Proposition 8: When Karma Attacks

Gay marriage.

These two simple words can polarize a group of people right at its utterance. This touchy subject has become even more of a hot-button issue after last year's ballot initiative. After Proposition 8's conclusion and decision, many same-sex supporters still have a sour taste in their mouths. But who could blame them? The right to marry that was once available and in the blink of an eye was snatched away.

Now after the screaming, the crying and what seems to be endless amounts of appeals, those who supported the ban are now being ordered to reveal themselves and the true nature of the "Yes on 8" campaign.

According to an article from the San Francisco Chronicle, a federal judge has ordered those who sponsored the "Yes on 8" campaign to hand over campaign strategy documents in order to see if the campaign itself was "motivated by prejudice against gays".

Well, duh.

And of course, the "Yes on 8"-ers are waving their hands in the air demanding we've got it all wrong. It's not that their campaign was solely based on bigotry and bias. Oh no. They just want to keep the sanctity of marriage. As a result, they are insisting these documents be kept confidential because it "allows the losing side of a campaign to pry into the most intimate strategy discussions."

Is there such thing as a sore winner?

And by admitting fault, the gays win. And we just can't have that, can we?

Not only have the "Yes on 8" campaigners been shady about their dealings and campaign plans, but also about the people themselves who've supported them financially last year. In January, a federal judge ordered the "Yes on 8" campaign to release the identities of those who had submitted donations. Even though these records usually become public after the actual voting decision is finalized.

The "Yes on 8" campaign raked in over $30 million toward their campaign and refused to disclose the over 1,500 names of supporters. According to an article by MSNBC, the secrecy was necessary because it would "put the donors at risk of personal harassment or boycotts to their businesses". The judge later denied their appeal and the records are now open for public view.

How does that saying go again? If you lay down with the dogs, you get up with the fleas.

It's nice to see that many are becoming weary of their constant doublespeak. You cannot base your whole campaign on prejudice and expect to come out unscathed. It's apparently not about the children or about marriage anymore, it's about saving as much face as you can.

If someone can be openly gay and proud of it, then a Proposition 8 supporter should have to do the same and not hide behind a piece of paper or a lawyer. It takes courage to be yourself and be apart from the status quo, and it looks like those who support the ban are still coming to terms with that.

How does that saying go again? If you're going to dish it out, you better be able to take it.

It's their turn to have the sour taste in their mouth.

Oh, and if you're feeling a little vindictive, you can view the list of donors here.