Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2009

RSS |

Twitter

Matt Taibbi

Palin: Our First WWE Politician

Pick an asshole, any asshole, and she'll rock the house

Nov 22, 09 10:44 AM CST
analysis

Book Tour Shows Palin
Hitting a Nerve

'Going Rogue' phenomenon may foreshadow something bigger

Nov 22, 09 2:46 PM CST
editorial

NYT to Blankfein:
Your 'Apology'
Is Bull

Editorial board schools Goldman CEO in true meaning of 'sorry'

Nov 22, 09 4:53 PM CST
the big plan

Beck Will Host Conventions
to Educate America

He's shifting toward political organizer, plans big DC rally

Nov 21, 09 5:06 PM CST
TALK SHOW ROUNDUP

McConnell:
Dems Proceed
at 2010 Peril

Senators hit the Sunday talk shows after health vote

Nov 22, 09 11:15 AM CST
Palin Pulls in Big Bucks
—for Democrats

'Going Rogue' boosts Dem fundraising to new high

Nov 21, 09 6:50 AM CST
NO COMMUNION FOR YOU, MY SON

RI Bishop Disses
Kennedy Over
Pro-Choice
Stance

Spat over Patrick's position on abortion escalates

Nov 22, 09 8:23 AM CST
Eyes on 2010

Lincoln
Swings to
Center of
Health Debate

Dems come calling as GOP eyes her seat in 2010

Nov 22, 09 1:03 PM CST
who let the paranoids out?

46 Years After Kennedy, the Virus of Hate Is Back

Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert panders to dangerous paranoids

Nov 21, 09 9:08 AM CST
First State Dinner to
Reveal Obama A-Listers

Mad scramble for invitations

8 hours, 52 minutes ago
Debt-Happy US Faces Payback Time as Rates Rise

Cost of debt to skyrocket $500B in next 10 years

3 hours, 6 minutes ago
Billboard Links Obama to Jihad

Colo. car dealership wants this opinion heard

Nov 20, 09 8:42 PM CST
Senate Democrats Clear
Health Care Hurdle, 60-39

Reid gets 60 votes to open full debate after Thanksgiving recess

Nov 21, 09 7:13 PM CST

|NEXT STORY »

GEORGE F. WILL

Stop Lefty Thugs Bullying Gay Marriage Opponents

Supreme Court must step in to keep chill off participation

By W. McCahill| Posted Oct 31, 09 6:47 AM CDT|

(Newser) – A movement in Washington state to force the disclosure of the names of those who supported a referendum on same-sex marriage has George Will up in arms over “thuggish liberalism” and its chilling effect on political participation. Signing one’s name in support of such a measure is akin to voting—and the only reason to make the names public is so that opponents can be publicly harassed.

Will offers as a case in point the exposure of those who helped fund last year’s California Proposition 8: More than one contributor had to give up a job under pressure from gay and liberal forces, Will writes in the Washington Post. Those who would make such names public want to force “uncomfortable” conversations, but Will would rather see the Supreme Court make the thugs uncomfortable, and “block the spreading infection of using disclosure as a tool of liberal coercion.”

(AP Photo)

Washington residents display signs in support of Referendum 71, a vote on the state's domestic partnership law. (AP Photo)

View larger images >>

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

11.23.09

Books Are Bad for You

11.20.09

The Health-Care Wars Have Just Begun

94 comments

VIEWING:

yoeydude
Oct 31, 09 6:57 AM CDT

lefty thug is an oxymoron Reply

+12

IN RESPONSE:

shonangreg
Oct 31, 09 9:42 AM CDT

Stalin would send you to the gulag for not saying that.

IN RESPONSE:

dontlikeyou
Oct 31, 09 5:07 PM CDT

I have sexual preferences of my own. Since people want the gov't to pass out special rights.... can I get special "rights" because of who I choose to sleep with?

IN RESPONSE:

Toon
Oct 31, 09 8:02 PM CDT

Yes, dontlikeyou, you should. Those rights would include visiting your partner in the hospital, that person being your default heir if you die without a will and legal protections for both of you if you decide to split up.

IN RESPONSE:

freethemall
Oct 31, 09 8:24 PM CDT

I see nothing wrong with holding bigots answerable for their bigotry,

IN RESPONSE:

jamerican
Oct 31, 09 8:45 PM CDT

This comment has been removed by Newser’s community. You must be logged in to view this comment.

-11

IN RESPONSE:

yoeydude
Oct 31, 09 9:29 PM CDT

jah hole you putrid puddle of cancer , no doubt friendless , obese , undereducated ,... and now, I think we can all see , a closet homosexual , filled with hate and self loathing ,.... wow , it must suck to be you

IN RESPONSE:

cochiserocks
Oct 31, 09 11:03 PM CDT

"lefty thug is an oxymoron" - Hmmm.... not if you're on the receiving end of Western interference in your country based on liberal ideas which, while theoretically correct, have ended up in chaos and mayhem and your kids getting shot by mercenaries paid for by governments which claim to support human rights it isn't. Let the thumbs down commence - but think about it at least.

IN RESPONSE:

kokuaguy
Oct 31, 09 11:30 PM CDT

This is a referendum by a small minority of citizens disgruntled that the majority of their duly elected state legislators acted to give certain rights to couples in same sex unions in the State of Washington. The law was signed by the Governor (not vetoed) so these folks are now demanding that the State spend the money in a state-wide election to put the matter on the ballot so see if they can persuade 51% of those voting (this could be a fairly small percentage of the population, depending on voter turnout) to overturn this state civil unions law. In most states the citizens don't even have the right to hold a referendum like this. So, it seems that the state has an interest in requiring those using the referendum process to take a public stand. But, if their privacy must be protected, then as Fondue points out, the privacy of everyone else signing a referendum petition will be guaranteed as well, and perhaps such elections will become more common in Washington (arguably making it more "democratic.") Good arguments can be made on both sides of this issue. The fact that "gay marriage" in involved makes it more emotional than it would otherwise be, of course. As proud_prude points out below, perhaps it would also be good to protect those signing petitions from thugs on the right -- and of course we know they are out there. We saw them in action shouting down their fellow citizens at town hall meetings etc. last summer. It will be fascinating to see how the SCOTUS votes on this, especially Justice Sotomayor.

-2

IN RESPONSE:

Spudsy
Nov 1, 09 4:33 PM CST

Will also wants to keep the membership rolls of the KKK secret.

| 0 minutes ago

RockyPneumonia
Oct 31, 09 7:31 AM CDT

I would love for someone to explain to me why a sane, intelligent voter would believe that preventing two people who love each other from marrying is somehow "protecting" marriage and families. I'm pretty tired of Republican lies in general, and this one in specific. Reply

+32

IN RESPONSE:

Reader64481089
Oct 31, 09 7:42 AM CDT

The way it has always worked best for me if I have balls enough to take a stand on any subject I also have enough to let it be known to anyone who asks exactly how I feel. These guys want to slam Gay marriage and then hide so they do not carry any repercussions. Screw them, they signed their names to a public document then let the names be published...that is unless someone faked the names and those people really didn't sign the petition perhaps????

+27

IN RESPONSE:

kirei_gaisuto
Oct 31, 09 9:09 AM CDT

Good question. My marriage doesn't feel threatened by gay marriage. While I support it, legalizing it (or not), won't change anything about my marriage or anyone else's. If your marriage will be affected by gays, you should get into counseling or something, because you already have some issues to iron out.

+16

IN RESPONSE:

Doctor_Zaius
Oct 31, 09 9:46 AM CDT

Isn't the whole point of a petition that you are willing to take a stand? How can you take a stand by refusing to be forced to actually stand up for what you believe in? If these people didn't realize on some level that what they were doing was wrong they would have no issues with having their names known. Let's not forget that what this is really about is that some people believe that their right to not feel "icky" about gay sex supersedes some other persons civil rights.

+16

IN RESPONSE:

northeast
Oct 31, 09 11:23 AM CDT

I'm pro-gay marriage, but you've got to see that intimidation is NOT an acceptable political tactic. Not too long ago, it would have been the other way around; people would have rooted out pro-gay businessmen and politicians, and they would have been harassed and lost their jobs. The ability to voice what you feel without fear of retribution is one of the most vital parts of a democracy, and while they may be wrong in their opinions, they deserve to be able to make themselves heard without fear of retaliation. "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire

IN RESPONSE:

Doctor_Zaius
Oct 31, 09 11:28 AM CDT

Nobody's "rooting out" anyone. If you signed a petition about something you believe in than you should stand up and be counted. How can you even verify that these names are accurate if you don't know who they are? I would not put it beyond douchebags from the Free Repubic website to fake up a bunch of names and then hide behind privacy as an excuse not to verify the list.

IN RESPONSE:

northeast
Oct 31, 09 11:43 AM CDT

Then why pass a law requiring the names to be public? If faking names is your concern, why not simply ask for an investigation?

IN RESPONSE:

Doctor_Zaius
Oct 31, 09 12:10 PM CDT

The nature of a petition is that it's public. Every petition you ever signed is public as you are going on record supporting something you believe in. To make an exception in this case is idiotic and counter to democracy. Conflating some sort of similarity to a public petition and the private vote is pure rhetoric of convenience.

IN RESPONSE:

northeast
Oct 31, 09 1:03 PM CDT

I'd disagree with that assessment of petitions, but that's almost an afterthought to either of our arguments. We're really missing something here: WHY is it vital that these names be published? What purpose does publishing the names serve? Evidently, it warrants enough attention to have an action passed...but why? In the 1950's, the state of Alabama attempted to force the NAACP to make its records public (Will cites this in his opinion). If the members believed in the cause of the NAACP, why would they mind? Obviously, "letting everyone be counted" probably wasn't the state's goal.

IN RESPONSE:

dontlikeyou
Oct 31, 09 5:09 PM CDT

Marriage is between a man and a woman and it has been for over 6000 years. No civilized society in recorded history has ever made same sex marriage a priority, much less a right. Stop attacking the institution of marriage for your own selfish goals.

-5

IN RESPONSE:

Fondue
Oct 31, 09 5:54 PM CDT

Northeast, I would say the real question is: Why must the names be made private and treated differently?

IN RESPONSE:

cunomor
Oct 31, 09 6:28 PM CDT

Sounds so logical. Well, let's see. What if the two people who love each other are brother and sister? Still cool as long as they love each other? Maybe they vow to adopt and not risk birth defects. Or what if they are two brothers who love each other? Why not allow polygamy, as long as they are all consenting and they love each other? Its not as simple as you make it sound.

-3

IN RESPONSE:

Toon
Oct 31, 09 8:14 PM CDT

dontlikeyou, try reading the Bible, I assume that's why you chose the 6K number, but if it isn't the rest of human history is full of marriages like you find in the Old Testament. Multiple wives, multiple definitions like wives v. concubines, and even marriage between siblings and siblings sharing spouses. If you look you will see not consistency but rather consistently changing definitions of marriage as societies change.

IN RESPONSE:

Nixon
Nov 1, 09 2:17 AM CST

Western society is built upon marriage as a core foundation that predates formal law. Marriage in the USA has always been simply between a man and a woman. One should note that Utah was denied statehood untill it stopped allowing marriages with multiple partners. Allowing marriage between people of the same sex asks the question why cant multiple people be married too. Those that want multiple partners would have a legal leg to stand on. As why change the paramiters of marriage for one minority group and not the other. Therefore based on your logic you could not deny the right to a large group of people wanting to marry each other. One would assume that the majority of americans do not want marriages with multiple partners.

-1

IN RESPONSE:

northeast
Nov 1, 09 9:45 AM CST

@ fondue: But the names are already private. Most of the people on the list fear harassment if it was revealed they feel a certain way about gay rights. Even if they're wrong, they have the right to be wrong and not fear for their jobs or social status.

IN RESPONSE:

Monjubikahn
Nov 16, 09 5:31 PM CST

Adultery is between a man and a woman.

| 0 minutes ago

vendetta
Oct 31, 09 7:57 AM CDT

No one is bullying anyone, if you mean standing up for human rights, and the constitution then yes. Reply

+10

| 0 minutes ago

cedarkey
Oct 31, 09 8:22 AM CDT

This comment has been removed by Newser’s community. You must be logged in to view this comment. Reply

-27

IN RESPONSE:

Fondue
Oct 31, 09 8:48 AM CDT

Who cares?

IN RESPONSE:

Thinker
Oct 31, 09 8:49 AM CDT

A demented half-wit calls himself "cedarkey" and writes really stupid comments. Who thinks the half-wit is funny?

+16

IN RESPONSE:

Doctor_Zaius
Oct 31, 09 9:47 AM CDT

I don't know but they would both kick your lame ass.

+13

IN RESPONSE:

cedarkey
Oct 31, 09 10:03 AM CDT

This comment has been removed by Newser’s community. You must be logged in to view this comment.

-19

IN RESPONSE:

Doctor_Zaius
Oct 31, 09 11:25 AM CDT

You post a stupid ass statement like the one above and then question my intelligence? Please....

+11

IN RESPONSE:

dontlikenobody
Oct 31, 09 11:42 AM CDT

Take your meds and go back to your jet-ski, before I doubt your existence even more, you good old black born-again entrepreneur with the leisure fetish.

IN RESPONSE:

LoudProudLib
Oct 31, 09 2:02 PM CDT

whats it like being that stupid cedartree?

| 0 minutes ago

GlennH
Oct 31, 09 8:35 AM CDT

Will is becoming such a joke, just another right-wing whiner. There's nothing wrong with exposing people who are ignorant and prejudiced; they might even be forced to learn something--which is probably what Will would consider "harassment." Reply

+10

IN RESPONSE:

Rocket448
Oct 31, 09 11:51 AM CDT

Yes. I had to read down to Glenn's comment before seeing Will's name brought up. He's the problem, not the petition signers, not the ones who publicize their names -- its Will. He wants to change the rules because his precious conservative values have become outmoded. By objecting to this petition-related problem Will tells us all that civil rights and privacy don't apply if same sex people are in a relationship! And he's a conservative! He's supposed to be conserving the very rights LGBT are fighting for. Disgusting man.

IN RESPONSE:

Fondue
Oct 31, 09 12:21 PM CDT

What Will doesn't realize is that if something does come of his wants, it will apply to liberal petitions also.

IN RESPONSE:

Nixon
Nov 1, 09 7:54 AM CST

Ignorant and prejudiced is exactly how you are acting now. There are many different points of view, you cannot negatively label those that do not simply agree will you. This further adds weight to the rising claim that liberals; the supposed open minded ones are in fact completely prejudiced and discriminate towards those that dont agree with them. Laws should apply to everyone equally whether you support their cause or not.

| 0 minutes ago

Circusdog
Oct 31, 09 8:48 AM CDT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/27/colbert-eviscerates-gay-m_n_335076.html Reply

| 0 minutes ago

Corona_Kinq
Oct 31, 09 8:49 AM CDT

I"m glad Willl recognizes who the REAL victims are here. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

Fondue
Oct 31, 09 8:50 AM CDT

These people are spineless. If you can't back up what you support with as little as a "Yes, I voted for that", then stay home. Reply

+13

| 0 minutes ago

Fondue
Oct 31, 09 8:53 AM CDT

"Those who would make such names public want to force “uncomfortable” conversations". Isn't signing a petition in the first place involving yourself in the conversation? Reply

+14

IN RESPONSE:

Nixon
Nov 1, 09 7:59 AM CST

Yes, however you have the right to an opinion, and lets remember that in this case it is by no means an obscure one it may even represent the majority of americans it just goes against liberal "values". You also have the right to not be harrassed, abused etc

| 0 minutes ago

SilenceDogood
Oct 31, 09 9:14 AM CDT

I think the issue is that signing a petition should be a protected act akin to a secret ballot. There is no reason that the signatures should be made public other than for intimidation and the attempt to reduce signature petition drives. The reason for this particular petition drive is not the issue. Gays may or may not have the legal rights of marriage, which is yet to be determined. If there is any chance that petitioners were harmed in prior cases then this deserves serious consideration. Reply

-9

IN RESPONSE:

Doctor_Zaius
Oct 31, 09 11:31 AM CDT

You could show more evidence of fake petition signatures than you could actual harm going to people who signed petitions. Tell me, how do we verify the veracity of these signatures if we can't know who they are?

IN RESPONSE:

Toon
Oct 31, 09 12:18 PM CDT

You have it exactly backwards. The value of a petition is that you have actual citizens willing to sign their name to a statement. Don't sign just any old thing. Sign statements you agree with then own up to it. Voting and petitioning are both important parts of the political process but they are different parts and work differently.

| 0 minutes ago

Stasis
Oct 31, 09 9:17 AM CDT

Awwww. Big tough ole Republicans are a-scared of gay people. Thugs?! LMAO...what a bunch of panty-waisted wussies. Go run home to your mommies. Run away. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

Monjubikahn
Nov 16, 09 5:42 PM CST

You underestimate their mommies. Conservative mommies would send them back into the fight and say, " You go and kick their asses."

| 0 minutes ago

A1A
Oct 31, 09 9:54 AM CDT

I agree with President Obama about gay marriage. His position hasn't changed since before the election. Look it up. Peace out, ya'll. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

QueenAlli
Oct 31, 09 10:40 AM CDT

His position remains the same yet he isn't going out and condemning those who are for gay marriage or states that legalized it. He also said it was up to the states to legalize gay marriage. Don't put yourself in the same camp as O, he wouldn't do the trifling things that gay marriage opponents have done. He also knows that it's not a matter of IF for gay marriage, but WHEN. It's coming, and these opponents will have to get over it pretty fast.

IN RESPONSE:

Nixon
Nov 1, 09 8:32 AM CST

Its not a bad position to take at all really from what i gather. Marriage is between a man and a woman and should stay that way, thats how its been for 400 years in america. A few decades of activism is not enough to change this fundamental of our society. However domestic relationships should be recognised regardless of sex, as the critera is living in a marriage like relationship. Also why is the gay community so focused upon getting gay marriage? I understand equal rights but why do you need to alter a hetrosexual institution. Do most homosexuals long to emulate hetrosexual couples?

| 0 minutes ago

divetrader
Oct 31, 09 10:24 AM CDT

George Will wants us to feel sorry for people that lost their jobs for supporting Prop 8. Georgie...get over it. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

MrsK
Oct 31, 09 11:21 AM CDT

Prop 8 losers ger over it. The people of California voted and do not want homosexuals to have any more than civil unions. The people have spoken with their votes. SORE LOSERS.

-11

IN RESPONSE:

LiberalJesus
Oct 31, 09 11:50 AM CDT

Mrs K...why do hate gays and lesbians so much?

+11

IN RESPONSE:

Carpediem4U
Oct 31, 09 11:55 AM CDT

Mrs K hates everyone who doesnt see things her way. It's a sad reflection of her deep rooted feelings of total insignificance in the world. She thinks like the typical teabaggers, it's all about "them" and what they can do to prevent others from living a happy life because most of the baggers and birthers deeply hate themselves and their lives because they are failures in the world. It's classic textbook psychology there!

+10

IN RESPONSE:

Galileo
Oct 31, 09 2:20 PM CDT

Don't worry about her comments guys. The internet is the only place she is aloud to go when her righteous christian husband is at work. ZING.

IN RESPONSE:

Galileo
Oct 31, 09 2:20 PM CDT

aloud = allowed. ZING to myself!

IN RESPONSE:

Nixon
Nov 1, 09 8:40 AM CST

Carpediem4U to claim that no gay marriage prevents gay couples being happy is a load of rubbish. Why do gay couples need formal recognition in what was traditionally and still is a hetrosexual and mostly religious institution. You liberals are intollerant of anyone that doesnt share your views, and on prop 8 the majority spoke and this is america so the majority rules.

| 0 minutes ago

JoeQ
Oct 31, 09 11:25 AM CDT

Hey, the GOP entitlement programs didn't work. Sure Halliburton and Exxon got rich for 8 years but it didn't trickle down. LOL. Go away, GOP. Adopting liberal sounding rhetoric doesn't fool anyone. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

LiberalJesus
Oct 31, 09 11:46 AM CDT

Where is George Will when states like Oklahoma and Kansas think they have a right to publish names of women who seek abortions? George is nothing but a two faced conservative who will never apply his rules to equal sides. George Will can never even come close to manish let alone thuggish. And who wears bow ties???? I can think of only two clowns who do, Will and Tucker Carleson. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

Rocket448
Oct 31, 09 11:54 AM CDT

LJ, you're right to point out Will's stance re: publicizing names of women seeking abortions. You're wrong to attack his bow tie. Lots of gay men wear bow ties. Why can't Mr. Will?

IN RESPONSE:

Carpediem4U
Oct 31, 09 11:57 AM CDT

The bow tie meme was a joke, but you are right! I need to remember that sometimes jokes and sarcasm do not translate well online. My apologies to all bow tie wearers. I'd still never be caugh dead wearing one though!...lol

| 0 minutes ago

LiberalJesus
Oct 31, 09 11:58 AM CDT

Thank you for apologizig for me Carpe. And now I also formally apologize to all bow tiers!. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

Rocket448
Oct 31, 09 2:05 PM CDT

And I just want to add that people are free to wear dickies as well, but commenting on them is fair game. New rule. I look better in a necktie, but my Grampa looked better in a bowtie. Its a matter of appeal and preference. These days, bowtie wearers seem to be making a statement, though, don't they? I cannot figure out what it is, though.

| 0 minutes ago

Silverbow7
Oct 31, 09 12:35 PM CDT

Demanding the names of people who disagree with you feels very much like intimidation. Next, the demand for the names of those who voted against them in an election. Your name. You think people need to stand up and be counted? They do. They do because they know they will not lose their jobs or suffer retaliation for their opinion. If you think it is such a good idea to take names, then start using your real names here. Stand up and own all your opinions. Reply

-2

IN RESPONSE:

Rocket448
Oct 31, 09 2:01 PM CDT

Silver: A petition is not the same as a vote. I'm not petitioning here I'm commenting, and I have a pseudonym. Newspaper editorial pages won't print your name if you ask them not to. As to signing a petition, If I don't agree with the subject of a petition, I WON'T SIGN IT. Its my choice, because I know that my petition signature becomes part of the public record. My vote is secret, for the reason you state: I know my job and my property cannot be harmed because of my vote. I don't have to wear an indelible ink marker after I've voted either - there's nothing to link me to my exercise of my franchise. That's the way things are here, and they work. These are the ground rules of a democratic republic. They work. No take-backs.

IN RESPONSE:

Silverbow7
Nov 1, 09 1:47 PM CST

Like I said, demanding the names of people who disagree with you.... It is not having your name be public when you give a simple opinion about something. (I like cream in my coffee.) It's the demand part of it and that made by those who disagree. Taking names has always been used for intimidation. I stand by my opinion.

| 0 minutes ago

BlueGull
Oct 31, 09 3:09 PM CDT

Part of the problem here is that this whole discussion ignores what the law is; does it make the names on petitions public record? If THAT is bad, change the law! Don't bitch at the people who have the law on their side! Reply

| 0 minutes ago

dj-spellchecka
Oct 31, 09 3:40 PM CDT

i have zero problem with anyone knowing what petitions i sign...but then i don't sign petitions to deny people the same rights i have..... Reply

| 0 minutes ago

proud_prude
Oct 31, 09 4:11 PM CDT

Do I get to be anonymous when I petition the government to have assault weapons banned and tax exemptions taken away from the Scientologists and the Southern Baptist Church? Reply

| 0 minutes ago

ksu92
Oct 31, 09 4:12 PM CDT

I really don't like Will, but on the core argument, he's right. The most precious, fragile thing Americans possess (for the moment) is true privacy. It is being actively eroded by both agendistas such as these and technology in general. You kill the private vote (on ANYTHING) and you kill democracy, period. And yes, on marriage, government should get out of the pulpit and stay out. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

Toon
Oct 31, 09 8:30 PM CDT

A petition is not a vote, it is a request. If you don't want something enough to put your name on it then you don't want it that much. From letters to Santa to changes in the law, you need to say who is asking as well as what you want.

| 0 minutes ago

So_Cal_Larry
Oct 31, 09 4:15 PM CDT

To me, it is an absolute cop-out that the federal government wants to leave to the states whether or not marriage of the same sex is legal. For states which permit same-sex marriage, those couples remain second-class citizens regarding federal rights and benefits. For example, the benefits of filing a joint tax return and receiving a lesser tax are unavailable to legally married couples in any state. This must be a federal matter. Call it what you like - federal marriage, civil union, etc. But entering this legal contract gets the couple the benefits of marriage - including getting half of the working spouse's social security in old age. There can be government marriage and religious marriage. Government marriage gets government benefits. Religious marriage marriage is up to each individual, their religion, their god. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

yoeydude
Oct 31, 09 5:52 PM CDT

man , dontknowmuch u r relentless ,... you'd make a good burrowing animal ,.... relentlessly digging underground , alone , in the damp darkness , pausing now and again to breathe deep the putrid fumes of your own excrement ,... a life most foul ,... unless of course you're u ,.... wacha tink ? sound good donut ? Reply

| 0 minutes ago

lthurman
Oct 31, 09 6:15 PM CDT

I love it when people want others names, but haven't the courage to use their own here. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

cochiserocks
Oct 31, 09 10:56 PM CDT

damn straight....er.....lthurman. signed Cochiserocks.

| 0 minutes ago

Count-Spatula
Oct 31, 09 6:20 PM CDT

and do ya feel that way about peiople who receive abortions Georgie, or (like everything) are GOP values a pile of contradictory shlt? Reply

-1

| 0 minutes ago

cornelison
Oct 31, 09 7:17 PM CDT

It's about naive Christians who are being exploited by Republicans and religious bigots. The irony is that the Republican party has prominent gay men in Congress & other places in govt. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

Monjubikahn
Nov 16, 09 5:57 PM CST

Don't ask and don't tell.

| 0 minutes ago

Evji108
Oct 31, 09 7:54 PM CDT

dontlikeyou, are already getting a special right for your sexual (heterosexual) preference- it is called MARRIAGE. Gay people are not asking for special rights, rather they are asking for equal rights. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

freethemall
Oct 31, 09 7:59 PM CDT

Bigots SHOULD be answerable for their bigotry. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

cochiserocks
Oct 31, 09 9:55 PM CDT

Yes - but the bigger issue the article raise is that if you are victimised for you views - ie. you lose your job because your boss is a bigot - then the issue is should the information be made available. I agree that in an ideal world you should stand by your principles and not care, but if signing a petition becomes something where you have to consider whether swimming against the tide in principle will require you to make a sacrifice that big - perhaps the amount of courage required to take part in a democratic process will be too much for someone just trying to get through the day, pay for their kids and keep their house. In an ideal world, you wouldn't need a petition to point out the blindingly obvious - human rights are human rights. But in this world, information is power, and in the wrong hands it make it harder for normal people to develop a more intelligent view - Maybe in history 'Peer Pressure' accounts for a lot more bad than good - and not everyone wants to be Ghandi or Mandella - some folks just want to quietly add their name so their leaders know there is support - but not attend a rally where their face will be photographed, or wave a banner that gets them ostracised because they work or live amongst bigots. I wish it were so clear cut - but I don't think it is.

IN RESPONSE:

cochiserocks
Oct 31, 09 10:00 PM CDT

Apologies for the many typos in my response freethemail - typing too fast and not checking through. Thumbs up for your comment though - I agree - Bigots SHOULD be accountable - I wonder if they'll wear it as a badge of honour though. Bit like some of the crazy stuff you see spewed forth on Newser.

IN RESPONSE:

freethemall
Oct 31, 09 10:52 PM CDT

I never realized what a bad speller I was, until I started blogging on this site. My spell checker prompts me every time I misspell a word. which is pretty often. For instance, I was prompted, when, in the above sentence I was going to make "every time" one word. And just now I was going to spell "sentence" with an ance, instead of an ence. In further response to your post, it's pretty easy to stand up for what one believes in, when one can remain anonymous. (I had to go to the dictionary for the correct spelling of that word)

| 0 minutes ago

fancygapva
Oct 31, 09 9:41 PM CDT

Does Mr. Will object to the thuggish tactics of anti-abortionists who shoot doctors or harass women outside clinics? Reply

| 0 minutes ago

yoeydude
Nov 1, 09 12:23 AM CDT

20 years from now students will find it hard to belive anyone cared about what gender had sex with what gender ,..... its funny , a biologicaly driven animal , that thinks its not Reply

IN RESPONSE:

Nixon
Nov 1, 09 2:38 AM CST

Gender is a biological truth about a human being, it is something that is determined by nature and dictates your genetic make up. No amount of gender realignment surgery will ever change your chromosones (at least currently). Im also suprised that in this day and age it still hasnt been proven that sexuality is genitically based. Therefore maybe enviroment does play a large role in determining sexuality.

| 0 minutes ago

Sklarticus
Nov 1, 09 2:39 AM CST

Since when is being able to marry the person you love considered a "special right"? The only thugs in this situation are those who believe their rights to include the right to infringe on the rights of others. A silly, baseless viewpoint to put it kindly. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

Nixon
Nov 1, 09 2:44 AM CST

Its funny that in todays day and age that your encouaged to speak your mind and be yourself yet those that do and go against the NEW social norm are persicuted. We think we have come so far but the reality is we havent, we just persecute different groups. Two steps forward three steps back. Free speach works both ways, there should be the same rules for all. As long as protesting is done peacfully you can protest whatever you want. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

Nixon
Nov 1, 09 2:54 AM CST

One parting note on this topic. Discrimination is always discrimination, there is no such thing as positive discrimination. History shows us this time and time again. Hitler would have considered his persectution of the Jews as positive discrimination as they were rich and most other Germans were poor. Why do we never learn from history? All we do is repeat the same mistakes by repackaging them convincing ourseleves that this form of discrimination is positive because it helps a traditionally discriminated against group. If some one is an anti gay marriage activist then aslong as they dont hurt anyone then then they shouldnt be discriminated against just like a gay marriage activist. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

riffran
Nov 1, 09 5:24 AM CST

well said....AND non biased...thumbs up

| 0 minutes ago

BleeBloo
Nov 2, 09 2:59 PM CST

MrsK, Dontlikeyou, jamerican, I can rest assured in the knowledge that your regressive, bigoted kind are dying out. Society CONSTANTLY moves more and more socially forward. 100 years ago, you would be arguing against giving the vote to women or blacks; 50 years ago, you would be arguing for eugenics and against civil rights. You will lose. You will always, always lose. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

Monjubikahn
Nov 16, 09 5:24 PM CST

In my neighborhood "holding bigots answerable for their bigotry " would be justification for a gun in your face. We fought against the Gestapo in World War Two. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

View all 94 comments »

Washington state • George Will • referendum • US Supreme Court • liberal interventionism • Proposition 8 • public disclosure • Referendum 71 • political participation

from our news partners

Sexual Hijinks Abound in Adam Lambert AMA Performance
(2 hours, 29 minutes ago)
Steve Perry Talks About 'Believin'' on 'Glee,' 'Sopranos'
(2 hours, 51 minutes ago)
Rihanna, Gaga Show Lots of Skin at AMAs
(3 hours, 43 minutes ago)
Jennifer Lopez Falls During AMAs
(4 hours, 18 minutes ago)

The coolest CG portraits you'll see today [Cool]
(9 minutes ago)
Authorities decry assault on 12-year-old California boy as a result...
(14 minutes ago)
Vatican hosts conference on extrasolar life, highlights need for that...
(40 minutes ago)
He brings a shotgun, you bring a bagel cart. That's...
(1 hour, 22 minutes ago)

Kull Getting a Sorbo Free Reboot
(1 hour, 36 minutes ago)
Victoria Beckham Says No To Madagascar 3
(10 hours, 31 minutes ago)
Mel Gibson Denies Role in Mad Max: Fury Road
(Nov 22, 09 11:52 PM CST)
New Moon's Chris Weitz Gets A New Project
(Nov 22, 09 11:24 PM CST)

Associated Press

Supreme Court to decide if two-person Labor Board can make decisions
(Nov 2, 09 9:17 AM CST)
Breeders' Cup adds 2 new wagering propositions involving biggest races, jockeys
(Oct 29, 09 1:30 PM CDT)
Riley throws for 3 TDs, Best scores 3 TDs as California beats Washington State...
(Oct 24, 09 7:07 PM CDT)
2 Supreme Court justices taking stage in DC opera
(Oct 24, 09 2:09 PM CDT)

What is Newser?

Face it: there's too much news. At Newser, we choose the most important stories from hundreds of US and international sources and reduce them to a headline, picture, and two paragraphs. And we do it 24/7—you can come back morning, noon, night (and in between) for something new that matters. Read less, know more.

Learn more »

Stop Lefty Thugs Bullying Gay Marriage Opponents

Supreme Court must step in to keep chill off participation

'Everything But Marriage' Law for Gays Passes in Wash.

Referendum 71 expands benefits for same-sex couples

MORE ABOUT:
gay rights • Washington state • benefits • domestic partnership • Referendum 71

Keep Anti-Gays
in Closet: Colbert

Anti-gay marriage petitioners in Washington value their privacy

MORE ABOUT:
gay marriage • legislation • homosexuality • Washington state • civil union • Stephen Colbert • The Colbert Report • referendum

Gay Marriage to Gambling:
Key Ballot Initiatives

Two states vote on taxpayer bills of rights, to curb spending

MORE ABOUT:
gay marriage • taxes • Ohio • casino • Maine • Washington state • referendum • ballot initiative • Election 09

Washington state • George Will • referendum • US Supreme Court • liberal interventionism • Proposition 8 • public disclosure • Referendum 71 • political participation

MOST POPULAR STORIES

[ By Views ]

[ By Comments ]

from our news partners

Associated Press

About

Help

Tools

Site Maps

What is Newser?

Stop Lefty Thugs Bullying Gay Marriage Opponents

Supreme Court must step in to keep chill off participation

Related Newser Stories

'Everything But Marriage' Law for Gays Passes in Wash.

Referendum 71 expands benefits for same-sex couples

MORE ABOUT: gay rights • Washington state • benefits • domestic partnership • Referendum 71

SATIRE DEPT.

Keep Anti-Gays in Closet: Colbert

Anti-gay marriage petitioners in Washington value their privacy

MORE ABOUT: gay marriage • legislation • homosexuality • Washington state • civil union • Stephen Colbert • The Colbert Report • referendum

ELECTION DAY

Gay Marriage to Gambling: Key Ballot Initiatives

Two states vote on taxpayer bills of rights, to curb spending

MORE ABOUT: gay marriage • taxes • Ohio • casino • Maine • Washington state • referendum • ballot initiative • Election 09

Washington state • George Will • referendum • US Supreme Court • liberal interventionism • Proposition 8 • public disclosure • Referendum 71 • political participation

MOST POPULAR STORIES

[ By Views ]

[ By Comments ]

from our news partners

Associated Press

About

Help

Tools

Site Maps

What is Newser?

MORE ABOUT:
gay rights • Washington state • benefits • domestic partnership • Referendum 71

Keep Anti-Gays
in Closet: Colbert

MORE ABOUT:
gay marriage • legislation • homosexuality • Washington state • civil union • Stephen Colbert • The Colbert Report • referendum

Gay Marriage to Gambling:
Key Ballot Initiatives

MORE ABOUT:
gay marriage • taxes • Ohio • casino • Maine • Washington state • referendum • ballot initiative • Election 09