Zingered

For those of you fanatically following the Pyramid thread, Mr. Malone just proved why you never see two long-time friends run against each other in politics. They know each other too well. Mr. Malone just took my "having the Feds bail out the minority is just wrong" point and applied to homosexual marriage. He knows that I'm very much in favor of full CIVIL marriage rights for homosexuals, and he rightly points out that this is the minority position. To which I say "CURSE YOU MR. MALONE!" and "well done."

I moved this back to the front because I think this is worth its own space. Now pay attention as I attempt to maneuver out of this corner. Feel free to cry foul if I miss-step.

A point I made in the other post is that the free-market is often used in areas that it is not designed to handle. Law is just such a place. The free-market works in the FCC space because it is an economic issue. Pure and simple. Here are some of the reasons. Its not about emotion. It's real time. If the nation moves through a conservative period the market will immediately adapt. There is no lag. Also, those who don't want to buy the product don't have too. Furthermore, the market accounts for those that don't like what the majority have to offer. If you don't like what Spike TV is showing, you can watch PAX. So the minority shoppers also have an alternative. This is the free market at work. Its all about economics. This isn't the case for law, particularly homosexual CIVIL marriage.

The free-market accounts for the economic interests of the minority, and it does so in a real time fashion. Law tries to do the same, at least in the US, but it is not real time, and does not allow for entrepreneurial alternatives. So what is the place for law and minority interest? I think its an interesting question, and that's why I brought this forward as its own thread.

I think its incumbent on the strong (majority in this case) to protect the weak (the minority here). I have yet to be persuaded that allowing civil marriage is in any way harmful, so it seems easy that the strong allow the weak this privilege. I get that others feel that allowing homosexuals CIVIL marriage is extremely harmful, so this is the debate. But what I don't get are those that would also disallow civil unions or other legal contracts between homosexuals. This even takes away the attempt by the minority to fashion there own creative solution, it in effect outlaws PAX. This denial of any outlet strikes me as abusive. Unfortunately most laws, and the current proposed Constitutional Amendment do just that.

Put another way. If the 9th grade gym class decides that a particular kid is a nerd and that it is therefore ok to pick on that kid, that's the majority opinion, but its still wrong. I'm still not going to stand by and watch the kid get beat-up, or worse join in. I'm going to try to help the poor geeky kid. That way, maybe he'll help me with my math homework.