Dead Racists Society

I really wouldn't recommend reading "The People's Voice on Gay Marriage". I couldn't stomach all of the drivel he was spewing, but the gist of his argument is thus:

But today liberalism all too often displays a strong antidemocratic streak, and nowhere is it more blatant than on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Every time voters have been asked whether the fundamental definition of marriage -- the legal union of a man and woman -- should be radically redefined, they have given the same answer, and generally in a landslide. In the past five years, voters in 16 states have adopted constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage. (Statewide votes are pending in five more states.) Those who believe that gender should be irrelevant to marriage may be passionately convinced of the justice of their cause. But they have not managed to convince a majority of their fellow citizens.

Faced with such strong and consistent electoral opposition, same-sex marriage advocates ought to be reworking their arguments and finding better ways to make their case. They could be trying harder to understand the concerns and depth of feeling on the other side. Or they could decide to wait until public sentiment has shifted, and then go back to the voters with a new referendum.

Instead they seem to have decided that if they can't win democratically, winning undemocratically will suffice.

Which is complete, utter incompetence.

This isn't the first time I've been subjected to such inanity, and my response now is as then: a democracy enforces the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority. If the majority wants to take away the rights of the minority, that's not democratic!

Perhaps expecting a retort of this nature, the article ends with this bullshit:

And it is no answer to say that gay and lesbian marriage is a matter of civil rights, and no one's civil rights should be put to a vote. Whether same-sex marriage should be thought of as a civil right is precisely the question to be decided. The way to decide it fairly is to decide it democratically.

What a joke. There isn't any question here--the Supreme Court has several times declared marriage to be a fundamental right. How much clearer can it get, you obfuscating prick?

In the beginning of the article he attempts to contrast the desire for equality today with yesteryear's desire for equality, making the ridiculous claim that somehow the push for women's suffrage was different than the push for gay marriage.

Yeah. Right.