The Tyranny of Democracy

So where to begin? Logically, the basic question.

Which takes precedence, personal liberty or majority rule? That is the dilemma presented by a democratic society. The ideal behind democracy is self determination but any society requires individuals to surrender at least some freedoms in order to coexist peacefully. OK, fair enough, but where is the line between cooperation and coercion?

Just to avoid an confusion, let me state specifically that yes, I'm talking about California and that farce called Prop 8. The basis of the argument is simple; a majority of voters in California have said that the state of "marriage" is specifically and exclusively a condition between one male and one female. So, being democratic, they won the vote and that's it right? Majority rule.

Well, actually no. You see there is this thing called a tyranny of the majority. It means that the majority uses its power to marginalize or exploit the minority. Its been a fact of life in every, even nominally democratic nation in history, starting in ancient Greece and running up to the modern era. Probably the most blatant form is the outright enslavement of a segment of a population, and the most obvious, recent historical instance within these United States has got to be the "separate but equal" tripe promulgated under Jim Crow and the Black Codes.

Today we are seeing the old struggle again with a new segment of the population, sparked by a particular issue, as is usual. The point of contention this time is marriage and the group in question are homosexuals. The group of people who are trying to keep the discrimination in place are, no surprise, religious types with a superstitious ax to grind. Sound unfair and inflammatory? Well, a quick Google search for "Argument against gay marriage" turns up as its first link, the "Ten Arguments Page" for NoGayMarriage.com.

A quick read demonstrates that this particular community uses its personal religious convictions as the core of its "arguments", most of which are obvious fear-mongering.

A perusal of "Focus on the Family" reveals that what seems like a rational and benevolent organization is simply a less inflammatory forum for the exact same primitive superstitions. The chief argument against gay marriage (and indeed any kind of 'sexual deviance') is that it/they "are not part of God's will". This is backed up by many opinion pieces which attempt to make connections such as, "Childhood Sexual Abuse and Male Homosexuality". The piece is laughable; the authors and the publishers don't seem to understand that correlation is not the same thing as causation. Or it may be that they simply don't care, so long as they can paint a graphic and negative mental picture fr their audience. They certainly don't seem concerned with such trivialities as putting an end to bullying by more aggressive, more physical boys. Perhaps they see it as the victim's fault, for not being sufficiently "manly".

In any case, the arguments are essentially the same as those put forward a century ago when we were discussing race. Either its "ungodly" or "unnatural" or "socially unhealthy". What it really comes down to though, is "I don't understand this, it makes me uncomfortable and I don't want to have to deal with it." If it were somehow possible for people to not have to explain sex to their kids, I expect this wouldn't be so much an issue; they would be able to simply ignore the entire thing. So that's the whole issue, really, and it rings hollow in any case.

There is no escaping the fact of homosexuality and these people are doing their precious children (whom we're all apparently supposed to be thinking of) a tremendous disservice by not dealing with it. The fact is, the kids are going to encounter it at some point and the only responsible thing to do is address it, just like you are supposed to explain hetero sex to them.

None of that matter much to the likes of those mentioned above; read the language of their rhetoric and you can easily discern that what they really want is for all of these uncomfortable issues to just go away. Whether because they just find it all icky and confusing or because they are genuine "true believers" who thinks its offensive to their imaginary friend in the sky, they all think the world would be a much better place if the homosexuals would just go away. So they are bound and determined to make life as unequal and intolerable and uncivil as possible for this particular minority. All for no better reason than the accident of their birth.

Taken from a different angle, this irrational behavior on the part of the Prop 8 crowd is blatant sexism. They aren't upset that two particular people are in a relationship, they're upset because one of them isn't the right gender!

"That person is male/female, how dare you, a male/female, want to be their partner?!"

This is no different than:

"That person is white/black, how dare you, a black/white, want to be their partner?!"

In both cases we're talking about a physiological trait that the subject was born with. How is the one anymore acceptable a form of discrimination than another?

Of course these same protectors of public morality are willing to extend an olive branch; homosexuals can have something else, we'll call it a civil union, that can be equal to marriage, only separate.

Separate but equal. Should sound familiar to a great many people, but in case it isn't, let me remind you of Brown v. Board of Education, where we were supposed to have learned that separate is inherently unequal.

Ironically, those voices which are the loudest in declaiming their support for the rights of individuals in more modern battles are the ones demanding that rights be withheld from others. The Becks, Hannitys, O'Reillys and Limbaughs all like to tell us how much they value personal liberty, how sacred is individual freedom. They also proceed to tell us that apparently a significant chuck of society needs to have those liberties and freedoms denied to them, for the benefit of all. Of course the benefit they're talking about usually refers to either A: the freedom of the majority to marginalize a minority or B: the supposed need to comply with the demands of the imaginary friend that lives in the sky.