OPINION: Gays retaliate for private gift

Openly gay Colorado Congressman-elect Jared Polis, a Boulder liberal, plans to join thousands of activists throughout the country in protesting the opening of the film "Milk" this weekend at Cinemark-Century theaters. The movie is based on the true story of the late Harvey Milk, a San Francisco politician who was among the country's first openly gay public officials.

Polis and other pro-gay activists are upset that Cinemark-Century owner Alan Stock donated $9,999 to support Proposition 8, the new law that forbids gay marriage in California. Polis, his partner and other gay couples have chosen to boycott Cinemark-Century theaters since learning of the donation.

One can certainly understand why gays would avoid doing business with a company whose owner donated to Proposition 8. Why would someone who supports gay marriage want to help enrich a man who uses his personal wealth to oppose gay marriage? Few actions are more patriotic than voting with one's wallet.

Proposition 8 is bad law, and may not withstand judicial scrutiny. Adults who live as married couples are, in fact, married whether the majority likes it or not. Marriage is a contract between two people. The contract involves God and/or a church only if those two people choose to include a third party in the contract.

What's unfortunate in all of this, however, is the fact that Stock can't choose to spend his money on a political cause without having to share that decision with the world. Federal election laws require that campaign contributions exceeding $200 - to committees, candidates and political action committees - be publicly disclosed.

The law should be changed, because it authorizes government to intrude in personal financial decisions and it facilitates intimidation. When Stock gave nearly $10,000 to a cause, he was making a private decision to associate with and support a cause he believed in. Whether it's perceived as a good cause or a bad cause is immaterial to this argument and subjective. He's not a public servant and he wasn't donating to a candidate, whose actions might be manipulated by donations. He's a private citizen who was giving support to a written statement that can't be swayed by cash.

Disclosure of Stock's private decision, pertaining to his private money, serves the interests of gay activists and others who wish to retaliate against supporters of a bad new law. But it doesn't serve the interest of respecting free and private associations. It's important that people be able to support causes privately, within contribution constraints, so they can freely support even the most outrageous of causes without fear of retaliation.

It may seem like a wonderful thing to out supporters of a law designed to discriminate against gays. But what about a gay donor, with a secret sex life, who wants to give personal money to a pro-gay cause? That person should have a right to donate personal money without raising public interest about his personal values. Imagine a church employee who wanted to support opposition to Proposition 8, despite his employer's opposition to gay marriage. Under disclosure laws, that employee couldn't donate without fear of retaliation by his employer and peers.

It's great for citizens to vote with their wallets, and to protest public actions of businesses and citizens. Boycotts represent market forces at work. But the personal donation of private money in support of a ballot issue should not be made public by force of law, as disclosure facilitates mob rule and retaliation against personal choices.