Thanks to GP Reader Anthony for sending me this outrageous story.
Pair vows to out anti-gay wed signers: AG certifies ballot measure – Boston Herald
A pair of gay activists are raising the stakes in the fight over same-sex marriage, vowing to post on the Internet the name and address of anyone who signs a petition to ban gay marriage and civil unions in Massachusetts.
“I have the fight in me now, and if people I know, or that I support, or that I do business with are on that list, I might not support them or their philanthropies or their businesses,” said Tom Lang, who launched knowthyneighbor.org with his spouse, Alex Westerhoff.
These two guys are basically threatening retribution or violence by posting names and addresses of those who oppose them politically.
Can you imagine how the Human Rights Campaign would howl if the names and addresses of openly (or not open) gay and lesbians were posted on a website? “A hate crime!”, they would scream!
Well, how is this less of a hate crime? Or at the very least, political intimidation at its absolute worst? Is this what the political dialogue in America has sunk to?
– Bruce (GayPatriot)
Bruce… it’s OK for us gays to do this sort of thing ’cause we’re victims.
Woe is me.
How terrible. How dare any gay use a form of blackmail against those that choose to do us wrong. Next thnig you know, a gay sniper will start picking people off one by one. I think if they post names they should go out of their way to distance themselves from the crazies that may take this to another level. Then we could find other websites that post names with big red X’s over those that have been “neutralized”.
All this is going to lead to is gay sniping!
(The real kind not the regular bullshit here.)
The above is meant to be read dripping with sarcasm.
Once again, GayPatriot proves to be a complete flaming drama queen. Lets calm down here, because at the heart of your post there is a good argument waiting to be made.
I felt a little sqeemish when I first read an account of this. As a former pro-life activist, I know how folks on the right used similar lists to target clinic workers with violence. However, the more I have read about the two guys doing this it appears that they have good intentions. They have approached a few people on the list with respect, and have had decent conversations.
Is this thing ill thought out? Yes. However, there is no proof that this site is designed to intentionally target people with violence.
And, one more point: there is a difference between outing people and publishing a public list that people freely sign. This document is available to the public, and those who sign it should be proud that they are signing this petition, shouldn’t they?
In any case, this doesn’t appear to be malicious. Could it be used for malice? Yes. There is your argument – not the shrill you surrounded it with.
And by the way – here is what really irks me – GayPatriot automatically lables this as a treachery of the “gay left“. I don’t think he offered any proof.
Of the three same-sex couples that I know who have been legally married in Massachusetts, all have been Republicans (okay, one married a registered Independent). I asked two of the couples about this last week. Both liked the idea, although I was hesitant.
Actually, it isn’t all that bad, Bruce. Let ’em post the names –those who sign are probably as strong in their views as the “knowthyneighbor”s supporters. Can signers be intimidated? Some maybe; most, not.
In Michigan, various LibLefty groups maintain and publish similar lists of voters who sign petitions to hunt mourning doves, or abolish gun registration restrictions, or oppose school millage and tax hikes, or support ending term limits. Although they don’t threaten violence or try to humiliate or intimidate opposing viewpoints –it is still an attempt to intimidate. It’s “just reporting the public record information; you decide” kind of political scam… with a big sly wink. For years, union halls have published the pictures of replacement workers crossing picket lines… to little effect. And how about all those pictures of closeted gay men caught in highway rest stops? I bet gloryhole fantasies take an upward tick when those perps are outed.
Does it affect those who do sign? Likely not– like John Hancock– I’m guessing the folks signing the petitions are as strong in their views as the inflamatory gay leftists fighting the petition. Unlike the perps in the gloryholes, the petition signers are making a political statement.
We have a similar thing going on with a petition drive to end racial discrimination and quota here in Michigan. The LibLefty opposing group “ByAnyMeansNecessary” has played similar games in the past –with little constructive impact. And probably no one is intimidated.
The public arena of political discourse will survive. A little dirtier, more muddy from the latest round of dirt slinging, but it can still be cleaned up for the next issues which gain attention in the public square. It can’t be any more abused than the well of the US Senate or House these days… let em post. It’s likely fruitless.
Bruce: I thought the “left” was aout tolerance. Apparently not.
Gregg:
Three points:
1.) Perhaps Bruce was a little overwrought, but can you blame him after what he’s been through? The Gay Left in this country is very blood-thirsty against those who do not adhere to their orthodoxy of what a “good gay” is supposed to believe. This is just another example.
2.) The sidewalks leading up to bathhouses are public also. Would you have a problem with a right-wing group setting up a camera across the street and keeping track of who goes in? Would Lang and Westerhoff?
3.) Just because someone’s a Republican, doesn’t mean he’s not on the Left. I can name a dozen who are both without straining.
NJZ – Yep, thats the kind of thing we should be debating. Bruce just tends to go way over the top.
Apparently, in Massachusetts, the information about who signed a petition is public and was freely given by signers in association with advancing a political cause, so why is it wrong to use it for political purposes? Why else would it be public?
No one is advocating violence. Boycotts are fair play for political issues, and so is public exposure (for good or bad) when you do or sign something and by doing so make your support public.