Gender and Tolerance

Transgenders on the Victim Bandwagon

The latest entry in the left’s ever expanding list of groups who need to be petted, pandered to and catered to is transgender people.

Transgender speakers are hot on the college lecture circuit, and the latest “inclusion” fad on college campuses is “gender neutral” bathrooms and dorms.

And worse, the Obama Justice Department is trying to force the transgender agenda on the entire nation’s schools.

With transgender people (and with gays and every other politically correct victim group) the left uses the word “tolerance.” If you oppose their agenda, it’s only because you are “intolerant” or a “bigot” and even a “homophobe.”

Tolerance ought to be a two way street. But today’s Social Justice Warriors see no need for tolerance toward people who disagree with them.

Let’s take Bruce Jenner, for example. He has decided he’s a woman. He’s had some plastic surgery so that his features are a bit more feminine. And he wears dresses. Tolerance says he had a right to do all of that.

But tolerance says that I have a right to view him as a male transvestite, who is a bit odd. Anybody who says I have no right to think that is intolerant of me. Jenner has a right to his opinion as to his gender, I have an equal right to my opinion about his gender. Equal tolerance.

Social Justice Warriors: Equal Tolerance?

Of course, a Social Justice Warrior might insist that he has a right to view me as a bad person because I think that. He does indeed, but if he tries to bully me by calling me a “bigot” or “intolerant” he is no better than I would be if I bullied a gay person by calling him a “pervert” or “degenerate.”

Further, if the Social Justice Warrior has a right to view me as a bad person because of my opinions, I have an equal right to judge the opinions and the actions of others. I have a right to decide that (for example) homosexual acts are sinful, or that guys wearing a dress are weird.

But of course, Social Justice Warriors deride “judgmental” attitudes on the part of people with whom they disagree, while being rigidly judgmental toward those same people. They seem to think they have a monopoly on passing moral judgment.

Things get worse when people try to impose their ideas about sex and gender on others. Does “tolerance” mean that a person who looks like a man gets to use the ladies room? What about tolerance of women who would feel that to be a huge imposition on their sense of privacy? Why does the person who looks like a man want to use the ladies room? Probably because he wants affirmation of his gender identity.

Demanding Affirmation

But demanding that others affirm one’s idea that one is really a woman (while one looks like a man and was born a male) is a demand one has no right to make. You have a right to think you are “really” a woman. I have a right to think you are really a man, and so do the women who feel violated if you are in their restroom.

And it’s even worse if in public schools a kid with a penis is allowed to run naked in the girl’s locker room, as the Obama Administration has demanded.

Which shows how using government to force your notions of sex and gender on others is downright toxic.

Private Sector over Governmental Fiat

Left to the private sector, things are likely to work out in a messier, but ultimately more satisfactory way. Big box store Target can declare its restrooms gender neutral if it wants. People who are uncomfortable with that are free to shop elsewhere. That’s tolerance.

While nobody should be forced to accommodate the desires of transgender people, some firms may choose to, just as some restaurants might choose to accommodate vegans. But the accommodations are likely to be more moderate than Target’s. Having single use bathrooms (one user at a time) is not outrageous, since people are used to that after decades of air travel. Likewise, no transgender person should mind using the “family” restrooms, since those are inherently gender neutral (intended for a dad and small daughter, or mother and young son, for example). And expensive reconfigurations of facilities are unlikely, just as vegan restaurants are uncommon.

Gay Lobby and Hypocrisy of “Tolerance”

Issues of tolerance and intolerance have been even worse where homosexuality is concerned. Government has punished Christian bakers who did not want to bake a cake for gay wedding and photographers who did not want to photograph a gay wedding. Christian student groups have been told they may not insist that their officers adhere to Christian standards of sexual behavior. The gay lobby has been willing to use government to impose their notions of what is moral on people who disagree.

On the average college campus, saying something negative about homosexuality invites a lecture from your dorm resident assistant, or being bullied by the Bias Incident Response Team.

If the Westboro Baptist Church asked a gay baker to cater one of its events, nobody would think of trying to force him to do so. If the Muslim Student Association had an officer who started loudly insisting that Mohammad was a fraud and a child molester, the Social Justice Warriors would be happy to see that officer kicked out. But Muslims vote Democratic, and can be portrayed as a victim group.

Saying something unkind about Christians on a college campus would hardly raise an eyebrow.

Tolerance is only tolerance if it works both ways. Wanting tolerance for one’s own opinions and own favored groups is not tolerance. Every bigot wants that. The test is one’s willingness to tolerate people and opinions one dislikes. This is a test the left in America flunks badly.

[By John McAdams, Reprinted from The Madison Speakeasy, Volume 1, Number 2]

New Study: Gay Parenting Not Good For Kids

It’s been a matter of politically correct dogma: kids of gay and lesbian parents do just was well as kids of straight married couples. So anybody with any reservations about gays having children must be some sort of evil homophobe.

But now comes a scholarly study (in Review of Economics of the Household) that shows that kids with gay and lesbian parents are at a disadvantage.

But first, note that the politically correct orthodoxy has been driven by bad social science. How good are the studies that purport to show that gay parenting is just fine? The author of the current study comments:

Unfortunately, the literature on child development in same-sex households is lacking on several grounds. First, the research is characterized by levels of advocacy, policy endorsement, and awareness of political consequences, that is disproportionate with the strength and substance of the preliminary empirical findings. Second, the literature generally utilizes measures of child and family performance that are not easily verifiable by third party replication, which vary from one study to another in ways that make comparisons difficult, and which differ substantially from measures standardly used in other family studies. But most important, almost all of the literature on same-sex parenting (which almost always means lesbian parenting) is based on some combination of weak empirical designs, small biased convenience samples, “snowballing,” and low powered tests.

The typical sample, in other words, is very small. And it typically consists of people who volunteered to be in the sample, approached through a gay community center, gay discussion board on the web, or some such.

Which leads us to a dirty little secret of the social sciences. Social scientists often study a particular issue because they have strong political opinions about the issue. Studying the gay family, in other words, has been a little cottage industry engaged in by academics who want to promote a gay political agenda. Strict canons of social science methodology, and peer review, should mitigate personal bias. But where the methodology is sloppy (as it is here) and the people doing the peer review are part of the same little cottage industry, there is little check on an ideological agenda.

The author of the new study uses a sample from the Canadian census. It is a very large “probability sample” known to be an unbiased representation of the entire Canadian population. That makes it better than any study done so far.

What does it find?

From the abstract of the article:

Here, a 20 % sample of the 2006 Canada census is used to identify self-reported children living with same-sex parents, and to examine the association of household type with children’s high school graduation rates. This large random sample allows for control of parental marital status, distinguishes between gay and lesbian families, and is large enough to evaluate differences in gender between parents and children. Children living with gay and lesbian families in 2006 were about 65 % as likely to graduate compared to children living in opposite sex marriage families. Daughters of same-sex parents do considerably worse than sons.

These results, we might add, hold up in the presence of an impressive array of statistical controls.

Of course, any statistical results can be interpreted in different ways. As the author notes of gay parent households:

. . . avenues through which these households are formed are many and complicated. . . these families often have experienced a prior divorce, previous heterosexual marriages, intentional pregnancies, co-parenting, donor insemination, adoption, and surragacy.

So it’s always possible to argue that something correlated with gay parenting, and not gay parenting itself, harms children’s chances.

And the author further observes:

An economist may be inclined to think that fathers and mothers are not perfect substitutes and that there must be some gains from a sexual division of labor in parenting. Others may suspect that children of same-sex parents are more likely to be harassed at school, and therefore, less likely to graduate. In any event, it is time to investigate the difference and reject the conventional wisdom of “no difference.”

But rejecting conventional wisdom that it so deeply ingrained in the rather narrow, politically correct worlds of academia, the educational establishment and the elite media is not easy. Especially when anybody who breathes the slightest word of dissent is going to be demonized, attacked, bullied and harassed.

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.

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.”

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.

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?

Liberals Don’t Really Believe in a “Right to Privacy”

From Front Page Magazine:

One of the great lies of the latter half of the twentieth century is that there is a Constitutional right to privacy. The right to privacy was established by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), in which the Court ruled that the state could not restrict the use of contraceptives. That law hadn’t been enforced in nearly a hundred years when it was challenged, but that didn’t stop liberals from trying to strike it down.

Why? They wanted to make a point, and make it they did: according to the Court, the Constitution guaranteed a “right to privacy.” Where did this right to privacy come from? “[S]pecific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance,” wrote Justice William O. Douglas, in one of the silliest and least substantive lines of reasoning in legal history.

Later, the “right to privacy” would be extended to unmarried sexual activity in Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972); abortion in Roe v. Wade (1973); and homosexual activity in Lawrence v. Texas (2003). Justice Kennedy ’s opinion in Lawrence is one of the most insulting opinions ever, stating that just because a state legislature finds something immoral doesn’t mean it can ban it and that the Constitution requires that Americans “respect” the private lives of homosexuals. “The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime,” Kennedy wrote — announcing a bizarre standard if the Constitution is designed to prevent federal overreach.

Let’s leave aside Kennedy’s logic here — the state constantly demeans the existence of consensual bigamists, prostitutes, incestuous families, bestiality practitioners, and adulterers, and in most of those cases, controls the destinies of those involved in these activities. Let’s focus instead on the basic point, which seems intuitively right to so many Americans: what we do in the bedroom should be our business alone.

I agree with that. You agree with that. We all agree with that. Libertarianism’s impact has been felt by us all — we know that we don’t want cops knocking on our door based on what we do with our sexual partners.

There’s only one problem: the left isn’t truly interested in the right to privacy. What starts in the bedroom doesn’t stay in the bedroom for the left. It ends with government pushing their bedroom agenda-of-the-day.

Now, it’s not enough that a woman has a right to choose to abort her baby – we have to publicly fund it. Now, it’s not enough that people have the right to have unmarried sex – we have to pay taxes to fund their child-rearing.

In California the courts have recently ruled that the right to privacy now requires that the state make no distinction between heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships. Marriage is not a privacy issue — it is an issue of people’s relationship with the state. But the radical gay movement has not restricted itself to worrying about non-interference in the bedroom. It wants societal acceptance and legitimacy. By the same token, homosexual adoption isn’t a privacy issue — it impacts a child. But the left has sought to extend the right to privacy to cover the right to raise children without a mother or father.

As if that weren’t enough, California, spurred by the powerful gay lobby, has passed legislation changing the Education Code to require that children be instructed “on the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people.” This is privacy turned on its head. What particular figures do in the bedroom has nothing to do with their contribution to American society. What does Leonardo di Vinci’s preference for boys have to with his historical import? The answer: nothing. But that’s not what the left cares about. They care about exposing children to homosexuality as early as possible in order to legitimate their anti-traditional values morality.

So what happened to the “right to privacy”? It expanded to include public approval of private sexual activity – which returns us closer to the anti-libertarian mold than the libertarian mold. After all, what if society shifts and decides to change its relationship with certain sexual activity again? Libertarianism provides a bright-line: government shouldn’t be involved with sexual activity. By getting the two intertwined again, liberal sexual activists actually bring themselves closer to the brink. Government-sponsored libertarianism is no libertarianism at all.

A genuine libertarian, of course, would no more want to use government to impose on the citizens the idea that homosexuality is perfectly moral and acceptable than he would want to use government to impose on the citizens the idea that homosexuality is immoral and unacceptable.

But a lot of “libertarians” are not really libertarians. They are merely secular social liberals who happen to be economic conservatives. Human liberty, to them, does not include the right to opt out of the gay agenda.

Gay Fascism in a High School Economics Class

From the Livingston Daily:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is more coverage here and here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lesbian Activist/Administrator To “Consult” With Marquette on Gay Issues

Dr. Ronni Sanlo, a college administrator and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) activist will be coming to campus on Thursday, October 28th to meet with various members of the Marquette community.

Who is Dr. Ronni Sanlo?

Her own web page describes her thus:

Dr. Ronni Sanlo is a Senior Associate Dean of Students and Professor and Director of the UCLA Masters of Education in Student Affairs. Formerly, Ronni was the director of the UCLA Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) Center, the University of Michigan LGBT Center, and an HIV epidemiologist in Florida. She earned her bachelor’s degree from the University of Florida, and a masters and doctorate in education from the University of North Florida in Jacksonville, FL. Ronni has presented many workshops and seminars about LGBT issues in companies, campuses, and organizations.

Her biography tells how she knew she was a lesbian at age 11 when she was “in love with” Annette Funicello, but stayed in the closet and even got married, “coming out” only in 1979. According to the blurb:

Sanlo teaches a required course, ED 405, which focuses on identity and culture in education. And through her work at the LGBT center, she conducts sensitivity training sessions for faculty, staff and — indirectly — students.

Before going to UCLA, she was at the University of Michigan, where her signal “contribution” was apparently a “lavender graduation ceremony.”

She describes the event as follows:

Lavender Graduation is a cultural celebration that recognizes LGBT students of all races and ethnicities and acknowledges their achievements and contributions to the university as students who survived the college experience. Through such recognition LGBT students may leave the university with a positive last experience of the institution thereby encouraging them to become involved mentors for current students as well as financially contributing alumni.

Within the very narrow confines of student affairs offices and lesbian academia, she has been designated one of “20 Powerful Lesbian Academics.”

The following is the e-mail chain that contains various of the details of her visit.

I have secured AMU 252 for the Dr. Sanlo meeting on October 29th, 2010 from 1pm until 1:50 pm. If I have inadvertently left anyone off the list, I do apologize, but ask that you please feel free to forward this to whomever you deem appropriate. I did get more chairs than there are currently people for, so we should have plenty of room.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

Stacy Kuras
Administrative Assistant
Dr. L. Christopher Miller
Vice President for Student Affairs
Marquette University
________________________________

From: Franzoi, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 11:13 AM
To: Kuras, Stacy; de St. Aubin, Ed; Snow, Nancy; Engel, Stephen; Hossenlopp, Jeanne; Massingale, Bryan; Hogan, Michael J.; Zurcher, Amelia; South, James; Politano, Michael; Jodi Melamed; Dempsey, Deirdre; Moon, Dawne; Foster, Susanne; Peressini, Anthony; Krueger, Christine
Cc: Miller, Chris (L. Christopher)
Subject: RE: Attending a scheduled meeting with Ronni Sanlo--please reply as soon as possible

I can make 1 PM.

Steve Franzoi
________________________________
From: Kuras, Stacy
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 11:02 AM
[distribution list identical to the above deleted]
Subject: RE: Attending a scheduled meeting with Ronni Sanlo--please reply as soon as possible

On the 29th of October, I can make it for 1 pm if this works out better for everyone.
________________________________

From: de St. Aubin, Ed
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 10:48 AM
[distribution list identical to the above deleted]

Subject: RE: Attending a scheduled meeting with Ronni Sanlo--please reply as soon as possible

The inaugural WGST Fellow reception begins at 3:30 on October 29.

MANY faculty interested in meeting with Dr. Sanlo have already committed to attend this hugely important event.

Are there other options in terms of time slots to meet with Dr. Sanlo???

Ed de St. Aubin
Psychology Department
Marquette University

The WGST Fellow program is described on the website of the Women and Gender Studies Program. That “gender studies” has been addeed to “women’s studies” signals a move toward a homosexual emphasis, as shown by one of the papers completed by a WGST fellow this summer: “Homonegativity and lesbian development: the impact of micro-networks and macro-contexts.”

________________________________

From: Snow, Nancy
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 10:26 AM
[distribution list identical to the above deleted]
Subject: RE: Attending a scheduled meeting with Ronni Sanlo--please reply as soon as possible

Hi, All,

I’ve just called Stacy Kuras of Dr. Miller’s office. We are all invited to meet with Dr. Sanlo from 3-4:30 on Oct. 29th. She will be reserving a room for about 30 people.

Thanks,

Nancy

Nancy E. Snow
Professor of Philosophy
Marquette University
________________________________
From: Engel, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 10:18 AM
[distribution list identical to the above deleted]
Subject: Attending a scheduled meeting with Ronni Sanlo--please reply as soon as possible

Dear 10/21 meeting folks,

Things are moving fast with regard to Ronni Sanlo’s visit. She will be at Marquette on October 28 and 29, and Chris Miller would like to know if any of us would like to meet with her. Time has been set aside for Sanlo to meet with faculty on October 29 from 3 to 4:30 PM.

I have already agreed to meet with Sanlo at this time. I believe that Amelia and Nancy are attending this meeting as well, though I can’t confirm that. Chris Miller’s assistant needs to know who of our group would like to meet with her in order to get a list of attendees and a proper room.

Please let me know as soon as possible if you would like to attend this meeting, and I will pass that on to Miller’s office.

All best,
Steve
________________________________

[The “From” header is missing on our copy of the following, but see below for the apparent sender]

This just came (below) requesting that we meet with a consultant re: LGTB issues. Please reply at your earliest convenience as to whether or not you can attend. We do have our scheduled Faculty Council meeting earlier that day - 11-12:30. Many thanks!

Marilyn Frenn PhD, RN, CNE, ANEF
Chair, Faculty Council

Hi Marilyn and Lisa,

I don’t know if Christopher Miller contacted you directly, but he agreed that the FC and SCE should be on the list of invitees to a meeting with Dr. Ronni Sanlo, associate dean of students at UCLA and expert on LGBT issues on college campuses, who’s been invited as a consultant at MU. If you have not been contacted, could you forward this invitation to your committees and send me a list of attendees?

Thanks (BTW) I’m sorry for the late notice. I just got this message from Miller’s factota this AM.

Chris

Christine L. Krueger, PhD
Associate Professor of English
Director, Who Counts Program
Marquette University

________________________________

From: Kuras, Stacy
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 10:05 AM
To: Hossenlopp, Jeanne; Engel, Stephen; Krueger, Christine; Snow, Nancy
Cc: Miller, Chris (L. Christopher)
Subject: Dr. Ronni Sanlo

Good morning! We are very excited to have Dr. Sanlo with us on October 28th & 29th. If it works for you and your respective groups, I can schedule you all to meet with Dr. Sanlo from 3pm to 4:30 pm on Friday, October 29th. I just need to get headcount in order to book a room for the various organizations and people. Additionally, I would like to get the individual names of the attendees so that Dr. Sanlo will have them for her contact list that I am creating for her.

Please let me know if this works for you, and we will proceed from there.

Very truly yours,

Stacy Kuras
Administrative Assistant
Dr. L. Christopher Miller
Vice President for Student Affairs
Marquette University

So . . . what precisely is the point of bringing her to Marquette? Does Marquette want to have a “lavender graduation?”

Since she specializes in leading “sensitivity training sessions,” are such sessions going to be imposed on faculty and students?

Is this a sop being thrown to the campus gay lobby, still smarting over Marquette’s failure to hire a lesbian dean?

It’s clear that Chris Miller’s Office of Student Affairs is taking the lead. What created a felt need for Sanlo’s presence?

We’ll continue to report on this as we learn more.

Still More Gay Fascism in Academia: Stalinist Thought Reform in Counseling Program

From The Chronicle of Higher Education:

A graduate student in school counseling is accusing Augusta State University in federal court of violating her constitutional rights by demanding that she work to change her views opposing homosexuality.

In a lawsuit filed on Wednesday in the U.S. District Court in Augusta, Ga., the student, Jennifer Keeton, argues that faculty members and administrators at the university have violated her First Amendment rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion by threatening her with expulsion if she does not fulfill requirements contained in a remediation plan intended to get her to change her beliefs.

Ms. Keeton’s lawsuit accuses the university of being “ideologically heavy-handed” in imposing the requirements on her “simply because she has communicated both inside and outside the classroom that she holds to Christian ethical convictions on matters of human sexuality and gender identity.” It argues that her views, which hold that homosexual behavior is immoral and that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle, would not interfere with her ability to provide competent counseling to gay men and lesbians.

An Augusta State spokeswoman, Kathy D. Schofe, declined on Thursday to comment on the litigation, saying that the university had not yet been served with the lawsuit and officials there would need time to devise a response.

Ms. Keeton is being represented by lawyers affiliated with the Alliance Defense Fund, a coalition of Christian lawyers. The group has brought a similar lawsuit on behalf of an Eastern Michigan University graduate student who alleges she was dismissed from a counseling program for her beliefs about homosexuality. In 2006 the group extracted major concessions from Missouri State University in settling a lawsuit filed by a former social-work student who refused to respect a class project’s requirement that she sign a letter to the state legislature in support of homosexual adoption.

In a news release announcing the lawsuit against Augusta State, David French, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said: “A public-university student shouldn’t be threatened with expulsion for being Christian and refusing to publicly renounce her faith, but that’s exactly what’s happening here. Simply put, the university is imposing thought reform.”

The lawsuit says Ms. Keeton has stated in classroom discussions and written assignments that she believes sexual behavior “is the result of accountable personal choice,” that people are born male or female, and that homosexuality is a lifestyle and not a “state of being.” It says faculty members at Augusta State confronted her about her beliefs based on such statements and on a student’s claim that Ms. Keeton has advocated “conversion therapy” for homosexuals in conversations with her peers—an allegation that Ms. Keeton denies.

The lawsuit says Augusta State faculty members developed a remediation plan specifically for Ms. Keeton and told her she would be expelled from the College of Education’s counselor-education program if she did not fulfill its requirements. The plan calls on Ms. Keeton to attend workshops on serving diverse populations, read articles on counseling gay, lesbian, and bisexual and transgendered people, and write reports to an adviser summarizing what she has learned. It also instructs her to work to increase her exposure to, and interaction with, gay populations, and suggests that she attend the local gay-pride parade. Ms. Keeton has refused to comply.

In other words, Stalinist reeducation reform.

Any time a story like this appears, watch the comments following the story. They will make it clear that a lot of people hate Christians, or at least hate Christians who dissent from politically correct views on sexuality.

So then the question arises: Why aren’t students who make it clear that they are gay, or make it clear that they are atheists, questioned on whether they could counsel people who are conservative Christians?

If having certain opinions is a bona fide occupational qualification, why not be even handed?

Of course, maybe they can convincingly answer “I’m able to be professional, even if I fundamentally disagree with the client.” But the same answer should be acceptable from a Christian.

We all know the answer to that. The new Puritans are politically correct leftists, and they are intolerant of ideas they disagree with.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exploring the Bible, Faith, and Homosexuality

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

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

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

There are all sorts of problems with arguments like this.

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

Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some of the video is a play to cheap sentimentality.

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

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

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

Panel Discussion

Again, from the University website:

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

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

And that’s typical of Marquette.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marquette Student Government: No Free Speech About Homosexuality

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

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

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

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

Giving the Game Away

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

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

The amendment was voted down!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now what have Moore and Lewis done?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Homosexuality: It’s a Crime in England to State Christian Views

From CCFON:

An open-air preacher from Gainsborough, Lincolnshire, was told by the police that he was committing a criminal offence by saying that homosexuality was a sin.

Andy Robertson, an evangelist with Open Air Mission, had never mentioned homosexuality in his open air preaching. Despite this, the local council sent a letter to him saying that they wanted him to stop preaching because they had received ‘complaints’. The council asserted that Mr Robertson was breaking the law by his preaching and that the Police would be called if he didn’t stop preaching. In the letter, the council did not specify which law was broken.

When the police arrived where Mr Robertson was preaching they told him they had received complaints that he was making ‘homophobic’ comments and that it was a crime to say that homosexuality was a sin. See a video of what happened at YouTube.

At CCFON we have become increasingly aware of how difficult it is to speak publicly on sexual ethics from a biblical standpoint particularly regarding the practice of homosexuality. At the Christian Legal Centre we are dealing with many cases where Christians are discriminated against because they hold biblical views on sexual ethics.

In the current Coroners and Justice Bill, the Government wants to remove the existing free speech clause that allows for discussion and criticism of sexual practices. The case of Mr Robertson and others is a clear indication that the society needs to keep a free speech protection.

The article cited at the end has a chilling list of cases where free speech incongenial to the gay lobby was published.

Last month, Kwabena Peat, a Christian teacher, was suspended from a senior post for complaining that a staff training day was used to promote homosexual rights.

Likewise, David Booker, an employee at a ‘homeless’ charity in Southampton, has been suspended for answering questions about his faith and sexual ethics to a colleague at work.

In 2003, the Rt Revd Dr Peter Forster, the Bishop of Chester, was investigated by the Cheshire police as committing a ‘hate crime’ after he told his local newspaper that some homosexuals re-orientated to heterosexuality with the help of therapy. The Crown Prosecution Service decided to drop the charges because the Bishop had ‘not broken any current laws’.

In 2005, the Metropolitan Police issued a warning to author Lynette Burrows that she was responsible for a ‘homophobic incident’ after she suggested on a BBC Radio Five Live programme that homosexual couples did not make ideal adoptive parents.

In 2006, an evangelical Christian campaigner, Stephen Green, was arrested and charged with ‘using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour’ for trying peacefully to hand out leaflets at a homosexual rally in Cardiff. A spokesman for the South Wales police said the campaigner had not behaved in a violent or aggressive manner, but that officers arrested him because ‘the leaflet contained Biblical quotes about homosexuality’.

In the same year, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the then Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain, was investigated by police for saying on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that homosexual practice was unacceptable in terms of health and moral issues.

The gay lobby is about as close to a fascist movement as one gets in modern democracies. Of course, not all gays (and not even a majority) are part of the gay lobby. In Presidential election exit polls, about 25% of gays and lesbians report that they have voted for the Republican for President. And a similar number say they oppose gay marriage.

But unfortunately, a core of gay militants is always joined by a sizable group of politically correct straight people.

Supposedly, free speech has better Constitutional protections in the U.S. than in the U.K. But a sizable group of people in the U.S. -- your average gay activist, your average English or Philosophy professor, a large proportion of liberal activists -- would like to see Christian views on sexuality shut up.

And this applies to issues like abortion and abstinence too.

Still Another Case of Pro-Gay Fascism in Academia

From the Ann Arbor News:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But a different standard applies to Christians.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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