Miles wrote:
> However, I'll stick with what I said: if I had to cede political
power to some noble, unelected elite or live with the decisions
of the people, I'd go with the mob every time.
Even if the mob is homophobic, sexist, anti-semitic, racist, etc.?
> Sure, people can be prejudiced; their consensus can challenge
or contradict the existing laws; the majority decision is not necessarily
the most rational or "best" decision. --But this is the fundamental
(moral) point: people should have a say about the things that
affect their lives.
But do they have the moral right to persecute other people? Gay people getting married has no effect on other people. To believe that it does is to accept rightwing propaganda. What affects their lives is their own hatred. They are captives of their hate.
> Take gay marriage. I support political candidates in favor or
gay marriage, I would enthusiastically support a ballot measure
to unambiguously legalize gay marriage. (And it would probably
pass in my more liberal neck o' the woods.)
What you actual support is gay marriage so long as it is supported by the majority. If the majority isn't there, then you are opposed. You may BELIEVE in gay marriage, but you SUPPORT what the majority wants.
> However, if most people in East Texas do not support gay marriage,
it's a pretty clear "fuck you" to democratic principles if we say, gay
marriage is a constitutional right, and most East Texans' deeply held
beliefs and opinions don't mean shit.
Everyone has the right to their beliefs. What people do not have is the right to have their beliefs enacted into law when doing so leads to the persecution of others.
The problem is the fetishization of individuality where everyonme expects (totally unrealistically) that their views should hold the day and applied universally.
The problem with unfettered democracy is that there is no counterbalance to hate being ascendant.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister