Thuggish Liberalism. That is the phrase conservative columnist George Will has coined to describe the left-wing’s new war on opponents. Liberals like to feign support for the right-to-privacy, but as with many espoused liberal ideals the left is only concerned with principle if it suits its agenda. If said principle gets in the way of liberalism activism, then to hell with it and dame all opponents along with it.

That is what is happening. Liberals in Washington state recently fought (and, fortunately, failed) court battles to force the public disclosure of the names of 128,000 people who signed a petition for a referendum that would define marriage as between a man and a woman (i.e. anti-gay marriage). Whatever the merits of the debate on gay marriage, the question here is not whether gay marriage is good or bad but whether people can oppose gay marriage and not have their private signature disclosed. Whether people can oppose a liberal agenda and still retain the right to privacy.

Liberals disagree. Leftist and gay rights activist claim that the scroll of a petition drive falls under the state’s Public Records Act. But this is unfounded. The public record is concerned with campaign contributions to maintain finance campaign laws and to ascertain if any politician is being corrupted by donations. There is no mandate to read the names off a petition drive to ascertain anything. There is no question of monetary laws of fiduciary corruption. There is no public benefit to be gained by disclosing the names on a petition drive.

Unless, of course, one wants to harass petitioners who sign onto a cause they oppose. And that is exactly what liberals are doing here. They want the names of opponents of gay marriage so that they can then rally against them and even get the removed from their jobs.

That is what liberals did in California after the Prop. 8 battle. As stated above, campaign donations are listed as public record. Liberals went through the list and prominent people in Hollywood and California who donated money to the campaign against gay marriage were targeted:

For example, the director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, who contributed $1,500, was forced to resign. So was the manager of a fashionable Los Angeles restaurant who contributed just $100.

And liberals wanted to do the same in Washington, but even on a larger scale since more people sign petitions than make donations. Fortunately, the Supreme Court struck down a previous lower court ruling in favor of disclosure. So the right-to-privacy in opposing leftist causes remains.

Again, this is not a question of whether gay marriage is good or bad, but whether people can disagree and not be the victim of loss-of-privacy, harassment, and job displacement. Such thuggish tactics are uncalled for in a free society. Does the left believe that by employing such Mafia-schemes to beat down opponents it will win the battle for American hearts and minds? Not bloody likely.