All-out media campaign against defenders of marriage

Folks, how do you the title of this news piece?

Supreme Court deals setback to gay rights foes in ballot case

By LES BLUMENTHAL

McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON -- Despite a near unanimous Supreme Court decision Thursday that Washington state can release the names of the 138,000 people who signed ballot petitions to overturn a same-sex domestic partnership law, the case is far from over.

Religious conservatives who sought to block release of the signatures, and who fear harassment and retaliation if the names are made public, will return to federal court in Tacoma, Wash., to ask for a specific exemption to the state's Public Records Act.

Courts have allowed such exemptions on a case-by-case basis, and the high court said its ruling doesn't "foreclose success" in a narrower challenge.

In a 13-page page decision by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., the court found that the Public Records Act covered the names of those who sign initiative and referendum petitions. Roberts said the disclosure of the names wouldn't as a "general matter" violate the First Amendment,

However, the court held open the possibility that the names could be withheld under certain circumstances.

Roberts wrote that the state has a responsibility to promote "transparency and accountability" in the electoral process, adding that the release of the names of petition signers would help "root out fraud" and "ferret out" invalid signatures that could result from simple mistakes.

The ruling noted that just because the court rejected a broad challenge to the disclosure law, it didn't block a narrower challenge that could be successful if it shows a "reasonable probability" that people will be subject to "threats, harassment, or reprisals from either government officials or private parties" if their names are released.

The 8-1 decision wasn't unexpected, as justices from the right and the left seemed skeptical during oral arguments in late April about the broad effort to exempt petition signers from the state disclosure act. The lone dissenting justice was Clarence Thomas, though others who agreed with Roberts wrote their own concurring opinions.

Protect Marriage Washington, a group opposed to the law, which voters narrowly upheld, had sought to keep the signatures secret because it feared retaliation from gay rights supporters. The state argued that the Public Records Act required the release of those signing initiative and referenda petitions.

The case had attracted national attention not only because it involved gay rights but also because it could serve as a precedent for other states that have tough public disclosure laws.

The names still haven't been released...

Read more at http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/24/1699082/supreme-court-deals-setback-to.html#ixzz0rojtfYTP

Commentary. Interesting. Not “pro-family activitists” or “defenders of traditional marriage” but “gay rights foes”. The newswriter definitely shows his bias. To be a “gay rights foe” is a loaded term, aiming to rise alarm and the feeling of "how dare they” deny someone their rights. It’s a short-circuit to ordered thought about the nature of human rights and of human beings themselves and about the right sources of positive law. It’s the complete reduction of moral discourse to mere esthetic sentiments.

The title is unsurprising, and it is part of an all-out media effort at glamorizing the gay lifestyle, demonizing pro-marriage defenders,  and influencing Washington to grant homosexualists as many special rights as possible ahead of the November election.

Now, regarding the Supreme Court decision, my opinion is this: any one who harasses pro-family, pro-traditional marriage defenders and attacks their persons or property, or recur to terroristic tactics aimed at silencing or intimidating us as a result of publicly available petitions lists or from other sources, should be charged with hate-crimes. Let’s fight fire with fire, let’s show the world where the true hatred really lies.

We will not be Kristallnacht-ed.