SATURDAY, JANUARY 10
I RODE MY BIKE DOWN TO HARBOR DRIVE today so I could be part of a political rally. I joined a few hundred other people who believe Califronia voters made a grievous mistake when they voted, by a slim majority, to take away from same gender couples the same right to marriage that is enjoyed (or some might say endured) by couples of opposite gender.The young lady on the right laid her sign against my bike. I agreed with it's message.

NO H8

On this beautiful day in San Diego a crowd of people gathered to demonstrate and march to bring attention to discrimination against same gender couples. California voters, by a very slim majority, passed a measure to take away a civil right from a minority group. The question for the Supreme Court is whether or not discrimination against a minority group, can be made legal by majority vote. The implications of a “yes” response that question are profound and would, if allowed to become legal precedent, change our democratic society. A constitution guards against mob rule. A democratic society with its constitution honors the rights of its citizens by ensuring that every citizen has the same rights as every other citizen. Aimed at the Supreme Court, the march and demonstration today was an exercise in democracy. The Court is being asked to consider the ban on marriage for same gender couples to be a basic violation of the principle of equality stated clearly in the Constitution.

A theocracy is another thing. Religious dogma determines what is legal and illegal practice for citizens in a theocracy. In America, a clear majority of citizens believe in separation of church and state; so a theocracy isn’t ever going to take hold here. No group of people, however large, will be able to impose or limit practices based on their religious beliefs. We call our system of government a democracy. What Leviticus says about divorce should have nothing at all to do with laws governing legal separation and divorce of married couples. What Leviticus says about marriage should not be a basis for establishing law in California or in The United States. Quoting Shakespeare, the Bible, or one’s mother should not be the determining factor in the establishment of laws. When Hamlet questions Rosencrantz and Gildenstern, he is not practicing ethical relativism when he says, “there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” Hamlet confronts them with the sorry mess his uncle has made of his life and his country, Denmark. Perhaps Hamlet is simply wishing for blissful ignorance, which is what we get if we always go along with the majority just because they have been persuaded to “think” something is wrong or right and vote their thinking into law. The budget of the state of California is a sorry mess because of sloppy majority thinking. In California, we want everything but we don’t want to pay for it. Passage of Proposition 8 was the same kind of ignorant mistake. It will be undone eventually because we are still striving to be a true democracy.