Sometimes taking the high road hurts. As a community that has traditionally been discriminated against by hate-spewing bigots, it’s hard for us to admit that we can be every bit as intolerant as the right wing.

There is currently a lot of fuss over the cancellation of The Reagans, a miniseries that reportedly portrays Reagan as indifferent to the plight of the gay community in the early years of AIDS. Of course, the right wing high and holies took offense and demanded that CBS cancel the series, horrified at the thought of their demigod being impugned on national television. CBS caved, reportedly moving the miniseries to a cable channel where viewers are less easily affronted.

There are probably few in the GLBT community who wouldn’t agree this is a fairly clear-cut case of censorship.

But what about the “Stop Dr. Laura” campaign?

Dr. Laura Schlessinger began as a hard-knuckle pop psychologist with a misleading title who delighted her radio audience with her sometimes brutal refusal to let anyone play the victim. Unfortunately, she lost her mind somewhere along the way and became a self-righteous bigot intolerant of any views that conflict with her own.

Then she made a deal for a TV talk show.

The GLBT community began a campaign to have Dr. Laura’s show pulled from network TV, charging that she maliciously spread hatred and intolerance. In the end the show was boring, ratings never moved out of the basement and the show died a natural death due to lack of viewers, so the campaign to have it squelched on the grounds of bigotry was a moot point. But what made this campaign any different than the campaign to censor broadcasts of The Reagans?

Nothing, really.

The right pressured CBS into censoring The Reagans, while the left pressured the networks to censor Dr. Laura’s show. Both were wrong.

Recently a christian student group sued the University of Minnesota over a requirement that student groups sign a statement that they are open to all students regardless of religion, marital status or sexual orientation. Needless to say, such openness conflicts with their religious beliefs.

Locally, the mother of a UCSD student claimed her son’s freshman writing syllabus was focused entirely upon “the toxicity of the white race,” so she started a web site where (presumably conservative) students can post personal stories of campus bias.

Yes, it’s maddening, especially at a time when these very same conservatives who cry out, “Look, I’m being repressed,” are putting out “hit lists” to prevent any National Institutes of Health scientific studies that don’t meet with their approval from receiving government funding. Scientists are now being coached on what terms to avoid in their applications — terms such as sex, sexuality, sexual health, men who have sex with men, homosexuality, etc.

If you’re thinking that conservatives are playing both sides of the net, using the benefits of being a majority while claiming the protections of a minority, you’re right.

But they’re following our example. If we have the right to publicly dislike conservatives, they certainly have the right to publicly dislike us. They can even hate us and teach their children to hate us as well — it may be appalling, but it’s not illegal. If one of your friends calls you queer, it’s a teasing term of affection or even pride. If someone you don’t know calls you queer, it’s hate speech.

The act of beating up gays may be illegal, but thinking about it or even talking about it — as long as no one is making plans to take action — isn’t.

How often have you heard someone say they’d like to line up a bunch of right-wingers (conservatives, Republicans, take your pick) and shoot them? Did you think they were actually going to do it? Did you call the police and report them for hate speech or did you think it was an understandable feeling? Now what if it had been a frat boy talking about lining up a bunch of fags and dykes?

A college Republicans group recently sponsored an “affirmative action bake sale” at the University of Washington, charging black students 30 cents, Latinos 35 cents and white students $1 for the same item. The sale drew a disruptive crowd and was shut down. The board of regents later called the sale “tasteless, divisive and hurtful.”

Tasteless, divisive and hurtful? Oh yes it was.

An illegal infringement of others’ civil rights? Nope.

As the old saying goes, “You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can’t make him think.” Likewise, we cannot and should not legislate morality — not the “go to church and follow the rules” outlook that conservatives like to pretend is morality, but that level of emotional maturity that leads to becoming a better, wiser, more thoughtful and accepting human being.

“Politically correct” has become a derogatory term, and so it should be. What began as a call for sensitivity to all viewpoints has somehow degenerated to a rigid insistence upon pro forma “correctness” that squelches real dialogue just as effectively as the intolerance it was originally meant to fight. It is a Bandaid applied over a festering wound.

Restricting what a person can say does not change what they believe, and if they cannot express their beliefs there is no hope of changing them.

Suppression remains suppression, no matter who is doing it.