Washington's R-71 Loser Is Super Pissed About JMG Reader's Email Campaign

On Thursday I told you about Paul Thomasson, the JMG reader who has launched a campaign to email every person who signed the petition to place Washington state's failed Referendum 71 on the ballot. Yesterday Gary Randall of Protect Marriage Washington, the group that lost every court battle to cloak those names, bitterly complained about Thomasson.

I would suggest you not respond to him, however if you do, please know that your comments and probably your name will be further publicized to his readers. KOMO proudly reports, "Thomasson 's campaign may actually be working." From what I'm seeing on the I-1192 petition reports, his efforts don't seem to be working at all. The response is terrific. I am certain it will be on R-74 as well. Most of his emails that I have seen are the same with a little variation. He touts his military service, but fails to say he was removed from the military over issues with the "Don't ask, Don't Tell" policy. He was one of the first cases to challenge the Constitution on the matter. He was also one of the first to sign up for domestic partnerships. He also appears on most of the LGBT activist lists. While he presents himself as the "guy next door," he is a hard core homosexual activist.

Notice the scare tactic I've bolded in the very first sentence. Thomasson has not published any person's name and has redacted them from every response he's published. The laughable irony, of course, is that because of Randall's losing legal battles, those names are in fact available to any person in the entire world who visits the court-allowed site, WhoSigned.org.

Randall goes on to attempt to smear Thomasson as a "hard core homosexual activist." (HURRAY!) He also attempts to insinuate some sort of scandal over Thomasson's DADT-related dismissal from the military. Ah, the smell of desperation.

JMG Reader Reaches Out To Signers Of Washington State's Referendum 71

JMG reader Paul Thomasson writes to tip us to a project he's embarked upon in which he is using the just-released list of names on an anti-gay petition to write and ask for a reconsidered attitude in Washington state's upcoming ballot battle on marriage. Hit the link to read Paul's full email and to see the more than 50 responses he's gotten so far.

Yesterday Seattle's KOMO learned of Paul's campaign. Travis Mayfield reports:

Those who fought the effort to keep the R-71 signatures secret argued that not doing so would lead to harassment and intimidation of the signers. And some who have replied to Thomasson may believe that’s what he’s doing. “sick . dont send me email,” reads one reply. Supporters of gay rights argued they only wanted to see the names to have personal conversations with opponents to try to respectfully change minds. Clearly some of those contacted by Thomasson believe his efforts are sincere. “Thank you for your letter and for sharing something so personal with me. I value your communication and the love you have found,” wrote a woman identified as Alanna. With 1,600 emails sent, Thomasson is just getting started working his way through the list of 121,757 names. "I intend to continue this effort until I have transcribed and emailed all of the legible email addresses.”

WASHINTON: Referendum 71 Names Now Online In Searchable Database

Dominic Holden reports at Slog:

After years in federal courts and months of transcription, WhoSigned.Org went live this afternoon with a searchable database that includes the names and addresses of people who signed Referendum 71 in 2009. The referendum petition, circulated by anti-gay activists with the group Protect Marriage Washington, was an attempt to overturn Washington State's domestic partnership law that granted same-sex couples the same state rights as marriage.

Longtime JMG readers may recall that anti-gay hate groups fought this disclosure all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

SCOTUS Won't Block R-71 Names

The Supreme Court has declined to block the release of the names on Washington State's Referendum 71 petition. The decision is seen as portending against NOM, should their similar battle ever reach the nation's highest court.

“This means we can once again release these public records,” said Katie Blinn, co-director of state elections in the office of Secretary of State Sam Reed. The case entitled Doe v. Reed has bounced up and down in the federal court system. The Supreme Court earlier ruled, in an 8-1 decision, that signatures on initiative petitions should be a matter of public record. The Supremes sent the case back to U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle in Tacoma. Leighton has ruled that sponsors of the anti-gay measure did not prove that they have been harassed — or would face harassment — if named on the Ref. 71 petitions were released.

WASHINGTON: Federal Court Orders Release Of Referendum 71 Names

Much to the anguish of the anti-gay hate industry, today a federal judge ordered the release of the names on Referendum 71, the 2009 petition attempt to repeal Washington state's domestic partners law.

U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle said in a ruling Monday that it was unlikely that signers would face threats or harassment. Opponents of the law that expanded gay partnership rights managed to get enough signatures in 2009 to force a vote on the issue. They had pushed in court to keep the names of petition supporters private, arguing that it was a contentious issue and that people could be harassed.

RELATED: Referendum 71 failed by a margin of 53-47, becoming the first ever statewide LGBT rights law to be upheld by a public vote. Today's ruling follows a June 2010 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which voted 8-1 to uphold the constitutionality of releasing the names.

UPDATE: The above-linked article has been updated to report that a DVD containing all 138,000 petition names has been provided to the press. The names were released despite a promised appeal of the decision. You should check out the comments and their replies.

Pastor Ken Hutcherson Issues Bizarre DOMA Warning: This Cobra Will Bite You

This has nothing to do with the Bronx Zoo. Probably. Hutcherson, you may recall, led the failed effort to block Washington state's Referendum 71, which grants most of the rights of marriage, but not the name.

(Source: Towleroad via Pam's House Blend)

Washington State Gets Marriage Bill

Yesterday lawmakers in Washington state used the occasion of Valentine's Day to introduce a marriage equality bill, fulfilling the dire warnings of anti-gay activists who had predicted that the 2009 failure of Referendum 71 was a mere stepping-stone to full equality for gays.

This Valentine’s Day, Rep. Jim Moeller, D-Vancouver, and Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, said the night is darkest just before the dawn. "Over the past several years, the Legislature and the public together have been steadily building a bridge to equality for gay and lesbian families," said Moeller. He noted the passage of civil rights legislation in 2006 protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination in employment, housing, and financial transactions, and then three successive years of securing broader and broader domestic partnership rights -- which included successfully withstanding a hostile referendum challenge at the ballot in 2009.

"We've made tremendous progress since 1998," Murray said. "Gay and lesbian families in Washington now enjoy the same state spousal rights that their married straight friends enjoy – except for the name ‘marriage’. The recognition that their loving, lifelong commitment is no different from the loving, lifelong commitment of straight couples is the final step to achieving full equality. I believe the Legislature and the public are both ready to take that final step."

R-71 Petition Names Remain Sealed

Even though the Supreme Court ruled in June that forcing Protect Marriage Washington to disclose the names on their petitions was not unconstitutional, yesterday a federal judge blocked the release of the names as the bigots continues their bid to show that violent homofascists will rain down retribution if R-71's signers become known.

U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle ruled Wednesday to extend a restraining order that bars public release of the signatures while the case moves forward. He said that if the names were disclosed before a hearing on the case, it would essentially make the case moot. "The release of the names and addresses could not be undone," he said. Stickney's attorney said that the case centered on how the public records act is balanced against First Amendment issues when people want to voice their opinion on a volatile issue. "If you're talking about a nonvolatile issue, like adjusting the sales tax, in most cases that's not going to rise to a constitutional challenge," said Steven Pidgeon, an attorney for Protect Marriage. "But when you have a situation where people are saying 'I'm not going to sign a petition because if I do, my car is going to get keyed, my windows will get broken,' it becomes a different issue."

PhoboQuotable - James Bopp

"We will now ask the district court to rule on whether we are entitled to a special exemption, if we can prove traditional marriage supporters were targeted for harassment and intimidation. We believe there is more than ample evidence.

"What we have, since the adoption of Proposition 8, is a very transparent nationwide strategy by the gay activists to harass and intimidate, as a means to win their political agenda. There were literally hundreds of people who were subject to death threats, destruction of their property, theft, threat to their families or even fired from their jobs." - Protect Marriage Washington douchenozzle attorney James Bopp, reacting to last week's Supreme Court ruling that the signers of Referendum 71 petitions cannot remain secret.

Bopp is, of course, an Outrageous Christianist Liar™ . Not one single person was ever fired from their job due to Proposition 8 support. Not one. There were some petty property destruction incidents on both sides, largely limited to the theft of yard signs. And as for Bopp's claim of "literally hundreds" of death threats? More repulsive lies. Not one incident of a Prop 8-related death threat was ever cited by, as Good As You blogger Jeremy Hooper calls it, "credible news reporting." But the lies of James Bopp are quoted without question by Focus On The Family. This so-called "ample evidence" of his will be fascinating to see.

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Names On Referendum 71 Must Be Made Public

The U.S. Supreme Court has just ruled that anti-gay activists in Washington state MUST make public the names on Referendum 71. Protect Marriage wanted to keep the names secret, claiming they feared retribution from "violent homofascists." The ruling (PDF) was 8-1, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting.

Justices ruled in a case called Doe V. Reed. They heard oral arguments in Washington, D.C., April 28. The conservative group that tried to block release of the signatures wanted the nation's high court to uphold a lower court ruling that said signing petitions and referendum is constitutionally protected political speech - which by law is OK to engage in anonymously. The group, Protect Marriage Washington, asked justices to shield the names of the 138,000 people who signed Referendum 71 petitions in hopes of overturning the "everything but marriage" same-sex domestic partner law. In November Washington voters upheld the new statute. Gay rights groups have said they'll post the petition signers' names online, and some fear harassment or threats if their names are revealed.

The Court's decision, of course, has far-reaching implications for the transparency of the referendum process and campaign finance laws nationwide. SO SUCK IT, NOM! This is a GREAT day for LGBT Americans and the democratic process.

PhoboQuotable - Wendy Wright

"But Justice Scalia - this was a big surprise for me, his skepticism on this argument. But it's making me think that in fact he's thrown down the gauntlet for many of us who want to protect the privacy of those who are afraid of being intimidated. He said, and this is the quote that's gonna make it in all the news items when we hear about this case, he said 'Running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage'. Well, I think in a sense he is right. And if we lose this case I think that's the gauntlet thrown down to each one of us. Are we up to it? Are we willing to do what is right? Are we willing to put a name on a paper that clearly states a biblical viewpoint like being in favor of marriage even if we know we could face intimidation and harassment for it?

"When I wrote an article and did one of these multi-media commentaries regarding our amicus brief that was titled 'Secret Ballot, Secret Petitions', I began it by saying, would you be willing to sign your name on a petition if it meant you could face death threats, intimidation, losing your job? And Mario Diaz, our director of legal policy here at CWA responded and said yes, that he would be willing to sign his name onto something if he was intimidated. And I thought, he's right, he's right. We need to be willing to stand up and put our name on a paper. We're willing - we need to be willing to stand up and speak out for what is right, even if there are consequences to doing that." - Concerned Women for America president Wendy Wright, changing her tune from victim of homofascists to martyr for Christ in the face of Supreme Court's obvious intent to rule against Protect Marriage Washington.

(Thanks to Lurleen at Pam's House Blend, who provides us with the above transcript.)

EARLY REPORT: Supremes "Skeptical" About Protect Marriage's Argument

According to early reports from today's Supreme Court hearing of the Referendum 71 case, justices on both sides of the ideological aisle are rather skeptical of Protect Marriage's claim that violent homosexuals will rain down retribution on the signers of the anti-gay petition. Even Scalia seems to be on the correct side.

Supreme Court justices from the left and the right were skeptical Wednesday as a lawyer for religious conservatives argued that Washington State has no right to release the names of the 138,000 residents who signed ballot petitions to overturn a same-sex domestic partnership law. Associate Justice John Paul Stevens dismissed the arguments as "touchy feely" and Justice Antonin Scalia said "Democracy requires a certain amount of civic courage." James Bopp Jr., a lawyer for Protect Marriage Washington, argued that those who signed the petition for Referendum 71 faced harassment and intimidation from gay rights groups if their names were released and maintained the right to privacy trumped the public's right to know. Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna, who argued for the state, also faced tough questioning as he maintained the voter approved Public Disclosure Act required the release of the names and there has been no evidence of harassment or intimidation.

The Court's decision could affect the transparency of the referendum process in every state.

TODAY: Supreme Court Hears R-71

The Supreme Court will hear the case of the terrifying homofascists today, as Protect Marriage Washington pleads to keep the names of the supporters of Referendum 71 shielded from public review. The Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders note the horrifying examples cited in one amicus brief. Via press release:

- A country club member in California, a supporter of Proposition 8, noted that "the openly gay members of the country club have changed their attitudes toward me. They used to greet me warmly; now, they give me looks of disdain and do not greet me as I pass."
- A person with a yard sign supporting Proposition 8 was disturbed on Halloween that some people "pointed and whispered to one another in disapproval" during trick-or-treating.
- A woman was upset that her brother, who is gay, would no longer speak to her after she told him she might vote for Proposition 8.

As the amicus brief says, these complaints "are not only trivial, they reflect a fundamental refusal to accept the legitimacy of speech that disagrees with the complainants' viewpoints, deeming it 'hateful' or 'harassing' simply because they do not like hearing it."

"There's nothing to see here, folks," said Jon Davidson, Legal Director of Lambda Legal. "There's no comparison between a few scattered instances of whispers and disapproving glares and the very real discrimination, harassment and even violence LGBT people experience every day all over the country. After all, more hate crimes are reported against gay people than any other group per capita in the United States." "The Petitioners are attempting to create a through-the-looking-glass world in which the aggressors are the victims and the victims the aggressors," said Gary Buseck, Legal Director of GLAD.

It's completely laughable from end to end. A ruling isn't expected for several months.

SCOTUS To Hear Referendum 71

This Wednesday the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments from Protect Marriage Washington, who fears retribution from violent homofascists should the names on Referendum 71 become public knowledge. The Court's decision could affect the transparency of the referendum process nationwide.

Though Referendum 71 is at the heart of the legal dispute, the issues are far broader, including how open the state's initiative process will be. State officials also fear that if this challenge to the state disclosure law is successful, it will open the door to other challenges. "It's the public's right to know versus the right to privacy," said Secretary of State Sam Reed, who is named in the lawsuit. "It's exactly the type of case the Supreme Court likes." Lawyers for Protect Marriage Washington, which sponsored R71, say gay rights groups in California have harassed and intimidated those who signed petitions for an initiative barring gay marriages in that state. They fear the same thing will happen in Washington state. "The government is compelling people to identify their political beliefs and then outing them," said James Bopp Jr., who will argue the case before the Supreme Court for Protect Marriage Washington. "There couldn't be anything more chilling to free speech."

Bopp claims that the head of the R-71 petition drive so feared attacks from gays that he and his children slept in the hallway of his home. Because the gays were going to do a drive-by. Or something.

UNBREAKING: World Net Daily's Lies Makes The Baby Jeebus Cry

Today's top BREAKING! story on World Net Daily is about that Christian hit list all us violent homofascists have been working on. And, yup, they cite JMG as a hit list ringleader.

With reported cases of bullying, organized boycotts and threats of violence against the signers of traditional marriage initiatives in several states already – and homosexual activists pledging to make lists of signatories public and searchable online – lawyers at the American Center for Law and Justice are concerned that voters may grow fearful of reprisal should they sign a petition seeking to restrict marriage to one man and one woman. That fear, the ACLJ is arguing in a brief filed this week before the Court, is exactly the kind of political and voter intimidation that the Constitution should protect against.

"The right to secret ballot safeguards citizens from the historic evil of voter intimidation," the ACLJ brief argues. "Similarly, the right to anonymity in signing referendum petitions is no less essential in safeguarding signers from reprisal or intimidation." As WND has reported, those who have dared to sign or vote for traditional marriage in state petitions and referendums have faced backlash. In Maine, homosexual activists targeted churches with IRS complaints, and following California's passage of the controversial Proposition 8, supporters of the measure limiting marriage to one man and one woman were fired from their jobs, subjected to vandalism, bullied by angry mobs and threatened with violence.

Churches that rallied in support of Proposition 8 were targets of particular wrath on Internet sites and blogs: "Burn their f---ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers," wrote "World O Jeff" on the JoeMyGod blogspot within hours of California officials declaring Proposition 8 had been approved.On another site, Americablog, "scottinsf" wrote, "Trust me. I've got a big list of names of Mormons and Catholics that were big supporters of Prop 8. … As far as Mormons and Catholics … I warn them to watch their backs." "If you're planning a heterosexual wedding in California … be prepared for picketers. Designate someone to watch the parking lot … You're going to have lots of unexpected expenses. Add $500 to your budget for security," stated another threat. "Be afraid. Be very afraid. We are everywhere."

As is typical for WND, the story is riddled with lies, the most glaring of which is the claim that people were fired from their jobs because of their vote of Prop 8. That simply did NOT happen. Not ONCE. A couple of people that work in the arts did resign, but that's because their reputations were shot among their coworkers. I know. Christianists are lying. Here, let me pick you up off the floor from the shock.

Concerned Women Are Concerned About Violent Homofascist Predators

The Concerned Women for America today filed a Supreme Court brief in support of the attempt to suppress the names of those that signed Washington state's homophobic Referendum 71. Because them violent homofascist predators iz gonna whup somebody!

Penny Nance, CEO for Concerned Women for America, said, "CWA seeks to protect the individuals who signed the petition from having their support of Referendum 71, their personal information, and the address of their family's home globally publicized on the Internet by groups with a history of harassment and intimidation against those opposed to the homosexual viewpoint." Maureen Richardson, State Director for CWA of Washington, said, "Privacy is a big issue. The people's right to 'exercise the legislative power' through referenda and initiatives will be severely hampered by publicizing names through Internet listings, etc. In a perfect world where others do not wish us harm, public disclosure of citizens' personal information made available on a referendum or initiative might be acceptable, but in a world where advocates are threatened as I have been, making it easier for predators to access their victims is not necessarily in the public interest and certainly not in the victim's."

Oral arguments on the case begin in the U.S. Supreme Court on April 28th.

R-71 Backers To SCOTUS: Violent Homosfascists Are Going To Beat Us Up

The bigots attempting to shield the names of the other bigots who signed the bigoted Referendum 71 petition in Washington state have written to the U.S. Supreme Court. Their message: "If you force the release of the names on the petitions, violent homosexuals will unleash their fury on us!"

Writing the high court Thursday, proponents of Referendum 71 -- which appeared on the ballot in an effort to overturn the state's "everything but marriage" domestic partnership law -- said petition signers' names should not be released. Doing so, they asserted, could see those who wanted the landmark gay rights law repealed subjected to harassment or violence. The move puts opponents of the gay rights law at odds with Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed and state Attorney General Rob McKenna. Both officials, the highest-ranking Republicans serving in state government, have held that state law requires the release of petitioners' names.

Beyond the immediate issue, the Supreme Court's decision will likely have far-reaching impacts on the state's initiative and referendum process, as well as open government laws governing the disclosure of campaign donors' names. Protect Marriage Washington sought to block the release of the names of the 138,000 people who signed petitions in hopes of overturning the same-sex domestic partner law. Gay rights groups have said they'll post the petition signers' names online, and some petition signers fear harassment or threats if their names are revealed.

Would there really be any sort of Prop 8-like backlash in Washington? After all, we won this one.

SCOTUS To Hear R-71 Case In April

The U.S. Supreme Court has posted a hearing of Washington state's Referendum 71 petition signatures case on its April 28th docket. Via Dominic Holden at Slog:

According to a docket published today, the court will examine whether "the First Amendment right to privacy in political speech, association, and belief requires strict scrutiny when a state compels public release of identifying information about petition signers," and whether "compelled public disclosure of identifying information about petition signers is narrowly tailored to a compelling interest."

Referendum 71 was upheld by Washington's voters, one of the few wins for LGBT rights at the ballot box.

SCOTUS To Hear R-71 Petition Names Disclosure Case

Yet another omen. Considering the Supreme Court's ruling last week that Prop 8 opponents are rightfully terrified of violent homofascists, it doesn't bode well that they've agreed to hear the appeal of the decision to release the names on Washington state's anti-gay R-71 petition.

The justices said Friday they'll consider an appeal of a lower court's ruling that the names should be released. Legal scholars nationwide have been following the R-71 case, saying it could have broad implications for public disclosure laws. Arguments will take place in April. Protect Marriage Washington sought to block the release of the names of the 138,000 people who signed petitions in hopes of overturning the "everything but marriage" same-sex domestic partner law. In November Washington voters upheld the new statute. Gay rights groups have said they'll post the petition signers' names online, and some fear harassment or threats if their names are revealed.

The ultimate decision could have far-reaching impacts, not just on the state's initiative and referendum process, but also for other "open government" laws like the disclosure of who contributes to political campaigns, and how much they give. "We are pleased that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case that seeks to protect the rights of citizens who support a traditional definition of marriage to speak freely and without fear," James Bopp, Jr., the Indiana-based attorney for Protect Marriage Washington, said in a statement. "The First Amendment protects citizens from being required to disclose their identity when they are engaged in political speech....we look forward to their review of the case."

SCOTUS May Hear R-71 Appeal On Release Of Petition Names

On January 15th the U.S. Supreme Court will decide if it will hear the appeal of Protect Marriage Washington over the decision to force the release of the names of those who signed Referendum 71.

The court likely will announce later that day or the following Monday if it will take the R-71 petition case. If the court declines to take the case, the 9th Circuit Court’s decision will stand. If the court accepts the case, it will likely be argued in April, with a decision to be handed down by the end of June. There also is a state court injunction entered by Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks that also prevents the release of the R-71 petitions. The case in front of Judge Hicks is stayed pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s action.

Protect Marriage Washington, which used Referendum 71 to seek a public vote on the state’s “everything but marriage” domestic partnership law, filed a lawsuit last summer with the U.S. District Court in Tacoma to block release of the R-71 petitions. U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle ruled to block the petitions’ release, but the 9th Circuit later overturned that decision and unanimously held that the state’s policy of public release does not violate First Amendment free speech. Protect Marriage Washington quickly asked the high court to review the case.

Washington's State District Attorney's office has urged SCOTUS not to hear the appeal, saying that no First Amendment issue is at stake. Protect Marriage Washington says that retaliation against those who supported the failed amendment is likely.