Despite its seemingly liberal-esque name, The Tallahassee Democrat is anything but. So it’s perhaps not surprising that one of its columnists wrote a piece that seems on the surface to be a well-considered view of the other side of the coin on Florida’s own recent vote to enshrine anti-gay bigotry in our state constitution.

Bill Coterell, who writes as the “Capitol Curmudgeon,” penned “Gay-marriage defense faces an uphill battle” for publication in the state capital’s newspaper today. He begins by alleging that economic boycotts such as those being proposed by gay activists in California don’t work, or if they do, they hurt the “little guy,” those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder, rather than those who made whatever mischief is being protested.

The huge difference between the civil rights movement and the marriage controversy is that, at least in the backs of their minds, the segregationists knew they were wrong.

Then he slips in a little zinger that provides the first clue to where he’s going in the article:

In one ominous bit of modern McCarthyism, the artistic director of the California Musical Theater was forced out for donating $1,000 to the Prop. 8 campaign. Opponents of the ban announced that they would scour campaign-finance records for names of any other donors whose employers might be sensitive to picketing and boycotts. (emphasis added)

Well, there’s a reason campaign-finance records are public, and anyone donating to a campaign should know that they are making a public statement with their checkbook, and they must be prepared to take responsibility for it.

After musing about whether “provisions of constitutions [should] be for sale, via boycotts of states that won’t enact them or retaliatory firing of people who support them,” Cotterell mounts a classic non-sequitur argument:

Economic reprisal probably won’t amount to much, because people supporting gay marriage tend to be liberal. Liberals believe in church-state separation. Punishing a state for what some prominent members of a church did seems contradictory.

Whoa, there, Billy-boy, let’s examine your argument:

A) People who support gay marriage are liberal.
B) Liberals favor separation of church and state.
c) Therefore, liberals won’t punish an entire state for what some church does.

That doesn’t seem contradictory, just illogical and kind of dumb, Bill.

But then finally Cotterell gets to the heart of his argument:

The problem with mixing moral suasion and economic pressure, as a political tactic, is that you have to hold undisputed title to the high ground. Right now, the gay activists don’t — especially not on marriage.

Hate crimes? Job discrimination? Domestic-partner benefits? Civil unions? Several cities, counties and states have them. Marriage? Hmmm, society is not there yet, by a score of 30 states to none.

So, any boycott mounted by gays lacks the “moral suasion” to be successful because 30 states have said that gay marriage is not moral? Did I get that right? Wait, there’s more:

Here in Florida, there was a reasonable argument that Amendment 2, the “marriage protection” proposal, didn’t belong in the Constitution. The “No on 2″ campaign heavily outspent the proponents and tried to convince Floridians that four laws are enough, if gay marriage gives you the willies, but the “Yes2Marriage” campaign still got 61.9 percent of the vote.

Seems that money can’t buy you moral suasion, either. Then Cotterell plays the numbers game:

About 600,000 more people voted for Amendment 2 than for Barack Obama. About 200,000 more people voted for the community college sales-tax amendment, which lost badly, than voted against the gay-marriage ban. Do people “hate” community colleges? Did they take away the colleges’ “right” to have a vote on a local-option sales tax?

The only ballot proposition getting more votes than Amendment 2 was the one limiting property taxes on “working waterfront” real estate. Taxing boat yards is not an issue that evokes a burning hatred in the hearts of voters.

It’s just not logical that 4,890,883 Florida voters are anti-gay bigots, any more than it’s plausible to think the 3,008,026 who voted against the marriage definition want kids to read “Heather Has Two Mommies” in elementary schools. That was part of the parade of horribles that backers of Amendment 2 said might occur, if they fell short.

But using Cotterell’s own “logic” on his argument yields this conundrum:

A) Nearly 5 million Floridians voted for Amendment 2 denying gays the right to marry.
B) Bigots are people who deny civil rights to others on the grounds that they are different or somehow less human.
C) Therefore, the 5 million Floridians who voted for Amendment 2 are bigots.

Man, I love how that works. But Cotterell is not nearly done yet. He’s got an answer for those who claim gay marriage is a question of civil rights:

The huge difference between the civil rights movement and the marriage controversy is that, at least in the backs of their minds, the segregationists knew they were wrong. The smart ones, the governors and Congress members with their “Never!” lapel buttons, said what was politically expedient, but they felt the ground shifting beneath their feet.

The same thing happened with the women’s movement. Clergy, the business community and a whole lot of pressure from the federal government changed America in the 1960s and ’70s.

For gay weddings, no such moral force seems evident — at least, not now — and millions of Florida voters obviously voted with a clear conscience for Amendment 2.

So, real bigots (like the ones who say Barack Obama should be assassinated) know, in the back of their reptilian brains, that they shouldn’t be bigots? Cotterell doesn’t even bother to provide some kind of half-assed argument with that — we’re just supposed to take it on faith. And he doesn’t refer to gay marriage, but to gay weddings, which is actually a whole different kettle of fish.

So, in Cotterell’s world, the measure of whether the issue of whether gays should be allowed to marry has “moral suasion” is whether bigots who vote against it can do so with a clear conscience. Thanks, Bill, that sure cleared up the issue for me, and I’m certain you’ll go to sleep with a “clear conscience” tonight.