The Tyranny of the Majority

[RightJungle]

I don't know how the rest of the country is doing, but here in Iowa we have voted against the State Constitution and against the right of a particular group of people to pursue their own happiness. If Ayn Rand was alive today she would be rolling over in her grave. I'm basing that on Tara Smith's description of the single rights obligation that we all have to each other - namely to respect those rights even when we see others doing something that we would rather they didn't do, but that didn't involve violating the rights of others.

Here is what "We the People" accomplished. We returned most of the incumbents to office (including Boswell who voted for Obamacare), exceptions being the governor and a few State Legislature seats.

We also voted to throw out three of our Supreme Court Justices based on the lie of "Judicial Activism". What the judges did: They determined that a law that was passed by the legislature to limit marriage to one man and one woman was unconstitutional on the basis of the "equal protection of the law" clause. Somehow a lot of people got the idea that the judges had themselves put gay marriage into law. They didn't. They just said that gay men and lesbians had the same right to marry as the heterosexuals in Iowa, BECAUSE OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.

Then Bob Vanderplatts started a "Throw the Judges Out" campaign. The judges were from both Democratic and Republican persuasions and were unanimous in their decision. The anti-gay marriage groups made sure that everyone understood that this was "judicial activism". Part of their argument was that a wealthy homosexual from Colorado had dumped a whole lot of money into campaigning for Gay marriage in Iowa. What that money was supposed to have bought, I'm not sure. All I know is that no one in the legislature, nor the Governor made any attempt to stop the marriage license applications. I'm pretty sure that given the Court's ruling that would have been illegal or unconstitutional or something.

So because of this one issue, these judges are out and now the Democratic governor has the job, if he chooses to pursue it, of appointing new judges. If he doesn't, the new pro-life, anti-gay marriage Republican governor will have that task. I wonder what the result will be.

If you all hear about this, the vote was 54% no and 46% yes on retaining the judges. There are only 3 million people in the entire state, so figure around 1.55 million either didn't understand the issue, or don't want homosexual marriage in Iowa. However, they still haven't been given a chance to actually vote on that. Here's another weird thing. There was on the ballot a constitutional amendment about funding an ecological issue. But the legislature is apparently blocking the attempt to put the gay marriage issue on the ballot as an amendment. I think Iowa may have just punished three judges for what the legislature did. I wonder what kind of men and women will become Supreme Court justices in this state.

Here's something even weirder. Every ten years the people can vote to hold a constitutional convention. Some anti-gay groups were hoping to get this convention so they could amend the constitution to allow only one man, one woman to marry. Guess what? The state voted 67% to 33% to NOT call for the constitutional convention. Confusion reigneth.

Anyone from a state for which you feel the pride of accomplishment?

Anyone think that I've misunderstood the Objectivist way on this subject?

[rodney203]

Mary,

First, I do like the way you put it: "the Objectivist way". That was nice.

Here is the Objectivist response to your issue.

Objectivism says that the state has no rightful role to play in the moral or economic lives of its citizens. This statement, though perhaps paraphrased, is directly from Objectivist literature. This is a fact and I agree with it.

The Objectivist way would be for the state to get out of the marriage and family business altogether. Everyone should have to write their own privately negotiated contracts, to be enforced by the courts.

What the gays are asking for in marriage or "civil unions" is equal special privledges. Objectivism cannot support this. Granting gay couples equal treatment to hetero couples only shrinks the size of the persecuted group. If anything, this would be worse than the current situation.

That is the pure "Objectivist way" on this issue.

I hope you see the validity of this response.

Edited November 3, 2010 by rodney203

[9thdoctor]

Anyone from a state for which you feel the pride of accomplishment?

In Florida the Republicans did very well. I voted for a new Republican Senator who is against stem cell research and abortion rights, but got to vote against an anti-abortion judge (he was confirmed anyway). I feel like it cancelled out, at least that’s the way I’m keeping my books. I linked to this awful piece by Harry Binswanger on another thread, where he says vote Republican even if the person is named Joe Stalin…meaning vote party line no matter how bad the candidate. That’s not what I do, not ever.

Moving on to your gay sub-theme, here’s a great new video making the rounds.

It’s both funny and serious, great shot Sulu!

[equality72521]

I live in Utah and we did pretty well, except we voted back in the jackass Jim Matheson, thank you Salt Lake City. Carl Wimmer got reelected here as well (I didnt get to vote for him). We also passed Prop A which was against Card Check.

As to gay marriage, I have my own thread on this and am strongly opposed to gay marriage. Up to this point I have not mentioned my own sexual pref. because 1 its one of those things that once you put out there you cant take back. and because 2 I dont see a need to broadcast it. However I have experienced quite a bit of tongue lashing and had implications that I am against homosexuals. Well I am a gay male, and I am completely against "Gay Marriage" which is an anti-concept. Language is Sacred and "gay marriage" is a distortion of language. Although I am opposed to the reason why most of the judges got turned out (religion) I am for the turning out. The law is the law and what those judges did was a distortion of the original intent of the law and it diluted the law.

BTW to answer the accusation NO! I am not a mormon nor have I ever been a mormon.

Edited November 3, 2010 by equality72521

[Guyau]

.

Mary,

Thank you for this post and another related one, which was especially informative. In Virginia we already have an amendment in our State Constitution prohibiting both legal marriage and civil unions by same-sex couples.* The bigots you have with you always, even to the end of the world, but I have that you are here, and this is good.

—Stephen (*) ($)

[RightJungle]

Mary,

First, I do like the way you put it: "the Objectivist way". That was nice.

Here is the Objectivist response to your issue.

Objectivism says that the state has no rightful role to play in the moral or economic lives of its citizens. This statement, though perhaps paraphrased, is directly from Objectivist literature. This is a fact and I agree with it.

The Objectivist way would be for the state to get out of the marriage and family business altogether. Everyone should have to write their own privately negotiated contracts, to be enforced by the courts.

What the gays are asking for in marriage or "civil unions" is equal special privledges. Objectivism cannot support this. Granting gay couples equal treatment to hetero couples only shrinks the size of the persecuted group. If anything, this would be worse than the current situation.

That is the pure "Objectivist way" on this issue.

I hope you see the validity of this response.

I do see the validity. Lest you think that I'm ignoring this....I'm not.

I'm working it over - that is trying to grasp and integrate the notion that marriage laws are government interference in our lives rather than being relationship enhancing for all members of the family, which is how I was thinking about it.

I'll be back when I've gotten that thinking task a little further along. Thanks for your post.

I would welcome any help on this that others have to offer.

[Selene]

ND:

That was the type of article that gives Objectivism a well deserved black eye.

Dr. Binswanger, a longtime associate of Ayn Rand, is a professor of philosophy at the Objectivist Academic Center of the Ayn Rand Institute.

Disgraceful statement, even though it was hyperbolic, Stalin! Ayn may you be protected from the neo Randians!

Adam

[rodney203]

Mary, thanks for your response. May I elaborate further on my 3:30 pm post?

I'm fully aware that the position I stated challenges thousands of years of tradition and superstition.

The position stated would have nothing to do with how I felt personally about the issue of homosexuality. That would not be the issue. In my opinion I just gave the textbook application of some principles that Objectivists are supposed to use in figuring things out. When the government does things it's not supposed to be doing it is always detrimental.

Notice how in spite of all the knowledge and understanding we supposedly have today, women and men don't seem to be getting along any better really. The family isn't doing well either. It seems like kids are more lost than ever. I'm suffering all three of those for sure. State involvement takes away much incentive for women and men to work out their concerns. The current status quo invites morally fraudulent actions. The purpose of state involvement in something like this is always to grant special favors. It makes the playing field not level. I could go on and on about the consequences of state meddling in this issue. It is definitely not "relationship enhancing", to use your expression.

Thanks

[Selene]

Mary seems to be quite widespread as to activist judges.

Voters Ban Judges from Using International & Sharia Law

• 11-3-2010

"Oklahoma voters have approved a measure that would forbid judges from considering international law or Islamic law when deciding cases.

Republican Rex Duncan, the sponsor of the measure, called it a "pre-emptive strike" designed to close the door on activist judges "legislating from the bench or using international law or Sharia law."

Members of the Muslim community called the question an attack on Islam and some of them said they are prepared to file a lawsuit challenging the measure."

Wow, now there is a new theorem of jurisprudence!

Adam

[kiaer.ts]

Oh, please. I am so tired of this . . . stuff.

I get it that you bleedinghearts feel sorry for us cripples. So sorry, in fact, that you are willing to subvert the state and to use guns to let us homos pretend to be the legal equivalent of biological parents.

But no person's happiness derives from the state sanction of a religious ceremony. And Rand would not espouse a belief in the use of force to require third parties to participate in a neurotic fantasy.

To say so insults her and insults us. Homosexual desire is not a choice, but the lifestyle is. So long as homosexuals can nominate each other as NEXT OF KIN, which is otherwise known as adult adoption (see Julius and Augustus Caesar) their actual (as opposed to pretend) rights are equally protected. It so happens that homosexuals are quite free to marry any single unmarried adult person of the opposite sex they like in all fifty states. No test of heterosexuality is required - they are treated equally in their right to marry. Not that the state should do anything but recognize the rights of children and the designation of next of kin.

Please stop advocating the use of guns to support what is a fantasy in the name of . . . pity. It is foolhardy, disgusting, and offensive.

Edited November 4, 2010 by Ted Keer

[kiaer.ts]

.

Mary,

Thank you for this post and another related one, which was especially informative. In Virginia we already have an amendment in our State Constitution prohibiting both legal marriage and civil unions by same-sex couples.* The bigots you have with you always, even to the end of the world, but I have that you are here, and this is good.

—Stephen (*) ($)

Does Virginia not allow adults to designate their next of kin?

[kiaer.ts]

I live in Utah and we did pretty well, except we voted back in the jackass Jim Matheson, thank you Salt Lake City. Carl Wimmer got reelected here as well (I didnt get to vote for him). We also passed Prop A which was against Card Check.

As to gay marriage, I have my own thread on this and am strongly opposed to gay marriage. Up to this point I have not mentioned my own sexual pref. because 1 its one of those things that once you put out there you cant take back. and because 2 I dont see a need to broadcast it. However I have experienced quite a bit of tongue lashing and had implications that I am against homosexuals. Well I am a gay male, and I am completely against "Gay Marriage" which is an anti-concept. Language is Sacred and "gay marriage" is a distortion of language. Although I am opposed to the reason why most of the judges got turned out (religion) I am for the turning out. The law is the law and what those judges did was a distortion of the original intent of the law and it diluted the law.

BTW to answer the accusation NO! I am not a mormon nor have I ever been a mormon.

I have found the grounds for your opposition to gay marriage be confusing, although I agree with your conclusion.

[william.scherk]

As to gay marriage [ . . . ] Language is Sacred and "gay marriage" is a distortion of language.

I'm Canadian. Up here any two otherwise unattached people of legal age may register a formal spousal partnership and have this partnership recognized as a marriage in every jurisdiction.

As far as I can tell this has not yet led to dire or horrifying consequences. If a person wants to make an exclusive, legally recognized loving partnership with another person, and enjoy the exact same benefit in law as any other married couple, they may do so without prejudice in law.

This kind of partnership means that the spouses are each other's next of kin. They may divorce. They may adopt. They may request fair disposal of spousal assets in the case of separation or divorce. They inherit at the death of the spouse. They may file joint tax returns. They may raise their children together. They may enjoy (or endure) the same legal framework for their partnership as any other committed couple.

Do you care about the fact that Canada has this kind of marriage? Does it matter to you personally? On the top ten list of outrages against Sacred Language, does this one actually rank?

You may fall in love with another man. You may move in together and may wish to make a formal committment to each other, to be exclusive partners. You may wish that this partnership be legally recognized. You may wish to refer to your partner as your spouse. You may wish to parent children together. You may wish to have your partner/spouse act as your next of kin if you are incapacitated, so that no person may tear you asunder . . .

Up here you can do all these things with the partner of your choice. You can go formalize this kind of relationship and put it on a simple legal footing.

I wonder what you would say if a future partner of yours suggested you make a lasting legal committment to each other, to have and to hold, for better or worse, in sickness and in health, in the eyes of your community. Would you be disgusted with him? Would you be outraged? Would you consider this a reason to break up?

[Guyau]

Concerning posts 11 and 13:

Ted, I am not familiar with specific legal instruments known as “designations of next of kin.” Perhaps you have in mind really a number of related specific legal powers.

I have had two partners in life. The first was Jerry. We were together for 22 years, from when we were both nineteen to his death. My second lover is Walter. We have been together nearly 15 years. It is definitely an “in sickness and in health, ‘til death do us part” sort of thing. One nice thing is that the law does not prohibit us from wearing matching gold rings on the third left finger these many years.

Jerry was an attorney. We each had wills, with the other as executor. We each had power of attorney and power of medical attorney for the other. In the 80’s those legal instruments were not always effective against relatives in contests at the hospital or after the death. Jer and I had long been accepted and loved by each other’s family. His mother came to Chicago to visit him during his final illness. We had Jer’s applicable legal documents in the files of the hospital. She reinforced those arrangements while she was there by telling the doctors “you do what Stephen says.” So in fact, as in Jer’s documents, I was the one who made the final medical decisions, took possession of his ashes, and so forth.

The first evening I met Walter, which was through a personal ad in a section of the newspaper reserved for people with HIV seeking another with HIV, we each learned something unexpected and delightful about each other. He learned that I published a philosophy journal. I learned that he had two sons of college age. I soon became part of their family (ex-wife and her husband, the two sons and their women partners/wife). There are now two grandsons, ages nine and six, who address us as Grandpa Walter and Grandpa Stephen.

Walter and I have all the sorts of legal documents that Jerry and I had. We have experienced no static and every consideration in our hospital experiences here in Virginia. The staff welcomes him right into my presence with them all along the way.

I am retired. I worked for a large company. During the 90’s the company adjusted to the changing work force by adopting a non-discrimination policy for gay people. (My case, with Jerry’s illness and me asking to be transferred back to the city to take care of him and be with him each of his remaining days, together with executives meeting me and personally seeing my performance, was salient in this change of corporate policy.) In the following decade, my company allowed one to add a domestic partner to one’s company health insurance. We have taken advantage of that. The one disparity remaining is that I do not have the option of having my retirement pension continue to my partner after my death, as is the case for a spouse.

But I do not stand for legal principles primarily because of their direct impact on me personally. I have always been adamantly opposed to military conscription, for example, though I’m not an individual who would be subject to such a directive.

William, thanks.

[rodney203]

>>>In the 80’s those legal instruments were not always effective against relatives in contests at the hospital or after the death

I know it's in the Constitution somewhere that contracts by the people are not to be disparaged. If that did ever happen to anyone, then that was very wrong.

>>>The one disparity remaining is that I do not have the option of having my retirement pension continue to my partner after my death, as is the case for a spouse.

Lets think about the comment above a little. If a retirement system is designed to allow employees to name one or more beneficiaries, then justice would require that all people be treated equally, with everyone being allowed to designate whom ever they want. Observe that in the injustice committed by society on this issue it has always been the government's own legal designation of "spouse" that was used as the criteria for discrimination. What if the government had always minded its business, and never created the artificial collectivist entity "spouse"? What if the state got out of the business now? Wouldn't we expect that retirement systems would adjust themselves to treat people justly in the future? Is it not better to remove old bad laws than to add new ones that would still not be just?

I'm only trying to illustrate to folks the different ways to view this whole issue.

[rodney203]

Regional news (today): A man shot and killed his wife and then himself. The couple had been separated a month. They are survived by FIVE children.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Me: Do we not hear of such incidents as the one above all too often?

The "Obama" explanation: "We just didn't get our "message" across to men. I now understand that it takes more than just 200 years of legislation. What we need is better explanation and more legislation."

The "conservative" explanation: "This shows that men are just bad and need to be controlled with more legislation. Of course we can't use the word "men" in the law, so we just let the family courts do it".

The "liberal" explanation: "What we need is more programs, family assistance, and especially more legislation."

Edited November 5, 2010 by rodney203

[Selene]

Regional news (today): A man shot and killed his wife and then himself. The couple had been separated a month. They are survived by FIVE children.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Me: Do we not hear of such incidents as the one above all too often?

The "Obama" explanation: "We just didn't get our "message" across to men. I now understand that it takes more than just 200 years of legislation. What we need is better explanation and more legislation."

The "conservative" explanation: "This shows that men are just bad and need to be controlled with more legislation."

The "liberal" explanation: "What we need is more programs, family assistance, and especially more legislation."

Well, if she had an Order of Protection, this would not have happened so we need to spend more money on the Family Courts...SEE, and if you do not see this clearly, you are a misogynist, chauvinist who wants to keep women barefoot and pregnant!

So therefore, we need more domestic violence programs and money! See!

Adam

[rodney203]

Yea, you get it!

(I edited the topic to clarify one of the bullets. Check it out.)

[equality72521]

I am more concerned with the tyranny of the minority in todays world.

As to the language and gay marriage.

I would ask you to reconsider. Here in the US the fag agenda is being pushed heavy in schools, children are being taught that homosexuality is normal, they are being brainwashed. There is a difference between tolerance and brainwashing and the fags in this country (which are a type of homosexuals) are assaulting heterosexuality, they are assaulting masculinity, they are assaulting peoples values. I do not agree with conservatives, I think they are irrational and inconsistent however they have a right to teach their children as they see fit. Gay marriage is one method of normalizing fagitry.

[william.scherk]

Here in the US the fag agenda is being pushed heavy in schools, children are being taught that homosexuality is normal, they are being brainwashed. There is a difference between tolerance and brainwashing and the fags in this country (which are a type of homosexuals) are assaulting heterosexuality, they are assaulting masculinity, they are assaulting peoples values. I do not agree with conservatives, I think they are irrational and inconsistent however they have a right to teach their children as they see fit. Gay marriage is one method of normalizing fagitry.

Dude, you need to get laid, and to get your snout out of other people's crotches.

The paragraph above sounds like it came from someone who loathes the very notion of homosexual activity. This rhetoric is ugly, brother, and only serves ugly ends. Please turn down the knobs on this kind of wordsmithery.

[George H. Smith]

I am more concerned with the tyranny of the minority in todays world.

As to the language and gay marriage.

I would ask you to reconsider. Here in the US the fag agenda is being pushed heavy in schools, children are being taught that homosexuality is normal, they are being brainwashed. There is a difference between tolerance and brainwashing and the fags in this country (which are a type of homosexuals) are assaulting heterosexuality, they are assaulting masculinity, they are assaulting peoples values. I do not agree with conservatives, I think they are irrational and inconsistent however they have a right to teach their children as they see fit. Gay marriage is one method of normalizing fagitry.

Why do you post offensive crap like this? What's the point? Any political points you wish to make could be made far more effectively without the homophobic rhetoric.

As for "fags," they don't do anything that your wife or girlfriend hasn't done. Maybe not with you, but that's a different topic....

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Concerning posts 11 and 13:

Ted, I am not familiar with specific legal instruments known as "designations of next of kin." Perhaps you have in mind really a number of related specific legal powers.

I have had two partners in life. The first was Jerry. We were together for 22 years, from when we were both nineteen to his death. My second lover is Walter. We have been together nearly 15 years. It is definitely an "in sickness and in health, 'til death do us part" sort of thing. One nice thing is that the law does not prohibit us from wearing matching gold rings on the third left finger these many years.

Jerry was an attorney. We each had wills, with the other as executor. We each had power of attorney and power of medical attorney for the other. In the 80's those legal instruments were not always effective against relatives in contests at the hospital or after the death. Jer and I had long been accepted and loved by each other's family. His mother came to Chicago to visit him during his final illness. We had Jer's applicable legal documents in the files of the hospital. She reinforced those arrangements while she was there by telling the doctors "you do what Stephen says." So in fact, as in Jer's documents, I was the one who made the final medical decisions, took possession of his ashes, and so forth.

The first evening I met Walter, which was through a personal ad in a section of the newspaper reserved for people with HIV seeking another with HIV, we each learned something unexpected and delightful about each other. He learned that I published a philosophy journal. I learned that he had two sons of college age. I soon became part of their family (ex-wife and her husband, the two sons and their women partners/wife). There are now two grandsons, ages nine and six, who address us as Grandpa Walter and Grandpa Stephen.

Walter and I have all the sorts of legal documents that Jerry and I had. We have experienced no static and every consideration in our hospital experiences here in Virginia. The staff welcomes him right into my presence with them all along the way.

I am retired. I worked for a large company. During the 90's the company adjusted to the changing work force by adopting a non-discrimination policy for gay people. (My case, with Jerry's illness and me asking to be transferred back to the city to take care of him and be with him each of his remaining days, together with executives meeting me and personally seeing my performance, was salient in this change of corporate policy.) In the following decade, my company allowed one to add a domestic partner to one's company health insurance. We have taken advantage of that. The one disparity remaining is that I do not have the option of having my retirement pension continue to my partner after my death, as is the case for a spouse.

But I do not stand for legal principles primarily because of their direct impact on me personally. I have always been adamantly opposed to military conscription, for example, though I'm not an individual who would be subject to such a directive.

William, thanks.

Grace.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Why do you post offensive crap like this? What's the point? Any political points you wish to make could be made far more effectively without the homophobic rhetoric.

As for "fags," they don't do anything that your wife or girlfriend hasn't done. Maybe not with you, but that's a different topic....

... I have experienced quite a bit of tongue lashing and had implications that I am against homosexuals. Well I am a gay male...

George,

I do like you do. When I see a lot of neurotic garbage spewed out, I skim it or skip it. So I almost lost the fact that this dude is gay.

The only reason I caught it was because I was going to restrict his posting for bigotry for the post you complained about. To make sure I was not being unfair or was missing something, I started reading his past posts. I didn't need to go far.

Mr. Alan Smith (equality72521),

Please read the posting guidelines. This is a philosophy discussion forum. I feel for you (seriously and sincerely) that you have internal issues with your condition that lead you to use bigoted and spiteful language (like you just did with the "fag" thing and with the thing I threw into the Garbage Pile), but OL is not a therapy center for unrsolved self-hatred or any other form of neurosis. And if your issue is not neurosis, that's worse. The people around here are good people and deserve a minimum of respect.

You have a good mind and I, personally, would like to see it flourish under the give and take of analyzing and debating issues with intelligent people who don't always agree with you (nor with each other when such is the case). I do not want to restrict you. But I believe you are an adult and you know exactly what you are doing, irrespective of any hurt or confusion.

So I will address the adult within you right now: Knock it off.

You have the entire Internet available for posting that crap. I don't want it here. I don't believe anyone else does, either. We have a good thing going. You are free and welcome to share the good vibes and mental engagement, but if you don't want that, then please move on.

Michael

[rodney203]

This comment is intended to apply to many of the topics discussed here.

A common fault I see in people's discussion, and probably in their thinking too (many people, not just here), is the reckless mixing of "opinion", "ethics", "politics", and "government" (before proceeding please read the note at the bottom). If I ever do it I apologize as it is not my intention. I think this habit of others is frustrating to some of the posters here, but I have not seen it pointed out explicitly. So I'm just making it explicit: Start being more careful which one of the list you are referring to in your points. Particularly, notice the context that someone begins a topic in, and don't change it. If someone starts with "government", (i.e., what the law should say), don't change it to one of the other contexts. People are doing this all the time. This is very frustrating and not at all helpful.

(Note: in my thinking I have found it useful to distinguish between "politics" and "government". "Politics" being the general principles of how one ought to treat others in all our relationships, even our private ones; while "government" is the term I use to describe the legal requirements of social interaction, enforced by law. I believe that Objectivist thinkers have been ignoring this distinction, or even avoiding it, for fear of rocking the boat (socially) and running off followers. Applying Objectivist ideas to personal relationships is a very touchy issue as we have seen in the movement. It was tried, but they failed because the people involved were unwilling to take a completely fresh look at personal (including sexual) relationships. This problem plagues the movement still)

[kiaer.ts]

Were I the owner or moderator of this site I'd have placed Equality on moderation for his "nigger" comments, so his "fag" post above would never even have made it to the screen.

That being said, I find it instructive that George chides Equality for his ignorance of the sex lives of gay males - when Equality is a practitioner of homosexuality himself.

That's the problem in a nutshell.

Liberals and even people here simply assume that if you are homosexual you must be in favor of the gay agenda, and that if you speak out against the gay agenda, you simply cannot be homosexual.

The assumption that there is some sort of real entity, the "gay" male is a modern social construct with identity politics written all over it.

My personal view of male homosexuality is reflected in Alexander and Hephaestion or Achilles and Patroclus - not Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

The supposed "gay community", with its leftist victimology and its expectations of conformity is a particularly disgusting political movement.

About two years ago, I remember hearing a NYC public school first grader girl on the crosstown bus telling her father how her teacher explained that the evil Republicans wouldn't allow one another woman teacher to marry a chinese woman. In the child's mind, sex was incomprehensible, so she recast the issue in terms of racism. This sort of thing is abominable. Regardless of the fact that political agendas should be kept out of public schools, it is morally repugnant that children are being sexualized at an early age, without their parents' consent, in a manner that amounts to an establishment of religion, and all in the name of tolerance.

I am an individual. I don't want your sympathy or your patronization. I don't want your "tolerance." I already have my rights as a human. I already have the same right to marry as any other adult citizen. I do not need special rights, or for the state to promote any agenda on my behalf in the schools or with guns against employers and landlords. And I don't need supposed defenders of reason, individualism, and limited government, treating me the same way the gay left does, as a victim, with a condition, in need of state intervention. This is the sort of collectivist mentality that results in vicious "outing" perpetrated by the "gay community" against homosexuals who dare to stand apart from it. It is bad enough that the gay ghettos are full of people chanting "one of us." I don't need to come here and listen to well intentioned people who, out of sympathy for what they perceive as my "condition" join in chanting "gooble-gobble, gooble-gobble, one of them, one of them."

Edited November 6, 2010 by Ted Keer