Comments on: “Outing” Their Opponents

By: Brian Brandt

Brian Brandt — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 17:43:41 +0000

What these dopes don’t understand is that many sign for ballot initiatives to further propogate democratic participation. I myself as a staunch Republican sign anything related to ballot initiatives and even to get candidates the necessary signatures to run–even opposition candidates. Let’s be fair and help people have a voice or an office. Thomas Lang is a Republican in name only, who doesn’t realize that gay marriage is a special right in addition to the right to marry that he already has. In addition to this, with the advent of gay marriage, gays still receive so called parity benefits, which is a special right. Thomas Lang refers to himself as Thomas Lang (R) although he holds no office. He is pretentious and takes the time to tell you he drives a Jaguar. He is unfamiliar with the statistics behind votes, stating that it is only the fundamentalist evangelicals who vote. (Let’s remember that those two terms represent two distinct groups.) What is the worst thing that can happen? Gays will ostracize someone who signs the ballot petition? Isn’t it odd that they wouldn’t support democracy? They would rather support judicial activism. What if the judicial activism they foster is one day used against them?
Brian Brandt
Gay Republican
Boston Ward 3 Republican Committee
Young Republican
Boston, MA

By: David

David — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 02:44:31 +0000

And you get pissy with Alexander Westerhoff and Thomas Lang for posting addresses on their web site when the Attorney General of Massachusetts has already posted the names on the state's web site? This information is so much public record that you don't have to drive to an office and talk to an official to get it; you just have to go online here: http://www.ago.state.ma.us/sp.cfm?pageid=2144.

By: David

David — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 02:38:24 +0000

If they don’t want to be harassed, perhaps they could decide not to harass the gay couples in Massachusetts who just want to lead their lives without other people trying to impose their own personal religious convictions on them. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

Yes, you could say that if I think a bit of harassment for those who sign the petition is justified (and I wouldn’t advocate more than a postcard challenging their views politely and without profanity) that I should post my name and address here. So I’m a hypocrite too. But I’m not advocating that the petition signers be legally barred from marriage.

By: Karl

Karl — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:42:44 +0000

Maybe they just do not want to be harassed.

By: firefly

firefly — Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:14:46 +0000

The people who oppose gay civil rights claim to be proud of their stance. If the documents are public records, they should be pleased at the opportunity to show their colors.
But they aren’t really proud of their bigotry, are they? I wonder why.

By: Jason Kuznicki

Jason Kuznicki — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 21:37:03 +0000

1. Many petition signatures are forged. Those listed as signing a petition have not always in fact done so. Even some signatures that are validated by a Secretary of State’s office are probably still forgeries. Sometimes fake addresseses are used.
Helpfully, knowthyneighbor.org provides a form where people whose names have been added fraudulently may register to be removed; this does a service to the petitioners as much as to anyone else, as it could help eliminate many difficulties before they even get started.

By: Joel Thomas

Joel Thomas — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 18:41:58 +0000

For those who are not public figures, I think it is bad taste and not community-minded to post addresses of petition signers. For elected officials or those who hold prominent leadership positions that may be different.
I don’t think the fact that the records are public is completely relevant.
1. Many petition signatures are forged. Those listed as signing a petition have not always in fact done so. Even some signatures that are validated by a Secretary of State’s office are probably still forgeries. Sometimes fake addresseses are used.
2. Because of IRS regulations, oil companies have been required to put social security or other tax id numbers on oil and gas leases, which are then publicly filed in the counties where the land is located. So, in a manner of speaking, my social security number might be seen as a “public record” since it is filed among the deed records of some counties. Does that mean it would be ethical for people to post my number on the web? (This is a hypothetical — I haven’t checked to see if there are laws that ban such posting notwithstanding that the ID# is part of a publicly filed — deed or oil & gas lease records — instrument.)
So, I would tend to side with Eric on this matter. While there is a place for accountability and ability to engage opponents in public discussion, civil society also requires that we stop short of intimidation to get our way.

By: Eric Seymour

Eric Seymour — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 02:58:23 +0000

I did think of the possibility that the graphic is a stock photo. Nevertheless, I still find it interesting that I’ve seen the photo on exactly two web sites and those two sites are directly opposed to each other. Coincidence, or a bit of satire?

By: Foltz

Foltz — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:16:24 +0000

That picture is not very interesting at all, it looks like a stock photo from a marketing bank of some sort where you apply the text you want over the card. While I do not see another page with a different set of text, this set is clearly Photoshoped onto the card
In the business trade papers it is not uncommon to see the exact same photograph used by two different companies promoting completely different products.