Supreme Court Will Hear R-71 Petition Case

by lewwaters

Just announced today, the United States Supreme Court will take the case filed over gay activists wanting the names, addresses and signatures of the 138,000 people in Washington State who signed the R-71 petition last year released to them so they may place the names on a searchable web site for the public.

At stake in this case is whether or not opposing sides may seek to intimidate or seek retribution against their fellow citizens for the support of any citizen initiatives in the future.

Most disturbing in this case is the desire of Washington’s Secretary of State, Sam Reed and Attorney General Rob McKenna to release those names, addresses and signatures to Gay activists.

R-71 was a citizen initiative to block enhancements to Washington States Domestic Partnership law in 2009 that failed statewide in the election. Almost as soon as the measure qualified for the ballot, Gay activist began their push to have the information on those who signed released so they could make it known publicly who opposed their agenda. This was covered at Traditional Marriage Foes Try To Intimidate Washington Voters.

Gay activists initially challenged R-71 in court over a claim of signatures being improperly accepted. When that failed to keep the initiative off of the ballot, the quest for the release of the signers’ information began.

Gay activist such as John Bisceglia were openly advocating “violence against property” of those who supported the R-71 initiative, but has since removed the calls for violence from his website.

In September, U.S. district judge Benjamin Settle ruled the information should not be released to the Gay Activists, followed by an appeal from AG McKenna.

Another federal court ordered the names and information released, but an appeal to the US Supreme Court resulted in an injunction being placed on releasing the information by Justice Anthony Kennedy while the Supreme Court considered whether or not to take the case.

While so-called scholars say the case could have broad implications for public disclosure laws, should the names and information be released, it could have broad implications on citizen involvement in government and petitions drives, regardless of what they may represent.

If this type of intimidation is allowed to stand and is approved by the courts, it is my opinion that citizens will shy away from involvement in almost any issue whether citizen input is needed out of fear of retribution by opposers.

Should the Supreme Court rule against those wishing to protect citizens who sign petitions, can the secret ballot being nullified be far behind, given the Unions and Democrats push for ‘Card Check?’

4 Responses to “Supreme Court Will Hear R-71 Petition Case”

  1. Oh Lew, I still advocate violence towards the INSTITUTIONS that are forcing their hateful “god” into government’s CIVIL laws with the sole intention of hurting our families. I revised my blog in August so it was clear that I am speaking about GROUPS and not individuals, although I’m still all for stealing and/or vandalizing hateful, terrorizing yard signs. Ballot-Box terrorism is going to be met with VERY justified anger.

    SELF-DEFENSE can be violent, but it is violence provoked, as a last resort when NO ONE is there to protect us OR our children. Or as I blogged:

    INCITING SELF-DEFENSE – Fair Fight Part 2

  2. Poor John, still deluded as ever.

    Hate to tell you, but same-sex marriage has NEVER been any part of our laws, so it would appear that it is you who is pushing your god into our civil laws.

    Like to admit it or not, you have exactly the same right I do in marriage currently, but that isn’t good enough for you. You want an extra right and give no regard to any consequence you may be bringing in.

    You are a very selfish person, John. You have no regard for anybody or anything but your own desire.

    You stand up and say anything you wish, but oppose others the same privilege if it is something you don’t like.

    You whine about “your children” and give no thought to how you go after OUR children and attempt to indoctrinate them into your perverted lifestyle.

    You threaten us with violence because we don’t hand society over to you and you cry we are terrorizing you?

    Your effort at subverting our parental rights is exactly what you accuse us of, but it you doing it, not us. And then, you propose to harm us our livelyhoods?

    You’re a sick puppy, John and again, I’ll give you fair warning to rethink your calls. We will not be terrorized by you or anyone else. We will defend ourselves, our homes, our businesses and our children in whatever way is needed.

    Keep an eye on teh blog, John, and see what Justice Clarence Thomas had to say in his partial dissenting opinion on the Supreme Courts ruling striking down much of McCan/Feingold.

    Your tactics are coming back to bite you in your ass and I don’t mean the kind of bite you enjoy.

    Get over yourself, John. You’re not even a small pimple on the backside of humanity, just an irritation.


Leave a Reply. Comments are moderated. Spam & off topic comments will not be approved at Blog Author's discretion. THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ZONE!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: