Doesn’t it always fascinate you how the right likes to talk a good game about how horrible that dreaded “political correctness” is, but yet, when they tables are turned, they get so royally and fantastically butthurt that they become compelled to rush out and issue press releases, object strenuously, pound on tables and generally bleat to anyone who will listen?

Whereas liberals get all politically correct about saying words like “negro”, “bitch”, “honey”, “darkie” and “macaca”, rightwingers have their own dreaded “politically correct” words they want you to avoid, i.e., “bigot”, “racist”, “homophobe”, “misogynist” and others.

I’ll take on the word bigot today because Sully posted up some fetid concern trolling about how people need to be more sensitive about using the word bigot, even when it clearly applies:

Many people who don’t support same-sex marriage are not bigots, and it does not help us to use the epithet promiscuously. John tries to tease out a more helpful definition of “bigot” than dictionaries provide, and moves the ball downfield a bit. But he sets himself a hard task.

That struck home for me when a rabbi (whose name I did not catch) testified against the New Jersey bill, and asked the legislators to think about the fate of an “innocent lonely child” who is adopted by a same-sex married couple. His testimony is at the 8:18 mark in Blue Jersey’s live blog.

The unadorned words do not capture the rabbi’s deep, fearful concern for this hypothetical child. I obviously can’t speak about what moved this man. But listening to him, it is tragically clear that there is no room at all in his world for the simple possibility that such a child might not be lonely in a loving home headed by a gay couple, or that the child could thrive and have a wonderful life.

The irony is that by eliminating such a possibility from his imagination, he may be preventing some real child that tangible benefit. It is this moral editing – this internal censorship of good possibilities – that exempts some people from being called bigots.

• Wikipedia: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

• Mirriam-Webster: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

• American Heritage Dictionary: one who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Is he “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices”? Check.

Is he a person “who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ”? Double-check.

I mean, I know people don’t like to call nice little rabbis who speak with conviction and a cute accent a BIGOT but, for fuxake, the guy is a freaking bigot.

I really don’t care much about why someone is a bigot, just being a bigot is good enough for me.

Is a bigot less of a bigot because he fervently believes that homosexuals must be eliminated because they harbor evil alien viruses that will kill us all? Nope, still a bigot.

Is a bigot less of a bigot because he stridently wants to protect the children (!!!) from some unnameable qualities about the gays that make them unable to parent effectively. Nope, still a bigot.