Is the Hate Card the Recourse of Those Unwilling to Engage the Debate?


In the Washington Post, Matthew Franck argues the insistent use of the "hate" card to shut down debate is actually the last recourse of those who do not want to engage in reasonable debate:

"Some stories from recent months: A religion instructor at a midwestern state university explains in an e-mail to students the rational basis for Catholic teaching on homosexuality. He is denounced by a student for "hate speech" and is dismissed from his position. (He is later reinstated - for now.) . . .

On the west coast, a state law school moves to marginalize a Christian student group that requires its members to pledge they will conform to orthodox Christian doctrines on sexual morality. In the history of the school, no student group has ever been denied campus recognition. But this one is, and the U.S. Supreme Court lets the school get away with it.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, a once-respected civil rights organization, publishes a "report" identifying a dozen or so "anti-gay hate groups," some for no apparent reason other than their vocal opposition to same-sex marriage. Other marriage advocacy groups are put on a watch list.

On a left-wing Web site, a petition drive succeeds in pressuring Apple to drop an "app" from its iTunes store for the Manhattan Declaration, . . .The offense? The app is a "hate fest." Fewer than 8,000 people petition for the app to go; more than five times as many petition Apple for its reinstatement, so far to no avail.

Finally, on "$#*! My Dad Says," a CBS sitcom watched by more than 10 million weekly viewers, an entire half-hour episode is devoted to a depiction of the disapproval of homosexuality as bigotry, a form of unreasoning intolerance that clings to the past with a coarse and mean-spirited judgmentalism. And this on a show whose title character is famously irascible and politically incorrect, but who in this instance turns out to be fashionably cuddly and up-to-date.

What's going on here? Clearly a determined effort is afoot, in cultural bastions controlled by the left, to anathematize traditional views of sexual morality, particularly opposition to same-sex marriage, as the expression of "hate" that cannot be tolerated in a decent civil society. The argument over same-sex marriage must be brought to an end, and the debate considered settled. Defenders of traditional marriage must be likened to racists, as purveyors of irrational fear and loathing. Opposition to same-sex marriage must be treated just like support for now long-gone anti-miscegenation laws.

This strategy is the counsel of desperation. In 30 states, the people have protected traditional marriage by constitutional amendment: In no state where the question has been put directly to voters has same-sex marriage been adopted by democratic majorities. But the advocates of a revolution in the law of marriage see an opportunity in Perry v. Schwarzenegger , currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. In his district court ruling in the case in August, Judge Vaughn Walker held that California's Proposition 8 enacted, "without reason, a private moral view" about the nature of marriage that cannot properly be embodied in public policy. Prop 8's opponents are hoping for similar reasoning from the appeals court and, ultimately, from the Supreme Court.

The SPLC's report on "hate groups" gives the game away. It notes that no group is listed merely for "viewing homosexuality as unbiblical." But when describing standard expressions of Christian teaching, that we must love the sinner while hating the sin, the SPLC treats them as "kinder, gentler language" that only covers up unreasoning hatred for gay people. Christians are free to hold their "biblical" views, you see, but we know that opposition to gay marriage cannot have any basis in reason. Although protected by the Constitution, these religious views must be sequestered from the public square, where reason, as distinguished from faith, must prevail.

Marginalize, privatize, anathematize: These are the successive goals of gay-marriage advocates when it comes to their opponents.

First, ignore the arguments of traditional marriage's defenders, that marriage has always existed in order to bring men and women together so that children will have mothers and fathers, and that same-sex marriage is not an expansion but a dismantling of the institution. Instead, assert that no rational arguments along these lines even exist and so no refutation is necessary, and insinuate that those who merely want to defend marriage are "anti-gay thugs" or "theocrats" or "Taliban," as some critics have said.

Second, drive the wedge between faith and reason, chasing traditional religious arguments on marriage and morality underground, as private forms of irrationality.

Finally, decree the victory of the new public morality - here the judges have their role in the liberal strategy - and read the opponents of the new dispensation out of polite society, as the crazed bigots of our day.

. . .[B]ut the charge of "hate" is not a contribution to argument; it's the recourse of people who would rather not have an argument at all.

That is no way to conduct public business on momentous questions in a free democracy."


  1. Don
    Posted December 19, 2010 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    An excellent synopsis of the situation, Maggie. You have torn away the mask of pretense behind which these people hide and you have exposed their disingenuous tactics for all to see.

  2. Richard
    Posted December 19, 2010 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    No you haven't "torn away the mask" Maggie. My business is none of your business. Your marriage is none of my business. Your moral beliefs are yours and not necessarily mine. I couldn't care less about your marriage and children if this describes you. You have no business in my life, my children or my partner's life. This is not said from hate (contrary to what "Don" would have everyone believe). Your religion is yours and not mine; it's when you and others of this persuasion try to inculcate everyone else with your doctrines that many would see this as hateful. Defend your own marriage; mine will not dismantle yours. Nor will the thousands of other gay couples who are married in this country.

  3. Posted December 19, 2010 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

    We really need your help in Maryland. The far left is planning to push SSM in the new session.

  4. Paul Sanderson
    Posted December 19, 2010 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

    Why is that being opposed to marriage equality is equated to hate and bigotry? It does not appear that the gay agenda is gaining any traction with this line of argumentation. Nothing more than a dying gasp or one last "hail mary" in a losing agenda.

  5. RH
    Posted December 19, 2010 at 8:56 pm | Permalink

    NOM is ridiculous. And the comments from anti-marriage equality bigots are nothing more than the final gasps by a dying generation of bigots. NOM supporters cannot get out of the way of progress fast enough.

  6. Don
    Posted December 19, 2010 at 9:44 pm | Permalink


    Why, you don't have any right to marriage Richard! Sorry about that old buddy. 😉

  7. Adam
    Posted December 19, 2010 at 10:45 pm | Permalink

    Richard says, "your religion is yours and not mine; it's when you and others of this persuasion try to inculcate everyone else with your doctrines that many would see this as hateful."

    Sorry you see it that way Richard. In my religion we have always strived to send love and support to all of God's children. I hope you find what you are looking for. If you could get married, would life be so much better for you? The church would still oppose your relationship. Would you be happy? Or is it that you really hope the church's will be forced to change their views about marriage? There are 18,000 couples married in California. Are they truly happy now that they are married? Have they lived the dream? My question to you is this? Why is marriage so important to you? Is it because the HRC made it a goal, or did you wake up one day feeling like you weren't worth anything unless your marriage was validated by the church's. How did marriage become so important to you?

  8. Mike Brooks
    Posted December 20, 2010 at 2:19 am | Permalink

    Richard -

    You have to face facts, dude. Society has a strong interest in the union of men and women, because the sexual act between them produces children. All children should have the best opportunity to be raised by their (real) parents; this is the ideal, the foundation of all great societies. Men and women who conceive children should take responsibility for that whom they create - marriage promotes this responsibility.

    Sexual acts between people of the same sex always produce nothing. Society has no interest in these acts, and thus society has no value in promoting unions of homosexuals. That doesn't mean homosexuals lack value; it's the unions that really don't add anything to the perpetuation of society and promotion of the (real) parental-child relationship. Society has no interest in people who love one another and decide to pair up, unless that pairing can lead to the creation of children or promotes by example other such pairings that would lead to the creation of children; that is, male-female pairings. It's the reason that marriage exists in the first place: because men and women make babies.

    And, if society held out homosexual pairings to be the same as m/f pairings by changing the definition of marriage, then the link between marriage and procreation would be severed, resulting in more out-of-wedlock births, more children denied one or both parents, more children brought up in poverty; the very things that marriage was designed to avoid.

    You want to get married Richard? Find a woman to love and get married - we all have that right in this country.

  9. TC Matthews
    Posted December 20, 2010 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

    When in doubt, RH, pull out the old crystal ball. It works every time right?

  10. Chris Davis Colorado
    Posted December 20, 2010 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    We are NOT hidding you hide us. We are not ending the debate with the hate card you won't post any comments from our side. Yet over at Ptt8 your side can speak to us freely we will take the debate there since you wont let it happen here. We are going to have our rights you won't win, you can't, we won't let it, and you FEEL it don't you. It makes your stomach turn but you feel it. How did DADT make you feel this weekened? It will get better. YOU CAN"T WIN. WE WON'T LET YOU DO YOU HEAR ME. WE WON'T.

    We know one of you nut jobs read these so we will keep posting it isn't completely unnotice, just not to your community. We already get it, it's your way or no way, but we won't except it.

  11. ConservativeNY
    Posted December 20, 2010 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

    Am I the only one who notes the tone of desperation here? LOL!

  12. DavdKCMO
    Posted December 20, 2010 at 7:28 pm | Permalink

    Am I the only one who detects evasion through laughter? The immaturity of you nomers is unending in myriad presentations. And no, I fail to see the humor in discrimination backed by homophobia.

  13. Don
    Posted December 20, 2010 at 11:19 pm | Permalink

    No, ConservativeNY, I can feel their desperation too. Look at those bloodshot eyes, the beads of perspiration on their foreheads.

    Man, that kind of stress can do some strange things to a person's glandular system. Think we should send 'em a care package of deodorant? I mean, who else will be honest enough with them to tell them? 😉

  14. ConservativeNY
    Posted December 21, 2010 at 4:06 am | Permalink

    It is the gay activists who post most of the emotional rants here. That makes it clear which side is the least mature.

  15. Don
    Posted December 21, 2010 at 6:16 am | Permalink


    Yes, you are the only one who detects evasion through laughter. How long have you been detecting things which no one else detects, David? Is the tin foil not working for you? 😉

  16. Charles Cottrell
    Posted December 21, 2010 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    To answer Adam's question: ' There are 18,000 couples married in California. Are they truly happy now that they are married? Have they lived the dream?'
    YES, I am VERY happy about my LEGAL same-sex marriage that took place In Palm Springs, CA on 7/1/2008. And I could give a rat's behind what your religion thinks about it.
    And for all of you haters, same sex marriage will be legal in all 50 states sooner than you think. You can BET on it!

  17. TC Matthews
    Posted December 21, 2010 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    I'm glad you've finally found that ever illusive "happiness" (it took a court abusing it's purpose to make you happy?), but do the casualties to that stamp of societal approval make it worth it? How does it feel knowing children are paying the price for your self satisfaction? I don't know, for me, I would probably feel as if I were stealing something not rightfully given, but, to each his own.

  18. Don
    Posted December 21, 2010 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

    Carles Cotrell wrote: "And for all of you haters..."

    Who hates?

    "Gay Anti-Asian Prejudice Thrives On the Internet
    by Joseph Erbentraut
    EDGE Contributor
    Monday Sep 6, 2010"

    "It is not at all unusual to come across one particularly exclusionary triad: "No fatties, no femmes, no Asians." The "not into Asians" is virtually a mantra in personal ads, as Internet users hide behind their virtual anonymity to use racially-charged, taunting language."

    "Such experiences mirror that of the discrimination against many men trying to get into nightclubs because bar owner fear a club’s reputation will suffer if it becomes "too Asian"--a trend New York City’s GAPIMNY is attempting to document and, ultimately, prevent."

    It is you and your homosexual activist friends who are the racist, bigoted haters. You not only hate us, you hate your fellow homosexuals if they aren't white.

  19. Mike Brooks
    Posted December 21, 2010 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    @Charles - I guess if they merely extended the definition of marriage to include a guy who commits sodomy with another man you'd be married, too, right? And would it still make you so happy?

    So, how do you define marriage, Charles? And why is it so special to you?

  20. Regan DuCasse
    Posted December 21, 2010 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    I am a member of and volunteer with the Simon Weisenthal Center in Los Angeles. I'm also a member of the SPLC and they interface with places like the SWC.
    None of them come by their criteria lightly or for ANY 'sole reasons'.
    Indeed, NOM isn't a pro marriage and family group because too much of their time, as with the others, is spent talking about how bad gay people are for everything else.

    I'd like to point out Prop. 14. It was on the same ballot as Prop. 8.
    Do any of you remember it, or what it is? Ever wonder WHY?
    It's was a measure so that underage girls obtaining abortions, need not be accompanied by a PARENT. A responsible guardian would be enough.
    14 passed by a MUCH larger margin than 8. Which, I will remind you all, was by about 4% difference.
    14 wasn't mentioned much by NOM in 08 leading up to the vote, nor has been mentioned since. They are not looking to sue to overturn it, nor are they engaging in any media campaign to bring awareness of it, let alone legal challenge to it.
    NONE of NOMS allies are engaged in any such political or social action either.

    Mores the point, 14 was indicative of the failure of parents in protecting their children from premature and unintended pregnancy or the risks of them.
    And when it's all said and done, is anyone's life BETTERED by Prop. 8?
    Yours, any ones?

    If Maggie or Brian were consistent, they'd work harder against 14, because, it indicates risk to the unborn AND the relationship between a pregnant teen and her parents.
    But they don't.
    Ever wonder why?

  21. Richard B Cortijo
    Posted December 21, 2010 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

    ...I cannot wait till gay marriage is legal in all 50 states, I am getting maried in front of Don's house and holding my reception next to TC's and Maggies. You guys are immiture hateful horrible selfish people. Why do you think things should be your way or the highway when what is concerned has zero to do with you and zero affect on your marriage. gays will partner up, they will have or adopt and raise children, they will make out on the corners of Main and 1st in Ur Town. We will not go away cause you wish it so. All you are fighting for is to hold back the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage from us, but gladly take our tax dollars for yours. If you were really about just keeping us from marriage and children, then why not propose no state taxes should come from gays towards schools, or anything related to a married couples benifits? why? because it is wayyy more than that, you wish to opress, you wish to force hate, you wish to demean. Admit that Don the Communist and we can at least then deal with the facts. Meanwhile, we will make the ability to marry for all families in all states whether you like it or not (mainly because it is none of your business).....

  22. Don
    Posted December 21, 2010 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

    Regan wrote: "Indeed, NOM isn't a pro marriage and family group because too much of their time, as with the others, is spent talking about how bad gay people are for everything else."

    Then Richard B Cortijo wrote: " You guys are immiture hateful horrible selfish people."

    Gee, you guys need a coordinator or something. Regan says that we talk about how bad gay people are and Richard B Cortijo immediately follows by calling US bad, LOL! Decide what your story is going to be and stick to it!

  23. Mike Brooks
    Posted December 22, 2010 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

    @RIchard says NOM folks are "immiture hateful horrible selfish people"

    Richard, homosexuals are caught in suspended adolescence, so wrapped up in their choice of sexuality that it defines who they are. It's sex purely for self-gratification with no redeeming societal value. Like adolscents, they resort to name calling when someone disagrees with them. So, if you want to talk about immature, selfish, and hateful, there you have it.

    I appreciate the hatred that homosexuals have for heterosexuals, though I'm not sure whether it comes from resentment towards their parents and the upbringing that led them to their sexual choice; resentment for being different from the vast majority of the population who prefer to procreate; or a recognition that the only way for homosexuals to be "accepted" is to ram it down the throats of society.

  24. Don
    Posted December 23, 2010 at 12:32 am | Permalink

    Hey, good one, Mike Brooks! 🙂

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.