Dan Fishback: No respect for bigotry

I am not belaboring a point. You might see all LGBT topics as "gay, gay, gay; blah, blah, blah," but any civil rights struggle is a matrix of questions and theories, many of which have little to do with each other. Two LGBT-related issues might be quite distant indeed.

In the past week-and-a-half, public discourse has traversed this distance. Printed words in this newspaper, on message boards and in e-mails have molded a debate about same-sex marriage into a debate about respect.

The aftermath of the PennForum gay marriage panel has had very little to do with gay marriage at all. It has become about tactics and attitude. Critics have characterized myself and my fellow advocates as smug and arrogant. They have called us closed-minded. They have portrayed our views as some sort of reverse-bigotry.

We have a hand, apparently, in the death of civil discourse.

But what if this wasn't just another "gay thing" at all? What if this was a debate about interracial marriage? What if two students sat before you and claimed that interracial couples could not raise healthy children? That their union is antithetical to the fabric of society? That God disapproves of their love? What if students in pointy white hoods sat before you and advocated that the United States of America deny civil rights to black citizens?

I shudder to think that a snicker, a look of disbelief, a nervous laugh or even a thunderous, shaming condemnation would be chastised. Imagine being publicly censured for insulting a Klansman! You cannot -- it is unimaginable. We have decided that racists are bigots. We have decided that they are an affront to the civic pride of America. We have decided they are evil.

Heterosexists are another matter.

Whoever called LGBT people "America's last niggers" was not far from the truth. While no one can even suggest denying racial minorities of civil rights, the advocates of legalized homosexual discrimination must be afforded respect, courtesy and civility.

Their rhetoric is wrapped in the "respectable" institution of religion. They preface their arguments with proclamations of love. They "love" gay people. They afford gay people respect, courtesy and civility.

What they would not afford us is the very commodity they gush from their pores: love. They claim to give it to us, but they won't allow it between us. And to stand in the way of love is to stand in the way of humanness. And to deny me of my humanness is most certainly not to love me.

So I denounce their "love." It is no such thing. I denounce their respect, their courtesy, their civility. I dare them to shed their polite armor, their shield of courtesy.

Because I have no armor. I cannot feign respect without defiling my argument with hypocrisy. I will not see bigots paraded about as the brave defenders of an unpopular political faith. I will not applaud their "courage" for being vocal in their bigotry.

This is not a debate about budget policy. This is a debate about humanity. Their faith isn't simply political -- it's inhuman. So just as you would not disdain someone for denouncing racism, I ask you to think twice before shouting "closed-minded!" "arrogant!" or "intolerant!" at a sexual rights advocate.

I ask you not only to understand the anger, not only to understand the human reflexes so mistakenly spun as "smugness" and "arrogance" -- I ask you to question: Why aren't these reactions more rampant? If we would collectively heave scorn upon a white supremacist, then why don't we do the same with a heterosexual supremacist? Why are they still acceptable, still worthy of "respect?" Is it because our culture still functions that way? Then I ask you: Are you not part of our culture?

After Matthew Shepard was murdered, playwright Tony Kushner made an important distinction; he wrote, "I worry more about the death of civil rights than civil discourse.... I mourn Matthew Shepard's actual death... much more than I mourn the lost chance to be civil with someone who does not consider me fully a citizen."

I think any reasonable person would agree that "politeness towards bigots" should be a low, low priority when America refuses equal rights to its citizens. Let's not worry about manners. Let's worry about justice. Dan Fishback is a junior English major from Olney, Md.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.