This is it, everyone. The Supreme Court—the one in Washington, D.C.—has announced it will make the final decision on whether bigots have special rights to anonymously sign petitions that take rights from gay folks.

The Supreme Court announced today that it will decide whether the names and addresses of people who signed the petition for Referendum 71, thereby putting the rights of thousands of same-sex couples up for a public vote, should be released to the public. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the signatures should released; however, the anti-gay-rights activists behind R-71 appealed to the Supreme Court, which will have the final word. From the Supreme Court Blog:

The Court’s vote to hear the case of Doe No. 1, et al., v. Reed, et al. (09-559) marked the second time this week that the Court opted to act on controversies involving opponents of gay rights claiming that publicity about their political activity has led to threats and even some violence against them. On Wednesday, the Court shut down a plan to televise the federal court trial challenging California’s ban on same-sex marriage, displaying concern for the potential effect on supporters of that ban when they appear as witnesses at the trial.

The new case involves public disclosure of the identities of individuals in Washington State who signed petitions to put on the state election ballot a referendum to overturn a new state law extending the benefits of marriage (but not marriage itself) to couples registered as “domestic partners.” (That referendum failed, and the law remains in effect; voters approved the measure by a 53-47 percent margin last November.)

Also, Linda Greenhouse at the NYT writes a spectacular sentence: "Has anyone noticed that now that lesbians and gay men have left the closet to assert their equal rights as citizens, their adversaries seem to be running for a closet of their own?" On the case that the Supreme Court has announced it will accept, she writes:

A question now is whether the opponents of same-sex marriage can plausibly claim, as their court papers have sought to do, that they face threats to their lives and property comparable to those faced by civil rights workers in the Deep South in the 1950’s and 1960’s. A challenge to compelled disclosure of financial information under the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law is part of the current Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which was argued in September and on which the justices appear to be permanently stuck.