To the editor:

Suppose it’s 1967 in the South and the term “marriage” refers to a nuptial contract between a man and a woman of the same race. But then the Supreme Court says mixed race marriages are OK. But suppose some Southern gentleman says it’s still not a valid marriage. And he says he resents being called a bigot. To prove he’s not, the gentleman presents some plausible historical data showing that mixed race unions have never been “marriages” in the South.

But of course the data don’t really matter. The bottom line is, the gentleman wants to withhold the right to get married from mixed couples. That constitutes invidious discrimination. It is intended to, and does, put down black people.

Moreover, publicly advocating for discrimination is another way of putting down black people, by saying they don’t deserve full rights.

One term for people who support invidious discrimination is “bigot.” A legitimate reason to call that gentleman a bigot is to shame him. The purpose of shaming is to make a public statement about our civic values: We do not tolerate invidious discrimination and we do not like public statements that put down black people.

And now it’s 2014. And a Lawrence gentleman writes that a same-sex union is not a marriage (Public Forum, Nov. 21). And gives some plausible historical data to support it. And says he resents being called a bigot.

OK, Mr.Cook. I won’t call you a bigot. Instead I will say you ought to be ashamed of yourself.