There is a good battle brewing in Washington state, where signatures are being gathered to repeal that state's recent domestic partnership law. A website called WhoSigned.org will make available the (statutorily public) information of who signed the petitions to repeal the law.
This is part of a larger movement in recent years to disclose the public information about who opposes legal recognition of same-sex relationships. Larry Stickney of the political-action committee Protect Marriage Washington, makes the case against disclosure:
This seems to be a typical pattern developing around the country where the homosexual lobby employs hostile, undemocratic, intimidating tactics wherever their interests or intent are challenged. . . They take the politics of personal destruction to new levels. I am a personal recipient of dozens of obscene and threatening e-mails and phone calls since we filed this.
This is a good point, and if it sounds familiar to those of us who are gay or lesbian, that's because it's exactly the way we have been treated for centuries, in various forms; imprisonment and police harassment, for example, are certainly "hostile," if not exactly "undemocratic," and while they're worse than "obscene or threatening e-mails and phone calls," they're certainly still an "intimidating tactic."
Stickney's comments show, in fact, how the cultural history of homosexuality, based on shaming us, is still at work today with a twist. As the movie, Outrage shows, there are still gay people ashamed of their own homosexuality who cling to the decaying remains of the closet. But now it is our opponents who are most loudly shouting about the need for a right to privacy. As we've come out of our closets, they're trying to construct their own.
For the record, we'd be perfectly happy if homosexuality didn't need to be a political issue. In fact, that's exactly what we're fighting for - the equality the law denies us explicitly, as in DOMA and DADT, and marriage laws that exclude us entirely. Once those are cured, I, at least, will be happy to take gay equality off the political agenda.
But until that happens, our own self-respect is on the line. And politics is not the kind of fight you can have while hiding. If Stickney and his supporters can't stand the heat of politics, they should get out of the kitchen.
15 Comments for “The Shame Game”
posted by BobN on
For more than 50 years, gay people have been subject to exposure often with the consequence of ruining their lives. This poor, poor man gets the odd nasty phone call and GAINS in influence and remuneration as a result of his growing prominence in the anti-gay movement.
Cry me a river.
Anonymity in political movements strikes me as a rather undemocratic concept but I guess I’m willing to consider it the next time around, not mid-fight.
[Reasonable person that I am, if the public disclosure threshold — instituted to protect politics from excessive control by moneyed interests — was set way back in the past when $100 meant something, I’m all for indexing it to inflation (along with a lot of other stuff). Such a change, of course, also shouldn’t happen mid-fight.]
posted by TS on
I think people who would petition against domestic partner rights are a much bigger threat than those who would oppose marriage but not domestic partnership. I have mixed feelings about using boycotts or public disclosure things to punish those people. But all in all I don’t think I oppose it.
What I would actually like to see is a task force of GLBT or ally volunteers agree to stand guard or check mail for any individuals or families that find themselves the target of vandalism or any other wrong/illegal act. There is a bright, shining line between a high-minded boycott and vulgar hate crimes that only serve to humiliate our cause.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Political contributions over a certain amount are a public record. If people don’t want to their political contributions shown in the public record, then they shouldn’t contribute. Its that simple. Stealth political contributions are for rabbits.
posted by Jorge on
Threats made against people as a result of their politics are not acceptable and need to be taken seriously as a factor arguing against the public disclosure of political information.
But I like TS’s idea better. It is ultimately the responsibility of the citizens to police themselves and police their own. We cannot let deviant behavior intimidate people from feeling safe to participate in a democracy.
Democracy means we make war against each other with mudslinging instead of rockslinging. It’s a beautiful thing.
posted by Bobby on
Whosigned.org is no different than the blacklist during the red scare in the 1950s. This tactics are only going to create more enemies, how would you feel if a company owner decided to fire everyone who voted for Obama? Gays with principles should stand up agaisnt whosigned.org
posted by BobN on
Whosigned.org is no different than the blacklist during the red scare in the 1950s.
Nonsense. Blacklists were not based on publicly available petition signing. Petitions were traditionally VERY open and public. That was the point. Ever hear of Martin Luther?
As to your voting example… we have a secret ballot.
posted by Jorge on
BobN, how can you claim we have a secret ballot in the same breath you dismiss the destructive results of this campaign? If people become too afraid to sign petitions that are necessary to bring a proposed law to the ballot or legislature, then the result is fascism, a censorship and silencing of the democratic process. You cannot have it both ways. It started in Germany with people being beaten in the streets. The fascists justified their brutality and sought the popular vote by claiming they had to stop the communists. In this country I fear it will also start with murder, but when that happens the people will bring it to an end.
Bobby do you have any ideas on *how* to stand up against this website?
posted by David Link on
Jorge, I think the central question is not *that* people might be afraid to sign petitions, but *why.* No one is being “beaten in the streets,” by gays because they oppose same-sex marriage. There are only two incidents that even come close, in San Diego, where an old woman with a history of aggressive anti-gay protest went — alone — into a large crowd and did, indeed, have her sign taken from her (though she was not, herself, physically harmed) and the case in the Castro where a group of religious believers went into a protest and were truly harassed, in my opinion, in a way that deserves our community’s condemnation. Other than that, the right has done a successful job of manufacturing outrage out of the cheapest materials. I think that’s why the end product has so little credibility, even though its tattered remnants continue to be brandished.
What is at issue here is the fact that the right is now afraid, not of us, but of the fact that they are losing. Slowly losing, to be sure, but losing inevitably. They do not like it that the cultural assumptions they make are eroding underneath them. They can no longer count on the prejudice they have always been able to take for granted. And they are stunned that they are now sometimes being asked to defend something they have never had to defend before — their own bias.
I feel some sympathy for them, but the problem is now theirs. The very few times when our supporters have crossed the line deserve our denunciation. But I, at least, will not stand for having our fair (and even, sometimes unfair) exercise of our political rights mischaracterized as violence or intimidation. What the right calls intimidating is, for the most part, what most people would call losing.
posted by BobN on
Jorge,
We do have a secret ballot. We do not have, and have never had, a secret petition process.
Signing petitions and making campaign contributions ARE PUBLIC ACTS. This transparency is critical to our democracy. I understand why “conservatives” don’t like these rules, as they somewhat limit the influence of $$$$$$, but that’s the way it is.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What is at issue here is the fact that the right is now afraid, not of us, but of the fact that they are losing. Slowly losing, to be sure, but losing inevitably. They do not like it that the cultural assumptions they make are eroding underneath them. They can no longer count on the prejudice they have always been able to take for granted. And they are stunned that they are now sometimes being asked to defend something they have never had to defend before — their own bias.
No; what is happening is that gay leftists are demonstrating that there literally is no limit to the behavior that they will attempt to rationalize.
The simple fact of the matter is that David Link is trying to justify public and open harassment of people for exercising their right to raise and sign petitions. The fact that Link and his fellow leftists actually are doing such things demonstrates the degree of desperation they have in trying to keep such items away from the ballot — where, due to its secret nature, they can’t harass and attack people who won’t do exactly what they say.
The interesting part is that, if you read through the comments on the article cited, the response is overwhelmingly AGAINST Link and his mary band of harassers. People recognize it for what it is — an attempt to intimidate people from exercising their legitimate Constitutional rights — and are reacting rather negatively.
posted by Bobby on
“Nonsense. Blacklists were not based on publicly available petition signing. Petitions were traditionally VERY open and public. That was the point. Ever hear of Martin Luther?”
—Are you saying that if you sign a petition you don’t mind your information being disseminated online? What if you signed a pro-choice petition and some pro-lifer decides to vandalize your home, fire you from your job, or take some action based on information that should be kept private?
The blacklist destroyed a lot of people and that’s what gay activists are doing. They’re trying to intimidate people into voting their way with websites like whosigned.com Think about it, why else would you be attacking individual voters?
Where’s your sense of fairness? If anti-gay organizations started publishing the names of addresses of people who sign pro-gay petition you’d be crying murder, but because gay activists are doing it you think it’s just fine.
Tactics like this are only going to win us enemies. Look at Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan, they’re miserable failures because they’re miserable people with miserable tactics. Who needs homophobes when you have gay activists doing their jobs?
posted by dalea on
We have heard no criticism of posting signers until Gay issues entered into the discussion. The open information on petition signers has been used for decades. One I can remember from years ago; people whose signatures were on the petition were asked why they had signed. Turned out they hadn’t; someone had forged their names. There have also been instances where petitions were switched; signatures ended up on the wrong forms. Having the names published is essential to open and honest elections. It will be interesting to see how many of the signers claim that they did not sign. If enough do, it can be thrown off the ballot.
posted by Bobby on
Dalea, there’s plenty of evidence that gay activists have been harassing people who voted from same-sex marriage, including that poor waitress that got fired from her job, and the stage manager. Explain those “little” incidents.
“The open information on petition signers has been used for decades. ”
—Maybe, but it was never posted online. Signatures where verified by lawyers, activists and others, but when you put the info online you’re making it available to every psycho in the world. It’s a safety issue. It’s the same reason newspapers aren’t supposed to publish names and addresses of registered gun owners since that information is helpful to unarmed criminals that want to steal a piece and sell it on the black market.
posted by dalea on
Bobby asks: ‘ Explain those “little” incidents.’
People got to take responsibility for their own actions. The waitress was actually a manager of a restaurant in West Hollywood. The largely gay clientele boycotted and demonstrated. The stage manager was actually director of a musical theater venue, one with a large gay following.
In all these cases, people who had taken public anti-gay stands got called on it. And many of them lost their jobs. Or have suffered a decline in revenue. Gays are finally beginning to push back against our oppresors. And they don’t like it. Tough.
posted by David Link on
I’d like to amplify dalea’s comments. Both El Coyote and the Sacramento Musical Theater took some pride in being gay-friendly, and these contributions were viewed as betrayals by a friend. That may or may not be true in thousands of other contexts that get swept into these two incidents.
And that’s the second point – dalea says “many” of them lost their jobs. Aside from these two, I’m not aware of anyone else whose job was ever on the line because of a Prop. 8 contribution. I couldn’t deny that it might have happened in other cases, but the record, at least, shows that this is probably one of the smallest “many”s possible. There is no doubt that we are, in fact, pushing back against prejudice, and that we view contributions to anti-gay ballot measures as prejudice. But that push is, overwhelmingly, well within the bounds of political activity — not to mention self-respect. The effort to manufacture outrage about these unique events is something we should be airing out, not accepting as fact.