Nine days after voters approved Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriages in California, the raw emotions that fueled and fought this initiative remain as volatile as ever.

Angry opponents of Proposition 8 are targeting businesses and individuals who contributed money to the "yes" campaign. Vandals have hit churches that supported the initiative. Sparked by the speed and reach of the Internet, supporters of gay and lesbian rights are organizing protests from California to Salt Lake City, the home of the Mormon Church.

The charged reaction is understandable. Gays and lesbians view Proposition 8 as part of a long line of state-sanctioned discriminatory acts that feed hate and violence against homosexuals.

They are frustrated that the Proposition 8 campaign misled so many voters into thinking that, if the initiative failed, churches would be forced to marry same-sex couples and schools would have to include gay rights in their curriculum.

And they are astounded that California, a diverse state that has been a leader in extending privileges to domestic partners, would amend its constitution to deny marriage rights to a single group of people.

Yet in venting their anger and in exercising their right to challenge Proposition 8, some opponents risk crossing the line that separates civil protest from harassment. And by crossing that line, they undermine the message that some gay and lesbian leaders are trying to impart: that everyone's rights should be respected.

Consider the case of Scott Eckern, the former artistic director of the California Musical Theatre.

After it was revealed that Eckern donated $1,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign, he was vilified by various Proposition 8 opponents. One prominent blogger said he should be "viciously attacked using words and nothing but words by the men and women of the American theatre." That and other Internet postings prompted thousands of theater professionals to flood the CMT with phone calls in recent days.

As a result of this barrage, Eckern resigned Wednesday. While that may have emboldened some of Proposition 8's more aggressive opponents, it embitters others who respect Eckern's work, even if they disagree with his political views.

Boycotts have a long history in the civil rights movement, but the action taken against Eckern – and threats and harassment directed toward other individuals and businesses – crosses the line to the realm of blacklisting. While Martin Luther King Jr. used boycotts effectively and firmly, he never advocated that his opponents be "viciously attacked" with words or anything else.

King's consistency in preaching the message of tolerance went beyond his personal convictions. He realized that, in winning the American people to his cause, he could not afford to alienate potential supporters with inflammatory rhetoric or actions.

In a statement issued after the election, leaders of the No on Proposition 8 campaign urged its coalition to take the long view. "We achieve nothing if we isolate the people who did not stand with us in this fight," the statement said.

Unfortunately, a lone statement on a Web site is not adequate. That message needs to be spread widely and loudly by all leaders in the gay and lesbian community, and all opponents of Proposition 8. It's part of the task of building enough support to ensure that Californians support equal rights for same-sex couples the next time the question is on the ballot.