As of now, every single state gay marriage ban is now being challenged in court

[Jack Rabbit]

8. Our Constitution puts limits on democracy for a reason

I've been using this definition of democracy for twelve years in these forums. It still works for me.

Democracy is a state where:

• Citizenship is universal. All native-born children are citzens; all children born abroad of at least one citizen parent are citizens; all non-citizens who swear allegiance to the state in a process of naturalization are citizens.
• Citizenship is equal. All citizens receive the right to vote upon reaching the age of majority. All citizens have the right to participate in and influence public affairs. Leaders or representaitves are chosen on a one man/one vote principle.
• Citizenship is inalienable. A set of guaranteed civil liberties is in place to assure full and open discourse on civic affairs. No citizen shall be deprived of his citizenship by the state for expressing a minority point of view, no matter how unpopular or outrageous.

For many people, only the second bullet point is needed to define a democracy. That was good enough for the ancient Athenians. In Athens, citizenship was neither universal nor inalienable. About a third of the population were slaves and another half were women; both groups were excluded from citizenship. Also, Athenians had a nasty habit of ostracizing those they felt had gained too much power. Themistocles, the father of the Athenian navy that ruled the Eastern Mediterranean for decades, was a victim of ostracism. In another well-known instance, an Athenian jury voted to put the wisest of all Athenians to death.

Clearly there is a problem with unbridled majority rule. There must be some things that are simply beyond the power of a numerical majority to implement. For democracy to function properly, every citizen should have the right to voice his opinion and even be encouraged to express it. That's pretty hard to encourage when there are formal consequences for expressing that opinion. The only consequence to saying something like, "Homosexuals should be stoned to death," is that will have to listen to me retort, "You're nuts."

It wasn't that long ago that the majority could pass laws prohibiting gay marriage or even, for that matter, any gay behavior whatsoever. Was that the right thing to do? I don't think so any more than you do. I knew that it was only a matter of time before the majority flipped. I lived in San Francisco in early 1970s and witnessed what happens when an enclave of enlightened citizens wake up and realize that it's no skin off any straight person's back if gay people live openly and freely among us.

That's were it started. Forty years later, America has embraced gay marriage.

"Why are we always bending to their will and accommodating their demands and compromising with them?" you ask. I reply to you, at least as pertains to gay rights, Where is that happening now? We no longer have to bend our will their will. They can pass laws and defend those laws in court, but those laws are being struck down as fast as unreconstructed rednecks can pass them. They will discover, much to their dismay, that America is not a Christian state and never has been and that there is a wall of separation between church and state. They claim that their freedom is being infringed if they can't discriminate against gay people doing business with them. No, it's not. The courts will see it our way. Their business has nothing to do with their religion. As far as their religion is concerned, they can still go to church on Sunday and listen to a redneck minister proclaim that all gay people will go to Hell when the last trumpet sounds. I wouldn't dream of doing anything to stop them, although I disagree. I don't believe a just and merciful God would ever do anything like that.