ad_email
ad_facebook_468

7 responses to “Marriage equality opponents vow rematch over public disclosure case”

  1. Bonny

    Gay activists shouldn’t be too happy. No doubt one day it will be the names of their kind being disclosed for supporting laws in favor of gay rights. Then they shall reap the whirlwind of those who want to harass people for having differing viewpoints, just like those affected by this ruling no doubt will.

  2. Anthony86

    Bonny – Oh please, what more harm and intimidation can anti-gay individuals and groups do to the LGBT community that they haven’t already done?

    You people are the ones threatening and menacing gays and lesbians on the streets and in their homes, not the other way around.

    You anti-gay cowards are so pathetic. You openly attack others with your prejudice and then try to hide behind walls of secrecy. But now the law just knocked that wall down.

  3. Reyn

    The names of THEIR KIND? Oh come on, Bonny — I’ve never hidden my name, or my identity — every petition and every action I’ve ever been part of has had my name – and often contact information – openly available. I believe in democracy. Have I been harassed? Sure. That doesn’t change me or my opinions one iota, nor do I run for protection. The laws already make clear lines that protect my person and property, I don’t need more, special rights — just equal rights — as we always want.

    Reyn
    mercuryhermes_01@yahoo.com

  4. Kyle

    @Bonny: So long as “our kind” stays out of the business of trying to take away the rights of another minority, we should be fine. But thanks for your concern,

  5. Joe Mustich, JP

    Let the sunshine in.
    Onward, Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
    Washington, Connecticut, USA.

  6. August Berkshire

    Bonnie, the GLBT community has already suffered plenty at the hands of Christian gay-bashers. They have to resort to existing laws against violence, just as the defendants in this case will have to.

    The reason that names must be disclosed is to permit an open investigation against forged or ineligible signatures, since there is a minimum number of signatures required to put hateful propositions like this to a vote.

    Bonnie, when will we be permitted to vote away YOUR marriage rights?

  7. Mombian » Blog Archive » Weekly Political Roundup

    [...] U.S. Supreme Court upheld a law requiring public disclosure of the names of people who signed a petition to put an [...]

Leave a Reply

Your support keeps us going. Thank you!

Your support keeps us going. Thank you!

A Closer Look

June 26: An historic date marking victories that almost didn’t happenJune 26: An historic date marking victories that almost didn’t happen

Three important U.S. Supreme Court decisions have made June 26 the most historic date on the LGBT civil rights movement’s calendar. But the powerful impact of two of those decisions has almost obscured the fact that they were narrow victories.

» more


Breaking News

Fourth Circuit panel votes 2 to 1 to strike Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban

It was clear from the oral argument that two out of three of the judges on a Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel would vote on opposite sides concerning the constitutionality of Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage. The question was how the third judge would vote. That question was answered Monday: He voted against the ban.

» more


President signs historic executive order

President Obama this morning (July 21) signed a long-sought executive order prohibiting contractors who do business with the federal government from discriminating based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and adding to existing protection (which includes sexual orientation) for federal employees a prohibition of discrimination based on gender identity.

» more


Legal activists call Hobby Lobby decision ‘radical’ and will require vigilance to protect LGBT equality

Some LGBT legal activists say today’s decision in a U.S. Supreme Court religious exemption case amounts to a “dangerous and radical departure from existing law that creates far more questions than it answers.”

Saying it is not providing a “shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice,” a 5 to 4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today (June 30) that a federal law may not require a closely held commercial employer to provide health insurance coverage for contraception if that employer claims that to do so violates his or her personal religious beliefs.

» more


First federal appeals court panel weighs in; finds Utah’s ban unconstitutionalFirst federal appeals court panel weighs in; finds Utah’s ban unconstitutional

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a 2 to 1 decision Wednesday, upholding a district court decision that Utah’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples is unconstitutional.

» more


June 26: An historic date marking victories that almost didn’t happenJune 26: An historic date marking victories that almost didn’t happen

Three important U.S. Supreme Court decisions have made June 26 the most historic date on the LGBT civil rights movement’s calendar. But the powerful impact of two of those decisions has almost obscured the fact that they were narrow victories.

» more