Marquette University “Likes” Tweet That Calls for Shutting Down Opposition to Gay Marriage

Here is a tweet from a certain Aaron Jay Ledesma, taking issue with an article in the Chicago Tribune by Diana Rickert, defending this blogger’s academic freedom at Marquette.

Here's my response to @Diana_Rickert's @chicagotribune article regarding former @MarquetteU professor John McAdams. https://t.co/5rJHAgPtt1

— Aaron Jay Ledesma (@aaronjayledesma) April 13, 2016

(You have to be signed in to Twitter, and click on the text of the tweet to see who liked it.  At the moment, Marquette is there.)

The article tweeted explicitly says that opposition to gay marriage should be banned at Marquette. Quoting it:

I disagree [with Rickert]. This is a classic response from people who feel entitled to share their disagreement with gay marriage. They can’t stand it when people tell them to keep their bigoted, unsolicited opinions to themselves. The instructor [Cheryl Abbate] did not ask for feedback. This student was out of place. This student wanted to engage in a debate about gay marriage. The professor who had the decency to prevent it was publicly bullied for doing the right thing. Bullied by colleague.

I believe both McAdams and Rickert are wrong. They don’t understand Marquette like I do. They think because it’s a Catholic university, it should allow students to voice their opposition to gay marriage in any way they want. Hateful, ignorant opposition is not the Catholic way.

That’s not what Catholicism stands for.
That’s not what Marquette stands for.
That’s not what America stands for.

Marquette is a place of excellence, faith, leadership, and service. All of this is pursued for the greater glory of God and the common benefit of the human community. Therefore, it makes sense that Marquette, similarly to Pope Francis, respects all people no matter their race, religion, creed, gender or sexuality.

Of course, for Ledesma, respecting people seems to mean protecting them from opinions they dislike. Even if they are at a supposed Catholic university, and the opinions are Catholic teaching. And he seems to have no respect for people who differ from him on marriage.

And of course, Pope Francis has not retracted the teaching that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Ledesma adds that:

• Abbate has every right to shut down racist, homophobic, and discriminatory language in her classroom.
• More people should take Abbate’s stance and say, “NO. This language will not be tolerated in institutions of learning.”
• It’s about time society take a stand against hate speech, which is not the same as free speech.

This appears to be just the routine intolerance of politically active gays (not all gays, but a troublingly large portion of the politically active ones).

But the kicker is this: Marquette University “liked” the post!

Just in case Marquette finds a way to retract the “like” comment, here is a screen capture showing the “like.”



This is the first official statement we have seen from Marquette asserting that certain opinions about marriage should be shut down.

Rogue?

At the moment, we don’t know who controls Marquette’s Twitter account, and maybe somebody went “rogue.” We will query Marquette about this, and update this post with their response.

But there can be no doubt that the attitude that Ledesma expresses is widely supported at Marquette.

Update

Brian Dorrington, official spokesman for Marquette, has not responded to our e-mail and phone call. If Marquette fails to distance itself from this tweet, the only inference is that Marquette has endorsed the Ledesma article.

Abusive E-mail from “Tolerant” Liberal

In the wake of the brouhaha over our blog post on a Marquette instructor who told a student that any opposition to gay marriage would be “homophobic” and should not be allowed in class since it might offend gay students, we were suspended by Marquette.

The result has been a huge number of supportive e-mails to us, but every so often we get a nasty one. Here is an example that just came in:

knorman789@yahoo.com [knorman789@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 8:58 PM
To: McAdams, John

I am so pleased to read in the Milwaukee paper on Saturday that you are relieved of all your duties. Gramps, it’s time for retirement not teaching your intolerance and old time “values” to young people. A good fit for you would be a Fox News Commentator or maybe you and Michele Bachmann from Minnesota could team up for some more intolerance.

Sincerely,

James Hansen

It is a common irony of modern day political correctness: people who want to shut up speech, and say hateful things about people on the other side of contemporary debates claim to wear the mantle of “tolerance.”

It’s almost a rule of modern politics. The people most likely to talk of “tolerance” are the least tolerant.

In fact, our original post said nothing about the merits of gay marriage. It simply supported the right of people to oppose it without being called homophobes, and the idea that it should not be banned in college classes because some gay student might be offended.

But in the minds of a lot of the politically correct, if you really support gay marriage, you will want to shut up opposition, and to vilify people who don't agree with you.

Marquette Warrior on Vicki McKenna Show

From this past Tuesday, discussing the kerfuffle over the Marquette Philosophy instructor who told a student that arguments opposing gay marriage would be homophobic, and that any gay students in the class should not be exposed to such arguments, since they would be offended.

Politically Correct Marquette Faculty Attack Marquette Warrior

Out over the weekend, a nasty attack on this blog by several Marquette Arts & Sciences Department chairs – and signed onto by a handful of Marquette faculty – posted on a blog that has been dedicated, for the last few days, to harassing us.

It resulted from our reporting of the misconduct of a Philosophy Department instructor who told a student who wanted to discuss gay marriage in class that his views were “homophobic,” and that any airing of opposition to gay marriage should not be allowed since it would “offend” any gay students in the class.

The list of department chairs who signed on is interesting.

Lowell Barrington, Political Science
Nancy Snow, Philosophy
James Marten, History
Jane Peterson, Social and Cultural Sciences
Krista Ratcliffe, English
John Grych, Psychology
Anne Pasero, Foreign Languages and Literatures
Robert Masson, Theology

With just a couple of exceptions, it’s pretty much a roll of the politically correct department chairs. Masson, for example, is a big proponent of the doctrine of “white privilege” which holds that white people owe what they have to the exploitation of black people. It doesn’t matter if you never owned slaves. It doesn’t matter if an ancestor died fighting on the Union side in the Civil War. You should feel guilty.

Snow was the lesbian philosopher with the bullhorn heading protests demanding the hiring of aggressively lesbian Arts & Sciences Dean job candidate Jodi O’Brien.

Snow, Marten, Ratcliffe, and Pasero all signed a petition to hire O’Brien. Barrington wore a button at the commencement following the hiring fiasco supporting O’Brien’s hiring.

Who’s Not There

Notable are departments not included: Economics, Math, and the natural sciences (Biology, Chemistry, Physics). Those departments are in “hard” disciplines where there is much less room for political correctness. And indeed, every one of the few people who have signed onto the statement in the comments section is (as of this writing) from one of the departments whose chairs signed, with the exception of Sharon Chubbuck in Education. Chubbuck wrote an essay where she demeaned two students who did not want to use the classroom to indoctrinate pupils saying they were showing “ the blinders of their common white, middle- to upper-middle class experiences.”

Of course, if the signers generally represent politically correct departments, it doesn’t follow that everybody in their departments is a politically correct leftist. There is a substantial number of more conservative and traditionalist scholars in the Philosophy Department. But they are a dwindling number, since the politically correct faction controls hiring.

Political Science leans clearly left, but isn’t very politically correct, Barrington’s signature to the contrary.

And it doesn’t follow that departments not involved in attacking us support us. More likely they simply haven’t been following this brouhaha, and/or don’t really care. But it remains the case that this is a tempest in a teapot, involving a very few faculty in the humanities and social sciences.

Evaluating the Claims

The illogic of the Department Chairs statement is not only evident when it is taken as a whole, but also in virtually every sentence. Let’s take them one at a time:

We support Ms. Abbate and deeply regret that she has experienced harassment and intimidation as a direct result of Prof. McAdams’s actions.

All we did was to report, accurately, the inappropriate actions of Abbate in demeaning a student, and claiming that gay students should not be exposed to any arguments against gay marriage. It is true that, when the story went national, she was subjected to some nasty e-mails and blog comments (although nothing required her to read the blog with the nastiest comments).

But then we got nasty comments too. When one does something that gets national publicity, some jerks are going to say nasty things. Neither we nor anybody at Marquette can help that.

Prof. McAdams’s actions—which have been reported in local and national media outlets—have harmed the personal reputation of a young scholar as well as the academic reputation of Marquette University.

If accurate reporting harms someone’s reputation, that is fair enough. And if accurate reporting harms Marquette’s reputation, that is also fair enough. The argument here seems to be that certain information needs to be concealed to protect reputations. No journalist would accept that. The rule should be “tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may.”

This, of course, is a classic case of blaming the messenger. It was Abbate’s actions toward the student which caused the problem, and even then it was not newsworthy until Marquette officials failed to address the problem.

When the student complained to the Dean’s office, he was directed to Philosophy Department Chair Nancy Snow. Snow could have told the student that Abbate was out of line, and that it was not Marquette’s position that opposition to gay marriage is “homophobic” nor that gays should be protected from hearing arguments against it.

Indeed, Snow could have had a little talk with Abbate and advised her against making inflammatory statements to students, and told her that Marquette’s policy is that all students (straight or gay) should equally be confronted in class with arguments they might dislike. No need for even a paper trail on that. But instead, Snow demanded the name of the employee who had advised the student to seek redress.

Having not received any redress, the student came to us.

Marquette’s “Reputation”

Ironically, Snow vigorously attacked Marquette over the issue of its failure to hire Jodi O’Brien. Snow was the lesbian philosopher with the bullhorn condemning Marquette for its action.


 So it seems we have a double standard here: attacking Marquette from the left is acceptable, but any attack from the right is evil since it harms Marquette’s “academic reputation.”

Abbate’s “Reputation”

Does our blog post harm Abbate, for example making it harder for her to get an academic job?

If there are some colleges out there who don’t want instructors who tell students that opposition to gay marriage is homophobic, Abbate might not get hired there. That is appropriate. We feel no obligation to suppress information to help her get a job

But of course, in an increasingly politically correct philosophy profession, hiring in a lot of departments is dominated by people who think pretty much as Abbate does.

Further, she has made no effort to conceal her political views, having on her blog an essay about how all men are responsible for rape.

(She has taken her blog private [https://aphilosophersblog.wordpress.com/] but we got a brief summary of her article from Google cache.)

They have negatively affected campus climate, especially as it relates to gender and sexual orientation.

Just how is this the case? Is the claim that female instructors can’t be criticized, but males can? Is the claim that a good “campus climate” for gays requires that views of which they might disapprove be suppressed? Saying so implies that gays are a bunch of either wimps (if they are fearful upon hearing certain opinions) or bigots (if they get bent out of shape on hearing things they disagree with).

Interestingly, the politically correct crowd cares nothing about the “campus climate” for groups other than their pet victim groups.

How did it affect the “campus climate” for Jews when various Marquette offices sponsored an “Israeli Apartheid” week?

And how about the “campus climate” for conservative Christians who don’t believe in evolution, but get taught about it in a biology class?

(We once had a student who was disturbed that he was being taught about evolution in Norman Sullivan’s Physical Anthropology class. We told him he had to suck it up and accept that if you take Physical Anthropology, you are going to learn about evolution.)

Politically correct people won’t accept these analogies, of course, since they sharply distinguish between victims groups who must be protected, and other groups who must bear the burden of having their beliefs contradicted. But we don’t accept this distinction, and Marquette can’t officially accept it.

And they have led members of the Marquette community to alter their behavior out of fear of becoming the subject of one of his attacks.

We don’t control anybody’s behavior. But if people fear that, when they do something dumb or prejudiced or inappropriate, we will out them, that’s dandy. The politically correct crowd seems to think they have a right to do things that are highly questionable and have them kept secret.

How might we have “altered” people’s behavior?

• In 2006, a graduate student in Philosophy (note how it keeps popping up) put an innocuous political quote on his door. Department Chair James South decided it was “patently offensive” and tore it down. We blogged about it. Will South be less likely to do things like this again? That’s his call, but we hope he will.
• In 2008, and student in Nancy Snow’s class responded to her lecture on “racial profiling” by giving the cops’ view of the issue. Snow tried to shut him up, and then, after class, insisted that he write an apology to two black students in the class. It was assumed they were “offended.” (There is that word again) We blogged about it. Did that make her less likely to shut down certain viewpoints?
• In 2013, the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center sponsored a program called “Femsex” where a variety of sexual issues were discussed (often in ways contrary to Catholic teaching), and participants engaged in a variety of exercises, including coloring pictures of female genitalia in the “Cunt Coloring Book.” We blogged about it. Marquette, insisting that it was contrary to its Catholic mission, removed official sponsorship (although the participants were free to continue sans such sponsorship). Will Marquette bureaucrats think twice before sponsoring that sort of thing again? We hope so.

In short, we have only been able to “alter behavior” when people were doing something that could not stand scrutiny, and could not be defended when exposed.

Perhaps worst of all, Prof. McAdams has betrayed his role as a faculty member by pitting one set of students against another.

So all students are suppose to agree? So undergraduates exposed to abuse by an instructor are not supposed to seek redress? So if it hadn’t been for that troublemaker McAdams everything would be dandy? It would be from the standpoint of campus bureaucrats, but not from that of students who are attacked and demeaned and silenced.

by claiming the protection of academic freedom while trying to deny it to others, and by exploiting current political issues to promote his personal agenda.

Our “personal agenda” is to protect students from the excesses of political correctness at Marquette. The “personal agenda” of those to signed the statement is to subject students to the dictates of political correctness.

It’s deeply ironic that those who want Marquette administrators to shut us up are claiming that we want to deny “academic freedom” to others. We can’t deny academic freedom to anybody. We can only report what they do and say.

Professors have a long history of thinking that “academic freedom” includes freedom from being criticized. They happily say what they want to say, and then whine when others say their positions are wrong, or misguided, or downright evil.

But in a free society, freedom works both ways. The people who criticize the professors have the same free speech rights as the professors. And professors have the right to criticize other professors. The politically correct types, living in the insular little environment of an academic department, have trouble understanding that.

Conclusion

The intellectual shoddiness of the attack on us raises all kinds of questions, the most fundamental one being the lack of tolerance for free speech. Leftist professors who would be quite happy having Marquette attacked from the left on issues like “diversity” and “sustainability” go bananas when their own behavior is criticized.

The notion of a robust free market in ideas is fine when they are the only player in the market.

It’s “free speech for me, but not for thee.” And it’s a symptom of the increasing intolerance of academia.

Cheryl Abbate to Marquette: Silence Marquette Warrior

Cheryl Abbate is the Marquette Philosophy instructor who told a student who wanted to discuss gay marriage in class that any expressions of opposition would be “homophobia,” and further that any gay students who happened to be in class should be protected from hearing such arguments.

Our post generated a huge brouhaha, and eventually was the subject of an article in Inside Higher Ed.   According to the article:

Abbate, however, said she hoped Marquette would “use this event as an opportunity to create and actively enforce a policy on cyberbullying and harassment.” She added: “It is astounding to me that the university has not created some sort of policy that would prohibit this behavior which undoubtedly leads to a toxic environment for both students and faculty. I would hope that Marquette would do everything in its power to cultivate a climate where Marquette employees, especially students, are not publicly demeaned by tenured faculty.”

Thus Abbate adds “cyber bullying” to “offensive” and “harassing” and “racist, sexist and homophobic” to the repertoire of terms that politically correct academic leftists use to shut up people whose opinions they dislike.

If simply providing news coverage of an event that reflects badly on somebody is bullying, the Fox News website has been consistently bullying Barack Obama, and the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel doing the same to Scott Walker.

Abbate feels she has been demeaned, but was happy to demean a student by clearly implying that his views were homophobic and “offensive.” We reported that fact.  It was the facts that made Abbate look bad.

The “toxic environment” business is ironic.  Abbate created a toxic environment for the student by labeling his views on gay marriage homophobic.  There is no doubt that the “climate” feels better for politically correct students and faculty if their views and behavior are not allowed to be challenged.  In other words, when there is no diversity of opinion, or when diverse opinions are silenced.

In academia, politically correct people apparently get to attack and demean whomever they want, and then play the victim when their own behavior gets publicized.

Politically correct academics are so entirely convinced their own attitudes are righteous that they cannot accept people disagreeing with them, and even criticizing them.  It’s the result of an extremely inbred, narrow and parochial culture.

As an article on the website of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education notes:

Abbate and her defenders come off in the Inside Higher Ed article as believing it’s perfectly fine for them to silence students if they hold views based on sources they don’t like.

They apparently apply that standard to professors, too.

Marquette Warrior: Support From an “In the Closet” Philosopher

In the wake of some nasty attacks from politically correct academics following our account of a Philosophy instructor who would not allow discussion of gay marriage because any voicing of opposition to the policy might offend gay students who might be in the class, we have also gotten messages of support.

The following is from an e-mail with the subject line “Support from the Closet.” No, the person is not a closeted gay (so far as we know) but rather someone with politically incorrect political attitudes.

John (if I may), I am a philosopher and want to express my support for your clear-headed critique and analysis of the recent incident at Marquette. This event is consistent with the recent, yet rapidly growing, infection of political correctness that is consuming academic philosophy, a place that was a hold out against this madness. That political correct tyranny could take root in philosophy, the tradition that traces back to Socrates, is a grotesque irony of the highest magnitude. I hope you understand that there are philosophers out there who agree with you and applaud you but that many of us cannot speak publicly for legitimate fear of retaliation. Those of us, like myself, who don’t have tenure, are well aware of the vicious, career-destroying tactics of the politically correct operators in our field. So, I can only express my support for you on this matter in private.

It’s good to know that there are still some reasonable people out there.

The most chilling comments here are those about “legitimate fear of retaliation” and “vicious, career-destroying tactics of the politically correct operators in our field.”

The politically correct crowd does not consist of happy warriors, eager to engage in debate and wanting to prove the superiority of their views in the free market of ideas. Before the era of political correctness (which grew out of 60s leftism, although the current practitioners are the intellectual children and grandchildren of that generation) a lot of liberals welcomed debate. While they could be as biased as anybody else, when pressed they came down on the side of tolerance.

They are a dwindling breed.

Another Philosophy Graduate Student Wants Classroom Discussion Censored

In response you our post on a graduate Marquette Philosophy instructor who said she would not allow discussion of gay marriage in her class because there might be gay students who would be “offended,” another Philosophy graduate student left a post on an online discussion board defending her.  It’s instructive as to the ideology that pervades the politically correct precincts of Philosophy at Marquette. We are not naming her because, unlike Abbate, she is not in charge of any class (that we are aware of).

I just wanted to write here, as a fellow graduate student and teaching assistant, I support Cheryl and her bravery to confront heterosexism in the classroom even though we occupy such tenuous places in the university. It’s amazing how “free speech” is only invoked to protect students and faculty who intend to do violence against others in the classroom, to make the space less inclusive, but a graduate students can’t attempt to control disruption in her own classroom, cannot tell a student when he is, in fact, simply incorrect. I’m so disturbed by what happened here, and I hope that it inevitably won’t jeopardize anything for Cheryl.

Note the litany of reasons for shutting up discussion.

First, opposition to gay marriage is defined as “heterosexism.” In the world of the politically correct, there are no legitimate arguments against the gay political agenda, but only evil heterosexism.  And is banning discussion of gay marriage really “confronting heterosexism.”  In some minds, apparently.

Secondly, people who want to speak freely “intend to do violence against others in the classroom, to make the space less inclusive.” Apparently, opposing gay marriage is the same as “doing violence.” Beat up a gay guy, let a gay guy hear you oppose gay marriage? No difference to some people, apparently.

And being “inclusive,” it seems, means that certain politically correct victim groups are not to be exposed to any arguments they might object to. This means being highly exclusive toward people who hold those politically incorrect opinions.

Such disfavored groups, of course, can be confronted with all kinds of challenges to their most treasured beliefs.

Third, Abbate is portrayed as trying to “control disruption in her own classroom.” How would discussion of gay marriage be disruptive? And if it would, how would it be more disruptive than other issues? One can easily see how a vigorous discussion of hot button issues could get out of hand, but it’s the instructor’s job to control such discussions. And a discussion that gets “out of hand” is probably better, in a university, than a potential discussion that is stifled. Further, aren’t the hot button issues the ones most worth discussing?

Also, Abbate didn’t claim that discussion of gay marriage would be disruptive. Merely that it might offend some gay students. Had she said “in my experience, it’s not a good use of class time,” that would have been entirely reasonable.

Does “disruption” simply mean the voicing of opinions the instructor doesn’t like?

Finally, could Abbate “tell a student when he is, in fact, simply incorrect?” Whether the student was in fact “incorrect” is a matter of opinion, but Abbate had every right to challenge the student’s opinion. When she was simply arguing with the student about gay adoption, we characterized that as “the sort of argument that ought to happen in academia.” But she didn’t stop there.

As for whether our exposé will “jeopardize anything for Cheryl,” that’s extremely unlikely. Her opinions are quite in tune with those of philosophy professors these days, and further she doesn’t make any secret of her political opinions, as her blog shows.

Conclusion

The rather violent reaction our original post has gotten reveals a lot about academics, especially in fields like the humanities and education. They live in a narrow little world of political correctness where certain things are taken for granted and certain opinions are not to be expressed. They are not keen to argue about things like gay marriage. They think that any argument against it is wrong, evil and bigoted, and must be suppressed.

When somebody attacks the excesses of one of their own (as we did) they go bananas. In their little world, their righteousness is just not challenged.

Abuse From the Politically Correct Crowd Over Instructor Who Said Gay Students Would Be Offended at Discussion of Gay Marriage

Some leftist and politically correct blogs have taken up the cause of Cheryl Abbate, the Marquette Philosophy instructor who told one of her students that gay marriage could not be discussed in class since any opposition to gay marriage might offend gay students.

Some of the abuse has been in personal e-mails to us.  For example:

Ben Mulitski [benthono@gmail.com]

You are what’s wrong with this world-- spreading hatred for the sake of spreading hatred. Free speech is unimportant when the viewpoints expressed are blatantly wrong.

http://dailynous.com/2014/11/18/philosophy-grad-student-target-of-political-smear-campaign/

This is the secret id of politically correct people revealing itself: “Free speech is unimportant when the viewpoints expressed are blatantly wrong.” Yes, politically correct people think they have a right to shut up speech that they think is “blatantly wrong.”

Then we have an another e-mail, sent to us:

Buck, Brandon [brandon.buck@tc.columbia.edu]

As usual, just a privileged old White MALE tryin’ to talk about who should feel offended and who shouldn’t. And, as usual, another privileged old white male tryin’ to do all he can to ensure that a female philosopher feels marginalized and denigrated.

You are a small human being.

Sincerely,

Brandon

Yes, another view into the id of the politically correct. Anti-white racism and anti-male sexism. And of course ageism.

Buck then upped the ante by e-mailing the entire political science faculty.

Buck, Brandon [brandon.buck@tc.columbia.edu]

Greetings all,

As an MU alum, I’m thoroughly disappointed because, at this point, your silence is deafening. And your silence renders you equally culpable. This isn’t just another case of McAdams being McAdams. This isn’t a case of intellectual liberty to express unpopular ideas.

Whatever went down in that ethics course, the fact remains that the TA is a Marquette student. As a student, she’s entrusted to the care of MU faculty (that’s you!). McAdams’s actions violated the fiduciary responsibility he has toward ALL students at Marquette. The same fiduciary responsibility you all share. By publicly attacking a student in this way, he has potentially caused her emotional and psychological trauma. He has violated a student’s privacy, and has deliberately and intentionally caused her harm with neither care nor appropriate foresight. For these reasons, McAdams is not fit to serve as a faculty member at ANY university.

To be clear, the university is not only a marketplace of ideas. It’s a place where young people can become grow to become good people.

Maybe as a novice educator with no training provided by the university, the TA felt she wasn’t yet adequately prepared to handle a conversation about gay marriage in a responsible way. Perhaps she intended to consult the advice of her advisor; or maybe she wanted to invite conversation on the topic during another class session in a more structured way. In either case, her unwillingness to engage the conversation at that particular time during that particular class could equally signal prudence and a sense of responsibility for all her students (two virtues McAdams is obviously lacking).

In any event the incident provided a valuable learning opportunity for all students involved. And instead of helping an aspiring academic grow and become a better person and a better pedagogue, McAdams chose to publicly humiliate, disparage and attack her. McAdams is flatly pathetic and there’s no place for that in your esteemed department, at Marquette--or any university.

Along with his immediate termination, he should also be subject to civil liability. And the fact remains that, as long as you all stand silently by, you’re equally morally culpable.

Sincerely,

Brandon
_________________________________________________
Brandon Buck
Doctoral Fellow, Philosophy and Education
GA/TA, Department of Education Policy & Social Analysis
Teachers College, Columbia University
(m) [redacted]

Other Arguments

Some responses were less deranged, but still misguided.

Some attackers accused us of taking Abbate’s comments out of context. We have no time to prepare an entire transcript of the exchange between Abbate and the student, but we did supply the entire audio to a reporter for Inside Higher Ed, and she confirmed both the thrust and the details of what we reported.

The reporter, Colleen Flaherty, got a response from Abbate, and Abbate admitted that she said “it seemed right to me” that a ban on gay marriage would violate Rawls’ principle of equal liberty, which was the text being discussed. This is not precisely what the student reported to us, but it’s easy to see how the student would have perceived the instructor blowing off an issue that he wanted to discuss.

Flaherty confirmed that we e-mailed Abbate, and asked for her version of what happened. Abbate did not respond.

A supporter of Abbate’s, one Justin Weinberg, an associate professor at the University of South Carolina, opined that “the instructor needed to make a decision about how to use limited class time, especially given the topic of the lesson and the subject of the course (which is ethical theory, not applied ethics).”

The problem is that’s not what Abbate said to the student. She explicitly said she did not want to discuss the issue because if arguments against gay marriage were voiced, they might offend any gay students in the class.

We teach a course in Public Policy. We don’t discuss gay marriage for the simple reason that we focus on issues that can be decided on the costs and benefits and their distribution. Gay marriage doesn’t fit that context very well.  But an instructional choice is not the same thing as wanting to protect students from arguments they might dislike.

Only Certain Groups Get Protection

Nobody would say that a biology professor should refrain from discussing evolution because some conservative Christians might object, or that atheist arguments can’t be aired because Christians and other theists might be offended.

Only certain victim groups get protection from hearing things they are presumed to get upset about.  And it doesn’t matter whether they really get upset.  To presume that gays would get upset over hearing arguments against gay marriage, or blacks would get upset hearing arguments against affirmative action is to demean both groups.  It’s true that among both groups there are hustlers who are perpetually offended.  But they should not be allowed to censor the discussion.

In reality, it’s arguments that liberal and leftist professors don’t like that are deemed “offensive.”

Another Argument of Campus Authoritarians

Weinberg made another argument, far more insidious, supporting Abbate’s refusal to discuss gay marriage. Quoting:

It also happened to be a kind of comment that Abbate noted might be offensive, and might constitute harassment according to Marquette University’s policies. So it seems she was being a good teacher as well as playing it safe regarding university policy. That was prudent, given her status as a graduate student instructor. The main take-away, though, is that it would have been perfectly permissible for Abbate to request the student not make the comment even if it weren’t offensive.

This, of course, contradicts Weinberg’s first argument, that not discussing gay marriage was merely an instructional choice. Here, he endorses the notion that allowing any opposition to gay marriage to be voiced would be “harassment” and might violate a harassment policy.

This is the first cousin to the notion that politically incorrect opinions are “offensive” and thus must be silenced.

Unfortunately, Marquette itself seemed to endorse that notion in a “training” module on “harassment” that all faculty and employees were required to take a few months ago.

But that notion would never stand up in court, and it’s unlikely Marquette would ever try to enforce that notion.  But they might not mind if it chills politically incorrect speech, since such speech creates problems for administrators.

Conclusion

So what we have is the academic version of the culture wars, with the increasingly authoritarian academic left wanting to shut up first students, and then professors who fail to toe the line.

Nancy Snow, Philosophy Chair, Livid Over Marquette Warrior Criticism of Politically Correct Instructor

Just this past Sunday, we blogged about an instructor in Marquette’s Philosophy Department who refused to allow a class discussion of gay marriage because if any student voiced opposition to gay marriage, that would be “homophobic” and might offend gay students.

We were just at lunch at the Tory Hill Cafe (in the Law School) with some colleagues and a Political Science job candidate.

We were accosted by Nancy Snow, Acting Chair of the Philosophy Department.  She said [paraphrasing] “now you are picking on graduate students” in reference to the instructor, one Cheryl Abbate, who is indeed a graduate student.

She added “I’m so mad at you” and added “your student is lying.”

We responded  “we have the audio, Nancy.”  She repeated “your student is lying.”  She further claimed the student should not have recorded the conversation.  Suspecting that he was going to be called a liar, he was smart to do so.

We do indeed have the audio, and the quotes we attributed to the instructor are exactly what she said.

As for “picking on a graduate student:”  when a department puts a graduate student (or anybody else) in the classroom, in charge of a class, they are responsible for the person acting in a professional manner.  Put somebody in a position of power and responsibility and you are responsible when they abuse that power and responsibility.

Excluding certain opinions because they might offend some special interest group, or labeling a student’s views as “homophobic” is unprofessional.  Indeed, it’s intolerant.

Snow, to whom the student complained, apparently thought she could blow off the complaint.  But then our blog post appeared.

If Abbate in fact told Snow that the student lied about her comments, Abbate is in fact lying.  But we do not know firsthand what Abbate told Snow.

In fact, if anybody wants to make an issue of it, we will share the audio with anybody with the authority to deal with the situation whom we trust to keep the student’s identity confidential.

Aside from the audio, it’s easy to see how Abbate would have said what we reported.  Her blog is titled “Thoughts from a Vegan Feminist Philosopher.”  Some of the stuff seems quirky and bland, such as her criticism for a Catholic parish for having a pig wrestling contest.

Less benign is her essay titled “Yes All Men…Contribute to the Prevalence of Rape.” Yes, it’s a common theme among feminists and Exhibit One of the reality that hard-core feminism is, at root, about sexist antipathy toward males.

Marquette Philosophy Instructor: “Gay Rights” Can’t Be Discussed in Class Since Any Disagreement Would Offend Gay Students

A student we know was in a philosophy class (“Theory of Ethics”), and the instructor (one Cheryl Abbate) was attempting to apply a philosophical text to modern political controversies. So far so good.

She listed some issues on the board, and came to “gay rights.” She then airily said that “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it.”

The student, a conservative who disagrees with some of the gay lobby’s notions of “gay rights” (such as gay marriage) approached her after class and told her he thought the issue deserved to be discussed. Indeed, he told Abbate that if she dismisses an entire argument because of her personal views, that sets a terrible precedent for the class.

The student argued against gay marriage and gay adoption, and for a while, Abbate made some plausible arguments to the student — pointing out that single people can adopt a child, so why not a gay couple? She even asked the student for research showing that children of gay parents do worse than children of straight, married parents. The student said he would provide it.

So far, this is the sort of argument that ought to happen in academia.

But then things deteriorated.

Certain Opinions Banned

Abbate explained that “some opinions are not appropriate, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions” and then went on to ask “do you know if anyone in your class is homosexual?” And further “don’t you think it would be offensive to them” if some student raised his hand and challenged gay marriage? The point being, apparently that any gay classmates should not be subjected to hearing any disagreement with their presumed policy views.

Then things deteriorated further as the student said that it was his right as an American citizen to make arguments against gay marriage. Abbate replied that “you don’t have a right in this class to make homophobic comments.”

She further said she would “take offense” if the student said that women can’t serve in particular roles. And she added that somebody who is homosexual would experience similar offense if somebody opposed gay marriage in class.

She went on “In this class, homophobic comments, racist comments, will not be tolerated.” She then invited the student to drop the class.

Which the student is doing.

Shutting People Up

Abbate, of course, was just using a tactic typical among liberals now. Opinions with which they disagree are not merely wrong, and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed “offensive” and need to be shut up.

As Charles Krauthammer explained:

The proper word for that attitude is totalitarian. It declares certain controversies over and visits serious consequences — from social ostracism to vocational defenestration — upon those who refuse to be silenced.

The newest closing of the leftist mind is on gay marriage. Just as the science of global warming is settled, so, it seems, are the moral and philosophical merits of gay marriage.

To oppose it is nothing but bigotry, akin to racism. Opponents are to be similarly marginalized and shunned, destroyed personally and professionally.

Of course, only certain groups have the privilege of shutting up debate. Things thought to be “offensive” to gays, blacks, women and so on must be stifled. Further, it’s not considered necessary to actually find out what the group really thinks. “Women” are supposed to feel warred upon when somebody opposes abortion, but in he real world men and women are equally likely to oppose abortion.

The same is true of Obama’s contraception mandate.

But in the politically correct world of academia, one is supposed to assume that all victim groups think the same way as leftist professors.

The “Offended” Card

Groups not favored by leftist professors, of course, can be freely attacked, and their views (or supposed views) ridiculed. Christians and Muslims are not allowed to be “offended” by pro-gay comments.

(Muslims are a protected victim group in lots of other ways, but not this one.)

And it is a free fire zone where straight white males are concerned.

Student Seeks Redress

The student first complained to the office of the Dean of Arts & Sciences, and talked to an Associate Dean, one Suzanne Foster. Foster sent the student to the Chair of the Philosophy Department, saying that department chairs usually handle such cases. The chair, Nancy Snow, pretty much blew off the issue.

Interestingly, both Snow and Foster have been involved in cases of politically correct attacks on free expression at Marquette.

Foster took offense when one of her colleagues referred to a dinner which happened to involve only female faculty as a “girls night out.” He was reprimanded by then department chair James South for “sexism,” but the reprimand was overturned by Marquette.

Snow, in a class on the “Philosophy of Crime and Punishment” tried to shut up a student who offered a response, from the perspective of police, to Snow’s comments about supposed “racial profiling.” The student said talk about racial profiling makes life hard for cops, since it may make minorities hostile and uncooperative.

Snow tried to silence him, claiming “this is a diverse class.” This was an apparent reference to two black students in the class, who were, Snow assumed, likely offended on hearing that.

The majority of the class, contacted by The Marquette Warrior, felt the comments were reasonable and relevant, but Snow insisted that the student write an apology to the black students.

So how is a student to get vindication from University officials who hold the same intolerant views as Abbate?

Conclusion

Thus the student is dropping the class, and will have to take another Philosophy class in the future.

But this student is rather outspoken and assertive about his beliefs. That puts him among a small minority of Marquette students. How many students, especially in politically correct departments like Philosophy, simply stifle their disagreement, or worse yet get indoctrinated into the views of the instructor, since those are the only ideas allowed, and no alternative views are aired?

Like the rest of academia, Marquette is less and less a real university. And when gay marriage cannot be discussed, certainly not a Catholic university.

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.

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.

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.

Shacking Up

From the Institute on Religion and Democracy:

They shout at you from every supermarket check-out line in America. People, Us, Star, and assorted other magazines are packed with the latest on stars marrying, divorcing, or just living together. Sadly the behavior of the Hollywood set has its reflection in the rest of the culture.

Marriage in the United States has fallen on hard times. We have the highest divorce rate in the developed world and the divorce rate in the Church runs neck-and-neck with the divorce rate in the broader population. The interest in same-sex marriages is in part due to the impermanent, romantic gesture that marriage has become.

Whether the purpose is to “try out” marriage or to avoid it, Mike and Harriet McManus note in their new book Living Together: Myths Risks & Answers, cohabitation has jumped from 439,000 couples in 1960 to 5,368,000 in 2006. No pastor or church leader can avoid cohabiting couples in the congregation or calling to inquire about a wedding. According to the Barna Group, 25 percent of people living together say that they are “born again Christians.” We’ve moved a long way from the biblical ideal.

Cohabitation is so common as to seem normal as a prelude to or substitute for marriage. In the minds of many, “You wouldn’t buy a pair of shoes without trying them on, so why would you get married without ‘trying it on’? ”

That seems reasonable except, as the McManuses quip, “the cohabitation shoe rarely fits.” In fact, the statistics on cohabitation point to precisely the opposite conclusion: “trying it on” is murder on marriage. Living Together rehearses the grim statistics clearly:

• “Only two out of ten cohabiting couples are able to build a lasting marriage.
• “Nearly half of cohabiting couples break up before the wedding. Their ‘premarital divorce’ frequently is no less painful than divorce itself.
• “Those cohabiting couples who do marry are 50 percent more likely to divorce than those who never lived together.”

Not only that, but when compared with married couples, cohabiting couples fight over money are more frequently, are more likely to be unfaithful, and experience more domestic violence. Living together while unmarried is a dangerous option.

Couples who cohabitate have their reasons and the McManuses mention the five most often cited: creating a “trial marriage,” financial considerations, a cure for loneliness, convenient sex, and emancipation from parents.

They also discuss the reasons behind the stated reasons: growing up in broken homes, lack of male commitment, cultural pressure, drifting into cohabitation, parental encouragement, living in denial of the statistics, and perverse financial incentives due to bad government policies.

Any social scientist, of course, is going to ask “is there a causal mechanism here?”

It’s plausible that there is. When couples simply drift into a “a living together” arrangement, and can just as easily drift out of that status, the attitudes engendered may carry over into marriage. Since married life isn’t much different from cohabitation for them, the lack of commitment that goes with cohabitation may carry over.

After all, the only way your life is different is that you had a big splashy wedding, and have a lot of wedding pictures. Otherwise, being married isn’t really different from not being married.

(Ironically, big, expensive, splashy weddings have become more common in American society at the same time that having a wedding has come to mean less and less.)

Of course, any social scientist will have to wonder whether this isn’t mostly self-selection. Perhaps people who choose to cohabit are less serious about relationships, more secular and liberal (and thus more likely to be willing to divorce) and maybe just more selfish and self-centered (and thus less likely to make the compromises that marriage requires).

If it is self-selection, the question becomes “how do we encourage the kinds of attitudes among the young that are supportive of successful marriage, and adverse to cohabitation?”

That’s not an easy question, partly since it’s hard to see a governmental solution (although having a tax code with a marriage reward instead of a marriage penalty would help), and partly because powerful elites are hostile to the whole notion.

Perhaps the only solution is that people who believe in traditional morality should be as outspoken and brazen about their moral views as the other side is brazen about their immoral ones.

But anybody who is willing to embrace this view can expect to be vilified for it.

Brokeback Tribune -- II

Back when the movie “Brokeback Mountain” came out, we put up a post about an absurdly biased issue of the Marquette Tribune that pushed a liberal “gay rights” viewpoint with incessant single-mindedness.

It’s time for another post like that, since today’s Trib features two stories, neither with any Marquette connection, pushing a gay political agenda.

The front page, top of the fold story was about an activist Iowa judge who rules that gays and lesbians in that state could marry. Before a stay could be put in place, one gay couple did. The Trib apparently feels this is a huge milestone for “gay rights.” Else, why was it featured on the front page?

And why should even “huge milestones for gay rights” be featured on the front page of the Trib when they have nothing to do with Marquette?

The story did quote two pro-family spokesmen condemning the action, and a Marquette professor (Mark Johnson) who opined that judicial fiat is not the way to deal with these issues.

But the story pumped the “human interest” angle to the max, giving the impression that only the terribly mean-spirited could want to deny the two gay guys the right to marry. And not merely to have their own private ceremony with any consenting clergy member officiating, but to have it blessed by government.

After all, they really, really want to.

The other gay story having nothing at all to do with Marquette was on page 7, with the headline “Lesbian candidate in the mix for Chicago bishop job -- If elected, will be second openly gay Episcopal bishop.” The lesbian in question is “The Very Rev. Tracy Lind,” although you can apparently be “very reverend” in the Episcopal Church while entirely blowing off Bible teaching on sexuality.

It’s such a downer, after all, to be told you should not do what you really, really want to do!

The story extensively quoted Rev. Debra Trakel, rector for St. James Episcopal Church in Milwaukee, about how wonderful all this is. No naysayers were given any say, and this in spite of the fact that there is a huge rift in the Episcopal Church on the issue. Indeed, the worldwide Anglican communion (of which the Episcopal Church is a branch) is on the brink of simply tossing the U.S. church out.

Dan Suhr, at GOP3.COM, has more on other biased stories, but these two stand out.

The issue of homosexuality is a virtual obsession among liberal students and activists, and the Trib seems to be giving voice to this obsession.

Letter to Editor: Hypocrisy on Madison City Council

We recently blogged about a member of the Madison City Council who has called for the impeachment of President Bush? Why? He has violated the Constitution, or at least the Constitution as the left interprets the Constitution.

The irony: she and some of her cohorts, being required to swear an oath of allegiance to the Wisconsin Constitution as they took their seats on the Council, made it clear that they didn’t really respect a certain part of the Constitution.

What part? The part that prohibits same-sex marriage.

Our post brought the following e-mail from our former student Nate Romano, who has graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison law school and is practicing law.

I agree with your point (and the point quoted by Prof. Schweber here at UW-Madison). You can dislike part of the constitution, and even say that you think it should be changed. But, if you are going to take an office to serve under that constitution, you serve and adhere to all of it. You don’t sign a statement that says parts are optional. It is sad that people who think they can complain that President Bush, Vice-President Cheney or whomever have been acting unconstitutional, and then blatantly state that you will essentially ignore parts of the constitution. It is frustrating that people don’t have the common sense to think things through.

Also, I thought it pertinent to point out that Alderman Eli Judge of Madison, who represents the district that covers most of the University, is openly gay and refused to sign the “supplemental” oath section. The ones who signed are mostly the “Progressive Dane” party -- a far left/socialist group.

So the gay guy on the Council is more principled -- even about gay marriage -- than the straight lefties.

We can’t say that we are surprised.

Anybody who has dug around gay blogosphere a bit knows that there are plenty of gay bloggers who are pretty reasonable people. Some are moderates, and many have a strong libertarian streak.

About the Madison lefties, on the other hand, there is little good to say.

Gay Lobby Favors Linda Clifford for State Supreme Court

Via CAFFEINATED POLITICS, some insight on the judicial philosophy of liberal State Supreme Court candidate Linda Clifford, from the website of the gay lobby group Fair Wisconsin.

Both Supreme Court candidates were asked a variety of “litmus test” questions, such as “Do you have any friends or family who are LGBT” (lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered).

But they were also asked about their judicial philosophy. Clifford claimed hers to be as follows:

As a justice, I promise:

• To uphold the rule of law, putting aside personal or political preferences;
• To rely on legal precedent to promote legal stability, but not blindly, respecting the need for the slow evolution of the common law to reflect social, technological, or legislative change; and
• To interpret and uphold legislative enactments to advance legislative intent--UNLESS those enactments violate civil liberties, constitutional rights, or fundamental freedoms or violate other constitutional or statutory provisions.

Then, I would have the courage to strike them down. That’s not activism; that’s not legislating from the bench. [emphasis in original]

Unfortunately it is legislating from the bench when you believe “civil liberties, constitutional rights, or fundamental freedoms” can mean pretty much what you want them to mean.

Highly revealing is Clifford’s naming of Wisconsin Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson as one of the figures she wishes to emulate.

On the issue of gay marriage, Clifford clearly believes that Wisconsin’s Protection of Marriage Amendment violates the Federal 14th Amendment, based on a letter to the Wisconsin legislature that she signed.

So it’s pretty clear that in her world “civil liberties, constitutional rights, or fundamental freedoms” means “those policies that I really, really want.”

Thus the gay lobby is quite rational to support her. Having lost in November when they carried their case to the electorate, they naturally turn to the Court.

Marriage: Gay & Straight

From Jeff Jacoby, some politically incorrect, but certainly sensible, thoughts on gay marriage.

Is marriage intrinsically connected to bearing and raising children? Advocates of same-sex marriage often argue peremptorily that it is not .

“In today’s society,” Yale law professor William Eskridge asserts in The Case for Same-Sex Marriage, “the importance of marriage is relational and not procreational.” The privileged status of marriage in modern society, in other words, has to do with the love and commitment of the spouses, not with the needs of any children those spouses may produce. In its 2003 Goodridge decision mandating same-sex marriage, the Massachusestts Supreme Judicial Court was even more emphatic. To the argument that the state’s interest in marriage is connected to procreation, the SJC replied categorically: “This is incorrect.”

As evidence that marriage and childrearing are not fundamentally related, same-sex marriage proponents frequently point out that married couples aren’t required to have children. No law prevents infertile couples from marrying or orders childless marriages dissolved. If procreation is so important to marriage, they say, why should elderly couples, or couples determined not to have children, be permitted to wed?

[. . . ] No mainstream opponent of same-sex marriage claims that having children is the sole purpose of wedlock. Marriages can serve any number of purposes, as diverse as the people entering into them -- cementing the bond between devoted partners, guaranteeing financial security, having a legitimate sexual outlet, ensuring companionship, and so on. People get married for various reasons; the desire to raise a family is only one of them.

What makes marriage a public institution, however -- the reason it is regulated by law and given an elevated legal status -- is that it provides something no healthy society can do without: a stable environment in which men and women can create and bring up the next generation, and in which children can enter the world with mothers and fathers committed to their well-being.

Because sex between men and women makes children, and because children tend to do best when raised by their mothers and fathers, society has a vested interest in encouraging long-term, monogamous, heterosexual marriage. True, not all married couples reproduce. But every opposite-sex marriage has the ability to give a father and a mother to any child the couple creates or adopts. That is something no same-sex couple can provide, which is one reason homosexual marriage has never become a social institution.

Of course procreation is not the only reason to marry, but to insist that marriage is not closely related to having children is like arguing, to use an analogy offered by marriage scholar David Blankenhorn, that cars are not intrinsically connected to driving.

“When you acquire ownership of a car,” Blankenhorn writes in his forthcoming book, The Future of Marriage, “society does not impose upon you a binding obligation to drive it. If you buy a car but fail to drive it, the state does not for that reason revoke your driver’s license. . . . Cars can be about many things, including pleasure, aesthetics, economic gain, and social status.” But whether any particular car is driven or not, cars and driving are intrinsically linked.

Similarly, whatever the circumstances of any married couple, marriage and procreation are intrinsically connected. Men and women make babies; babies need mothers and fathers. That is why there has always been a public stake in the marriage of husbands and wives. And why no such stake exists in the union of same-sex couples.

Jacoby omits another important reason to extend the right to marry to opposite sex couples who may not in fact bear children.

For government to determine who will and who won’t likely have children would be excessively intrusive.

Demanding that couples seeking a marriage license prove they are fertile, and demanding they swear that they intend to bear children simply isn’t acceptable. And even if it were, how would we enforce the promise?

Of course, we could deny the right to marry to couples until the child is born. But society has an interest in children being conceived, born and raised by married biological parents. We’ve long fudged on the “conceived” part, and more recently fudged massively on the “born” and “raised” part, but that doesn’t change the fact that society has such an interest. Indeed, the social cost of the fudging is now huge and obvious.

Liberals are always lecturing people about how one should not “impose ones moral views” on other people. They are most likely to do this when they are themselves trying to impose their moral views on others.

The simple fact, however, is that letting anybody get the special treatment that comes with marriage is an “imposition.” Society’s interests in the welfare of children may justify this imposition where heterosexual couples are concerned, but nothing can justify it where homosexual couples are concerned.

If one does not buy this argument, it makes more sense to privatize marriage entirely than to extend it to same sex couples.

We think of homosexuals demanding the right to marry as akin to pacifists demanding admission to West Point. One has a right to be a pacifist. We think that position is flatly wrong, but you have a right to it.

But social institutions have a purpose. When you freely opt out of the purpose behind the institution, you have opted out of the institution.