Where Are the PC Police?

From The Salt Lake Tribune, online, August 6, 2008

Kresta Spencer and Carrie Taylor hosted a "celebration of their love", and wanted to share their joy with the readers of the Logan, Utah, The Herald-Journal. So, they took out an ad on the Wedding Announcements page - since the paper apparently lacks a Celebration of Love announcements page. And as a lesbian couple, they can't exactly get married in Utah.

And that is where the fun begins. While there were communications expressing support for the couple, a strongly worded letter to the editor denouncing the inclusion of the ad in The Herald-Journal led to well over 200 comments online as well as at least two other published, directly related, letters to the editor and their associated comments. The battle lines are predictably drawn between "You're all going to burn in Hell" and "We have rights as human beings too - leave them alone!". There is also a predictably large contingent of "Swiss" out there advocating rational thought, calm dialogue, and "gee, gosh, can't we all just find some way to get along."

In addition to the two additional letters to the editor mentioned above ("fairly" balanced with one pro and one con on the subject), the article also reports numerous telephone call, emails, and at least four subscription cancellations over the newspaper daring to print such an immoral ad.

Which leads to the question - Where are the PC police?

Clearly, Logan, Utah, and the areas exposed to the article and its derivatives are a hotbed of anti-homosexual hate mongering. Many of the online posters probably could be tracked down if absolutely necessary, but four subscribers to the paper have conveniently self-identified and need to be immediately arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent possible under hate crimes laws. Four examples to hold up before the populace should be enough to make the rabble-rousers cower suitably in their dank little bolt-holes.

How dare they inflict financial harm upon the paper because of their bigoted views? What country do they think they live in that they can cancel subscriptions with impunity just because they don't wish to be subjected to a bunch of faggot-pandering promoters of sin? Do they really believe they can force their narrow minded and self-righteous morality on others who are more enlightened?

Look, what you do in your own bedroom is your own business and for the most part I'm going to leave you alone over it. I also would never think of inflicting the view of me in a Speedo on innocent beach goers - though recognize there are men even older and more overweight than myself who lack my insight and compassion for others. I simply do my best not to direct my gaze at the spectacle.

There is probably much that you do that annoys me, revolts me, and yes even disturbs me deeply on a completely visceral level. I fully expect that upon close interaction and examination you would be able to say the same about me.

Those differences are good, and healthy, and to be encouraged.

I fully embrace your freedom of expression, even as I expect you to embrace mine. Not just even but especially if you disagree with it. As soon as I can deny you the right to your expression, someone else has the right to deny me. I fear that far more that I fear you quoting Gloria Steinem or Snoop Dog at me.

It is through disagreement and dialogue that we grow, as individuals and as a people. Argument - in the civilized sense of the word, rather than the playground interpretation most people embrace - and moral suasion are the way to determine over much time what we collectively as a society feel is right. Come to my church, hear about the world of my God as interpreted by my clergy, and walk away with what you will. Or take away nothing - your choice, and perhaps your loss. In exchange, when you approach me on the street and tell me why your path is so much better than mine I promise I will listen and consider your words. I won't guarantee to agree with you, but I also won't beat you up, burn your home, or demand you be persecuted for a hate crime just because you don't share my world view and had the temerity to try and broaden my horizons with the arguments of your sincerely held perspective. (And no, that is not a typographical error. Hate crimes laws are institutionalized persecution, wrapped up in a shiny, acceptable, prosecution bow.)

Conversation. Dialogue. Mutual understanding. The end results are far more enduring than simply bludgeoning one message or another out of existence. Because the message, the viewpoint, the lifestyle that is "eliminated" in fact isn't. At best it is driven underground, where it festers, and grows, becomes wiser and stronger and bides its time for an appropriate opportunity to make a bid for daylight. And that chance will come. Look at all the Christians who suddenly came scrambling out of the woodwork after the fall of the Soviet Union. Or those who still exist in China.

This is not the "Swiss" solution, which figures as long as no one is actually shooting and everyone is being left alone then everything must be alright. This is a much tougher solution, because it seeks to bring all parties to a broader understanding that everyone can live with. Balkanization of humanity is not, in the long run, productive for anyone.

Morality can never be successfully legislated. It can only be arrived at through a long and sometimes tortuous process of soul searching and debate. Understanding will always triumph over imposition, no matter how long it takes.