When you sign a petition to take basic rights and protections away from a class of citizens, you are engaging in direct democracy. You are choosing to bypass your elected representatives and take on the role of legislator yourself — a citizen legislator. It is a great privilege to live in a democracy and have such power!
But if you are going to take advantage of the benefits of democracy, you must also assume the responsibilities.
That means if you don’t feel strongly enough about a petition to sign it publicly, then you shouldn’t sign it! That tension you feel over knowing that your signature will be public is intended. It’s what makes a petition have value. It’s part of the normal system of checks and balances that underlies our form of government.
Should your state senator be allowed to sponsor legislation in secret? Of course not. Then why should you?
And let’s be honest. It’s the petition sponsors and those signing who are doing the intimidating here. If you try to deny basic rights and protections to gay individuals, couples, and their children… don’t those people have a right, if not an obligation, to do everything they can within the law to protect their families? Wouldn’t you want to protect your family?
This list of names is being compiled by the petition sponsors and those signing. Through the petition, they are asking to be recognized publicly for their stance against basic rights and protections for Oregon families. If you are not willing to take on the responsibility of a being a signer, don’t sign. And if you do sign… don’t whine. Just be responsible.
KTNOregon RSS Feed
“KnowThyNeighborOregon.com HOPES to inspire respectful, civil, and honest community discourse and discourages with its fullest conviction the actions by anyone to harm a person or their property in retribution for exercising their democratic right to sign the petition.”
Knowing that their are crazy people out there, I know that there is AT LEAST one person who signed this petition who’s property or family is going to be hurt by the publishing of this list. I know there is going to be some person who is going to be soooo upset, that they would be willing to take out there anger on those of us who would like to vote, on such a dramatic change. I would like to know why you feel that posting information on persons who sign a petition is going to make a difference. I think this whole thing is just silly. I have no problem with the gay and lesbian community but I will sign the petition. However, when someone comes to my door harassing me about why I signed the petition, they better be ready for the consequences of messing with MY family.
“However, when someone comes to my door harassing me about why I signed the petition, they better be ready for the consequences of messing with MY family.”
Maybe then you could get a glimmer of what so many LGBTI families have to live with every day.
So, you would FIGHT for your family? think about that.
More pointless hysteria. Point to a single case where this has happened in any state with a Know Thy Neighbor organization, Catherine. Can you name even one?
Catherine….If someone was passing around a petition to have all homophobic individuals like yourself moved to a secluded portion of Texas and forbidden from ever leaving, wouldn’t you want to know if one of your “two-faced” neighbors had signed it? (hum…that just gave me an idea for another citizens initiative, but I digress)
Hatred and bigotry are many peoples “dirty little” secrets and it is time that we do know who these people are in our community. I propose taking it even a step further and eventually publishing a list of name and phone numbers of people who sign this list and giving copies to every theater, interior designer, hair dressers, restaurant owner, photographer, and artist in the area. Since the LGBT community comprises a very large percentage of these professions, let’s just see the homophobes get these services.
How would you Catholics (I assume a few of our readers are Catholic) if the people petitioned to outlaw parochial schools. After all, majority rules, right?
Oh yeah, that already happened.
“On 7 November 1922, the voters of Oregon passed a referendum amending Oregon Law Section 5259, the Compulsory Education Act. The referendum was primarily aimed at eliminating parochial schools, including Catholic schools. Many Protestants felt that religious schools prevented assimilation.[1]
The Compulsory Education Act, prior to amendment, had required all Oregon children between eight and sixteen years of age to attend public school.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_v._Society_of_Sisters
CATHERINE SAYS:
“I have no problem with the gay and lesbian community but I will sign the petition.”
That statement is a contradiction in itself.
Yes, you DO have a problem with the gay and lesbian community.
Nice to see you here Lula!
I’m sorry I’m just getting here now.
Thanks JH!
“However, when someone comes to my door harassing me about why I signed the petition, they better be ready for the consequences of messing with MY family.”
Well, it’s doubtful that that would happen, unless you have gay/queer friends or loved ones who would be hurt by your signing the petition. Let me ask you something, Catherine, if you “have no problem with the gay and lesbian community”, then why would you sign a petition that would take away their equal rights?
Gods, these people just amaze me.
*waves at John and Lula*
Hi, guys!
Oh, and I use the term “equal rights” pretty loosely, as the current law that will go into effect in January gives gays and lesbians anything but equality.
Thanks for rallying those of us that don’t believe in giving SPECIAL RIGHTS to a certain group of individuals. You have awakened majority of of us against this pending legislation with your threats to post our addresses and phone numbers. I believe Gay’s should have the same rights as a married couple without changing the definition of marriage but they do not need special rights.
You people are as hypocritical as the very ‘hypocrites’ you wish to expose. What you are doing is malicious and the only purpose of this is to subject people to harassment or intimidation the same way the Ku Klux Clan harassed and intimidated folks who tried to vote for civil rights.
Think about it. You want acceptance and tolerance, yet you want it by threats and intimidation. You are no better than Fred Phelps. I don’t say that lightly.
Both your organizations are a shitstain on the american political system. Talk, discourse, intelligent discussion and political action. That is what will change this country. Fanning the flames of Hate never solves anything but make an already bad situation worse.
Think about it.
“I believe Gay’s should have the same rights as a married couple without changing the definition of marriage but they do not need special rights.”
Then why are you fighting laws which do precisely what you say you want?
//Hi, KatieKat, nice to see you. You’re looking mighty fine.
John: Because he’s obviously lying. The DP law does exactly what he says he supports, yet he’s opposing it. Clear enough.
Jack: “Intelligent discourse” like calling people shitstains?
J.C. says: ”Thanks for rallying those of us that don’t believe in giving SPECIAL RIGHTS to a certain group of individuals.”
So you think that rights are yours to “give?”
Jack says: ”You people are as hypocritical as the very ‘hypocrites’ you wish to expose.”
As hypocritical? Consider this:
“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
-Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies
That doesn’t leave room for the “tolerance” of the supremacist mindset that would abolish the tolerance of democracy (equality) itself.
Yet you maintain that: “Both your organizations are a shitstain on the american political system.”
You mean a “shitstain” on the democratic ideal of equality, in that “all men are created EQUAL?” There is nothing more unAmerican and traitorous than such a notion.
You may want to brush up on the democratic concept of America before claiming that the very fight for equality – against supremacy, especially religious – is a “shitstain on the American political system.”
BTW, the word America is a proper noun and should be capitalized when written.
Hey, KatieKat!!!
Wow, Jack! Your post had one objective…to expose us as hypocrites…but you yourself come off as a flagrant hypocrite:
“Both your organizations are a shitstain on the american political system. Talk, discourse, intelligent discussion and political action. That is what will change this country. Fanning the flames of Hate never solves anything but make an already bad situation worse.
Think about it.”
Indeed…calling other people “shitstains” is “intelligent discussion?” that’s in no way “fanning the flames of hate,” which you say never solves anything?
You’re doing just that in your post, Jack.
Turns out Jack don’t KNOW jack.
And your comparing us to Phelps? Laughable. Nothing but ill-willed hyperbole.
“Talk, discourse, intelligent discussion and political action. That is what will change this country.”
Indeed. That’s why we are here, and that’s what we are doing in between spurts of hysteria by those who wish not to be held accountable for their actions.
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article Be Responsible! at Know Thy Neighbor Oregon, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.
Sorry for the late post, but I just found your site today.
I find it interesting that none of the responses in this thread replied this point in the initial post:
> > I would like to know why you feel that posting
> > information on persons who sign a petition is
> > going to make a difference.
Catherine put this in the middle of comments which Mad John dismissed with this:
> More pointless hysteria.
The big question in my mind is WHY? Shall I take the response of HadENOUGH to be the common understanding of the principles of “Know Thy Neighbor Oregon” - that the purpose is to facilitate economic retaliation?
But then HadENOUGH wants to enlarge upon the public record with phone numbers - again, for what purpose?
- Gordon
I won’t pretend to speak for the directors of “Know thy Neighbor” but here is my take.
1). Accountability. Legislators must put their name on their work. In a representative Democracy it is simply unethical for legislation to be considered in secret. When the people use initiative petition to circumvent the law, they are legislators.
2) Dialog. When I learned that several of my neighbors had signed the petition in Massachusetts, I confronted them. It gave me a chance to talk to people directly and educate them.
3)Know thy Enemy. Some are incorrigible. Knowing that some of these people who signed were business people affords me the opportunity to avoid their businesses.
Gordon’s question is legitimate, and I think John’s response pretty much covers it. For the record, by “pointless hysteria,” I was referring to Catherine’s claim that someone will inevitably get hurt through this. That has not happened in previous Know Thy Neighbor efforts in Mass. and Florida.
John wrote:
> When people use the initiative petition to
> circumvent the law…
In Oregon, petitions (referendum in this case) are part of our constitutional law, not a circumvention of it.
John wrote:
> Legislators must put their name on their work.
I am not sure about Salem, but in DC not all votes are recorded, so your analogy is flawed from the outset. In addition, there is the little matter of electing our representatives. The good and appropriate purposes of making public record of debates and votes in a legislative body is to allow voters to be informed voters in the next election. The good and appropriate purpose of making petition signatures public record is to insure that the process is not being subverted by non-registered signers. I see no reasonable connection between the accountability of a legislator who was elected after campaigning on certain issues and the “accountability” of citizens who are exercising their constitutional privilege of petition.
John’s points 2 & 3, along with Mad John’s reply, make it seem that ‘accountability’ is a euphemism for intimidating those who disagree with your ‘politically correct’ position, whom you label ‘incorrigible’ in order to justify the intimidation.
And shall I assume by your silence that you both disagree with HadEnough’s desire to add phone numbers to the information being disseminated?
My apologies to MadJohn - I must have been half asleep when I read his reference to John and thought it was a reference to HadENOUGH, whom I had cited. My “along with” bit was based upon my mistaken notion that MadJohn was endorsing the idea of refusing services to “these people”.
Why are bigots so ashamed of themselves.
John, was your question about bigots a reference to me?
Well, if you are opposed to these two bills, the sole purpose for this opposition being to rescind some very basic protections for gay couples, then I would say you are a bigot.
Here’s my theory, John: Many people in this country are driven primarily by fear. It used to be fear of blacks and Jews and commies; now it’s fear of Muslims and Mexicans and gays. This encompasses much of our “leadership” in D.C.; of course they never served militarily, because that requires courage.
Here we have the local variety: scared of gay marriage, for reasons they can’t rationally articulate. Scared of watered-down, second-rate DP benefits, for reasons they can’t rationally articulate. So of course they would only want to attack our families anonymously - putting their names to their prejudice, at a time when they’re increasingly out of step with decent society, requires a courage they don’t have.
The same sort of courage, I might add, that is required to live as openly gay when there are people who might persecute, assault and kill you for it. After all, that’s the fear they’re citing with publicizing the petition names, right?
They lack the courage to face what we face every day.
So rather than discuss the issues of accountability and intimidation, you would rather use ad hominem to derail the discussion?
Is your argument so thin that insults are better than discussion?
Is intimidation the best way to show that KnowThyNeighbor is not about intimidation?
I firmly believe that the fear of gays in general and marriage equality in particular is fading fast.
After the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts nearly 3/4 of our legislature was firmly opposed. By the time the final Constitutional Convention was held, the opposition couldn’t even muster 25%.
While there are still pockets of resistance, the controversy is past and as a political issue, it is all but dead.
Very few care anymore
Three responses, in reverse-chronological sequence:
- 1 -
- John wrote:
> I firmly believe that the fear of gays in
> general and marriage equality in particular
> is fading fast.
Opposition from the political class is fading. The votes of the people in 27 states implies a different reality.
- John wrote:
> By the time the final Constitutional
> Convention was held, the opposition couldn’t
> even muster 25%.
The news that I read here on the west coast made it seem that this was largely a function of massive pressure (intimidation) on the political class. Time will tell whether or not “the controversy is past” in Massachusetts. One might have assumed the same was true when Oregon passed its constitutional amendment in 2004, but the Oregon legislature has once again displayed defiance of the voters.
- 2 -
- - John wrote:
> > 2) Dialog. …I confronted them….
> > 3)Know thy Enemy. Some are incorrigible….
- Gordon wrote:
> John’s points 2 & 3 … make it seem that
> ‘accountability’ is a euphemism for
> intimidating those who disagree with your
> ‘politically correct’ position, whom you
> label ‘incorrigible’ in order to justify
> the intimidation.
John tried to defend the indefensible by resorting to ad hominem attack.
- 3 -
The main point of the original post, as echoed in John’s first reply to me, is that the rights and responsibilities of legislators and petition signers are equivalent. This absurd claim is used to justify a new tactic of intimidation. It is noteworthy that in an era when our culture is increasingly sensitive to protect privacy, KnowThyNeighbor is making unprecedented efforts in the opposite direction.
“but the Oregon legislature has once again displayed defiance of the voters.”
And well they should; the people of Oregon are not to be trusted; Indeed the people of any state are the absolute worst form of legislatures.
It was the people of Oregon who decided that Private Schools must be abolished.
Most people will vote the bigotry any time they can.
That is why we have a Bill of Rights; to take fundamental liberty out of the paws of the people.
John wrote:
> That is why we have a Bill of Rights; to take
> fundamental liberty out of the paws of the
> people.
An interesting non-argument, since you do not cite anything in the Bill of Rights that indicates the state legislature should ignore the state constitution.
John wrote:
> Indeed the people of any state are the absolute
> worst form of legislatures
I will agree most strongly that the power of Initiative is a blunt and ugly form of legislation. But the idea that the People don’t matter, that we should trust some special “elite” to be our nannies, is contrary to the longstanding heritage of America. I think that Massachusetts has given the country two lessons in what can be worse than Initiative.
But the current issue in Oregon is Referendum. Giving the people power to *stop* new laws is far different from giving them the power to *enact* new laws.
John, why do you keep changing the subject? You don’t seem to have good arguments on any of the subjects you choose.
My original question was what good can come from this massive effort to publicize personal information about petition signers. Your best reply was the weak notion that this will somehow encourage dialog on an emotionally charged issue. In the same post you also argued for (your #1) the absurd notion of equivalence between legislators and petition signers, and (your #3) economic retaliation.
Mad John has offered the defense that no physical harm has followed in MA and FL, but nobody has offered any positive effects that have been observed.
The positive effects here in Massachusetts were huge. (in my opinion)
First, it energized the fair minded people of the state. Hundreds of straight allies came out of hiding.
I believe Know Thy Neighbor (along with MassEquality) had a lot to do with with resounding defeat of anti-gay legislators, so when the final vote came at the ConCon we had to convince only a tiny handful of Leges to change their votes.
And perhaps most important, the precedent was set. The next time “the people” try take away their neighbor’s civil rights they will not be able to hide in the darkness.
And of course the positive development of all.
WE WON!!
And why do think that promoting dialog is a weak argument? I personally spoke to seven people whose names were on that list.
I was shocked and deeply hurt by some of the names I saw.
I talked to them. I didn’t win them all, but I changed several minds. I’m proud that I was able to do so.
John asked:
> And why do think that promoting dialog is a
> weak argument? I personally spoke to seven
> people whose names were on that list.
I think that dialog is one of the most important features of a healthy democracy. That is part of why I am posting here. I have spoken to more than seven people without the assistance of invasive lists, and I would expect that you have, too.
But publicizing the names and addresses of people you disagree with hardly seems like an effective way to encourage healthy dialog. One need only look at the angry responses posted above to see that this is a counter-productive effort if the true goal to promote positive dialog.
Therefore I consider “promoting dialog” to be a weak reply to the question “what good does this serve?”
John wrote:
> First, it energized the fair minded people of the state.
> Hundreds of straight allies came out of hiding.
I cannot understand how publishing names of opponents encouraged allies to come out of hiding. Wouldn’t they more likely be responding to the debate in the press than to this intimidation tactic? Can you explain some sort of connection here?
John wrote:
> I believe Know Thy Neighbor … had a lot to do with with
> resounding defeat of anti-gay legislators….
How so? Which legislative races do you think were actually affected by this unrelated political tactic? And again, other than by using intimidation to mute your political opponents, how could KTN have this effect?
John wrote:
> And perhaps most important, the precedent was set.
Here we come close to agreeing - but I see the precedent as one that risks encouraging brownshirt tactics in the future.
John wrote:
> And of course the positive development of all. WE WON!!
If similar intimidation tactics were effectively used against your side of a different political issue, would you still consider this precedent to be a positive addition to the democratic process?
Gordon, it is pointless trying to talk to someone like you. It is clear from visiting your website that you have provided a link to that you have already made your mind up on the issues of equality. You don’t think GLBT people deserve it, and you are passionate enough about this belief not only to defend it, but you seem to feel the need to come and engage gay people on their own blog, for what purpose I’m not sure.
KnowThyNeighbor.org was created to encourage dialog between the opposing groups, and to show those who have no vested opinions that they need not fear GLBT people. It has succeeded, with 20,000 posts to their blog alone, including dissenting opinions like your own. The dialog does not stop there however, it transcends the website into the communities themselves. People look at each other’s names, then talk about it. There is no intimidation, just dialog. No one is threatening anyone else, that would be a crime, and to imply that there is criminal activity associated with our effort is libel. Not one single irresponsible action has been reported against KTN, and trust me, if our enemies could lay claim to even one it would create national news.
The fears about social problems arising from equality have been heard before throughout time as we learn to be more tolerant of diversity. Sometimes all we need is to simply sit down at the same table and talk. That’s where KTN comes in. People who sign this petition to take away rights need to better understand their neighbors. GLBT people have put their hearts out to many in hopes they will walk a mile in their shoes, and that is a noble and effective effort. People are the same no matter what walk of life they come from. All are inherently good, and deserving of being judged by their actions and intents, and not by who they are inherently. I cannot change my sexuality any more than I can change the color of my skin, so if this is all you need in order to judge me as unworthy, there is no point in talking with you.
I would rather have a discussion that brings all parties to a higher plane of understanding than have an argument where we simply try to prove the other wrong. No one benefits from the latter.
It looks like my response to John Hosty-Grinnell has been spiked - but I hope that is a temporary aberration.
- Gordon
Is there a limit on length of post? Or have I been banned?
Looks like I can post, so I will shorten my response to John Hosty-Grinnell
is 413 words too long? I will try again.
John Hosty-Grinnell (JHG) concluded:
> I would rather have a discussion that brings
> all parties to a higher plane of understanding
> than have an argument where we simply try to
> prove the other wrong. No one benefits from
> the latter.
On this point we strongly agree.
- -
JHG began:
> Gordon, it is pointless trying to talk to
> someone like you. … you seem to feel the
> need to come and engage gay people on their
> own blog, for what purpose I’m not sure.
>
> KnowThyNeighbor.org was created to encourage
> dialog between the opposing groups….
If you want to know my purpose, you could ask.
You write “KnowThyNeighbor.org was created to encourage dialog between the opposing groups”, so it seems my presence would be welcome. So I don’t understand this un-welcoming start
My purpose: I recently heard about KTNO - represented as intimidators. But I choose to seek information before drawing conclusions, so I came, asked questions, and challenged facile answers. And I followed the link to KTN since it has a longer history. Until now I had not encountered any willingness for the kind of dialog that could overcome a bad first impression.
JHG wrote:
> There is no intimidation, just dialog.
If your response here is meant to include what happens at knowthyneighbor.blogs.com, please consider my response to Tom Lang at http://tinyurl.com/3bh6p3
JHG wrote:
> … to imply that there is criminal activity
> associated with our effort is libel.
Have I implied criminal activity? Not everything that is wrong is illegal. In fact, it seems that discussion of verbal abuse and intimidation is a mainstay of debates about the heretofore second-class position of GLTBs.
JHG wrote:
> … if [my sexuality] is all you need in order
> to judge me as unworthy, there is no point in
> talking with you.
“Unworthy”? I do not think you are second-class or sub-human. I have several friends who are GLBT and many more who are Liberal. We have some strong disagreements but we have larger areas of agreement, friendship, and cooperation.
I hope that we can “have a discussion that brings all parties to a higher plane of understanding” even if we never see eye to eye on all of the details.