Comments on: Judge shields signatures in gay rights referendum

By: Justin Christiansen

Justin Christiansen — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:08:19 +0000

is it gonna take more than 200 years like it did with the slavery of blacks for us to marry who we love. why does it matter if gays marry? these people who are petitioning obviously don’t care about the future generation’s of their children.

By: bartski

bartski — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:11:58 +0000

It seems that Roy Moore isn’t the only judge to have a somewhat biased approach to issues.I don’t mean to paint all with the same brush , but I must admit I’d love to know his religious inclinations ; if any.

By: rogerma

rogerma — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:49:27 +0000

We need laws that say the legislature has the final say in making law. Or, laws can be vetoed by a governor, or if the law is deemmed unconstitutional, can be overuled by a court. We do have, afterall, a representative democracy. Systems of checks and balances. If you want to hold a referendum for a re-vote in the legislature, ok, but not a referendum to veto the vote of the legislature. Signatures gathered for a referendum are like the signatures of legislators when signing on to a bill, are not done in secret. The only secret ballot we have is when we vote in an election. By the way, are referendums constitutional?

By: thellmer

thellmer — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:12:39 +0000

At a hearing before Settle last week, attorneys for Protect Marriage had argued that referendum signers’ names and addresses should be exempt from the public records disclosure law becauseTHEY’RE FU*KING COWARDLY BIGOTS WHO WOULD JUST AS LIKELY WEAR WHITE SHEETS, BURN CROSSES IN OUR YARDS, AND DRAG US BEHIND PICKUP TRUCKS. Bet you the judge himself is one of the signers.

By: Southernhemisphere

Southernhemisphere — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:12:00 +0000

Well it appears that the policy of “Don’t Ask,Don’t Tell has its place at times for the safety of the people accorrding to the situations at hand. Perhaps, in the reevaluation of that policy and all other issues of privacy; choice and safety should be priortized.

By: KaninZ

KaninZ — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 05:26:24 +0000

I agree that signing petitions and voting should be completely anonymous.
What I question is the right to vote on the rights of my fellow Americans.

The question seems to be are Gay Americans entitled to the full protections and obligations of American citizenship?

Are we allowed to have familes too, or are we supposed to “jump the broom”?

By: jessieka

jessieka — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:06:11 +0000

Isn’t it ironic while these faciest’s claim me are wanting “speciel rights” they are creating law that grants them legaly “speicel rights”.
The judge was obscenly out of line.His job is to withhold the laws NOT create them! This legal hack needs to be disbared ASAP!Does anyone know how to impeach a judge???

By: Kari

Kari — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 23:54:49 +0000

ljrhodes: I agree that the petition’s signers should not be anonymous, but what you said is not entirely accurate.

Our government often passes legislation by voice vote for simplicity and to save time; they do not always record who voted yes or no.

By: Don Roberts

Don Roberts — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:58:51 +0000

To add to what I’ve previously wrote; civil rights should never be up to a populous vote.

By: Don Roberts

Don Roberts — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:56:30 +0000

I completely agree with the statement made by ljrhodes. What bothers me is that these people fear being harassed and threatened. We should be trying to encourage people to accept us, not scaring them into submission. Fear tactics never work. Those who are resorting to fear and harassment of these people should be facing legal charges. This is, after all, a nation where people should be free to speak their conscience without reprisal. Anything less makes us no better than a terrorist or dictatorial state.