When Proposition 8 (gay marriage ban) passed in California - supporters of the right for gays to marry - sprang into action.
Activists staged raucous highly-vocal protests in the streets which came close to turning into full-scale riots.
Meanwhile, in the trenches, foot soldiers tried to ferret out the names of individuals and businesses who donated funds in support of the anti-gay marriage initiative, so that their homes and businesses could be picketed.
Indeed, a cat & mouse game has persisted.
Supporters of Prop 8 filed a lawsuit in California Courts asking bench warmers to issue a directive that the names of contributors be kept private, for instance.
Legal counsel challenged the constitutionality of the State's Political Reform Act and urged the court to take action on the grounds that donors were being harassed and that some had received death threats.
In essence, Prop 8 supporters were seeking extraordinary relief (and a protective order) from the Courts.
The act, passed in 1974, requires campaigns to reveal personal information on people who give more than $100 to campaigns. The law is intended to prevent money laundering and other illegal campaign activities.
The long and short of it?
Prop 8 supporters were not only asking for "special treatment" - but making a pitch to the court to be exempted from the law - as well.
A Judge did not find their arguments meritorious, however, so he dismissed the case.
Not to be out-maneuvered, anti-prop 8 supporters proceeded to lodge a lawsuit specifically drafted to effect a repeal of Proposition 8, if granted by the Justices in the High Court.
Oral arguments are set for March 5th.
The lawsuit argues that Prop 8 severely alters the California Constitution's quarantine of Equal Protection to minorities because the rights of a minority - in this case the fundamental right to marry - cannot be eliminated by a simple majority vote in an election process.
The court is expected to hand down a decision ninety-days after the hearing in March.
Meanwhile, bodies continue to be strewn about the Prop 8 battlefield.
This past weekend, for instance, former President Bill Clinton was forced to face the wrath of anti-prop 8 supporters when he appeared at the Manchester Hotel in San Diego on Sunday to give a speech.
The owner of the Hotel donated $125,000.00 to the Prop 8 cause.
Rather than cancel his speaking engagement (and run the risk of losing a $100,000.00 fee), Clinton opted to go ahead with his well-orchestrated plans in California.
After-the-fact, Fred Karger at "Californian's Against Hate", was in touch with Clinton's "people" - who swore up and down that before the engagement took place - Clinton made a good-faith effort to switch the venue to another when it came to his attention that the Hotelier supported a cause he has gone on record as being opposed to.
In fact, this past week - after the sting of the highly-publicized protests in the media damaged his name and reputation around the country - the slick politician went so far as to urge that Proposition 8 be repealed!
To me, it was a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking, and I'm not buying it.
If the State Bar Association was unable to switch locales - Bill, if he had an ounce of ethics - should have bowed out of the commitment whatever the consequences.
Meanwhile, the hotly-debated issue rages on.
I'm betting that the High Court will overturn Prop 8.
What then?
Mormons and their supporters will try to oust the Judges (who repealed Proposition 8) come next election.
Then, they'll take a shot at it again.
Yeah, Mr. Smith would be proud.
Those Utah zealots are some Christians, eh?
