A supporter of Proposition 8, fed up with what he believed was the gay
community's and "liberal media's" refusal to accept the voters'
verdict, fired off a letter to the editor.
"Please show respect for democracy," he wrote, in a letter we published.
What he encountered instead was an utter lack of respect for free speech.
Within hours, the intimidation game was on. Because his real name
and city were listed - a condition for publication of letters to The
Chronicle - opponents of Prop. 8 used Internet search engines to find
the letter writer's small business, his Web site (which included the
names of his children and dog), his phone number and his clients. And
they posted that information in the "Comments" section of SFGate.com -
urging, in ugly language, retribution against the author's business and
its identified clients.
"They're intimidating people that don't have the same beliefs as
they do ... so they'll be silenced," he told me last week. "It doesn't
bode well for the free-speech process. People are going to have to be
pretty damn courageous to speak up about anything. Why would anyone
want to go through this?"
Let the record show that I absolutely disagree with the letter
writer on the substance of Prop. 8. I believe that same-sex couples
should have the full rights and responsibilities of marriage. In my
view, the discrimination inherent in Prop. 8 is morally and legally
indefensible in a society where the concept of equal protection is
supposed to safeguard the rights of the minority.
But let me also say that I am disturbed by the vicious, highly
personalized attacks against the letter writer and others. Protesters
have shouted insults at people headed to worship; temples and churches
have been defaced. "Blacklists" of donors who contributed to Yes on 8
are circulating on the Internet, and even small-time donors are being
confronted. A Palo Alto dentist lost two patients as a result of his
$1,000 donation. The artistic director of the California Musical
Theatre resigned to spare the organization from a fast-developing
boycott. Scott Eckern, the artistic director of the Sacramento theater
group and a Mormon, had given $1,000 to Yes on 8.This out-of-scale attempt to isolate and intimidate decidedly small
players in the Yes on 8 campaign is no way to win the issue in a court
of law or the court of public opinion.Equally disappointing is the lack of a forceful denunciation from
leaders of the honorable cause of bringing marriage equality to
California. "We achieve nothing if we isolate the people who did not
stand with us in this fight," the No on 8 campaign reminded its
coalition in a statement issued after the election.Guess what? Certain advocates of the cause are alienating
people - and this approach needs to be called out. Remember, the No on
8 campaign was shouting "blackmail!" at the top of its lungs when the
Yes side sent certified letters to major donors threatening to "out"
them in a press release unless they also contributed to the marriage
ban. Of course, that "threat" had a tinge of absurdity. Corporations
such as PG&E, McDonald's and Levi Strauss were not afraid of being
"outed" for their association with the marriage-equality cause. They
were well aware that their major donations amounted to a public
statement that might cause them to lose - and gain - customer goodwill.Opponents of same-sex marriage should not be let off the hook for
their post-election tactics. There is already talk of a recall campaign
against California Supreme Court justices if they overturn Prop. 8,
reminiscent of the unsuccessful attempt to oust Chief Justice Ronald
George and Justice Ming Chin after they voted to overturn a law that
required parental consent for minors to receive an abortion. The
judiciary must not be intimidated in this nation of laws. CONTINUE READING...
Comments Policy