This would've worked better 30 years ago when people knew who their neighbors were. Technology giveth as it taketh away.

People shouldn't be able to hide, the names should be disclosed. I was just doing door to door work yesterday for marriage equality in CA and it's wierd to be told in person how my relationships will never be equal to that of a man and woman, and how it's a "biological thing" but the bigots must be allowed to speak to show how crazy they are

While I understand the goal of this kind of confrontation is wildly different, it feels uncomfortable on the wake of George Tiller's death. Publishing the names and locations of our opponents isn't a tactic I'm eager to adopt.

Loveschild will be here to confront the gay mafia very shortly.

However well intentioned, publishing names and addresses seems like a bad idea as both a deterrent and consequence. What do you really expect to happen if you track a person who signed some initiative down through this site? You're going to convince them that gay people are awesome by confronting them as a stranger outside their building or at the grocery store? Seems like delusional people fighting other delusional people to me.

You can be part of the solution without being an asshole.

Come on guys this is terrible. If it was a gay hate site threatening to publish the names and addresses of gay rights supporters so haters could "confront" them we'd be up in arms! This isn't any different. This is an attempt scare people into not signing a petition and that always wrong! Even if the petition is terrible...

I'm kinda on the fence on this one. Certian places in town are more gay-hating than others are to be sure. I live in Ravenna and I've been surprised by how many homophobes live around here. But I would like to see the numbers on Cap Hill; too bad we can't compare it with what they would have been 12 years ago and see what has changed.

Way to win over the masses.

I wouldn't sign this petition so it does't really concern me, but as has been noted, the precedence seems a little creepy. Sure, most all of us in the SLOG echo chamber think these folks are ignorant bigots, so it's easy to agree with this.

Then again, a few years back I signed the petition that ultimately led to the defeat of the Seattle 4-Foot ordinance. That information is part of the public record as it should be, but it's a whole different level of "public" when it's put on a web page and starts showing up in Google searches.

I'd say doing it, but not publishing addresses seems like a good compromise. Except, it's pretty easy these days to look up the specific addresses of most people if you have name and zip code (whitepages.com, etc.).

I don't know... it's public record, right? So, if people really have a problem with this, they should be challenging the law that says the signatures are public.

Do they have any chance of actually getting 120,000 signatures on that thing?

Deliberation is an integral part of, well, deliberative democracy. Anonymous democracy is the worst kind of mob rule. If you want to cast a vote that will impact your neighbors' lives, you should be able to explain why to those neighbors.

A secret ballot (or initiative, in this case) may help prevent intimidation before a vote, but it also has its problems, and one of those problems is that it allows people to be utter shitcocks in the ballot booth and escape the social repercussions that would normally accompany that shitcockery - social repercussions that act to hold a society together.

It's not a simple issue.

This isn't a bad idea. I worry that radical leftists will take these names and start a jihad, but confronting people in a respectful manner and having a dialogue about these issues is paramount. If people are allowed to be secretly bigoted then they're never forced to face the reality of the issue. Having to speak to someone with a different perspective can really shake the foundation your prejudices are built upon.

I just read the website. It says nothing about confronting your neighbors. It's about ensuring transparency in an important political decision. Washington state uses a small 3% sample to validate petition signatures. The website will provide a way to detect fraud by seeing if their own names have been fraudulently used, or if non-existent addresses or neighbors are listed. In any case, signing a petition isn't the same as voting; it's a way for citizens to become lawmakers. When you sign a petition, you are publicly declaring your support for it. Making these names public, like making the names of political donors public, enhances the system.

I second sibley @3 - the timing is terrible and could easily result in some serious unintended consequences. don't do it, not now. not ever.

I have no problem with making the names public. Keep in mind, they already are if you want to do the leg work. Still, if I found out my neighbor voted yes and a prop like this, what should I do? Cofront them every time I see them? Scream at them in the hallway, or the laundry room?

Also, I can't help but think the person really just wants people to know that if they vote yes, they are going to have their names published publicly on a web site. The electronic equivalent of a dead fish wrapped in newspaper.

Over 150 mostly enraged comments on this story over at KOMO.......

sigh

Someone could well be shot. Religious fanatics kill.

@ 16 - You're an idiot

Awful idea. Like it or not people have a right to their opinions. What do you expect to accomplish anyway? And if the shoe was on the other foot?

Sometimes I sign petitions not because I agree with the position but because I think it's a topic that's worthy of a public referendum.

Reporting names on the basis of donations (like eightmaps) makes more sense to me.

Bad idea. I'm all for making sure I don't spend money where it's going to work against me and for that doner lists have come in handy but like #3 said, in the wake of Dr. Tiller's assassination it makes me nervous to here this kind of talk. I don't think it's going to do us any favors.

#24 - Signing a petition for something you disagree with so people can vote on it is a lousy idea. If you wouldn't argue for something, donate money to it, lobby your elected officials about it, or go from door to door trying to drum up support for it, don't sign it. Signing a petition is a form of advocacy. Your support influences other voters, lawmakers, and the political groups that provide funding. The more signatures a referendum has, the more aggressively its real supporters will work for it and fund it once its on the ballot. This isn't just some side effect of the process, it's how it's supposed to work.

@3, @21, etc: When's the last time a liberal killed someone?

If you want to take political action you should own what you're doing. if we publish the locations of sex offenders, we should feel just as free to publish the identity of bigots.

@29: I said a person, not a lump of undifferentiated tissue.

Next thing you know they'll make divorces and marriages public.

Oh, wait, they do.

Don't play the hate if you can't take the heat.

8 nails it. Dialogue is one thing, but this is an emotional issue and I have a feeling some people would use the opportunity to skip the dialogue and start harassing. In a town where scratching off an unliked bumper sticker is par for the course, I could see bad things happening with this information.

Or y'all could just make out in front of their houses instead.

I can't think of a more stupid idea. Even if it doesn't encourage some rabid leftwinger to attack someone for their bigotry, it provides a handy way for groups of bigots to enforce consensus by checking out who voted which way. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

@35: Again -- one example of a "rabid leftwinger" assaulting someone? I mean, you can call it liberal media bias, but I see a lot of examples of vicious conservative attacks in the news and nothing but nonviolent (albeit sometimes annoying) protest on the other side.

I am a 'rabid leftwinger' myself. I just put that in to be 'fair and balanced'--excuse the expression. I guess my point is that I'm okay with businesses being called out but not individuals, who may well be tricked into feeling that they have some stake in this. If they don't already know what to believe, then I think that they can be molded either way when it comes to giving them the facts, and that is not something upon which you can depend come time for a vote. It's a waste of time and lends itself to assisting lazy vigilantes of all stripes.

And to clarify, I hardly expect the kind of violence from liberals that I do from the other side. But then, were I to disagree on a contentious subject I think the division would be so much more personal and painful between myself and a friend were this disagreement made public. I support marriage equality 100%. What about levies? Or zoning? I just don't see where this ends....

Oh good lord, this was floated in exactly the same type of rhetorical bubble in 2006, and it was used in Oregon and several other states.

This is not new.

And if someone really REALLY wanted to get at supporters of this referendum, there's nothing stopping them from getting the signatures themselves. If the petition is successful.

@ 8 FTW

This is a terrible idea period.

Nothing good can come from it. If they really want to allow people to double check the public rolls to make sure their name was fraudulently used, they should instead setup a system that requires you to also sign with the last 4 digits of your SSN #, and then enter that into a private system, that allows you to check privately, using your DOB & last 4 SSN #'s as a proof of ID for an individual to check one name. (their own)

Any other use of petition signatures is an unacceptable infringement on someone's right to see a measure on a public ballot to vote on.

Looking at KOMO's comment section it would appear that teh Gay movement is converting a LOT of folks over to being willing to sign the petition to get it on the ballot and squash Gay rights as punishment for being at the forefront of support of this idea.

Be careful what you wish for...

I meant to also post this comment from KOMO that sums up the issue very succintly:

While this tactic is juvenile and below the belt, it's not illegal, it's not a breach of privacy, and it certainly isn't something unheard of. Religious crusaders have been doing this for years.

Now, because of this little BS stunt, the other side will scramble together to fight against this, sign something they had no intention of signing (way to think for yourself and not succumbing to knee-jerk reactions, btw), and then they'll retaliate by doing the same thing to any petitions they can find regarding gays' rights to marry. Honestly, who do you think is the more dangerous group of the two? Who do you think is going to have violence in mind when seeing these names on the list? All knowthyneighbor.org is planning on doing is subjecting a select number of these people to an uncomfortable phone call. Can these anti-gay extremists say the same, if they got their hands on the list of gay rights supporters' names? Doubtful.

People are just upset because they don't want to have to explain their reasoning behind why a certain group of human beings should be left behind and excluded from certain freedoms, because they know they're hypocritical, no matter the argument. Others will now sign this because they're hoping upon hope that they're called, so they can give the callers a "piece of their mind" or find an excuse to verbally assault people they don't like for no reason.

Childish.

I would have to agree...

Be careful the Pandora's box you open, as it WILL backfire on you!

I also think this is a pretty bad idea. I'm all for public disclosure, but I'm pretty sure the idea of general privacy toward who and what you vote for deserves to be somewhat respected. there is always public records if you're that curious, no need to have websites selling people out. so some people in your neighborhood don't agree with you... why single them out? they're either going to come around eventually or get drowned out within the next ten years or so by the people who do support gay rights. I just think this tactic sets a poor precedent, and if the shoe were on the other foot I think most people here would too.

besides, I don't think we need anymore ammo given to conservative douches who equate gay rights activism with brownshirt tyranny. you know who I'm talking about...

This news will likely be forgotten by tomorrow -- but while Brian Murphy has really good intentions, it's a bit naive to think calling people to confront them upon signing will NOT backfire -- especially in the media.

"We are winning" because "we" are showing that gay people partnering up or marrying doesn't change other people's lives at all. Most people HATE getting called even by people on their side. Again, well intentioned but incredibly naive, and there's a small chance it could backfire badly.

I still don't see how this is a bad thing. If you signed a petition it's a mater of public record. This site is just going to make that information more accessible. If you really believe in what you've signed your name to, you should have no trouble with everyone knowing it.

When I get a chance to sign a petition for granting rights, I will be more than glad to publish my name and address here on the Slog. That's a promise.

Light kills darkness. That's why Klansman wear masks.

It didn't take long for a friend to posit that "Brian Murphy" is a made up gay boogeyman invented by Stickney to get signatures quickly.

Transparency is a good thing. You should be willing to stand behind your beliefs and actions. The alternative that we have now is that all sorts of injustices are made possible because the voters/signers know they won't get called out for their actions. They have no standing in their community to worry about.

Whether it's the anonymous suggestion box at work or the way people behave in the cocoon of their cars, anonymity encourages antisocial, counter-productive behavior.

Hi All,

I've been following the thread, and I wasn't going to get involved, because I'm not a Washingtonian. This gives me a stomach ache, not because I don't believe transparency is a good thing, because it is. Yes, I understand that petition are a matter of public record. But, because fear is an awful motivator. People feel threatened and they feel that their anger justifies their behavior, many come to regret it later, and this may just inspire more people to sign the petition for Ref. 71. I'm looking at this through lens of my experience in Portland (2004), when gays were given permision to marry and then all hell broke loose, petitions were signed, Prop 36 created, and now we have discrimination in our constitution. I thinking of the people I knew, who signed that petition and voted for Prop 36, and some really regret it now. I wish I had an answer, and I'm at a loss of what to do. I've already talked with the few family members I have living in Wash., they are conservatives about seeing this as a human equal rights issue, and sent ERW money. Other than pray, continue to talk to my family, and donate money I'm not sure what else I can do.

Am I really the only one who saw the post title and thought of the Sesame Street song?

"Who are the bigots in your neighborhood?
In your neighborhood?
In your neigh-bor-hood?
They're the people that you meet,
when you're walking down the street.
They're the people that you meet each day."

I wasn't planning on signing R71 until I saw this. Now I will, just out of spite.

Delbert @ 51,

Can I ask? What does spite accomplish, beyond the initial "take that" euphoria?

@51: Really? Do you think so little of your vote? The rights of others? Because ONE GAY MAN decided to do this?

Without these methods how can we assure regional ideological purity?

Funny that Cheney (aka: The Devil) has put himself back on record as being more pro gay marriage than Obama (aka: Our Lord And Savior).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/01…

A position that is perfectly consistent with his position on the topic in 2000 and 2004 (which I pointed out (to much derision) here in January 2007).

http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/01/can_…

Surprising that with the Stranger’s laser like focus on this topic there is no mention of this here. I mean come on, I wouldn’t want to go hunting with the guy, but give him a little credit where its due. Or would that be to great an apostasy?

Actually, come out, dramatic things did happen as a result of making public the names of those who donated to prop 8. Because of gay "rights' activists some people lost their jobs. People were threatened(forgive my spelling), as i just said lost jobs. I call that dramatic. I would have no problem with my personal information put online except for the fact that I live with my disabled mother and 7 year old nephew. I do not want these fanatic gay activists to threaten or intimidate them. I will be signing the petiton as soon as I see someone gathering signatures. People do not want equal rights for gays, they want special rights. Funny how whenever people disagree with gays or blacks or liberals they are branded as biggots, but if you are gay or black or liberal you are just fighting for what is right.

@57: I'm glad you were brave enough to say you don't like blacks or liberals either. Usually white conservatives know better!

Women's rights? Are you ok with those?

interesting idea. which some day gun-nut, apocalyptic christian republican activists might copycat in regard to some future "commie liberal" voter issue, and in that case I'd anticipate more than just a conversation. so I might not wish for something upon my rivals that they may put on me some day. hmm.

I have no problems with blacks(my uncle is black so is my cousins husband) dont have a problem with liberals(my dad was one) I have a problem with the as I said, gays, blacks, liberals and so on who like to think that anyone who disagrees is a biggot. Womens rights, well i am a woman, but i do not think that abortion should be legal except in cases of rape or the mothers life is in danger. Using it as a method of birth control is unacceptable. I do not wish any person to be murdered, or harmed just for his or her beliefs(im a lousy speller, sue me). The presumption that I would wish physical harm on someone for that reason is most offensive. Imagine a world where we can speak our views and opinions without those who disagree resorting to name calling.

There are a lot of ways this could go wrong. 'Intimidation' puts it kind of lightly, not to mention it'll give WAVA & Co. yet more to scream about.

Boys and girls at the S. Expect the frosting that you get. Y'all deserve it. (mmm... cupcakes...)