No I don’t think it is unfair of you to point out what you perceive as hypocrisy on the part of people who oppose gay marriage. In fact, I agree that hypocrisy should be called out. My point is that the alleged hypocrisy of people on one side of an issue should not in any way excuse the actions of people on the other side of an issue. It always bothers me when the response to some incorrect action on the part of a group you agree with is that the other side previously acted the same way. When you mention it in the context of inappropriate action on the part of a proponent of gay marriage it appears that you are in someway excusing what they did by indicating that the other side also acts that way so it is no big deal.

You seem to think it unfair of me to point out that a certain portion of the commentariat picks up on these cases in a purely instrumental way, ginning up publicity for cases where “they” persecute “us,” while studiously ignoring cases where “we” persecute “them.” In spotlighting cases from both sides — as with the Chick-Fil-A episode, where I devoted a series of posts to defending the executives’ right to say things with which I disagree — I hope to advance agreement on some principles that transcend the hatreds of the endless Culture War.

Walter, you seem to be unable to think rationally when it comes to this issue. Either it is right or wrong to retaliate against someone for signing a ballot initiative. Whether or not someone on the other side of the issue did not protest to your satisfaction an inappropriate action on the part of the delegate has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that what the President of Gallaudet did was totally wrong. You are also strangely weak in your admonition of the actions of the President of Gallaudet. It is not as if she was going around campaigning for the ballot initiate. If one cannot sign a ballot initiative without being retaliated against then we have indeed crossed a line where we no longer have freedom to vote our conscience.