In California, Proposition 22 was overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2000. That law said "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." After years of litigation against stalling tactics by anti-gay marriage activists, in May 2008 the Supreme Court of California finally struck down all California statutes which limit marriage contracts to opposite-sex couples, ruling them in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the state constitution. This opened the door to gay marriage in California for half a year until November 2008, when Proposition 8 passed by a narrow margin. This created a state constitutional amendment whose sole purpose is to deny marriage contracts to same-sex couples in California.

If you consider the presence of an Equal Protection Clause to be a "loophole", and the absence of a constitutional amendment singling out a particular class of people for discrimination to be a "special right," well I guess we'll just have to disagree about that. You say a gay man can get married to a woman, and that counts as equal protection. Bzzzt. Thank you for playing. What if we had a law that said a Jewish man can be Jewish, so long as he worships the Christian way like everyone else? Asking to be allowed to worship the Jewish way is asking for a special right? I think that's laughable, and the court agreed.

Public support for gay marriage has been steadily growing everywhere in America. This social turmoil is a sign we're entering the 50% period. It's only a matter of time before it crosses 50% in California. The demographics are shifting one funeral at a time.

Sure, a gay man can marry a straight girl. But would you want her to be your daughter?

"But to the issue at hand, how does a right become a right? Because a minority wishes it? I certainly hope not."

Actually, the Federalist Papers show a strong concern for what is usually called "the Tyranny of the Majority."

One of the reasons why they designed a democratic republic (elected representatives) rather than a true democracy (direct rule of the people) is because they were rightfully concerned with both demagoguery and the rule of the mob.

In building in all the "checks and balances" we often talk about when discussing the structure of the U.S. government, the founders demonstrated a consistent concern for the rights of the minority.

That, and the fact our country came of age with the rise of capitalism and industry, is probably why Americans have such a strong tendency towards individualism.

Our interpretation of "freedom" is often construed as the idea of a person's individual rights being extended as far as possible without trampling the rights of others.

And the decisions regarding Constitutional rights -- or the Amendments made to it -- which are generally the most revered by later generations are those which broaden rather than restrict the rights of individuals to pursue their own happiness.

So stating that the majority of Americans do not approve of the right to a same-sex marriage (and that's by no means a unanimous majority) doesn't strengthen the argument we shouldn't grant the right to same-sex marriage.

I feel pretty confident that when woman were given the vote, the majority of Americans (including women) didn't think it should have happened.

When Jim Crow laws were abolished, I feel pretty certain that most Americans -- at least in the states with those laws -- didn't support an integrated society.

Most Americans, until very recently, were highly opposed to interracial marriages, although that right, too, was granted to the minority.