I agree with Antonin Scalia? Amazing

Last year the Washington state legislature passed an everything-but-the-name marriage equality bill. The Fundies threw a hissy fit and gathered enough signatures to require citizens vote on the referendum. They were looking to do in Washington what California had done the year before. Washington voters told the Fundies they like that law and approved keeping it.

Along the way, the Fundies said that in spite of Washington law we're not telling you who signed our petitions. Those mean gay people will intimidate us. We would be subjected to "uncomfortable conversations." It just wouldn't be safe. (Pardon me while I shut off the irony alarm.) Besides, signing petitions is like voting, to be done in secret. It's all about free speech.

Lovers of democracy note that free speech doesn't mean anonymous speech and doesn't shield a person from the consequences of their views. Uncomfortable conversations are a good idea. Openness in democratic processes prevents corruption.

So even though the vote went against the Fundies, this disclosure case remains and yesterday was heard before the Supremes.

During the hearings it didn't take long for Scalia to interrupt the defendant, saying such things as democracy is not for the faint-hearted, it requires civic courage, and the First Amendment does not protect against civil discourse -- or nasty phone calls. This implies it will be difficult to get 5 votes for the Fundie point of view.

Alas, there is still Roberts and Alito. The vote probably won't be 9-0 in favor of full disclosure. Alito asked the attorney on the gay side whether he'd be willing to give out the home addresses of the firm's lawyers so people could show up for some of those uncomfortable conversations. The attorney replied the addresses are already public. Roberts suggested that petition names be kept private if the signers faced a real threat. And who gets to decide what a "real threat" is? Where to draw the line between an uncomfortable phone call and being bashed as many gays have been?

Since I've written a lot about some of the anti-democracy moves by the GOP I've wondered what the Supremes would make of this case. If they didn't like democracy allowing petition gathering to remain secret would be a step in that direction.

This was the last case in which Stevens heard oral arguments. The case will be decided sometime in June as the court season ends.