Transparency, and hate: the names in Washington are released

In the referendum on domestic partnerships in Washington state last year, there was a bitter signature gathering campaign. Our side was suspicious that bad guys were not fairly describing the petitions, and getting signatures under false pretenses. There was also concern about their validity. For these reasons, under state law, petitioner names are supposed to be public.

However, in the now-typical fashion, the anti-equality forces whined that they would be attacked by marauding gays if the names were released and asked to make an exception to the law to keep them hidden. This case has bounced up to the SCOTUS and back down again, and now the judge has issued a smackdown of the anti-equality forces in his ruling (H/T Pam's House Blend)

“Doe has failed to supply sufficient, competent evidence that the publically known donors–as active supporters of R-71–have experienced sufficient threats, harassment, or reprisals based on the disclosure of their information in connection to R-71 that would satisfy the reasonable probability standard that Doe must meet in this case.”

“Doe has only supplied evidence that hurts rather than helps its case.”

He details the descriptions, which include things like one man getting a mean email from his brother in law . Oh, the horror!

The FACT is that despite their desire to hide their bigotry, they can't.  And the consequences have been mild.  Some rude remarks.  A business boycott.  (Remember that the anti-gay forces ROUTINELY boycott pro-gay businesses.  Goose, gander?)   Yes, there have been some glitter bombs.

But remember the aftermath to Prop8 in California, hate crimes against LGBT people went up by nearly 17%.  Crimes against whining religious rightists, not so much.

Let's be clear on what real hate looks like. Let's be clear on which side is doing the hurting. And let's be clear on which side is doing the hating.  

Update In California, state law requires that the names of donors of >$100 be public. There was much fussing over the website that had the donor names on it (note that this includes donors on both sides). In a bid to keep Prop8 donors secret in retrospect has also been denied. Yes, the election was three years ago, but the Prop8 supporters consider that this is such a volatile issue that their donors are "at risk".

The judge read from a batch of declarations in which people claimed yard signs were stolen, that they received harassing phone calls, or, in one case, that people protested outside someone's business. "That's the extent of what happened," he said.

Get over yourselves, H8-ers! If "defending marriage" is so important to you, show the courage of your conviction.