Oct 15, 2012
Print This Post
Conservatives and even some liberals across the nation are outraged after Gallaudet University suspended the school’s chief diversity officer after she signed a petition in her church to put a gay marriage referendum on the ballot in Maryland.
FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR CULTURE WAR NEWS. CLICK HERE TO JOIN.
Angela McCaskill, a 23-year veteran of the university, was placed on paid leave as the university investigates her support for traditional marriage.
“It recently came to my attention that Dr. McCaskill has participated in a legislative initiative that some feel is inappropriate for an individual serving as Chief Diversity Officer; however, other individuals feel differently,” wrote Gallaudet president T. Alan Hurwitz in an email sent to the campus community.
McCaskill’s attorney said they will hold a press conference on Tuesday — stressing that his client is not “anti-gay.”
McCaskill was one of 200,000 residents who signed a petition to put “Maryland’s Question 6” on the ballot. The measure is a referendum on same-sex “marriage.”
The Washington Blade published the names and addresses of every person who signed the petition. An anonymous faculty member spotted McCaskill’s name in the newspaper and immediately notified authorites.
Hurwitz said McCaskill, who earned the school’s first Ph.D as a deaf African-American woman, was immediately placed on leave. Her job remains in jeopardy.
McCaskill’s pastor denounced the university’s decision and called it “beyond the boundaries of civility.”
“Unfortunately, Dr. McCaskill and her family have been subjected to threats and intimidation as a result of the media coverage of the actions taken by President Hurwitz on behalf of Gallaudet University,” said Lee Washington, pastor of Reid Temple. “As her church family, we stand firmly by her side and welcome all persons of good faith, regardless of their ideological views to denounce these actions of cowardice and bullying.”
Washington also said what happened to McCaskill should serve as a warning to all Americans who support traditional marriage.
“It is a clarion call for Marylanders who value religious liberties and individual rights to vote against question six,” he wrote in a statement on the church’s website.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said the university’s president should be fired “for violating our most basic civil rights.”
“Gallaudet University’s action underscores that far more is at stake in redefining marriage than two people walking down the aisle,” Perkins said. “Indeed, the very livelihood of business owners and employees is at stake.”
More than 50,000 have signed a Family Research Council petition calling for the university to reinstate McCaskill.
“If marriage is redefined, we can fully expect to see more of these discriminatory actions taken against anyone who espouses marriage as it has always been defined,” Perkins said.
Even some supporters of same-sex marriage are calling on the university to reinstate McCaskill – including Gov. Martin O’Malley.
Marylanders for Marriage Equality campaign manager Josh Levin said she “should be reinstated immediately.”
Although the group supports gay marriage, Levin says “everyone is entitled to free speech.”
The Washington Post weighed in on the matter in an editorial titled, “Gallaudet’s Mistake.”
“Firing, or threatening to fire, a diversity officer for off-campus political activity strikes us as inconsistent with “open sharing of thoughts and ideas,” the newspaper wrote.
Related posts:
FOX News Talk
Why call it "Pro-Traditional marriage". Lets call it what it really is, "Anti-same-sex marriage rights". I don't think there is a single person who supports marriage equality that has anything against 'traditional marriage'. I am in a 'traditional marriage' myself.
sdc
Why call it "Pro-Traditional marriage". Lets call it what it really is, "Anti-same-sex marriage rights". I don't think there is a single person who supports marriage equality that has anything against 'traditional marriage'. I am in a 'traditional marriage' myself.
Sorry, its not a right!
Does it really matter what the electorate says. The supreme court rules that it is a state issue. California judges says that elections don't matter. The problem is that there are way too many hetero phobes….
Does it really matter what the electorate says. The supreme court rules that it is a state issue. California judges says that elections don't matter. The problem is that there are way too many hetero phobes….
Marriage is a right.
Ann L. Lowenstein The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision (dated June 12, 1967), dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:
“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State
So you think it is the right of brothers to marry sisters and fathers to marry daughters and any other crazy marriage is OK out of extrapolation of black and white racial rulings? That is pretty poor argument to try and piggyback on the black racist issues to do this kind of comparison. I know a lot of black people that get pretty hot when people try to extrapolate sex issues from color issues. Be careful where you go with that one, it is pretty rediculous comparison.
In refusing to take-up many cases the supreme court has stated that race is not the same as behavior. SCOTUS has indicated in refusing other cases that there is no right held by heterosexuals that is not shared by homosexuals; as a homosexual person has the same ability to marry as a heterosexual person ie: a person of the opposite sex. So both have the identical access to marriage.
One can argue the moral principles involved but the legal language of the constitution does not imply a right to marry but is considered by the limit of enumeration to be left to the states. States consider marriage as a privilege much the same as a drivers license. Which is hwy some states allow same sex marriage and others do not.
The question that is actually being brought up is to redefine the word marriage to include things other than a man and a woman. Which in and of itself such a redefinition opens all sorts of issues that most do not want to consider. The issue here is should that be FORCED upon everyone, and should rights actually granted in the constitution be denied 92% of the citizens in order to satisfy a whim by approx. 7% of citizens.
I think there are other solution such as civil unions, so why is that NOT acceptable to so many who claim to be gay "rights" (I use that term loosely) activists?
Who ever said that? Do you enjoy putting words into peoples mouths? Please cite where anyone was supporting incest! Who really cares if black people get mad? I cited the court case that set the precedent that marriage is a right. There are health and genetic reasons for outlawing same sex marriages. Offspring from an incest marriage should not pay for the parents decisions. With same sex marriage there is no worry of gene pool contamination from inbreeding.
Robin Lavender In refusing to take-up many cases the supreme court has stated that race is not the same as behavior. SCOTUS has indicated in refusing other cases that there is no right held by heterosexuals that is not shared by homosexuals; as a homosexual person has the same ability to marry as a heterosexual person ie: a person of the opposite sex. So both have the identical access to marriage.
Curious. What case did they hear where this opinion was written?
Patrick, you keep mentioning that homosexuals have the "right" to marriage. Do you also mean that a woman has a "right" to marry ten people? How about a "right" for a father to marry his daughter and/or his son? or a person to marry his/her cat, dog, horse, etc.?
Marriage is a legally sanctioned contract between two people, not ten. There are a ton of health and other ethical reasons to outlaw incest. Cats, dogs, and horses do not have the capacity to consent. You are an idiot.
I said the courts have ruled marriage is a right. I never said the courts have ruled that yet. People come on here and say that marriage is not a right and that is not true. In my opinion marriage is contract between CONSENTING adults. You appear to be smart enough to not bring up the animals marrying humans argument, but I have been wrong before.
Billy, if the definition of marriage can be changed from one man/one woman to two women or two men, it can certainly be changed to more than two people.
There is lots of research on the unhealthiness of homosexual relationships, but that doesn't stop the practice of it or outlaw it. "Ethical" can be defined differently by different people.
Why do you call me idiot just because you don't agree with my questions?
Billy, if the definition of marriage can be changed from one man/one woman to two women or two men, it can certainly be changed to more than two people.
There is lots of research on the unhealthiness of homosexual relationships, but that doesn't stop the practice of it or outlaw it. "Ethical" can be defined differently by different people.
Why do you call me idiot just because you don't agree with my questions?
Mostly because you think homosexuality is the same as incest and bestiality and because you apparently think homosexuality is inherently unhealthy.
As soon as marriage became a legal definition and no longer remained a religious one it became a contract between two PEOPLE. The law does not care about your race, gender, or sexuality.
Patrick Mares Okay, kiddo, time for a crash-course on reading SCOTUS opinions. What you posted in quotations is the authoring justice's opinion on marriage and you need to check the language she used in expressing that opinion. First off, biracial unions were decriminalized because the laws used to prevent them were written and implemented in such a way to violated the 14th Amendment and the 5th Amendment. That was the court's ruling, the outcome of the case. They did not rule that marriage overall was a freedom, only that denying two opposite sex people marriage on the basis of race was not supported by the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause (which I'd have to read the case, but that may be a dictum or overreach of the court). Marriage did not suddenly become a Freedom or a right: there are no new amendments in the Constitution or overarching laws on the books for that (both of which are something SCOTUS can't do). It is the justice's opinion, but not the ruling- get it?
Furthermore, if you read what the justice wrote, she is very specific in stating that denying marriage on the grounds of RACE is unconstitutional. "Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry ,A PERSON OF ANOTHER RACE resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." She does not state "any person" for "any reason", nor does she specify that sex cannot be a limiting factor. So, outside of the freedom/not freedom argument, the opinion of the court is specific in its language. If it had ruled that any restriction on spousal choice violated the 14th Amendment, we would not be having this argument today.
Lastly, from the real world: marriage is conditioned and always has been. You have to have a MARRIAGE LICENSE to be married in the eyes of the law that can only be issued by a LICENSED OFFICIAL. There has always been some form of religious or legal stricture on whom one can marry, be it consanguinity issues (incest), political maneuvering, wealth or lack thereof, differing faiths, age of consent, etc. Despite what you want to believe, no one can marry whomever they want, so telling me that gays have a "right to marry" is thoroughly unsupported by reality.
it sure isnt never has been for any of us
ok so that means the sc is always right like dred scott right like blacks are only half people that was also the sc they are people not gods
Dude, punctuate. Please.
What about my right to marry who I want. What if I now want incest to be now legal, along with having multiple wife's and husbands, maybe even of different species. You LIBTARDS are so full of horse dung it makes US stink.
What about my right to marry who I want. What if I now want incest to be now legal, along with having multiple wife's and husbands, maybe even of different species. You LIBTARDS are so full of horse dung it makes US stink.
This has been covered already. Marriage is a contract between two people. There are plenty of health concerns for outlawing incest. Animals can not consent. The people who are the problem are the people who think homosexuals aren't people who deserve equal protection under the law and equal rights.
Once again Liberal minds are trying to force their mentality onto others by attempting to control a person's individual life outside work. If you speak your mind or have a different belief system then them, they will do all they can to get you fired. So much for allowing free speech. So I guess its only free speech if you agree with them.
I am not condoning what this University did, but what does legislation that stops a person from entering a marriage doing? Is that not trying to force a mentality on people as well?
Liberal mind – isn't that an oxymoron?
Patrick Mares, sweetoodums, the petition is to get a referendum on the ballot, so the VOTERS can decide how the government in their own state should be run. Exactly how does that constitute "legislation to stop a person" from doing anything, little Bammiephage?
Patrick Mares, sweetoodums, the petition is to get a referendum on the ballot, so the VOTERS can decide how the government in their own state should be run. Exactly how does that constitute "legislation to stop a person" from doing anything, little Bammiephage?
The voters cannot restrict what is a Constitutional right. Can the majority vote to reinstate slavery? No they cannot and marriage was deemed a Civil Right by the Supreme Court and thus the Equal Protection Clause covers the rights of gays to get married.
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.
I am surprised the Supreme Court has not resolved this already.
Ann L. Lowenstein The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision (dated June 12, 1967), dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:
“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State
Marriage is a religious term denoting the conjoining of a man and a woman. Society has adopted the term to denote a legal contract between two people. That is where the problem began. I have no problem what-so-ever giving to adult individuals the same legal rights regardless of their sexual status – this is a civil union. However, for any individual to demand that a religious term be used against it's original purpose because they feel that they are owed that is overstepping a line. Many say that they want all religion out of government – fine, let's start here. States no longer give marriage licenses, they give civil union licenses to all couples that meet the requirements (old enough, competent enough). No one is denied any legal rights, the government stays out of religion, and marriage stays a religous concept not 'corrupted' (not my term, but what is perceived) by those who are not religious or follow the tenants of most of the major religions. Problem solved, everyone gives a little and everyone gets the basic parts of what they desire. If the religious minded or the gay/lesbian/transgender movement are not totally satisfied – well, in a compromise, nobody gets everything that they want, but everyone walks away with something.
The argument to separate marriage from govt. is too late. The govt. IS involved and the process has evolved to a secular process. I did not hear cries from the religious right when people not affiliated with a religion were going to the court house to get MARRIED! Only now when same sex marriage is on the table did they voice their opinion. The meaning of words change all the time and sorry but religion did not invent marriage so it is not their exclusive domain.
Patrick Mares We will then see churches sued that refuse to marry gay persons in their church just as there are lawsuits against owners of companies that won't host a gay marriage at their venue. Why do the rights and beliefs of gay couples trample the rights and beliefs of others?
No you will not. Even if you do courts will throw them out. You cannot compare a church to a business that is open to the public. A business that is open to the public cannot discriminate and the courts cannot force a church to perform a marriage.
No Patrick it is not the same thing. If the gay marriage argument was actually about someone's ability to commit to a loving relationship then giving same-sex marriage a different name or even civil unions would do that. However since it is about political power, and the ability to force others to change their way of life.
Redefining words have serious consequence, many of which are unintended. Restrictions on free speech (such as shown by this article) abandonment of freedom of religion as one could no longer follow traditional or fundamental christian teachings without being being guilty of several "crimes". This has been seen in other countries where pastors have been arrested for reading the bible passages seen as anti-gay. Even in Canada parents, pastors and others have been arrested or taken before a tribunal for "human rights" violations, for a number of reasons associated with speaking against gay marriage or the gay lifestyle, or even reading bible passages out-loud.
If only it were as easy as marriage… but it is isn't. There are other solutions to same sex couples enjoying the benefits and "marriage equality" without doing so in a way that infringes upon the rights of the majority. If it was about love then why is using another word to describe it not acceptable to them? Why aren't civil unions acceptable? Because it is NOT about equality at all. There is no constitutional RIGHT that a heterosexual has that a homosexual does not. If we want to create a method for a same sex couple to have say federal benefits the same as a heterosexual couple, we can do that without redefining the word marriage and all of the consequences and lack of freedoms associated with it.
Patrick Mares – Disallowing practioners of a particular sexual deviancy the 'right' to 'marry' is NOT forcing a 'mentality' on anyone; forcing the deviancy to be accepted via court action after it has been defeated every time it was put on a ballot is. And for the record, there is no 'right' to marrige……..that is a privilige; rights are inaleinable and cannot be taken away without due process of law (as in criminal prosecutions) but priviliges must be EARNED. I take it from your comments that you are in favor of legalizing same-sex marrige, so I will ask you the same question I ask of everybody on this subject- Where does it stop? How far are you willing to define deviancy downward in this inane quest for 'diversity' and 'equality'? Say the nation legalized homosexual marrige….what's next?? Legalized beastiality?? Sado-masochist rights? Legalized polygamy or maybe legalized pedophilia? Where does it stop is not right here & right now?? Funny thing, though….nobody ever has an answer for my questions….
Patrick, your arguments may seem logical and factual, but you are closing your eyes to what is really happening with homosexuals that think their "rights" are being violated. In New Mexico, a photography company was considered guilty of violating human rights simply because they refused to photograph a homosexual commitment ceremony. If they who own their own business are not allowed to decide who to offer their services to, then I'm sure churches will eventually be on the list. Look at what the IRS has tried to do by prohibiting churches from speaking about politics if they want to keep their tax-exempt status–in other words, the IRS is prohibiting free speech.
No, it is not too late. The major uprising from both sides has come into the mainstream agenda only in the last 15 years. Even though the government has recognized marriage as a term for a long time, so to did the commandments stand in public buildings, crosses exist on public land, christmas trees alone stand in public areas. I am in no way condoning either the use or removal of any of these examples, but to say it is too late is to once again force your opinion and ideals down other people's throat, the same thing you complain has been done to you or your ideals in the past. Two wrongs etc etc etc. The best thing to do is to adopt arguments from both sides to settle this problem. On the one side – deny benefits and legal rights to same sex couples. That is the basis of wanting gay marriage, is it not? On another side (many times the same side) – get religion out of government. On the far opposite side – keep marriage defined as a union between a man and woman. My offering supports all three: the religious term marriage is out of the government, same sex or different sex couples now have the same rights legally, and marriage, as a term, can be 'saved' from it's 'corruption' by those who want it to mean things it 'never has." (PLEASE NOTE: for those who cannot understand basic sarcasm, I don't agree with those terms, but that is the way many people feel, so move on).
No, it is not too late. The major uprising from both sides has come into the mainstream agenda only in the last 15 years. Even though the government has recognized marriage as a term for a long time, so to did the commandments stand in public buildings, crosses exist on public land, christmas trees alone stand in public areas. I am in no way condoning either the use or removal of any of these examples, but to say it is too late is to once again force your opinion and ideals down other people's throat, the same thing you complain has been done to you or your ideals in the past. Two wrongs etc etc etc. The best thing to do is to adopt arguments from both sides to settle this problem. On the one side – deny benefits and legal rights to same sex couples. That is the basis of wanting gay marriage, is it not? On another side (many times the same side) – get religion out of government. On the far opposite side – keep marriage defined as a union between a man and woman. My offering supports all three: the religious term marriage is out of the government, same sex or different sex couples now have the same rights legally, and marriage, as a term, can be 'saved' from it's 'corruption' by those who want it to mean things it 'never has." (PLEASE NOTE: for those who cannot understand basic sarcasm, I don't agree with those terms, but that is the way many people feel, so move on).
Robin allowing gay marriage in no way forces others to change their way of life. In fact gay people are getting married right now in states that allow it and you life has not changed one bit.
Please do not compare what happens in other countries to what would happen in ours. Our Constitution and govt. is not the same as Canada's or other countries.
That was going to be my point as well Ann. Regardless of your personal opinion, signing a petition to allow the voters to decide a matter is a far cry from being a personal advocate for something like that. She may have an opinion, but all she did was sign a petiton to allow the voters themselves to decide. This crap is getting scary in this country. No such things as freedom of speech, thought or opinion anymore?
France has had Civil Solidarity Pacts for over ten years and more and more heterosexuals are choosing that union instead of marriage. To many people here and in France the old marriage vows that go back centuries still have echoes of "obey" and subservience. Marriage is an old institution that excluded homosexuals, wastes a lot of money, and rings of (to many) unhealthy relationships. Why challenge the old instead of going after a new relationship like the Civil Solidarity Pact? Why try to "force a mentality" on an old institution?
Don Moel Calling gay sex deviant is your OPINON and your OPINON only so trying to force that OPINION on others is trying to force your mentality on others. There is a right to marriage get an education I have cited it twice already. Once you started asking if we should legalize sex with animals you lost the argument. Can an animal give legal consent to such an act? Can children give consent to sexual acts? You are a twisted individual and you arguments have no legal or logical standing.
Grace Chavez I am aware of that case and found myself conflicted about it. She discriminated against the couple, but the couple could of found another person to shoot the wedding. I also think the photographer should have the right to refuse to certain events, but considering the photographer had shot weddings before and the only reason for refusal was sexual preference then that could and in this case was discrimination. I was torn, but would of sided with the photographer in that case as she would of had to attend the event. I am sorry, but churches are protected by the Constitution and very clearly might I add. I am not worried in the slightest that the churches would be forced to marry anyone.
Was that the same argument you used when interracial marriage was an issue as well?
Patrick Mares You slimy little racist stool sample. You're mighty brave hiding in you mother's basement and insulting black people when we all know that a gutless bigot like you would never face a black man with your hateful remarks comparing blacks with sexual perverts.
Racist? LOL! You are a clown please do not reply to me again.
Patrick Mares Actually bigot, sexual perversion is not protected by the constitution. In fact the federal gov. refuse to acknowledge pervert marriage for homosexuals.
Patrick Mares homosexuality is a sexual perversion just like pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, incest, bigamy, coprophagia, etc and homoNazis are no more deserving of special rights based on your sexual perversions than other perverts are.
LOL — this dude seriously called someone a bigot and racist then went on to call a large population of people something akin to pedophiles.
You neo-cons are absolutely ridiculous. Where's the real religious people who understand and know tolerance? Are you guys REALLY okay with people like THIS guy speaking for your faith?
He is obviously drunk, drugged, or otherwise mentally deranged I would just ignore him.
He is obviously drunk, drugged, or otherwise mentally deranged I would just ignore him.
No way, this guy deserves to get laughed off the internet, like all the other close-minded fools who spew fox news rhetoric all day. I mean, I won't bother with talking to him directly, because he's obviously pretty screwed up in the head, but laughing at him makes these slow Mondays just that much more entertaining.
Corey Ledford How is the truth about you cowardly, racist perverts a problem for you?
Patrick Mares Take it to a pervert page if you fags want to hit on each other. Decent people don't want to be exposed to your filthy, disgusting behavior.
Corey Ledford Why do you perverts and useful idiots who infest the democRAT trailer park hate FOX News viewers for being informed. We don't hate you for being stupid.
AH! Its touting words such as "truth" already! What a great specimen we have here, maybe we can put it in a white room and let it slobber on itself about how the perverted racists are taking over the country! Since these type of shit stains are dying out (finally) we can just laugh and enjoy our lives knowing this thing will eventually go away, too, along with his fear and hatred.
Okay, little guy, I guess I'll bite here:
I actually like the business model of Fox News. I like Bill O'Reilly and I like the actual Fox News website. But I don't just regurgitate what I hear on it. Because, like the other media outlets that exist on tv, they are driven by ratings and they pander to their demographic.
Democrats are pretty obnoxious, and I agree that this woman should be reinstated, but also the flip side is you neo-cons seem to forget that you all decide to bitch out people who got up in arms about the Chik Fil A thing you.
Free speech only matters when it's YOUR speech. So sorry, dude, but you're wrong. And you're also a douchebag. I know you're too old to grow out of it, so we'll just let you have your ridiculous rants and laugh at you and be done with it.
Patrick Mares
Deviant:
adjective
perverted, sick (informal), twisted, bent (slang), abnormal, queer (informal, derogatory), warped, perverse, wayward, kinky (slang), devious, deviate, freaky (slang), aberrant, pervy (slang), sicko (informal) social reactions to deviant and criminal behaviour
perverted straight, normal, conventional, orthodox, straightforward
noun
pervert, freak, queer (informal, derogatory), misfit, sicko (informal), odd type a dangerous deviant who lived rough.
So I would have to agree, since it is not natural to the laws of nature, it is in fact deviating from the laws of nature.
Yes, because society never evolves over time.
Also, not natural? I beg to differ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
There's a difference, sweet Walter. It's the difference between denotation and connotation. Denotation is the literal definition of a word. Connotation is all the ideas and emotions that are attached to the common usage of the word. "Deviant" has very negative connotations. In this context, someone who thinks homosexuals are "deviant" probably also thinks they are less than human and not worthy of having the same rights as heterosexuals; a bigot.
Corey Ledford Well seeing as it is indeed against the Laws of Nature and against the Bible (Old Testement Side), and if he is supporting that position, then yes, I support him also.
Eh, I've got no problem with having that be the belief of your faith, I have a problem with imposing it on others.
The college was wrong. Flat out, and I'd be hard-pressed to find someone who actually disagrees with that. But these issues ALWAYS blow up to some ridiculously generic blanketed debate where neo-cons like that tool up there start saying super awful things (while at the same time calling someone else a racist).
The reason the comparison gets made is because it parallels. How many talked like that dude back before integration? A LOT!
The gays aren't doing anything to you guys, they just want the same benefits. The word "marriage" being used to define a civil union in the United States was a bad move, because now for whatever reason the word has some sort of "sanctity" in the legal realm when everyone knows damn well faith has no place in legislative vocabulary.
Eh, I've got no problem with having that be the belief of your faith, I have a problem with imposing it on others.
The college was wrong. Flat out, and I'd be hard-pressed to find someone who actually disagrees with that. But these issues ALWAYS blow up to some ridiculously generic blanketed debate where neo-cons like that tool up there start saying super awful things (while at the same time calling someone else a racist).
The reason the comparison gets made is because it parallels. How many talked like that dude back before integration? A LOT!
The gays aren't doing anything to you guys, they just want the same benefits. The word "marriage" being used to define a civil union in the United States was a bad move, because now for whatever reason the word has some sort of "sanctity" in the legal realm when everyone knows damn well faith has no place in legislative vocabulary.
There are no "Laws of Nature" and the Bible is an *ancient* allegory written by uneducated desert nomads.
There are no "Laws of Nature" and the Bible is an *ancient* allegory written by uneducated desert nomads.
Yeah but it's still a huge part of many people's beliefs. To tell them they're wrong about their beliefs is just as bad. If only everyone had the capacity to empathize with strangers.
Yeah but it's still a huge part of many people's beliefs. To tell them they're wrong about their beliefs is just as bad. If only everyone had the capacity to empathize with strangers.
I wasn't anti-theist until theists started trying to force their ill thought out worldviews on the rest of us. If they keep their religion private I will do the same with opinion of their religion.
Go tell that to the Founders of our Nation and all the millions who immediately understood what they were talking about. The 'Laws of Nature' are the basis of our liberty and freedoms.
That's gonna be tough since the founders made this country a LONG time ago. I think they're dead now, but I'll go look em up to be sure. But the realities are they made this country with the intent of not persecuting people based on religion. Now we're whining about gays and the "creeping sharia law" because people are too damn scared to embrace change.
Have you read the constitution? Do you truly understand the thoughts that were going through the minds of the founders? Do you truly believe that this country was perfect in its inception and every single amendment should be thrown out? I don't understand why that's even a justification for promoting oppression.
That's gonna be tough since the founders made this country a LONG time ago. I think they're dead now, but I'll go look em up to be sure. But the realities are they made this country with the intent of not persecuting people based on religion. Now we're whining about gays and the "creeping sharia law" because people are too damn scared to embrace change.
Have you read the constitution? Do you truly understand the thoughts that were going through the minds of the founders? Do you truly believe that this country was perfect in its inception and every single amendment should be thrown out? I don't understand why that's even a justification for promoting oppression.
While I'm talking to these men I will attach generators to their feet so that as they spin in their graves we'll all have an endless supply of electricity.
While I'm talking to these men I will attach generators to their feet so that as they spin in their graves we'll all have an endless supply of electricity.
Patrick Mares- You should be fired from your job for publicly stating your position against people exercising their rights for political action during their free time. Oh, I am sorry, was that too close to home for you?
Close to home? Why assume I am siding with the University? See this is what happens when you jump into the middle of a conversation. You make assumptions and look like an ass.
Patrick Mares The state legislature approved gay marriage. Almost 200,000 registered voters in Maryland, including Dr. McCaskill, signed petitions to decide for themselves if the definition of marrige should be changed or not. Apparently an African American with the first doctorate from Galledut isn't allowed to exercise her first amendment right to sign a petition the school disagrees with. So much for tolerence.
Paul Robinson — your and an Educator.. What a joke.
Patrick Mares marriage is not now nor ever has beena right driving a car is not a right states decide its always been that way you wanna change it do what new york did do it the right way or put it on the ballot unless you are in california thehn what the people want doesnt count
One issue with the crest that seems taken by granted by its defenders is that it SUPPORTS MONOTHEISM – which is a SPECIFIC TYPE of religious belief. There are many religions that are POLYTHEISTIC (many Gods). It is thus NOT TRUE to say the singular reference to God on the crest is ok on the grounds that it is generic and thus suppports all religions.
Billy, you got good smoke?????
Billy, you got good smoke?????
Thomas do a little research before you make inaccurate comments.
So far from the truth. Caviler statement on this case at best Joeseph D Meaux Jr. You have fallen for the faux news cycle which has not waited for an outcome. This personnel issue has not yet been resolved. McCaskill deserves a complete reinstatement should the facts presented in this article complete the argument for her dismissal. But should they hold additional evidence that conflicts with the agreement that McCaskill approved as the employment expectation as condition of employment for this position then it would seem the contractual employment agreement is violated. Thus termination is justified.
Patrick Mares The word you are looking for is "capacity." It is the legal term and minors do not have it under 18 as they are developing biologically. However, we have mostly agreed that at 18 most people are grown. Maturity is another thing and really takes time for one to learn through experience. As for animals etc.. They do not have capacity under the law. If these folks actually read and took courses they might understand a thing or two about what I am saying. Capacity is basically your ability to enter into a contract knowing you are giving or receiving something and the same goes for the other person. To ensure all the Federal and State benefits for a marriage or civil union etc, some uniformity must be decided. If people want to maintain a "Marriage" then it needs to be addressed at the Federal level and implemented in a different terminology. People need to understand it is not ok to create second class citizens. Sergeant USMC.
marriage is defined in the Bible as one man and one woman.. it was defined by GOD. The government took over the business of marriage when they discovered there was money in it. How many lawyers are in congress? How many lawyers conduct divorces each year. The government also gives you tax breaks if you are married and they have bound the hands of insurance companies so they can't insure same sex couples. Get the government out of the business of insuring people, stop the government from taxing people at different rates just because of their marital status, get the government out of the business of marriage (Leave the business of marriage to the church where it belongs) and we wouldn't have this problem. Let's try separating the state from the church.. k?
Chris Johnson LOVE THIS!!! I think your response is the best solution ever!!!
Corey Ledford No one is "scared" of change. In actuality, those who are for same-sex marriage like to point out that marriage for heterosexual couples isn't any better, divorce rates are high, heterosexual couples raise gay children, etc. so what's the purpose of trying to "limit" the rights of marriage to heterosexuals since marriage is screwed up anyway…right? Isn't that one of the biggest arguments.
My response – and I believe many will agree – we were all born into a sinful world. We are all going to screw up. There is going to be corruption in marriage, however, that is NO reason to change the definition and to further destort/destroy what MARRIAGE is meant to be. A lot of people who have commented – i.e. Chris Johnson – are absolutely right, the government messed up years ago by giving "civil-unions" the label of marriage. As marriage is a priviledge, it isn't a right. People abuse marriage just as they abuse sex, having children, welfare, etc. Just because Marriage for heterosexuals ins't perfect is no reason to furter destroy the sanctuary of marriage by changing its definition just so "all people can have the same governmental rights." You want the rights of heterosexual couples, than give it to them. Don't screw up the purpose of marriage more than it has been.
It's like parent's putting their daughters on birth control once they hit 15. You're basically giving them the right to go out and have sex – just don't get pregnant. We should be teaching our daughter's to VALUE, PROTECT, and RESPECT their bodies and their virginity. Instead, you're giving them a license to go out and be permiscuous. Same with condoms for young boys. If we TAUGHT our children to respect themselves and took out the sensationalism in media, we wouldn't have half the problems with the current generation. Rediculous how people have distorted the true meaning of Marriage and Family. We are too much a "Me" society. It's not about you, it's not about me. Once you all figure that out, we'll be much better off.
Patrick Mares "marriage was deemed a Civil Right by the Supreme Court and thus the Equal Protection Clause covers the rights of gays to get married".. You obviously have not read the Constitution. The Supremes have no constitutional authority to 'deem' anything. Our rights are enumerated in the amendments to the Constitution and not a single one of those rights mentions marrige…….As for the 'equal protection clause', it states that no person can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny any person protection equal protection of the laws…….there are currently no laws anywhere, that I know of, that 'protect the right to marry' for anyone….so your arguement is irrelavant on its face.
Patrick Mares "marriage was deemed a Civil Right by the Supreme Court and thus the Equal Protection Clause covers the rights of gays to get married".. You obviously have not read the Constitution. The Supremes have no constitutional authority to 'deem' anything. Our rights are enumerated in the amendments to the Constitution and not a single one of those rights mentions marrige…….As for the 'equal protection clause', it states that no person can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny any person protection equal protection of the laws…….there are currently no laws anywhere, that I know of, that 'protect the right to marry' for anyone….so your arguement is irrelavant on its face.
Corey Ledford That's so butch how you come to the defense of your boyfriend.
Corey Ledford That's so butch how you come to the defense of your boyfriend.
Corey Ledford homosexuals do behave like animals.
Corey Ledford homosexuals do behave like animals.
Billy Massey you're half right. While many homosexuals are bigots, many aren't.
Patrick Mares Isn't your fantasizing about another man's ass gonna make corey jealous?
Most states have a civil union option. It allows people to get married, just not in a church.
Anyone who thinks a marriage is a religious union in 2012 is delusional. Either give everyone equal rights or re-redefine marriage so that it is, once again, a religious entity. Those are the options. Take government out of marriage or give everyone the right to marry; Super simple stuff.
As for the ridiculous idea that birth control gives women permission to fuck everything with a heartbeat as soon as they get it? You're insane. Don't legislate your insecurities.
You were a teenager once. They're going to have sex. Give them the means and education to do it safely. Stop demonizing sex.
You can get married and no church need be involved.
E Elaine Connelly Not in Texas. We don't recognize relationships based on perversion whether that perversion be homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, coprophagia, incest, bigamy, etc.
E Elaine Connelly Not in Texas. We don't recognize relationships based on perversion whether that perversion be homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, coprophagia, incest, bigamy, etc.
Patrick Mares Wrong again….The vast majority of people in this country (and the world, for that) matter are hetrosexual; only a tiny minority are homosexual, deviating from the norm; therefore homosexuality IS a deviant practice… as for a "right" to an education or marrige, please state where those particular rights are enumerated in the Constitution- and don't give the same examples you have already stated about SCOTUS decisions. The court has several times and with alarming regularity since the 1960's, have exceeded their authority in their 'decisions'. The only way additional 'rights' can be added to the Constitution is via the amendment process which has to originate with the Congress, pass both chambers, be signed off by the President, and then be ratified by two thirds of the states. The SCOTUS cannot 'deem' new rights….their ONLY job is to determine the constutionality of laws already passed; they are NOT free to make it up as they go! The Constitution means EXACTLY what is says… there is no 4th amendment "womans right to choose", nor is there anything resembling a "right to privacy"….the 4th amendment deals with warrantless searches and seizures ONLY! Also there is no "seperation of church & state" in the 1st amendment- The SCOTUS decision prohibiting prayer in schools and at other public functions in fact VIOLATES the 1st amendment (that nasty little part libs forget that reads "nor prohibit the free practice thereof"). I have read the Constitution numerous times- nowhere in the text is mentioned a right to marry or a right to an education. Oh and by the way, you STILL didn't answer my question…..How far are you willing to go with this "acceptance"? How far is too far?
It is only your opinion it is deviant and that is a fact.
The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage. As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority:
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal RIGHTS essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men …
The decision you quote, Loving v. Virginia was a case about racism, NOT marraige; The plaintiff was disallowed the right to marry based on a condition that the plaintiff could not control- their race. No person should ever be discriminated against because of their race, gender, or national origin, but that is where it stops…..Homosexuality is a CHOICE- a choice practiced by a tiny minority of the worlds population, and a choice that has been traditionally shunned by virtually every civilized society. Look, man….I don't care what anyone does behind closed doors,as long as all participants are consenting adults and nobody gets killed or maimed (a nod to the S&M crowd there) but for Pete's sake KEEP IT PRIVATE!!! Marriage between men & women is the norm…everybody knows that they have sex, but not the particulars….not so with homosexuals as their possibilities are quite limited. All of the 'benifits' of marrige can be attained by homosexuals with the issuance of a durable power-of-attourney executed between the 'partners'. In my 52 years of kicking around on this little blue marble, I have personally seen the moral decline of our society; when I was in school, not a single one of my calssmates got pregnant; 'single mothers' were primarily widows with a few divorcees thrown in for spice; not so the case today- the 'sexual revolution' has back-fired in a major way and caused a moral decline as well as helped to create the "entitled underclass" that is strangling this nation with their ever increasing demands for free housing, food, medical care, etc. Rather than continuing the trend of moral decline by 'tolerating' more deviant behavior, I would rather try to reverse the trend….restore personal accountability and lessen reliance on the gov't. It's just the homosexuals bad luck that this is where the line gets drawn.
The decision you quote, Loving v. Virginia was a case about racism, NOT marraige; The plaintiff was disallowed the right to marry based on a condition that the plaintiff could not control- their race. No person should ever be discriminated against because of their race, gender, or national origin, but that is where it stops…..Homosexuality is a CHOICE- a choice practiced by a tiny minority of the worlds population, and a choice that has been traditionally shunned by virtually every civilized society. Look, man….I don't care what anyone does behind closed doors,as long as all participants are consenting adults and nobody gets killed or maimed (a nod to the S&M crowd there) but for Pete's sake KEEP IT PRIVATE!!! Marriage between men & women is the norm…everybody knows that they have sex, but not the particulars….not so with homosexuals as their possibilities are quite limited. All of the 'benifits' of marrige can be attained by homosexuals with the issuance of a durable power-of-attourney executed between the 'partners'. In my 52 years of kicking around on this little blue marble, I have personally seen the moral decline of our society; when I was in school, not a single one of my calssmates got pregnant; 'single mothers' were primarily widows with a few divorcees thrown in for spice; not so the case today- the 'sexual revolution' has back-fired in a major way and caused a moral decline as well as helped to create the "entitled underclass" that is strangling this nation with their ever increasing demands for free housing, food, medical care, etc. Rather than continuing the trend of moral decline by 'tolerating' more deviant behavior, I would rather try to reverse the trend….restore personal accountability and lessen reliance on the gov't. It's just the homosexuals bad luck that this is where the line gets drawn.
The core of the case was about MARRIAGE!!! It is your OPINION that homosexuality is a choice and only an OPINION. ALL the gay people I know have been gay as long as they could remember. It was not a conscience choice to choice the same sex. I personally could not choose to be intimate with a same sex partner. Marriages can and are private affairs. I doubt you would even be aware of when same sex couples got married. Stopping gay marriage will not reverse any of the social issues we are experiencing. Stopping gay marriage is not going to stop teen pregnancy, broken families, or the generations of food stamp families.
Patrick Mares all perverts including those who engage in pedophilia, bestiality, homosexuality, necrophilia, coprophagia, incest, bigamy, etc claim they are born that way. homosexuality is a defect in most and a choice in some.
Don, if it was a choice then can you tell me when you made the decision to be heterosexual? I never made such a decision, there was no cognitive process. I am sexually attracted to women, I did not choose to be attracted to women.
Billy Massey B.S. Then why are you here hitting on a pervert like patrick? homosexuality is a defect in most of you homosexuals and a choice by some of you. Either way, homosexuality is a sexual perversion.
Jeff are you incapable of acting like an adult or did you suffer some type of head trauma at some point?
Patrick Mares Telling the truth is what adults do. Filtering your very existence throught the prism of your sexual perversions is what perverts do.
Your comments may be the truth in your mind, but you can convey those truths and still act like an adult, but obviously you lack the mental aptitude to do that.
No, read the opinion again, Sir. The decision hinged on WHY the couple was not allowed to marry…racism, pure & simple was at the core of the decision. Attempting to extrapolate that decision and for that matter hi-jack the civil rights adgenda to apply to homosexuality only demonsrates the weakness of your arguement. Black people are BORN black…..Women are BORN female……..Germans are BORN German……Homosexuality is a CHOICE!! Until in-depth, peer reviewed studies can PROVE a physiological or genetic disposition to homosexuality it is YOUR opinion, Sir, that homosexuals are "born" and "can't help being that way"…..I happen to like women with a little extra meat on their bones & a nice wide butt, but guess what?? I wasn't born with that predisposition, it was a CHOICE!! I have a friend who will not look at anything but red-heads- once again a CHOICE. Civil rights cover conditions or situations that are BEYOND a persons 'choice'. And BTW, the Constitution guarentees the right to life, liberty and the PERSUIT of happinass…it is NOT a guarantee that you will achieve happiness. The Warren court made several decisions that were right (as have subsiquent courts) but erred in not just striking bad laws & upholding good ones, but legislating from the bench. Not satisfied with outlawing segregation & Jim Crow as was in their power, they then embarked on issuing a series of judicial fiats to 'solve' the problem of segregation (too numerous to mention here); The Warren court while ruling properly in the Miranda case had to go one step further & legislate the "Miranda warning" into law. The Miranda dictate has caused numerous felons to get off scot-free even though there was absolutely no doubt as to their guilt. In the Roe v. Wade decision, the Burger court usurped states rights and basically enjoined any legislative body from attempting an abortion law that WOULD pass muster…to do this, they manufactured a "4th amendment right to privacy" which does not exist-read the document & you will find the word 'privacy' nowhere in the text.. Additionaly, the Warren court upheld the more odorious sections of the "Voting Rights Act", particularly the part that keeps several states in a permanant and continuing condition of control regarding voting laws, a power that is CLEARLY enumerated to the individual states as it is NOT assigned to the federal gov't (I do believe that prohibition is in the 10th article). Simply put, there is NO constitutional "right to marry". If you can find a reference that DIRECTLY states that right within the document itself (Not some lame-assed SCOTUS decision that exceeds their authority) then I'll listen. Words mean things- the language in the original document AND all the amendments are clear; If you want a Constitutional Marrage Amendment, start a petition & run through the process as described…..Oh, that's right!! Each & everytime legalized homosexual marrige has been put ona ballot ANYWHERE in this country, it has been overwhelmingly DEFEATED!!! Really ya'll need to learn how to take a hint……. The only way to get such a law on the books is (1) elect a legislature full of progressive leftists and an equally leftist Governor & get it passed that way on the state level (completely legal but subject to reversal by subsiquent legislatures), or (2) go whining to the Courts forum shopping along the way & get it passed by judicial fiat (completely ILLEGAL, but seemingly preferred by leftists everywhere)
No, read the opinion again, Sir. The decision hinged on WHY the couple was not allowed to marry…racism, pure & simple was at the core of the decision. Attempting to extrapolate that decision and for that matter hi-jack the civil rights adgenda to apply to homosexuality only demonsrates the weakness of your arguement. Black people are BORN black…..Women are BORN female……..Germans are BORN German……Homosexuality is a CHOICE!! Until in-depth, peer reviewed studies can PROVE a physiological or genetic disposition to homosexuality it is YOUR opinion, Sir, that homosexuals are "born" and "can't help being that way"…..I happen to like women with a little extra meat on their bones & a nice wide butt, but guess what?? I wasn't born with that predisposition, it was a CHOICE!! I have a friend who will not look at anything but red-heads- once again a CHOICE. Civil rights cover conditions or situations that are BEYOND a persons 'choice'. And BTW, the Constitution guarentees the right to life, liberty and the PERSUIT of happinass…it is NOT a guarantee that you will achieve happiness. The Warren court made several decisions that were right (as have subsiquent courts) but erred in not just striking bad laws & upholding good ones, but legislating from the bench. Not satisfied with outlawing segregation & Jim Crow as was in their power, they then embarked on issuing a series of judicial fiats to 'solve' the problem of segregation (too numerous to mention here); The Warren court while ruling properly in the Miranda case had to go one step further & legislate the "Miranda warning" into law. The Miranda dictate has caused numerous felons to get off scot-free even though there was absolutely no doubt as to their guilt. In the Roe v. Wade decision, the Burger court usurped states rights and basically enjoined any legislative body from attempting an abortion law that WOULD pass muster…to do this, they manufactured a "4th amendment right to privacy" which does not exist-read the document & you will find the word 'privacy' nowhere in the text.. Additionaly, the Warren court upheld the more odorious sections of the "Voting Rights Act", particularly the part that keeps several states in a permanant and continuing condition of control regarding voting laws, a power that is CLEARLY enumerated to the individual states as it is NOT assigned to the federal gov't (I do believe that prohibition is in the 10th article). Simply put, there is NO constitutional "right to marry". If you can find a reference that DIRECTLY states that right within the document itself (Not some lame-assed SCOTUS decision that exceeds their authority) then I'll listen. Words mean things- the language in the original document AND all the amendments are clear; If you want a Constitutional Marrage Amendment, start a petition & run through the process as described…..Oh, that's right!! Each & everytime legalized homosexual marrige has been put ona ballot ANYWHERE in this country, it has been overwhelmingly DEFEATED!!! Really ya'll need to learn how to take a hint……. The only way to get such a law on the books is (1) elect a legislature full of progressive leftists and an equally leftist Governor & get it passed that way on the state level (completely legal but subject to reversal by subsiquent legislatures), or (2) go whining to the Courts forum shopping along the way & get it passed by judicial fiat (completely ILLEGAL, but seemingly preferred by leftists everywhere)
No, read the opinion again, Sir. The decision hinged on WHY the couple was not allowed to marry…racism, pure & simple was at the core of the decision. Attempting to extrapolate that decision and for that matter hi-jack the civil rights adgenda to apply to homosexuality only demonsrates the weakness of your arguement. Black people are BORN black…..Women are BORN female……..Germans are BORN German……Homosexuality is a CHOICE!! Until in-depth, peer reviewed studies can PROVE a physiological or genetic disposition to homosexuality it is YOUR opinion, Sir, that homosexuals are "born" and "can't help being that way"…..I happen to like women with a little extra meat on their bones & a nice wide butt, but guess what?? I wasn't born with that predisposition, it was a CHOICE!! I have a friend who will not look at anything but red-heads- once again a CHOICE. Civil rights cover conditions or situations that are BEYOND a persons 'choice'. And BTW, the Constitution guarentees the right to life, liberty and the PERSUIT of happinass…it is NOT a guarantee that you will achieve happiness. The Warren court made several decisions that were right (as have subsiquent courts) but erred in not just striking bad laws & upholding good ones, but legislating from the bench. Not satisfied with outlawing segregation & Jim Crow as was in their power, they then embarked on issuing a series of judicial fiats to 'solve' the problem of segregation (too numerous to mention here); The Warren court while ruling properly in the Miranda case had to go one step further & legislate the "Miranda warning" into law. The Miranda dictate has caused numerous felons to get off scot-free even though there was absolutely no doubt as to their guilt. In the Roe v. Wade decision, the Burger court usurped states rights and basically enjoined any legislative body from attempting an abortion law that WOULD pass muster…to do this, they manufactured a "4th amendment right to privacy" which does not exist-read the document & you will find the word 'privacy' nowhere in the text.. Additionaly, the Warren court upheld the more odorious sections of the "Voting Rights Act", particularly the part that keeps several states in a permanant and continuing condition of control regarding voting laws, a power that is CLEARLY enumerated to the individual states as it is NOT assigned to the federal gov't (I do believe that prohibition is in the 10th article). Simply put, there is NO constitutional "right to marry". If you can find a reference that DIRECTLY states that right within the document itself (Not some lame-assed SCOTUS decision that exceeds their authority) then I'll listen. Words mean things- the language in the original document AND all the amendments are clear; If you want a Constitutional Marrage Amendment, start a petition & run through the process as described…..Oh, that's right!! Each & everytime legalized homosexual marrige has been put ona ballot ANYWHERE in this country, it has been overwhelmingly DEFEATED!!! Really ya'll need to learn how to take a hint……. The only way to get such a law on the books is (1) elect a legislature full of progressive leftists and an equally leftist Governor & get it passed that way on the state level (completely legal but subject to reversal by subsiquent legislatures), or (2) go whining to the Courts forum shopping along the way & get it passed by judicial fiat (completely ILLEGAL, but seemingly preferred by leftists everywhere)
Again, Don, when did you choose to be heterosexual? If sexuality is a choice then when did you make the decision to be attracted to women?
The issue was marriage and who is allowed to get married and if states can restrict who can marry. The issue was MARRIAGE!
The issue was marriage and who is allowed to get married and if states can restrict who can marry. The issue was MARRIAGE!
Don Moel Oh and to state homosexuality is a choice is ONLY AN OPINION not a fact.
Don Moel Oh and to state homosexuality is a choice is ONLY AN OPINION not a fact.
Then show me facts that disprove my "opinion"….As I alluded to earlier, there are no demonstrateable or proved physical, genetic, or physiological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals…and not because of lack of trying! Nuberous studies have been undertaken in the past attempting to isolate a 'gay gene' or show that homosexuals brains are different somehow- all for naught. Saying someone was born homosexual is like saying someone was born to be a doctor, a rodeo clown, a cowboy, etc…Untill proven differently by sound, factual, and repeatable peer reviewed scientific study, the FACT remains that homosexuality IS a choice….no matter how much you may wish to to be different. And consequently, there is no Constitutional protection to indemnify people from the consequences of making poor or unpopular decisions, so if one chooses to practice the lifestyle, they should expect and deal with negative consequences instead of whining about not 'being accepted' or 'being discriminated against'.
Show me facts to prove it is not an opinion. You are stating it is a choice as if it is an established fact not I. I have stated my OPINION I have not stated anything as fact you have.
(sigh) Once again…..put your heart & feelings away, take out your brain & warm it up……. As there is no demonstrated physical, physiological, or genetic differences, homosexuality is either (1) a choice or (2) a compulsion. Maybe not hard & fast fact, but rational logic!! I would think that you would accept the 'choice' argument, as the only other explination. compulsion, would imply some sort of mental or personality disorder….I don't think you want to go there! Oh, BTW you still have yet to answer my question….It seems that everyone I have had this discussion with just won't answer it…..
Keep stating your OPINION all you want. I grew up with a gay individual and since early childhood he knew he was gay. It was not a choice. If it was not a conscience choice then you cannot blame him for his feelings. Just because science cannot identify why people are gay does not mean it is a choice by default.
Let's do a quick experiment: Don, I made no choice to be heterosexual. Did you make such a choice? How about you, Patrick? If none of us have chosen our sexuality then why do you believe they can choose theirs? My sexuality isn't a choice anymore than my sense of humor is. My profession? Definitely my choice. Parts of my personality? My psyche? Are you joking?
Argue Nature vs. Nurture all you want, but homosexuals aren't anything different from you or I and they deserve the same rights you and I have access to. If I can get married and gain tax deductions how is it even a question that two other loving, consenting adults can't? I thought we couldn't discriminate based on sex? Two PEOPLE are trying to get married.
The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ruled today that the Defense of Marriage Act, more specifically Section 3— the federal definition of marriage between one man and one woman—violates equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional. Today's ruling makes the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals the second federal court to hold DOMA unconstitutional. Today's decision hinges on Section 3 of DOMA, the part of the legislation which defines marriage.
The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ruled today that the Defense of Marriage Act, more specifically Section 3— the federal definition of marriage between one man and one woman—violates equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional. Today's ruling makes the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals the second federal court to hold DOMA unconstitutional. Today's decision hinges on Section 3 of DOMA, the part of the legislation which defines marriage.
Don Moel do not feel ignored, have a link instead.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/261/5119/321.abstract
This is an absolute outrage, and must not be tolerated. Yes, the university president should be fired, as he has indeed violated Ms. McCaskill most basic of civil rights.This, at this point, has nothing to to with gay rights, this is a direct assault to the rights of all Americans. The universtiy has fired a 'shot across the bow' of our most basic civil rights, saying, "how dare you go against the liberal mind set", and this not even open to civil debate. I do hope Ms. McCaskill has retained an attorney, as the university MUST be sued, and in the most public and damaging way possible. In the mean time, I will pray for her. Ms. McCaskill, be strong in your faith. May the Lord bless and keep you and your family all your days.
Being employed is not a basic civil right. This isn't an infringement of free speech, either. Gallaudet is a private university.
Well said Bill. I do not agree with the University, but your explanation was spot on. Employees HAVE BEEN FIRED in many cases for speech outside of the job. I do not agree with it in most cases and especially in this case, but they are within their rights to do so.
This was not so much as free speech (which it is), but the private political views of an employee, who exercised their right to petition their government. She is being punished for 'ideas'. Allowed to stand, such could be applied to the concept of 'you are a republican'? Your fired. THAT is a violation of our civil rights. That is un-American, and must not be tolerated. Which rights are you willing to give up next? Should they be able to fire her because she is black, white, Christian, or Jew. All are the same, under article I of the Bill of Rights. No, I suspect you are just gloating here, happy that one of your adversaries has fallen in battle. We will rally around her, and support her. When you fall, will your 'comrads' be so giving?
This was not so much as free speech (which it is), but the private political views of an employee, who exercised their right to petition their government. She is being punished for 'ideas'. Allowed to stand, such could be applied to the concept of 'you are a republican'? Your fired. THAT is a violation of our civil rights. That is un-American, and must not be tolerated. Which rights are you willing to give up next? Should they be able to fire her because she is black, white, Christian, or Jew. All are the same, under article I of the Bill of Rights. No, I suspect you are just gloating here, happy that one of your adversaries has fallen in battle. We will rally around her, and support her. When you fall, will your 'comrads' be so giving?
You act as if this is the first tie such a thing has occurred. I can assure you people have been fired for their political ideas before they just did not get the press this case did. What civil right grants you the right to a job? I am gloating I have stated clear as day that I think the University was wrong, but that is just my opinion not the law of the land.
Billy Massey – According to your unique reasoning a "private" university can fire someone for being black. People are entitled to basic human rights regardless of whether the place of employment is private or public.
Patrick Mares
Have you no ability to reason? The same thinking has forced contraception on the Catholic church, forced Christian organizations to hire GLBT employees against their moral code, and forced various organizations to pay fines for not allowing groups who violate their conscience to use their facilities. By your reasoning, any position has the right to free speech EXCEPT conservatives, Christians and intelligent people.
Except no one chooses to be black. Or gay. Or a woman. You can't be fired for those reasons. Going out after work and saying/doing something your employer doesn't agree with or deems a terminable offense? Not protected. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
Billy Massey, It is an infringement of free speech in that this professor signed the petition when she was NOT on work time. Do you really think an employer should control what the employee does in the employee's free time?
Billy Massey, It is an infringement of free speech in that this professor signed the petition when she was NOT on work time. Do you really think an employer should control what the employee does in the employee's free time?
Billy Massey, It is an infringement of free speech in that this professor signed the petition when she was NOT on work time. Do you really think an employer should control what the employee does in the employee's free time?
Billy Massey, It is an infringement of free speech in that this professor signed the petition when she was NOT on work time. Do you really think an employer should control what the employee does in the employee's free time?
Billy Massey; Sir you are mistaken. One has the right to think anyway they choose. When outside of the workplace and not doing so as a part of their employment, they have the freedom of speech and freedom of religion. In fact the freedom of religion clause guarantees "the free exercise thereof". Signing a petition at church she is certainly entitled to enjoy BOTH of those freedoms. What you are pointing out sir is that the question is NOT about same-sex marriage at all, it is about political control of the country and our most basic civil rights.
Billy Massey, free speech most certainly IS protected when it is done on the employee's own time! You need to educate yourself some more. Would you want your employer deciding what you can or cannot do on your own time? I don't think you would find any union agreeing to that since they fight so hard for employee rights.
Grace try to keep up with current events.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/chilis-server-fired-facebook-rant_n_1615430.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303505504577404542168061590.html
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/08/09/police-officer-susan-graziosi-fired-for-facebook-criticism-sue/
These are just the few I found in a very fast Google search.
Frank Hill ,I agree with you and think that these liberal school's are @ the back end of there glory day's. If Obama might get re-elected he started being the most hated MAN ever to live in the White House. When you add these liberal school's will now be on watch for there cost,this will all come to a END. I really think something close to what started this NATION is about to happen either thru the voting booth or in the street's!
Frank Hill ,I agree with you and think that these liberal school's are @ the back end of there glory day's. If Obama might get re-elected he started being the most hated MAN ever to live in the White House. When you add these liberal school's will now be on watch for there cost,this will all come to a END. I really think something close to what started this NATION is about to happen either thru the voting booth or in the street's!
Frank Hill ,I agree with you and think that these liberal school's are @ the back end of there glory day's. If Obama might get re-elected he started being the most hated MAN ever to live in the White House. When you add these liberal school's will now be on watch for there cost,this will all come to a END. I really think something close to what started this NATION is about to happen either thru the voting booth or in the street's!
Hey, Patrick, you need to read those links a little bit better and compare apples to apples. Those links are about people who were sharing company secrets or criticizing their employers on Facebook (practically the whole world). Dr. McCaskill was only signing a petition that was in no way against her employer.
Patrick, now, if she worked for an organization whose primary goal was to promote homosexual marriage, then I can see that maybe she should be terminated. Last I knew, Gaulladet University's primary goal is to provide education to the deaf and hard of hearing.
It was done on their free time. YOU said people could anything they wanted on their free time and they could not be fired for it.
Grace Chavez There are cases of teachers who got fired because they were in the adult video business YEARS prior to becoming an educator. Where those schools wrong as well?
Patrick, yes, those schools were wrong. Do you happen to know if those cases went to court and what was the final ruling?
Robin, is that why I would be fired if I got a DUI? Or arrested for nearly any reason? Or if I spoke out about my employer on Facebook? I can say/do anything I want off the clock, huh? Just because you're off the clock doesn't mean you aren't your employer's problem and they are well within their rights to dismiss you for actions outside of their premises.
If diversity were something I cared enough about at my university that I created a position for the sole reason of diversifying my school then I wouldn't want someone pushing that kind of legislation in charge of said diversification.
The issue is pretty clear to me…this lady is in charge of diversity. That's her JOB. Limiting marriage to heterosexuals is not diversity. She is free to have her beliefs, but clearly she should not be a chief diversity officer. It's like the CEO of GM saying that Ford makes better cars. Sure the CEO can have that opinion, but he sure as heck should not be CEO of GM.
Billy Massey … you and patrick are idiots
Billy Massey … you and patrick are idiots
Nice well thought out and articulate argument!
Patrick Mares- Our right to free speech does come with consequences… when the exercise of that right either infringes on the rights of another or causes pain, suffering or hardship as a direct result of the initial act. Any secondary or consequential action that results from the initial act is the third party's responsibility. In this case, the voters for the referendum. Except that a majority vote is what many liberals try to prevent since most people in this country are against same-sex marriage. The fact that someone, especially a person responsible for spreading diversity, was unable to exercise their rights as result of being in that position, then they are working at an establishment that doesn't belong in this country and certainly not an institution I would want my children to attend. Too often we see liberal educators using the classroom to soapbox the liberal agenda to a captive audience. It is nice to see such blatant misconduct by a university get national attention.
Billy Massey ? And private employers don't have to follow employment law when they agree with the cool-aid crowd?
I agree, Frank; this is a violation of her civil rights. A question in my mind: How could the Washington Blade, be so 'in their face' about it. These people will do whatever dirty deed it takes to attain their objective.
The president of the school is doing the right thing!.. Who would listen to a Diversity Officer that does not believes in Hate and Intolerance…. The employee should be FIRED.
Paul Robinson Study the issue before you talk… The contraception mandate is NOT for churches! Anyone designated in a "Ministerial" position is not required to have insurance covering contraception.
Paul Robinson Study the issue before you talk… The contraception mandate is NOT for churches! Anyone designated in a "Ministerial" position is not required to have insurance covering contraception.
Paul Robinson Study the issue before you talk… The contraception mandate is NOT for churches! Anyone designated in a "Ministerial" position is not required to have insurance covering contraception.
Apparently you do not undertand either the concept of freedom of speech or the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights. It matters not whether Gallaudet is a private university and this is not an issue of whether being employed is or is not a basic civil right. NO entity, public or private, may violate the rights contained within the U.S. Constitution or the laws that are compliant with that Constitution. Gallaudet has clearly violated the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech by suspending Dr. McCaskill. Were she suspended for dereliction of duty, insubordination or some other job related function, the university would be within its rights to suspend her. However, it is not permitted to take any action whatsoever with regard to her private life or her exercise of her Constitutionally guarantee of freedom of speech. The universty is not only in error, but is liable for any damages, including emotional distress, that she experiences as a result of its action. The action of the university is clearly and unambiguously punishment, coercive and discriminatory toward someone who holds a view different from its own. What the univrsity has done is plain and simple persecution — which was supposed to have ended with the creation of the United States of America!
Patrick Mares If you review the court cases brought because of such firings you will find the majority have been decided in favor of the employee who was fired.
Wes: You mean like a Christian club being forced to ave officers/leaders who are not Christian? I see the argument only works when it benifits you.
They were forced to allow non-Christians to run for those positions, I highly doubt any of them were elected.
Like I said, forced. To resiprocate in this argument, the school should be 'forced' to tolerate Dr. McCaskill. And WOW! All of this hate from so-called 'liberals' against a black, disabled woman. Oh, I forgot, she is a conservative Christian.
They were not forced to put anyone in a position of authority in the club. They were instructed they could not discriminate and prevent people from running for office in the club. No one was forced to vote for them. So it was a ridiculous issue all around, but the university could not condone discrimination based on religious grounds.
Patrick: Huh? Help me follow this; your quote "but the university could not condone discrimination based on religious grounds" confuses me. Was this in just in favor of the 'forced' religious club officers? You speak as if you feel Dr. McCaskill should be pilloried in the town square, but then say this. Is this not what the university in question has done to her; Discriminated against her based on religious grounds. She did, after all, 'do this' on her own time at her church.
Patrick: Huh? Help me follow this; your quote "but the university could not condone discrimination based on religious grounds" confuses me. Was this in just in favor of the 'forced' religious club officers? You speak as if you feel Dr. McCaskill should be pilloried in the town square, but then say this. Is this not what the university in question has done to her; Discriminated against her based on religious grounds. She did, after all, 'do this' on her own time at her church.
Patrick: Huh? Help me follow this; your quote "but the university could not condone discrimination based on religious grounds" confuses me. Was this in just in favor of the 'forced' religious club officers? You speak as if you feel Dr. McCaskill should be pilloried in the town square, but then say this. Is this not what the university in question has done to her; Discriminated against her based on religious grounds. She did, after all, 'do this' on her own time at her church.
Patrick: Huh? Help me follow this; your quote "but the university could not condone discrimination based on religious grounds" confuses me. Was this in just in favor of the 'forced' religious club officers? You speak as if you feel Dr. McCaskill should be pilloried in the town square, but then say this. Is this not what the university in question has done to her; Discriminated against her based on religious grounds. She did, after all, 'do this' on her own time at her church.
It's about time the democrats found a way to have not only a single payer health system but a single party system of government. Have a good day COMRADE.
What we need is a new D.A.R.E. program, which is Democratic Awareness Resistance Education!!
Mr Hill, I cannot agree with you more, this goes well beyond the bounds of civil society. No person should face the loss of their employment for exercising their constitutional freedoms, especially POLITICAL freedoms. Gallaudet, as a University facing the daily daunting challenge of helping its students seek respected and rightful place in the hearing world while facing the realities of daunting disabilities, SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER.
Shame, shame, shame Gallaudet.
This post from a dedicated follower of Jesus AND a believer in marriage equality (No H8 in 2012). (I may completely 100% DISAGREE with Dr. McCaskill's personal viewpoint on this topic, but you had darn well better believe that I will stand behind her ABSOLUTE right to have that viewpoint and to express that viewpoint public WITHOUT FEAR OF REPRISAL.)
Billy Massey Even private employers cannot discriminate against an employee based on their political, or especially their religious, ideas. This has been affirmed over and over by the courts, even the Supreme Court has weighed in on the matter. While SOME speech is not protected in private enterprise, political and religious speech are especially protected against discrimination.
Are you pro-gay marriage? (It's a what-if, don't answer) You're fired.
That's clearly biased. The reverse, therefore, is just as biased.
Billy Massey Even private employers cannot discriminate against an employee based on their political, or especially their religious, ideas. This has been affirmed over and over by the courts, even the Supreme Court has weighed in on the matter. While SOME speech is not protected in private enterprise, political and religious speech are especially protected against discrimination.
Are you pro-gay marriage? (It's a what-if, don't answer) You're fired.
That's clearly biased. The reverse, therefore, is just as biased.
Frank why do you keep saying they were forced to have religious club officers? You know that is not true. They were forced to ALLOW them to run in the elections for office and that was it. They were NOT forced to have them take office with out being voted in. I speak as if Dr. McCaskill should be pilloried? How? By supporting her right and stating the university should not be trying to fire her?
Frank why do you keep saying they were forced to have religious club officers? You know that is not true. They were forced to ALLOW them to run in the elections for office and that was it. They were NOT forced to have them take office with out being voted in. I speak as if Dr. McCaskill should be pilloried? How? By supporting her right and stating the university should not be trying to fire her?
Is this still the United States of America? Is there no freedom of conscience or freedom of speech? Have we become a totalitarian country? Who are these superiors who presume to think for everyone else?
She was free to say what she said, but ALL speech has benefits and consequences. Freedom of speech does not grant you the right to say anything you want without consequences. It only means the Govt. cannot control what you say.
Patrick Mares – Imposing consequences is controling free speech. If she was being fired for opposing gay marriage everyone would be singing a different tune.
The private sector is allowed to fire people who they feel do not represent their company. Are you stating that Chik fil-a could not fire an employee who by intent or not went public with their opinion that they support gay marriage? Many people have been fired for voicing their opinions on social media sites and then their company found out. As long as the govt. is not involved no Constitutional right has been violated.
Patrick, she didn't even say anything publicly. She signed a petition to put it to a vote for the public majority to decide. That's wrong? And an offense worthy of being fired over?
Chik fila does indead employ people that support gay marriage, they emphaticaly stated that they do. It is just the owner that has that view, your media sources are biasing your thinking to stereotype all of Chic fil a. In regards to private companies allowed to fire people, that is not true either. Watch what happens if someone is fired for coming out in favor of homosexuality. That company would be toasted. Those who demand tolerance are typically the most intolerant of all.
Patrick, you are wrong again. The private sector is NOT allowed to "fire people who they feel do not represent their company" if what they do is on their own time. Please educate yourself so you do not look ignorant and biased.
I was just using them as an example I was not implying they would actually fire anyone. I also think this University is wrong, but not being a legal expert I cannot say they broke the law. I am sure they have lawyers and are well aware of what their rights as employers are.
Grace Chavez Sure Grace it has never happened. LOL!
Patrick, I guess I should agree that there are some cases that would not fit my statement, but I think there is a very fine line. Also, we don't know if those cases you brought to my attention were finally litigated, or what the final court decision ended up being. So, even if an employer does the firing, that decision could either be legal or illegal, depending on how the court interprets all the data given.
Agreed!
People have been fired for degrading their own company online not for expressing their viewpoint on political issues such as this.
People have been fired for degrading their own company online not for expressing their viewpoint on political issues such as this.
And, I think that the financial supporters of Gallaudet University ought to exercise their God-given right to withhold money from this school until the university president T. Alan Hurwitz resigns or is fired for being an absolute idiot.
And, I think that the financial supporters of Gallaudet University ought to exercise their God-given right to withhold money from this school until the university president T. Alan Hurwitz resigns or is fired for being an absolute idiot.
And, I think that the financial supporters of Gallaudet University ought to exercise their God-given right to withhold money from this school until the university president T. Alan Hurwitz resigns or is fired for being an absolute idiot.
Patrick Mares would you therefore think it is perfectly OK for a company to fire someone who SUPPORTS gay marrage? Should the Unions be allowed to destroy the career of any employee that does not support the political canidate of its choice? It is NOT legal to fire someone for excersising their rights as American citizens. If this was a conservative university firing a liberal who simply signed a petition off campus, you would be on here screaming bloody murder. Typical liberal hypocracy.
FYI yes, I would oppose Chick-fil-a firing an employee that supported gay marrage (which has never happened). Any true American would be appalled at this universities actions, and I am proud to see many gay-rights supporters standing up for her.
It all depends on that persons job. I AGAIN do NOT support this universities actions. The legality of the issue will be resolved in the courts.
Jeff Coil Oh and do not presume to know how I would respond if this was a liberal being fired for a liberal issue.
Patrick you obviously have never heard of wrongful termination. Makes you wonder what our youth are being taught about their work rights.
Patrick Mares Under the law, Patrick, the consequences of free speech cannot be termination from your position of employment, unless that speech is directly harmful to the employer or its interests. For example, as an employee, she was not free to say publicly that the university president got high and drank every weekend, and came to work stoned and drunk. She could have been fired over that, because it defames the man and the university. However, political speech, and religious speech – under the law – gets even more protection than other types of speech. The Supreme Court has reiterated this many times. A private employer, with some exceptions, CANNOT fire you for your religious beliefs as long as practicing your belief does not affect your work. The primary exception to the rule is for employers who are themselves religious instituions. A synagogue, for example, cannot be forced to hire a Catholic as an employee, and vise versa.
Certainly have heard of wrongful termination. I would not say I am in position or have enough facts to say this case is wrongful termination in the eyes of the law, but I can say the university is wrong either way and I have. Gotta love how I agree with you, but you still attack me.
The message is keep your thoughts to yourself. If you say them out loud or let others know where you stand, we will punish you. That is not exactly what one would call freedom!
You have never had the freedom to voice your opinion without consequences in the private sector. Depending on the issue and state and federal laws I can fire you for any reason I see fit. The Constitution does not protect you from employer reprisal when it comes to speech.
You have never had the freedom to voice your opinion without consequences in the private sector. Depending on the issue and state and federal laws I can fire you for any reason I see fit. The Constitution does not protect you from employer reprisal when it comes to speech.
What is the plus sign on your chest for?
Never mind, I cleaned my glasses,its not a plus.
Patrick, you are so misled about free speech. And just because there are consequences does not mean those consequences are legal or constitutional. Heck, courts have found that employees can be strippers in their own time even if the employer doesn't think it's ok.
Patrick Mares Then we need to start firing faqs who advocate for pervert marriage for homoNazis.
Patrick Mares Then we need to start firing faqs who advocate for pervert marriage for homoNazis.
^LOL THIS DUDE
^LOL THIS DUDE
Grace Chavez patrick is not capable of seeing anything without filtering it through the prism of his sexual perversions.
in obamas world it is
Patrick Mares Actually, federal law does protect some speech in the private sector workplace. You cannot fire me, for instance, because I'm a Baptist and you don't like Baptists. You cannot even fire me if I tell people at work I'm a Baptist (as long as it does not DIRECTLY interfere with my duties, such as if I'm not doing my work). Some parts of the First Amendment's proscriptions against limiting free speech do filter to the private employer/employee relationship. This has been upheld by the courts many times.
Patrick Mares Actually, federal law does protect some speech in the private sector workplace. You cannot fire me, for instance, because I'm a Baptist and you don't like Baptists. You cannot even fire me if I tell people at work I'm a Baptist (as long as it does not DIRECTLY interfere with my duties, such as if I'm not doing my work). Some parts of the First Amendment's proscriptions against limiting free speech do filter to the private employer/employee relationship. This has been upheld by the courts many times.
If you are preaching on the clock I can fire you. Being a Baptist is not speech.
If you are preaching on the clock I can fire you. Being a Baptist is not speech.
What the hell? Then again it doesn't surprise me about the Left being determined to leave no room for opposing viewpoint and ideologies, when its apparent that part of their agenda for complete and total control involves forcing people to conform to leftist thinking, or be punished dearly. Its the funniest thing that here in America, freedoms are being hampered when they shouldn't be. What's next, the Thought Police? A second revolution is just around the corner.
Can you spell hypocrite? What is pushing legislation based on your religious beliefs doing? It is not leaving any room for opposing viewpoints and forcing people to conform to right wing religious thinking. You are so up in arms about freedoms do you support or condemn DOMA?
Patrick Mares Religious beliefs are personal beliefs, and that is what some people base their opinions off. Saying keep your religion out of your vote is like me telling you to keep your lust for juicy anal sex out of your decision to vote. I'm sick and tired of you people on left left condemning any vote that might be in the slightest bit based off ones religious beliefs, yet it's OK for you liberals to base your vote on the fact you are lazy hippies who would rather hug trees, smoke pot and live off the government instead of go out and get a real job and work for a living. How's that Obama phone I paid for working out for you?
Patrick Mares
I support it – it was the law of the land til odufus broke his presidential oath and declared it unconstitutional unilaterally, violating the law, the courts and the government, not to mention Bubba. How is supporting the law of the land a crime, or an act that should result in firing? YOur logic is impaired!
Patrick Mares
I support it – it was the law of the land til odufus broke his presidential oath and declared it unconstitutional unilaterally, violating the law, the courts and the government, not to mention Bubba. How is supporting the law of the land a crime, or an act that should result in firing? YOur logic is impaired!
DOMA is still law so I do not know where you are getting your info. His admin is not defending it in court, but that is not the first time a Presidential admin has done that.
Paul Robinson Oh and since when is firing some one you do not agree with a crime?
Patrick, it is a crime because laws and courts have determined that employees have every right to do what they want on their own time.
No they have not. See an above post of mine that cites at least three situations where people were fired for actions on their own time. If I get arrested on my own time I will be fired. If I talk about my company on my own time I may get fired. If I do anything that my employer feels will effect my job I may be fired.
No they have not. See an above post of mine that cites at least three situations where people were fired for actions on their own time. If I get arrested on my own time I will be fired. If I talk about my company on my own time I may get fired. If I do anything that my employer feels will effect my job I may be fired.
No they have not. See an above post of mine that cites at least three situations where people were fired for actions on their own time. If I get arrested on my own time I will be fired. If I talk about my company on my own time I may get fired. If I do anything that my employer feels will effect my job I may be fired.
Patrick, what kind of dismal job do you have that you would get fired for being arrested for DUI on your own time, for example?
Patrick, what kind of dismal job do you have that you would get fired for being arrested for DUI on your own time, for example?
You have to have a dismal job to get fired for DUI? LOL! I am sorry, but my job requires an through back ground check and any such offense would not allow my employer to hire me and I would get fired if convicted and would face a battle to not be even if I won the case.
Patrick, it's a dismal job if your employer can fire you for being arrested on your own time, especially if it doesn't affect your work performance and doesn't cause excessive work absence.
Every company I have ever worked for states very clearly in their contract/waiver/whatever that a DUI is a terminable offense and so are multiple other infractions. Where do YOU work that this isn't the case?
Billy, I have worked for a state government and for a telephone company, and neither have tried that kind of control on my personal life. Now, if the DUI were in the State or the company vehicle or on State or company time, that is a different story.
I've never been particularly impressed with the people I've met in those… industries and have the distinct feeling that if they fired everyone with a DUI they'd suddenly be out half their work force.
Oh I see what's going on. Patrick Mares supports the suppression of free thinking, but not okay putting legislative questions up for a vote. That and he's somehow a Constitutional law scholar without, you know, knowing anything about Constitutional law.
Sadly for you Patrick, you are indeed wrong. Freedom of association (an inferred right from the First Amendment) is not limited to government only. Potential wrongful termination is what this Dr. has.
Oh I see what's going on. Patrick Mares supports the suppression of free thinking, but not okay putting legislative questions up for a vote. That and he's somehow a Constitutional law scholar without, you know, knowing anything about Constitutional law.
Sadly for you Patrick, you are indeed wrong. Freedom of association (an inferred right from the First Amendment) is not limited to government only. Potential wrongful termination is what this Dr. has.
I love your posts Joel Rivera. You are a true patriot!
I love your posts Joel Rivera. You are a true patriot!
the people as always decide these things through their elected rep
the people as always decide these things through their elected rep
the people as always decide these things through their elected rep
Joel I have stated multiple times I do not support this university and find it ridiculous they are trying to fire this women. The issue as to the legality of the move will be up to the courts.
Yes, but not being enforced by POTUS!!
Yes, but not being enforced by POTUS!!
marriage is defined in the Bible as one man and one woman.. it was defined by GOD. The government took over the business of marriage when they discovered there was money in it. How many lawyers are in congress? How many lawyers conduct divorces each year. The government also gives you tax breaks if you are married and they have bound the hands of insurance companies so they can't insure same sex couples. Get the government out of the business of insuring people, stop the government from taxing people at different rates just because of their marital status and get the government out of the business of marriage (Leave the business of marriage to the church where it belongs) and we wouldn't have this problem. Let's try separating the state from the church.. k?
Patrick Mares Technically, under the law, President Obama could be impeached for refusing to defend DOMA in court. Ditto for immigration laws the administration has stated openly will not be enforced. The President swore an oath when he took the office to uphold the laws of the United States. He does NOT get to decide which laws he will uphold and which ones he'll ignore.
The first time this goes to court and the Justice Department does not defend the law to the lawyers' best efforts, the following should happen immediately: Any justice lawyers involved in the case should be disbarred. Their superiors, including the AG should be disbarred. Congress should subpeona the AG and should also appoint a special prosecutor to determine who, including possibly the AG, should go to prison since several federal crimes have now been committed by members of the Justice Department. Finally, since the POTUS has openly involved himself, the special prosecutor should determine if the President, or his appointees, had any involvement in the decision not to uphold the law, as is required. If it is found that the President supported this decision, he should be impeached immediately and removed from office.
Marriage existed before the Bible I am sorry but your God does not get to define it for everyone. If YOU wish to follow that definition that is YOUR right.
Prince Ly Squisher Technically you may be right, but it will not happen because he is not the first President to do such a thing. They have reviewed the law and cannot find a way to defend it Constitutionally. What is your legal argument to supports the Constitutionality of DOMA?
I foresee a very cush retirement for this lady via a very lucrative civil rights lawsuit.
When will the hetero phobia stop!
Is California really supposed to fall into the sea one day?
lol, are you for real?
No.
1. Only a small slice of California, west of the San Andreas fault is heading anywhere.
2. It's not headed out to sea, it's headed aprox NNE. Some day in the very distant futre, San Diego, San Fransisco and Los Ageles will be in the state of Alaska.
No, I was referring to "Hetero-phobia". Sounds like Tom Clements has a victim-complex. Or maybe some latent guilt.
Besides everyone knows Cali is going to plunge. That's just science.
When will the hetero phobia stop? …… well maybe when they start pulling their heads out of their buns and get out of other peoples business and bedrooms. So many heterosexuals seem to a contstant obsession about other peoples genitals its ridiculous.
Brandt, You are a prime example of exaggeration and shock talk. I know I certainly don't care about homosexual genitals. And, "constant obsession"? Come, on . . . get more down to earth!
okay…So they will merge with Alaska? Form one big state? ha
okay…So they will merge with Alaska? Form one big state? ha
Thank you, I was worried about that, But whose laws will they follow when that happens?
Thank you, I was worried about that, But whose laws will they follow when that happens?
Since you'd be able to see Russia from your back yard…
Since you'd be able to see Russia from your back yard…
Since you'd be able to see Russia from your back yard…
Since you'd be able to see Russia from your back yard…
Since you'd be able to see Russia from your back yard…
Since you'd be able to see Russia from your back yard…
I believe that an employee was fired for an opinion about traditional marriage. Where is the aclu? Since when can we fire people or run companies off our campuses (north carolina) for having an opinion. Nobody cares about bedrooms just the sanctity of marriage (and yes I have a complex about that sanctity!)
I am going to fire or have everyone fired who disagrees with my opinions/politics and use Gallaudet University and the University of North Carolina as my precedented defense.
Yup, it is and when it does, how about the space shuttle? Moving it the way they did was just another asinine decision. Why does it need to be in California? California is on it's way out. They will be broke in less than 5 years with Governor Moonbeam in charge. What a bunch of doofuses.
Let's consider the horrors faced by African Americans. Double unemployment than national average, 30% higher than Latinos. 43% of single moms below poverty level. 1 in 3 men will see prison. 65% children with no present father. 53% of ALL bankruptcies African American last year. Abortion rate 5 times higher than anyone else. South Chicago higher murder rate than heros lost in Afganistan war this year. African American families with a father present reduces every stat above to national averages. Traditional families matter for reasons other than genitals!!!
Yes. Everyone would be better off if they had two parents.
Why does it matter if they're of different genders. If anything, allowing gays the same rights as male/female couples would help allieviate some of those issues via adoption.
Gay marriage is not responsible for the lack of traditional families. Gay people are not out getting female wives these days.
Gay marriage is not responsible for lack of traditional families, however people should not be fired or kicked off campus because they believe in its value to society. The African American community thrives in tradtional families and struggles otherwise. I'm sure this is socially true across all races and societies. I certainly would not fire you, kick you off my campus, or even defriend you because of your views. I appreciate the honest discussion with you and welcome it.
You all seem to be missing the point that she is the CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER. That's like if the Dean of Admissions came out and made a public statement that "COLLEGE IS A SCAM" It would be a fucking fiasco. She shouldn't have signed a petition like that given her what her career entails (or at all, to be honest).
This is not politically motivated. It's business sense.
You are missing the point Mike. Having a diverse point of view does not mean you have to be anti-traditional marriage. You are assuming that anyone against gay marriage is automatically anti-gay! I can't speak for anyone else but I support civil unions.
If you support civil unions they why just let them get married? It's getting boiled down to semantics now. Having CU's vs. Marriage is still segregation; they are two different institutions, and seperate but equal is rarely ever the case.
If you support civil unions they why just let them get married? It's getting boiled down to semantics now. Having CU's vs. Marriage is still segregation; they are two different institutions, and seperate but equal is rarely ever the case.
Because of the social stats regarding african americans above, that kids and family units thrive in the traditional nuclear family.
None of which is effected by gay marriage which you have already admitted. So if gay marriages do not effect traditional families then your logic is flawed.
Tom Clements The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ruled today that the Defense of Marriage Act, more specifically Section 3— the federal definition of marriage between one man and one woman—violates equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional. Today's ruling makes the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals the second federal court to hold DOMA unconstitutional. Today's decision hinges on Section 3 of DOMA, the part of the legislation which defines marriage.
I think this just about wraps things up.
Has the separation of church and state left the building?
Has the separation of church and state left the building?
Patrick Mares I detect bias in your comments, are you gay?
Patrick Mares I detect bias in your comments, are you gay?
No I am not. Not that it matters. I am happily married and have two children. I just support the rights and equal treatment of all US Citizens.
What about the rights of individuals to serve a living God and stand on the moral judgments of His word the Bible without being persecuted for adhering to His word?
I certainly support their rights, but their rights do not over ride others. You can think gay marriage is a sin and the US govt. can recognize gay marriage. One does not equal the other. If you think being gay is a sin do not be gay. If you think gay marriage is a sin do not enter a gay marriage, but thinking these things are a sin does not mean you get to legislate that belief into law and if denied that does not mean your rights have been violated.
I certainly support their rights, but their rights do not over ride others. You can think gay marriage is a sin and the US govt. can recognize gay marriage. One does not equal the other. If you think being gay is a sin do not be gay. If you think gay marriage is a sin do not enter a gay marriage, but thinking these things are a sin does not mean you get to legislate that belief into law and if denied that does not mean your rights have been violated.
I certainly support their rights, but their rights do not over ride others. You can think gay marriage is a sin and the US govt. can recognize gay marriage. One does not equal the other. If you think being gay is a sin do not be gay. If you think gay marriage is a sin do not enter a gay marriage, but thinking these things are a sin does not mean you get to legislate that belief into law and if denied that does not mean your rights have been violated.
Oh yeah, remind what Jesus said about the gays again?
I believe every single person has a right to life their lifes the way they want within the boundries of the law, people have a right to stand up for what they believe in and if enough people believe in a particular issue, they make it law, the problem is when gay rights folks dont get what they want, they cast everyone as being wrong and try to ruin them any way they can or if someone stands up for what they believe in they try and bring them down in ruin just the same. this article is a perfect case in point!
I believe every single person has a right to life their lifes the way they want within the boundries of the law, people have a right to stand up for what they believe in and if enough people believe in a particular issue, they make it law, the problem is when gay rights folks dont get what they want, they cast everyone as being wrong and try to ruin them any way they can or if someone stands up for what they believe in they try and bring them down in ruin just the same. this article is a perfect case in point!
Patrick Mares you have a thing or two to learn about constitutional law, first lesson: Those powers not specifically granted to the federal government will be granted to the states. Second lesson: Federal Government doesn't grant marriage and nor does the constitution grant the federal government the power to marry. The states granmt marriages, so therefore this is a states rights issue. Just because people choose to live a certain lifestyle means that their basic civil rights are being violated, it just means they are living outside of social norms in a deviant class. And as sick as this next part sounds if people were for true marriage equality then you would have to support incest, bygamy, polygamy and all other forms of deviant relationships that wished to enter in to marriage…because equality means equal across the board. Question is would you support that?
Ron there an no religious people here doing the same thing? If you do not agree with their view on homosexuality you are wrong and they try to ruin you. Both sides have people like this do not act like it is a one sided affair.
Brian Budlove Then why are the FEDS passing bills like DOMA? Obviously you must not support DOMA as the FEDS have no right enacting such a bill. I agree this issue should be left to the states not everyone agrees with that, but the FEDS are taking that power away. If left to the states other states and the FED need to recognize gay marriages that are performed in states that issue marriage licenses. You are also assuming that gay people are only choosing to be gay and from my personal experience I do not believe that to be the case. I personally could not choose to be attracted to another male and feel anyone who thinks being gay is a choice must be capable of choosing to be gay themselves and are very conflicted. That is just my opinion. There are actual legal arguments that can be made against incest, bygamy, and polygamy. Personally if all parties are adults and agree to the marriage contract I do not care how many wives or husbands a person has as long as ALL parties consent to the marriage.
You may indeed be right. It is the woman's right, however, to petition the government AND discuss her views in public, without the fear or reprisal. THAT is the beauty of freedom.
You may indeed be right. It is the woman's right, however, to petition the government AND discuss her views in public, without the fear or reprisal. THAT is the beauty of freedom.
Exactly. She CHOSE to put herself in that position. She made a DECISION to sign a petition that wouldn't reflect well on her career, and now she needs to deal with the consequences.
@Brian Budlove – There is no "Homosexual Agenda". They simply want to be treated the same way as all other Americans. They are not a deviant class, and the notion that you'd have to allow incest, polygamy and other things is a textbook strawman argument. No one is pushing for those things, and no one ever will due to the exact societal pressures you mentioned.
Homosexuality is not a sin. If you would like to believe it is, that's your problem, but don't project your problems onto others, please. That's not what America is about.
Ron Carmichael Allowing gay people to marry does nothing to inhibit the "rights of individuals to serve a living God." If you want to serve a living God, have a good ol' time. And if you feel that serving God means finding gay marriage disgusting, then don't marry a guy!!!! Problem solved.
Lost in all this brou-ha-ha is the fact that the local paper PUBLISHED THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES of everyone who signed the petition… I believe that's completely illegal, in addition to being a straight-up intimidation tactic. The folks who apply that particular intimidation tactic are all on the Left, and usually go on to put out "bounties" on the people whose names and addresses they've published. Once again, we see the "inclusiveness, open-mindedness, and tolerance" of the goose-stepping Fascists who call themselves "progressives"…
Not illegal at all. The petition was a public document being submitted to get an issue on the ballot. I am sorry but BOTH sides of the political aisles have their fair share of intolerant people. That is why I am an independent.
Publishing their ADDRESSES makes it illegal, numbnuts.
How so? The phone company publishes addresses? Since when is it illegal to publish a person address? Oh that is right NEVER!!
When the intention of such publishing is to intimidate, punish or encourage others to cause harm. What do you suppose would be said if the situation were reversed and the names of people who are gay or support gay marriage were printed in the newspaper? Isn't it the very same group of people who say that to "come out" is the sole choice of the person and nobody else's business? If the gays have a right to privacy then so do heterosexuals. Indeed this is about political power, and using even obnoxious means to achieve it. Nothing less.
Patrick, there's a big difference–intent. The phone book does not indicate political preferences, yet that published list mentioned above was obviously not to give warm fuzzy feelings
Patrick, there's a big difference–intent. The phone book does not indicate political preferences, yet that published list mentioned above was obviously not to give warm fuzzy feelings
Patrick, there's a big difference–intent. The phone book does not indicate political preferences, yet that published list mentioned above was obviously not to give warm fuzzy feelings
Patrick Mares: Patrick, what these kind folks are telling you and what you seem to be fighting, is that whether legal or not….it's dead wrong. You should not pay a price for having an opinion and backing it up with a vote in this country if you are within the law and not being of guilty mind. Your thinking in regards to legality is exactly what causes this type of action and this action is clearly dangerous. I too am an independant, but I see your thoughts here as leaning way left but not wanting to admit such. What exactly is your agenda here and why do you hide behind words in your argument? Are you afraid of the same type of repercussion?
The intent was to make public a public petition. If the article included a bounty you are right it would be illegal, but it didn't
James Jones I have already stated many times I agree that it is wrong in my opinion, but thinking something is wrong does not make it illegal.
So once again I will this please read carefully!!
I also think this University is wrong, but not being a legal expert I cannot say they broke the law. I am sure they have lawyers and are well aware of what their rights as employers are.
The phone companies can publish your information unless you choose to opt out. And to fire someone in most states there has to be just cause or it opens the employer up to litigation. Signing a petetion is not just cause that is gross abuse of power, people have to right to voice an opinion outside of work as long as it is not detrimental to the employer or other employees. There have been cases where employees have been fired and some have gone to litigation or arbitration to determine if the just cause standard has been met, and clearly in this case unless it specifically states in her contract this type of speech is not permitted.
The opt out is a courtesy. It is not illegal to publish a persons address and phone number. Unless you do so in a threatening manner and that may even vary according to state law. I agree unless some other factor is involved this person should not of been dismissed, but the legality of their actions will be determined in court I assume. I doubt this was a knee jerk reaction and some research was done to make sure the university was covered in case this went to court. Most employers are careful about such things. If not then they deserve whatever the courts impose on them.
actually Patrick it is the law…perhaps you are too young to remember when you couldn't opt out and some nice congressman forced the issue to protect peoples privacy. Really the quality education we have today
Yes it is a top priority to ensure you are aware of the laws governing land line phone companies in a day and age when they are becoming obsolete. Honest mistake on my part and if true I have no problem admitting I was wrong.
Yes it is a top priority to ensure you are aware of the laws governing land line phone companies in a day and age when they are becoming obsolete. Honest mistake on my part and if true I have no problem admitting I was wrong.
Yes it is a top priority to ensure you are aware of the laws governing land line phone companies in a day and age when they are becoming obsolete. Honest mistake on my part and if true I have no problem admitting I was wrong.
This is Liberal Diversity at its finest! Tow the Liberal line or you're OUT!
Does anyone know the Washington Blades Editor..it is time to post thier info on face book including any family members and phone no's.
here is the editor's email…lbrown@washblade.com.
also thier phone no. and Her ext.. 202) 747-2077 8075..her name is.
Lynne Brown..
This university is apparently telling their staff that they are not allowed to have any life outside the University. You're not allowed to sign a petition at your church. I'm surprised they even allow her to go to church.
It reminds me of Nazi Germany all over again. Neighbors snitching on neighbors. Good grief. Thought police next? Is the word "tolerance" only for Conservatives to apply? Where is Liberal tolerance?
A university for the deaf's chief DIVERSITY officer is temporarily suspended from her job for, ostensibly, being against diversity, and THAT reminds you of Nazi Germany????? Ummm, okay. For what it's worth, your post reminds me of this: Melodramatic drama queen!
She did not sign the petition as a representative of the university, but as a private citizen who has the right to express her personal desire to have the voters decide. She isn't paid to represent the university 24/7 and in her thought life, is she? Name calling is so mature.
This is rich – a "diversity" officer getting the treatment from the very hypocrites she apparently has supported since she agreed to become a "diversity" officer. And I am sure she was pretty cozy with them up until the moment she decided to think and act for herself and incur the wrath of the self anointed guardians of the politically correct. I have no sympathy for her as she clearly is part of the legalized quota and discrimination system punishing Caucasians for being born Caucasian. The liberal politically correct do not believe in the Constitution as it was written. And they especially loathe the Declaration of Independence. Remember Landru from Star Trek? Are you of the body?
"Diversity Officer"????? Give me a f*'ng break.
Ahhh, the tolerant left. The same people who are aghast that Steve Wynn and the Koch brothers are telling their employees to vote against Obama have no problem with another employer silencing and employee. Tolerance only if you vote liberal.
you got it
this is ridiculous people. These days anyone taking either side in a controversial issue is subjected to abuse, ridicule, threats, and intimidation. what happened to free speech?
This is just another example of the LIBERAL HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA trying to indoctrinate our children with tolerance! Gay people are an abomination in the eyes of nature! I am a man of God. And that's why I defy every single teaching of Jesus Christ. Loving thy neighbor is for hippie liberals! Romney/Ryan '12!
This is hilarious. I have no problem with gay marriage, but what I do have a problem with is universities who hate all diversity of opinion. They claim to be "diverse" but only as long as all their diverse people have exactly the same thoughts on everything. The idea of true diversity, diversity of viewpoint, is like garlic to a vampire–it totally freaks them out. That's why modern day universities are the most intolerant, non-diverse, places in the country.
These type of universities are like training grounds for Bolsheviks. Interestingly, this phenomenon has its roots in revolutionary America. As the rebels (the intolerant liberals of the day) were fomenting rebellion and civil war and preaching "free speech", "liberty", and "freedom", the loyalists and independents (the conservatives of the day) were tarred and feathered, and proscribed for even daring to voice their own opinions and exercise the same right to free speech and liberty being promoted by the rebels. History sure does repeat itself and people seldom learn from it.
It is very interesting that this appears on Fox News, where they do not tolerate very well any opinions except those which are pretty far to the right wing of the political spectrum. Maybe they regard themselves as a counter balance to universities ?
It is very interesting that this appears on Fox News, where they do not tolerate very well any opinions except those which are pretty far to the right wing of the political spectrum. Maybe they regard themselves as a counter balance to universities ?
This is hilarious. I have no problem with gay marriage, but what I do have a problem with is universities who hate all diversity of opinion. They claim to be "diverse" but only as long as all their diverse people have exactly the same thoughts on everything. The idea of true diversity, diversity of viewpoint, is like garlic to a vampire–it totally freaks them out. That's why modern day universities are the most intolerant, non-diverse, places in the country.
This is no different than college speech codes which sought to punish people for expressing their thoughts out loud. France now is trying to replace mom and dad with parent 1 and parent 2. Welcome to Brave New World.
This is no different than college speech codes which sought to punish people for expressing their thoughts out loud. France now is trying to replace mom and dad with parent 1 and parent 2. Welcome to Brave New World.
Once again the liberals are all for freedom of religion and speech as long as it agrees with their beliefs. If it doesn't they think it's ok for them to use hate filled threats, unethical use of authority by the boss or political pressure, which if were used against them they'd s scream bloody murder about.
So much for "free speech". How long before the marxist-socialist Democrats start pressing for criminal sanctions against "incorrect thought"?
Or, just not hiring anyone who doesn't espouse the same beliefs as the officers of the organization? Don't look now, but it's happening more and more.
Interesting. A petition for a state referendum does not decide the issue. A state referendum merely asks voters to pick one side or the other. This person did not take a side. This person merely said the voters of the state should be able to make this decision. A good question should get people from both sides to sign the petition because then everyone can be part of the decision making. A petition for or against the death penalty or to raise taxes or to limit the number of beers sold to an individual at a football game does not decide the issue. The petition only asks if the question should be presented to the voters. As a rule I only sign petitions about legalizing marijuana. This "school" needs to take a class in basic civics and I mean basic civics.
Gay Taliban strikes again. Liberals typically come to your town wearing this mask of "live and let live". But once they take over it's "live as we live or we won't let you live".
I guess you did not read the whole story did you.
Even some supporters of same-sex marriage are calling on the university to reinstate McCaskill – including Gov. Martin O’Malley.
Marylanders for Marriage Equality campaign manager Josh Levin said she “should be reinstated immediately.”
She should be reinstated with a huge apology and a hug!
She should be reinstated with a huge apology and a hug!
Just as Gun Control isn't about Guns, it's about Control AND just as Socialized Medicine isn't about Medicine, it's about Socialism; so also Gay Marriage isn't about Marriage, it's about Gay.
That… just doesn't even make sense.
I understood what Robert said perfectly.
Ohh did I mention I am BI so dont go saying I am anti gay.
Then explain it.
Nothing hates like these filthy, disgusting homoNazi hate pigs.
You know, every time I go to respond I keep writing page long rants – so I'll keep it short. This sucks. It'd be different if she led a campus wide demonstration or went on a public platform and shouted it from the treetops, but all she did was include her signature among thousands to support something she believed in. Ok, that's it… It. Just. Plain. Sucks.
homophobia is nothing more than good taste and common decency!
"Homophobia is nothing more than good taste and common decency." Is that so, my friend? First of all, with that hair and those glasses, I'd steer clear of using the phrase "good taste" in future arguments (just a tip). More importantly, is it "decent" to call your fellow human beings "filthy, disgusting homoNazi pigs??" That's very tasteful and decent of you!!
But you did impress me. You managed to be a hypocrite and prove your own point wrong in one poorly worded sentence. That takes talent!
Matt Chiocca I got news for you buttboy. We ain't friends. I don't befriend filthy, disgusting, homoNazi hate pigs like you. In fact, I seriously doubt that pathetic little worm like you has any friends. Now go hump someone elses leg for awhile, muttface.
Once again we see how the intolerance shown to the religious community by the left wing who talk the talk but have never been known to walk the walk.
Once again we see how the intolerance shown to the religious community by the left wing who talk the talk but have never been known to walk the walk.
Here is more proof of the hypocrisy of the claim that Republicans want to control your body. The truth is liberals want to control your mind first and then your whole body with regards to what you drink, smoke and eat.
If they take federal funds, cut the off.
The real issue is the following… The right for the state to vote on whether to they will to allow or not allow gay marriage. One could certainly petition for the state to vote on gay marriage while at the same time voting to uphold gay marriage. Simply signing a petition asking for the state to vote on the issue of gay marriage does not say how that person will vote. This is precisely why voting is private. This is absolutely ridiculous is so many ways.
Lib's and censorship at it BEST!
life without libs.. Priceless!
What I didn't find mentioned in this article is Dr. McCaskill's reason for signing the petition for the referendum. Granted she is not required to disclose her reason(s). For all we know her reason may have been based on a belief that the people should vote on the issue rather than leave it up to a few people at the state level. Regardless of her reason(s) for signing it was her right and is not grounds for suspension.
I think I can agree with you on that Jarrad. Losing her job over this does seem draconian. However, based on the article, the church she attends should lose their tax exempt status.
So, let me see if understand you correctly, churches that sign petitions to support traditional marriages ought to lost their tax exempt status but black churches that openly advocate and support NObama for president ought to be able to keep their tax exempt status? Obama’s people are openly campaigning inside black churches in violation of federal tax laws and this is okay? Clear this one up for me, will you, Murray?
If that is the case Murray then every church that participated in activities that supported the civil rights movement should have lost their tax exempt status.
I'm not sure how a church advocating repealing a law passed in their own state is a dead even game with church activity supporting equal rights, but if thats how you feel, sure, they should have.
I'm just saying that churches have a long history of not ignoring issues that shape the communities around them, especially issues directly affected by their biblical beliefs. The results of the civil rights movement may have very well taken longer had support not been gathered in the churches. Unless this is one of those little cult churches that directly runs the lives of its members I doubt anyone was forced or felt forced to sign the petition. The freedom to support or not support social issues is a choice most church members acknowledge having. I don't see anything wrong here.
If I were a student there I would transfer immediately. If I were an employee, I would resign. Well actually I'd be gone anyway because I would have signed the petition. Liberals should never hold a position of power at any level.
It matters not to the liberals what your position on traditional marriage might be, their entire strategy is about silencing opposition to a position. Whether you are for or against traditional marriage, the gay community and their allies are not up for a debate on the merits of their arguments. They want to stifle debate and shut up everyone who doesn't agree with their position. They will throw out words like Nazi, hate-monger, bigot, etc., and use politically correct hate speech laws or, in this case, threatening Dr. McCaskill’s position at the university, to silence anyone with a different point of view. Is this an American value we aspire to nowadays?
Gallaudet University is supposed to be an equal opportunity employer and educational institution and does not discriminate on the basis of race, hearing status, disability, RELIGION, color, national origin, age, sex, covered veterans status, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, family responsibilities, matriculation, political affiliation, source of income, place of business or residence, pregnancy, childbirth, or any other unlawful basis. Even more, the university credo reads, “Therefore we will practice academic and personal integrity and work to create a positive and welcoming environment that is open to the free exchange of ideas among members of our community.” Every idea is tolerable except for ones that the liberal university administration holds as universal truth.
Do we create a positive and welcoming environment by stifling debate and dissenting opinions? Do we encourage the free exchange of ideas by punishing those who actually express ideas that may not conform to those in authority? Each person is entitled to their own beliefs and opinions. If you don't like what they believe and think, don't hang out with them and if they own a business, don't buy their stuff and if a university does something as asinine as relieving an employee for a choice she made unrelated to her job in her church that conforms with her religious beliefs, perhaps the good folks who support Dr. McCaskill ought to refrain from contributing the financial resources needed for Gallaudet University to stay in business. Good old fashioned capitalism is still the best answer against the tyranny of the statists!
"… immediately notified authorities."? Who might that be? The PC Police? The Gay Squad? The Correct-Thought Shrinks?
I feel like Charlie Brown – "Isn't there anyone who knows what the First Amendment is all about?" Where's Linus when we need him?
So if she had supported same sex marriage would the same actions had been taken against her? If not then it is pure and simple. To use the words of those in favor of same sex marriage – IT HIS A HATE CRIME.
This does not sound like all the facts are out. If they are, McCaskill will likely be reinstated with pay, and note to her personnel file that no wrong doing was found. On the other side, convincing objective evidence could present a conflict of interest that the university finds unacceptable, and in conflict with the values that were communicated as expectations for the position's responsibilities.
Peaceful, different-opinion-tolerating liberals are making threats against her family eh? I'm utterly shocked.. SHOCKED I tell you!