Disclosure as a weapon of liberal thuggery

There is so much dishonesty and distortion in discussions of this issue. It's surprising to see it coming from Mr. Will. He's usually more honest and analytical than this.

Isn't the huge difference here that there never were voter referenda to overturn civil rights for blacks after they had already been granted by the courts and the legislatures? Had there been, I think it would have been good to know who was bankrolling the roll-back of rights, just as it is today.

This is another case of religious conservatives wanting special rights- the "right" to ignore campaign finance and elections laws.

I find it odd that, in a column purportedly about "liberal thuggery", you chose to use an example of an attempt to force a liberal organization (the NAACP) to disclose. And, of course, we all know of the pro-life websites that do disclose the addresses of doctors to be assassinated.

Then Will has the gall to ask, "But what is the supposed infection?"

Sad that he has to ask, when the better question is, 'What have the anti-choice/anti-black/anti-gay folks got to hide?' or 'Why are they so ashamed of how they voted to take people's rights away?'

You say "Eightmaps creeps"; we say "anti-choice creeps". Tomayto/tomahto. Etcetera.

As a reporter, I tend to be in favor of sunshine laws and open public records. Will makes a case that this type of petition might qualify as votes, which are private, but I am not in favor of laws that would close records that have already been open. You don't prosecute someone for what they MIGHT do with information that is available under the law.

Will makes this odious comparison:

In the 1950s, Alabama tried to compel the NAACP to disclose its membership list.

But that is a completely separate issue. Signing a petition is not like joining a group. A petition is a request made by you to the government. The government has the obligation to determine if you have the legitimate right to make your request.

Do people want illegal immigrants to be able to sign petitions? Will would allow that to happen. Will wants to take away your right to challenge that. Do you want people who live in Connecticut to sign petitions to the state legislature in Mississippi? Will would allow that to happen too. And he wants to make sure that citizens of Mississippi are powerless to prevent it.

Of course, Will and Stickney and all of the social cons don't really want those things to happen. Instead, they want to be able to exempt themselves and only themselves from the rules.

This is not about getting church membership rolls or lists of members in Stickney's group or anything else. If it were, then the analogy to the NAACP would apply. Instead it's about giving social cons (and only social cons) the ability to lobby from the shadows without anyone else being able to know what they're doing.

Even though I tend to lean to the left, I never understood why certain activists want names disclosed. I mean, if I want my name to be associated with a certain cause or petition, I'd vocalize it myself.

It has a certain amount of relevance because of the public's right or interest in knowing. It's not up to the government what is or might be relevant. If you choose to support a cause or a candidate, own the decision and make a complaint to the police if people do start harassing you. I believe South Dakota papers have fought in court to have a list of donors to the cause of trying to get an amendment banning abortion there. Some of the names on the list were fairly prominent and their actions were of some interest for various reasons. I don't donate to political causes because I know my name will show up on a list of donors and I don't want that association being made by my employers or anyone I might cover, even though I don't make a complete secret of my political or other opinions. I do think campaign donations SHOULD be public.

In the last few years I've seen schools becoming ever more paranoid about what I cover and the types of information that is released and I think that's largely due to erroneous interpretations of privacy laws. If we allow that sort of action to go unchallenged, it becomes accepted practice and eventually law. This information should be public because there's really no good reason why it shouldn't be. It's not a national secret.

Travis Mamone

I mean, if I want my name to be associated with a certain cause or petition, I'd vocalize it myself.

But they did vocalize it. And now, to the extent that there are any repercussions, they're trying to hide what they said.

It's one thing to have an opinion on an issue up for a referendum. It's one thing to vote your conscience when asked (as the voters in Maine and Washington are being asked today).

It's another thing completely to take your pet issue and actively work to get it passed, especially if you are working to undo the normal process of legislation (both the Washington and Maine efforts are to repeal bills passed by the state legislatures and signed by the governor). You're essentially trying to force your pet issue onto the agenda. And so I think voters have a right to know who is doing the forcing.

When I chose to sign the petition for Colorado's personhood amendment, I did it knowing that abortion is an issue where feelings run high on both sides. But I wanted my name to be on the record as supporting pro-life causes. So it doesn't bother me at all that NARAL or NOW can reach out and try to change my mind.

Pro-shack-up activists, on the other hand, seem to be wilting daisies however, scared that some of those ebil gheys might come and hold an orgy on their front lawn or something. I've yet to see any cases of violence directed at pro-shack-up activists...violence tends to be something social cons use to accomplish their goals (Stickney's ex-wife—yes, he's a real believer in marriage; he's had three of them—accused him of beating her), and I've already made it plain that they won't intimidate me.

"invasion of privacy"

There is no privacy right to sign a document submitted to public officials saying you support a public referendum to be placed on a ballot and keep it all on the hush-hush. That goes double for paying money to support such an effort.

In the absence of any evidence of actual harassment or intimidation but instead just an alleged "chilling effect," the public's interest in knowing who is backing and funding political campaigns and actions is more important than alleged threats that lack substantiation.

screws have a way of turning

You are aware, I hope, that anti-SSM groups have, in fact, already tried to extort money from businesses which contributed to the No-On-8 campaign. That, of course, used campaign-financing rules, not petition signing, as a source of information, but since neither Will nor Rod seem to distinguish between the two, I don't feel off base pointing to that example. One should also note that the extortion plans came from the very top of the Yes-on-8 campaign. If you hold these activities to be morally reprehensible, surely it says something that they came from HQ.

About the only legitimate complaint the anti-disclosure people have is that increased technology has returned petition-signing in large population areas back to what it used to be: a potentially very public act. Yet this has been the case for quite a few years and no one thought to change the rules (not that they should necessarily be changed).

The act of petitioning has always been a public act. It's supposed to require forethought and purpose. Public disclosure isn't a but, it's a feature.

Repeat after me

"You have no expectation of privacy when you sign a petition for state initiatives/propositions/referenda"

Larry

Which is immaterial. You should be able to sign a petition without jeopardizing your job or getting visits from neighbours to have a "frank discussion". I suspect that a lot of people here would be singing a different tune if opponents of gay marriage were using information like this to "out" people supporting gay marriage, particularly if they live in a more conservative part of the country.

I doubt it. You forget that we have lived with precisely that threat for decades, not because of political action that we took but simply for who we are. I personally lost my first career because of discrimination and prejudice against gay people. I'm not about to let a bunch of bigots cow me now.

What the heck do you think Gay Pride is all about? Just an excuse to throw a party? (Well, it's that too) Most importantly, it's a declaration that you can't intimidate us, you can't blackmail us and you can't force us into some second-class shadowy citizenship.

This is the job of the Registrar of Elections, or similar official, not the general public.

And of course social cons have been working for years to strip funding and manpower from such state officials all in the name of "reducing government" and "starving the beast." So the general public steps up to prevent corruption and social cons try to stop that too.

This fight isn't about protecting petitioners from violence or threats; they've got zero evidence that there's anything like that going on. This fight is all about allowing social cons to flout the law and continue working dishonestly; it's all about protecting the corruption of the pro-shack-up crowd.

"This fight is all about allowing social cons to flout the law and continue working dishonestly; it's all about protecting the corruption of the pro-shack-up crowd."

I'd add it's also about feeding the social cons' martyr complex. They love to trash the left for playing identity politics and for pushing the victimhood meme, but they play that game better than anyone.

Referendums have been hijacked out here in the west in ways simply unknown for their first hundred years, particularly with regard to taxes. Contributions are public information in elections, why not for referendums? I can understand the concern regarding actual release of those signing referendums and initiatives.

Larry, do you have an evidence "these tactics" are happening now? Because I read a lot of anecdotes and broad speculation, but very little actual evidence of tangible coercion. Is there evidence of people being greeted at their front door by activists? If so, please include links to actual evidence, not reports of reports of reports.

the public's interest in knowing who is backing and funding political campaigns and actions is more important than alleged threats that lack substantiation

Even in the face of real threats and real consequences, the public's interest prevails.

You all are quick to support this stuff now, but as I said, screws have a way of turning. I'm sure you will all be outraged when these tactics are turned against you and your favorite cause in the future.

It's rather silly -- and intellectually and historically dishonest -- to suggest that 60+ years of open petitioning for civil rights based on race, religion, and sexual orientation have passed with absolutely no negative consequences for anyone who signed.

I personally know a few people who faced "frank discussions" after they were seen signing pro-civil-rights petitions. Those discussions consisted of, "You're fired. Pack up your things and get out of here, you _____-lover."

I continue to "support this stuff" for two reasons: it's the way a democracy should function and it's what the other side had to go through to get here. No changing the rules just because those who want to take away rights aren't as brave as though who fought for those rights.

It's not just about gay rights or SSM. Once the precedent is set, one could be outed for any number of reasons. Maybe you would like members of PETA to show up at your door because you let it be known that you like eat meat. Or maybe some of your friendly neighbors in white sheets because you support affirmative action, or signed something that some one else interpreted to that effect.

And as long as they don't do anything illegal, I couldn't care less.

I'm generally even willing to engage with these people, both as a gesture of courtesy (something social cons apparently lack) and out of genuine interest in understanding people's positions. In the immortal words of O-Ren Ishii, "If you're unconvinced that a particular plan of action I've decided is the wisest, tell me so, but allow me to convince you and I promise you right here and now, no subject will ever be taboo."

As a matter of fact, I did come to PETA's attention somehow a few years ago. They mostly sent vegan cookbooks and solicitations for money.

I've also had members of the LDS church and the Jehovah's Witnesses show up on my doorstep looking to have a "frank discussion." Once it was established to their satisfaction that I was going to hell in a handbasket, they moved on to greener pastures. Perfectly legal. No harm, no foul.

Both Obama and McCain supporters canvassed the neighborhood last year. Mostly they distributed campaign propaganda and answered questions, as well as registering people to vote. "Frank discussions" all around. Perfectly legal. No harm, no foul.

If the KKK wants to drop by and discuss affirmative action, that's fine. Let them knock on my door and we can talk about it. I doubt they'll get very far, but they're welcome to try. Just leave my property if asked and don't do anything to break the law.

Do you honestly expect that the SSM debate would be waged in other ways? It's how politics is done.

But maybe there is some fear here on the part of anti-marriage zealots. They probably fear that their supporters might meet a few gay people and figure out that we're not much like the caricatures they depend on to fight their elections and (more importantly) fill their pockets with donations.

I think it is ironic that the same people who are so freaked out about Acorn and voter fraud are suddenly not so interested in supporting laws which prevent voter fraud - such as being able to inspect signatures on a referendum petition. So now people who actually uh - want to maintain the laws that protect us against voter fraud are - thugs??? Does this mean repubs won't complain about ACORN anymore - since ya know - they now favor removing protections against voter fraud? I am beginning to think some conservatives have a consistency problem - today for tomorrow against -

AML: Many, many candidates have been taken off ballots from sea to shining sea because citizens and other candidates have spotted bad signatures. You're not entitled to your own facts.

I think the idea of and arguments for SSM are a load of....er...I think they are well intentioned, yet misguided mistakes.  But, I agree with those who think Will is mistaken.  I don't really expect complete privacy when I sign a petition, or donate money to a cause.  

This may have to change, however.  When any nutcase (or a group of nutcases) from anywhere on the planet can track anyone they disagree with down and harrass them...well that's something new.  I'd say that's different than being unpopular in Mayberry.  If pro-lifers are doing it, then that is wrong.

There is always SOME plausible rationale for infringing on ANY liberty, because EVERY liberty can and will be abused. George Will is absolutely correct about this. NAACP v. Alabama rules. Freedom of association is an essential right in any democratic republic, and is constitutionally protected. There is no excuse for "outing" a citizen in the exercise of their constitutional freedoms. (I note that there were some very creepy campaigns in California to send mail to the neighbors of anyone who signed a Prop 8 petition insinuating "You should know what John Jones stands for..." Nonsense. It is nobody's business, period.)

Now I draw the line when it comes to CORPORATE influence, because a corporation is not an individual human being or a citizen. A corporation is an institution, which exists only by government fiat. Like government, it must be stringently restrained, or it will steamroller us individual citizens whose liberty the government supposedly was instituted to protect. Also, I don't object to reporting of donations above a certain amount, so that millionaires don't have undue influence in the election process. But every individual citizen? Please. That's a mix of revenge, resentment, and sour grapes.

These are a bunch of cowards who lack the courage to stand up for their convictions. Of course, bullies are often cowards. Voting is properly private. Signing an initiative or referendum petition is not. In fact, public disclosure is necessary to the integrity of the process.

What is really going on is that a group of citizens want to avoid the social consequences of attempting to governmentally impose their religious beliefs on their fellow citizens. This idea that one ought not to suffer socially because of their unpopular public opinions is a kind of social or speech relativism antithetical to the concept of a marketplace of ideas. One's right to speech and political participation is not at issue here. It's really about the desire to be free from criticism, from remonstration, from the aghast looks of respected friends and family members who can't believe you could possibly be so backward and unkind in your thinking.

The fear is overblown, of course, although hyperbole seems to be the order of the day in a column describing social disapproval as thuggery. Perhaps some individuals ought to review the definition of thuggery. And only the most self-centered, insensitive sort of advocate for privacy would make the personal safety argument against teh group who still cannot walk down the street openly in much of America without fear of assault simply for being who they are. Let's have a little honesty, and a little perspective, about who is in danger here, and the nature of that danger.

I'm not sure we should base our law making based on analogies to the situation in the South in the 1950's, when extrajudicial violence (indeed terrorism) was rampant. Last I checked, gay rights advocates aren't firebombing right wing churches, and to push the analogy further, I suspect "Klan-member-bashing" was rather rare in the 1950's South.

so why have marriage? SHould we have alpha males battling it out for huge harems? Maybe Islam is right, multiple wives...hmm....

I've often thought the same thing myself. If we have "gay marriage", surely plural marriage -- which makes much more sense biologically -- needs to be given that state seal of approval as well. There can be no justification for denying 3-4-5 people "equality" if they want to enter into that sort of arrangement.

In Washington State, voters today approved the domestic partnership referendum giving gay couples the same legal rights as married straight couples. In Maine, gay marriage supporters appear to have lost. In NY-23, the Democrat won, the social and fiscal conservative lost.

Andrew Sullivan notes tonight, “from the perspective of just a decade ago, to have an even split on this question in a voter referendum is a huge shift in the culture. In Maine, where the Catholic church did all it could to prevent gays from having civil rights in a very Catholic and rural state, gays do have equality but may now merely be denied the name. The process itself has helped educate and enlighten and deepen the debate about gay people in ways that never happened before the marriage issue came up.”

The conservative pundit Ross Douthat recently said: “If I were putting money on the future of gay marriage, I would bet on it. The secular arguments against gay marriage, when they aren't just based on bigotry or custom, tend to be abstract in ways that don't find purchase in American political discourse. I say, ‘Institutional support for reproduction,' you say, ‘I love my boyfriend and I want to marry him.' Who wins that debate? You win that debate."

O readers of History, answer me this, if you can: What was the price paid for the liberties we are debating here in this thread?

I really couldn't care less about the what-if complaints. I care just as little about citations of bullying tactics past. We have classes of people (a slowly changing short list of classes, as the decades roll on) who are denied the very rights and liberties the rest of us enjoy, and they are fighting the same fight as the founders.

... now, all posturing and pomposity aside, the simple fact is that we live in an open society. This means that along side the rights and liberties we enjoy, are those who would take those away from us either retail (individual crime) or wholesale (Patriot Act, etc.) Only cowards expose their butts and bend over, and I have no interest or intention of fighting the fight on their behalf.

So, complain all you like about harassment and intimidation vs. the privacy of individual political actions. If you choose to not act because of fear, you get nothing but my contempt. You want to be protected from the consequences of your political actions, you just became unqualified for citizenship.

Nothing is free. Sometimes the price is dear.