In a marriage, when a couple disagrees, it's never a good idea to settle the issue by force. Sure, it's possible for the stronger partner to exert his or her dominance. But it's poisonous to the relationship-and dangerous, too.
Because sooner or later, the aggrieved and angry partner will pop.
Far better for the duo to talk through their differences. And the starting point in all such discussions is respect for the other's humanity and a willingness to listen to his or her point of view.
Related: COLUMN: Point - The myth behind anti-transgender bills
In America, we're all partners in a huge marriage of sorts. It's the uneasy partnership between traditionalists and progressives, as the two sides in the "culture war" have become known.
ADVERTISEMENT
But what's disturbing is the frequency with which each side is turning to force, meaning the force of law and of boycotts.
The power moves can win the day for one side. But the bitterness and resentment they inspire in the losing side run deep. That makes the rift wider, not narrower, and raises the odds of an unpredictable backlash.
That's no way to maintain a good marriage.
And that's why the parties, one by one, should back off from their attacks in the transgender-bathroom wars.
Related: COLUMN: Counterpoint - Transgender activists put ideology above safety
Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton could start by walking back his ban on state workers traveling to North Carolina. We are the United States, and it's flat wrong for one state to try to choke another into adopting a political view.
Likewise, traditionalists should end their boycott of Target for its newly announced transgender-friendly bathroom policy. For Target did nothing more than codify the status quo, which is that transgender people typically use the bathroom of their choice.
"(What critics forget) is that transgender men generally go unnoticed in men's restrooms, for the simple reason that they appear to be men," wrote Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman last month.
ADVERTISEMENT
"In fact, the odds are very good that at one time or another, you have unwittingly done your business alongside someone who is transgender - with no ill effects."
In South Dakota, Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard showed the better way. A bill restricting bathroom use by transgender people landed on Daugaard's desk. So Daugaard engaged in a novel process: dialogue. He met with transgender students and parents, heard their stories and ultimately vetoed the bill.
But he did so without rancor, and certainly without demonizing or labeling as "bigots" the bill's supporters.
That's how these issues should be settled: in the laboratories of the states, by lawmakers and governors, using the tools Americans always have employed to come to terms.
Yes, we got rid of Jim Crow laws by force, even using the National Guard to win compliance. But racial injustice-with its roots in human slavery-was unique in American life. There's nothing else that compares, no other wrong that so clearly needed forceful intervention to set right.
We'd do well to stop comparing other struggles to those of the Civil Rights era, because the injustices are not the same. And for the sake of America's future, we'd be wise to favor persuasion over coercion in our remaining controversies of law.
-- Tom Dennis for the Herald
