2005 Marriage Equality Rhode Island Rally
A bit of good news in the marriage equality fight in Minnesota; the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board has decided that NOM (the National Organization for Marriage) can not keep the name of donors who give more than $1,000 secret. NOM was arguing that it by having to disclose their big money donors it would have a chilling effect and exposes these donors to harassment and possible property damage.
Now let’s be crystal clear on this, I am never, every going to support any kind of property damage for peoples political views. As fun as the idea of TP’ing and egging Rush Limbaugh’s house sounds, it is still not acceptable. However, being called out for your bigoted position on marriage equality, well that is fair game and anyone that supports an inherently un-American position of state sanctioned discrimination should be on the hook for it publicly.
This is an important win as the law up to now has been willing to shield donors, while at the same time equating speech with money. I disagree that money and speech should be equal, but if they must be, then there must be a clear line of sight to who is speaking. To be able to hid behind a 501(c)3 group is clearly not what the framers of the constitution meant.
At the time that the Constitution was ratified it was nearly impossible to publish something without it being widely known who was the writer and publisher. And obviously when people physically spoke, well there was no doubt as to who was making political statements.
The whole fight with NOM and the various forces of intolerance has been funded by groups that want to talk one way in public and another in private. That they have to face the disapproval of the members of their community because of their views is only fair.
After all would we be fine with White Supremacist groups buying add time advocating against interracial marriage? Especially if they were getting the massive amounts of anonymous funding the bigoted groups like NOM are getting to oppose marriage equality? I don’t think that the argument that it is chilling to their political point of view is going to carry any water, do you?