A reporter once asked me, “If you found out that somebody on your staff was gay, would you fire them?” I was stunned by the sheer stupidity and outright ignorance of the reporter’s question.

If it had not been for the fact that I knew and—up until that point—respected this journalist, I would have walked away in dismay and disgust. Instead, staying calm, I asked, “What on earth would compel you to ask such a reckless question?” He replied, somewhat sheepishly, “Well, I was just asking based on your vote in the gay marriage debate.”

Behaviour of a healthy democracy

In case your memory, dear reader, needs prompting, the debate on this matter in Canada was finally settled by all the Members of Parliament in 2005 when, out of the 308 of them, 164 (out of the 154 they needed) voted in favour of gay marriage. Of the 132 MPs who voted against it, every party in the House of Commons was represented. Approximately one-third of the Liberal party voted against changing the definition of marriage. They wanted to retain the historic definition that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The debate was noteworthy on a number of levels:

• First, the debate itself, unlike many in Parliament, was remarkably free of rancour or personal attacks. Of course, it was passionate at times, but it was void of detectable malice or mudslinging.
• Secondly, once the vote was over, MPs moved on to the next issue.

That is, usually, how a healthy democracy functions.

Fascist tendencies of pro-gay extremists

Sadly, the ever present activists (on this and many issues) outside of Parliament, on both sides of the political aisle, seemed unimpressed that MPs could have robust and deeply felt disagreement on life-impacting issues while still functioning together as mutually respected human beings. It is usually among the activist elements on any particular issue that this tendency towards a fascist impulse emerges.

Remember, a fascist tendency is one which favours dictatorial control and a clear intent to suppress offending thought. This certainly was and continues to be the case on this issue.

The pro-gay extremists would use every opportunity to affix hate-based “phobia” labels to many of the MPs who, in significant numbers, had voted to uphold the definition of marriage. Many of us received disgusting and, sometimes, video messages from the pro-gay extremists. Some of us, myself included, received death threats. This was also true of the other side.

Unfortunately, the smoke and fire of the missiles launched against MPs long after the debate was over, tended to obscure an element of the Conservative position on the matter at the time. 

That position was that partners in a gay union should have the full and equal civil rights as those attached to the traditional definition. 

This desire of true democrats to protect human rights, is a simple reflection of the reality that most elected officials in democracies around the world are advocates for the full protection of human rights of all people.

Consequences of supporting the traditional definition of marriage—for some

Regrettably, in recent years, we have seen in many jurisdictions, a vile inquisition of sorts towards any public figure today who may have voted many years ago to sustain the traditional definition of marriage. There are recent examples of people in present day high positions in the corporate or academic world who have been purged and banned from their lifetime occupations because they were on record two or three decades ago as supporting the traditional definition of marriage.

It is a study of interest to see who does not get labeled as “homophobic” even though, in their high office “back in the day,” they voted against gay marriage.

Former U.S. President Barack Obama is a case-in-point. When he first ran for presidential office, he was clear—even adamant—that he would not support gay marriage. Whatever caused him over the years to drop his opposition to that change in law is not entirely clear. What is clear, however, is that he is never attacked by the media or others for opposing gay marriage.

Yet, the media will often allow to go unchallenged the baseless accusations of “homophobia” against conservative individuals who may have aligned with almost 50% of all elected representatives from most parties of the population on that issue not many years ago.

Media bias, repetition and influence on the “undecided” voter

There is an unfortunate result of media irresponsibility, and at times active involvement in allowing such accusations to be reported unchallenged. Unsuspecting listeners or readers, being unaware of the circumstances decades ago, then hear or read the charge of “homophobia” or “hateful” today and automatically perceive it to be “true.” 

Why does this matter? In today’s social environment, many key issues, even elections themselves, are significantly “bi-polar.” I say that, indicating that any particular issue (or party) may enjoy a popular base of support hovering slightly below 50%. This indicates that a vote, or a public polling result on a party, or a position, will often be decided by the so-called “undecided.”

In many national elections, in this era, by the time it comes to vote, the undecided voters will be key as those votes can make up the small but important gap needed by one of the contending parties to win.

This gives the partisans who launch personal, fear-based and often sensational positions against their opponents, the opportunity to be effective in moving the “undecided” vote of four or five percent and gain the deciding factor in an election or on an issue.

Here is where the media often play a determining role. If the attackers co-opt the media into taking an uncritical view of the accusation and even repeat it with some manner of sympathy, then the less informed “undecided” will tend to believe the often baseless accusation.

Think about it. If you hear the label “hater” or “homophobic,” attached enough times to a person or party, you will naturally begin assuming it to have merit. Most people do not have either the time or the inclination to pursue the veracity of the matter. If they see or hear it enough, especially in the so-called “mainstream media,” they will be influenced to vote accordingly.

Thus, if we now add to that dimension the widely accepted reality that most MSM, individually and corporately, think and vote to the left then the result is often determined by how they have treated the issue.

Power-hungry politicians are often the ones who are rightly accused of causing unnecessary division by unworthy attacks. However, it is a sad and irrefutable fact that the media are often not only complicit but active participants in the attacks.

For the sake of maintaining civility and preserving a sense of social cohesion, we should all be more sensitive to the potential blast area and harm that occurs when we choose to launch personal grenades.