A "Tyranny of the Majority" is one of the hazards of a democratic form of government. This is when the majority imposes officially sanctioned discrimination on a minority. Although the Constitution of the United States of America is written to avoid this, such tyrannies have occurred.

The most blatant example of a tyranny of the majority was the enslavement of Africans before the Civil War. For almost a hundred years after this war laws that discriminated against African Americans, and in some cases other minorities, continued a tyranny against these minorities. This was especially true in the South where slavery had been practiced. Every attempt was made to separate the subjugated minorities from the majority. Although the law required "separate but equal," in almost all cases the institutions for the minorities were grossly inferior. The Civil War ended slavery in the middle of the nineteenth century. It was not until the middle of the twentieth century that the Constitution was enforces and these discriminatory laws were overturned.

Another extreme example of tyranny of the majority was the internment of Japanese Americans during World War Two. In this case the tyrannized minority was taken from their homes and sent to detention centers for the duration of the war. Lives were disrupted, business destroyed and property lost. It was decades later that the Constitution was enforced and token payments were offered as compensation for this "inconvenience."

Now, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, the President of the United States of America and other powerful politicians are calling for a change in the Constitution that will sanction a tyranny of the majority. The constitutional amendment being proposed is to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The tyrannized minorities are gay and lesbian couples.

Some have argued that allowing same sex marriage weakens the institution of marriage. From a cultural point of view the institution of marriage has already been trashed by celebrities that go from one marriage to the next in a manner similar to buying a new car every few years. The institution of marriage has been trashed by laws that make it easy to start and to end a marriage. The institution of marriage has been trashed by an entertainment industry that glorifies infidelity and other indiscriminate sexual behavior. And finally the institution of marriage has been trashed by a sexual revolution that made the institution of marriage irrelevant. From a personal point of view a marriage is only as strong as the commitment of the couple involved. The marriage of a couple that is truly in Love and committed to the Marriage can not be harmed by anything.

I am not particularly in favor of same sex marriages. But, I don't believe it is my place to oppose them either. What I do oppose is changing the Constitution to include any tyranny of the majority. Once this occurs, other intrusions on our freedoms and liberties may follow. The Constitution of the United States of America was written to provide equal protection under the law. This applies to all citizens, independent their life style. As for the religious arguments against same sex marriage I offer the following: "Vengeance belongeth unto me saith the Lord." This says that any transgressions against the wishes of the Lord will be handled by the Lord. We do not need to concern ourselves with this beyond teaching our own preferences for those who wish to listen. Also the Constitution of the United States of America requires that the government deal only with civil issues and not get involved in religious matters.

One final word on tyranny of the majority. This is in the form of a prediction. This is what will occur in a democratic Iraq. A Shi'ite controlled Iraq will ally itself with other Middle Eastern countries with Shi'ite majorities.

It is time to end all tyranny. It is time for forgiveness of all past transgressions. Killing to avenge a previous killing only leads to more killing. And it does nothing to bring back those already dead. Hatred only begets more hatred. It is time for the wealthy to offer aid to those in need with no consideration of political or economic gain. In ancient times, when there were surpluses, the wealthy, most ofter the ruling class, bought the surpluses and stored them for times of need. Now the wealthy want only a bigger house or fancier airplane. They have this need to look as though they have more than anyone else. Maybe these ultra rich could compete to see who can store the most surplus food to distribute free in times of famine.