Sometimes, majority rule is wrong Just like in his May 22 guest editorial, Dave Thomas is at it again, writing in last week’s La Jolla Village News that the recent vote on Proposition 8 should be the last word on same-gender marriage (“No apologies needed in voting in favor of Prop 8,” page 7). But this time, he didn’t stop there. Mr. Thomas also used the worn-out argument that allowing same-gender marriage could lead us down a slippery slope to legalized polygamy. Dave Thomas is wrong once more, as we argued in our May 29 rebuttal to his first editorial. We wish to impress on Mr. Thomas that fundamental rights can’t be denied through the vote of a bare majority. That’s why Proposition 8 is being challenged. “Majority rule” is a nice-sounding maxim that Mr. Thomas uses to express his frustration with the Proposition 8 legal challenges. As we wrote in May, our American form of tripartite government is the envy of the world exactly because it allows the judicial branch to act as a check on the will of the majority when fundamental rights are threatened. Does Mr. Thomas seriously object to this judicial role, or is he really worried that these challenges may just have a point? Many of the legal challenges filed after Nov. 4 address the equal protection clause of California’s Constitution. This clause enshrines the protection of minorities from discrimination as a foundational constitutional principle. Proposition 8 seeks to effect a monumental revision of this principle by allowing a bare majority of voters to eliminate a fundamental right of a constitutionally protected minority group (namely, gay men and lesbians). Do polygamists constitute a “constitutionally-protected minority” in the eyes of the Supreme Court? Of course not, Mr. Thomas! So please stop fear-mongering, and let’s just argue the principles and the law. Each of us should take a deep breath, and put our trust in the legal and political process. A bare majority of voters prevailed on Proposition 8, but we believe the Supreme Court must weigh in when the majority seeks to suddenly and abruptly eliminate a fundamental right — one that this same court granted to gays and lesbians in its ruling this May legalizing same-gender civil marriage. As argued in an amicus brief filed on behalf of the petitioners challenging the Nov. 4 vote, “The citizens of California rely on the Legislature and the courts to safeguard against unlawful discrimination by temporary, and often short-lived, majorities … If Proposition 8 takes effect, [the Supreme Court] will no longer be the final arbiter of the rights of minorities.” We urge Dave Thomas to put away his anger and frustration, and stop using scare tactics to justify his argument. Instead, let’s watch in awe and gratitude while our quintessentially American process plays out for all the world to see. As fair-minded La Jollans, we support a person’s right to be joined in civil marriage with the one they love, and we’re confident that love will prevail in the end, through the courts, the legislature, or the ballot box — whatever it takes. Keith Olbermann expressed our feelings well in his recent commentary on MSNBC TV when he implored, “You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe He represents? Then spread happiness — this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness — by sharing it with all those who seek it.” Amy Snyder & Patricia Thomas Tom Walker and spouse Randy Clark & Tom Maddox Susan & Crystal Atkins-Weathers Laura Shawver & Tracy M. Macuga Karl Smith Barbara Bry Marcia Bookstein Set aside fears and misconceptions It made me very sad to read Dave Thomas’s “No apologies needed in voting in favor of Prop 8” (Village News, Nov. 20, page 7). Let me start out by saying I am a straight male, married to the same woman for almost 50 years, just so you know where I’m coming from. Also, I believe that Mr. Thomas is sincere when he says that he is not a bigot. I also appreciate his belief in the traditional values he was raised with. On the other hand, I wonder how much Mr. Thomas knows about the history of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, or whether he is even interested, or considers them and their history beneath him. I wonder if he is aware of the many outstanding people who have contributed so much to our own history and culture, yes, even gave their lives in defense of our country, who have had a sexual orientation different from his. I wonder whether he is aware that lesbians and gays, and their children, just want to be treated with the same respect and dignity as Mr. Thomas, and his children if he has any, enjoys by having been born with his sexual orientation. Surely he is aware that it is not the LGBT community that is interested in legalizing polygamy and child brides (leave that to the offshoots of the Mormon Church). I think it is time for those that supported Prop 8 to stop gloating over their narrow victory at the polls, and open their eyes to the heartbreak and severe emotional harm they have caused. I ask only that they set aside their fears and preconceptions, and meet some real people. These might be their neighbors, their physicians, their policemen, or their firefighters. Because these are our fellow citizens we’re talking about. Marty Bloom, La Jolla All this fear is misplaced Yes, actually, I do think Dave Thomas and his compatriots are the bigots I think they are. Why else would they want to take away something from another group that does not affect them in the slightest? That’s right. Prop 8 would not affect anyone else. That ad about gay marriage being taught in public school is totally false. Every mother and father of a child in the La Jolla public school system knows that marriage isn’t taught at all. Sex education is, and even that is optional. Children are not forced to attend gay weddings. All this fear regarding children is misplaced. It makes me wonder what these people are really afraid of. Polygamy? Marriage of children? I suggest that Mr. Thomas take another look at his Bible. He’ll see plenty he would not like repeated in this day and age. Or perhaps his “traditional” marriage is more recent, when women were considered property and did not have opinions of their own. Let’s see, maybe 100 years ago? As to his protestation about the majority not getting its way, the Constitution does protect minorities from majority rule when that majority is wrong. Our Founding Fathers wanted the minority protected from mob rule. The third branch of government is there for this exact purpose. And just as the people behind Prop 8 tried to reverse the last time the judges ruled against them, Mr. Thomas can and should go to the courts when he has a problem with the law as it stands. Or to the state legislature. No, Mr. Thomas, you have not seen the last of this issue. And I would hope, slim chance though it is, that you will be able to see the bigotry in your position and perhaps do something about it. Marcia Bookstein, La Jolla