When people are unwilling to grant same-sex couples inclusion, affirmation and respect, does that make them bigots? The analogy to interracial marriage can be illuminating here, although perhaps in different ways than you think.

Let me illustrate from my own experience. My grandparents -- like many other whites of their generation -- opposed interracial marriage. I loved, admired and respected my grandparents. (Still do: one is still living.) Their racism was not the sneering, epithet-wielding, block-the-schoolhouse-door variety. Their stated reasons against interracial marriage seemed noble enough: it was bad for the children, they'd say, or it's not what God wants, or sometimes: "It's just not right." They didn't make a fuss about it, and they didn't organize around it politically, but they deeply believed it.

Were my grandparents bigots? I can understand why many would say so. As someone who loves them, I prefer to think of it this way: my grandparents -- like all of us, me included -- had their moral blind spots, and racism was among them.

Some people balk at any comparison between same-sex-marriage and interracial-marriage: "Race and sexual orientation are not the same thing!" Of course they're not. I've never said otherwise. When we make an analogy, we're not saying that two things are the same. We're saying that they're similar in some relevant respects. They may be quite dissimilar in others, and both the similarities and the differences can be instructive.

What can we learn from looking at the history of racial discrimination and interracial marriage? Several relevant things. That couples experience the denial of marriage as a powerful deprivation. That human beings often hide behind religion to absolve their views from rational assessment ("It's not me who says this; it's God!"). That people sometimes invoke what's "natural," or what's bad for the children, to justify their biases. That fear sometimes eclipses reason. That even good people can have serious moral blind spots.

Most relevant to my point here, we can learn how bigotry can have a gracious, even noble-looking face. It's not always about yelling epithets, or throwing food at people, or physically blocking doors. Sometimes it involves kindly grandparents who can't quite wrap their minds around social change. Sometimes it's about metaphorically blocking doors. . . .

Whichever side prevails in this debate, the other's views will be marginalized. There's no getting around that. (That's what prevailing in the debate means.) It needn't be ugly, although it sometimes is. Let's not pretend, however, that either side has a monopoly on nasty rhetoric. When Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson accuses gays of seeking "the utter destruction of the family," or when former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum compares same-sex relationships to "man on dog" sex, or when Congresswoman Michele Bachmann says that homosexuality is "part of Satan," they marginalize and dehumanize their opponents.

Traditionalists should think twice before playing the victim card: It is legal in more than half of U.S. states to fire someone from a job simply for being gay. Until recently, gay citizens had to lie about their close relationships in order to serve in our nation's military. And as recently as 2003, I could be charged with a felony for having private intimate relations with my partner.

Many of Maggie Gallagher's allies openly supported such laws. Some still do.

The view that same-sex couples are unworthy of marriage is a wrongheaded one, which should, and will, be marginalized. But what about the view that children need mothers and fathers? If Gallagher is trying to connect the dots between that premise and her opposition to same-sex marriage, we should focus more specifically on this question: Will people be stigmatized, and even branded as bigots, simply because they believe that children do best with their own (biological) mother and father?

Honest answer: it depends.

Specifically, it depends on how they frame their point. If they make their focus child welfare, they should be fine. Indeed, on certain points, they may find surprising allies. I too lament the fact that many men don't take their responsibilities as fathers seriously. I'd like to see the divorce rate reduced, especially when children are involved. I recognize teen pregnancy as a real social problem, particularly in poor minority communities. If the focus is on getting everyone to take more responsibility when it comes to sex and procreation and childrearing, then sign me up.

But that, sadly, has seldom been the focus. Instead, "the traditional view of marriage" has become code for "no gays allowed." Consider the National Organization for Marriage, which Gallagher co-founded. What do they do to protect children and strengthen marriage? Not a single thing. Their sole mission is to keep gays out. Worse yet, their scapegoating diverts resources away from measures that might actually help children.

If you don't want your child-welfare convictions to get branded as discrimination, then you shouldn't cloak them in a discriminatory message: No gays allowed. Regrettably, that's the path that Gallagher and her allies have consistently chosen.

John Corvino Disagrees