Last year the website Knowthyneighbor.org rolled out, publicizing the names and addresses of people who signed the anti-gay-marriage amendment petition. At the time, I said it was a terrible idea; that it would lead to reciprocating hostility against one’s neighbors, a lousy, counterproductive strategy. (I can acknowledge one good use for the site, which is as a check against signature fraud.)
Well, guess what? People are using the site to attack their neighbors:
One St. Peter’s parishioner, Yvonne Cabral, was verbally accosted last Friday by Provincetown Magazine publisher Rick Hines after Hines learned that Cabral signed the petition, according to police.
Police Chief Ted Meyer plans to seek charges of disorderly conduct against Hines, who saw Cabral shopping and loudly called her a “bigot,” according to both Hines and Meyer. Other people who signed the petition — and subsequently had their names posted on the same website — said manure has been spread on their properties in recent months, Meyer added.
Mr. Hines, do you imagine that you’re helping your cause by acting like a child? What if you had gone up to Ms. Cabral and said, “I know you signed the petition, and I really hope you’ll reconsider. We’re human beings, too.” Don’t you think you might have gotten into her head a little more effectively that way? And spreading shit on one’s neighbors’ lawns is just beneath contempt.
Being right on an issue does not give one license to act like a jerk. Fight hate with love; ignorance with understanding; callousness with empathy. That’s how supporters of same-sex marriage will win this thing. If we expect people to have civilized attitudes towards gay marriage, we’ve got to be civilized ourselves.
I will start the war against hate by sending your way a big hug Mr. Charley. Nice post and right on for calling Mr. Hines on this move. Isn’t it a little hypocritical for complain that all the haters are bad and then send out hate yourself?
I am blushing. đŸ™‚
It’s a longstanding thing we tease Andy about. đŸ™‚
While it’s true that this confrontation doesn’t solve anything, it can be very hard to find that someone you know has publicly declared they consider you a second-class citizen and not deserving the rights they take for granted.
<
p>
If I came face to face with an acquaintaince who had signed the petition, I would have to struggle to control myself and give her the respect she expects. Not everyone is that strong, and sometimes people let their guard down.
<
p>
I’m sorry Mrs. Cabral’s feelings are hurt, but if she feels strongly about having the right to vote on my marriage, she should be prepared to defend herself. If I saw her driving a trolley in Provincetown, I wouldn’t get on it, and I would calmly let her know why. It’s not my responsibility to guarantee her special rights to a pleasant and non-discordant life, not when she wants to make me fight on this issue for years to come and make my life into a matter of public discussion.
<
p>
In other news, that article was full of a lot of b.s. July 4th is when the circuit queens descend on Provincetown like a cloud of locusts. Most of the normal gay tourists don’t want any part of that weekend, let alone straight people and town residents.
A long time member of the Truro Board of Fire Engineers was publicly told by a Selectman that he would not be re-appointed because he signed the petition. He also wanted to buy a new fire truck.
<
p>
But to be told in a public forum, a selectmen’s meeting, that your ability to rescue people from fires is compromised because you are a ‘hater’? That just isn’t right.
<
p>
http://www2.townonline.com/brewster/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=537524
It certainly sounds as if Childs contributed more than his share toward undermining his own position and escalating the battle until this became an issue.
The first was more than a month ago, and was rather more explicit in what the selectman said. It has disappeared from the CNC archives, and I put up what I could as verification.
Not only because of the general jerkiness of the actions, but also because clearly stuff like this is what causes a backlash that can hurt the general gay rights cause.
<
p>
Fact is that every day that goes by is one where equal rights for GLBTs becomes more accepted by the general populace, both here and nationwide. This may be a very gradual process, but things are, generally speaking, going in the right direction. Why risk a backlash? Luckily this appears to be a pretty isolated incident.
People making similarly rude comments against gay people hasn’t sparked a backlash that would benefit us. Even the comemoration of Matthew Shepard sparked its own backlash from people who didn’t want to hear about it and accused the gays of manipulating the media. You can’t win.
<
p>
Most people would rather not talk about gay rights and will vote on it only when presented with the option. A minority fiercely opposes gay rights, and a smaller minority is gay and will fiercely oppose them right back. The goal is to keep it from becoming an ongoing battle in the public forum, not to try to win when it gets there, because we KNOW we usually lose on the second part. Most people don’t personally identify with gays and really don’t want their children to become gay, so they’ll vote accordingly, even if they’re not bigoted at all and have gay firends.
<
p>
The people like Yvonne Cabral who want to fight on this issue are not going to be won over, so it’s better for them to see we will defend ourselves and not take being put down quietly… maybe then she’ll go back to her gardening or her bridge club instead of trying to run my life. If people think that fighting to roll back gay rights is a gentle game with no personal cost to them, they need to have their thinking changed. Because they’re ready to ask ME to defend my marriage to all sorts of people who won’t hesitate to tell me what THEY think of it.
but on this I disagree
<
p>
The people like Yvonne Cabral who want to fight on this issue are not going to be won over, so it’s better for them to see we will defend ourselves and not take being put down quietly… maybe then she’ll go back to her gardening or her bridge club instead of trying to run my life.
<
p>
I think that by getting into a shouting match with folks like YC, all you’re doing is fostering more anger and hatred — and in doing so, energizing your enemy. Instead, I suspect if you kill her with kindness, she will (eventually) lose interest and go back to her bridge club or her gardening.
<
p>
Sure, not all YCs will go away, but many will. The rest won’t have a loud or courageous enough voice to be heard by the vast majority (in MA) who, when push comes to shove, don’t really think that gay marriage is at all important one way or the other.
<
p>
So, my brother: keep fighting the good fight.
…there’s a middle ground between shouting and “killing someone with kindness.”
<
p>
When I got married, everyone at work congratulated me. There were two people who clammed up and didn’t acknowledge it, but everyone else was nice to me.
<
p>
Do I think all of them agreed with gay marriage? Hell no. However, that was seen as the appropriate response. I’m also quite out at work and talk about my partner.
<
p>
Now, if more people had responded with blank looks or tried to change the subject, and a few people had respectfully challenged me on the issue of gay marriage instead of treating it as personal, my response would be to withdraw and be less out at work. I wouldn’t talk about my partner. The tone would be set and I would adhere.
<
p>
If you kill your opponents with kindness, they will smile and welcome you as a neighbor and acquaintance, and then continue to sign petitions, go to rallies, write letters to the editor, and donate money to the cause. If you yell at them and make a scene, you risk making yourself the issue and causing some friendly fire. But if you take a middle ground and communicate your displeasure and discomfort in a socially tenable way, you can shame them.
<
p>
I know a lot of people dislike this approach because it goes against the respect and enthusiasm we feel is important to the civic forum. It discourages people from participating in government and belies common respect for opposing positions.
<
p>
But I can not force myself to have respect for Mrs. Cabral on an issue so important to my life, and I do find her cavelier attitude toward my marriage to be deserving of a challenge. If she believes so strongly in marriage that she’s willing to tell me to my face she’s right, good for her. If she’s ashamed to publicly defend her view that I’m not as equal a citizen as she is, well, she needs to work that out and decide whether she should keep pushing this issue.
about the “middle ground” you mention seems like a fine way to handle it (as apart from doing nothing on one hand or screaming at someone on the other), though I doubt persons vehemently opposed to gay marriage will be “shamed” into anything, unfortuntely. Still, by making clear that marriages such as yours do not “threaten the social fabric” or some such nonsense and in fact are quite normal like other marriages, couples can certainly make mildly opposed persons think much more carefully about the issue.
<
p>
As an aside, I’ve noticed that many people mildly opposed to gay marriage are so because they somehow get the impression that legalization somehow “forces” the Catholic Church and other religions to offer gay marriages. I note this, because if what we are dealing with (at least in some cases) is simply correcting a misreading of the facts, then I feel a bit better about the potential of changing minds in a rational, logical fashion.
Look — you can’t control what people do with information. Some will do good things, some bad things.
<
p>
This thread just reminded me of knowthyneighbor, and I went and poked around for a while. I looked up some family members — some of whom signed, some didn’t. I’m glad I know. Will I call Uncle Angelo a bigot to his face? No. Have I already called him one behind his back? Yip. He’s an old coot and he isn’t going to change his mind. That’s cool — welcome to a democracy.
<
p>
You gather more flies with honey than vinegar. Regardless of your feelings on any issue, you’re not going to convince the other side by screaming at them.
<
p>
On a side note, what is the justification for petition gathering to be public information? After all, if the objective is to get something on a ballot, it’s a bit like “voting to get to vote on it” — so why not keep the signatures private? Certify them, sure — but then keep them private.
<
p>
I guess to answer my own question, the problem is identity confirmation. There is no part of the petition process where a government representative and the signer are in the same place at the same time, necessary to confirm validity of the signature. Maybe there is a way around this somehow?
(1) Whether it is acceptable to publicize the names of people who signed the petition, (2) What to do with that information. I personally don’t have a problem with KnowThyNeighbor. People should stand behind their positions: that’s why the law makes the information public. Anonymity is bad for discourse and is destructive to communities (I think my position on this subject is pretty well known to our esteemed BMG readers). That said, I agree completely that screaming at people in stores — which seems to be the part of the post most people are commenting on — is counter-productive as matter of politics and boorish as a matter of manners.
I agree completely. One should be ready to have one’s identity known on any and all petitions. Period.
<
p>
That said, boors come in all sizes, religions, races, and sexual orientations. Unfortunately, the come part and parcel with democracy.
Should our votes be public information too? I can’t think of a single argument for voting secrecy which wouldn’t also apply to the signing of a petition…
There’s a substantive difference, it seems to me, between choosing to sign a petition and exercising one’s civic responsibility to vote. A petition signature is not intrinsically necessary to maintain our system of government; a vote, however, is. Also, one doesn’t generally sign petitions for candidates, specifically, the same way in which someone votes for a candidate to represent him or her.
<
p>
No, I don’t think petition signatures have the same gravitas as ballot voting, so I do not believe they are entitled to the same privacy protection that ballot box voting enjoys.
of ballot initiatives. Not sigs for a politician to get on a ballot, but sigs to get an initiative (anti-gay marriage, health care, whatever) on a ballot.
<
p>
Your signature to get it on the ballot isn’t a secret. Your vote once it is on the ballot — for an identically worded clause — is.
<
p>
So in this case, your vote is protected secret because of some “civic responsibility” but your petition signature isn’t, since petitions aren’t necessary to maintain our system of government but votes are?
<
p>
That seems like a whole lot of stretch there. Votes don’t have to be a secret to maintain a democracy; they are because secret ballots are a more precise way to measure the intent of the voters (since it keeps them free from intimidation, harassment, and the purchasing of their vote). Can’t the exact same thing be said for signing a petition?
but I stick by it. Petition signatures do not carry the same gravitas as ballot votes; consequently, they need not be privacy protected.
This seems a fairly vague and unsubstantiated claim:
<
p>
<
p>
I find it interesting that we are all for the legal process in some aspects, yet repeating rumor that “other people said” is quite acceptable.
<
p>
Do we even have a police report–did this actually happen? Are there suspects? Are they gay? Or are they random teenagers who don’t like these people because they also kick puppies? I’m not for shit smearing, mind you. But I don’t think it is fair to make that accusation here.
<
p>
Sounds like smear-the-queer to me. That’s pretty contemptible.
<
p>
In a separate line of inquiry, I went searching the Globe archives to find out where they called out Ratzinger on his calling secularists a “dictatorship” but I can’t seem to find those articles. Maybe it is just because I don’t have a Lexis-Nexis subscriptions.
Here is what “hate” is in New England:
1. A Maine man is chased and forced to jump off a bridge by two homophobic straight teenage boys. He drowns. They get off scott free when tried.
2. A transexual is murdered by a man who went home with him in the Boston suburbs. There is no question that he was in the victim’s apartment and that he did the deed. But the Judge and jury declare that there were extenuating circumstances. (The shock of seeing a penis with boobs.)
3. My landlords find out I am gay and rerent my Cambridge apartment from underneath me. The Cambridge Commission on Discrimination comes to my rescue – first case in Cambridge. I win.
4. A friend of mine is assaulted by the cops while taking photos of them harassing gay men in front of Avallon.
<
p>
I could give you dozens more. Sorry I have not supplied the links. If you are gay and over 30 and at all politically aware, you already know about #1 and #2. If you’re straight and don’t know about these events, go talk to someone gay. And remember to ask them their opinion about why gay people know about these events and you don’t.
<
p>
In the meantime, lecturing gay people about “hate” when someone has correctly called a bigot a bigot is unconstructive and condescending.
<
p>
LISTEN: The issue isn’t “hate.”
<
p>
It’s violence, assault, and discrimination. The day straight people start worrying about losing their jobs, losing their homes, losing their kids, or losing their safety – that’s the day we’re dealing with illegal discrimination. Illegal because the law that outlaws discrimination based on sexual preference ALSO PROTECTS straight people. Until this happens, this bullshit about anonymous people supposedly being “scared” of gay people who supposedly threw manure on their lawns is itself a transparently political campaign. The Police Chief in P’town is a Texan who has been pushing an agenda for the past several years. Don’t fall for it.
First we need to clear up some of the mis-information surrounding the alleged incidences in Provincetown. I was at Friday’s “No Place For Hate” meeting and have spoken with Police Chief Meyer, Rick Hines, and the Boston Globe reporter who wrote the latest article. We need to address the “manure” accusations. Chief Meyer told me that a woman had complained to him that she a dog poop next to her car and suggested that it may be because she signed the petition. Meyer does not understand why “manure” was discussed in articles. Secondly, regarding the immigrant Jamaican workers. Many residents addressed to me that hostility toward the Jamaicans has been going on for years and needs to be discussed. It is unfortunately not restricted to one group which is responsible for the negative, racist and classist comments at the expense of the Jamaicans.
<
p>
Now, regarding the Rick Hines/Yvonne Cabral incident. Hines was in attendance of Friday’s meeting Cabral was not. Cabral has been the focus of many local news articles as a signer and active proponent of the anti-gay petition. She and Hines know of each other quite well. Hines allegedly saw her in a grocery store and called her a “bigot.” Cabral allegedly answered back with “Eat me” and a yelling match entailed. Cabral spoke to her Priest about this which caused the priest to call the police and town council and now Hines may be up on charges for civil disturbance. I think that we can all say that there have been times that we have been involved in heated discussions which is unfortunately a human trait. We act, we live, we learn and we try to make ourselves better human beings by our experiences and action. Any way to open conversation including the posting of names involved in a public act of legislation is for the longterm good.
<
p>
KnowThyNeighbor was asked to address this meeting and was given a place on the panel that day. These conversations need to be had. Provincetown has an interesting and possibly unique way of handling any sort of potential conflict or bad feelings, probably because it has to. It is truly and concentrated and diverse community in all respects.
A simple phone call or email to any of the parties involved in this would have helped you get your facts straight and not post such ridiculousness.
<
p>
1) No one spread manure on anyone’s yard. When I spoke with Chief Meyer he told me directly that “a woman” had told the Catholic Priest, Father Dahl, that she found dog feces in her driveway, near her car. This woman to this day goes unnamed. Chief Meyer told me directly that when he spoke with Dahl, he said that dog poop is a common occurence in PTown.
<
p>
2) Hines did not just come up to Cabral and call her a Bigot. By all accounts, Hines said to Cabral (and they both knew each other very well as Cabral drives the PTown trolley and Hines owns the PTown Magazine) “How dare you sign the petition to take my rights away” to which Cabral replied, “Eat me.” Hines told me that at that point, he lost it and called Cabral “Bigot” about ten times.
<
p>
3) PTown held a “No Place For Hate” meeting open to the public that week. KnowThyNeighbor asked to be included and investigated what really happened. Chief Meyer put Tom Lang on the panel with members of the committee for that meeting.
<
p>
Most of this story was hype and fabricated by Father Dahl, Cabral and others who wanted to make a story out of a non-story. PTown has had to deal with this petition and the visibility of its signers more than most towns. Many signers own establishments frequented by gays and many gays have made clear choices to not patronize these establishments
<
p>
Please get facts correct before taking a journalists role.