Once again, gay marriage activists show they’d rather intimidate their opponents than address their arguments. Just as in Maine, gay groups plan to “out” citizens in Washington State who sign a petition to put a referendum on the ballot in order to overturn the recent expansion of the state’s same-sex partnerships. (In the Evergreen State, the legislation in question merely expands the states domestic partner law to “give partners the same state rights as married couples,” but does not call them marriages as did the legislature in the Pine Tree State.)
Instead of publishing the names with an eye to intimidate, why don’t they just prepare to debate the issue in public fora should this referendum make the ballot? Given the demographics of Washington State, I think those who favor such a referendum going to have a tough time overturning the law. Bear in mind, this is recognition of same-sex unions as domestic partnerships, not as marriages. The Evergreen State is far to the left of Arizona whose voters in 2006 rejected a referendum barring state recognition of same-sex marriages, largely because it was too expansive and would have banned civil unions as well.
And defeat of such a referendum could provide a real boost to efforts to enact civil unions in other states.
That said, for the same reasons I opposed a referendum in Maine, I also oppose one in Washington State. Elected representatives who decided the issue. If citizens don’t like the way their representative voted, they can vote them out of office.
Still, the state constitution allows them to put such a referendum on the ballot. But, all too many gay marriage activists just get really upset if people express opposition to their agenda and dare do something about it. So, I joined Michelle Malkin in wondering how they would they react if social conservatives attempted to intimidate those supporting state recognition of same-sex marriage?
. . . 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.
Their very tactics suggest a reluctance to debate an issue supposedly near and dear to their hearts. They’d rather make it personal.
If they eschewed such politics of intimidation and focused on making a careful and considered case of state recognition of same-sex partnerships, we may well see more states doing as Washington State has done.