To review: The shame-and-shun backlash against people who contributed money in support of California’s bigoted Proposition 8 was made possible by a state law mandating that such contributions cannot be made anonymously and must be readily available as a mater of public record.
Libertarians, even gay libertarians, can and should look askance at such a law. There is a presumptive First Amendment right to speak anonymously, and making a campaign contribution is “expressive conduct” (i.e., speech) under Supreme Court precedent (even if it does not enjoy full First Amendment protection — see here).
But you go into a campaign with the law you have, not the law you wish you had. Opponents of Prop 8 played by the rules, lost, and proceeded to the next steps, best summarized as “No More Mister Nice Gay.”
So imagine our surprise to learn who is now asking “activist judges” to thwart “the will of the people” —
Supporters of the ballot measure that banned gay marriage in California have filed a lawsuit seeking to block their campaign finance records from public view, saying the reports have led to the harassment of donors.
“No one should have to worry about getting a death threat because of the way he or she votes,” said James Bopp Jr., an attorney representing two groups that supported Proposition 8, Protect Marriage.com and the National Organization for Marriage California. “This lawsuit will protect the right of all people to help support causes they agree with, without having to worry about harassment or threats.”
…
The suit said courts have held that laws requiring disclosure of campaign contributions can be overturned or restricted if a group can make “an uncontroverted showing” that identifying its members can result in economic reprisals or threats of physical coercion.California’s Political Reform Act, which voters approved in 1974, established disclosure requirements for candidates and campaign committees.
That 1974 voter initiative was actually revised and expanded by another voter initiative, Proposition 34, which passed in 2000.
I repeat: It is now the opponents of equal treatment for a law-abiding, tax-paying, politically disadvantaged insular minority who want (”activist”) judges to overturn a duly enacted voter initiative (i.e., “the will of the people”).
Finally, as a scrumptious dessert, note two facts: First, Proposition 34 was passed by a wider majority (60%) than Proposition 8 (52%).
Second, the reason that the bigots want the disclosure law struck down is not because of the shame-and-shun backlash toward Prop 8. That train wreck has left the station. They are instead looking to the future:
“Several donors have indicated that they will not contribute to committee plaintiffs or similar organizations in the future because of the threats and harassment directed at them as a result of their contributions … and the public disclosure of that fact,” the lawsuit said.
It is hardly a secret that gay rights activists are already preparing to introduce a repeal of Prop 8 for the 2010 ballot (and, if necessary, 2012 and 2014 and …). Faced with the prospect of yet more shaming and shunning (a time-honored Christian tradition, incidentally), professional bigots are now worried, as they should be, about their minions becoming reluctant to be reminded, through every election cycle, that they are soulless cretins. Because that’s exactly what will happen.
No More Mister Nice Gay.
More thoughts at Outright Libertarians.
Previously:
–On Boycotts and “No More Mister Nice Gay”
–Linkfest: Gay Rights Updates (Fourth Item)
