One of my primary concerns is that often name calling, whatever label is used, paints all people with the same brush. Described by some as the “Law of Small Numbers,” it is the basis of all prejudice. What is true for one must be true of all.

I do believe that many who are in the leadership of the anti-gay movement aren’t even that opposed to homosexuality or same sex marriage. They see it as a wedge issue. They have no commitment to honesty and they never correct their distortions. They know that what they say makes some people mad and they will be motivated to work for and contribute to their cause. It is precisely what I was discussing in an early post about sex education in public schools, which became a major reason marriage equality was defeated in Maine.

So we’re left with the word “bigotry”, and here I must disagree with you and many others: I think the word is useful and accurate when used correctly and VERY specifically. It’s neither when applied to ALL our opponents, especially people who vote against us. Such people are probably, more often than not, “homo-naive”, as you put it, and some may be mildly prejudiced, but it’s illogical to believe that they’re ALL bigots. Using the word “bigot” to mean everyone who voted against us is indeed VERY counter-productive.

However, the folks behind the organising pretty clearly are bigoted: An organisation that merely disagrees with us, or that merely supports and alternative view, will not feel the need to lie, smear, fear-monger and distort in order to win their fight. These Karl Rove-like tactics are used precisely because at best they don’t like us, and at worst, actually hate us. Their rhetoric on homosexuality in general, usually expressed to their believers and away from the cameras, is, more often that not, rife with bigotry.

The problem is that it’s VERY difficult to call-out the anti-GLBT militants on their bigotry without seeming to brand everyone who’s voted against us as being bigoted, too. Certainly the militants are eager to spin any criticism of them as anti-Christian bigotry which we and all reasonable people can see is absurd, but which carries a lot of weight with people who oppose us, even if only mildly.

So anyone who uses the word “bigot” must be pedantically clear in how they mean it and to whom they’re applying it. No one can have any doubt that it applies only—exclusively—to the militants. The militants have successfully portrayed themselves as “ordinary” Christians who are being “victimised” by the weird, “otherly” homosexuals. Our task is to reveal the militants as the true “other” in this fight, without scaring off the “homo-naive” in the process.

Those homo-naive folks need to know and understand exactly who their negative votes are affecting (which is why we must all come out), and then they’ll see how much they have in common with us. But they also need to understand that the militants are bigots with whom they have little in common. It’s a delicate, tricky thing to to do, but one which I believe is crucial.