Can Tolerance Breed Intolerance?

The gay community in America is constantly griping about the lack of tolerance on the part of the public that is against gay marriage, but in the process they have become very intolerant of the views of the people who disagree with them.

Where is it written, that because you don’t agree with certain policies, from a personal or religious perspective, that you should be vilified and held up to scorn and to be accused of being intolerant of the views of others?

The flap over the choosing of the Rev. Rick Warren, to give the invocation at the inaugural, is a classic case of the intolerance of the minority against the views of the majority. All kinds of vicious vituperation has been directed at Rev. Warren and to Pres.-elect Barack Obama, for making the innocuous choice of a popular pastor delivering an invocation at a grand public event, the swearing in ceremony of the President. Conversely, you didn’t see the opponents of gay marriage heaping scorn and rage at the Rev. Joseph Lowery, who gave the benediction at the end of the swearing-in ceremony, and who happens to be in favor of gay marriage. Which side is most tolerant?

What the gay activists should realize is that in every case when the proposition of defining gay marriage has been brought before the voting public for a vote, the majority of the voters have affirmed that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman. Should all who believe that way, be classified as a bigot and of being intolerant of others, especially after the votes affirming Prop. 8 in California, and Amendment 2 in Florida?

The only times that the law has been interpreted to be on the side of the “ gay marriage” proponents, is by judicial fiat by mostly unelected, unaccountable, activist judges who are pushing their own social agenda upon the opposition views of the majority of the voting public.

For thousands of years, it has been established that marriage be between a man and a woman, and most all religions come down on the side of that view. The gay community has the right to petition the government to change the law, but if the people reject that petition, they shouldn’t be subject to the slanderous and libelous attacks on their strongly held views. The equating of the changes we made in our country to change the laws on race relations, do not, in my opinion, translate to the sanctioning of gay marriage as a furtherance of that concept. There is no comparison between sex and race. According to social commentator Dennis Prager, “ There are enormous differences between men and women, but there are no differences between people of different races, therefore, any imposed separation by race can never be moral or even rational, on the other hand, separation by sex can be both morally desirable and rational. Separate bathrooms for men and women is moral and rational, separate bathrooms for blacks and whites is not”.

How much more healthful would our politics be if those who are so convinced of the rightness of their views, would have equal faith in the decency of their fellow Americans - and in their openness to be persuaded by clear, fair, and honest argument?

So let’s not descend into the verbal gutter by accusing others, you disagree with, with being a bigot or worse. Tolerance should be a two-way street and the people who tout the principle of “ tolerance” ( the gay community), should practice what they preach.

Written by Chuck Lehmann
"Chuck on the Right Side"