Photo

Reuters Photojournalism

Our day's top images, in-depth photo essays and offbeat slices of life. See the best of Reuters photography.  See more | Photo caption 

Photo

Devastated by tornado

A huge tornado tears through the Oklahoma City suburb of Moore, killing dozens.  Slideshow 

Photo

Nuclear tsunami wall

Safety upgrades designed to prevent a repeat of the Fukushima disaster.  Slideshow 

Sponsored Links

U.S. court won't keep secret gay marriage opponents

Related Topics

WASHINGTON | Thu Jun 24, 2010 1:51pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that gay marriage opponents do not have an automatic legal right to prevent public release of the names and addresses of the signers of a Washington state ballot measure favoring traditional marriage.

The high court's 8-1 ruling was a defeat for a group called Protect Marriage Washington. It had argued that public disclosure could lead to threats, harassment or reprisal.

More than 138,000 individuals signed a petition in 2009 to put a referendum on the state ballot that would have overturned a new state law extending the benefits of marriage to couples registered as domestic partners. The referendum failed.

Some supporters of gay rights had vowed to put the names of those who signed the petition on the Internet.

Lawyers for the group argued that the signers' constitutional right to political free-speech under the First Amendment trumped the state's public records law.

A federal judge initially agreed with the group that disclosure of the names and addresses violated constitutional protections of anonymous political speech.

But a U.S. appeals court ruled the names could be made public and said the signatures had been gathered in public with no promise of confidentiality.

In the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court ruled that disclosure of referendum petitions generally does not violate any free-speech rights.

Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.

The Supreme Court case is Doe v. Reed, 09-559.

(Editing by Mohammad Zargham)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (63)
wrote:
It’s a sad, strange, crazy day when people who love each other have to fight against cowards who would like to prevent them from marrying and think they can hide behind shields of anonymity. It’s a much happier day when those cowards are forced to either mind their own business or put their names out there in public!

Jun 24, 2010 2:18pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Barney1963 wrote:
The referendum had nothing at all to do with sex behaviors. It had to do with protecting children when one of the parents was gay, inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights etc. It had to do with protecting innocent people that the inhumane would punish by association. It had to do with rights in domestic partnerships and it would be a very sick character who would vote to deprive children of protections under the law or prevent people from seeing loved ones in the hospital, etc. This is a happy day.

Jun 24, 2010 2:18pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
johnchild wrote:
It’s a great day in America when bigots who want to deny other people the rights that they enjoy get exposed and shamed in public.

Jun 24, 2010 2:19pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.