Gay Fascism: We’ll Coerce People Who Disagree With Us

From George Will in the Washington Post:

Elaine Huguenin, who with her husband operates Elane Photography in New Mexico, asks only to be let alone.

But instead of being allowed a reasonable zone of sovereignty in which to live her life in accordance with her beliefs, she is being bullied by people wielding government power.

In 2006, Vanessa Willock e-mailed Elane Photography about photographing a “commitment ceremony” that she and her partner were planning. Willock said that this would be a “same-gender ceremony.” Elane Photography responded that it photographed “traditional weddings.” The Huguenins are Christians who, for religious reasons, disapprove of same-sex unions. Willock sent a second e-mail asking whether this meant that the company “does not offer photography services to same-sex couples.” Elane Photography responded that “you are correct.”

Willock could then have said regarding Elane Photography what many same-sex couples have long hoped a tolerant society would say regarding them — “live and let live.” Willock could have hired a photographer with no objections to such events. Instead, Willock and her partner set out to break the Huguenins to the state’s saddle.

Willock’s partner, without disclosing her relationship with Willock, e-mailed Elane Photography. She said that she was getting married — actually, she and Willock were having a “commitment ceremony” because New Mexico does not recognize same-sex marriages — and asked whether the company would travel to photograph it. The company said yes. Willock’s partner never responded.

Instead, Willock, spoiling for a fight, filed a discrimination claim with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, charging that Elane Photography is a “public accommodation,” akin to a hotel or restaurant, that denied her its services because of her sexual orientation. The commission found against Elane and ordered it to pay $6,600 in attorney fees.

But what a tangled web we weave when we undertake to regulate more and more behaviors under overlapping codifications of conflicting rights. Elaine Huguenin says that she is being denied her right to the “free exercise” of religion guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment and a similar provision in the New Mexico Constitution. Furthermore, New Mexico’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act defines “free exercise” as “an act or a refusal to act that is substantially motivated by religious belief” and forbids government from abridging that right except to “further a compelling government interest.”

So New Mexico, whose marriage laws discriminate against same-sex unions, has a “compelling interest” in compelling Huguenin to provide a service she finds repugnant and others would provide? Strange.

Eugene Volokh of the UCLA School of Law thinks that Huguenin can also make a “compelled speech argument”: She cannot be coerced into creating expressive works, such as photographs, that express something she is uncomfortable expressing. Courts have repeatedly held that freedom of speech and the freedom not to speak are “complementary components of the broader concept of ‘individual freedom of mind.’ ”

A New Mexico court has held that Elane Photography is merely “a conduit for another’s expression.” But the U.S. Supreme Court (upholding the right of a person to obscure the words “Live Free or Die” on New Hampshire’s license plates) has affirmed the right not to be compelled to be conduits of others’ expression.

New Mexico’s Supreme Court is going to sort all this out, which has been thoroughly reported and discussed by the invaluable blog the Volokh Conspiracy, where you can ponder this: In jurisdictions such as the District of Columbia and Seattle, which ban discrimination on the basis of political affiliation or ideology, would a photographer, even a Jewish photographer, be compelled to record a Nazi Party ceremony?

The Huguenin case demonstrates how advocates of tolerance become tyrannical. First, a disputed behavior, such as sexual activities between people of the same sex, is declared so personal and intimate that government should have no jurisdiction over it. Then, having won recognition of what Louis Brandeis, a pioneer of the privacy right, called “the right to be let alone,” some who have benefited from this achievement assert a right not to let other people alone. It is the right to coerce anyone who disapproves of the now-protected behavior into acting as though they approve of it, or at least into not acting on their disapproval.

So, in the name of tolerance, government declares intolerable individuals such as the Huguenins, who disapprove of a certain behavior but ask only to be let alone in their quiet disapproval. Perhaps advocates of gay rights should begin to restrain the bullies in their ranks.

Fat chance of that.

What motivates the gay lobby is a desperate lust to be told “there is nothing wrong with your sexual behavior. You are just fine.”

It is, in their view, far from enough to merely be let alone. They are demanding positive affirmation. And they are not willing to tolerate having that affirmation tempered by disapproval from anybody. Thus, anybody who disapproves must be punished and bullied into submission.

Gay Censorship Turned Back in Rhode Island

From Accuracy in Academia:

Rhode Island is a small state with a big censorship problem. Last week, high school junior Liz Bierendy was putting the finishing touches on a sketch for the hallway mural when an assistant principal stopped her. The design was too controversial, he insisted, because it included the picture of a married man and woman. According to the school officials, the image was offensive because it “may not represent the life experiences of many of the students at Pilgrim High School.” Liz’s idea was to show the life journey of a young boy to adulthood, ending with the scene of a husband, wife, and son with wedding rings over their heads. After the complaint of a single student, administrators ordered a custodian to paint over the offending section of Liz’s mural until she could find “alternative ways” to show the progression to adulthood.

The 17-year-old artist was as surprised as anyone by the school’s overreaction. “I hope I didn’t offend anyone,” she told local reporters. “I didn’t want to make anyone mad.” On the contrary, most parents are speaking out in Bierendy’s defense. “Political correctness is ruining America,” said one father. Even the local newscasters shook their heads and asked, “What isn’t offensive these days?”

Of course, the irony is that modern art has been the license for dung on the Virgin Mary, ants crawling on Jesus’s face, defecating nativities, Barbies dismembered in blenders—and traditional marriage is what shocks some people? Even more outrageous, those “alternative” unions the principal recommended aren’t even legal in Rhode Island! Liz’s representation of marriage was completely aligned with state law, which is what makes this incident so alarming. If this kind of viewpoint discrimination is tolerated now—in states that don’t even recognize homosexual relationships—imagine the censorship of an entire nation with same-sex “marriage!”

People wonder how the homosexual agenda could possibly affect them? Well, this is a perfect illustration. Americans are free to “love” whom they choose, but the freedom of religion, of expression, and speech cannot coexist in a culture that forces the public affirmation of homosexuality. Something has to give—and all too often, that something is traditional values. Fortunately for Liz, Superintendent Peter Horoschak felt enough blowback from the local community to step in. He overruled the school’s administrators and said it was time to let Bierendy “finish her vision.”

See more on the Huffington Post, where (oddly for a liberal outlet) the comments overwhelmingly support the mural.

Liberal Methodist Elites Demean African Methodists

The United Methodist Church is one of those “mainstream Protestant” denominations that are controlled (in the U.S.) by liberal, fundamentally secular elites.

But Methodism has a long history of evangelism in Africa, and these U.S. elites have made the mistake of allowing African Methodists the right to participate in the affairs of the denomination on an equal basis. The result: there is a majority in decision-making bodies against the gay agenda.

That’s what happens when you give people from Africa equal treatment.

So what do the U.S. Methodist elites do? They demean Africans.

From Juicy Ecumenism:

Recently United Methodist Bishop Minerva Carcano of Phoenix chastised the just concluded governing General Conference of her church for failing to overturn United Methodism’s biblical teachings about marriage and sexual ethics.

“Our homophobia was blatant as we heard delegates compare homosexuality to bestiality, and voice other dehumanizing expressions against our LGBT brothers and sisters,” she complained in a column. She targeted the African delegates specifically.

“Delegates from Africa once again proclaimed that their anti-homosexual stand was what U.S. missionaries taught them. I sat there wondering when our African delegates will grow up. It has been 200 years since U.S. Methodist missionaries began their work of evangelization on the continent of Africa; long enough for African Methodists to do their own thinking about this concern and others. Our conservative U.S. United Methodists continue to depend on the conservative vote of African and Filipino delegates to maintain our exclusionary position on homosexuality, a position I believe would be changed for the inclusion of our LGBT sisters and brothers if a U.S. vote for a U.S. context were taken. The manner in which we deal with the concern of homosexuality affects all of ministry in the U.S., and we are the poorer for it. It is time for us to let go of our wrong position and be the church of Christ Jesus, a church that excludes no one.”

As to the “bestiality” allusion, Carcano was echoing the New York Times report on General Conference, which said:

Several Americans begged delegates to ‘hear the pain’ of gay church members. Moments later, a delegate from Africa said in Swahili that saying that a homosexual person was created by God was like saying “that God created me to live with animals.”

The New York Times then quoted a gay advocacy caucus spokesman:

The Rev. Troy Plummer, executive director of the Reconciling Ministries Network, which advocates full inclusion of gay people, said in an interview: ‘I’m tired of being compared to beasts in our church. Even if our world understandings differ, it’s just horrendous. That our perspectives differ is the truth, and we just voted 61 to 39 percent that we can’t tell that truth.’

The ostensible beastiality quote that Carcano and Plummer cited is based on a Congolese delegate who said:

“I rise to stand against this reasoning for the following reasons. First, the theme of our general conference is to make disciples for the transformation of the world. If we accept homosexuality, it means that the world transforms the church on homosexuality. You say a homosexual person is created by God the way he is or she is. I stand to say that that is not true. If we say that this is the way that God created them I refuse to accept that when they say ‘I am homosexual, I was created like this.’ Because God is a loving God, He cannot create a person with something that makes him or her suffer. If another person would come to the church and say, ‘God created me to live with animals,’ if we say ‘No’ it doesn’t mean we don’t love that person. I stand to say that the grace of God is for all people, but the grace of God does not allow us to sin. I ask to not accept this petition.”

The African delegate was not comparing homosexuality to beastiality, as Bishop Carcano claimed. Nor was he comparing homosexuals to “beasts,” as the caucus group spokesman claimed. Instead, the Congolese was saying the church’s mission is to “make disciples for the transformation of the world.” He noted that affirming homosexual behavior would be to allow the world to transform the church.

Allowing the world to transform the church has been the seeming mission for liberal bishops in America for many decades. The result is 3.5 million lost members in America. Carcano’s own Desert Southwest Conference is now down to under 39,000, having lost nearly 17 percent in the last 10 years alone. Meanwhile, there are over 2.2 million United Methodists under the 3 bishops in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The African churches are growing because they believe in transformation through the Gospel. Their success sadly earns them condemnation from some liberal, declining areas in the U.S. that are making their churches irrelevant by endlessly seeking accommodation with American secular culture.

One of the commenters on the Juicy Ecumenism website noted that the U.S. Methodist elites are engaged in “cultural colonialism.” That’s a good assessment.

But also note that these liberal elites always claim to be on the side of “people of color,” on the side of poor people and on the side of “oppressed” people of the Third World.

But what happens when those people get uppity, and fail to serve the agenda of their First World patrons? They get demeaned and derided.

Gay Censorship in Shawano

From the Green-Bay Press Gazette:

SHAWANO — A gay couple with school-age children is outraged over a Shawano High School newspaper column that cites Bible passages and calls homosexuality a sin punishable by death.

The column ran on the editorial page of Shawano High School’s Hawks Post recently as part of an opinion package about gay families who adopt children. The other side said sexual orientation does not determine a person’s ability to raise kids.

“This is why kids commit suicide,” said Nick Uttecht, who is raising four children with his partner, Michael McNelly.

Uttecht told school district officials he thinks the piece opposing gays as parents is hateful and should not have run. He worries the strong language will hurt his children and could lead students to bully gay classmates.

School officials apologized and said they will review the process for editing and producing the paper.

“Offensive articles cultivating a negative environment of disrespect are not appropriate or condoned by the Shawano School District,” district Superintendent Todd Carlson said in a written statement.

According to the 2010 U.S. Census, out of 17,019 households in Shawano County, 82 were same-sex households, and nearly half reported children in the home. In Wisconsin, 13,630 out of 2.28 million households in 2010 were same-sex, and 5,978 of those households had children.

A step back?

The student newspaper column against same-sex couples says: “If one is a practicing Christian, Jesus states in the Bible that homosexuality is (a) detestable act and sin which makes adopting wrong for homosexuals because you would be raising the child in a sin-filled environment.

“A child adopted into homosexuality will get confused because everyone else will have two different-gendered parents that can give them the correct amount of motherly nurturing and fatherly structure. In a Christian society, allowing homosexual couples to adopt is an abomination.”

Uttecht said his 13-year-old son, Tanner, who is in eighth grade, saw the article and asked about it.

“When I saw this I was in shock,” said Uttecht, who is raising four children, three who are his biological kids and the biological daughter of his partner. Three are in the Shawano school system; the youngest is 4.

“I talked to the school superintendent; he said he was shocked,” Uttecht said

Carlson told the Green Bay Press-Gazette “appropriate steps are being taken” to remedy the situation, but did not provide details.

He sent the following written statement:

“The Shawano School District would like to apologize for a recent article printed in the Hawks Post newspaper. Proper judgment that reflects school district policies needs to be exercised with articles printed in our school newspaper. Offensive articles cultivating a negative environment of disrespect are not appropriate or condoned by the Shawano School District. We sincerely apologize to anyone we may have offended and are taking steps to prevent items of this nature from happening in the future.”

Uttecht said he’s worried about the lasting impact of the column.

“I’m worried about how this is going to affect my kids,” said Uttecht, who also is an elected member of the Menominee Indian Head Start Policy Council. “And I’m worried how gay students in school will be treated. It took me a long time to come out, and I think this just really sets things back by being so closed-minded. This sets things back 20 or 30 years.

“I know there are at least three openly gay families in the district, there’s probably more. What effect is this going to have on my kids? And how are other people going to react?”

Free speech

David Hudson, an expert for the Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group First Amendment Center, said the column may be distasteful to some, but student journalists were practicing their constitutional right to free speech.

“Bullying is a serious concern, and I don’t take it lightly. But I hope it doesn’t lead to squashing different viewpoints. I do think (gay adoption) is an issue people are deeply divided about. Hopefully student journalists don’t have to fear they’ll be squashed if they take a controversial view.”

Editors and advisers have the job of toning down language if it is too sensational, Hudson said.

“Freedom of speech includes speech about religious viewpoints,” Hudson said. “If you took that away, it could be seen as discrimination. Someone could have an atheist opinion, and that’s OK, too.

“Any controversial issue is a lightning rod for censorship.”

Although students have the right to voice their opinion, it doesn’t mean they should say it in a school paper, said Christine Smith, assistant professor of psychology, human development and women’s studies at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay.

Her academic specialization, of course, makes it clear what she is going to say.

“High school students are at a time in their life when they are developing intellectually and socially,” she said. “To see something like this debated in the paper could be devastating. How would you feel if someone said your family is abnormal, is not acceptable, that your parents never should have been allowed to have you, that they’re not suitable to raise you?

“Of course, it’s got to be harmful. Kids this age are so worried about discovering who they are and what they are. To have them told their family is immoral and not suitable has to be devastating. To be told by your peers, people you see in the hallways, these people who clearly have passed judgment.”

This, of course, is the theory universial among politically correct people: you can’t say bad things about homosexuality, because that might make gays (or the children of gays) feel bad.

A consistent policy of not saying things that make people feel bad might have something to recommend it. Unfortunately, the people who want to censor anti-gay speech are quite willing to attack Christians who view homosexuality in a negative light.

They don’t at all mind if the open promotion of homosexuality by a school district tends to marginalize Christian students. In fact they want that to happen.

It’s interesting to see politically correct school bureaucrats talk about “a negative environment of disrespect” when they are in fact encouraging and promoting “a negative environment of disrespect” for Christian values and thus for Christian students.

If the school is worried about negative consequences of controversial columns in a student newspaper, they should refuse to run such columns, banning both sides of the argument. In fact, a large body of Constitutional law holds that any government-imposed restrictions on speech must be “content neutral.”

You can file this case under “gay fascism.”

Easy To See Who the Real Bigots Are

If the above embed does not work, check here.

Free Speech Wins Over Gay Political Correctness in Texas

We blogged about this a while ago, and now we find that a student who offered the polite opinion that homosexuality is sinful has been vindicated, and the teacher who persecuted him has been put on administrative leave.

The problem with this, of course, is that for every conservative Christian kid who is willing to challenge the orthodoxy there are doubtless several who shut up rather than endure a hassle.

The gay lobby prates constantly about “bullying,” but in fact it’s the conservative Christian students who are most likely to be bullied by teachers and school officials.

This has certainly been the case at Marquette, where the gay lobby tried to get the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship thrown off campus.

Gay Fascism: In Texas This Time

From Fox News:

An honors student in Fort Worth, Texas, was sent to the principal’s office and punished for telling a classmate that he believes homosexuality is wrong.

Holly Pope said she was “absolutely stunned” when she received a telephone call from an assistant principal at Western Hills High School informing her that her son, Dakota Ary, had been sent to in-school suspension.

“Dakota is a very well-grounded 14-year-old,” she told Fox News Radio noting that her son is an honors student, plays on the football team and is active in his church youth group. “He’s been in church his whole life and he’s been taught to stand up for what he believes.”

And that’s what got him in trouble.

Dakota was in a German class at the high school when the conversation shifted to religion and homosexuality in Germany. At some point during the conversation, he turned to a friend and said that he was a Christian and “being a homosexual is wrong.”

“It wasn’t directed to anyone except my friend who was sitting behind me,” Dakota told Fox. “I guess [the teacher] heard me. He started yelling. He told me he was going to write me an infraction and send me to the office.”

Dakota was sentenced to one day in-school suspension – and two days of full suspension. His mother was flabbergasted, noting that her son had a spotless record, was an honor student, volunteered at his church and played on the school football team.

Officials at the high school did not return calls for comment. However, the Fort Worth Independent School District issued a statement that read:

“As a matter of course, Fort Worth ISD does not comment on specific employee or student-related issues. Suffice it to say that we are following district policy in our review of the circumstances and any resolution will likewise be in accordance with district policy.”

After a meeting with Pope and her attorney, the school rescinded the two-day suspension so Dakota would be allowed to play in an upcoming football game.

“They’ve righted all the wrongs,” said Matt Krause, an attorney with the Liberty Counsel. “This should have no lasting effect on his academic or personal record going forward.”

Pope contacted the Liberty Counsel immediately after her son was punished.

It’s good that the intervention of the Liberty Counsel set this right. But the disturbing question is: how many students sit silently intimidated? How many accept punishment for their heretical opinions because they don’t want the publicity or hassle?

“I told the school that he should never have been suspended for exercising his Constitutional rights,” Krause told Fox News Radio. “The principal is sincere in trying to do the right thing and hopefully they will tell the teacher, ‘Do not do that anymore.’ He won’t be pushing his agenda.”

Krause called the incident “mind blowing” and said the teacher had frequently brought homosexuality into ninth grade classroom discussions.

“There has been a history with this teacher in the class regarding homosexual topics,” Krause said. “The teacher had posted a picture of two men kissing on a wall that offended some of the students.”

Krause said the picture was posted on the teacher’s “world wall.”

“He told the students this is happening all over the world and you need to accept the fact that homosexuality is just part of our culture now,” Krause said.

Of course, telling students they “need to accept” homosexuality is a clear violation of religious liberty. If a conservative Christian teacher told students that they “need to accept” that homosexuality is sinful, the teacher would quickly be in big trouble.

The school district would not comment on why a teacher was discussing homosexuality in a ninth grade German class.

“In German class there should be no talk of being pro-Gay or homosexual topics,” Krause said.

Dakota’s mother said she believes the teacher should apologize.

“He should never have been punished,” Pope said. “He didn’t disrupt the class. He wasn’t threatening. He wasn’t hostile. He made a comment to his friend and the teacher overheard it.”

“My son knows people that are homosexual,” she said. “He’s not saying, ‘I don’t like you.’ He’s saying, ‘I’m a Christian and I believe that being that way is wrong.’”

Krause said school leaders told Dakota that in the future he should be careful when and where he talks about his opposition to homosexuality – suggesting that he talk about such matters in the hallway instead of the classroom.

Of course, students wanting to insist that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle would never be told to be careful. Indeed, speaking up in class would be encouraged.

He said Liberty Counsel will monitor the situation to make sure there is no future retaliation. Meantime, Pope said her son will return to the teacher’s classroom.

“I’ve told him to treat this teacher with respect,” she said. “He is your elder. He is your teacher. What his beliefs are or what they are not – outside the school is none of our business.”

The teacher, quite simply, was engaged in indoctrination, and came down on a student who was resisting the indoctrination.

More Gay Fascism: Teacher Suspended for Anti-Gay Marriage Views

From Fox News:

A former “Teacher of the Year” in Mount Dora, Fla. has been suspended and could lose his job after he voiced his objection to gay marriage on his personal Facebook page.

Jerry Buell, a veteran American history teacher at Mount Dora High School, was removed from his teaching duties this week as school officials in Lake County investigate allegations that what he posted was biased towards homosexuals.

“We took the allegations seriously,” said Chris Patton, a communication officer with Lake County Schools. “All teachers are bound by a code of special ethics (and) this is a code ethics violation investigation.”

Patton said the school system received a complaint on Tuesday about something Buell had written last July when New York legalized same sex unions. On Wednesday, he was temporarily suspended from the classroom and reassigned.

Patton said Buell has taught in the school system for 22 years and has a spotless record. Last year, he was selected as the high school’s “Teacher of the Year.”

But now his job is on the line because of what some have called anti-gay and homophobic comments.

Buell told Fox News Radio that he was stunned by the accusations. “It was my own personal comment on my own personal time on my own personal computer in my own personal house, exercising what I believed as a social studies teacher to be my First Amendment rights,” he said.

The school system declined to comment on the specific Facebook messages that led to their investigation, but Buell provided Fox News Radio with a copy of the two Facebook messages that he said landed him in trouble.

The first was posted on July 25 at 5:43 p.m. as he was eating dinner and watching the evening news.

“I’m watching the news, eating dinner when the story about New York okaying same-sex unions came on and I almost threw up,” he wrote. “And now they showed two guys kissing after their announcement. If they want to call it a union, go ahead. But don’t insult a man and woman’s marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool of whatever. God will not be mocked. When did this sin become acceptable?”

Three minutes later, Buell posted another comment: “By the way, if one doesn’t like the most recently posted opinion based on biblical principles and God’s laws, then go ahead and unfriend me. I’ll miss you like I miss my kidney stone from 1994. And I will never accept it because God will never accept it. Romans chapter one.”

What is interesting about this is that if Buell had been a liberal teacher who lauded gay marriage, he would have no problem.

And if, instead of quoting the Bible, he had attacked the Bible as “homophobic,” that would be fine.

Quite simply, rejecting the Biblical view of homosexuality is now part of the official state religion, and heretics will be punished.

Buell’s attorney strongly disagreed and accused the school system of violating his First Amendment rights.

“The school district is being anti-straight, anti-First Amendment and anti-personal liberty,” said Horatio Mihet, an attorney with the Liberty Counsel. “The idea that public servants have to whole-heartedly endorse homosexual marriage is repugnant to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,” Mihet told Fox News Radio.

“All he did was speak out on an issue of national importance and because his comments did not fit a particular mold, he is now being investigated and could possibly lose his job. What have we come to?”

Buell said he does not know the individual who filed the complaint, but the past week has caused his family “heartache.”

“To try and say you could lose your job over speaking about something in the venue that I did in the manner that I did is not just a knee-jerk reaction,” he said. “It’s a violent reaction to one person making a complaint.”

But Patton said the school system has an obligation to take the comments seriously. He said Buell will not be allowed back in the classroom “until we do all the interviews and do a thorough job of looking at everything – past or previous writings.”

Translation: Inquisition. Buell is charged with heresy, and the distinct will “investigate” whether he is indeed a heretic.

Buell believes the school system is trying to send a message to Christian teachers.

“There is an intimidation factor if you are a Christian or if you make a statement against it (gay marriage) you are a bigot, a homophobe, you’re a creep, you’re intolerant,” he said. “We should have the right to express our opinions and talk about things.”

Of course, voices representing the gay lobby simply don’t recognize any right to voice heresy.

Brett Winters, a former Mount Dora student, told the Orlando Sentinel he was disappointed about Buell’s comments. “This type of hateful language is dangerous not only to gay students, but also to anti-gay students,” Winters told the newspaper.

Michael Slaymaker, president of the Orlando Youth Alliance, told the newspaper that gay students might feel uncomfortable in Buell’s class.

“I would hope a teacher would be there to help them and not hurt them,” he told the Orlando Sentinel.

Of course, this reveals the crux of the issue.

Gay students are to be coddled and pandered to and never have to hear that their behavior is controversial. But Christian students have no such protection. One can’t imagine a liberal teacher who expresses support for gay marriage, either on a Facebook page or in the classroom, getting into trouble.

But of course Christian students would have an equal right to consider such a teacher hostile to them.

But their sensibilities don’t count among politically correct school bureaucrats.

Meanwhile, hundreds of people have joined at least two Facebook groups calling for the school system to reinstate the popular teacher. “He’s developed a reputation as being one of the most caring teachers in the school,” Mihet said.

Gay Fascism in a High School Economics Class

From the Livingston Daily:

Howell Public Schools Superintendent Ron Wilson on Thursday said high school teacher Jay McDowell was disciplined after it was determined McDowell violated a student’s First Amendment rights and significantly violated a district policy.

“The student was speaking out on being offended by the gay and lesbian lifestyle because it’s against his religion. The teacher said that wasn’t appropriate,” Wilson said.

The student, 16-year-old junior Daniel Glowacki, was then ejected from McDowell’s economics class, Wilson said, along with another student after Glowacki and McDowell argued about another student wearing a belt buckle featuring the Confederate Flag.

Glowacki was asking the teacher why, if the Confederate Flag was considered offensive, he didn’t have an equal right to feel offended at the rainbow shirts gay, lesbian and liberal students were wearing, since his Catholic beliefs hold that homosexuality is sinful.

Glowacki was given a referral for his role in the ordeal. A referral is given to a student for breaking a school rule. The referral, given for minor offenses, goes on the student’s permanent record. Glowacki was given a referral, written up by McDowell, but not suspended from school.

Daniel Glowacki’s mother, Sandy Glowacki, told the Daily Press & Argus on Thursday that Howell High School Principal Aaron Moran delivered a letter to her home saying the referral had been taken off his record because Daniel Glowacki committed no wrongdoing.

The Daily Press & Argus on Tuesday filed a Freedom Of Information Act request seeking documentation from the district investigation. Assistant Superintendent Lynn Parrish on Thursday said the district served notice of the request to McDowell, alerting him the information may be released. McDowell has the option to request the information be held for an extended period of time.

“(McDowell) has options and he has the right to exercise each and every remedy he may have,” Parrish said.

McDowell did not return calls Thursday from the Daily Press & Argus seeking comment. He has declined comment when asked about the issue throughout the week.

The district Oct. 20 was taking part in a national “Spirit Day” — a Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation event aimed to raise awareness of anti-gay bullying after the recent suicides of six gay teens across the United States who had been harassed. Students in support of the day wore purple T-shirts that read “Tyler’s Army,” for one of the six who died. Others wore shirts featuring a rainbow, which signifies gay pride.

Daniel Glowacki, who has since been removed from the class and placed in another class at the request of his mother, questioned why it was allowed for students to show their support for the gay community and not allowed for a student to wear her Confederate flag belt buckle.

“I don’t really care what people think, but I don’t want people to think I’m against gays. That’s just not true,” Daniel Glowacki said.

A complaint was filed against McDowell, head of the Howell Education Association teachers’ union, by a parent. Sandy Glowacki said she did not file the complaint. That complaint led to an investigation, which led to McDowell being suspended one day without pay. District officials considered the issue over until it was found out McDowell posted information about his suspension on Facebook. He has since returned to work.

“The day the incident took place, I received several e-mails from parents saying they believe students were being harassed for not wearing the T-shirts,” Wilson said Thursday. “We have a clear, established anti-bullying policy. [emphasis added]

Translation: students who declined to show support for the gay and lesbian cause were victims of bullying.

“All the student was doing was voicing an opinion. The same thing would have been done had the student been on the other side. As superintendent, it’s my responsibility to foster fair, respectful treatment of all staff and students, and the teacher didn’t do that.”

Sandy Glowacki said she wanted her son and McDowell to apologize to each other, but because of comments being made about her son, she may seek legal action, although she acknowledged no one has mentioned her son by name.

Wilson said he is hopeful no legal action comes from the occurrence.

“My son is not a bigot,” Sandy Glowacki said. “He has a very diverse group of friends that includes some gays. If a gay student was being picked on in class, he’d stick up for them.

“But I feel his freedom of expression and freedom of speech have been violated along with his character.”

There is more coverage here and here.

Apparently the teacher verbally assaulted the dissenting students, calling them “racists.”

Daniel Glowacki learned some lessons about political correctness. Politically correct people are allowed to shut down any views they dislike by claiming to be offended, but politically incorrect people are required to tolerate anything thrown at them.

McDowell should not have merely received the one-day suspension, he should have been fired. One qualification to be a teacher is to deal tolerantly with disagreement from students, even when the student is expressing an idea you dislike. Not being a bigot, in other words, should be a qualification to be a teacher. And “bigotry” here is not defined as leftists define it — holding politically incorrect opinions. Bigotry is getting bent out of shape in the face of politically incorrect opinions.

We were about to ask rhetorically “how long before something like this happens at Marquette?” But almost certainly things like this have happened here. We have learned about some, but been unable to blog about them because we could not source them properly.

In one case a student of ours told us about hair-raising things that happened to his roommate. We urged him to urge his roommate to talk to us, but the roommate never did. A lot of students, feeling intimidated and emotionally bruised, want to let the issue drop.

Glowacki is a hero for, at least briefly, sticking to his guns and challenging what the teacher said. That’s a dangerous thing to do in high schools, and in colleges, when the teacher is a politically correct liberal or leftist.

Warrior Columnist Asks: “What Makes the LGBT Community Better Than Me?”

From The Warrior, a column by Joseph Dobbs, about the fact (first reported here) that lesbian activist and college administrator Ronni Sanlo visited Marquette to “consult” with the Office of Student Affairs.

Her visit was apparently intended to be a secret. No notice went out to faculty, nor students, nor to others in the University community. Rather, only narrow group of gays, lesbians and liberal “allies” knew about the visit.

At least not until we “outed” the entire affair here.

Out of all the issues that are sticking their hands up shouting “Me sir, me!” at the university we call Marquette, one of the loudest and most resonant is that of the whole different sexuality thing. But before we call on Lindsay George Beau Tracy, we have to remember something important: Marquette University is a Catholic school and is stuck that way. Nobody is forced to come here and nobody is forced to stay. While celebrating 100 Years of Women All Over Campus was quite a hoot, I still have the funny taste of tradition in my mouth from Marquette’s 125th birthday. After all, this is a school (run by religious folk, no less!); I think the idea is that we students are the ones who are supposed to change[rather than the University changing to accomodate students]. The good news is that Marquette is quite open to giving out free hugs once your tuition check has cleared.

As reported in the Warrior blog (mu-warrior.blogspot.com), Vice President of Student Affairs Chris Miller invited lesbian activist Ronni Sanlo Ed.D. as a “consultant” for an on-campus meeting October 28 and 29. If you haven’t heard of this, you’re not alone; apparently no one did. A search for Sanlo’s name brought up no results on the Marquette web page, and the invitation e-mails obtained by Warrior staff were sent to a very narrow selection of people. Furthermore, there is no mention of Sanlo’s visit in the Marquette University News Briefs, though the invitations to attend her meetings were sent out weeks before. The implication is that we hoi polloi were not welcome to attend and support Sanlo’s message, or to question its relevance to our own experience, or even to be aware that one of the “20 Powerful Lesbian Academics” named by Rachel Pepper, coordinator of LGBT studies at Yale, was visiting our humble campus with us in mind.

So, what’s going on here? Sanlo is known for her implementation of a Lavender Graduation at the University of Michigan, which, according to her, “recognizes LGBT students of all races and ethnicities and acknowledges their achievements and contributions to the university as students who survived the college experience.“ Are we going to get one of those? Are faculty and students going to get sensitivity training?

The more obvious conclusion, that Sanlo’s visit was meant to assuage concerns about LGBT sensitivity at Marquette after what happened last time the issue was brought up, sounds about right, but is clearly undermined by the restricted access.

Hopefully the few dozen people who actually got to see her all had really big epiphanies, so they can tell us all how to be better people. Whatever her per diem was, I helped pay it, so I hope we’ll get some benefit out of it.

I like having people visit the university. . . . The problem is with the secrecy. Anyone who knows anything about the history of discrimination can tell you that its most subtle and nefarious manifestation is in segregation and isolation. “Colored” drinking fountains didn’t spray acid or sharks; their crime was in teaching black people that they were different from everyone else, even that they were a contaminant. I don’t get to see Sanlo because I’m not a fifth-dan member of the Gay-Straight Alliance. My homo-fu is lacking! But why do the Illuminati get to hang out with her when it’s everyone else who needs illumination? Shouldn’t Sanlo be meeting with the people who disagree with her and using her advanced education and research to debate the merits of their position?

Making up nonsense words like “Homophobia” and hurling them at anyone who disagrees with them hasn’t exactly gotten the LGBT folks a huge number of converts. Assuming your opponent has an open mind gives rise to gentleness and friendly discussion. Assuming whoever doesn’t agree with you has a closed mind requires you to ignore them, punish them or break it open with a club. But our lovely university has an idea of Cura Personalis; breaking people’s heads open or punishing them for their views shouldn’t really be kosher, should it? . . .

The other problem with what Sanlo’s modus operandi appears to be is the whole idea behind things like Lavender Graduation. The opposite of segregation and discrimination against Group X by Group Y is not segregation and discrimination against Group Y by Group X. Everyone has to deal with terrible things happening to him; everyone has obstacles that he cannot control but must overcome regardless. LGBT students and people should not be hated or spat on, but why should be put them on a pedestal? Orphans don’t get a special graduation ceremony or commemorations, neither do the physically or mentally scarred. The difference between these examples and the LGBT crowd is, of course, that LGBTs are victims of active hatred and abuse by other people. But it’s not being hated that makes you better; it’s transcending the hatred and not returning it. Does graduating college indicate that any given LGBT student has made achievements and contributions to a degree that he or she cannot sit next to the rest of us? What do all the students who have learning disabilities think about this, that they have to work so much harder because of a condition beyond their control, only to graduate with the rest of their school? All the ones I know are proud of it, proud to have succeeded in a task they set their minds to. They aren’t ashamed to wear the same kind of mortarboard and robe; they don’t feel like they need to be separate from everyone else.

LGBT students are different. We wouldn’t need a name for them if they weren’t; we could just call them “students.” I don’t want to make them normal. I don’t want anyone to be normal; though if I ever meet anyone who is (a possibility much in doubt), I might change my mind. But their differences don’t make them stupid or clumsy or ugly. People can be crappy to them, and that’s terrible. But the university provides counseling and support, and is hardly friendly to anyone who expresses hate towards LGBTs, verbally or physically.

At the end of the day, I want this from Ronni Sanlo, Chris Miller, the LGBT community and anyone who thinks I’m wrong, stupid or inferior because of the views I have just expressed: I want you to tell me why you think I’m wrong. I want you to show me your reasons for treating LGBTs as special, separate members of our community. Tell me why the university should use my tuition money to make me think the way you do. Tell me what you think and why. Treat me as a person with intellect and emotion, without hate or anger. In return, I offer you the same.

Of course, the comments below Dobbs’ column show that his hope of being treated civilly was for naught. One poster said “It’s hard to treat you as a ‘person with intellect. . . . ’” and another “I have never read such an offensive, degrading article in the Warrior in my four years at Marquette. And that is saying something. . . It is a shame the Warrior would publish such a disrespectful and untimely article in the wake of hate crimes that led humans to think life wasn’t worth living.” And the same poster called the article “disgusting” and “insensitive.”

Note the assumption here: if you fail to embrace the gay agenda, you want gay people to commit suicide.

Finally, another poster calls the column “disgusting.”

What Dobbs has done, of course, in run full-force into campus political correctness. Nobody bothered to argue against his column, nor to identify any logical fallacies. They simply attacked with nasty, ad hominem insults.

It’s clear who the intolerant people are.

Yet Dobbs has an excellent point (a few, actually).

In the wake of the Jodi O’Brien fiasco, the University promised to initiate a “dialogue” about four concerns:

• LGBT issues
• “Shared governance” issues (faculty input into University decisions)
• Academic freedom
• the “Catholic mission” of the institution.

But of course, sponsoring “consultants” whose visits are secret, and holding secret meetings of the campus gay lobby (we are tempted to say “gay cabal”) runs entirely contrary to the idea of “dialogue.”

They suggest scheming University officials with an agenda they want to ram down people’s throats.

Gay Fascism: Disrupting Pro-Traditional Marriage Rally

From the Daily Caller, a story that clarifies who are the real bigots in the debate over gay marriage.

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is traveling around the country on a month-long tour promoting traditional marriage. The “Summer for Marriage Tour 2010: One Man One Woman” is targeting some of the key battleground areas in the ongoing debate over gay marriage.

While tour participants have been peaceful, gay rights activists at a couple stops have responded with venom, according to Brian Brown, president of the NOM.

Last Saturday, the tour stopped in Albany, New York and last Sunday in Providence, Rhode Island. In both places, Brown said, marriage advocates were besieged by gay rights protesters.

In Albany, activists surrounded the NOM crowd — carrying rainbow umbrellas and wearing red shirts that said “see my love” — and pushed their way onto the stage, as seen in a YouTube video provided by the NOM. There were also reports of individual incidents of intimidation, including harassment of a nursing mother, a verbal threat to kidnap a participant’s child, and garden variety name calling.

“Their goal was intimidating my family, me, and my three small children,” a nursing mother said on the YouTube video of the event provided by the NOM. “I think they did the job.”

In Providence, the protesters got much more out of hand, Brown told TheDC. “I’d never seen anything like it in my life,” he said, “and I’ve been involved in the same-sex marriage issue for years…Ive been in the heart of these debates and at a lot of rallies and have never experienced something like this.”

During the Providence rally at the state’s Capitol building, an estimated 150 protesters surrounded the rally of nearly 250, shaking rocks in bottles to make loud noises, according to Brown. Brown said the protesters then entered the crowd shouting in the faces of the marriage supporters. Several even rushed the stage during Brown’s speech.

“As I was speaking, three protesters jumped in front of the podium and started screaming in my face as I was trying to speak,” Brown said. “This is the face of tolerance, they say they want tolerance, but look at how they act when they are confronted with ideas they do not agree with.”

The gay rights activists did not just harass the adult participants. According to Brown, children at the rally were also targets of the verbal vitriol as gay rights activists reportedly called the children names and taunted them, using such language as: “Are mommy and daddy raising you to be a little bigot” or “is mommy a bigot?”

“I’ve never seen this kind of hate and border-line violence, I mean going after children? Making them cry? I’ve never seen it before,” Brown said.

“We need to confront this hate with love and respect,” Brown continued. “People were scared and I was really worried something dangerous would occur. These people were just so mad and screaming so loudly I was concerned it could get physical.”

The Capitol police eventually called in the State Highway Patrol to help restore order. No arrests were made.

The interesting thing is that that this happened, but that you almost certainly have not seen it in the media. It just doesn’t fit the liberal template.

Of course, the fascists who disrupted the rallies did not represent all gays and lesbians. But then Fred Phelps and his little band of bigots are much less representative of Christians than the disrupters are of gays.

There is indeed an ugly fascist wing of the “gay righhts” movement, and it not some tiny fringe. Indeed, it has been visible here on the Marquette campus when the President of the Gay/Straight Alliance claimed that Jesuits would not allow an anti-gay marriage speaker on campus, since opposition to gay marriage is “hate speech.” The person in question (Jess Cushion) made it clear that she though such speakers should be banned from campus.

So the sort of gay activists who would shout down and shut up speech they dislike are not just a little fringe. But you will never see them in the Mainstream Media.

More Gay Fascism in Academia: Professor Fired for Teaching Catholic Doctrine in Class on Catholic Doctrine

File under “this isn’t surprising anymore” and “of course the left is intolerant of free expression.”

(CNSNews.com) – The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group, has given the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign until the end of Friday to re-instate a professor who was relieved of his teaching duties following complaints he engaged in “hate speech” by teaching Catholic dogma about homosexuality in a course about Catholicism.

In a letter to University officials, ADF attorneys say that Dr. Kenneth Howell lost his position simply for teaching an unpopular Catholic doctrine, and that University officials have until July 16 to respond to demands that the university immediately reinstate Howell to his teaching position, or face court action.

While teaching the course “Introduction to Catholicism” at the University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign, they say, Howell expressed Catholic Church teaching on homosexuality in an e-mail to his students, prompting a student complaint to the University that read in part, “allowing this hate speech at a public university is entirely unacceptable.”

“We are gravely disappointed that the University would succumb to such a ‘heckler’s veto,’ jettison principles of academic freedom, and violate Dr. Howell’s First Amendment freedoms. And we insist that he be reinstated to his teaching position immediately,” the letter said.

“We are seriously going to consider a lawsuit if they do not back down from this. It was clear cut censorship of a professor simply for expressing a politically incorrect view in the classroom on the subject that the class was about,” Jordan Lawrence, the Alliance Defense Fund attorney representing Howell, told CNSNews.com.

Howell’s May 4 e-mail, obtained and published by the Champaign News-Gazette, discussed the differences between utilitarianism and Natural Moral Law in judging the morality of homosexuality.

Howell explained to his students that Natural Moral Law, “says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same. How do we know this? By looking at REALITY. Men and women are complementary in their anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Men and women are not interchangeable. So, a moral sexual act has to be between persons that are fitted for that act.”

Howell further states in the e-mail: “Natural Moral Theory says that if we are to have healthy sexual lives, we must return to a connection between procreation and sex. Why? Because that is what is REAL. It is based on human sexual anatomy and physiology. Human sexuality is inherently unitive and procreative. If we encourage sexual relations that violate this basic meaning, we will end up denying something essential about our humanity, about our feminine and masculine nature.”

Howell’s dismissal came after an e-mail from an unnamed student was sent to the head of the Department of Religion at the university, complaining that Howell “allowed little room for any opposition to Catholic dogma.”

“Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing. Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another,” the student e-mail said. “The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one’s worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation.”

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the official Roman Catholic teachings, homosexual acts “are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

In a 1986 letter, “On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons,” then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, wrote: “Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living.”

Ironically, the U of I Department of Religion had congratulated Howell in the previous school semester for his “excellent teaching” in the Introduction to Catholicism course, as ranked by students in the Fall of 2009.

But Howell was informed in late May of this year by Dr. Robert McKim, head of the religion department, that he would no longer be able to teach classes at the University.

“This kind of heavy handed authoritarian response to an opinion that some anonymous person found objectionable is simply not the way classrooms should function at universities in the United States,” Lorence told CNSNews.com

According to Lorence, the university officials who dismissed Howell have been vague as to the exact cause of his dismissal. He said no mention of work performance or inaccuracies in presenting material to students were when Dr. Howell was dismissed. Lorence told CNSNews.com that the complaints about “hate speech” seem to be the direct cause of the dismissal.

Dr. Michael Hogan, who started his tenure as president of the University of Illinois in May of this year, has responded to individuals concerned about Dr. Howell’s dismissal via an open e-mail letter:

“Let me begin by thanking you for expressing your concerns,” the letter states. “Academic freedom is at the core of our teaching and research missions. It’s vital to our ability to explore new ideas, educate our students, and promote the civil and free exchange of alternative viewpoints in a democracy.

“I learned of this action on the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) campus late last week and immediately asked Chancellor Robert Easter, who oversees the campus, to provide me with a briefing on the matter. I want to assure you that the University administration shares my commitment to the principles of academic freedom. At the same time, we do believe it’s important to fully investigate all of the details related to this situation. As I’m sure you’re aware, it is sometimes the case that public reports may convey only part of the story. I think it important to reserve judgment until I have all of the facts and I hope you’ll agree.

“We have asked the UIUC Senate’s standing Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure to immediately review this action. This is the mechanism on the campus through which these matters should be vetted. We expect this review to be completed very soon. By using our channels of shared governance and review, we are in the best position to make informed decisions that afford a fair process for all.”

The Alliance Defense Fund letter, meanwhile, says the First Amendment protects faculty speech in the classroom, and lists several federal court precedents protecting faculty speech. The letter also points out that “decades of Supreme Court precedent” prohibit the University from firing Dr. Howell simply because his speech was controversial.

The ADF letter reiterates several times that Howell was fired for teaching Catholic doctrine in a class about Catholic doctrine, and says that, “the University’s only reason for removing Dr. Howell is that other students, faculty, and staff disliked his speech.”

According to the University of Illinois Academic Staff Handbook: “Academic freedom is essential to the functioning of a university. It applies to its teaching, research, and public service and involves both faculty and students.”

The handbook goes on to say, “Faculty members are expected to instruct their assigned courses in a manner consistent with the scheduled time, course content, and course credit as approved by the faculty. Within these constraints, they are entitled to freedom in the classroom in developing and discussing according to their areas of competence the subjects that they are assigned.”

A decision by the university Senate’s Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure may be forthcoming.

The treatment of the issue in the leftist Huffington Post makes it clear that the CNS dispatch is accurate as regard the facts.

Howell’s real sin, of course, was giving the Catholic view of homosexuality a sympathetic and favorable treatment. Had he denounced Church teaching as “homophobic” the speech nazis at the University of Illinois would have been fine with that.

Of course, doing that would have been hate speech directed against Catholics. But that’s always acceptable on a college campus, even at Marquette.

The truth is that every student, even at a state-run university, needs to be taught Church teaching about sexuality (including homosexuality) with the arguments presented in a sympathetic way. Of course they should be taught the gay critique of Catholic doctrine too. That’s what education is all about.

Why “even at a state-run university?” Because of the historical and philosophical importance of Catholic doctrine. What about atheists who won’t like anything Catholic? They are free to dislike it. In the same way, Christian students should be taught about Islam, and they are likewise free to disagree with what they hear.

Of course Catholic doctrine is “controversial,” but that’s the point. The more controversial the issue, the greater the need for students to hear both sides, and to hear both sides from a sympathetic perspective, rather than having either caricatured by people who hate it.

Marxism is controversial too, as are deconstructionist approaches to literature and (say) critical race theory. But in the politically correct hothouse atmosphere of the modern American university only controversial views that leftist faculty happen to like are allowed to be presented.

Campus Ministry, Gay Group Trash Bible, Church Teachings on Homosexuality

An event last week, as announced on the Marquette web site:

Exploring the Bible, Faith, and Homosexuality

Campus Ministry and the Gay/Straight Alliance are co-sponsoring two screenings of the film, “For the Bible Tells Me So,” along with a panel discussion. “For the Bible Tells Me So” explores how scriptural interpretation has informed Christian beliefs on and responses to homosexuality. The movie also chronicles real life stories of Christian families and their responses to family members who identify as being gay or lesbian. Screenings will take place on Monday, April 19th and Tuesday, April 20th. Both will take place at 7 p.m. in Marquette Hall, room 200.

The video in question basically trashes Christian teaching on homosexuality. The review of the movie in the New York Times outlines the arguments it makes.

The movie’s ensemble portrait of parents (many of them ministers) with adult gay or lesbian children strives to demonstrate that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition, not a lifestyle choice, and that those who quote Leviticus to justify their animosity are guilty not just of intolerance but also of selective piety, an inability to understand historical context and poor reading comprehension. (Abomination, for example, does not mean against God, but against a civilization’s cultural norms.)

There are all sorts of problems with arguments like this.

The statement that “abomination” doesn’t mean an abomination in the eyes of God ignores the fact that the text of Leviticus at this point is plainly speaking for God. The text says:

Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,

“You shall also say to the sons of Israel . . . .

It then goes on to give several injunctions to the sons of Israel, including a prohibition on having sex with close relatives, against sacrificing infants to Molech and against consulting mediums and spiritists. And also “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act.” (NASB)

Nothing here about “homosexuality is against cultural norms, but God doesn’t mind it.”

Of course, those who reject this teaching could say “the Bible is just a bunch of stuff written by ignorant homophobes, and I don’t believe it.” That, at least, would be honest on their part. But instead they lie about what the text says and means.

The claim of “selective piety” is only a little better. It’s true that Christians don’t observe the dietary restrictions laid out in the Old Testament. But unfortunately the condemnation of homosexuality is reiterated in the New Testament (which explicitly abrogates the dietary restrictions), and in Catholic social teaching (which for loyal Catholics is authoritative). So no amount of “historical context” can do away with the teaching.

The claim that homosexuality is “a genetic predisposition, not a lifestyle choice” doesn’t help much either. People have all sorts of genetic predispositions. Straight people have a “a genetic predisposition” to engage in sexual promiscuity and adultery. Tendencies toward schizophrenia, alcoholism and compulsive gambling all have strong genetic components. People both gay and straight may have “a genetic predisposition” to molest young children.

There are all sorts of “genetic predispositions” that people are supposed to overcome.

And this leaves aside the fact that people who want to, say, own a gun or dive an SUV are roundly condemned by the same politically correct people who would never condemn anybody for homosexual acts.

Some of the video is a play to cheap sentimentality.

Mary Lou Wallner, one of the staunchest advocates of gay rights in the movie, became a political activist after her daughter, Anna, committed suicide — the result, Ms. Wallner believes, of the letter she wrote to Anna rejecting her after she came out.

Of course, all sons and daughters may do things that parents refuse to accept. Mrs. Wallner might have had a straight daughter who took up with a guy who was a complete bum. Some sons might engage in drug dealing or join a neo-Nazi cult.

How to handle such situations can be a tough call indeed, and Mrs. Wallner may have been much too harsh on her daughter. But just because a kid does something doesn’t make it ok.

Panel Discussion

Again, from the University website:

Thursday, April 22nd, university community members are invited to attend a panel discussion on the movie at 7 p.m. in Marquette Hall, room 200. Join panelists Dr. Ed de St. Aubin, Associate Professor of Psychology, Fr. Bryan Massingale, Associate Professor of Theology, Dr. John Schmitt, Associate Professor of Theology, and Rev. Jessica Short, Pastor of Lutheran Campus Ministry, in an engaging conversation on faith, scripture, and homosexuality. For more information, please contact Steve Blaha.

What stands out about this panel? The simple fact that all of the presenters are liberals, and none could be expected to present the Catholic view of homosexuality in any sort of sympathetic way.

And that’s typical of Marquette.

The issue is not whether, at a Catholic university people are allowed to present views at odds with Catholic teaching. Here, it’s whether anybody is allowed to support Catholic teaching.

The Campus Ministry clearly has a “thing” about homosexuality, and it seems to go beyond merely being liberal and politically correct. If asked, they doubtless would say that they just want to protect gays from harassment and discrimination. But their actions clearly suggest that they simply don’t accept Church teaching on homosexuality, and are doing all they can to undermine it at Marquette.

Some final comments from the New York Times show the corruption associated with this project. The Times reviewer pans the video on the basis of aesthetics, and labels it “condescending,” explaining that this word is:

. . . embodied by this movie’s most unfortunate sequence, a smart-alecky animated short in which a gay man, a lesbian and a booming Voice of God (Don LaFontaine) disabuse a homophobe of his ignorance. The dummy’s name? Christian.

When conservative Protestant ministers claim to speak for God, they get roundly condemned. But apparently the gay lobby gets to speak for God.

The Times reviewer claims that “the movie is mainly intended as a feature-length primer that can be deployed in arguments with homophobes.” And further:

The inevitable DVD should be packaged in a plain cardboard sleeve, so that viewers can carry it in their pockets and, if confronted by a homophobe, hand it over and say, “Watch this, then get back to me.”

Calling people “homophobes” and “bigots” because they disagree about homosexuality shows who the real bigots are. Intolerant of dissent and disagreement, the politically correct lash out, projecting their hostility upon those who disagree with them. Thus those who hate most are most likely to call other people “haters.”

No university should be implicated in nasty invective directed against people who disagree with the prevailing orthodoxy. And any Catholic university should have at least some voices who side with the Church against the prevailing orthodoxy.

Marquette Student Government: No Free Speech About Homosexuality

Last night, the Marquette University Student Senate passed a resolution condemning “prejudicial attacks” on gays and lesbians, claiming that “On Marquette’s campus LGBTQ issues in the past have been overlooked” and that “LGBTQ individuals have been subjected to intentional and unintentional prejudicial attacks . . . .”

This might seem bland enough, although actual harassment and discrimination against gays (and a long list of other groups) has long been against university rules. So why a redundant resolution?

A big problem comes with the phrase “prejudicial attack.” Actual physical attacks are against civil law, as well as university rules. Harassment has long been against university rules. The resolution mentions that “Some of these attacks take the form of derogatory jokes,” and that is the only form of “prejudicial attack” mentioned in the resolution.

Doubtless, telling derisive jokes about gays and lesbians is not nice, and could indeed be considered a form of harassment -- which again, is already outlawed. We have trouble seeing why homosexuals should have a special protection that (say) blonds, or Polish people or rednecks or people considered “too religious” don’t have.

Giving the Game Away

The true intent of the resolution was revealed when a conservative senator proposed the following amendment, to be added to the text:

Espousal of traditional Christian or specifically Catholic teaching on homosexuality shall not, if done respectfully and in the appropriate context, be considered a “prejudicial attack” or an expression of “prejudice.”

The amendment was voted down!

And it was voted down by a wide margin, with only four senators supporting it, and approximately 17 opposing it. After the amendment was defeated, the motion itself passed.

The intellectual level of the debate was revealed when one senator asked what “espousal” meant!

Given a chance to protect the right of Christian and specifically Catholic students to affirm Church teaching on homosexuality, the Student Senate, after considerable debate, refused to. It’s appalling that, on the campus of a supposed Catholic university, Catholic teaching about the sinfulness of homosexual acts is not supposed to be even expressed.

Not only is Church teaching not an officially enforced orthodoxy (which it shouldn’t be) but opposition to Church teaching is the official orthodoxy -- at least if Student Government (and the bureaucrats in Student Affairs, who monitor and ride herd on Student Government) gets its way.

Indeed, it largely already has. A source close to student government who spoke to us about the issue asked that his or her name not be used, because “we are probably the minority group on our beliefs . . . I’d rather not use my name.”

Aspin Center Honorees: Push Gay Agenda to Persecute Christian Social Service Agencies

We have blogged before about how Marquette’s Les Aspin Center has a pattern of honoring members of Congress who not merely take positions contrary to Catholic teaching, but extreme positions contrary to Catholic teaching.

Two egregious cases: Congresswoman Gwen Moore and Congressman John Lewis. (Check here for more on Moore.)

Now what have Moore and Lewis done?

They are cosponsoring a bill by California Democratic Pete Stark (H.R.3827) that would “prohibit discrimination in adoption or foster care placements based on the sexual orientation, gender identification, or marital status of any prospective adoptive or foster parent.”

In short, it would force Catholic and other Christian adoption agencies to give children to homosexual couples. In Massachusetts, the Catholic Church got out of the adoption business rather than than comply with a demand that fundamentally violated its religious conventions.

This bill, if it is passed, would have the same effect all across the nation, even in conservative states that would never impose the gay agenda on Christian social service agencies.

While the notion of “prohibiting discrimination” might sound nice, the fact is that Christian social service agencies would equally “discriminate” against potential adoptive parents engaged in adulterous relationships, those with a history of drug abuse or domestic abuse, or a whole host of other things that make them less than the best parents for a child.

Even if one thinks there is nothing wrong with homosexual acts, in a tolerant society one should not try to impose that view on people with different views.

And morality aside, there is every reason to believe that every child needs both a male and a female parent, since every child needs both a male and a female role model.

This bill, by the way, would prohibit discrimination on the basis of marital status. But heterosexual couples who won’t make the commitment that marriage involves are poor candidates to be parents.

Of course, black people in general aren’t keen on the gay agenda, as the voting on California’s Proposition 8 showed. So Moore and Lewis, who are black, aren’t representing the black community very well. This may be because they are trying to placate gays and liberal yuppies that are part of their electoral coalitions, or it may be that they simply think like white liberals.

Either way, the Aspin Center showed bad judgment honoring either of them. Whether this was a reflection of the liberal views of the leadership of that institution or an attempt to curry favor with Washington politicians is hard to tell. It was probably both. But it wasn’t what any part of a supposedly Catholic university should do.

Still Another Case of Pro-Gay Fascism in Academia

From the Ann Arbor News:

A national public interest group has filed a lawsuit against Eastern Michigan University on behalf of a graduate student who allegedly was dismissed from counseling studies for her religious beliefs regarding homosexuality.

The suit was filed Thursday with the U.S. District Court in Detroit by the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom, a conservative public interest group focusing on religious freedom.

It alleges that EMU violated the civil rights of Julea Ward, a graduate student in school counseling, by dismissing her from the program because she would not affirm homosexual behavior in the context of counseling, as specified in university policy.

EMU’s handbook for students in the counseling program sets out that they adhere to American Counseling Association standards, which require counselors to not engage in discrimination based on, among other things, sexual orientation.

When Ward was asked to counsel a client wishing to discuss a homosexual relationship, Ward objected and followed her supervisor’s instructions by referring the client to another counselor, said Jeremy Tedesco, an Arizona-based attorney working on the case.

Although she had been instructed to refer clients when faced with an ethical dilemma, Ward was still brought up on disciplinary charges, Tedesco said. Dismissal proceedings began in January, and in March she was dismissed from the counseling program. She lost an appeal to the dean of the school of education.

Pam Young, an EMU spokeswoman, released a statement that said the university doesn’t comment about pending litigation, but that EMU is “a diverse campus with a strong commitment not to discriminate on the basis of gender, race, disability, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression.”

Interesting statement. What it actually means, in the context of academia, is that we won’t discriminate against homosexuals, but we will certainly discriminate against Christians.

The lawsuit says that Ward is “a Christian who derives her beliefs and moral values from the Bible.”

“Based on her sincerely held religious beliefs, Ms. Ward believes that homosexual behavior is immoral sexual conduct, and cannot affirm or validate that behavior or otherwise use her counseling skills and abilities to facilitate homosexual behavior, without violating her sincere religious beliefs,” the suit states.

Tedesco said Ward’s dismissal stemmed from an incident in a practicum course, in which students counsel clients under the supervision of EMU faculty. Faced with counseling a client involved in a homosexual relationship, Ward approached her faculty supervisor prior to meeting to ask for advice.

The supervisor, identified as professor Yvonne Callaway, advised Ward to refer the client to another counselor, according to the lawsuit. Shortly after, Callaway initiated disciplinary proceedings against Ward.

Of course, a liberal social worker would never be required to condone behaviors she believed to be (say) racist or sexist. We can’t imagine that a feminist social worker would be required to counsel a Muslim woman in a way that condoned fundamentalist Islamic views about relations between the sexes. And we can’t imagine that any social worker would be required to condone sexually molesting children.

But a different standard applies to Christians.

But if the above isn’t chilling enough, it goes further.

Ward then underwent an informal review during which she was asked to undergo a remediation program to change her beliefs relating to counseling about homosexuality, the suit states. When Ward refused, she went through a formal review process with counseling professors. A transcript of the review, filed with the complaint, quotes Callaway as saying the client’s referral was a violation of ethical codes.

According to the transcript, Callaway said Ward questioned the ACA’s authority to regulate her behavior and that Ward said she refused to compromise her religious beliefs.

Ward received a letter March 12 informing her of her dismissal from the program.

In other words, she was offered to opportunity to submit to brainwashing to escape punishment.

On March 29, College of Education Dean Vernon C. Polite upheld the dismissal.

“In essence, what the university wants (Ward) to do is affirm homosexual behavior within the context of a counseling relationship in order to get a degree there,” Tedesco said. “That’s something she’s unwilling to do.”

The lawsuit is seeking Ward’s reinstatement into the counseling program and includes a claim for compensatory damages as determined in court. Tedesco said Ward’s attorneys will file a preliminary injunction seeking her reinstatement shortly. Ward was four requirements away from graduating with a master’s degree and has a 3.91 GPA, the suit says.

Allowing a counselor with moral objections to homosexuality to simply hand off a client to a secular liberal colleague would seem to be a reasonable accommodation to sincere religious beliefs.

But the gay lobby (and its politically correct academic acolytes) are not about tolerance. They are about orthodoxy. Everybody must think the way they want them to think — or at least be forced to pretend that they think that way — or they will be punished.

Gay “Censorship?”

Consider the following story from Pink News:

A local television station in the United States has pulled a one hour programme paid for by a notoriously homophobic “family” group.

“Homophobic” here, of course, simply means “Christian.”

The American Family Association (AFA) had paid for airtime on WOOD-TV in Michigan to screen Speechless: Silencing the Christians.

It claims to “reveal the truth about the radical homosexual agenda and its impact on the family, the nation and religious freedom.”

WOOD-TV General Manager Diane Kniowski said earlier this week that it would not run the AFA programme this Saturday as planned.

“Our station is being bombarded with calls and messages, and we find ourselves in the middle of someone else’s fight,” she said.

“Ours was a fair offer and we are removing ourselves from this matter.”

The programme, which is available online, claims hate crimes laws target preaching what the Bible says about homosexuality, gays play a key role to play in the spread of all STDs and HIV/AIDS and employment protection based on sexual orientation will force churches to hire homosexuals.

Of course, all of this is true, if politically incorrect to mention.

The Human Rights Campaign, America’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organisation, had urged its members to contact the station and ask that they pull the programme.

The same website trumpets “McDonald’s defiant as homophobes call for boycott,” obviously happy that the fast food giant is resisting a boycott from the American Family Association.

So while they are bringing pressure to bear on a Michigan TV station, they are happy that another company is paying little heed to pressure brought from the other side.

In fact, the article on McDonald’s complains that the AFA has “advocated censorship of print and electronic media.” This from an organization that advocates censorship of print and electronic media.

We, in fact, think that anybody has a right to buy from, or refuse to buy from, anybody they want. If you don’t like the policies of a company, you have a right to shop elsewhere. If you don’t like what a TV station shows, you can switch the channel.

It’s only really censorship when government is involved, and the gay lobby is happy to get government involved in trying to shut up opinions they don’t like, via “hate speech” laws.

In fact, private markets provide a strong incentive for business enterprises to avoid controversy and not get far outside the boundaries of what’s socially acceptable. For example, Pink News complains that:

Last year in a dramatic u-turn Wal-Mart, the largest grocer in the US and the second largest in the world, stepped back from the active support it was previously giving to gay-rights groups.

The AFA threatened to boycott Wal-Mart’s next big sales period and condemned the blanket support it offered to gay-friendly business initiatives.

And further complains that “Heniz [sic] shrugs off gay boycott with soaring sales figures.” Heinz had shown a commercial with two men kissing. In the wake of complaints Heinz explained:

The advertisement was intended to be humorous, not designed to cause offence to anyone.

Clearly it failed in its intent to amuse and that is why we took the decision to withdraw it.

Bottom line: the next time somebody accuses somebody on the other side of the ideological spectrum of engaging in “censorship,” look around and you are likely to see them rooting for exactly the same kind of “censorship” from their own side.

Yet More Gay Fascism on Marriage

Watch this all the way to the end, where a cross is ripped out of the hands of an anti-gay marriage protestor, and trampled upon.

Gay Marriage: Who Are the Real Bigots?

From Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe:

Plainly, declining to change the timeless definition of marriage deprives no one of “the civil rights once denied” to blacks, and it is an absurdity to claim otherwise. It is also a poisonous slur: For if opposing same-sex marriage is like opposing civil rights, then voters who backed Proposition 8 are no better than racists, the moral equivalent of those who turned the fire hoses on blacks in Birmingham in 1963.

Which is, of course, exactly what proponents of same-sex marriage contend.

It has become routine for the defenders of traditional wedlock to be cast as the worst sort of hateful bigots, “gladly donning the roles played by Lester Maddox and George Wallace in the civil rights era,” to quote The New York Times’s Frank Rich. Anyone who insists that marriage can only mean the union of male and female -- and “anyone” now includes a majority of voters in 30 of the 30 states where marriage amendments have been on the ballot -- can expect to be told that they are no better than racists, modern-day segregationists motivated by malevolence and an evil heart.

Thus, supporters of same-sex marriage regularly referred to the California ballot measure as “Proposition Hate,” while a group calling itself “Californians Against Hate” launched a website to publicize the names and addresses of donors to the Yes-on-8 campaign. Yet it was the foes of Proposition 8 whose hatred and intolerance were most vividly on display. Signs promoting the amendment were stolen or defaced, churches were vandalized, and at least one supporter of the amendment ended up in the hospital after being beaten by an assailant screaming: “What do you have against gays?”

For sheer hatefulness and bigotry, however, nothing surpassed the anti-Proposition 8 television ad that depicted two Mormon missionaries forcing their way into the home of a married lesbian couple.

“Hi, we’re here from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” one of the Mormons says. “We’re here to take away your rights,” says the other.

The missionaries pull the wedding rings from the women’s fingers, then proceed to ransack the house, looking for their marriage license. When they find it, they triumphantly tear it up.

“Hey, we have rights,” one of the women protests.

“Not if we can help it,” one of the missionaries smugly replies.

As the commercial ends, a message appears on the screen: “Say NO to a church taking over your government.”

If black voters overwhelmingly reject the claim that marriage amendments like Proposition 8 are nothing more than bigotry-fueled assaults on civil rights, perhaps it is because they know only too well what real bigotry looks like. Perhaps it is because they resent the assertion that adhering to the ageless meaning of marriage is tantamount to supporting the pervasive humiliation and cruelty of Jim Crow. Perhaps it is because they are not impressed by strident condemnations of “intolerance” and “hate” by people who traffic in rank anti-Mormon hatemongering.

Or perhaps it is because they understand that a fundamental gulf separates the civil rights movement from the demand for same-sex marriage. One was a fight for genuine equality, for the right of black Americans to live on the same terms, and under the same restrictions, as whites. The other is a demand to change the terms on which marriage has always been available by giving it a meaning it has never before had. That isn’t civil rights -- and playing the race card doesn’t change that fact.

Other examples of “gay rights” bigotry abound, including the disruption of a church service in Michigan, and the forced resignation of the director of the California Musical Theatre because he made a campaign donation supporting traditional marriage.

Add to that the fact that, right here on the Marquette campus, the former President of the Gay/Straight Alliance, insisted that no speaker opposing gay marriage should be allowed on campus, since such opposition would constitute “hate speech.”

In Massachusetts, for example, people opposed to gay marriage were subjected to harassment and intimidation.

The gay lobby, and their liberal allies, can’t tolerate people who disagree with them. The movement is essentially fascist.

Pro-Homosexual Indoctrination Starting Very Young in Public Schools

From WorldNetDaily:

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Some parents are shocked to find their children are learning to be homosexual allies and will participate in “Coming Out Day” at a public elementary school tomorrow – and they claim the school failed to notify parents.

One mother of a kindergartner who attends Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science, a K-8 charter school in Hayward, Calif., said she asked her 5-year-old daughter what she was learning at school.

The little girl replied, “We’re learning to be allies.”

The mother also said a Gay Straight Alliance club regularly meets in the kindergarten classroom during lunch.

According to a Pacific Justice Institute report, Faith Ringgold opted not to inform the parents of its pro-homosexual activities beforehand. The school is celebrating “Gay and Lesbian History Month” and is in the process of observing “Ally Week,” a pro-“gay” occasion usually geared toward high school students.

The school is scheduled to host discussions about families and has posted fliers on school grounds portraying only homosexuals. According to the report, a “TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud” will take place Nov. 20. Students will listen to traditional stories with “gay” or transgender twists, to include “Jane and the Beanstalk.”

Some parents only recently noticed posters promoting the school’s “Coming Out Day” tomorrow – celebrated 12 days after the national “Coming Out Day” usually observed on Oct. 11. When WND contacted the school to confirm the event, a female representative replied, “Yes, it is scheduled on our calendar.”

When asked if the school made any efforts to inform parents, she refused to answer and said Hayward Unified School District would have to respond to additional questions. However, the district did not answer its phones or e-mails, and a voicemail recording would not take messages. “Coming Out Day” is not listed on the district’s online school calendar.

Another source provides further information on the same issue.

LifeSiteNews.com attempted to contact the school board regarding the issue. There was no answer, however, and the board’s phone mailbox was full. A representative at Faith Ringgold at first claimed she knew nothing about the “Coming Out Day,” but then said that only the principal, Diana Levy, could answer questions about the event.

Principal Levy is also the acting principal at an adjacent school, Markham Elementary. A representative at that school did confirm that “Coming Out Day” was indeed being celebrated at Faith Ringgold, but the principal was unavailable for comment due to the fact that she was in a meeting regarding the controversial event.

Faith Ringgold seems to have set the promotion of the homosexual agenda as a priority on its 2008 calendar, as several other pro-homosexual events are slated in the coming weeks.

For instance, several parents have noticed numerous posters around the school promoting talks on the family scheduled for later this week; all of the posters, however, depict only homosexual “families.” As well, On November 20, the school will host TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud, where students will hear adapted tales such as “Jane and the Beanstalk.”

The “education profession” is becoming increasing corrupt. Schools of education (include Marquette’s) train teachers to teach “social justice,” with elitist liberals having the sole franchise to determine what “social justice” is.