Because the elected legislature of Maine passed and the elected Governor signed a bill recognizing same-sex marriages in the Pine Tree Street, I unequivocally oppose putting a “Citizens’ Veto” on the state’s ballot to overturn this new law. If I lived in that scenic state, I would not sign the petition and would urge my fellow citizens to do the same.
I would tell those pushing such an initiative that they already have recourse at the ballot box. They can vote against legislators who supported the legislation.
That said, the Maine Constitution does allow for such vetoes. As it appears concerned Mainers are pursuing this path, their fellow citizens should show them the same respect they would show anyone pursuing our constitutionally guaranteed right “to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Some, however, don’t want to extend them that respect. Reminding us of the behavior of gay marriage advocates who targeted those who financially supported California’s Proposition 8, our reader AndreasLights offers a warning which sounds more like a threat:
. . . according to the Secretary of State in Maine, the names and home addresses of each person signing the veto petitions will be available for publication under the Freedom of Information Act.
Potential signers of the veto petition should be aware that this is not an anonymous process. Contributors to Proposition 8 in California were horrified to learn that their names and home addresses were made public.
In fairness, Maine voters should be aware of this in deciding whether or not to stand up publicly against marriage equality (sic) and must be willing to accept any ramifications as a result of their act of petition.
In a republic, people who petition the government for a redress of grievances should not expect “ramifications” similar to those experienced by financial backers of the “Yes on 8” campaign. Such ramifications define how totalitarian and authoritarian regimes respond to opponents.
In nations ruled by such regimes, intimidation replaces debate as a means to resolve political differences. Here, we should respond to such differences in a civil manner.
To be true to the American spirits, gay marriage supporters who wish to ensure that this “Citizens’ Veto” is itself vetoed should themselves be prepared to rationally make the case for gay marriage and to respectfully take issue with those who favor such a constitutionally-sanctioned veto. Given the religious liberty clause in the Maine legislation, their task should be relatively easy; this provision provides them the means to counter the strongest argument of gay marriage opponents.
The law distinguishes civil marriages from religious ones. No church nor any other religious institution need perform or otherwise sanction same-sex marriages. Each remains free to define marriage according to the doctrine of its faith.
By threatening signers of the petition for a Citizens’ Veto, people like Andreas only embolden those who favor such a ballot initiative. They should instead prepare themselves for a public debate on the measure should its proponents gather enough signatures to put the matter before Maine’s voters.
A tactic of intimidation will certainly alienate wavering voters and likely alienate even some voters sympathetic to their case. Should they eschew intimidation and promote civil opposition, they will better be able to make their case to a somewhat skeptical public, those who oppose gay marriage on a personal level, but trust their elected legislators to resolve controversial issues of public policy.
Once again, it seems gay marriage advocates would rather personalize the issue, by demonizing and intimidating those who disagree with them rather than challenging them with sound argument and considered respect.
Why do advocates of gay marriage continually respond to their adversaries by engaging in what one prominent gay marriage opponent called the “politics of personal destruction“?
I find it disturbing that the home addresses of petition signers is given out as public information, regardless of what side they fall on. I agree with names and perhaps city/town, but home addresses? No. Addresses should only be released for business or special interest donations.
So there is an obligation to show “respect” for anyone exercising their legal or constitutional rights? Fine. Then start by showing respect for citizens of Maine who are exercising their rights under the state freedom of information law and election law to obtain the identities of people supporting the People’s Veto and who are then exercising their right under the US Constitution and the Maine constitution to speak about those people. To accuse people who are only exercising their rights of “intimidation” (a criminal act) and to equate them with totalitarian dictators is not showing them respect.
OK, Bill, I’ll bite: Other than intimidation, why would someone sue to find the home addresses of political opponents?
Trust me on this, Mainers will not stand for the sort of nonsense that happened post Prop-8.
Best wishes,
-MFS
Signature verification/petition challenges are the likely reasons why it is public information
Yes, I realize that gillie, which is why the addresses are collected and confirmed by state officials.
The difference is that the addresses are NOT public. They can only be made public by a FOIA inquiry.
Let’s not be naive. The situation in California turned into a witch hunt. Businesses and reputations were ruined. Death threats were issued.
Which brings us back to my original question: other than intimidation, why exactly would someone go this route?
Best wishes,
-MFS
They’re not going to “sue” to get the information, it is availale, according to the Secretary of State, through the state’s Freedom of Information Act. They send a request, they get the info. Why would they go that route? Perhaps they don’t wish to frequent businesses maintained by supporters, or to associate with them. If the state feels that the information should be protected, then it should not make it available trough a FOIA request.
Democracy, to be successful, must be deliberative and transparent. Truthfully, propositions, of any sort, usually are not, unless they have a supermajority requirement. But to complain of “intimidation” simply reveals that you desire they enjoy some sort of special right that is not available to anyone else who signs a petition, and is corrosive to the democratic process. It amuses me how the right advocates direct democracy only when it is on their terms. At the very least, critics of these kinds of votes are at least consistent in their critique.
For what it is worth, I agree that the information should be available because it is necessary to verify that these individuals are properly registered voters, and to make certain that every individual who finds their name on the list was not fraudulently enlisted to sign, if in fact they do sign. As far as consequences, well…we must all live with our choices. I thought that personal responsibility was a conservative virtue?
#5: I have no sympathy for businesses or special interest groups, regardless of the position they take. They have no right to privacy in their donations and this is entirely different in my view than releasing the home addresses of private citizens. Death threats are prosecutionable but we do not limit everyone else’s right to boycott or demonstrate against businesses and special interest groups that take actions we disagree with. That goes for both sides of this and, btw, includes counter-boycotts and counter-demonstrations.
I’m at a bit of a loss: the the signature process currently underway here in Maine is for private citizens not corporations. And just to be clear, no money is changing hands.
I only mentioned business concerns because gay-friendly and even gay-owned restaurants and shops were boycotted after Prop-8 because a single employee voted the wrong the way. This isn’t fantasy. It really happened.
My concern all along was that the FOIA would be used for intimidation. In response, I’m seeing a lot of breezy talk about the virtues of intimidation.
Look, just because something is legal does not make it sensible. As right-thinking individuals – as Americans – I would hope that we can make a reasoned case and not resort to the sort of pitched battles some folks seem to be clammering for.
I for one, don’t want to win through McCarthyism.
Best wishes,
-MFS
What better way to make sure that the the proles keeps their collective traps shut on controversial issues that by making petition records public… so much easier to harass those who have the impertinence to go against political correctness.
Why, people can get fired should protesters show up at their workplace; that’ll put them in their place.
How comforting it would be for a little old lady to find out that her name, address and phone are listed on websites along with “civil” commentary from various activists. A few picketers at her house one afternoon would teach the old biddy her place.
But wouldn’t it might be more efficient if we just require these people to wear some sort of badge to indicate their transgression? It seems like there was a certain totalitarian regime in the 1930s that made effective use of these badges.
Hey MFS, how long have you lived in Maine? I’ve been living here my whole life, so I can safely say we’ve never had the problem of large scale harrassment of petition signers. One thing the antis should be aware of is referendum fatigue. One of my straight co-workers said that if he encounters a petitioner, he will refuse to sign. He said the anti-gay people should leave the gays alone (using a lot more profanity than this description). Folks, we have had anti-gay referendums in 1995, 1998, 2000, 2005 & an aborted one just last year. So keep this in mind as some commenters (not you GPW, you have your head on right) cheer on this thing.
Why not make public people’s votes? By the same logic as many people commenting here, eveyone who votes should have their name and address made public along with how they voted. This whole process of private voting is so yesterday. How are poltical activists to know who to picket and harass if no one can find out how people voted?
Except when it comes to the
Association of
Community
Organizers
Registering
Necro-proxies
right? That would be racist and necrophobic. Besides, without access to addresses and phone numbers, how would the union rent-a-mobs and radical liberals know who to target?
No, Alec, I’m not asking for any special right for those who sign the petition. I’m just asking that people don’t harass them as they did those who contributed to the “Yes on 8” campaign.
Yes, we do believe personal responsibility is a conservative virtue. But, not that people should punish them for their views. Sad how you twist this notion, suggesting that singing a petition means opening yourself up to ridicule.
Would you favor having social conservatives target people who gave money to the “No on 8” campaign and subjecting them to public ridicule? Would you then countenance verbal harassment of gay people? Because that’s the flip side to the coin here.
Amazing how so many gay marriage advocates refuse to condemn those who would demonize their political adversaries. By their very arguments, they excuse those who, in years past, harassed people like us.
If I lived in that scenic state, I would not sign the petition and would urge my fellow citizens to do the same.
Dan, I’d hope that the number one reason why you wouldn’t sign the petition is because you actually support same sex marriage. At least that would be my number one reason.
Would you favor having social conservatives target people who gave money to the “No on 8″ campaign and subjecting them to public ridicule? Would you then countenance verbal harassment of gay people? Because that’s the flip side to the coin here.
If that’s all public disclosure would do, I would say bring it on! Let them try to do so. They come out like fools when they try to verbally harass people.
But since this type of disclosure could certainly lead to much more, I do oppose it.
Would you favor having social conservatives target people who gave money to the “No on 8″ campaign and subjecting them to public ridicule? Would you then countenance verbal harassment of gay people? Because that’s the flip side to the coin here.
I think that anyone who uses the information to commit a crime against someone on the list should be subject to a sentencing enhancement, if there is not a crime on the books for that (as there is with people who use sex offender registries improperly….strange how conservatives do not condemn those invasive measures).
You see, you’re mixing the issues here. Were the ends of the Proposition 8 protests illegal? Was it illegal to use that information to form boycotts? No, but conservatives still decry it as “intimidation,” suggesting some sort of nefarious criminal act. In fact, of course, they were just facing perfectly legal consequences for their actions. It is amusing, but not surprising, that you would wish to subject them to special treatment that no other initiative proponents enjoy while overlooking the impact that their actions had on the lives of others.
By their very arguments, they excuse those who, in years past, harassed people like us.
Not really. I just don’t support special rights for petition signers of anti-gay initiatives. And make no mistake, this is a special right they’re demanding. What’s good for the goose is clearly not good for the gander in their case. It is also fully consistent with their ethic; they also demand special exemptions from anti-discrimination laws, going so far as to suggest we should enshrine a special right to anti-gay bigotry in our jurisprudence by invalidating antidiscrimination statutes as they apply to those individuals with religious objections to homosexuality.
I’m also very curious as to what you mean by “opening yourself up to ridicule.” If I sign a petition that will make my information public, I have no reasonable expectation that I will not be subject to “ridicule” for my beliefs. People may not frequent my business, they might choose not to associate me. The same thing may happen by coming out of the closet and identifying as gay. Are you suggesting we draw up a special, unprecedented antidiscrimination statute to deal with that, too, or are you solely concerned with the injured feelings of your conservative associates?
Personally, I don’t think it is worthwhile to target the small fish in the pond on these issues. But I am tired of listening to “poor me” from conservatives on this topic. Grow a pair or get out of the public square.
Jimbo!
Guilty as charged: Moved to the mid-coast eight years ago and, having lived up and down the eastern seaboard, I have never met a more caring or sociable lot. Truly.
Oh, I know better than to call myself a Mainer. The local coffee shop owner, I like to tell others, opened for business twenty-six years ago and was still affectionately referred to as “Alaska Mike.” Yup, right to the day they finally chased him back to Juno. 😉
My larger point in cautioning against harassment is this: We are in agreement that that kind activity runs against the grain here. But, that won’t stop folks “from away.” If you haven’t read the story I linked to (#3) I strongly encourage you to do so. If you thought that jackass Hilton was an embarrassment, the author’s travails will make you want to hang your head in shame with what was ostensibly done in our names.
If folks from New York and California started making death-threats, started picketing local churches, then what will happen to all the good will built up among the Maine straights? Jimbo, I bow to your experience here: do I misread local sentiment?
Best wishes,
-MFS
OK, Jimbo, redirect:
If your average Mainer was called a “little fish” who needed to “grow a pair” by some saber-rattler from away, what would his reaction be?
Best wishes,
-MFS
Is it a “hate crime” to harass people who sign petitions which run counter to one’s wishes? If you first obtain their addresses from the petitions and then go directly to them for up close and personal harassment, couldn’t we consider it a “first degree hate crime?” Or, is it sort of like “card-check” where it can’t be a “hate crime” if there is only one politically correct answer.
MFS,
I’m a midwesterner; we’re not that spooky, or even outspoken. And yes, that’s what rabid religious conservatives are in Maine and elsewhere when they cry out for special rights….little fish who need to grow a pair. Not Mainers….I’ve known some fine people from Maine. Hell, one of my favorite authors lives in Maine, as does my ex, for that matter. I’d suggest not twisting my words to suit your agenda.
If Mainers feel that the information should not be public, they should petition their representatives to change the law and prohibit FOIA requests for this purpose. Until then, their “woe is me” cries will fall on deaf ears.
Alec:
Perhaps, this really is falling on “deaf ears,” but I don’t know how to say this any more clearly:
Gay marriage will likely carry the day here, but only if outside folks like yourself STOP HELPING.
I have no doubt that you mean well, but you’re going about this all wrong. I would give the same advice to traditional marriage folks from the Midwest and elsewhere: please keep your “falling chips” to yourself. Folks here don’t want to hear it. If this turns into a Prop-8 hate-fest, the backlash will be tragic.
Best wishes,
-MFS
p.s. Give your Ex my regards.
MFS,
I’m not doing anything in Maine. I don’t contact representatives within a state unless it is my own, and I generally stay out of campaigns that are not in my own state.
That being said, I will comment on developments in other states. And I am tired of listening to conservatives, in Maine or anywhere else, complain that they are being “intimidated” after they sign documents that are available to the public. Tough cookies. They knew what they were getting into.
Please stop projecting your issues with the Proposition 8 fallout onto me. I had nothing to do with it.
No MFS, I don’t misread local sentiment. I live in Brunswick, which is a liberal college town, so I feel isolated from some of the more extreme elements of the religious right. However, not only will they have to deal with petition fatigue & more sympathy for our community as they continue to pile on; they will have to reign in some of the more outre elements of their crowd. I’m referring to the comment in the online section of the Lewiston Sun Journal in which a reader said the gays should get married on the “Chuck-a-Homo” bridge (a crude reference to the killing of Charlie Howard-who was beaten & thrown off a bridge in Bangor back in 1984).
I don’t recall ever hearing of a case where petition signers names were asked for by members of the opposition. I do know the passionate on both sides will negate each other’s vote. It is the middle of the road Mainah that will decide this. As soon as out-of-state, from-away forces start exerting pressure, the middle of the road Mainah will not let this law stand.
Alec, a lesson I learned from my parents : Just because you have the ability to do something, doesn’t make it right to do it.
The national gay organizations need to stay out of this process. It is the one thing that will certainly doom a favorable outcome.
#22 – “the killing of Charlie Howard-who was beaten & thrown off a bridge in Bangor back in 1984”
Wonder if that’s where Stephen King got his inspiration for a similar event in his novel “IT.” Curious.
Regards,
Peter H.
Peter,
It was.
The naming has started :
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=256542&ac=
You know, if you take a public stand on a controversial issue, you have to expect for there to be some “blowback” from opponents.
While people have the right and privilege to sign petitions and give money to causes in which they believe, everyone who does not agree with that position has the right to patronize other businesses or to stop giving money to people who then pass it on to causes they don’t support.
Physical threatening and intimidation cross the line, but boycotts are a time-tested, non-violent way of making your position known.
I just want you to know that family tree programmes don’t recognise gay couples. Using programs such as Legacy and Family Tree Maker, you can’t change couples to same sex. When I complained to Legacy (in Arizona) about this they told me it would cost too much and be too hard to change the codes to accomodate this. They changed their codes to add photos and maps, but not same sex couples. This is just wrong. People have been gay for centuries, and family trees should be able to show this!