Zealotry negates credibility. See Heath, Mike.

The executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine is again railing against homosexuality and equal rights. He uses inflammatory speech, buttressed with suspect religious interpretations, to further what most of Maine considers a hateful agenda.

As the self-appointed representative of Maine’s moral high ground, Heath’s sentiments draw support and censure from all sides of society. This is good for the bottom line; many note controversy helps open donor pockets.

So the CCL profits from this bluster. The true cost of this capital, however, is having the organization and its supporters marginalized as zealots, bent upon reversing Maine’s laws and policies that promote tolerance, equality and civil rights.

Or, as with this new referendum, striving to prevent such laws from taking effect, specifically expanding marriage to homosexuals, or permitting civil unions.

When Heath speaks, this is what is heard. Which is a pity, because beyond this off-base rhetoric, many Heath and CCL views are not that far removed from the mainstream.

Like many, they oppose expansion of gambling. They are critics of substance abuse. They are anti-abortion. And during the budget debate, Heath disputed Bishop Richard Malone’s contention – made on this page – that taxes can be considered “extension of support to our neighbors and expressing our commitment to community life.”

“While most people see a donation to a church or non-profit in this light, they don’t see taxes this way,” Heath wrote, “Individuals are not making an ‘expression of commitment’ by paying their taxes. They are involuntarily surrendering a portion of their hard-earned income to the government to perform a defined and limited function.”

This shows Heath is capable of a reasoned, thoughtful response. (When he wishes.)

Except about homosexuality, where his vitriol has empowered his opposition and weakened his stature. A gaffe about outing lawmakers’ sexual orientation, and a failed 2005 campaign to reverse equal rights legislation will do that.

Now, the beat goes on. Heath bellows into the wind about homosexuality, while prevailing gusts beat him back. Attention is paid, notoriety is given, but nothing substantive is achieved – except, likely, the opposite of what Heath demands.

One could call this martyrdom. It’s more like arrogance, to act so abhorrently in this single-minded crusade against homosexuality, and sacrifice an entire organization’s moral philosophy and scant credibility in the process. Earning enemies isn’t the same as gaining friends.

Meanwhile, the CCL cannot address issues with clear moral subtexts – gambling, substance abuse, reproductive rights – without its one-sided, hostile haranguing about homosexuality stopping it cold from being heard. Maybe this is what Heath and the CCL desires; it’s the way they’ve operated for years.

But perhaps under the guidance of a more reasonable voice, the CCL might actually have one.