Let’s first clarify that not all of the people who voted against Proposition 8 are radicals.  Many, many people on both sides of the Prop 8 debate were reasonable people, most without strong opinions on the issue and who on election day got off of the fence onto one side or the other.  Unfortunately, there was also a large community of radicals– individuals who opposed Prop 8 so much that they lost sight of the rule of law and the basic structure of democracy.  It is these people to whom this commentary refers.

ProtectMarriage.com released an announcement last week that they were challenging the constitutionality of California’s Campaign Finance laws.  Here is a piece of the announcement from their website:

Acting on behalf of hundreds of supporters of Proposition 8 who have experienced various acts of harassment including death threats at the hands of opponents, the ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8 committee today filed a challenge in US federal court to the constitutionality of California’s campaign finance laws that compel disclosure of personal information of Prop 8 donors.

My initial knee-jerk reaction to such a notice is to oppose such action because finance disclosure laws are essential to ensuring transparency in the democratic process; by not disclosing who is paying for these ballot initiatives the people of the state might be misled by a group that is pursuing their own personal agenda and doesn’t have the people’s best interests in mind (whatever they determine the people’s best interests to be).  Such was the case with T Boone Pickens’s Proposition 10 last November.  With proper disclosure of the tens of millions of dollars spent by Pickens on the Yes on Prop 10 campaign voters rightly rejected the plan.

But after reading the entire brief and personally witnessing some of the carnage in the wake of the passage of Proposition 8, I am starting to side with the people at ProtectMarriage.com.  There are many appropriate ways to display civil disobedience in response to an action by the government.  Some of these include rallies, protests and boycotts.  Furthermore advocacy for your cause in the form of phone calls, precinct walking and other “Get out the vote” measures that volunteers do during elections are also healthy ways to help shape policy.  All of these, while I may not personally participate in are understandable ways to use political power to convince others to support your cause.  The place I break with the No on 8 people is when is becomes violent or threatening.

Another excerpt from the ProtectMarriage announcement:

The suit notes that groups such as Californians Against Hate (www.californiansagainsthate.com) exist for the primary purpose of identifying and taking action against supporters of Proposition 8. The suit cited numerous examples of threatening and harassing emails, phone calls and postcards suffered by supporters of Proposition 8, including:

• “Burn in hell.”
• “Consider yourself lucky. If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter.”
• “I just wanted to call and let you know what a great picture that was of you and the other Nazi’s [sic] in the newspaper….Don’t worry though, we have plans for you and your friends.”

The lawsuit also detailed acts of vandalism, property destruction, distribution of harassing flyers, and threats to ruin businesses employing donors to the Prop 8 campaign.

People have a legal right to their opinion and should be able to have that opinion free from threat of physical harm or death to themselves or their family.  The radical branch of the No on 8 coalition chose to cross a line when they encouraged this kind of behavior.  The end result of their actions may very well lead to an end to reasonable finance disclosure laws– and possibly a 2010 challenge to Prop 8 where supporters of the ban will be able to make anonymous donations to their campaign.  Their actions might have hurt their cause more than they have helped.

There is only one reasonable moral argument that I can conceive that someone might use to justify such actions– That discrimination of homosexuals in the United States has existed since the inception of the country.  That gays have been living in fear of bodily harm or death since the day they were born, it is only fair that people who choose to further subject gays to discrimination should feel what gays have to go through every day.

One should never wish the pains of discrimination upon others.  The world is not fair.  Perhaps some have been born lucky enough to fit into all of the gender, race, sex, class and personality norms presented by society and avoid such persecution, but that doesn’t make them bad people.  Part of the movement proposed by the civil rights activist community is one of universal acceptance.  That includes acceptance of those whom you disagree with, including Prop 8 supporters.