• Your reference to Obama's win is nonsensical and illogical. ("Gosh, I was denied my rights, but a Democrat was elected president. Nevermind.")

My point here, Joel, is to wonder how angry these people might be if Obama lost, too. I'd say even angrier. It was not a main point.

• If Marjorie Christoffersen has become fearful, I am sorry for that. But her donation in support of Prop 8 was not a private act (like, say, a vote) but a public act -- speech, I believe is what you conservatives call it -- in support of Prop 8.

If? I think this is a safe assumption, based on the account of a gay marriage supporter's blog. I am also intrigued by your definition of "public act." Yes, when you donate to a political cause, that political cause is required to put your name on a federal register. Many people who donate to causes like Prop. 8 are not aware of this wrinkle in federal campaign finance law. In the clips above, it was clear that Ms. Christoffersen didn't think her donation would become public record. Now she's learned — the hard way.

But is donating a lousy C-note to Prop. 8 really an overtly public act — like, say, actually speaking out in public or writing about your views on a blog? I think not.

• It seems that part of what's frustrating you here, Z, is that the anti-Prop 8 protesters won't just accept their loss at the polls and shut the hell up. You suggest that's what conservatives would do if they'd lost. I disagree.

No, my assumption is not that conservatives would just shut the hell up if they lost. I'm suggesting that they wouldn't do the equivalent of what is happening now — protesting in front of gay clubs and hangouts, disrupting gay marriage ceremonies, hectoring and harassing gays on the street, etc. If it did happen, the backlash against those conservatives would be massive and come from all sides, including me. Indeed, if it did happen, the people doing it would be charged with hate crimes.

If a referendum was held in California saying you couldn't own guns or criticize President Obama, would you let it sit there?

Well, bit of a difference here. Owning a gun (Second Amendment) and criticizing the president (First Amendment) is actually in the U.S. Constitution. I'm presuming that you will argue that the right of gay marriage is to be found in the equal protection clause. Maybe so. Good luck outlawing polygamy and other alternative marriage arrangements once that door is opened.

But that doesn't buy you immunity from criticism -- even if that criticism is loud and hurtful, even if it's disproportionate. Unless, of course, you want the First Amendment to apply only to election winners.

C'mon, Joel. I never said that First Amendment rights should only apply to election winners. Yet you seem, here at the end, to have little trouble with the disproportionate part of this whole thing. And that is where we part company.