Alex Blaze

Know Thy Neighbor moves to Oregon

Filed By Alex Blaze | August 22, 2007 2:19 PM | comments

Filed in: Politics
Tags: domestic partnership, Know Thy Neighbor, Oregon

Remember how those people in Massachusetts started publishing the names and addresses of people who signed anti-gay ballot initiative petitions? Well, the idea has moved on over to Oregon.

Two bills pending in that state - one to create domestic partnerships and another to ban discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity - have attracted threats of petitions from the Religious Right to put them on the ballot come 2008. So since they're collecting signatures that are public domain, these folks are going to put them all online, names, addresses and all.

It's good to know who you're living next door to.

Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

I can’t believe that any queer would actually support this tactic.

What is the difference between this and publishing the names of queers caught sucking each other off in the local park?

Ummmmm.... there's a whole lot of difference between the two, Nick. I actually don't see how they're comparable at all except for the fact that they both involve publishing and names.

I'd say, "What's the difference between this and publishing the way Representatives and Senators voted on a certain bill?" Much more related.


Please elaborate on the difference you see between the two.

It's pretty obvious that once you get past the ridiculous rhetoric of "strengthening the Democratic Process" the objective of KnowThyNeighbor is to intimidate/shame people, and scare them into not doing something, by violating their privacy. That sounds like the same objective that newspapers have when printing the names of entrapped queers or the license plates of people going into the local adult superstore to me. And isn’t that all just public information?

I'm surprised you're not more appalled by KnowThyNeighbor's constant hiding behind legality. Since when do true queer activists base their value judgments on the law? Thank Mary they don't!

I just had to come back to add that one important [the biggest] difference between the two is obviously power. I seriously doubt that anyone's life will be ruined or anyone will commit suicide after having their name published by KnowThyNeighbor.

Also there are situations where I support similar [not identical] tactics such as HLS home demos.

I'll write more later after I think a bit longer…

"violating their privacy"?????? These people are signing a petition with the government, one that they know will be public record! I just don't see how legislative action, which is what they're participating in in this case, is at all improved by secrecy. If they can be shamed out of signing that petition just because people might find out about it, then maybe they shouldn't be signing it in the first place. Because, honestly, "shame" isn't something I would associate with signing a petition.

On the other hand, entrapped queers I would argue shouldn't have been entrapped in the first place. But your example of license plate numbers at the adult superstore, while a little bit closer here, still isn't the same thing because, however we'd like for there not to be, there is shame involved in going there for a lot of folks. I can understand that.

But if a Senator said, "I don't want my vote on such and such an appropriations bill to be published because that might shame me out of voting for it," everyone would laugh at her and she'd deserve it.

And I don't think that anyone is basing their value judgments on the law. I don't know where you're getting that, except for the fact that what they're doing is legal. That doesn't mean that they're out there doing everything that's legal and nothing that isn't, just that they're pointing it out in this one case.

And you know, Nick, you can sign up as a registered commenter on this site so I don't have to keep on approving your comments.... :)