause more than you are helping yourselves.
Why can't you keep your perversions in your bed rooms and out of my life? Are you so torn up by self loathing that you NEED the approval of society? What's next, bestiality rights?
And while I'm at it, stay out of my religion. I have the right to believe that homosexuality is a perversion of the natural order and a detriment to all of society and speak out about it.
I pray to Almighty God for your conversion of heart, body, mind and soul.

[american elephant]

I just endured a few minutes on FoxNews of some tool trying to equate his fight for Gay Marriage with the Civil Rights movement. Let me make this clear… Gay Marriage is not a civil right.

Black Americans fought for the same rights and laws reserved for white people. They fought for a system that was color blind and equal. They wanted to sit at the same seat at the lunch counter, the same seat on the bus and drink from the same water fountain. They fought to be treated the same. Not different but equal, the same. Go to the same schools, have the same protections, enjoy the same privileges and opportunities.

That is a movement for civil rights. But what are Gay Marriage proponents fighting for? An additional or special right. Homosexuals already enjoy the same rights as the rest of Americans, the law is blind to sexual orientation. You can drink from the same water fountain, sit on the same seats on the bus, go to the same schools, and marry the same people everyone else can marry… a consenting adult of the opposite sex.

Gay Marriage proponents are not whining, complaining and fighting for the same rights as everyone else… they are trying to obtain a special or new right that no one else has. If you believe Gay Marriage should be permissible, then debate that. But stop calling it a “civil right”. It is not, and you are doing a disservice to everyone who actually fought for civil rights when you make that claim. Civil Rights leaders fought against the “Separate but Equal” mantra… but that is exactly what you are asking for.

…

By the way, Barack Obama doesn’t support Gay Marriage. Joe Biden doesn’t support Gay Marriage. Rick Warren doesn’t support Gay Marriage. So you all look like fools when you protest Rick Warren giving the invocation at Obama’s inauguration… because he doesn’t support Gay Marriage. Liberals didn’t mind telling me to believe everything Obama said during the election race, yet they conveniently overlook his own words when it suits them. Unless President-Elect Obama has been transmitting some secret signal of Gay Marriage approval only detectable by gaydar, I would suggest your protests against Rick Warren giving the invocation are misplaced. Maybe you should have been protesting your Obamamessiah before he was elected, instead of blindly voting for him.

[american power]

Gay Marriage is Not a Civil Right
The debate on homosexual marriage continues to rage after the passage of California's Proposition 8 on Tuesday.

As we saw yesterday, gay rights activists have turned against black voters in the state, who voted in overwhelming numbers to preserve the traditional definition of marriage as that between one man and one woman. Well, it turns out that today's Los Angeles Times offers a look at black views on same-sex marriage, "For Many African Americans, It's Not a Civil Rights Issue":

For Trebor Healey, a 46-year-old gay man from Glendora, Tuesday's election was bittersweet.

He was thrilled that the nation elected its first African American president. But he was disappointed that black voters, traditionally among the most reliably liberal in the state, voted overwhelmingly to ban same-sex marriage.

He understands that there are differences between the civil rights battles of blacks and gays: For one thing, he notes, gay people have a much easier time blending in. Still, he says, he thinks it's sad that "people do not equate one civil rights struggle with another."

Many black voters didn't see it that way.

"I was born black. I can't change that," said Culver City resident Bilson Davis, 57, who voted for Proposition 8. "They weren't born gay; they chose it," he added ....

Los Angeles resident Christopher Hill, 50, said he was motivated by religion in supporting Proposition 8. Civil rights, he said, "are about getting a job, employment."

Gay marriage, he said, is not: "It's an abomination against God."

One of the common attacks on supporters of Prop 8 is that they're bigots, and folks on the left are incredulous that that same voters who supported Barack Obama could in turn reject homosexual marriage rights.

The truth is that if we recall the original foundation of marriage as a union of man and women for the central purpose of procreation, it makes sense that Yes on 8 supporters resist expanding a definition of rights to those who make a lifestyle choice.

Indeed, the effort to change the language of traditional civil rights to include gay marriage has been one of the most clever yet sinister elements of the same-sex marriage movement this last few years. Yet, as Eugene Rivers and Kenneth Johnson indicate, the equation of gay rights with the black feedom struggle - and the traditional civil rights agenda - is a fraud that cheapens the historic legacy for equal treatment under the law in the United States:

There is no evidence in the history and literature of the civil rights movement, or in its genesis in the struggle against slavery, to support the claim that the "gay rights" movement is in the tradition of the African-American struggle for civil rights ....

The extraordinary history of the United States as a slaveholding republic included the kidnapping and brutal transport of blacks from African shores, and the stripping of their language, identity, and culture in order to subjugate and exploit them. It also included the constitutional enshrining of these evils in the form of a Supreme Court decision--Dred Scott v. Sandford--denying to blacks any rights that whites must respect, and the establishment of Jim Crow and de jure racial discrimination after Dred Scott was overturned by a civil war and three historic constitutional amendments.

It is these basic facts that embarrass efforts to exploit the rhetoric of civil rights to advance the goals of generally privileged groups, however much they wish to depict themselves as victims. Whatever wrongs individuals have suffered because some Americans fail in the basic moral obligation to love the sinner, even while hating the sin, there has never been an effort to create a subordinate class subject to exploitation based on "sexual orientation."

It is precisely the indiscriminate promotion of various social groups' desires and preferences as "rights" that has drained the moral authority from the civil rights industry. Let us consider the question of rights. What makes a gay activist's aspiration to overturn thousands of years of universally recognized morality and practice a "right"? Why should an institution designed for the reproduction of civil society and the rearing of children in a moral environment in which their interests are given pride of place be refashioned to accommodate relationships integrated around intrinsically non-marital sexual conduct?

One must, in the current discussion, address directly the assertion of discrimination. The claim that the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman constitutes discrimination is based on a false analogy with statutory prohibitions on interracial marriages in many states through much of the 20th century. This alleged analogy collapses when one considers that skin pigmentation is utterly irrelevant to the procreative and unitive functions of marriage. Racial differences do not interfere with the ability of sexually complementary spouses to become "one-flesh," as the Book of Genesis puts it, by sexual intercourse that fulfills the behavioral conditions of procreation. As the law of marital consummation makes clear, and always has made clear, it is this bodily union that serves as the foundation of the profound sharing of life at every level--biological, emotional, dispositional, rational, and spiritual--that marriage is. This explains not only why marriage can only be between a man and a woman, but also why marriages cannot be between more than two people--despite the desire of "polyamorists" to have their sexual preferences and practices legally recognized and blessed.

Moreover, the analogy of same-sex marriage to interracial marriage disregards the whole point of those prohibitions, which was to maintain and advance a system of racial subordination and exploitation. It was to maintain a caste system in which one race was relegated to conditions of social and economic inferiority. The definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman does not establish a sexual caste system or relegate one sex to conditions of social and economic inferiority. It does, to be sure, deny the recognition as lawful "marriages" to some forms of sexual combining--including polygyny, polyandry, polyamory, and same-sex relationships. But there is nothing invidious or discriminatory about laws that decline to treat all sexual wants or proclivities as equal.

People are equal in worth and dignity, but sexual choices and lifestyles are not. That is why the law's refusal to license polygamous, polyamorous, and homosexual unions is entirely right and proper. In recognizing, favoring, and promoting traditional, monogamous marriage, the law does not violate the "rights" of people whose "lifestyle preferences" are denied the stamp of legal approval. Rather, it furthers and fosters the common good of civil society, and makes proper provision for the physical and moral protection and nurturing of children.

I have no illusions that such rigorous argumentation and logic will convince homosexual rights advocates that gays face no discimination on the question of marriage rights.

But as we can see, the homosexual movement is attempting to create a right to marriage that has no basis in historical practice, and such attempts trivialize the bloody march to equality Americans have endured and overcome.

This is a lesson gay activists should consider, for when 70 percent of blacks in California - the nation's most liberal, trend-setting state - oppose the demands of an extremely vocal radical minority, it's a pretty good indicator that the movement for same-sex marriage rights falls outside the bounds of both traditional law and universal morality.
Posted by Donald Douglas at 12:39 PM
Labels: Black Politics, Civil Rights, Social Policy

[http://tech.mit.edu/]

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
Adam Kolasinski

The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.

I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.

Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.

One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.

Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.

Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.

Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.

The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

[ryan charisma]

Marriage.is.a.civil.right.

no discussion.

[The Patriot]

wow Charasma is speechless I love it!

They just kicked your ass all over the place - let's see Hosty try to spin these

[ryan charisma]

no one kicked anyone's ass, their posts are really just too tiresome and long to give any attention to.

hate is hate no matter how you dress it.

[ryan charisma]

I'll allow America's Best Christian explain:

[ryan charisma]

I'll let America's Best Christian Expalin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

[ryan charisma]

Patriot, Melvin, Complete Douche:

BTW - NH now believes in Marriage Equality.

That's 6 states.

I hope your bigotry keeps you warm at night.

"wrong side of history"

[Scott]

Wow, the nasty bigots, I mean good christians, have turned out here in mass numbers. Somebody must have struck a raw nerve.

[The Patriot]

why is it always hate of Christians with you people.

[ryan charisma]

because they're the ones trying to legislate according to an book of pre-historic superstitions, which curb the rights of others.

that's why.

[John]

I don't hate Christians, just what they do

[Your Information]

With a democrat in the White House and majorities in both Houses we still can't Pelosi and Obama to help us. gays helped both of them get into office and they still ignore us. Fuck Them! And now HRC is making secret deals behind our backs! Fuck them too!

[Scott]

I don't mind that you're Christian but do you always have to flaunt your Christianity and push it in our faces? What you do in the privacy of your church is your business but can't you just leave it there where it belongs? ;)