WTF...

good decision

fuck the gay haters

fuck the whosigned.org people

everyone is a loser in this situation

If Washington has a decent sunshine law and that law mandates that petition signatures are public information (which it should) then this judge needs to take a good look at his own fitness for the bench. Or, you know, not -- if he's a Xtianist activist judge (an oxymoron, I know -- activist judges only rule from the left, never never never from the far right). In either case, he should be ashamed of himself for even entertaining a challenge to the sunshine law.

Typical Conservative BS: They love to talk about their moral convictions, but if taking a stand will inconvenience them at all, they go running to the government for help against their "persecution" .

It's like the pharmacists who whine about Plan B - instead of showing some principals and quitting in protest, they go to the government for special protection based on their wishy-washy, as-long-as-it-doesn't-effect-my income, moral "convictions".

If the government won't release the names of people who signed for an initiative, how can we trust them that these names are verified?

Just a point of order - this is only a temporary restraining order, which I read the state didn't even oppose. It prevents release of the names until the hearing on whether to prevent the release of the names. That's all. If the judge rules to suppress the names on Sept. 3, then everyone should yell.

Am I crazy to think that it's kind of nice that as we gays come out of the closet, the bigots are putting themselves in it?

"everyone is a loser in this situation"

Says the South Park Conservative.

Any contact by pro-equality crowd with the bigots will be spun by the bigots as intimidation in order to drum up sympathy. They're pretending to be afraid in order to try to make us look bad, not to protect themselves.

The take away here is if you're going to launch a site like whosigned.org, don't announce it until you have the information in hand. No way the haters would have thought to suppress the information if the whosigned.org Web site hadn't been announced/launched

Oh no! Now all those roving packs of militant, purple-bike-chain-wielding gays will have to continue to confine their wild and wanton acts of orgiastic violence to churches, Thomas Kincade dealers and other upstanding dispensers of the kind of classic American values that homosexuals are known to regularly defileOH WAIT.

@5 - Why the hell didn't the state oppose this attack on a clear Washington statute that requires the release of all public records including these? Oh yeah, because we have a douchebag Republican Attorney General, Rob McKenna, that's why. Remember this when he runs for governor in 2012.

Whosigned.org should publish the signers names for all referendums. People should know that what they sign when they're leaving Safeway actually matters and they should think twice before signing anything. Maybe the idea that your name will be functionally public (on the web) rather than just publically availble in some court clerks office might make people think twice before signing.

WhoSigned.org plans to make these public records accessible to the people of Washington State. How the people of this state use these public records is, as with everything, their decision and unlike Referendum 71 petitioners we have faith in the people's judgement and desire for civil and lawful discussion on our families urgent need for equal treatment under the law.

As early as 2006 we considered the question of whether to disclose our plan to make records accessible in advance or not. It came down to a risk of being accused of "intimidating" people because we clearly announced what we intended in advance, or being accused of "ambushing" people if we didn't. Being transparent and open about our plan was, in our judgement, the best decision.

It's also important for everyone to recognize that the court action to prevent the Secretary of State from releasing any public records on Referendum 71 isn't an isolated event. Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom, the law firm behind the court action temporarily preventing us getting access to the records, is the same firm behind the challenge to public disclosure of donors in California in the wake of Proposition 8. What we're seeing is an emerging national strategy of the aggressors painting themsleves as victims and making public records secret to protect those who fund and advocate for our families continued second class status and treatment.

In past civil rights struggles is was white cloth and stitching that hid the identities of the intolerant from public view. In this generation's civil rights struggles it's shaping up to be a cloth of faux victimhood stitched tight with threads of legally imposed secrecy and misinformation.

In Washington State there is nothing a voter can do to remove their signature from a petition once it's submitted. Paid Signature gatherers are not registered, how they are paid is not regulated, and per signature payment is well recognized as an incitement to fraud in other ballot initiative states. No wonder the Ballot Initiave Strategy Center gives Washington State a failing "F" grade in their July 2009 report card.

We hope to give voters who were misled a way to correct the record and discover the extent of signature fraud. When it may come down to just a handful of signatures placing Referendum 71 on the ballot, understanding what part fraud and paid signature gatherers might have played is essential in ensuring the integrity of the ballot initiative and referendum process.

We call on the Secretary of State to vigorously defend our public disclosure laws making public records for Referendum 71 available to all who request them, and to restore public faith in open government in Washington State.

RE: 'Physical harm' directed at supporters of 'traditional marriage': cf. recent hate crame against a participant in the OutGames in Denmark.

I just wish people would recognize that the right to free speech doesn't mean you get to speak without consequences. I don't advocate violence or anything of the sort, but you don't get to make social statements and not bear some social cost. That's true no matter which side of the fight you're on.

I do have to admit it's interesting that the names of people who sign pro-gay petitions are never sealed. Sort of suggests the righties know they're on the dangerously-close-to-losing side of the fence.

I just wish people would recognize that the right to free speech doesn't mean you get to speak without consequences. I don't advocate violence or anything of the sort, but you don't get to make social statements and not bear some social cost. That's true no matter which side of the fight you're on.

I do have to admit it's interesting that the names of people who sign pro-gay petitions are never sealed. Sort of suggests the righties know they're on the dangerously-close-to-losing side of the fence.

"An actual hand count of the signatures to determine their validity began today. Referendum backers have said they don't have faith in the state to fairly validate the 138,000 signatures but it was unclear how they might address that concern."

One of the reasons for having public disclosure laws in the first place is to ensure that the state is doing the work of validating the petition fairly and transparently. If there is a public list of validated names, I can see if my signature was counted or not. I can challenge unfair processes. But now, all of that work will be done behind closed doors and where the public can't see what's going on. So now the petitioners are worried that the validation process may be unfair. They seem to have shot themselves in the foot.

Transparent government means transparent government. Either the petitioning process is open to review by any interested citizen (including your political opponents) or it's not. And if you insist on your right to hide in the shadows, then you run all of the risks that others, perhaps with more nefarious or corrupt intent, will do the exact same thing.

So, what about the time between when the issue is (and I really hope it isn't) approved for the ballot and September 3rd? The Office of the Secretary of State (OSOS) is now prevented from releasing the names of those who signed.

Gay people have historically been the victims of hatred. Now, the backers of keeping public records sealed are afraid of being hated? This would be brilliant comic material if the matter wasn't so important. To those who think there will be a bunch of gays with guns going after those who signed: Seriously? All I want to do (and I might very well be speaking for others) is make sure I stop supporting those who want to limit my rights.

What about the fact that the OSOS says that signature gatherers can lie to get signatures? Under the current law, it's alright to print petitions that say something like "Lock up the gays to protect your pensions from being fleeced" in huge type at the top, just as long as the real issue is printed (in 6-point type) somewhere on the petition form. Even though signers really should read what they're signing, did you know that people who have been tricked can not get their name removed?

I'm really hoping that there was fraud involved and that a large number of the signatures are void. But the way this is being played, I'd wouldn't be surprised if the petitions are "good" in the eyes of the OSOS (see above). But on the other hand, I'd love to see the issue make the ballot and our side win. The afterwards when mainstream news outlets "start investigating" about how morally bankrupt these "Protect Marriage" people are (lying and cheating within the bounds of pathetic petitions laws) people would see this as a big victory.

Times are changing. Soon these issues won't matter to voters anymore. That's why the bigots are so interested in making sure their views are law before they kick the bucket.

What @12 said. Our right-wing Republican Attorney General Rob McKenna has been a virtual one-trick pony in support of public disclosure. For years, he had a deputy (Greg Overstreet, formerly the right-wing Building Industry Association of Washington lapdog) dedicated solely to making public documents more available. All this, despite the fact that the public disclosure act has been used by prison inmates and various crackpots to wring horrendously expensive judgments (also known as taxpayer funds) the state and small communities such as Mesa and Prosser that have had to hire additional staff solely to handle thousands of public disclosure requests.

Yet the Attorney General doesn't even bother to show up to defend his client when right-wing Christianist jerks file a TRO to prevent the Secretary of State from complying with the public disclosure laws.

Rob McKenna is a hypocrite and an embarrassment.

@12 and 25 - I am in total agreement that these names need to be released. But I also would have granted the TRO. A TRO is about keeping the status quo until the lawyers get their papers in and the judge holds a hearing. The standard is whether the bigots would be harmed if the names were released now, but then they won at the hearing (which I think is very hard to argue against). It is not about whether they SHOULD win at the hearing.

I am not that versed in WA state politics and defer to your judgment as to the douchebaggery of your AG. Just trying to explain why this is not about the merits. All of the arguments about Sept 3 being too late... well, that's just the way courts work. Slowly.