The response, by group WhoSigned.org , is to propose
In comments to the Times Article, the overwhelming (and vastly ignorant) reponse is to characterize this as some kind of horrifying new sort of invitation to intimidation and harassment.
And then Michelle Malkin chimed in, suggesting in essence that in the face of either defeat or opposition, the LGBT community should just bend over and take it, using pumice for lube. "What, what? They have the temerity to express dismay through protest, economic means, and public derision towards their opponents?"
Which saddens me, as Michelle seems a talented writer and analyst the vast majority of the time on almost any other isue - just on the "how dare they not bow their heads and simply give up?" thing, with vast regularity, she routinely seems (t0 me) struck temporarily mad. Fortunately, once jarred off that topic, she seems to return to the land of the rational.
Given that the signatures have always, on every single Initiative and Referendum have always been public to begin with (public documents the second they are submitted to the Secretary of State), it's kind of hard to characterize this as particularly innovative. Only ease of acces changes. My response was as below....
The petition signatures are publicly accessible and for good reason - if you aren't prepared to publicly stand behind your signature on a petition, then you really shouldn't be signing it!
The fact those signatures are public and may deter fence-sitters from signing is one of our few defenses from the "herd mentality" and/or pretty-sounding random idiocy.
If you can't take the heat, don't sign. Grow a set. And if folks cross the line into criminal conduct, then - call your friendly local sheriff or police department, or in case of immediate threat to your life or physical integrity, take what action may be necessary to avert such threat.