Thanks to Glenn, I just discovered another gay blogger who holds views on Carrie Prejean nearly identical to my own. It seems that we gay folks who favor civil discourse on gay marriage are a minority among outspoken gays. Most of our peers alas remain silent as vocal gay activists and celebrities slur gay marriage opponents instead of rationally responding to their opposition.
Australia’s Garth Godsman looks at how various gay people and their allies in the left-wing media have responded to Miss Prejean’s simple answer that “believes that marriage is between a man and a woman” and asks:
What happened to being able to firstly argue a case intelligently and rationally and then, secondly, be prepared to agree to disagree while respecting another person’s honestly held opinion?
He’s much less sparing in his criticism than I might be (closer in style to my co-blogger 🙂 ). He too sees the hypocrisy of the left in their hysterical reaction to Miss Prejean while excusing her fellow gay marriage opponent who sits in the White House:
But, let’s face it, Prejean is a much smaller and easier target for the hatred of Hilton and others.
The organisers of the Miss California pageant fell over themselves to piously declare that “religious beliefs have no place in politics in the Miss California family.”
Does anyone imagine they’d have said the same if she’s espoused support for gay marriage because of her religious beliefs?
But as has been observed repeatedly about the left, tolerance for them is very much a one-way street.
Why haven’t more gay people join Garth, Japhy Grant and myself in standing up to those who would attack Miss Prejean personally instead of take issue with her rationally? Instead the publicity she generated by stating her opinion simply and civilly to explain why states should recognize same-sex civil marriages, they’re using it to make themselves look mean. And petty.
They’d rather insult their adversaries than make their case.
But, I’ve said this before. I look forward to the day when I no longer have to repeat this point. But, that would mean that all too many on the left would have to change their very manner of relating to their ideological and philosophical adversaries.
A fool’s hope perhaps, but a hope nonetheless.