Advertisements supporting Proposition 8 will hit the airwaves soon.

Presumably, they will not make their point by denigrating same-sex marriage. They won’t, for instance, feature an altar before which leather-clad men (or women) holding whips pledge their love while a voiceover warns dire consequences for society. Instead, they will likely depict Dick and Jane living happily ever after in wedded bliss, propagating merrily and populating God’s kingdom with (heterosexual only) children.

In other words, the ads will be tasteful. But the intent will be hateful nonetheless. Because, regardless of the approach they take, the message will be: “There’s something inherently wrong with marriage between two people of the same gender.”

Imagine it’s the ’60s, and the Montgomery Bus Lines runs an ad showing a busload of white folks riding in the front. “Let’s keep ‘traditional’ bus rides!” the grinning driver says, while a black passenger clambers aboard and shuffles meekly to the back seat. Advertisements advocating Proposition 8 are no different; they’re simply endorsing perpetuating inequity because it’s “traditional.”

Fortunately, most people know this. As polls now indicate, Proposition 8 is likely to be defeated, because the California Supreme Court has given Californians a taste of life with same-sex marriage. So supporters of the measure will lose. But, in the meantime, in legal terms, they’re risking a lot.

Hotelier and Proposition 8 supporter Doug Manchester, for example, risks a lawsuit by investors in his hotel properties.

Two weeks ago, The Wall Street Journal reported the successful boycott of Manchester’s Grand Hyatt in San Diego after gay-rights activists convinced the American Association of Law Schools (AALS) to pull its meeting from the hotel. Manchester tried to downplay the cancellation, noting that support from Proposition 8 advocates could compensate for it. But it will no doubt hurt when the AALS cancels future events at the hotel, which will deplete not just Manchester’s profits but also those who have invested in the hotel, its franchisor and its parent corporation.

Manchester is no ogre. He has a reputation in San Diego for his philanthropic donations, most notably the $5 million he donated to San Diego State University, despite the fact that its president, Stephen Weber, is a major advocate for gay rights. Manchester has also donated tens of millions to the University of San Diego, which has done so much to embrace GLBT students that conservative Catholics often protest in front of its gates, holding signs proclaiming it “A Gay University.” And Manchester, of course, has First Amendment rights to express his views. But in business they take a backseat to his fiduciary duty to investors.

Anyway, this is hardly the time for Manchester to express personal views that could further depress revenues in an industry that, nationwide, is already suffering significant losses.

So a suit for breach of fiduciary duty could be in the offing.

Other Proposition 8 supporters stand to lose too. Aside from boycotts and lawsuits, one of the ways they will lose is if Congress decides to examine the tax-exempt status of non-profit charitable organizations that use donation monies from tax payers to support political campaigns such as Proposition 8.

The Knights of Columbus, for example, a prominent Catholic charity, may face the loss of its tax-exempt status because it donated more than $1 million to the “Yes on 8” campaign.

Lawyers for the group will argue that the donation is currently lawful. That may be true. But Congress has the power to grant favored tax treatment or to take it away. Indeed, it should; it’s simply not reasonable for charity groups to solicit money to support children in need and then use those funds for political purposes.