This is not about gay marriage. It is about a most basic right: freedom of expression. The Constitution guarantees that government will not make law which abridges the right to speak one's mind. There is no guarantee of impunity, however. While consequences cannot interfere with one's rights, responses by nongovernmental entities, such as boycotts, protests and "letters to the editor" may occur. Addressed here is the free exchange of ideas.

The response to the elections is illustrating. Many of those opposing the marriage amendments have responded with protests, vandalism, abuse and hostile invectives. Name-calling and sardonic epithets have found voice. Claims of bigotry, intolerance and hatred fly fast. These actions are decidedly one-sided.

Before and following the election, amendment proponents tended to emphasize the positive side of their argument, with an obvious lack of pointed attack.

There is here a difference of perspective finding expression. Those who endorse gay marriage view those who do not as bad people, not just of wrong opinion. Those who oppose gay marriage consider the other side as good people who are just wrong. Is it possible that people can disagree without hating or being a bigot?

Constitutional freedom of speech is a minimum standard. The higher expression is to entitle each person his own beliefs without acrimony. Hating someone whom you imagine hates you is not beneficial. That approach minimizes everyone's freedom. Freedom of expression is of worth only when we disagree. It has no value when we agree.

Neal Clark is a two-year Flagstaff resident, father of seven, holding a B.S. in Physics from the University of Utah, and has worked 30 years in the semiconductor industry.