You can purchase an autographed copy of Anything But Straight by sending a $35 check or money order to:
-------------------------
Wayne Besen
PO Box 25491
Brooklyn, NY 11202
A pro-gay Florida church launched a campaign this week to identify supporters of a proposed state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage by publishing the names and addresses of 400,000 Florida residents in 60 counties, the Miami Heraldreported today.
The Internet campaign by Christ Church of Peace, a nondenominational church in Jacksonville, has been denounced by right wing groups that support a state ballot initiative that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Gary Debusk, pastor of Christ Church of Peace, said the church began the "Know Thy Neighbor" effort Monday to encourage dialogue and prevent voter-signature fraud. As the head of a congregation that supports same-sex marriage, Debusk said he also wanted to add a new perspective to a debate that he said has been dominated largely by religious conservatives. "It's time for another voice that is Christian to be heard," he said.
Christian groups such as the Fort Lauderdale-based Center for Reclaiming America for Christ and the Florida Family Policy Council have denounced the website as a misguided effort to intimidate activists.
"It's a gross invasion of people's privacy," said John Stemberger, president and general counsel of the Florida Family Policy Council, an offshoot of James Dobson's national Christian conservative group Focus on the Family.
John Schumpert, a founding member of Christ Church of Peace, said he hopes the website will offer those who oppose a marriage amendment the chance to look up friends and family members who signed and engage them in dialogue.
"The information is really there for people to use in a positive manner," he said. "You cannot legislate to take away someone's rights or permanently deny them rights under the cover of darkness."
I'd be curious to know what readers of this site think of this tactic...
39 Comments:
Since when is signing a petition for a public referendum an "invasion of privacy?" Don't those things become public record?
posted by Anonymous, at
6/15/2006 12:07 PM
I think that passing a law that would deny private individuals the right to visit their loved ones in the hospital is an invasion of privacy. Exposing the people who sign a public petition to pass such an anti-privacy law is self-defense. Good for this church for standing up for lgbt equality!
posted by Tim Cravens, at
6/15/2006 1:01 PM
They've already been doing this for quite a while in Mass. They have a GREAT website www.knowthyneighbor.org and an excellent and lively forum online there. I strongly recommend you give them a visit. I'm all for it--you sign something to take away rights from others, you need to have the guts to face that choice.
posted by Anonymous, at
6/15/2006 1:03 PM
First, it is a well-documented fact that there is widespread fraud in the gathering of signatures for these bigot initiatives. People have a right to ensure that their names aren't on the petition, either by fraud or mistake.
Second, as kevin notes above, signing a petition (a public document) is by definition a public act that cannot possibly be entitled to an expectation of privacy.
posted by KipEsquire, at
6/15/2006 1:07 PM
public record - go ahead and publish it.
posted by Anonymous, at
6/15/2006 1:27 PM
If some fascist christian group were posting signatures of people who *supported* some gay rights cause, I'm sure Focus on the Family would be all for it. Plus, these same right-wingnuts didnt consider it an invasion of privacy when anti-choice groups made public the names and addresses of Drs who performed abortions so they *and their families* could be harrassed by the most extreme "pro-life" whack jobs. Gary (NJ)
posted by Anonymous, at
6/15/2006 1:47 PM
If you feel strongly enough about an issue to sign a petition, then you should own it. It's very easy to sign away the rights of others in private, where there are no consequences, but a little exposure puts things in a different perspective. I've always felt that the "faith" of these bigots was wafer-thin and could never withstand the harsh light of day.
posted by Sam, at
6/15/2006 2:28 PM
Why not publish them? Should make for some fun dialogue if nothing else comes of it.
posted by Anonymous, at
6/15/2006 3:19 PM
I have a hard time supporting the publishing of petition signers. In many cases, the public is lied to about the petition process. This discussion caused me to do some research. For the past two years I have getting flack about one in my home state. My research revealed that the petition sponsors did not operated fully legal:
1) They claimed that it was only to get the issue on the ballot. (An appeal to democracy) The actual wording of the petition includes a statement of support for the issue, when signed. That is stronger than just 'let the people decide'.
2) The petition statement itself was not shown on the sheets--only a list of names. The victim must depend on the honesty of the signature takers. Tied to #1 above, the signer is in the dark about scam. Other states have had the same problem with fraud (bait and switch).
Many people do not have access to the correct information. I receive my news from out-of-state sources or the Net. Until the issue is actually on the ballot, it was impossible for me to get the truth. I would not want to be pilloried for a fraud or other misrepresentations of my views. People act according to the facts at hand, even false ones.
BTW, I voted against the petition in question.
posted by Anonymous, at
6/15/2006 3:29 PM
well, then read what you sign and do not sign if you not fully understand. very simple. publish - and if it turns out you put your name on things and didn't understand then you will think twice about it before doing so again.
posted by Anonymous, at
6/15/2006 3:32 PM
You are right, anonymous...
I am angry that it took me two years to get the right information! The problem was not understanding the issue. The problem was how it was being manipulated by the petition process.
posted by Anonymous, at
6/15/2006 4:12 PM
Once again, the "right to privacy" -- which doesn't exist according to these same folks when discussing reproductive rights or sodomy statutes -- is being violated.
A petition is a public document. It has to be in order to authenticate the signers. In the democratic process only your vote is secret.
These anti-gay marriage initiatives are supposed to be about remaking our system in a Christianist model. If your "faith" can't stand up to the pressure of being identified with your beliefs, then what a small and odius thing it must be.
posted by Anonymous, at
6/15/2006 6:22 PM
I can't find the documentation, but I read recently of a church being sued. A couple split up, and the pastor took the wifes side (unusual). The husband wouldn't be a good boy and reconcile, so the church excommunicated him and published his personal and financial information, theoretically to leverage him to come back home. Really it was to punish him. Honestly, this church may be doing it for a good cause, but it's a borderline tactic. Information blackmail is big business nowadays, and the church is in that business, big time. The Republican party was pandering for membership information from churches for the 2004 election. The horror is that most church headquarters were in favor of it. They were using their members information to cozen clout with the administration. What's bad for the goose is poison for the gander.
posted by A Bear in the Woods, at
6/15/2006 9:26 PM
Absolutely these bigots names should be published. It is clearly not an invasion of privacy, unlike their inflated egos telling them that they have the right to determine the fate of their fellow gay citizens right to marry among other things. As for people spouting about having gay friends but stipping them of equality? Not a friendship worth shit actually.
posted by Anonymous, at
6/15/2006 10:34 PM
I hoped avoid the privacy discussion. But the laws of my state require the destruction of the signature sheets after two years (AR code 7-9-123). That seems to supply a lot of cover to hide under...
It also makes me wonder if my state really views the signatures as public record. According to the law I cited above, only the procedural verification steps must be kept.
As far as the marriage petition in my state, the state high court was split about its clarity and legality. As I stated before, the process used to railroad these amendments through is flawed. Even informed people, like judges, can be confused or misled.
I would say target the sponsors/canvassers of the amendments and publicize their actions. The average person on street (like me) is only a pawn to them. Hunt for the big fish, not us guppies...
posted by Anonymous, at
6/15/2006 11:05 PM
As a member and staff pastor at Christ Church of Peace I am proud our congregation has taken this stand. While this amendment has been promoted as blocking gay marriage, and that is it's primary goal, if passed it would make illegal any benefits for any unmarried couple, gay and non-gay. Many foreign companies with factories, etc., in Florida offer domestic partnership benefits to any of their employees. Without the beneifts my partner and I share from his employer I would have no medical insurances as I could not afford them. Many of his co-workers are in heterosexual domestic partnerships and enjoy the same benefits, yet all of us would lose those benefits if this amendment is enacted. Prior to signing any petition, the individual should review the entire document for whcih they are signing. Our church is proud that our congregation encompasses people of all races, ethnic backgrounds, and sexual orientations and we are willing to take a stand when any person's civil rights and liberties are in jeopardy.
posted by Anonymous, at
6/16/2006 8:48 AM
These names should be published, absolutely. Hell, they should be written in the sky. If people are going to sign on to a proposal that suggests the government should invade the privacy of every single citizen's personal life, that would disrupt the private lives of countless gays and lesbians, then it's only right. Turn about is fair play.
If these people are upset that their names are published because they don't want to be associated with the measure, then they shouldn't have signed on. Pure and simple.
If I lived in the area, I would definitely want to know which of my neighbors secretly wish that I was officially less of a citizen and less of a human being in the eyes of the law.
In all equality the names of gays and lesbians in Florida should be published too !!
posted by Anonymous, at
6/16/2006 5:58 PM
What a scathingly "brilliant" idea, Anonymous. . .why don't you start by gathering names from wingnut religious organizations?
posted by Anonymous, at
6/16/2006 7:34 PM
I have been reading the various comments with great interest. I would simply like to caution all of you who are in favor of those names being posted that this same tactic can...and probably will...be used againt you in the future. If there is ever a pro-gay referendum don't be surprised if people are hesitant to sign for fear that their names and demographic information would be widely disseminated. Be careful what you wish for.
posted by Anonymous, at
6/17/2006 2:51 PM
good point anon--BUT, most people who would sign something supporting the rights of their fellow citizens wouldnt be ashamed of it---nor should they be!
posted by Anonymous, at
6/19/2006 1:17 PM
You're missing the point I was trying to make. Those on either side of the political spectrum, the 'true believers' would have no problem proudly proclaiming their views to the world.
But, imagine there's a pro-gay petition being circulated and the anti-gay folks make it clear that they will post those names on a website. You might well lose those church-going folks who would rather not appear to be at odds with their pastor. Or, someone who simply doesn't relish the thought of having their name and address being made public. So, unless one is either totally in the camp of one side or the other you could well lose that middle group of people.
Also, when you do the math there would appear to be more fervently anti-gay folks than pro-gay ones. I would imagine that those people in the middle might simply decline to sign any petition given the chance that their name might appear on a website.
posted by Anonymous, at
6/19/2006 9:11 PM
ok--but names on any petition are 'public property' whether or not they're posted online.
posted by Anonymous, at
6/20/2006 10:55 AM
terrorists use these tactics
it is un American and has already resulted in violence
テレマーケティングを行うだけでなく「売り方開発」の成功セオリーを貴社と一緒に作っていくことが/fontエムエム総研が他社と大きく違うところです 株式投資アイアンドダブリュー（I&W）は資産運用や株式投資、モチベーション向上方法を提案するコンサルティング会社です
posted by Anonymous, at
9/19/2008 2:22 AM
