Gays and lesbians — at least some of them — plan to refrain from working and shopping today as an expression of their dismay over Proposition 8, the Nov. 4 measure that banned same-sex marriage, and as a showing of both their economic clout and their place within the larger community. If organizers carry it off, this is exactly the kind of tactic that can make a difference, though its impact might have been bigger before election day.

For all the complaints (mainly coming from the Yes-on-8 campaign), boycotts against corporations or organizations are a time-honored method of expressing opinions and pushing for social or political change. But in the superheated Proposition 8 debate, this venerable tactic has occasionally been used in ugly ways. 

It started when the directors of the Yes-on-8 campaign sent letters to various companies that had donated to the opposition camp. The missives warned donors to pay an equal amount to the “Yes” side or risk being publicly outed as opponents of “traditional marriage” (the implication being that they would then face a boycott). The tactic looked and quacked a lot like extortion. It’s one thing to boycott, or threaten it; a demand for hush money goes over the line.

Since then, postelection boycott efforts by the other side — defenders of same-sex marriage — have expanded into a vengeful campaign against individuals who donated to the gay-marriage ban, usually in the form of pressure on their employers. At least two people have resigned from their jobs and a third is considering it, including the artistic director of a stage company in Sacramento and a manager at an L.A. eatery. 

 See Gay band to march in Presidential inauguration parade
PinkNews.co.uk, UK