Tolerance not the same as true acceptance

For those of us who grew up in American public schools, learning the story of the first colonists and the history of the Constitution, we hear the word tolerance, and automatically think, “That’s a good thing.”

The first association we make is with the notion of religious tolerance and the promise of the New World to practice any faith without persecution. These days, tolerance is most often invoked when speaking about gay rights, but many folks see it as not in the least a good thing.

Surveys conducted within the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community often cite the difference between feeling tolerated and feeling accepted. Tolerance, in this case, is about grudgingly being put up with.

In a neighborhood, or workplace, or school campus, tolerance can mean avoiding overt discrimination, but subtle disapproval hangs on every interaction.

At a panel discussion last week, sponsored by Eastern Washington University students, a young man who identified as an ally to the LGBT community put it as succinctly as anyone I’ve heard.

“If you’re being tolerated, you’re not being accepted,” he said. “I work at a bar, I tolerate drunk people. I don’t like them, but I’ll deal with them for that one night.”

His analogy drew laughter from the audience and fellow panelists, a sign of appreciation for the seemingly offbeat comparison and then full agreement with his statement. Most of us in the LGBT community have been in situations in which we feel the tension, the barely masked annoyance others harbor toward us.

On the other hand, there are recent examples of at least one politician invoking the idea of tolerance, thinking that indeed it is a good thing. I hesitate to quote Gov. Sarah Palin because of her convoluted syntax, but her answer to a question in the vice presidential debate about whether she supports expanding domestic partner benefits beyond Alaska to the rest of the nation bears examination.

“But I also want to clarify, if there’s any kind of suggestion at all from my answer that I would be anything but tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves, you know I am tolerant …”

Palin was trying to distinguish her desire to limit the rights of gay people from her caring for individual Americans. While I believe she is genuine in her attempt to say she doesn’t hate gay people, Palin’s choice of words immediately stood out.

At the very least, the Republican vice presidential candidate hasn’t done her homework. Tolerance is not enough.

Here’s the rest of her quote, “… and I have a very diverse family and group of friends and even within that group you would see some who may not agree with me on this issue, some very dear friends who don’t agree with me on this issue.”

Most analysts agreed the governor was trying to say, I have gay friends, but I don’t agree with across-the-board equal rights.

Can we really call someone a friend if all we’re doing is tolerating them?