Election Day Recap: BC Law Professor Scott Fitzgibbon Among the Winners

It’s the day after Election Day! Granted, this year’s election cycle wasn’t nearly as exciting as last year — when Obama ended racism in America.
Still, there are many winners to congratulate. Republicans Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell are new governors. People can now point to the North Country on a map of New York State. Michael Bloomberg secured a third term as New York City Mayor. And the New York Post (predictably) managed to ignore it all and plastered of picture of Pedro Martinez in a diaper on its front page.
But for our purposes, the biggest winners were the voters of Maine. They successfully defeated the efforts of gays and lesbians to be treated fairly, thus making sure that all of those rugged and earthy Mainers will not be tempted to have the gay sex they secretly desire.
Obviously the tactics of BC Law professor Scott Fitzgibbon — and other defenders of traditional marriages between drunken woodsmen and the girls they knock up — won the day. Do gay marriage advocates have any more tricks stashed in their closets?
Kash says yes, after the jump.


We mentioned yesterday in Non-Sequiturs that Kash wrote an interesting (and slightly terrifying) piece on True/Slant about a new strategy for gay rights activists: political intimidation. Kash writes:

Beyond manning phone banks, passing out flyers, and knocking on doors, gay rights activists have come up with a new tactic to try to achieve their political objectives. KnowThyNeighbor and WhoSigned.org are working to put the names and addresses of anti-gay rights petition signers on their websites.
There have been petitions in several states in opposition to marital rights and domestic partner rights for gay couples. When signing, people likely didn’t think about the possibility of their political opinions being revealed online. But in many states, petition signatures are considered public records. They’re typically archived, but now these groups want to make the information easily accessible online.

There are a couple of problems with this tactic. First of all, there’s that pesky Constitution that protects the right to express one’s political opinion without retribution. Second, the tactic reminds me of how pro-life loons post the addresses of abortion clinics online and subtly encourage or inspire violence against doctors. We don’t want gay rights advocates using pink triangles as shuriken and winging them at anti-gay voters.
But … at what point (if any) are gays and lesbians allowed to fight fire with fire? Go back and look at the Fitzgibbon commercial again. Note, as others have, the material misstatements of facts Fitzgibbon uses. Through the fog of half-truths and thinly veiled bigotry, isn’t it reasonable for there to be an accounting of exactly who supports what in this fight? Signing a petition isn’t the same as casting a ballot. They don’t take you into a booth and close the curtain when you sign. Should that information be discoverable by those who are fighting for their civil rights?
If gay and lesbian advocates can have and publish this information, would it have a chilling effect on the public expression of anti-gay viewpoints? And if so, is that really such a terrible thing? Are there that many people who want to prevent strangers from getting married, but only if they can trample on other people’s rights anonymously?
But is there any value to outing anti-gay petition signers other than political intimidation? Let’s say those names get published online, what happens then? Do employers look for the names of their employees? Do bloggers and journalists publicize the names in local stories? How long before a person like me gets a list of “every Biglaw associate that signed a petition against gay marriage,” and what in God’s name would I do with such a list?
There are a lot of questions, but all signs seem to point towards some homophobe getting a flaming brick through his window. That might be justice, but it’s certainly not good.
It seems to me that the First Amendment is “firsty” for a reason. People must have the right to say nearly whatever they want without fear of reprisal. It’s the rug that ties the room together. Gay marriage advocates lost a big vote in Maine yesterday, but they didn’t lose the moral high ground. Hopefully, this setback won’t inspire continued attempts at political intimidation. If it does, I wouldn’t expect the courts to stand idle.
Earlier: Boston College Law Professor In Anti-Gay Marriage Ad
BC Law Prof. Fitzgibbon Speaks via Email; BC Law Students Spoof via YouTube

Sponsored