Several days ago I’d never heard of Clint McCance, who has been serving on a school board in Independence County, Arkansas.

I’ll bet you hadn’t either. He’s the fellow who wrote the following on Facebook: “Seriously, they want me to wear purple because five queers committed suicide. The only way im wearin it for them is if they all commit suicide. I cant believe the people of this world have gotten this stupid. We are honoring the fact that they sinned and killed thereselves [sic] because of their sin. REALLY PEOPLE.”

Hate. (Pic | California Marriage Equality)

While I was writing that he should resign his post, McCance did resign it. This followed a vigorous effort online to force that action. I hurried to change my words to reflect a desire that McCance apologize in addition to resigning. Before I could publish those words, McCance had indeed apologized. I then amended my argument to assert that he should offer a more heartfelt apology. He went on to offer one to Anderson Cooper on CNN.

If you watch McCance’s apology or read a transcript of it, you might not believe it’s heartfelt. Perhaps that’s true, but it does exist, mere days after his own offensive words were posted for the world to read. The cycle of outrage in response to homophobia has increased to the same celerity of our 24-hour news cycle. It seems there’s no longer room in the USA for school board members to say that gay people should “kill thereselves.”

Just a few years ago, people like Clint McCance weren’t barred from careers in primary and secondary education. And indeed some of them are still around today in education. But these days, when they show their true colors, they lose those jobs, because we as a society recognize that they’re causing harm and even death. That’s right: children will die as a result of these bigots who should be publicly humiliated until they feel duly ashamed of having said the things they’ve said.

There’s an argument to be made for the idea that one’s personal views shouldn’t inhibit one’s professional employment. But courts at all levels have ruled that speech isn’t protected in the American workplace. If I used this space, for instance, to rail against the administration of the university where I teach, I wouldn’t be surprised to get in trouble for it. And if I publicly bragged about some callousness that I had for the welfare of my own students, I would surely deserve reprimand.

Devil's alive, I can hear him breathing.

The same goes for school board members in towns I’ve never heard of who hope for “queers” to “commit suicide.” It goes also for U.S. Senators like South Carolina’s Jim DeMint who state publicly that gays shouldn’t be allowed to teach. And it goes for church leaders who refuse to condemn those who preach hatred toward gays. None of these folks should be allowed anywhere near children, because their words are hate speech that results in abuse.

Maybe I sound radical here. But lately my eyes have been opened to the uselessness of behaving pragmatically or politely in the battle for gay rights. This week I’ve talked to several ostensible supporters of gay rights who say we should wait for President Obama’s “second term” to hope for equality. I’ve heard that we should be more inclusive in our dialogue; that we should think harder about how far straight people have come already in their thinking, be more patient, and so on.

One reason I won’t wait patiently for Barack Obama’s second term is that I’ll be fighting against a second term for him. Our president has been a shameful embarrassment to the legions of gay men and women who fought for him in 2008. We went door-to-door, raised money, and persuaded friends and family to support him. In return he has been fighting in federal courts in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act and the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy.

If you believe the president is required to fight those court decisions, I’d like to know where exactly you came by that notion. In the Constitution? In government class? On a cable news show? Can you offer a consistent reason why other administrations have failed to fight for various federal laws that have been overturned? Can you refute this piece by Ben Adler in Newsweek?

I have a simple answer for straight people who wish gays would just pipe down on Obama’s stance on the Defense of Marriage Act. Here it is: If you’re married, then get divorced and wait to re-marry until 2013, when Obama allegedly will get around to granting us our basic civil rights. Or if you’re in a relationship with an opposite-sex foreign national, ask him or her to renounce citizenship or residency. Live apart on separate continents for the next three years. Surely Obama will correct the problem in his second term!

Have you seen this man?

If you’re in a relationship with someone elderly or with a terminal illness, destroy your will. Just set it on fire. Also divorce your partner in state court. That way, when one of you dies, a judge can decide for you who’ll inherit your estate. It’s best not to rock the boat about this; President Obama is focused on repairing the economy and winning two wars. He’s under attack from Republicans, and you should leave him alone so he can do his job.

When all those who say they support gay rights follow the above advice, I’ll be willing to listen to their claims that Obama will eventually get around to helping us. Until then, if you’re straight, you should shut up about Obama’s unwillingness to do something for us—unless you’re one of the few who’s willing to call Obama’s aggression against us by its true name.

I began here by talking about Clint McCance, a man who doesn’t matter; he resigned his position, and we’ll soon forget him. I’ve wound up talking about a president who does matter and whose every decision affects us all. The two men belong in the same editorial because the president gives cover to folks like Clint McCance just as McCance gives comfort to politicians like Obama.

There’s no longer room in America for school board members who hate gay people, but there’s sure room for politicians who ignore us, lie, and take our money, only to stab us in the back after their election to high office. In fact, the two categories feed off one another. Thanks to the virulent extreme of the country’s Clint McCances, the Barack Obamas can pretend to operate in the mainstream by voicing their legless support in the form of an It Gets Better video. And thanks to the equivocation of leaders like Obama, Clint McCance can be portrayed (on Fox News and elsewhere) as the right flank of a legitimate national debate, rather than its sociopathic outlier.

I’ve got little patience for straight people who discuss gay rights like it’s some theorem without tangible applicability. Two years ago I had a bit more patience, because I felt more hopeful—and not just because of the cynical slogan of an aforementioned national candidate. It seemed, given certain demographic trends, that we were moving inexorably toward equal rights. I’m no longer so sure. Yes, it’s comforting that, as a bloc, Americans born after 1980 theoretically support gay rights. But it’s also shameful and disappointing that so many in the same age group won’t risk the slightest thing for that support.

If we lived in a system of direct democracy—not that I wish for one—gay rights would win the day soon, if not tomorrow. How do I know? Our nearest system to direct democracy might be the people’s court of the cable news media, where Clint McCance has lost resoundingly. His vanquishing has made many of us feel temporarily good. I wish I could believe it has also set a broadly applicable precedent. It certainly bodes well for the nation’s school boards. But unfortunately for the gay civil rights movement, our two-tiered system of public approval defends the powerful and attacks the powerless, just as our two-tiered court system indicts petty criminals while presidents go scot-free after their war crimes.