Thought the public disclosure requirements for Prop 8 donors was an invasion of privacy? Sorry, shamed conservatives, but you’re facing another supposed violation! Arkansans who last year signed petitions to put a gay adoption ban on the state ballot are seeing their names posted on the Internet. All 83,000 of them.
On KnowThyNeighbor.org — which has previously posted names from similar anti-gay efforts in Florida, Massachusetts, and Oregon — anyone can find the names of petition signers who helped get the “no unmarried singles” law passed. While it also affects single heteros, the ban was undoubtedly aimed at gay moms and dads.
Naturally, conservatives are pissed their identities are being made public. “This is pure intimidation,” says the Family Council’s director Jerry Cox. “Everyone who looks at this Web site can see this is an effort on the part of radical gay organizations to intimidate citizens into not exercising their rights.”
Only problem? Their identities were already public. Signing a petition to support a ballot measure means your name becomes part of the public record. And that’s how it should be. Any citizen who wants to influence public policy should be known to her constituents. It’s that very transparency that lends some legitimacy to this thing we call democracy.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
But the Family Council is threatening to litigate the matter. And they may have some standing.
[…] legislation passed during this year’s legislative session limiting information that can be made public about concealed-carry permit holders.
Act 1291 of 2009 keeps the names and zip codes of concealed carry permit holders public but exempts other information from the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. The original legislation would have shielded all information about permit holders from the FOI law.
“If the Legislature can protect the identities of concealed carry permit holders, the Legislature should be able to protect people who sign petitions,” Cox said.
In the meantime, get to know your hateful Arkansas neighbors.
ben
All the same, it’s a bad ass thing to do, and I’m glad it’s done in “respectful” way rather than just a list and encouraging people to be catty and such. It’s just like, if you signed it, deal with it. We’re just saying….
Love it.
Huh
Actually I believe the law says that couples who live together that aren’t married can’t adopt. Aimed at gay couples, but includes hetero couples that live unmarried together. Single people – supposedly straight or gay – can adopt.
John K.
Yeah, of course the legislature MAY make an exception to public disclosure laws, but if they HAVEN’T, then what is there to litigate?
Dennis
This is exactly the type of work we need more of…so much of the discrimination (or evil) that is perpetrated against us is done “behind closed doors”, or from the safety of some type of closet or other protection/secrecy.
NO more! Of couse, some bigots will see being identified as donors as a badge of pride, but let it be known who’s bashing us…show your faces, cowards, or STFU and leave us alone.
Or put another way, cockroaches scurrying around safely under the cover of darkness, tend to scatter when the light is shined on them…
Susan Potter
As an engineer I have a major problem following the logic in the following argument:
>>>>>
“This is pure intimidation,” says the Family Council’s director Jerry Cox. “Everyone who looks at this Web site can see this is an effort on the part of radical gay organizations to intimidate citizens into not exercising their rights.”
<<<<<
Does that mean that Jerry Cox thinks people should be ashamed of supporting this state ballot? If not, how is the above a valid argument at all?
I am looking forward to hear how a spokesperson from an organization called the Family Council, which presumably wants to support stable family structures, can support a state ballot that restricts adoption by otherwise qualified parental figures so that more children are relegated to an already overloaded foster care system.
Perhaps the organization is simply about imposing extreme religious values upon the public as a whole and has no intention of trying to help children seeking stable family structures!?
Shock, horror.
Amyadoptee
I got a question. Is it okay for them to do it to woman who have abortions? That is what they do. They post pictures of women and their vehicles online who go into a family planning clinic. It does not matter if they are going in for an abortion. They do it to others. Its only fair that it is turned around on them.