Standards are good. Or at least common. Even the claim that, "I have no standards" is a standard. We call them rules, laws, codes, ethics, and many other names, but standards are as ubiquitous as man. They're also, by their very nature, exclusive and divisive.Setting a standard is analogous to drawing a line in the sand. No problem, unless the obvious majority of people on the far side of that line are from a single group that's different than the people on the near side of the line. When standards come in conflict with homogeneity, however innocently, there will be fireworks.
Take immigration for example. The United States, Canada and Mexico all have challenges related foreign nationals illegally entering their country. But generally only in the U.S. has the idea of opposing illegal immigration become associated with racism. The explanation is simple: In Mexico, it's Hispanics crossing into another Hispanic country. In Canada, it's a heterogeneous collection of people from around the world entering. But in the U.S., it's primarily Hispanics entering a country of WASPs--the division falls along racial lines. A Mexican, a Canadian and an American may each oppose illegal immigration for purely principled reasons, but only the American can and will be labeled a racist.
Gay marriage provides another example. From the Judeo-Christian perspective, marriage is ordained of God and is a covenant between a man, a woman and their God. Generally speaking, there was never any visible person or group to exclude. But with the rise in visibility and social acceptance of homosexuality, that has changed. Now there is a homogeneous group being excluded by the age-old standard. And since the line in the sand divides according to sexual orientation, 'bigot' and 'homophobe' are the natural labels of choice for the disenfranchised. Can one oppose broadening the definition and scope of marriage on purely principled grounds because they believe there is a sacred standard? Technically yes, but in reality proponents of legislation seeking to uphold traditional marriage are aggressively labeled as backward, bigoted homophobes.
In these and other cases, it's guilt by association. Are some of those associated also guilty? Certainly, there are racists, homophobes and haters of all stripes in this world. But there are also many good, principled individuals to whom things like sexual preference and race are coincidental to the point.
But no matter. If the standard that you keep happens to exclude a homogeneous group that is in some way different than you, then principles are not up for discussion. Whether you ever intended to engage in conflict is irrelevant--the war will be taken to you. And in truly ironic fashion, you will be attacked and labeled by righteously indignant victims of labeling and attacks.
