If sexual expression is a core constitutional right, on what grounds does Elizabeth Birch object to consensual incest or polygamy or adultery? Why is her favorite mode of consensual sex more sacred that anybody else's? For that matter, what gives Ms. Birch the right to act as a self-appointed guardian of public morals by shutting down discourse she happens not to like?
Surely people of good will can come together to say, enough: Democracy is for grown-ups. Tolerance does not mean suppressing our deepest disagreements but engaging them in a civil and respectful way.
Disagreements about homosexuality are not going to go away because (unlike racism) they are not based primarily on prejudices, fear or animus but on profound disagreements about the meaning, purpose and function of human sexuality. I believe that men and women are made for each other, that we are a two-sex species designed for sexual, not unisexual, reproduction. You may disagree. That is fine. I am surrounded by people who disagree with me on sexual matters. We can live together in civil society without hating or oppressing one another.
We can, that is, unless you believe Sen. Santorum's name-calling critics, who suggest we have to choose between tolerating gays and lesbians and tolerating common sense (not to mention Catholicism) in public life. Aren't there enough grown-ups around to do both?