When it comes to combating interests, the powerful have money, the masses have numbers. Social pressure is not less democratic, it IS democratic in its purest form - it's a group of people standing up for what they believe in. To dissuade social pressure is to defend the status quo. I would much rather have noisy, angry cantankerous democratic debates than a world that purely does what it is told.

And I would also prefer more civilized, structured and rational debate on public policies such as these to the angry/noisy pressure approach. But the disagreements themselves aren't rational, and the powerful have long used their power to dissuade such debate from occurring lest people recognize their irrationality. So you get noise.

> Social pressure is not less democratic, it IS democratic in its purest form - it's a group of people standing up for what they believe in.

I think I slightly disagree with you on that as well, but it's a subtle point so it's okay if people miss it. Basically, by your standards civil war would be the most democratic thing ever. Groups standing up for what they believe in! Yeah! But to me democracy is at least partly about preventing civil war, like ritualized aggression prevents killing in the animal world. Two armies agree to settle the conflict by counting the soldiers on each side, instead of having a battle, and agree to not escalate the conflict if they lose. In other words, if you pressure your political opponents by any means outside the political process, then you're moving away from democracy as I see it. (Though of course there are Prisoner's Dilemma considerations because your opponents might use these tactics even if you don't.)

As for civil wars, you're right to a point, it is an extreme form of democracy... IF they're about the populace vs. an illegitimate minority ruling class that's blocking the will of the people. Civil wars are usually fought about who has the power to rule who, so it's all about ultimately conflicting ideologies anyway! The French Revolution was democracy in action against Le Ancien Régime, but as with any revolt, it can (and was) be perverted to create a new autocracy. The American Civil War was also due to disagreements about the scope of democracy at a regional level, with regards to slavery. Other civil wars were driven by religion, etc. that might be a minority vs. a majority (usually the majority wins, unless they don't have the guns).

Complicating matters is that one of the reasons the US (in theory) has a stable Federalist government is the checks and balances AGAINST democracy: representative government, term limits, states rights, separate judiciary and executive from legislators, different voting cadences for house, senate, and president, etc. This deliberately favours minority protection and slows progress / stabilizes the system in the face of intense disagreement in the hopes that the political process won't break down as compromises are slowly made. It's hard to argue for civil war if there's always an election coming up. Though at some point it might not work and we'll be back to civil war, especially if we ever truly get to a 50/50-ish democratic split on irreconcilable ideological grounds and have gridlock (i.e. I fear another decade of today's political situation).

When the political movement has as its sole and only goal depriving a subset of the population of a basic right, your argument falls apart. And that was the goal of Proposition 8.

Additionally, freedom to speak comes with the freedom of others to shun you for what you say, or to speak freely in condemning your opinions. It cannot be a one-way street.

If you think it should be put up for vote, be prepared to put your right up for vote first.

The parties, in return, must submit yearly financial statements to the legislature. In these, only contributors of more than €10,000 per year must be named. (...) In addition, the accounting responsibilities of the parties free individual members and candidates from burdensome paperwork, while the focus of the disclosure rules on large donors protects the privacy of candidates, elected officials, and small donors.

In general I agree with the view expressed by Kent Pitman (famous Lisp hacker) here: http://open.salon.com/blog/kent_pitman/2010/11/06/on_the_pri... . Basically he says privacy outweighs transparency for small donations, but not large ones. In particular, he mentions Keith Olbermann being suspended by his employer for making a small donation similar to Eich's.

If you want to argue that the Campaign for Prop. 8 shouldn't have to be forced to divulge who made small donations, we can discuss that. But that doesn't imply that we should bury our heads and ignore information which is already public (and which the donors knew was to be published).

Do you have a loved one? Suppose I use my political clout to separate you from them, permanently. You can never see your partner again.

Do you think I should be punished for such behavior?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7515083

I think you should be applauded for enacting laws that make it possible to protect a woman from an abusive man, or for locking up dangerous criminals.

Your example is a bit too vague to be useful.

Obviously I'm trying to draw a parallel between homosexual relationships being deemed as deviant or second-class and something the parent may have understood, namely the pain of being separated from a loved one for no reason.