Last week, Republicans half a world apart (in more ways than one) showed us the difference between rational, reasoned political thought and unthinking absolutism. In Israel, on the 60th anniversary of that nation’s founding, George W. Bush removed his drool cup just long enough to read a speech equating the diplomatic initiatives favored by Barack Obama with Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler in 1938. Meanwhile, in California, the Republican-appointed chief justice of the state’s Supreme Court used a close and nuanced reading of the state constitution to overcome his own reservations, and wound up serving as the swing vote in a 4-3 decision that overturned the state’s ban on marriage rights for gays and lesbians. That same day, governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, also a Republican, said he wouldn’t fight the ruling or support a constitutional amendment that would restore the ban.

This column isn’t about Iran or Obama, so let’s jettison that topic by noting that Bush, like that dope on “Hardball” last week, probably couldn’t pass a pop quiz about 1930s Europe, and almost certainly couldn’t tell you where the Sudetenland is. There is, however, a point to make about tossing around references to Hitler, particularly in Israel. (For Bush to have introduced Hitler into the U.S. presidential campaign in mid-May is like pulling out a “yo momma” insult too early while doin’ the dozens.) Nazi references are a surefire way to cut short a debate, rather than resolve it; they tend to eliminate the potential for rational disagreement, and lead to bouts of outraged name-calling, as we saw last week.

I bring this up because the debate over gay marriage too often begins and ends with this sort of name-calling. Proponents of gay rights are viewed by conservative Christians as “sodomites” who are acting “against God’s will” and are surely “doomed to hellfire.” Opponents of gay marriage are “bigots” who are “on the wrong side of history” and will someday find themselves “in the dustbin of history with Bull Connor” – and even, yes, Hitler. Both sets of characterizations are intended to disparage the morality, even the humanity, of the opposing side – and while they are a natural temptation, they serve only to stifle the debate rather than move it in one direction or the other. (more…)