Sounds like good news so far.

No special rights for bigots!

This is fantastic news! Now back to voting....

Did you know your ballot is going to arrive tomorrow (or the next day)? Are you ready to vote to approve referendum 71 or what? Remind everyone you know to vote approve on referendum 71.

Nah nah nah nah.
Nah nah nah nah.
Hey hey hey.

Good ruling!

Quick, crosscheck the known sex offenders with those who signed the original pro-hate initiative.

I'll bet you'll get lots of hits (well, except those without the current right to vote).

Thank you, Dominic, this is huge.

Wither in the sun, bigots.

Fantastic news. What is the earliest release could occur now, realistically?

I'm a huge supporter of Referendum 71, but I find the act of posting these signers' information online to be an unnecessary and counter-productive measure. I don't care if we have the right to examine these names, but posting them online for mass circulation changes the nature of things. If I was in a highly-politicized minority like the anti-71 constituency, I wouldn't want to be interrogated by a torch-bearing majority and I certainly wouldn't change my mind because of hearing from them. Gay rights supporters have eminently better uses of their time.

Go check the KOMO comments-- there are people saying they're going to buy guns and basically physically assault any R71 supporter who comes near them. Hot air, obviously, but it was the basis for PMW's initial argument in court.

By that token, Loveschild supports people shooting R71 supporters for even mentioning it to people who signed the petition. You know, because she says anyone who supports release is supporting violence against anti-family/anti-equality activists like herself. So if there's any anti-gay violence against an R-71 supporter, Loveschild supports it fully.

If they're going to vote on MY rights, which - if I had them - I'd be able to enjoy out in public, then I think I have the right to know who's doing it to me. I wouldn't do anything to harrass those people, but I bet if the roles were reversed, you couldn't say the same about those anti scumbuckets.

"polite" confrontation huh? Riiiiighhhtttt.

We'll see how long that can last.

So once we start hearing recorded phone confrontations, or someone videos an escalated conversation will all of you ... and especially you Dominic, be willing to admit this effort was all a farce to hide the ulterior motive of harrassment?

If someone hangs up on you, or if someone walks away you'll immediately stop the confrontation right? The "polite" inference would dictate this answer would be yes.

Does anyone really believe that any confrontation with any single person who signed the petition will result in anyone changing their mind, or further... that anyone witnessing gays being bullies will cause those on the fence to immediately side with rejecting R 71?

Really?

Or is there another underlying motive to get the names released? Did someone intentionally "plant" a few signatures, and have someone else sign their name down, in order to create controversy, once the names are released and *gasp* "WE discovered a couple names!" Scandal!

Hmmmm manufactured scandal.... wouldn't surprise me a bit.

Neither would these "polite" conversations turning into a shouting match.

I'll be running through the names of every staff member at my school to see if anything matches up. If so, I will be -pissed-.

@13: Reality Wreck, your use of the word "harassment" in this instance is simply a reframing of what is in reality an uncomfortable exercise of freedom of speech. And being that this state has traditionally not been particularly keen on doing anything that could be considered "uncomfortable", it goes against common sense to shake your hands in dire warning about some yet-to-happen harassment. Moreover, the State argued successfully in the 9th circuit that there was no legitimate harassment in CA that could be construed as a result of anything more than lack of restraint the limited nature of which refuted claims that there was a concentrated campaign of intimidation.

I fail to see any legitimate cause for concern, especially when one considers the lack of any attacks on anti-gay activists and no recorded assault on a petition gatherer within this state.

When Prop. 8's contributers were posted on line, I checked for co-workers and business that I frequent. Fortunately I didn't see any. The closest I come to retaliating was not letting anyone with a "Yes on 8" bumpersticker merge on the freeway.

Let's be perfectly clear, since I'm getting REALLY tired of people failing to connect-the-dots and take responsibility for the harm they inflict on our families and children.

In November, voters will decide if they want HURT our families and STEAL our due money by taking away:

* Death benefits for the partners of police and firefighters killed in the line of duty.
* Pension benefits for the partners of teachers and other public employees.
* Victims’ rights, including the right to receive notifications and benefits allowances.
* The right to use sick leave to care for a seriously ill partner.
* The right to workers’ compensation benefits if a partner is killed in the course of
employment.
* The right to receive unemployment benefits if an employee must leave a job to care
for a seriously ill partner.

Cruel suffering brought to our families, financial losses that should be called THEFT, and we're supposed to "hope" everyone likes us and APPROVES? When our own government REFUSES to protect us and FAILS to offer equal protection and rights - we are left totally alone.

This voting on rights needs to stop NOW. It is immoral.

I want to see if I mistakenly signed the petition before I knew how the law worked. The way it's worded, if you didn't know the law was already in place, the signature gatherers could come up and ask if you support domestic partnerships and one might sign it.

I might have - cause of course I'd say "Hell ya!"

The entire set up was designed to fool people into signing - Stickney argued to set it up that way knowing that as much as 13% of the population votes no if they don't understand the issue.

If I did sign, I was tricked, and I bet I'm not alone. I'd like to be able to check the rolls.

I have to agree with Stcrispy (#19).. I heard of many that were tricked (lied to) to get them to sign. There was a youtube video taken in Port Angeles (sorry I don't have the link) where the signature-gather lied big time and almost got two women to sign that wouldn't have signed if they had been told the truth about the petition.

When I look at the lists, I will (like others) see if any of the businesses I frequent signed (owners, majority of workers). If they tell me they signed with FULL KNOWLEDGE of what it was about, I would tell them that I will start going elsewhere and why. If I am convinced that they were lied to (tricked) then I will continue to go there. That is the extent of my "harassment." It is MY money to shop where I choose.

just my 2 cents

aj