I AM THE FORCE

I kind of liked the call of Charlie Sykes, Fair Wisconsin, and others for civility in the debate over the proposed constitutional ban on civil unions in Wisconsin. As you know, I've argued for similar restraint from our elected officials. But I'm concerned we may have gone a bit too far. When debating someone who's bigoted and homophobic, should it not be okay to call them out on their bigotry and homophobia?

Often, amendment backers argue or imply that there is something wrong, deficient, or immoral about homosexuals. This assumption provides the foundation for their intellectualizations or rationalizations about enforcing a second-class citizenship. One of the anonymous bloggers that I most enjoy goes to a fundamentalist church that condemns the evils of the homosexual lifestyle. That religiosity underlies his views on the amendment, and, in my view, places him well across the line into bigotry and homophobia.

For reference, here are the definitions.

Bigotry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions differing from his own. The origin of the word in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of religious hypocrite, especially a woman. Today, it is considered a synonym of closed-minded. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to his or her prejudices even when these prejudices are challenged or proven to be false, often advocating and defending these prejudices in a rude and intolerant manner. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or worldview such as racism, religion, nationalism or homophobia.

Homophobia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term homophobia means a "fear of or contempt for homosexuality or homosexuals" or the fear of becoming homosexual. It is derivable from the words homosexual and (meaning "fear" or "panic" in Greek). The term itself is, however, often broadened to encompass other feelings such as aversion to, disagreement with, disapprobation of, disparagement of, or discrimination against homosexual people, their lifestyle, their sexual behavior, or culture [1] and is generally used to assert bigotry. Opposition to same-sex sex on religious, moral, or political grounds is also often labeled homophobic.

When people debate this constitutional amendment many advocates are, in fact, driven by bigotry and homophobia. The Glenn Grothmans and the Mark Gundrums have a deep-seated aversion to gay people. They are contemptuous of homosexual behavior, and unhappy with any societal acceptance of their lifestyle. Despite all the intellectualizing over this issue, why not just face facts? Bigotry and homophobia provide both the foundation for this amendment, and all arguments against equal rights for homosexual families.

Why shouldn't we call a spade a spade? No one likes being called a bigot or a homophobe, and I am not arguing for name-calling as a replacement for civil, honest debate. But it would be dishonest to pretend that these oft-condemned tendencies do not play a fundamental role in this discussion. Perhaps some of my more religious readers will step up and embrace their bigotry. Perhaps discriminating against people for their gayness is a justifiable bigotry in their minds. And perhaps legislators like Grothman will embrace their fearful homophobia as well. I don't know, I just think this reality should not be excised from the discussion.

Being bigoted and homophobic doesn't even mean that your position is wrong on the anti-gay amendment. It just means that you're bigoted and homophobic.

A Grand Canyon of a divide exists between the opposing forces in this debate. It's hard for us to engage each other or understand the other's perspective. We're like the Dr. Seuss characters who fight over butter side up or butter side down. Could it be that this divide is all about how each of us feels about gay people? And that the gay-haters and the gay-accepters will never be able to sit down amicably at the same table?

Consider the parallels to the civil rights movement and segregation. American society eventually turned away from the segregationists in revulsion. Bull Connor's dogs and water hoses, George Wallace at the schoolhouse door, and Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner all contributed to a governmental and societal shift in our views on Jim Crow and segregation. Was it wrong for the good guys to call out the segregationists and white supremacists as bigots? I would argue that calling them out for their bigotry was an important part of winning over the hearts and minds of middle Americans.

So, I'm all for civility, but let's not be afraid to confront the truths in this debate. The elephant in the room is indisputably there, and mustn't be ignored in our rush to civility.