Gay-rights backers, foes alike slam posting of names on Web

[kweerwolf]

Talk about strange bedfellows: Leading gay activists and those fiercely opposed to same-sex marriage formed an alliance yesterday, calling on a North Shore couple to remove a Web site listing the names and home addresses of people who sign a petition backing a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

``If they really wanted to be helpful in protecting equal marriage rights, they can show their support by talking to people and sharing stories, not by putting up this silly, mean-spirited Web site,'' said Marty Rouse, campaign director for MassEquality, a coalition of gay rights groups.

``. . . I appreciate the professionalism of the colleagues across the aisle that this is not in the best interests of the type of campaign we would like to run,'' said Kristian Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, leaders of the petition drive.

The Herald reported yesterday that Tom Lang, 42, and his partner, Alex Westerhoff, 36, both of Manchester-by-the-Sea, created the Web site KnowthyNeighbor.org.

http://news.bostonherald.com/localPolitics/view.bg?articleid=101710

[Not Me]

1. I am on the fence on this one.

The document is a public document, and legally, can be disseminated.

[kweerwolf]

2. Me, too ... however ...

... the biggest potential problem I see is if someone finds the name of a neighbor on the list and confronts them, leading to an assault (or worse). Would the web site face liability issues? Or would it be in the clear since the petitions are public records?

If the show was on the other foot my initial reaction would be that I would have no problem if my name was made public as signing a pro-LGBT petition. But if my house was vandalized or I was harassed or assaulted by some homophobe, you can bet I would go after the web site that published my name and address.

Perhaps the "middle ground" is to publish the names and cities, but omit street addresses. This wouldn't completely eliminate problems, but it might make them less likely.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. The legal precedent is pretty clear

The website and it's owners would not face any charges unless the site explicitly calls for harm against the people. That is what the courts have ruled with regards to abortion providers, people on sex offender registries, etc.

Given that it is the right wing extremists who pushed the issue in the first place, I have no moral problem with the right being hoisted by their own petard.

[Meldread]

4. I have NO problem with this at all.

First of all, it's a matter of public record. Second, if they didn't want that information public they shouldn't put their names on something discriminatory.

I still say there should be a letter writing campaign -- sending letters to everyone on that list. They need to be educated about what they are signing up for and the repercussions of their actions.

EDIT-
I should also add that I think names and addresses of anti-marriage people in other states should be added to the site. I suggest this for two reasons, first it will allow us to reach out. We know the majority of Americans support Civil Unions and such, so we know there is the potential to change minds there. Second, it would discourage people from signing such things in other states in fear of having their name and address published.

[Meldread]

5. DUPE -nt-

DUPE

[kbm8795]

6. Seems to me that these signatures would be on the public record

anyway. . .so if people want to sign something to discriminate against us, why shouldn't their names be publicized? I've seen petitions with names of signatures show up on newspaper ads. . .let the bigots be exposed.

[Siyahamba]

7. Trying to take equal rights away is what's silly and mean-spirited

And anyone who wants to do that should at least have the courage to admit it.

[mitchtv]

8. I have no problem

It might even find a few whose names were forged.

[closeupready]

9. So, the underlying idea is, gays should sympathize with their oppressors?

I don't know - karma sucks sometimes.