Funny, I always thought that the tyranny of the majority is, y'know, democracy.

Hi Robert,

That is a straw man argument. Sometimes the majority is wrong.

Jack:

Which is exactly the tactic used by the Communists in Russia. They called themselves the Bolsheviks, meaning "the majority", when in fact, they were the minority. It's the classic tactic used by totalitarian ideologies, including National Socialism, AKA Nazism, to seize power. Even though the majority is in the majority, they are wrong, hence we will declare the numerical majority the philosophical minority because we are superior, hence we know better.

Of course, what flows from this line of thought is the rock-solid justification for all dictatorships and the overthrows of any and all democracies.

Robert,

The "tyranny of the majority" is not at all a new concept. As James Madison wrote in Federalist #10:

"It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."

The tyranny of the majority is tyranny just as the tyranny of a harsh dictator is tyranny. The oppressed parties are deprived of their rights equally whether the bigoted majority forbids their loving happiness or a bigoted dictator (like, say, your favorite target of hatred Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) forbids homosexuality.

The basic point is that the majority is not simply allowed to do whatever it wants to the minority. 50%+1 in congress and the president's signature cannot repeal the first amendment which grants you, me, and every Quaker, Catholic, Muslim, and Buddhist in this country the right to practice her religion as she sees fit. Even if 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states decided to establish Pentecostalism as the national religion and in fact repealed the first amendment, it would still constitute the tyranny of the majority. Nazi Germany (one of your favorite paradigms), for example, is quite a wonderful illustration of the tyranny of the majority.

But what I really can't understand is how you find it so easy to discriminate against homosexuals and deny them the same happiness that you and Karen enjoy. I'm not sure differentiate between anti-Prop 8 activists and the ADL. Take, for instance, this paragraph, copied almost at random from their website:

"The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) urged Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC) to publicly disavow his statements in a newspaper column suggesting that the war in Iraq was motivated by "President Bush's policy to secure Israel" and advanced by a handful of Jewish officials and opinion leaders."

Would you so loudly and vehemently condemn Jewish activists seeking to "name, out, hound, and harass" anti-Semites? Why is it that, somehow, homophobia is acceptable while judeophobia is verboten?

Perhaps the strangest part of Prop 8, to me, is the turning of the California state constitution into a smartut (סמרטוט), a rag. Constitutions are not there to be changed because a bigoted majority wants to restrict the rights of a minority. In fact, if one studies the history of the U.S. constitution, one finds that amendments only ever increase liberties and rights, never decrease them. The one exception that proves the rule, the 18th amendment, failed precisely for this reason: constitutions lay out the fundamental framework for our government and expand citizens' rights; they are not a way to resolve social issues. This is exactly the lesson of the 21st amendment.

And just to respond to your response to Jack, again, there is a reason we have an inviolable bill of rights. No matter how wrong the majority thinks some of those rights are (gun control activists and the 2nd, wiretapping supporters and the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 9th, and 14th), those rights are nevertheless and, in fact, because of that opposition enshrined in our constitution.

Danny:

You see, once you accuse me and others, including BTW, President-elect Obama, of being bigoted and homophobic, there is nothing left to discuss.

Robert,

You are absolutely right. I did not mean to indiscriminately accuse you or anyone else (President-elect Obama included) of being bigoted or homophobic. I should not have used such incendiary language and such language certainly does not reflect my view of you, or anyone else who takes a contrary position to my own. I apologize.

My main point was that I don't understand why it is okay to discriminate in practice (regardless of motivation) against homosexuals and not okay to discriminate against Jews. I don't mean this to be a rhetorical question; I really am interested in your views.

Danny,

" ... The tyranny of the majority is tyranny just as the tyranny of a harsh dictator is tyranny. The oppressed parties are deprived of their rights equally whether the bigoted majority forbids their loving happiness or a bigoted dictator (like, say, your favorite target of hatred Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) forbids homosexuality. ... "

if the state recognizes the economic rights of a same-gender couple, and provides the same financial benefits,
why does it have to call it 'marriage' ?

isn't it reasonable to retain a specialized term o
for the union of two persons capable of reproduction, with legal rights and responsibilities of each of them for those born of their union?

this term, has always been called 'marriage',
and was enacted to protect the rights of women and place responsibilities on the men who enter into a long term relationship with them

i'm all for supporting the rights of same-gender couples, in situations where there is abuse, and/or financial damage caused by one party to the other, and recognize the emotional attachments and pain that one partner can put another through, and support legal redress to such situations,
as well as tax-rights, medical plans, pensions, etc.

but, surely there is no need to protect one of the men from getting pregnant by the other one

i've seen family units of two women together, raising a child,
and while they can both take on the title of 'mother'
the term of 'birth-mother' is unique, and carries with it many medical connotations that are of life-long importance to the child

surely, no one would suggest legislation that both women, or adoptive parents, be legally termed the 'biological' parents

adoptive parents can be quite loving and provide a wonderful home without being called 'biological'

so also, family units of alternative lifestyles, if they want to be taken seriously, should
be able to function without being called 'married'
if their other 'rights' are being protected

Danny:

I appreciate your apology.

Here's my thinking.

I am for traditional one man, one woman marriage.

I am also for same sex unions, where same sex couples get all the legal protections that the law provides.

I do not believe for one moment that this is a civil right issue and to frame it as such is to cast good people like me and millions of others in such an evil light that all you can expect from us is intellectual scorn and a withdrawal from dialog.

Which is Elton John's position. And the position of several friends who are gay.

I am against the slippery slope of gay marriage for two reasons:

1. I am an Orthodox Jew.

2. If gay marriage, why not polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage? Because the main argument for gay marriage is that love and happiness is the main arbiter of what should be socially acceptable. Let's be honest, polygamous marriage has and still has a long history in the world.

And why we're at it, why not two men and one woman getting married. Three women? Three men? Three men and three women?

Gosh, I'm writing an adult movie! I have a whole new career.

The possibilities are endless, and I can pretty much guarantee that any and all permutations of marriage will be demanded in the evolving future because new victim groups will not stand the discrimination.

If gay marriage, why not polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage?

Robert,

You are correct that we can always find justification for many different forms of marriage. But we can also find many reasons why they shouldn't be allowed that are based upon more solid ground than Prop. 8.

It is understood that incestuous unions are problematic for many reasons, not the least of which are the problems for the offspring.

I haven't any compunction in saying that part of why I support gay marriage is that I believe that there is a genetic cause for homosexuality and that in most cases it is not a learned behavior.

I have yet to have anyone explain to me how two people in a loving gay marriage harm myself or anyone else.

Jack:

1. Dennis Prager has written eloquently on why he opposes gay marriage. I cannot do any better. Here you go: http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/05/20/california_decision_will_radically_change_society

2. I fail to see why a genetic component has anything to do with supporting gay marriage. In effect you will have to set up a council to weed out the real gays from the false gays like Anne Heche and Lindsay Lohan. And what about all the college girls who are Gay Until Graduation. Besides you are discriminating against people who are gay by choice.

3. Incest. What's the problem? Abortion. Tie tubes. Whatever. Besides, the whole issue is equal happiness for all, who are you to tell a loving couple that they should not get married because they might have a disabled child? That is their business. It does not hurt you. Nor does it hurt me. The Hawaiin nobility did just fine with incest until the Christian missionaries came along and put an end to that ancient tradition.

4. And besides. Why do you assume that it's male female incest. Why not gay incest? No problem with children, hence you will have no objections, correct?

5. Still left with polygamy. And all those other groovy new age XXX permutations. Why not? I am serious. I want to know why you will discriminate against the happiness of multi-partner marriages?

You know what's worthy of note in this entire exchange? The blog post is about Hollywood conservatives getting blacklisted for holding specific opinions and for legally donating to political causes.

Livelihoods are being destroyed by liberals and the gay mafia, (see El Coyote Restaurant in West LA) and you guys have no comment.

Instead, you just pass over the central issue and go right to the gay marriage thing and how we are wrong or bigoted or homophobic. Though we have done nothing but vote democratically and respectfully express opinions.

Breathtaking.

...with a great deal of confidence in the ideals of the USA, but also with a feeling of solidarity for the politically incorrect I offer warm greetings from New Zealand. With 2 adult offspring, both of whom were exposed to the worst their PC education could offer them , but both more insightful and poltically more conservative than their parents were, I have great optimism for the future. The USA lead the way in attitudinal change, and the trough of intolerance, environmental fear and anti-conservative ideology has I think been reached (the sunset of the Age of Aquarius). Viva le blogosphere. Please see mickysmuses.blogspot.com

Robert,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. Like you, I really am not interested in discussing Prop 8, and I apologize for dragging the conversation in that direction.

My real point had to do with your real point: publicly attacking and financially ruining ideological opponents when you have a personal stake. Imagine for a moment that many Jew-hating people in California got together to amend the constitution to strip all sorts of rights from Jews. Would you not fight with all your might against these people, even "naming, outing, hounding, and harassing" them, to defend your rights?

Danny:

You write: "Jew-hating."

This implies, yet again, that we are Gay hating.

Okay. Conversation over.

You are no longer welcome in Seraphic Secret.

Lenin said: "We are not interested in debating with our opponents, we are interested in crushing them like insects."

You have learned this lesson all to well.

Robert,

Again, I apologize. I in no way meant to imply that you were Gay hating. I was merely trying to concoct a situation wherein Jews felt themselves discriminated against, Jew-hating people being the most likely and quickest-to-my-fingers culprits. The miscommunication was entirely my fault, and I in no way intended it to be a perfect analogy.

Avrdale:

Thanks so much for visiting and letting us know about a friend in New Zealand. Great soldiers from that fine amd hearty country. Keep up the fine work.

Has anyone besides me noticed that these gays rioting and screaming that they are the victims of intolerance and that they're being treated like the Blacks in the Ku Klux Klan South are screaming at the people they know are the most liberal people on the planet? The people most likely to fold up in horror at an accusation of bigotry? They're attacking the people who don't want to re-define "marriage," not the people who believe gays should be hanged. California's anti-prop 8 gays don't want to accept the will of the people in one of the most liberal states in the Union. They want mob rule. There are other people loose in the world today who want mob rule, people who do rioting and terrorizing and threatening and refusing to accept election results and forcing people to recant their views, and they do all these things MUCH better than California's anti-prop 8 crowd-and they're the people who want to hang gays. California's anti-prop 8 gays had better settle for civil unions and realize how well off they are.