A Decent Proposal

According to the LATimes, the Hollywood Left (but I repeat myself) is not taking the passage of California's Proposition 8 well at all.

Should there be boycotts, blacklists, firings or de facto shunning of those who supported Proposition 8?

That's the issue consuming many in liberal Hollywood who fought to defeat the initiative banning same-sex marriage and are now reeling with recrimination and dismay. Meanwhile, activists continue to comb donor lists and employ the Internet to expose those who donated money to support the ban.

The LAT goes on to detail the targeting of several individuals and organizations that either personally donated or have members who contributed to the Prop 8 effort.

Already out is Scott Eckern, director of the nonprofit California Musical Theatre in Sacramento, who resigned after a flurry of complaints from prominent theater artists, including "Hairspray" composer Marc Shaiman, when word of his contribution to the Yes on 8 campaign surfaced.

Other targets include Film Independent, the nonprofit arts organization that puts on both the Los Angeles Film Festival and the Spirit Awards; the Cinemark theater chain; and the Sundance Film Festival.

In a perfect world, this would put to rest the manifestly false idea of a tolerant and inclusive Hollywood Left that countenances dissenting opinions. (Apparently, dissent is only good when directed against President Bush and the GOP.)

Moreover, if anyone is curious about the distinctions between the Civil Rights Movement and the gay rights movement (besides the obvious fact that civil rights protesters were working to make de facto rights that were already secured de jure), these events should clear things up a bit. Indeed, Prop 8 hardly revolved around gay marriage at all, as gays and lesbians have been marrying (see V. Gene Robinson, Michael Huffington, Jim McGreevey...) as long as the institution of marriage has existed.

Nor was it about unequal protection (or in this case, inconvenience) under the law, as two straight males are no more able to marry each other than two gay males. Nor did it concern the ability of same-sex partners to adopt children, transfer property between themselves upon death or establish power of attorney for each other; provisions for these activities can easily be made under current statutes.

Simply put, the gay "rights" movement is not concerned at all about rights, but privileges: namely, the privilege of creating heretofore nonexistent rights for themselves by way of redefining an elemental social and legal covenant. If that were not bad enough, the proponents of such an extra-legal undertaking are quite willing to shove aside legal and societal precedent, the expressed will of the public and the rule of law itself to achieve their dubious aims.

The day that gay marriage is made law in California or elsewhere will be a dark one indeed, as it will represent an affront to any notion of justice under the law. To be sure, persons such as these have not at all demonstrated the propensity for self-government necessary for the exercise of constitutionally guaranteed entitlements, and their real transgressions against society should scarcely be rewarded with imaginary rights.