by Pepper Partin
Courtesy of EXP Magazine

Print Version

Indianapolis, February 19, 2005-- Webster defines the word bigot (n) "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

Synonymous terms for bigot are extremist, diehard, racist and hypocrite. I believe Webster might want to add sexual orientation to the list of intolerances in his definition.

As I work to pull together the counter rally against Eric Miller, Advance America and Senate Joint Resolution 7 (ban on same sex marriages and civil unions) in Indianapolis on March 8th, I am receiving feedback on our use of the word bigot. Given that our grassroots group of organizers chose to purchase the domain StopTheBigots, some people seem surprised that we have seemingly stooped to the level of name calling. I have a few thoughts on the matter.

As a lesbian, I have quietly battled the vast persecution of GLBT folks for many years. I have participated in peaceful, relatively quiet marches on Washington, D.C. and elsewhere. I, like many of us, have waged thoughtful, sensitive battles against our oppressors. Consequently, anything above and beyond singing Kumbaya at protests and turning the other cheek as we fight for our constitutional rights is somehow seen as startling and even radical. Using the term bigot as we fight our way out of a nationwide persecution is viewed by some as quite unexpected. But maybe that's a good thing.

What I cannot seem to successfully convey to some is that we have been backed against a wall. We are no longer just fighting to overturn existing statutes. Many of us in conservative red states are up against shocking unconstitutional amendments that bring out the primal instinct to fight or flee; fight fire with fire; finally call a spade a spade. Loving and tolerating our way out of this mess is no longer an option. Peace, love and pride aren't working.

As the nation begins to catch on to the parallel between "pro family", anti-gay groups such as Eric Miller's and other modern-day extremist organizations, the word bigot is catching on. On national talk radio shows even moderate Republicans are referring to those who support national and/or state constitutional amendments banning same sex marriages and civil unions as bigots. The words extremist and extremism are beginning to take hold as well. In my opinion, we must desensitize people to these terms just enough to allow them to see these people for what they are, and what they are, relative to what we are talking about here, is intolerant of anything other than heterosexuality.

History repeats. And if any of us believe in the need to learn from history so that we can move onward and upward, we have to realize that our country was founded upon rocking the boat for a better life; a better world. Those of us in the GLBT community have not rocked the boat. If no one rocks the boat, where is our system of checks and balances? Aren't we conceding to the most powerful just because we do not feel that fighting is the answer? What if we look at it this way: we are not pro-actively invading another country. Our country is being invaded thus we need to stand up and do something about it.

History repeating also tells us that groups of people who do not stand up for their rights become further oppressed until they are pushed to the limit. In some cases, as with the Holocaust, waiting until the fight was absolutely insurmountable without armies from across the world coming to the rescue, proved to be fatal. And we all know that the religious right's anti-gay agenda is seizing this country. It is leading to an accepted defensive term for murder in some states: gay panic. Here in Indiana two other bills up in the 114th General Assembly appeal to an anti-gay agenda. One bill would deny any unmarried person from adopting or fostering children, and the other would ban public universities from offering domestic partner benefits.

As someone who testified at the first Senate hearing against SJR7, I listened to the proponents of the same sex marriage/civil union ban as they called us perverse; told us we can reform; called sexual orientation other than heterosexuality a lifestyle; told us that, should we be allowed to marry, procreation would come to a halt and the world will, in essence, collapse. These people convey that unless they deny us our right to marry or have a civil union, the apocalypse will be upon us - and that would include the necessity to extend the right to marry to people who want to join in matrimony with their dogs. They also convey that they would have to condone incestuous relationships and subsequent marriage. Well, I can only say that it would be difficult to prove that a dog is a consenting adult (wouldn't this have catapulted animal rights organizations into a different sphere by now?) and if two consenting adults who are related want to marry there might be credible scientific evidence to suggest that producing children from such a union would be physiologically harmful to the offspring.

So to those who are shocked, stunned or otherwise taken aback by the use of the word bigot in the GLBT community's fight for equal rights, I can only say that you must be so far removed from the problem that you are unable to see the forest through the trees. Join us in the trenches and you too might be allowing the word bigot to roll a little more effortlessly off your tongue.

For more information on the counter rally on March 8th in Indianapolis, visit StopTheBigots.Org .