To counter public support of traditional marriage, Homosexualists' track record shows reliance on intimidation tactics, threats and violence against citizens on record opposing Gay Agenda, as exhibited in Massachusetts, California, Arkansas, etc.
UPDATE 4/28/10: LA Times claims Justice Scalia shows sarcasm toward traditionalists
-- From "Supreme Court takes up Wash. case involving disclosure of petition signatures" by Janet I. Tu, Seattle Times staff reporter 4/25/10
The U.S. Supreme Court this week will hear a Washington state case that could decide whether signing a petition for a ballot measure is a private, political act or whether the names of those signers can be made public.
The case stems from the contentious battles over Referendum 71, in which traditional-marriage supporters last year unsuccessfully sought to overturn an expanded state domestic-partnership law that grants "everything but marriage" benefits to gay and lesbian couples.
Those who backed the repeal effort are trying to shield the petitioners' names from disclosure, saying they could be harassed if their identities are revealed.
Some gay-rights supporters had requested the names and said they would post them on the Internet. Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed says such information is subject to disclosure upon request, as required by the state's Public Records Act.
The Supreme Court, which hears arguments in the case on Wednesday, is expected to decide whether disclosing the names would violate the signers' First Amendment rights.
If the court rules it does, that would likely keep private not only Referendum 71 petitions but all referendum and initiative petitions in this state — and potentially those in two dozen other states that allow citizens to put measures on the ballot.
If the court says petition signers' names are public — especially in cases where there's the potential for harassment — it might chill people's willingness to take part in the referendum and initiative process . . .
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
