Posted by Laura Glendinning in News and Analysis on October 25, 2009
BOSTON (YBH.ME) – At Boston-based www.knowthyneighbor.org, the issue is simple. Following the same logic as “outers” of sexual orientation, the website’s founders, Aaron Toleos and Tom Lang, have been publishing the names of those who signed petitions repealing same sex marriage laws. Petition signers in Massachusetts, Arkansas, Oregon and Florida have all had their names posted online.
Know They Neigbhor, Director, Tom Lang: public shame on those against gay marriage.
In June, the group announced their plans to publish signers’ names from Washington state. Lawyers for Protect Marriage Washington filed a motion to stop the group. A lower court blocked the release of the names, but on October 15th the ban was lifted by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
On October 20, the U.S. Supreme Court, with one dissenter, accepted Protect Marriage Washington’s claim that the 1st amendment’s freedom of speech provision protects the right to confidentially petition the government. Justice John Paul Stevens was the sole dissenter in the ruling.
Conservative activist lawyer James Bopp, lead counsel for Protect Washington Marriage, has stated the online name publishing is “part of a nationwide effort to harass and intimidate supporters of traditional marriage.”
In last week’s action, the Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit’s position and ordered the protective order to remain in effect indefinitely, an indication the justices believe those objecting to the release of names will probably prevail.
Publicly disclosed donors to the campaign to defeat the gay marriage ballot in California, Proposition 8, made it into headlines as business owners were boycotted, picketed and harassed. Some donors contributed only $100 to pro-Prop 8 groups, yet found themselves subjected to shaming tactics.
Legal scholars note that the Supreme Court’s action is consistent with its protection of the anonymity of civil rights and socialist group members, for example, who faced harassment and intimidation if their membership in a controversial group were known.
The KnowThyNeighbor website stands by their efforts to broaden their plans, stating:
“Gay citizens from all across Massachusetts were inspired to speak out in defense of their equal rights. Finding the names of friends, neighbors, family, co-workers, etc… helped trigger many into a state of activism. Uncomfortable but desperately needed conversations continue to take place every day as a result.”
#1 by Nate on October 25, 2009 - 6:59 pm
Laura Glendinning appears to be mistaken.
To say that the US Supreme Court "accepted Protect Marriage Washington's claim" is disingenuous.
The US Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Accepting the case means that a majority of justices voted to hear the case.
No date has been set for oral arguments, and the Court has not rendered a decision.
#2 by Bill on October 25, 2009 - 7:25 pm
Do I smell a future referendum on an upcoming ballot?????? I think I do.
You know, the one that states that only referendums pertaining to the further abuse of gay citizens may be carried out anonymously.
You heteros would pass that with flying colors, I assume. (P.S. – You ARE aware that you are participating in the Apartheid of the very gay children that are EXCLUSIVELY heterosexually created aren't you? Oh, that's right, you don't CARE. Instead, you'd like to scream your heads off about morality???)
As usual, the immoral are screaming their heads off about morality while committing crimes against humanity.
Morality indeed, folks. Morality indeed.
#3 by Marco Luxe on October 25, 2009 - 7:45 pm
I find it the use of the term "harassment" disingenuous and biased. The discomfort perceived by the three Californians typically cited by the anti-equality faction is not harassment. These misguided folks felt the outrage of their former friends, colleagues and patrons, who were surprised and shocked by their religiously inspired bigotry [LDS in all three CA cases]. These people worked in gay-friendly environments, but were blinded by their LDS leadership. This was deserved social opprobrium, not harassment.
I also find the Supreme Court's acceptance of the appeal disturbing. When in history has there ever been a case of the powerful majority being harassed by a disenfranchised minority? It just doesn't work that way. For this reason alone, the 9th Circuit ruling makes sense, and should stand.
#4 by Ahwilde on October 26, 2009 - 7:05 pm
Why do heathens rage?
#5 by Darcy on October 26, 2009 - 8:50 pm
Knowthyneighbor are a bunch of thugs who like to intimidate people. They will be smacked down by the Supreme Court and rightfully so.