Monday, April 26, 2010

US Supreme Court Will Hear R-71 Case Wednesday

Sec. of State Sam Reed and Attorney General Rob McKenna are getting strong support from the left and far left as they prepare to argue their case for releasing the names of those who signed the R-71 petitions to the homosexual activists who are demanding access to the 138,000 people who signed them.

Their list of supporters is interesting. Most of the media---particularly the newspapers in the state are supporting them, along with all the homosexual advocacy organizations. Other states that have similar disclosure laws are in support as well.

The Everett Herald reported yesterday that McKenna will, "Weave in arguments of the other two parties in the case"----Washington Coalition for Open Government and Washington Families Standing Together, a homosexual advocacy group, in attempting to release petitioner's names to the public.

I found it interesting how Attorney General McKenna characterizes the threats and promised threats from homosexual activists.

Our lead attorney, James Bopp, Jr. says, "This is about disclosing the identity of people who sign the petition and those people being targeted by homosexual advocates for harassment and intimidation."

McKenna, representing Reed and the state, says the state laws impose a "modest threat" on petition signers.

However Bopp will tell the Court that disclosing the identity of the signers will put them at risk, pointing out what happened in California following the Prop. 8 campaign.

While The Seattle Times quoted Anne Levinson, chairwoman of the homosexual advocacy group, Washington Families Standing Together, they carefully avoided quoting the part of Levinson's public comment saying, "There is no credible evidence at all that individuals who signed the petitions to put R-71 on the ballot suffered intimidation or harassment." I know The Times knows there is evidence. I have shared some of it with them.

The web site calling for the destruction of all buildings, public and church buildings, belonging to those who oppose homosexual marriage is well known and is a matter of record. It is also publicly known that the site advocated for the death of Larry Stickney and myself.

Stickney and his family were forced to sleep in rooms not facing the street during the campaign because of a flow of hate mail and hate voice mail and people stopping in front of their home and taking pictures.

Whosigned.org, a homosexual advocacy group has publicly promised to publish all names on the Internet providing activists easy access to the personal information.

Bopp said if these names are made public, "They're going to harass them. They're going to victimize them. They're going to MapQuest these people."

And they will.

It is also a matter of record that Dominic Holden has already harvested names of donors from the PDC records of Protect Marriage Washington and called their homes, confronting them with questions about their support of natural marriage. Some confronted were elderly and not prepared for that kind of confrontation in the privacy of their own home.

Mr. McKenna and Mr. Reed may consider the threats already made and those that are promised to come "modest," however "modest" would likely take on new meaning if the proverbial shoe was on the other foot.

Or if similar threats and promises of threats and intimidation were directed at leaders of the homosexual activist organizations.

Hypocrisy.

This case has captured national attention for a number of reasons. Most are predicting we will fail in our attempt to protect the petition signer's right to free speech and participation in the electoral process without intimidation and harassment.

However James Bopp, Jr. is a leading legal authority on these matters and has argued before the Supreme Court a number of times. This will be his 9th appearance before the Court.

Jay Stewart
, a University of Washington law professor who specializes in constitutional law, thinks the court may go our way.

He said, "I would be surprised if the court found that signing a petition was not a form of political speech protected by the First Amendment."

He said the court has a tradition of protecting anonymity for political actions such as leafleting and publishing handbills, especially related to elections."

James Bopp says, "Signing a petition is not a legislative act subject to public review, as the state contends."

He says of the state, "They are not acting in a representative capacity. They are acting in a sovereign capacity."

We will see. The Court is expected to rule by June.

Depending on which way the ruling goes, this may not be the end of the matter.

Be Vigilant. Be Strong. Be Prayerful. Do Not Be Fearful.

23 comments:

  1. Good job Gary as usual - thank you for keeping us posted and may God bless you for your faithfulness and courage.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow. It is good to be informed. Thanks Gary for helping us to be informed and vigilant.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I always knew Reed was a RINO, at best, but thought better of McKenna.I'm disappointed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I like to think 'God forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing'.
    But, I think about those sweet, elderly senior citzens that signed our petitions, and shudder to think that they could be contacted via 'the other side,' and harrassed! Not good!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hypocrisy

    One needn't go to hypotheticals as Gary does to see the hypocrisy in this case.

    For instance, Gary and FFN supported Phil Irvin in his quest to get the names and addresses of City Light employees, who attended meetings of their LGBT employee group, for the express purpose of harassing these employees. Yet now, when the shoe is on the other foot, he insists that the names of his supporters in his quest to strip rights from LGBT Washingtonians be kept secret.

    Hypocrisy

    ReplyDelete
  6. Irvin never threatened or promised to threaten or harass those involved in the LBGT Seattle City Light group. He was onl;y asking if they were using public money or resources to advance their agenda. Very different from what Gary is talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 12:58 PM

    Irvin has a history of harassing LGBT City Light employees, and sought not only names but home addresses.

    The question of weather public money was used did not require a disclosure of names and addresses to be resolved. Also, wasn't public money used to validate the petitions for R-71? My guess is more than was ever used by City Light's LGBT group.

    Charge of hypocrisy stands.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hypocrisy

    Gary regularly rails against so-called "activist judges" when courts decide against his side. The entire premise of this case is counting on conservative "activist judges" to ignore precedent and reach the decision their political views favor - just like in the Citizens United case.

    Hypocrisy

    ReplyDelete
  9. Again with the supposed "death threats". Death threats are illegal, WHERE ARE THE PROSECUTIONS?!?

    Just because Gary and Larry choose to characterize something as a "death threat" for political purposes, doesn't mean it actual was a death threat.

    Where Larry Stickney and his third wife chose to sleep during the campaign is irrelevant. Had they received actual death threats there would have been prosecutions.

    As the Times article shows, this is part of a larger co-ordinated campaign to hide who is financing their attacks on LGBT Americans and their rights.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anon 1:47 You've missed the point entirely. Gary and his friends are not counting on "conservative activist judges" at all. The conservative judges don't have to be activist. They rule from the Constitution. Gary's side is praying and hoping that the Constitution will be the basis of the ruling, not the leftist activism of a few on the court. Big difference.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I know Sam Reed would like the social conservatives to go away from the Republican Party. Has said so many times. He thinks we're a liability. Does Rob McKenna have a clue that the 138,000 of us who signed the petitions are going to remember his position against us on this? Does he think we don't vote or does he agree with Reed?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think McKenna will try to explain after he has done the damage that he was just doing his job and it wasn't personal. I can think of a certain pastor who will probably try to make his case for him. Maybe we should only give him "modest" consideration when he runs for governor.
    What would be the difference?

    ReplyDelete
  13. 4:25 PM

    Nope, haven't missed the point at all. When judges overturn legislation (which is what Gary is seeking), groups like FFN call that "judicial activism" at least when they liked the legislation in question. There is nothing in the Constitution that under a strict interpretation would lead to Gary's desired outcome. So, he is hoping that the Conservative majority on the court will see such a right as implied.

    Every time conservatives wail about judicial activism, the judges in question have based their ruling on the Constitution. They just haven't reached the conclusion the conservatives wanted.

    Hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 4:49 There is actually something in the Constitution about this case. It's called free speech. Particularly as it relates to voting.

    ReplyDelete
  15. If a law imposes a modest threat on petitions signers, it seems to me that such a law is modestly unconstitutional.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 5:00

    There is nothing EXPLICIT about anonymous legislative speech. This isn't about voting it's about legislating. How people voted on R-71 is now and has always been secret. No one is seeking to change that. What we are talking about is citizens acting in place of the legislature, which is what signing a referendum or initiative petition is. But nice try at confusing the issue, who knows maybe you'll get lucky and get another activist judge decision and win this case.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm not so sure I'm really all the concerned about being contacted by someone about my vote. I'd think it was a bit forward, and if I started getting harassed I'd just deal with it like I do collection agents. But really it could be a good chance to minister to folks that just want to understand my point of view. This could wind up to be a good ministry tool.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I am with you on this one .
    These names should be kept secret.
    These issues are emotional issues.
    The rhetoric is becoming more and more fear rhetoric .
    When people are afraid they are more prone to violence. People should not be afraid to vote or sign initiatives.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 9:04
    Trust me, it is NOT a means of 'understanding' our point of view. The 'other side' are closed minded when is comes to our point of view. Thier attitude is WE are the closed minded, and they have their 'rights' to be what they want to be. Yes, I think we need to show concern, and pray for them, but, trying to reason with them, does not work. Praying for them does.

    ReplyDelete
  20. FYI --- It is not "Jay Stewart"....His first name is Stewart and his last name is Jay.

    He was my professor, I should know.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 7:51 I think Gary was quoting the Seattle Times story where he was called "Jay Stewart".

    ReplyDelete
  22. 10:47 ---- your point is not well taken because the Seattle Times article got the name right as "stewart Jay"

    ReplyDelete
  23. "If a law imposes a modest threat on petitions signers, it seems to me that such a law is modestly unconstitutional"

    The law is imposing a threat ? I believe its the people who want to violate laws imposing the threat. The homosexual activists who promote such hatred and intolerance on this issue obviously have caused the problem . Not to mention some on the right . This logic then says owning hand guns should be illegal because it promotes a threat. No its people who violate laws who mis use guns that are the threat.
    Thats how I see it anyway.

    How about PDC contributions ? Could not a person donating to a campaign , if it was hotly contested be opening up themselves to danger ? Well of course and I agree that is not a good thing , but the alternative is not allowing the citizenery to know who is giving money to candidates or in this case not knowing if the co sponsors of this referendum were actually voters . Shoulod we not know if lawyers are giving money to a political candidate, or if Unions give greatlt to one . Should we not know because a lawyer feels his business may be hurt by that information being released . Or danger to his family.


    Voters are allowed now to be checked for where they live , but not how they vote. So i understand the concern , but Constitutionally I don't see how you can say its UNconstitutional.

    I can see why you would perhaps change the law to make names private. But then voters would have to decide if not knowing themselves but trusting un elected government workers to check the validity of signatures was enough of a safeguard .

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.