At my 25th high school reunion, I was voted least changed. Initially I found this flattering but upon further reflection it occurred to me that I’d probably blown through thousands of dollars on cosmetic procedures just to end up looking like the same dweeb I was in high school.
But more than that, I’ve come a long way from the small town I grew up in. I live in a high rise, rarely drive a car, and live in one of the most diverse neighborhoods in the city.
I think change is a good thing. You get a little older, you learn a little more about the world and you reassess your position. In recent election cycles, however, this has become known as flip flopping. Somehow your political affiliation isn’t a function of intelligent analysis, it more like rabid loyalty to your favorite sports team. And woe be unto you if you deviate from the party line.
For the past eight years, liberals have been accusing their conservative counterparts of being intolerant and exclusive. The battle between the Bleeding Hearts and the Rigidly Righteous has been heated, vocal and often ugly. But now that the Left is firmly in the driver’s seat, there are signs that intolerance is a door that swings both ways. Does the winning team get to change the rules?
A couple of recent incidents have made me take a second look at the ideology of the Left as well as the Right. The first, of course, is the drubbing Miss California USA took for giving her honest opinion of gay marriage. It’s not just that Perez Hilton was unhappy when he didn’t get the answer he wanted; it’s that the other judges fell into line (I suspect) for fear of being accused of homophobia.
As liberals aren’t we supposed to “defend to the death your right to say it” whether we agree or not? This is why Neo Nazis can get parade permits and the Boy Scouts can exclude gays.
One of the great things about living in America is that you have a constitutional right to be as big a crackpot as you want to be. Unless, of course, you’re infringing on someone else’s right to be as big a crackpot as he wants to be.
Las week North Carolina Congresswoman Virginia Foxx was pilloried for suggesting that the Matthew Shephard murder was not a hate crime. Her use of the word “hoax” was unfortunate but aside from that, there is actually some basis in fact to her opinion.
As more details came to light, the gay panic aspect of the crime came into question. Matthew Shephard was certainly targeted because he was small and weak, an easy target. That he was also gay may have been incidental. I say “may” because I wasn’t there that night. I don’t know what his assailants were thinking when they committed that brutal crime. And neither do you.
Colorado’s entire Congressional Delegation, with the exception of Doug Lamborn, recently approved a bill to expand the federal hate crime law. On an intellectual level I understand hate crime laws.
I understand that they are designed not to control one-on-one crimes but to punish those crimes that are designed to send a message to an entire racial, religious or gay community.
But deep in my little liberal heart, hate crime legislation scares me. In my mind, I can’t reconcile locking people up not just for what they did but for what they were thinking when they did it, and I can’t help but feel that it sets a dangerous precedent. (That I find myself agreeing with Doug Lamborn is equally disconcerting.)
Americans routinely cherry pick their religious affiliations; we can be Cafeteria Catholics or Jews for Jesus or Baptists for Beer. Is it too much to ask that we be allowed to cherry pick our politics according to our consciences as well?
Marcie Morin (iluvaroadtrip@comcast.net) lives in Denver. EDITOR’S NOTE: This is an online-only column and has not been printed.
