OK, I'm back but I don't know for how long.

I'd like to discuss briefly something which you may have read about lately. No doubt I'll get a lot of heat over it, not for having the opinion, but for daring to express it. I know this because of something which happened to me recently.

I made an innocent statement expressing my opinion about gay marriage on another person's blog, trying my best to not be offensive or argumentative. The owner of the blog, although disappointed I didn't want to argue, was civil, polite. Another blogger, however, was not. All he had was nasty, obnoxious remarks, calling me names, impugning my character, for daring to have such an opinion. Tolerance truly does not exist today, especially in the mind of those who profess to be most dedicated to it.

In line with this event, I'd like to discuss an example of "discrimination". Let me present one side of current opinions concerning this situation, and then, at the end, you judge whether that side is correct or not.

Suppose there is a situation where one group of people receive special considerations and rights, even indirectly including financial benefits. Suppose another group of people, people denied these considerations and rights, do not feel this is fair to them. Suppose they rise up and demand "their rights," but society says, "No. We will deny these rights to you."

Suppose this discrimination is based solely on a simple attribute, something which most of the population says people have no control over. However, what if this discrimination has historical reasons, reasons which most people feel justify dealing "unfairly" between these two groups? What if most people would say to this second group, "It's not whether it's unfair or not. It's whether you deserve the 'right' or not. And we judge that you don't."? Would this reasoning change your opinion?

Suppose the "discrimination" was orginally designed to protect those who were not in a position to help themselves, to establish a "relationship" through which their security and future would be more assured. Does this really have any bearing on the situation?

Suppose those currently participating in the situation feel that if participation is widened that their contributions will be cheapened, that it will be a misuse of the original intention of the institution. Do you feel any sympathy for them? Can you understand what they say? Do you even listen?

But the offended group of people will not be denied. They will push and push and push, a thorn in the side of society. And what will you do, what will be your feelings, how will you handle the situation?

What will be your reaction when the United Negro College Fund is required to award scholarships to whites as well as blacks?