Facebook Follies: Why Social Media are a Minefield for Communication

I'm becoming more convinced every day that the social media, and Facebook in particular, is a double-edged sword when it comes to communicating with others.

On the plus side, Facebook allows us to connect with people we'd never otherwise meet.

But then, there's the downside. Sometimes, it brings out the worst in us. I consider myself pretty diplomatic, for the most part, but I've noticed myself - in hindsight - typing things on Facebook that I'd think twice before saying in person, and I've noticed the same tendency in others. How does this happen? I can think of a few reasons, off the top of my head.

Disposable friends: Facebook gives us "disposable friends." Did someone offend you? No worries. You can always ban, block and make a dozen new "friends." A lot of Facebookers will post glowing remarks about how they're very close to online acquaintances they've never met in person. Some will even say they're closer than in-person buddies. That may be true for some, but the fact remains that they're a different sort of friend. Here's why ...

One-dimensional communication: Communication online is much different than real-time communication. For one thing, you're not generally talking, you're typing. What you see are letters on a screen, minus any vocal intonations, facial expressions or whispered asides. Our online interactions are, relatively speaking, two-dimensional or even one-dimensional. They don't show us the whole picture, but the problem is ...

We think they do: We're treating two-dimensional communication as though it were three-dimensional. Instead of taking into account the absence of non-verbal cues, we act as though they're there. As a result, we're prone to taking things out of context and jumping to (often erroneous) conclusions rather too quickly.

Fights to the finish: Facebook allows people to "gang up" on one another. Comments on a Facebook wall - especially when they involve hot-button issues - turn into popularity contests, with each side trying to shout down the other. In real life, most conversations are one-on-one; on Facebook, many turn into verbal jousts or gladiator matches in front of crowds that jeer, cheer and hurl rotten tomatoes (figuratively speaking) at the computer monitor.

Making permanent waves: Something written on a Facebook wall stays there. In verbal conversation, someone might say something that strikes you a little funny, but you're likely to brush if off and go on about your business. Even if it sticks in your craw a little, you'll probably forget exactly what was said, and the issue will be forgotten. On Facebook, by contrast, you can go back and view the same comment over and over again, ad nauseam. You can analyze it, overanalyze it and get all worked up over it. Even a comment that might seem fair or benign at first came seem offensive if you're defensive.

Ripe for abuse: The flipside of this is that there are social media abusers out there who know this and try to take advantage of it. They cajole, provoke and mislead us into thinking they're something they're not. This, of course, makes us even more wary and less liable to give well-meaning folks a chance to add the context we need to truly understand them. Here are some typical abusers who pop up frequently on Facebook:

• Stalkers. Follow you from one page to another, leaving comments to whatever you post. They're attention seekers who need others' responses to feel validated.
• Lurkers: Closely akin to the stalkers and often the next stage in their evolution. Having been banned or blocked, such people generally stay quiet and hide behind bogus profiles as they engage in a form of online espionage. They feel they're entitled to a place at the table, even after they've been asked to leave.
• Imposters: Critics who masquerade as a member of a certain group, wait until the time is right, then blast members of that group on an open forum. Religious fundamentalists seem prone to this tactic.
• Ranters: Air their dirty laundry to the world, often while slamming a spouse, relative, "friend," boss or some other third party who's (conveniently) not around to defend him/herself.
• Know-it-Alls: Pose as authorities to gain "minions" or "clones." Like stalkers, such people are seeking validation; they just go about it differently. Instead of targeting a single individual, they seek to build a cult-like following. Ironically, they're usually not authorities on much of anything. Still, they enjoy pontificating at length on their favorite subjects - and just as the pontiff is infallible, they tend to view themselves the same way.
• True Believers: The aforementioned minions or clones, who follow Know-it-Alls pretty much blindly.
• Button-Pushers: Likes to get a rise out of people by posting uncompromising positions on hot-button issues. On the one side, such people get a lot of attaboys; on the other, they receive plenty of criticism (often spiced up using colorful language). Either way, they're out for attention, same as the Stalker and the Authority. 
• Victims: These are often Button-Pushers who pretend to be persecuted for their beliefs. One favorite tactic: saying something outrageously offensive, then crying "censorship!" when the owner of the wall or page removes their comment.
• Advocates: People who take up a single issue or slate of issues and make it a life-or-death line in the sand, then dare others on Facebook to cross it ... which, of course, they do. 
• Devil's Advocates: The people who fuels the Button-Pushers' fire. Their goal is, like most of the others, to gain attention - but their method's a little different.. They're counterpuncher. They wait for someone else to state an opinion, then look for a weakness and pounce when they find one. It's a pure game of one-upmanship. The Devil's Advocate who can beat the Know-it-All in an argument has pulled off an effective Facebook coup and can build a following of his/her own.
• Grammar Nazis: Operates similarly to the Devil's Advocate in that s/he waits for someone else to show a weakness, then points it out in order to look superior. There are Math Nazis, Science Nazis and History Nazis out there, too. None of them, however, serve up tasty fare like the Soup Nazi.

This isn't to say that all these folks are monsters. Heck, at one time or another, I've indulged in several of them - probably each of the last four, actually. If you're honest with yourself, you might have, too. I'm pretty sure a lot of it has less to do with the people than with the mode of communication itself. The social media give rise to and encourage these sorts of behavior.

A few months ago, I recognized I'd begun to play the role of a Button-Pusher too often, so I stepped back from talking about controversial issues quite so much. I still believe strongly in many of the positions I held then, and I'm not ashamed of any of them. Ask me, and I'll be glad to tell you what I think. But I'm not going to set out with an agenda of getting people all riled up over something that gets my goat (not usually, anyway). That didn't do my blood pressure any good, and it probably wasn't a lot of fun for those who read my posts, either. Mostly, it just attracts a bunch of Devil's Advocates who were more interested in trying to one-up me than in listening

More recently, I found myself playing the role of Devil's Advocate, which I decided wasn't worth it, either. I'm not out to build an army of minions, and I don't have anything to prove, really, so there's no point in acting as though I do. 

I'll probably remain a Grammar Nazi, simply because I'm an author/editor by trade and I've been working with words all my life. But I'll do my best to be a gracious Grammar Nazi ... and I hope the Math Nazis out there will show me the same forbearance.

Follow Reviews of 'Identity Break' on CLP Blog Tours Through May 27

I'm off on my first book blog tour over the next couple of weeks, and I'm eager to see what everyone thinks of my action-adventure novel "Identity Break." If you have a chance, please stop by one or all of the tour stops and check out what people have to say.

"What's a book blog tour?" you ask.

It's a modern innovation that allows indie authors such as myself to put our books on the hot seat for various reviewers, who give their objective opinions about the stories. Some are editors, but the vast majority are people who just love books. That's what makes it exciting when you get a good review: It's from one of the people you're trying to reach: readers.

The tour also includes book excerpts; my answers to interview questions; and my own guest posts providing insight into my writing process and the story behind "Identity Break." I even have a couple of guest posts from the two main characters' perspectives. The entire experience is new to me. My wife has done this more than once, and the tour facilitator I'm using - CLP Blog Tours - has been very professional and gracious about the entire experience.

In conjunction with my blog tour, I'm giving away Kindle versions of "Artifice" - my novella in the same series - all this weekend (Saturday and Sunday, May 18-19). That will give you a taste of what you'll read about in "Identity Break" and, hopefully, whet your appetite for more. 

If you want to follow my blog tour as it progresses, just click the CLP site for "Identity Break" or keep track using the list below. Crossing my fingers and holding my breath with anticipation to see what the reviewers will be saying.

May 13 – Mrs. Mommy Booknerd’s Book Reviews – Excerpt

May 14 – The Book Fetish Blog – Review

May 15 – Blooding Book Reviews – Q&A

May 15 – Ruby’s Books – Review & Guest Post

May 16 – Lavender & Camomile Press – Q&A

May 17 – Storm Goddess Book Reviews – Review & Guest Post

May 17 - Escape Into a Book - Review & Guest Post

May 20 – eBook Addict – Guest Post

May 21- The Phantom Paragrapher – Review & Guest Post

May 22- Chick Lit Plus – Review

May 23 – Every Free Chance Book Reviews – Review

May 24- Samantha March – Q&A & Excerpt

May 27- eBook Addict – Q&A

Public Figures and Social Media: Some Guidelines and a Little Advice

Who is a public figure?

When can you quote something a public figure posts online?

These are two legitimate questions, and I'd like to tackle the second question first, using a recent example. The San Antonio Spurs recently swept the Los Angeles Lakers in the first round of the NBA playoffs. But was this the big news? That's debatable. Many media outlets made a bigger deal out of injured Lakers star Kobe Bryant's tweets from the sidelines.

Most of Bryant's tweets involved analysis and tips for the team. Here's a sampling (misspelled words are sic):

• "I love how Nash is moving so far. Both teams a lil out of rhythm to start."
• "@nabarocksstc I agree. Lethargic start for us. Gotta minimize little mistakes like giving the middle drive on close outs"
• "Nothing worse then watching your bothers struggle and u can't do crap about it #realtalk"

Bryant was obviously frustrated that he couldn't be out on the court with his teammates (a torn Achilles' tendon saw to that), so he was trying to "play" vicariously through his Twitter account.

Bryant certainly knows he's a public figure, and he must have realized that the media were going to see his tweets. Still, he didn't seem to realize how heavily the media were going to emphasize his comments, and he eventually decided to stop tweeting: "I see my tweeting during the game is being talked about as much as the game itself," he wrote.  "CHOOSE not [to]. Focus should be on the team not my insight."

Now to the second question: Who is a public figure?

There are two ways one can qualify for this label: First, you can become a public figure by becoming famous.  But famous people aren't the only public figures. You can also become what's called a limited purpose public figure. According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, this is "someone who is not so famous as to be a household name, but who has become well known with regard to a particular issue."

People who seek the limelight often fall into this category. Authors Tad Crawford and Kay Murray put it this way in The Writer's Legal Guide: "Private individuals can become 'limited purpose public figures,' when they actively, voluntarily or willfully seek the public eye."

This applies perhaps no more clearly than to people whose name is their franchise. Artists, authors, solo musicians and some athletes fall into this category. Names like Kobe, Tiger, Madonna, Stephen King and Taylor Swift come to mind. If you're marketing your name, you're a limited purpose public figure. If you're marketing your name and you're famous (such as the above folks), there's nothing limited about it. You're a public figure, period.

One must assume that a public figure speaking on a public forum such as Facebook or Twitter is making what amounts to a public statement. Is it OK to quote one? Sure, it is - unless the person being quoted can demonstrate the other person 1) is guilty of defamation and 2) has "actual malice" toward him or her.

Bursting the bubble

So, how should a public figure act on Twitter or Facebook? And how should other social media users behave when quoting public figures (beyond the obvious of avoiding defamatory and malicious statements)?

If you're a public figure posting on Facebook or Twitter, make sure your posts are something you'd be proud to have repeated. Too often, people on social media act like the driver who rocks out to his favorite tunes or flips off a police officer from behind the wheel, assuming no one else can see him. He's wrong. The privacy bubble he thinks exists within the confines of his Fiat or El Dorado is an illusion. The roadway is public, and so are the social media.

In fact, Facebook and Twitter are both actually designed to make quoting people as easy a single mouse click. Each has its own handy dandy tool: On Facebook, it's called the "Share" option; on Twitter, it's "Retweet." Don't want to be quoted? Simple. Keep it off your Facebook wall or Twitter feed. Both services offer private mail/messaging features that are easy to use, perfect for more confidential interactions (but be careful: nothing online is entirely confidential).

Show some respect

So, if you want to quote another person's post on Facebook or Twitter, you don't have to ask. But you shouldn't use their posts as an excuse to excoriate them in public. It's better to treat people with respect than think you can act with impunity. You're not in a bubble, either.

Never quote someone's Facebook or Twitter post out of context. Make sure you're fairly representing what the person said, not twisting it to fit your own agenda. Don't make someone appear to agree with you or support your position by manipulating their quotes. That's flat-out unethical.

It's also unethical to pass off someone else's words as your own. That's called plagiarism, and it's just as unacceptable online as it is on a college term paper. If you're quoting someone, include attribution.

One more tip: Be sure you're quoting the person you think you're quoting. There are any number of people out there who think it's fun to impersonate public figures - especially on Twitter. If you don't believe me, try doing a search for Rowan Atkinson on Twitter and see how many results pop up. Is any of them the real Rowan Atkinson? When in doubt as to someone's identity, don't quote the person. It's better to follow the account for a while, crosscheck it with other facts you find online and make sure the person is the genuine article.

Exposure has its price

If you're a public figure posting something on Facebook or Twitter, every post you make is an official statement, as surely as if you'd sent out a news release. Are you a public figure who uses social media largely to promote yourself? Do you have a banner on your Facebook page that promotes your latest album? Does your Twitter account identify you as "the author of ..."? If so, you're using the social media as a marketing tool, and its contents must be viewed as representing the product: you. You have an obligation - not only to your potential customers, but to yourself - to represent yourself with dignity.

If you're debating something, whether on Facebook or blogging back and forth, don't get drawn into heated arguments, don't make it personal. Keep it about the issues.

That doesn't mean you should be afraid to be passionate. If you believe in something, say so. For instance, I believe strongly in equal rights, same-sex marriage, freedom of (and from) religion, and standing up to bullies. If I post something about my beliefs on one of my social media sites, I shouldn't have a problem being quoted. In fact, if I really do believe in it, I should be proud of the stance I've taken and should be glad when others share my words. That said, it's in my own interest not to come off as shrill or defensive. When that happens, the tone overpowers the message.

And finally, if you're a public figure and someone quotes you fairly and accurately from the social media, with attribution and respect, don't complain about it. Go with it. Even if the person disagrees with you, it's free publicity, and that never hurts. Besides, you might just learn something.

Don't Condemn Christians for Only Believing Some Portions of the Bible

I have to laugh when I see non-Christians actually criticize Christians of picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to believe.

Isn't this precisely what they should be doing? It's called critical thinking. The Bible, unlike a Shakespearean play, Plato's Republic or the Harry Potter series, is an anthology. It was written by a diverse group of individuals from a variety of backgrounds with a host of competing - and sometimes conflicting - agendas over the course of several centuries. Its source material spans millennia.

So when Christians ignore an injunction in Leviticus and demand obedience to a command of Jesus (or vice versa), they're doing exactly what they're supposed to be doing. They're making value judgments as to which  portions of this anthology apply to them and which don't; about which texts make sense and which defy logic. Sometimes, those judgments bolster their own prejudices, such as condemnations of same-sex relationships and beliefs in eternal torment. But the core problem isn't that they're making value judgments; the problem is that many of them won't admit it.

Christians who view the Bible as, literally, the word of their god, can't acknowledge this is what they're doing because it would upset their apple cart of supposed scriptural infallibility. The fact that they do so anyway isn't the problem. It means they're human. The problem isn't the critical smorgasbord approach to the scripture, it's the claim that it's somehow infallible.

Non-Christians and Christians who look at the Bible as a product of human history have no problem praising some portions of it and condemning others. The writers of Jeremiah and John wrote under completely different circumstances with entirely different aims. Or check out the writings of Paul and the Epistle of James. The two philosophies aren't just incompatible, they're diametrically opposed.

The critical mind recognizes this, and the honest mind doesn't try to reconcile it. The problem lies with the believer who tries to have it both ways. On the one hand, he admits that divine commands for wholesale genocide in the Old Testament aren't particularly moral and, but on the other, he insists that the biblical anthology is infallible.

Cognitive dissonance? You betcha. George Orwell called it doublethink: "the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."

The way to resolve this, however, isn't to stop viewing the Bible (or any other document) critically. It's to stop insisting on applying impossibly high standards such as infallibility to it. Such standards do provide a sense of false security, which is doubtless why they're imposed, but the resulting exercise in doublethink more than offsets it with a very real sense of insecurity that leads people to rationalize inherent contradictions - and lash out at those who expose the absurdity of those rationalizations.

Read more about these problems and others in my book Requiem for a Phantom God, available in paperback, as well as on Kindle (http://amzn.to/10nx028) and Nook (http://bit.ly/XjoCWd).

A Question Regarding 'The Faith of the Seven' for George R.R. Martin

If I were to have a chance to ask George R.R. Martin a question, it would probably involve how he came up with his "Faith of the Seven," referring to the seven new gods of Westeros in "A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones."

When it comes to the three feminine gods, the author seems to have used Wicca as his template, presenting them as the Maiden, the Mother and the Crone. These feminine forms are represented as life stages, but the masculine forms are presented in a different context. While the Father corresponds clearly to the Mother, the other two masculine figures are defined not by a life stage but by a skill: the Warrior and the Smith. The seventh deity, which is asexual, is the Stranger.

What I'd ask Martin is this: Was it his intent to reflect a sexist attitude in the world he created by suggesting that two of the male deities were defined by their work or skill set, while the three female deities were defined by entrenched societal roles?

It's long been my contention that there is, in fact, an archetypal threefold "god" who is the rough counterpart to the triple goddess and who, like her, can be found in numerous traditions: the youth, the father and the elder. In the ruling classes, these correspond to roughly to the prince-princess, the queen-king and the witch/wise woman-wizard/sage.

This isn't meant as a criticism of Martin. He's the author, it's his world, and he can set it up however he chooses. It's just an observation from someone who finds mythical archetypes fascinating and sees fantasy novels as one means they're often preserved in modern society.

Certainly, sexism was rampant during the medieval period that serves as a model for many fantasy tales, even if they don't take place in our historical past, and Martin's depiction of figures such as Cersei Lannister and Sansa Stark shows that women were expected to mind their place in much the same way under the social norms of the world he created. Arya Stark's independence was the exception, not the rule.

I have to wonder whether Martin was sending a nuanced message by creating goddesses who are defined by who they are and gods who are identified by what they do. Is it a subtle dig at our own society's tendency to define men according to tasks and women according to roles?

Or is that reading too much into it? One of the most important rules of literature is that the various elements of any fictional world must be consistent with the society as a whole. The sexism that seems to me inherent in the Faith of the Seven accurately reflects that of the Westeros society at large. Certainly, it need not be taken as any more than that.

But I'd still like to ask Martin the question.

IPCA issues 'anti-manifesto' on the current state of Pagan community

BREAKING NEWS

PALO VISTA, Calif. - The Inter-traditional Pagan Council of America (IPCA) issued a statement this morning condemning factional infighting within and among various Pagan traditions.

"The face of Paganism to non-Pagans is becoming increasingly one of discord and petty bickering over insubstantial matters," IPCA Vise President David Raith said in a statement. "We therefore thought it prudent to issue a statement on behalf of our organization, which represents thousands of Pagans practicing myriad traditions across this great country."

Raith described his group's statement as an "anti-manifesto." Instead of seeking to define Paganism, it invites individual Pagans to define their own paths according to three principles: free will, conscience and understanding. This, Raith declared, is the "three-fold law of liberty and respect" that "transcends any single path within Paganism and, indeed, is applicable beyond the Pagan milieu."

IPCA president Marta Villalobos, reached by telephone at her home in Ash Valley, Calif., confirmed the statement's authenticity and provided some background about why her group chose to issue the statement at this time.

"A number of people within the Pagan community have become so fiercely attached to labels that they have become proprietary about them," Villalobos said. "One group says, 'Only Wiccans can be Pagan.' Another says, 'Pagans must worship deities but cannot, under any circumstances, worship this or that deity.' Such trends are deeply troubling in light of well-known historical developments that proved, ultimately, very damaging to Pagan and Pagan-friendly individuals."

Villalobos pointed to the development of Christianity. As Christianity grew from a minority path to become the official religion of the Roman Empire and its political successors, she said, creeds were adopted and became increasingly complex. The more complex they became, the more they were used to isolate political enemies of the church hierarchy by labeling them as heretics and apostates. "These creeds," she said, "became an excuse to consolidate political power and marginalize anyone who did not agree with the 'established' and 'accepted' political position of the day."

IPCA officials say they are concerned modern Paganism may find itself in the early stages of this same destructive process, and seeks to educate the public about the damage it can cause.

The first principle, according to the IPCA statement, is the principle of self-identification.

"Imagine if we were to tell a gay man he couldn't call himself gay because he didn't fit into some pre-existing stereotype," Villalobos said. "Or what if we told a racially mixed individual she must identify with one race and not the other? Actually, we do this all the time. We presume to force people to fit our own stereotypes, whether or not they identify with the traditions we assign them. We are, in effect, saying, 'I know better who you are than you do.' " And that is simply wrong."

The IPCA statement came a day after the Pagan Force For Traditional Thought (PFFTT) issued put forth what it termed a "Pagan manifesto" that contained (among other things) the following creedal statements in the style of a medieval Papal bull.

• "Any person who does not worship the gods yet calls himself 'Pagan,' let him be anathema."
• "Any person who acknowledges any teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, Mohammad or any other figure associated or affiliated with any monotheistic faith, let him be anathema."
• "Any person who shows reverence to deities from more than one pantheon, let him be anathema."
• "Any person who puts nature above the gods, let him be anathema."
• "Any person who knows not the difference between a pentacle and a pentagram, or between deosil and widdershins, let him be anathema."
• "Any person who mixes peanut butter and milk chocolate, let him be anathema."

PFFTT also touted the success of its online virtual cage match between the goddesses Ishtar and Oestre, which pitted the followers of two long-revered goddesses against one another in a no-holds-barred "battle royal for bragging rights to March 31." A hue-and-cry was raised when Ishtar was awarded the victory based upon PFFTT officials' lingering fondness for the 1980s box office bomb named for the goddess. (They were, admittedly, huge fans of Warren Beatty.)

Although IPCA did not respond specifically to PFFTT's "manifesto," it did declare the reverence for Ishtar and Oestre to be "infinitely more important" than some "contrived and provocative feud over  proprietary rights to a holiday celebrated predominantly by Christians. And for those who don't worship either goddess, well, that's OK, too!" ...

_________________

It should be clear by now that there is no IPCA (the initials were inspired by a series of books by novelist Kiersten White), and there certainly is no PFFTT (though some folks seem intent upon living up to that acronym when it comes to anything that doesn't conform with their particular philosophy or theology). David Raith and Marta Villalobos are, likewise, fictional characters.

This is, of course, April Fool's Day. But instead of simply posting some quick, funny comment, I decided to write about something a little more meaningful. IPCA may be a fictional organization, but if it existed, I'd certainly join it. The message of self-identification is important. Of course, it doesn't apply to people who falsely self-identify for personal gain, but when people genuinely self-identify as Pagan, Christo-Pagan, Secular Pagan, atheist, gay, lesbian or whatever, their right to do so should be respected. And that's no April Fool's joke.

The Best Leaders Take a Stand Before Bigotry Affects Them

Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, center, with his family.

"Once they realize that we are indeed their children, that we are indeed everywhere, every myth, every lie, every innuendo will be destroyed once and all." - Harvey Milk 

Last week, Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio changed his views on same-sex marriage. He did so because his son is gay. Not only is Portman a prominent senator, he was also among the reported finalists for a spot on the Republican party's ticket this past year.

But this isn't an article about parties. It's an article about people. And Portman's decision to change his stance on same-sex marriage says a lot about how people make their decisions. When it comes right down to it, honorable people back those they love. They may or may not agree with their loved ones' decisions, but they don't stop loving them and they do support them in the face of criticism.

On the flipside, it also demonstrates how easy it is to make judgments in the abstract. If something doesn't affect you or those you love, it's easy to be harsh, dismissive and even bigoted. It's noble to stick up for family members, but does your family really deserve any better treatment than another's? Is my family any more worthy of our attention, compassion and respect than people I've never met?

Harvey Milk

Yet Harvey Milk was right. This is exactly what happens, time after time. It happened to Dick Cheney, an opponent of same-sex marriage until his daughter came out as a lesbian. And it happened to Jerry Sanders, the mayor of San Diego, who did a 180-degree turnabout on the issue because he could not bring himself to tell his daughter, a lesbian, that her relationship wasn't as important as an opposite-sex couple's.

Even President Barack Obama chalked up his "evolved" position on the issue based on his own daughters' views: "It doesn't make sense to them and frankly, that's the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective."

But here's the thing: It shouldn't have to come to that. We should be understanding enough to do the right thing before someone we love is directly affected - and even if no one we love ever is. We should be able to put ourselves in another's shoes, and we should already be "evolved" enough to understand abstract ideas such as human rights before we're hit over the head with a pretty big piece of concrete personal reality.

This is not to diminish the stands that Portman, Cheney, Sanders, Obama and others have taken. Each should be applauded for doing the right thing. For a contrast, see the statement made by House Speaker John Boehner on the subject in response to Portman's shift: "Listen, I believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. All right. It's what I grew up with. It's what I believe. It's what my church teaches me. And I can't imagine that position would ever change." Of course, for Boehner, it's all still very much abstract. But closing one's self off to the possibility of change is to become irrelevant - because change is going to happen, without you or not. The question is whether you'll be an instrument of change, someone who passively accepts it or someone who opposes it at every turn.

The Boehners of the world aside, more and more people are accepting same-sex marriage. They're doing the right thing. But in the best of worlds, we do the right thing for the right reasons. Heroes aren't people who act because their personal world has changed, they're those who act because they want to change things for everyone - for the better. It's only when we take the lead that we can truly claim to have evolved.