Is the Westboro Baptist Church Really Coming?

That’s what they claim, according to a story in the Marquette Tribune.

Of course we have been through this before, when they promised to picket a presentation by Judy Shepard (mother of supposed gay martyr Matthew Shepard).

But they did not show up.

The Westboro Baptist Church is Exhibit One for the fact that some people who deserve to be obscure would prefer to be reviled.  They have perfected quite a good strategy for achieving that.

And they have given the gay lobby and its allies some fine opportunities to engage in self-righteous moral preening.

Missive From Provost: More Gay Indoctrination For Students, More Reeducation?

An e-mail to all Marquette faculty: You can read the whole thing here, and it’s mostly boring stuff. But some parts stand out as potentially dangerous:

But first, some boring introductory things.

May 12, 2014

Dear colleagues:

As we wrap up finals week and another academic year, I wanted to share some updates related to academic life at Marquette. We are poised to begin a new chapter with President-elect Lovell, who attended the University Academic Senate meeting earlier this week. President-elect Lovell brings a new sense of energy and enthusiasm to our collective pursuit of academic excellence, and is looking forward to working closely with UAS and the academy. Many of us in the room were moved by his remarks at the meeting and his collaborative philosophy, which he said is based on the African proverb: “We can go fast alone or we can go far together.”

Shedding more light on this year’s major milestone for the university – our successful reaffirmation of accreditation by the Higher Learning Commission – the HLC report brief is now available and it documents the review team’s high regard for education at Marquette. Thanks to the leadership of Dr. Gary Meyer, vice provost for undergraduate programs and teaching; the more than 200 members of our campus community who served on committees and volunteered their time and talents during the past two years; and the more than 500 faculty, staff and students who met with the HLC site team while they were on campus; Marquette is reaccredited through 2023-24.

But then we get to the politically correct stuff:

The one area that the HLC visit team recommended for improvement is “operationalizing our commitment to diversity.” To help us make strides toward that goal, Dr. William Welburn, associate provost for diversity and inclusion, has accepted my invitation to lead the development of a campus-wide diversity plan. Components of this plan will include a campus wide climate study conducted during the 2014-15 academic year; a new, anonymous bias incident reporting and response system for students; and enhanced student education on diversity beginning in fall 2014 and administered by the Division of Student Affairs. This will be a campus-wide effort, and I’ll be calling on many of you to help lead this important initiative, which is also a key objective under the strategic theme “Formation of the Mind and the Heart” in our Beyond Boundaries strategic plan.

Of course, a “campus wide climate study” is going to be a survey to see whether students harbor any politically incorrect attitudes about any politically correct group. Gay and lesbian students will be asked to report instances where anybody let on that they think that homosexuality is not a normal condition, or that homosexual acts are sinful or immoral.

In other words, any instances where some student might let slip that they accept Catholic teaching on homosexuality. That can’t be allowed at a modern Catholic university.

And of course, student activists can be counted on to seize on even the most trivial slight or “micro aggression” to make into a grievance. That’s what the grievance mongers do.

Likewise, if a student lets on that they think that problems in the black community are not the result or white racism, of if a white student fails to “own” his or her “white privilege,” that will count as an example of a “hostile” and “non-inclusive” climate.

Admittedly, by the time they come to Marquette, most students have either been indoctrinated into the politically correct way of viewing these issues, or at least gotten they message that they better keep quiet about their views. But there might be a few hold-outs who are bold enough to speak out. Reeducation is what they will likely face.

Another inclusivity effort initiated this year, the Action Group on Campus Conversations on Gender and Sexuality, has met throughout the spring semester to discuss how to improve dialogue on campus related to issues of gender and sexuality and our Catholic, Jesuit mission. That group is organizing campus forums this fall for faculty, staff and students to share their thoughts, and I urge all of you to participate in these meaningful discussions.

Such discussions, of course, will be dominated by secular politically correct types (as all previous such discussions have been) and will doubtless reach a consensus that Marquette should adopt the entire agenda of the campus gay lobby and the campus feminists.

Finally, I want to thank you for your support this year. Serving in dual roles has been eye-opening, demanding and rewarding – sometimes all at once. I appreciate your kind words, prayers and constructive feedback, and look forward to continuing our work this summer and fall until the search for a permanent provost is completed.

Marquette blessings,

Dr. Margaret Faut Callahan
Interim Provost, Marquette University
Dean and Professor, College of Nursing

But will this be much of a change from what students already face? Not necessarily.

In the first place, students already face a good bit of indoctrination and reeducation, at Freshman Orientation, for example.

But secondly, this may turn into an example of what journalist Charles Peters famously said is a key motto of bureaucracy: “Make believe equals survival.” Thus, an accrediting agency goes through the motions of demanding more “diversity” and a more “inclusive” climate — meaning a climate more friendly to politically correct groups, but also more hostile to non-conforming students. Marquette bureaucrats then go through the motions of implementing “programs” to promote “diversity” — those programs being a great excuse for meetings and reports, and a good way to keep bureaucrats in places like the Provost’s office and Student Affairs busy.

But given the increasing intolerance that marks Marquette (as it marks most U.S. universities) one can’t dismiss the likelihood of real persecution of the few students who hold (and are bold enough to express) independent views.

Make Way for Ducks

Arrested for Preaching About Homosexuality

This, of course, is a fundraising video, but the reality it talks about (no free speech for people critical of homosexuality) is endemic. The situation in the U.S., with our First Amendment, is better in strict legal terms, but bullying, harassment and intimidation from the gay lobby can achieve the same thing here that arrests can in the U.K.

[Update]

The Huffington Post ran a reasonably unbiased article on this incident, but note the level of vitriol directed against not only the street preacher, but also Christianity in general, in the comments.

Methodist Gay Lobby Bullies General Convention

It’s pretty common from leftists: the notion that they have the right to use “any means necessary” do get what they want. And the gay lobby, especially in “mainline” Protestant denominations, is as bad as any.  This was obvious at the General Convention of the United Methodist Church.

The window of opportunity for delegates to do their work was further narrowed by the antics of activists of the Common Witness Coalition (MFSA, RMN, etc.) and allied groups.

Dozens of shrill protesters against biblical standards for sexual self-control, most of whom were not delegates and not all of whom were even necessarily Methodist, invaded the delegates-only seating area on Wednesday, May 2, for an illegal demonstration, loudly drowning out the presiding bishop while he attempted to close the session in prayer.

The next day, following the conference’s decisive re-affirmation of the UMC’s biblical statement on sexual morality (by a significantly larger majority than the previous General Conference), the same activists again stormed the delegates-only section to take it over for yet another fundamentally self-righteous protest. Their refusal to leave, despite repeated, gracious pleas from the presiding bishop, forced the conference to shut down. . . . It is worth noting that RMN has received heavy funding from secular pro-homosexuality groups seeking to take over the UMC . . . , and that the secular gay-rights group, GLAAD, “was on the ground at the United Methodist General Conference, supporting efforts to change the denominational policy.”

Our bishops reportedly considered taking decisive actions, including seeking police help, to end the forceful occupation of the conference floor and/or prevent further such invasions, but ultimately did not do so. Instead, several liberal bishops went to negotiate with the protesters, now led by Amy DeLong, as they held the General Conference hostage. (DeLong is the openly partnered lesbian minister who a church trial in the liberal Wisconsin Annual Conference notoriously refused to discipline for “being a self-avowed, practicing homosexual” – which is absolutely forbidden for UMC clergy – and who currently leads her own self-serving protest group.)

The occupiers refused to allow business to continue until our bishops submitted to their ultimatums:

• Bishop Wenner, President of the Council of Bishops, would open the next session expressing agreement with liberals’ argument that affirmation of biblical morality harms GLBT people (and WITHOUT acknowledging others’ pain in such controversies).
• This would be followed by a prayer offered by a United Methodist minister meeting DeLong’s criteria of (1) being openly gay, (2) currently serving in a particular kind of appointment, and (3) speaking in a prominent location specified by DeLong.
• Delegates would be forbidden from even considering any other “sexuality-related” petition that afternoon.
• A special meeting of the Agenda Committee would be held that afternoon, called by DeLong and including representatives of the Renewal and Reform Coalition, to “negotiate” the manipulation of the rest of the General Conference agenda.

Conference leaders submitted to all of the above. Claiming to speak/pray “on behalf of” all bishops, Bishop Wenner dutifully opened the next session with the assertion that gay and lesbian people had “been hurt by actions of the General Conference and by the polity of The United Methodist Church,” avoided acknowledging anyone else’s pain, and in line with the protestors’ theology. . . .

This afternoon meeting—which included legislative committee chairs, the Agenda Committee, and representatives of the General Conference Commission, the bishops’ Unity Task Force, liberal caucuses, the Renewal and Reform Coalition, and JustPeace—agreed to transfer all “sexuality-related” petitions to the end of the agenda list, ensuring that there would be no time for them. The protesters had already eaten up the time scheduled for such petitions, and much other pressing business remained for the final day.

This decision basically tabled three categories of petitions. Several would have revoked current denominational policies aligning requirements for clergy conduct and the use of apportioned denominational funds with biblical standards on sexual morality. Since sexual liberalism manifestly lacked majority support, voting on these petitions would have accomplished little. Other proposals would have strengthened enforcement mechanisms for such standards. Theologically orthodox United Methodists were eager for such badly needed reforms. Also tabled were four other liberal sexuality-related petitions, which would have mandated pension benefits for homosexual partners of church employees, broadly endorsed various GLBT-friendly public policies, and imposed a radical system of unaccountable membership-on-demand.

DeLong and company also demanded that petitions to end our denomination’s scandalous affiliation with the strident Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (a move the relevant committee had supported in a decisive, historic vote) be labeled “sexuality-related” and moved to the back of the agenda with the other tabled petitions. Despite the strong objections of renewal leaders and even some relatively fair-minded liberal denominational officials, the Agenda Committee agreed to classify RCRC as “a sexuality issue.” The committee had also decided to overrule the anti-RCRC petitions’ original “global” classification in order to treat them as “U.S.-only” issues, even though: they dealt with a global denominational agency, UMC leaders from Africa, Europe, and the Philippines were outspokenly eager for the General Conference to pass them, and they involved a resolution that explicitly mentions “international” issues, the United Nations, and South Africa. Under the new rules, classifying RCRC as a “U.S.-only” issue provided a useful pretext for demoting these petitions’ priority. Moreover, the relevant legislative committee chair, Rev. Molly Vetter, used her position to have the anti-RCRC petitions deemed low priorities. Throughout the final day, DeLong and her allies sought to intimidate delegates and conference leaders by being very visibly primed and ready to fulfill their threat to forcibly shut the General Conference down in a THIRD illegal protest so that delegates would be unable to even discuss RCRC. But the anti-RCRC petitions were far enough down on the agenda list (albeit not at the very end as DeLong had demanded) that the Agenda Committee expected that there would not be time to get to them, EVEN IF it had not been for the eleventh-hour chaos caused by the Judicial Council’s striking down the compromise restructuring plan. And indeed, time ran out for plenary consideration of RCRC, which gave the bullying protesters what they wanted.

Furthermore, an important petition, supported overwhelmingly in committee, would have helpfully amended the UMC Discipline’s statement on “Our Theological Task” (¶104) with thoughtful, nuanced, and very Wesleyan affirmation of “Scripture as the primary source and criterion for doctrine” while dispelling popular misunderstandings about Albert Outler’s “Wesleyan Quadrilateral.” But on the final morning, the Agenda Committee decided to kill this liberal-opposed petition by grouping it with the tabled “sexuality-related” petitions (despite that petition making no mention of sexuality).

In subsequent newsletters and online postings, the liberal caucuses shamelessly celebrated the any-means-necessary way in which they had “won” in defeating key petitions, not by substantive dialogue or honest persuasion, but rather by resorting to threats and raw physical force to prevent delegates from voting on them. One RMN affiliate praised the “courageous act of direct action taken by LGBT activists on the conference floor on the penultimate day” who “occupied the floor and forced the conference to adjourn,” “let business resume only after conference leaders promised that they would not allow” sexuality-related petitions, including the RCRC ones, “to be debated and voted on,” and “enforced that agreement by letting conference leaders know that if any of these proposals did come up, they would immediately reoccupy the floor and prevent further business.” DeLong similarly boasted of how her protest efforts “held at bay” petitions she did not like. One of the protest leaders, an MFSA member and clergy delegate from a liberal annual conference blogged: “Hey! Protest making legislative change! Awesome.” [emphasis added]

This sort of thing harks back to the campus radicals of the 60s, who would happily shout down campus speakers they didn’t like, and shut down an entire university to attack policies they did not like. It also harks back to the Hitler Youth, who were in the habit of shouting down and disrupting their political opponents.

Marquette’s Very Gay Campus Ministry

With a hat tip to Badger Catholic:

Don’t try to find it on Twitter now. It’s been taken down.

The Campus Ministry has long been on board with the gay political agenda. This is just one of many cases.

It would be one thing if the Campus Ministry wanted to minister to gay people on the basis of their facing particular temptations and particular challenges in leading a chaste life. But in fact these university bureaucrats believe that the only problem is that many people disapprove of homosexuality.

[Update]

We just called the Campus Ministry, asking to speak to the person who handles the Twitter feed. The person who answered offered to forward our call to that person, but refused to give us the person’s name. The call forward did not go through, which happens all too frequently with the new phone system.

[Further Update]

We just got a call from Mary Sue Callan-Farley, Director of the Campus ministry, who explained that the Twitter post was put up by a student “who did not have full permission.” It was then taken down by Thomas Anderson, S.J., who handles social media for the office, on the basis of the judgment that it was inappropriate. Callan-Farley said the student in question was “just trying to help her fellow students.”

But of course, we wonder, is endorsing homosexuality a way to “help” anybody?

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.

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.

Tom Barrett Supports Gay Marriage

You can find his name here.

Not a surprise, really, since he is a liberal. But when Wisconsin got to vote on the issue, it decisively voted against gay marriage.

With Barrett, as with Obama, this has to be seen as an appeal to the socially liberal base of the Democratic Party. The political calculation, obviously, is that the increased intensity of support from gay activists and their liberal allies will outweigh the loss of social conservatives who might otherwise be inclined to vote for the Democrat.

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.

Backing Away from the Brink: Marquette Will Not Suspend the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship

[Originally posted 8/5/11, 10:14 a.m. Updated and moved to the top.]

It was an obvious outrage: two administrators in Marquette’s Office of Student Affairs (Ian Jamieson and Erin Lazzar) ruled that the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship would be suspended on the campus for a year because they dismissed an officer of the organization who “came out” as homosexual, said he was involved in a homosexual affair which he would continue, and rejected Christian teaching about homosexuality.

The decision was appealed to Dean of Students Stephanie Quade who just this morning (Friday, August 5) reversed the ruling and lifted the suspension.

The group will be on probation for a year for violating a narrow clause of their constitution specifying the procedures for dismissing an officer. The organization will also have to submit to a review of their constitution. It is unclear, at the moment, what changes (if any) might be required in that document.

It appears, however, that Marquette has conceded the right of a campus Christian organization to hold officers to Christian standards of sexual conduct.

The Intervarsity Christian Fellowship mobilized a campaign among alumni to write Marquette in support of the organization. Quade acknowledged receiving a large number of e-mails, but maintained that they had no role in her decision to reverse the suspension.

Still an Outrage

In spite of this about face on the part of Student Affairs, it is still an outrage that a Christian student organization should be threatened with suspension for merely insisting that officers in the organization must maintain Christian standards of conduct.

Not only did two Student Affairs bureaucrats rule against the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, a staffer with the Campus Ministry (Steve Blaha) according to a source close to the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship encouraged the gay student to make the complaint.

Neither Ian Jamieson nor Erin Lazzar nor Steve Blaha would comment on the situation. Jamieson e-mailed the Marquette Warrior stating that:

I have no comment to provide. I understand you’ve been in contact with Dr. Stephanie Quade who would be the best person to address specific questions about conduct cases or hearing processes.

Quade provided only a terse and evasive statement, as follows:

As you know, there was a student conduct case involving IVCF and an initial finding that was amended upon appeal. The group was found responsible for violating published policies and action was taken.

This action dealt with adherence to university policies and procedures governing student organizations, in this case the need to follow the procedures set forth in the organization’s constitution.

This, of course, entirely evades the fact that the result of the first adjudication was that the organization was guilty of discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation” and given a stiff punishment (a years suspension).

We responded to Quade asking her to confirm that the initial decision (by Erin Lazzar and Ian Jamieson) involved a charge of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. She has not responded.

Erin Lazzar failed to respond to a voice mail request for an interview, and Blaha declined to comment on the grounds of student confidentiality.

Marquette did issue an official statement on the issue. Kate Venne provided us with a copy:

Marquette University has placed the campus chapter of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship on probation for one year. The probation results from a finding that the chapter violated its own policies and procedures in dealing with a complaint.

This failure and the lack of clear communication regarding why action was taken caused significant personal hurt and resulted in allegations of discrimination.

No student conduct decision is final until the time in which to file an appeal has passed or an appeal is filed and decided. All students and student organizations have a right to appeal in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Student Conduct Code.

Marquette expects all student organizations to adhere to the university’s Statement on Human Dignity which “recognizes and cherishes the dignity of each individual regardless of age, culture, faith, ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, language, disability or social class.” We want all students to be successful both academically and personally, and we are working with various groups on campus to ensure an inclusive and supportive institutional environment of all students, faculty and staff.

This evasive and disingenuous statement stresses the one procedural infraction of which the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship was guilty (lack of due process in bouncing the sexually active gay officer) and entirely evades the fact that the original finding was discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But the blather about “allegations of discrimination” and “inclusive environment” is an implicit admission that this is exactly what happened.

Conclusion

Marquette, in other words, acted like the politically correct institution it has become, siding with a sexually-active gay student who somehow thought he had a right to be an officer in the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, and in effect revoking the right of Christian student organizations to insist on Christian standards of conduct from their officers.

Pressure, including a letter writing campaign among the Intervarsity’s alumni and the outing of the action by radio host Mark Belling caused the university to back off. Now, of course, they won’t honestly admit a blunder.

Marquette Intervarsity Christian Fellowship Threatened With Suspension for Failure to Accept Sexually Active Homosexual Officer

[Updated and Moved to the Top]

It was Mark Belling who first reported this at the very end of his show today, and we’ve been able to confirm some (but not all) of the details.

Apparently, an officer of the Marquette Intervarsity Christian Fellowship came “out of the closet” as gay. He made it quite clear that he disagreed with the organization’s interpretation of Christian teaching about homosexuality (which happens to be essentially identical to Catholic teaching about homosexuality).

He admitted to having a homosexual affair with another male, and made it clear that he did not intend to break it off. He was dismissed as an officer.

He complained to Student Affairs at Marquette, apparently claiming he was discriminated against because of his sexual orientation.

Belling reported that the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship has been suspended at Marquette on the basis of this complaint. According to Vice President for Student Affairs Chris Miller, this isn’t quite accurate. In fact, there was (within the past week) an adjudication of the issue, which upheld the complain of discrimination.

But the organization has not been suspended yet, since they have a right to appeal. The next step in the appeal process will be the Dean of Students, Stephanie Quade, who could, in theory at least, overturn the result of the adjudication.

Miller insisted on going on the record with some comments highly favorable to the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, calling them a “stellar student organization,” and a “great aspect” of student life at Marquette. He commended the interest that the organization’s alumni continue to take in the university.

Miller’s comments may signal that the Office of Student Affairs is willing to back down on this, but given Marquette’s recent record of caving in to each and every demand made by the campus gay lobby, one can’t be sure of that.

It’s clear that Marquette is not willing to stand up for Catholic teaching about homosexuality. The issue here is: are they even willing to tolerate it?

[Update 5:43 p.m. Thursday]

We just got this via e-mail from Stephanie Quade:

There was a student conduct hearing involving IVCF last week, the group appealed the outcome.

As I am the appellate officer in this matter, I cannot really comment on any of the specifics of the case while it is still pending, as I am sure you understand.

Hoping to have the appeal done by the end of the week.

We assume “end of the week” means tomorrow.

The original hearing was held by Student Affairs bureaucrats -- this being the summer, no students or faculty were involved.

Quade insists that her decision will be “final.”

It will be interesting to see how this turns out. We assume that the organization was charged with discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. But as we understand it, the problem wasn’t “orientation” but an actual homosexual affair, and the student’s outspoken rejection of Christian teaching about homosexuality.

So an interesting question is how this student differs from Jodi O’Brien, who had an offer to be Arts & Sciences Dean withdrawn because of her outspoken support for lesbianism.

Rape vs. Political Incorrectness on Homosexuality

Another interesting aspect of this is that the Office of Student Affairs, and specifically Stephanie Quade have created a lot of bad publicity for Marquette with their lackadaisical treatment of rape on campus.

So are they now going to get really tough on a Christian organization that insists its officers conform to Christian teachings on sexuality?

Marquette Represented at Gay Higher Education Conference

A program called Expanding the Circle is described here:

In order to advance pluralism, acknowledge a scholarly area of investigation, and deepen learning in higher education, as educational professionals we need to expand our circle of inclusion and broaden our definition of diversity by increasing Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) Studies.

In this conference, participants will not only address a variety of factors that have contributed to excluding LGBTQ issues from academic study and student life, but they will also explore strategies to make our campuses more inclusive for all students.

Although some colleges and universities have been incorporating LGBTQ studies for decades, courses and programs continue to be pockets of innovation rather than models of inclusion for all of higher education.

Colleges and universities need to encourage faculty members to teach and research a wide range of LGBTQ topics as well as support student life professionals in building inclusive campus communities.

In this conference, we will examine strategies and best practices that effectively integrate LGBTQ areas of teaching and research with student life activities. Faculty development plays a critical role in this integration: Faculty members, whether part of the LGBTQ community themselves or not, need to examine their own attitudes and feelings about LGBTQ issues as they seek to incorporate these issues more fully into their courses and curricula.

Expanding the Circle 2011 will be among the first national conferences in higher education focusing on LGBTQ issues by seeking connections across academic and student affairs, across kinds of diversities, across disciplines, and across LGBTQ subfields. Until we collaborate on LBGTQ studies and co-curricular activities within and across our colleges and universities, we cannot create inclusive and welcoming learning environments.

And then, the issues that are listed as “themes.”

• Curricular revision and expansion in the arts, humanities, and social sciences
• Interrelationships between LGBTQ and ethnic/racial/cultural identities
• Religious and spiritual issues for LGBTQ studentsFaculty development programs concerning LGBTQ issuesTransgender and gender issues across the campus spectrum
• Examples of LGBTQ research projects in higher education
• Counseling and support services for LGBTQ students
  Off-campus community resources for LGBTQ students
• Professional training programs for resource professionals, administrators, and educators
• Campus dialogues and public forums addressing LGBTQ issues
• The role of higher education in the formation of public policy
• The new politics of inclusion
• Community support and networking opportunities for counselors, faculty, and student services professionals working on LGBTQ issues in isolation
• The role of faculty, staff, and administration as allies in supporting LGBTQ students

Of course, Marquette was represented.

This is not the first time Marquette has sent representatives to a gay higher education conference. It happened back in 2005 when David Borgealt (Office of Student Development) and Fr. Patrick Dorsey (University Ministry), attended a conference called “Out There: The First National Conference of Scholars and Student Affairs Professionals Involved in LGBTQ Issues on Catholic Campuses.”

Marquette’s recent rush to embrace each and every element of the gay campus agenda is not really a response to the outrage of the campus gay lobby over Marquette’s failure to hire lesbian dean candidate Jodi O’Brien.

A fundamentally secular and politically correct administration has simply done what it has long wanted to do. The Jodi O’Brien affair was merely a pretext, an excuse.

Hat Tip/Cardinal Newman Society

Marquette to Provide Domestic Partner Benefits to Gay Couples

From the Journal-Sentinel:

Marquette University plans to start offering domestic partner benefits to its employees in 2012, a move that comes about a year after the university’s decision to rescind a job offer to a lesbian candidate caused the campus to erupt in debate.

In a statement sent to the campus Thursday afternoon, Marquette President Robert A. Wild said he’s been wrestling with an idea of offering the benefits that would provide services for gay and lesbian employees for years.

University officials said the timing of the announcement was influenced by votes in recent weeks by the University Academic Senate and the Marquette University Student Government that have urged the university to offer benefits for domestic partners.

“If we are truly pastoral in our application of the Jesuit principle of cura personalis, I asked myself if I could reconcile that with denying health benefits to a couple who have legally registered their commitment to each other,” Wild said. In Latin, cura personalis means “care for the entire person.”

Wild noted that the State of Wisconsin gives legal recognition both to marriage for heterosexual couples and to a registered domestic partnership for same-sex couples.

This comes as rather a surprise to us, since we assumed that any action on the plan to support gay unions would come after Wild leaves at the end of this year. We have, of course, reported on the movement by the campus gay lobby to get such benefits.

What’s interesting is the very lame statements made in defense of this policy change. The University Academic Senate and the Marquette University Student Government are invoked as legitimating the move, but in fact both bodies consist of self-selected political activists who are representative neither of the faculty nor of the student body.

Indeed, several members of the Academic Senate expressed, in private conversations, severe reservations about the policy, but nobody had the courage to vote against it, thus it passed with: 26 in favor, 0 opposed, 3 abstained.

Even more bogus is the claim that since the State of Wisconsin recognizes same-sex civil unions, Marquette is somehow obligated to.

In the first place, Wisconsin’s recognition of civil unions is probably unconstitutional, and is now being appealed to the state Supreme Court. In 2006, voters passed the following amendment to the state constitution:

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.

While a Democratic legislature and a Democratic governor (Doyle) established a domestic partnership registry, nothing in the legislation they passed imposes any obligation on the private sector to recognize gay unions.

So invoking Wisconsin’s domestic partner registry is merely a smoke screen.

More serious is the claim that not subsidizing gay domestic partnerships would be “denying health benefits to a couple.” In the first place, the gay Marquette employee would get benefits. His or her partner would have to get benefits elsewhere. Homosexual couples are much less likely to have children than straight couples, and the “partner” would likely be working, and quite likely at a place that provides health care.

If not, Marquette faculty are not poor, and the gay couple (likely in a two-income household) might have to buy health insurance. If perchance the gay “partner” of a Marquette faculty member had a very low income, that person would be eligible for Medicaid since, after all, not recognizing the “partnership” means that the gay person with the substantial income is under no obligation to buy insurance for a poor “partner.”

What this represents is nothing less than a wholesale repudiation of the Catholic mission of the university. Marquette is explicitly recognizing and subsidizing sexual unions that Church teaching says are illicit.

The problem, and this afflicts all religious institutions, is that the secular culture of academia generally assimilates colleges that were founded on Christian principles.

Faculty are hired who are . . . well, just average college faculty who are liberal, secular and politically correct.

Administrators are hired who have the same secular values, and feel most comfortable aping the policies of secular institutions.

And there are the bureaucratic imperatives: it’s always easier to cave to interest group demands. And each and every “initiative” to placate some interest group increases the power and the budget of some bureaucratic empire. Thus the Marquette bureaucracy is overwhelmingly liberal and politically correct, and this includes the Provost’s office, Student Affairs, the Campus Ministry, Mission and Identity, the Honors Program, Women’s and Gender Studies and most humanities and social science departments.

Strong leadership at the top might might counterbalance this, but unfortunately Father Wild doesn’t provide that. He has a history of being manipulated by various interest groups, whether it be the Indian tribal leaders on the issue of whether Marquette should use the Warriors nickname, or by Student Affairs on the issue of whether Marquette should recognize the Gay/Straight Alliance.

And this time, he has allowed himself to be manipulated by the campus gay lobby, who raised a fierce hue and cry when Marquette refused to hire Jodi O’Brien. He caved to pressure in refusing to hire O’Brien, and now he feels the need to make amends to the gay lobby, so he caves to their pressure on this.

It takes considerable vision and fortitude to maintain any religious identify at a college or university, and both are missing at Marquette.

[Update]

We have rejected a couple of comments that call people opposed to domestic partner benefits “bigots” and “homophobes.”

It’s terribly revealing that people on the gay side of this issue so quickly resort to such language.

Please, if you are going to leave a comment, make it a civil argument.

Persecution of Christians in Europe

From the Brussels Journal:

I think it would be useful to begin this article with a brief statement of the facts. Eunice and Owen Johns are an elderly couple from Derby, who fostered a number of children in the 1990s, and who recently offered their services again to Derby City Council. Their offer was rejected on the grounds that, as fundamentalist Christians, they might teach any children in their keeping that homosexual acts were sinful. They took legal action against the Council, arguing that their beliefs should not be held against them. On the 28th February 2011, judgment was given against them in the High Court. The Judges ruled that, where the laws against discrimination are concerned, sexual minorities take precedence over religious believers. Because Mr and Mrs Johns might not remain silent about sexual ethics, there was a danger to the “welfare” of children taken from their homes by the Council.

The Judges insisted that this did not represent a “blanket ban” on the fostering of children by religious believers. There was no issue involved of religious liberty – no precedent being set for wider discrimination by the authorities. It was simply a matter of child welfare. You can read all this for yourself on the BBC website.

I think we can take it as read that the Judges were talking hot air about the nature of the precedent they were setting. There is already a modest but settled ruling class bias in this country against Christianity. This does not extend, so far as I can tell, to Jews and Moslems. But the bias does certainly apply to fundamentalist Christians, especially when it is a matter of what they believe and might say about homosexuality. Yesterday, they were barred from fostering, and perhaps also from adoption. It is only a matter of time before they are barred from teaching. It is conceivable that they will eventually be classed – on account of their beliefs – as unfit parents and will have their children taken away from them. Before that happens, of course, there will be laws against home education, and an inquisition in the schools of what they have been telling their children.

According to the BBC:

Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation “should take precedence” over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds.

So having a preference for homosexual sex is protected, but believing Christian teachings about sexuality is not.

This is the truth about all anti-discrimination laws. Certain people are “really” protected, and others . . . not so much.

American academia, of course, is Europe.

University Academic Senate Approves Domestic Partner Benefits for Gay and Lesbian Faculty

As we predicted, the proposal passed.

The vote was 26 in favor, 0 opposed, 3 abstained. Real opposition among faculty in the Academic Senate was higher than this (although not nearly a majority), but nobody apparently was bold enough to openly oppose the proposal.

Here is the proposal.

This is called the spiral of silence. The campus gay lobby and liberal allies have essentially intimidated the opposition.

This vote, of course, is not binding on the Marquette administration.

This issue will be a major test for the new Marquette president, Scott Pilarz. Will he be just another bureaucrat, doing what is fashionable and placating interest groups, or will he actually stand up for the Catholic mission of Marquette?

We are not at all optimistic.