Proposition 8 Fallout

Imagine having your address made public on the Internet. Imagine your employer receiving threatening phone calls for not firing you. Imagine your business being boycotted and picketed until you resigned. Imagine patients leaving your practice that you have built up from the ground. Imagine having to resign from managing a popular restaurant after 26 years of loyalty because of demonstrations.

These are just a few of the stories of people like Scott Eckern, Richard Raddon, Alan Stock, and Marjorie Christoffersen, who saw their lives fall apart recently. What was their crime? Exercising their constitutional right, perhaps obligation, to free political speech and electoral participation, by donating to California’s Proposition 8 campaign, which successfully amended the state’s constitution so as to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. This campaign was in response to the California State Supreme Court’s decision creating the right for homosexuals to marry.

While men and women of good character may disagree about whether or not homosexuals should have the right to marry, all Americans should recognize the right for all citizens to participate in the democratic process and express their opinions, whatever those opinions might be, free of threats or intimidation. Voltaire, the consummate liberal (in the classical sense) once famously said, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” Unfortunately, today’s “progressives” do not respect Americans’ right to express their beliefs in political speech and campaign contributions.

Many people, likely plenty of students here at Brown, believe that men and women like Scott Eckern, Richard Raddon, Alan Stock, and Marjorie Christoffersen, deserved to have their home addresses and employers made public on websites like www.eightmaps.com. It is important to consider the precedent that these actions create and the significant threat that these actions pose to the freedom of speech and the right to privacy in the future.

It is a tragic reality that after the contentious Supreme Court nomination battle of Judge Robert H. Bork, a battle that centered around his academic writings and speeches, law professors and lawyers called law review journals across the country to pull their articles before they were published and put into the public domain, fearful of being “borked” in future political considerations. What will happen now to the average voter who is thinking about donating to a political candidate or campaign? I suspect something similar. Think about some of the possibilities.

Consider if Rhode Island voted on a ballot initiative to legalize homosexual marriage. What would happen if the Roman-Catholic Diocese of Providence kept track of those who donated to the campaign to legalize gay marriage, made a list of those Catholics who supported gay marriage, and decided to deny them communion at Mass; or if they fired teachers, administrators, or faculty at LaSalle Academy or Bishop Hendricken, for their support of gay men and women to marry? What would happen if Catholic Charities decided to divest from community programs that were managed by supporters of gay marriage?

The right to privacy has been extended to protect such things as contraceptives, abortion, and HIV/AIDS status. Perhaps it is time that we add political participation to that list. While McCain/Feingold and similar campaign-finance legislation were well intentioned – to exorcise the evil of big money in elections – it is time to recognize that denying any citizen the right to participate or not participate in the political process in privacy is misguided. America cannot be said to have a truly free and democratic political system unless all citizens are free to express their opinions through advocacy and contributions without fearing threats or intimidation for their actions.

While, for better or worse, Proposition 8 will likely be overturned by California voters in the ballot box in the near future, the problems of the Gestapo tactics used by Proposition 8 opponents against private citizens is likely to remain. If the right to privacy has any meaning in a democratic form of government, it must certainly be extended to protect the right of citizens to vote for and contribute to the candidates and causes of their choice in private, without fear of intimidation or revenge.