1
Share
Feed»Tacomic
Champions of Cowardice Petition for Referendum 71
Hide from the HOMOSEXUAL LOBBY? Impossible!
posted Aug 25, 2009
Sizes:
web |
email |
print
Remember how you elect people to run the state government? Well these elected officials decided on their own to extend employee health-care benefits to folks in domestic partnerships. Gov. Chris Gregoire signed it into law and everybody was happy. That is, of course, except for the esteemed members of the Washington State Taliban (WST) who believe gayness should be monopolized completely between a penis and a vagina. A slippery slope... sanctity of marriage faith holy-bible family-values buzzword buzzword blah blah... same old tired nonsense. The part I find interesting as a political cartoonist is the petitioner's emergency request to keep secret their list of names and donors which by law is a matter of public record. MINORITY GROUP X would like to remain anonymous while taking away the rights of MINORITY GROUP Y because MINORITY GROUP X could be mocked and made fun of in political cartoons. Verily, Adam Smith's invisible hand of the free market place works in mysterious ways. Enjoy the cartoon!
Comments [84]
 by NineInchNachos on 8/25/2009 @ 12:25am | see also:
"From all across Washington State, organizations and individuals have come together to ensure that families remain protected by the domestic partnership law. We call ourselves Washington Families Standing Together to reflect our values and the breadth of support for the state's domestic partnership law. The law provides essential protections to families formed by gay and lesbian couples and couples where one partner is age 62 or older. Now there is an attempt to repeal the law by getting a referendum on the ballot." approvereferendum71.org/ |
 by panachronic on 8/25/2009 @ 2:46am | Nationwide, same-sex marriage is currently 0-30 in state ballot measures. That's not an artifact of ancient history -- every one of those elections have been in the years since 1992. Most of them were held since 2000. Zero-for-THIRTY. No reasonable person can look at that and not conclude that the people have spoken, clearly and consistently. Which is precisely the reason that, where same-sex marriage does exist, it is only in states where it has been imposed by courts or legislatures. But in a better world, where these things were decided in a truly democratic fashion, the matter of same-sex marriage would no longer be part of the national conversation. That 0-30 figure is also the reason advocates for same-sex marriage harbor genuine FEAR of putting their cause to the test in an election. And, in turn, that fear explains the odious and reprehensible tactics some of those advocates have used in their attempt to keep R-71 off the ballot. But I guess we won't see any cartoons lampooning the LGBT community's vigilante tactics, will we R.R.? The authors of our state Constitution knew that there was no guarantee the Legislature would always follow the will of the people. That is why they gave us the mechanisms of initiative and referendum -- as a means to ensure that the people of the state have the final say. Which is as it should be. Yes, we elect the legislature to "run the state government", just as you said, R.R. But we don't elect them to upend our social conventions, and we surely don't elect them to pass laws that the people don't want. And for the record, I'm an atheist. |
 by KevinFreitas on 8/25/2009 @ 6:49am | @panachronic: Umm... I don't believe WA has same sex marriage. Just gives rights to domestic partnerships since that sort of arrangement is a growing relationship trend. If I loved someone and wanted to be with them the rest of my life but didn't believe in marriage as a religious institution that applied to me then perhaps I should still be afforded the same benefits as anyone in any kind of committed relationship. This benefit doesn't just solely apply to gay relationships but straight ones as well so I'd prefer it stay in tact so we don't discriminate against any loving, committed couple. |
 by fredo on 8/25/2009 @ 7:16am | I believe I have a solution which will make all parties happy.
Remove all health benefits for government employees. That way no right wing religious person can claim that his/her taxes are going to support a life style they don't agree with and gays will be happy because every employee will be getting treated the same. |
 by The Jinxmedic on 8/25/2009 @ 8:24am | How about all of that post-prop 8 backlash in California? That certainly wasn't pleasant for anyone who contributed fianancially to the proposition movement- the opponents of the measure had the donor lists published in the local newspapers, and retaliation was in many cases, actually violent. So perhaps the proponents of Referendum 71 have a reason to be worried about releasing their names...
When we reach the point that citizens become afraid to utilize the political process to effect change (any kind of change- this is not a single-issue subject) due to a very real and demonstrated threat of retailiation by other parties, something has gone seriously wrong. Anyhow, "Vote early, vote often". See you at the polls! :-) |
 by ElectricElliot on 8/25/2009 @ 8:51am | @panachronic
I can count about a trillion times that the people's assessment has been incorrect. I concur with you sense of democracy, but the rights of the minority are just as important. "The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped." - Hubert Humphrey @Jinxmedic I agree with you that the premise of backlash for voting a certain way is no better than terrorism. However, in the defense of those angry souls whose rights were thrown against a brick wall for being DIFFERENT, it is not surprising there is anger, especially considering the misinformation presented by the pro-prop 8 crowd. There's a time for sitting and there's a time for action. For minorities rights aren't given, they must be snatched. RR - Great comic, love the Todd the Ghost reference! |
 by tacoma1 on 8/25/2009 @ 9:23am | @NineInchNachos
This is a comic of yours that I like. It's an important message. Why anyone thinks that in a free society, that they have the right to repress other peoples rights, in the name of democracy. That is nothing but a bizarre double standard, oxymoron, f'd up logic............ I could go on. |
 by jenyum on 8/25/2009 @ 9:25am | @panachronic yup, that is an essential duty of the courts. To provide a check on the power of majority rule when it infringes on the essential rights of the minority.
Typically the other branches of government follow along but it can take a few decades. I think it's a pretty good system, though a bit slower than I might like. |
 by Thorax O'Tool on 8/25/2009 @ 10:03am | Maybe I'm thick. Maybe I'm stupid. Maybe I can't see more than 20 minuets into the future.
Maybe all of those and more? I dunno, but for some reason I fail see how offering equal rights and privileges to gay or straight domestic partnerships somehow threatens traditional marriage. |
by fredo on 8/25/2009 @ 10:04am | If the taxpayers don't pay the health insurance premiums for a government employee's boyfriend/girlfriend then someones rights are being infringed or repressed? That's a bit of a stretch.
RE: the Hubert Humphrey quote. There's no indication he was referring to gay people or their agenda. |
by tacoma1 on 8/25/2009 @ 10:34am | @fredo We forbid gay people to marry, therefore if they want to live together, they have to live together out of wedlock. Because they are just a "boyfriend or girlfriend" we can also deny them, property rights, and healthcare. Of course, they're just gay people, they don't deserve those things, do they? |
 by LogJam on 8/25/2009 @ 10:41am | This is one RRwesome comic. |
 by thriceallamerican on 8/25/2009 @ 11:06am | @panachronic, before you come back and yell zero-for-thirty at us a few more times, realize that the clock is ticking on that trend...the old-timers are going to start dying off (perhaps insensitive, but true) and the changing electorate will increasingly reflect the beliefs of those who are now, say, 50 and younger, who by and large believe that same-sex marriage should be allowed. The battle is already lost by those against gay marriage, it's just a matter of time. |
by tacoma1 on 8/25/2009 @ 11:25am | @thriceallamerican
Watch out who you're calling old. Age is relative. Old is anyone that is at least 10 years older than me. That is a moving benchmark of course. Therefore, by that definition, 50 years old isn't old at all, and it will eventually be young. |
by thriceallamerican on 8/25/2009 @ 11:30am | Heh, sorry...didn't mean to imply 50 was the dividing line between young/old, but I can see how it would be construed that way. I was just ballparking an age where I thought there might be a threshold on those who tend to support gay marriage and/or civil unions vs. those who maybe tend to not so much. And wherever that threshold age actually sits, it's a sliding benchmark, too. |
by panachronic on 8/25/2009 @ 11:47am | When you start out with a false premise, you are bound to reach a faulty conclusion.
Marriage is NOT a right; it is a privilege conferred by the state on persons who meet certain qualifications. Nobody has a right to get married. |
by thriceallamerican on 8/25/2009 @ 12:01pm | So, uh, why is anyone allowed to get married, then? Shall we just repeal the whole damn thing? |
by KevinFreitas on 8/25/2009 @ 12:06pm | Still not talking about marriage. We're talking about the other rights that come along with it that should be afforded to any committed couple. Rights and benefits the state gives to married couples that, if that whole separation of church and state thing still matters, should be given to non-religiously bound, committed couples.
And, yes, in a public process any signatures should be made public. Backlash is no reason to shroud democracy. |
by jenyum on 8/25/2009 @ 12:25pm | Actually, the Supreme Court has spoken of marriage as a fundamental right on several occasions. In Skinner v. Oklahoma:
supreme.justia.com/us/316/535/case.html And most relevantly in Loving v. Virginia, the case which invalidated racial miscegenation laws:
supreme.justia.com/us/388/1/case.html In my opinion, it is only a matter of time before turnover in the supreme court produces a similar ruling in same sex marriage cases. |
by NineInchNachos on 8/25/2009 @ 12:43pm | Where is Mofo from the Hood? I await his wisdom on the subject. @logjam, @ElectricElliot I'm going to start sneaking in other claw strip character cameos into my cartoons. Enjoy the easter eggs! |
 by Nick on 8/25/2009 @ 1:51pm | Just some thought-provoking questions (feel free to post your answers/thoughts!): 1. What is the purpose/goal of a government-recognized marriage or union? 2. What is the purpose/goal of a religiously-recognized marriage or union (will vary by religion, speak to that which you are familiar)? 3. Are these purposes the same or different? 4. *Should* these purposes be the same or different? Why? 5. Does the union of two men or two women accomplish the goals of question #1? 6. Does the union of two men or two women accomplish the goals of question #2? Just looking to better understand where we all are coming from... |
 by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 8/25/2009 @ 2:03pm | I think Mofo is fine with this. He just doesn't want gay math teachers because the children will never learn to multiply. |
 by Mofo from the Hood on 8/25/2009 @ 2:26pm | Here's the real problem with antifamily and antilife liberals---they're in denial of the ultimate natural end of a relationship between a man and a woman---continuing the species. Children born as a result of intercourse between a man and a woman have a special significance.
The shifting definitions of terms related to relationships brought about by psychologists, amongst other political forces, has also brought increased confusion and ignorance of the roles and responsibilities of men and women. If someone says that they have a right, then I'd like to know where that right comes from---what's the basis. |
by Nick on 8/25/2009 @ 2:55pm | @mofo I can't tell, is that a joke or serious? both? |
by The Jinxmedic on 8/25/2009 @ 3:13pm | Pretty deep... |
by NineInchNachos on 8/25/2009 @ 3:42pm | can you imagine break-dancing in mofo's moccasins for a day?
the world must look very different. Even so, thanks for all the comments my friends. It has been an intriguing conversation. :) |
by Mofo from the Hood on 8/25/2009 @ 3:53pm | Nick, I'm speaking from a Christian worldview.
One's perspective on this issue can be theocentric/theist or atheistic---Seeing things in reference to God or gods; or seeing things with no reference to God or gods. One cannot declare a neutral position. Given that, if there is God as revealed in the Bible, then He is Sovereign. His Sovereignty must be over all creation or He is not God. God's Sovereignty is over both Church and State because he instituted both Church and State. Both institutions operate and are accountable to His authority. If one has an atheistic worldview and does not affirm the authority of God, does not affirm the possibility absolute truths or principles, then in such a world all things are equal: All things are a matter of preference and opinion. It's my likes versus your likes. Might makes Right. (And everything I just wrote is true because I say so.) |
by Thorax O'Tool on 8/25/2009 @ 4:02pm | Marriage is about reproducing, and protecting those offspring... interesting, interesting. So this all comes down to the continuation of the species, and not anything to do with the actual relationship itself? Not all marriages produce kids, whether by choice or involuntarily (infertility, etc)... yet those without kids (even voluntarily) receive these benefits. Now, a non-married hetro couple can have kids as well. Yet there are, without the domestic partnership law, no such benefits for these people and their kids. Now, we also have some gay couples with kids, whether by invirtro or by adoption. Without the domestic partnership law, no such benefits for these people and their kids. But then, shouldn't we be offering these benefits to folks with kids and denying them to those married without children? I mean, if it's only about the survival of the species and all... As a disclaimer, I am of the Christian persuasion myself. Furthermore, I'm not one who takes the Bible literally, I try to live as it's intention calls for, not it's actual words do. As a Christian, I do not see a moral issue with domestic partnership as we have it in WA. Now, personally, I am a BIG supporter of equality before the law. No special rights for anyone. I do think that we ought to have not only domestic partnership laws for those who do not wish to marry, but also gay marriage as well... provided, of course, that the laws are the same. The exact same benefits go to each, as well do the exact same disadvantages: spousal support, child support, community property, divorce, etc. We don't pick and choose who is equal, either we all are or none of us are. |
by NineInchNachos on 8/25/2009 @ 4:04pm | Could god make a burrito so big even he couldn't eat it? |
by Thorax O'Tool on 8/25/2009 @ 4:09pm | "Could god make a burrito so big even he couldn't eat it? "
God IS the burrito. |
by NineInchNachos on 8/25/2009 @ 4:30pm | I love burrito god. |
by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 8/25/2009 @ 4:42pm | If god is a burrito then the trinity must be Los 3 Hermanos on 12th street. |
by Mofo from the Hood on 8/25/2009 @ 5:02pm | Thorax, thanks for illustrating my point about redefining terms---From the definition of marriage to the definition of a man or woman as a product of nurture not nature.
I've heard of the myth of the autonomous individual; but never seen one. |
by NineInchNachos on 8/25/2009 @ 5:04pm | Mofo will be here all week folks. remember to tip your waitress. |
by Thorax O'Tool on 8/25/2009 @ 6:00pm | depends on what the definition of "Is" is... |
by The Jinxmedic on 8/26/2009 @ 9:41am | or isn't... |
by NineInchNachos on 8/26/2009 @ 10:38am | or issss it? |
by Nick on 8/26/2009 @ 1:36pm | @mofo
So given your explanation, this debate really has nothing to do with marriage at all, but rather the separation of church and state. If that is even possible for one holding a Christian world view, or any world view that places a deity as sovereign. If not, then I think we'd have to reduce the debate down to an even more fundamental level addressing the very existence of God. In which case we would basically be arguing over an oversized burrito, and whether or not it was really there. Which it wouldn't be because NiN would have already eaten it. There, I fixed it. The meaning of life solved.... or eaten. |
by NineInchNachos on 8/26/2009 @ 2:03pm | I always get soft tacos and burritos mixed up. Get thee behind me satan! |
by Thorax O'Tool on 8/26/2009 @ 2:32pm | What about the Holy Chalupas of Antioch? |
by Mofo from the Hood on 8/26/2009 @ 3:12pm | I thought the debate was about degrading marriage and destroying the foundation of civilization and making a buck at it.
Would you like a cup of hemlock with those mexi-fries? |
by Thorax O'Tool on 8/26/2009 @ 6:40pm | I thought the foundation of civilization was the development of agriculture.
Or at least that's what my 6th grade social studies book told me. |
by jenyum on 8/26/2009 @ 6:53pm | It used to be the strength of a community could be judged by how much a mother could carry... but that was before mini vans and suvs. |
 by marumaruyopparai on 8/26/2009 @ 9:07pm | I thought the debate was about degrading marriage and destroying the foundation of civilization and making a buck at it.
How do domestic partnerships degrade the institution of marriage? I thought this was just about the extension of employee health care benefits for same-sex couples living together as a family (i.e. domestic partnership), no? These are politically sanctioned partnerships, not church sanctioned marriages, right? And who is it that stands to make a buck? Darn those working gays and their desire for health-care coverage! Are you making a case for vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman being the foundation of civilization? I mean, I guess I get that, but I think that straight sex and gay lovin' can live in harmony, I'm a believer. On a less heavy and melodramatic note, I leave you with my favorite RR blessed burrito quote ever. . . by NineInchNachos on 3/18/2009 @ 11:06pm self-existent uncaused eternal burrito |
by Mofo from the Hood on 8/27/2009 @ 12:51am | Okay, Mr. maru etc, et al.:
A stable civilization must be founded on truth. So... True or False (if something is true then it is always true): All domestic partnerships are equal. (Nobody has figured this out until now? Gosh we're smart... Aren't we?!?... I mean we're not being fooled by sophism or wordplay or somethin' are we?...) |
by Thorax O'Tool on 8/27/2009 @ 4:15am | All civilizations are founded on lies. It's why societies become nations, become empires and then fall. The lies start small but eventually consume the society until it becomes so bloated that it cannot function. It happened to Mesopotamia, it happened to Egypt, it happened to Alexander's Greece, it happened to Rome, it happened to Han China, it happened to Genghis' Asia, it happened to the Ottoman, it happened to the Fatamid, it happened to the Persians, it happened to the Spanish, it happened to the Portuguese, it happened to the Russians, it happened to the Germans, it happened to the English, it is happening and will happen to us. It's been said that one can easily guess a society's position on the rise/peak/decline cycle based on the art it produces. Early art tends to be rougher, but optimistic and improving. The peak brings a Golden Age, of quality and quantity. The decline brings more extremes, an intensification of eroticism, the need to create meaning when none can be found, and this perpetual need to be "over the top". Wanna guess where we are? |
by fredo on 8/27/2009 @ 7:20am | I sign petitions all the time and barely read the subject. It makes the guy with the petition happy. Heck he might even get paid a couple bucks. Maybe he's trying to support a family. If someone wants to look over the signatures and spots my name I don't give a crap.
I don't know if God hates same sex benefits, but I do know that a lot of tax payers hate extending government entitlements. If gays want to call themselves families, I'm fine with that, just don't expect me to pay for it. You know what? Fredo is completely consistent. I don't think the taxpayers should have to pay for health care for the dependants of straight State employees either. |
by NineInchNachos on 9/12/2009 @ 7:11pm | victory for the scum bags! Judge orders names kept secret...
blog.thenewstribune.com/opinion/2009/09/... |
by Mofo from the Hood on 9/13/2009 @ 10:24pm | Yeah people, this is the F-ing 21st century.
We gotta live by the Science of Correct Thinking! |
by NineInchNachos on 9/30/2009 @ 10:18am | from a comment on exit133: "A conservative Christian organization has prepared a pamphlet listing the pros and cons of referendum measure 71. Obviously, if this measure isn't voted down, society will crumble and we will be ruled by myopic penguins with rusty switchblades. " http//faithandfreedom.us/pdf/R71procon.pdf |
by NineInchNachos on 10/19/2009 @ 2:24pm | looks like the protect marriage nuts get to keep their hoods:
www.thenewstribune.com/topstories/story/... |
by NineInchNachos on 12/3/2009 @ 2:17pm | nice work from our friends at the volcano:
www.weeklyvolcano.com/2009-12-03/cover/4... cocksuckers FTW! |
by Thorax O'Tool on 12/3/2009 @ 2:22pm | All you got it wrong. 71 was an insult to the gay community, not a good thing. It SHOULD have been full-on marriage, not a sloppy-seconds, half-ass compromise. |
by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 12/3/2009 @ 2:43pm | TO'T, seems to me that those of the homosexual persuasion were pretty happy with the passage of 71. I think one takes their victories where one can find them. Beats the alternative. |
by NineInchNachos on 12/3/2009 @ 2:44pm | baby steps ToT, baby steps |
by panachronic on 12/3/2009 @ 6:24pm | "All you got it wrong. 71 was an insult to the gay community, not a good thing. It SHOULD have been full-on marriage, not a sloppy-seconds, half-ass compromise."
Funny you should mention that. They insisted throughout the campaign that it wasn't about same-sex marriage. Then, as soon as the election was over, they basically admitted that was a lie all along. Toldya so. |
by NineInchNachos on 12/3/2009 @ 6:59pm | look out HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE is gonna git ya! booga booga booga! |
by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 12/3/2009 @ 7:57pm | I'm pretty sure Mr. O'Tool doesn't speak for the homosexual community. |
by Thorax O'Tool on 12/3/2009 @ 9:40pm | The community I am best suited to speak for is Slashdot. |
by Mofo from the Hood on 12/4/2009 @ 8:49am | Thanks for the link to the Weekly Volcano, Mr. NIN.
The public needs to be informed about those who promote depravity with a smiley face. |
by NineInchNachos on 4/19/2010 @ 3:22pm | go Rob McKenna!
www.thenewstribune.com/2010/04/19/115492... |
by Mofo from the Hood on 4/19/2010 @ 5:17pm | Existential Hell:
The last heterosexual male on earth, working part time without benefits in a voter approved all-Lesbian health clinic. |
 by greenfringegarden on 4/19/2010 @ 6:51pm | Many heterosexual men claim they are Lesbians in a man's body...so I don't see why this is hell except for the lack of health benefits... |
by Mofo from the Hood on 4/19/2010 @ 6:59pm | "Many heterosexual men claim they are Lesbians in a man's body..."---grg
Ha ha. Maybe that line will break the ice for men shopping on Craigslist's "Women Seeking Women." |
by NineInchNachos on 4/22/2010 @ 10:19pm | "He just doesn't want gay math teachers because the children will never learn to multiply"
ha ha! I finally got it! |
by NineInchNachos on 4/28/2010 @ 1:05pm | is looking good!
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court justices from the left and the right seemed downright skeptical Wednesday as a lawyer for religious conservatives argued Washington state had no right to release the names of the 138,000 residents who signed ballot petitions to overturn a same-sex domestic partnership law. Justice Antonin Scalia dismissed the arguments as "touchy feely" and said, "Democracy requires a certain amount of civic courage." Read more: blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2010/04... |
by NineInchNachos on 6/24/2010 @ 8:17am | VICTORY!
"WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Supreme Court says people who signed a petition to repeal Washington state's gay rights law do not have the right to keep their names secret from the public." www.king5.com/news/politics/97069594.htm... |
by NineInchNachos on 8/9/2010 @ 4:51pm | "When the Supreme Court recently ruled that names and other information on petition sheets are a matter of public record—upholding a state law that always said they were public record—the folks trying to hide their names became outraged. They declared it a travesty of judicial activism that would expose the signers of Referendum 71, the people who wanted to vote on taking away the rights of gay couples, to public scrutiny and harassment. The very possibility that the names could be released chilled the initiative process; people would stop signing petitions!"
slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/... |
by fredo on 8/9/2010 @ 5:57pm | If it's OK to see the names of people who sign petitions then why is it so important that voting be done in secret? Why don't we open up the voting records of the citizenry, what's the difference? Let's find out who put Christine Gregoire in office so we can have them tarred and feathered. |
by NineInchNachos on 8/9/2010 @ 6:15pm | two completely different things sir. you know that. |
by fredo on 8/9/2010 @ 6:51pm | A person signs their name on the R-71 initiative and a person votes for initiative R-71 and that's two "completely different" things? Sorry, they don't sound too different to me. |
by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 8/9/2010 @ 8:49pm | Signing something to put something on a ballot doesn't necessarily mean you want it to pass, it could mean you believe the issue should be put to a vote. Only a vote can express, at least legally, your view on an issue or candidate. Signing a petition is a different thing entirely. |
by fredo on 8/9/2010 @ 10:24pm | it could mean you believe the issue should be put to a vote. crenshaw
precisely. but publishing the names of people who want it put to a vote could have a chilling effect on the democratic process. When you publish the names of these people it creates a rebuttable presumption that they favor the bill. I might want an issue put to a vote but I may not want my name published. And people could be targeted. I'm not posting in opposition to gay rights, I'm posting in favor of the initiative process which this ruling undermines. |
by NineInchNachos on 10/17/2011 @ 2:01pm | HA HA time to lose the hoods you haters. blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2011/10... |
by The Jinxmedic on 10/17/2011 @ 2:13pm | Remember California, and be careful of what you ask for.... |
by NineInchNachos on 10/17/2011 @ 2:24pm | sunshine? |
by Mofo from the Hood on 10/17/2011 @ 5:36pm | All man-made laws are subject to revision...
blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2011/10/n... |
by fredo on 10/17/2011 @ 6:27pm | Let the state workers pay for their own health care and also for the health care of their spouses, their courtesans, their gay lovers, their shack jobs, their concubines, their pets and their livestock.
Leave me and my wallet out of it. |
by tacoma1 on 10/17/2011 @ 6:30pm | I've never signed a petition for an initiative that I didn't want to pass. If my name was published on any initiative that I have signed, I wouldn't mind a bit. Public debate of the issues is an important part of our democratic process. |
by NineInchNachos on 10/17/2011 @ 7:05pm | amen Tacoma1 |
by fredo on 10/17/2011 @ 7:12pm | Public disclosure of petition signing=good thing
Public disclosure of actual ballot vote=bad thing |
by tacoma1 on 10/17/2011 @ 7:19pm | Yes fredo that is correct. My signature has to mean something. I also think its understandable why bigots would like to hide their bigotry from public view. That doesn't make it acceptable though. |
 by low bar on 10/17/2011 @ 7:25pm | I don't see why any straight man would have reason to obstruct a gay man when that gay man leaves more females for that straight man to get totally frustrated with. Gay females, well, if you could just give Amber Heard back I'd totally be cool with you too. |
by fredo on 10/17/2011 @ 7:38pm | It's worth noting that only a few R-71 signers objected to having their names published. Maybe the signers weren't bigots, they just objected to paying for the health benefits of some gay dude just because he serviced the weenie of some government employee. |
| Sign In to Comment: |