Posted on 10/30/2012 4:03:12 AM PDT by rhema
Proponents of same-sex marriage have attempted to reassure citizens that changing the meaning of marriage won't restrict the free-speech rights and religious freedom of those who oppose doing so.
However, that's not the message sent by Gallaudet University's suspension of a top administrator simply for signing a petition to put the contentious social question directly to the people of Maryland, one of four states where marriage is on the ballot in November.
The persecution of Angela McCaskill is just the latest telling indicator of the hostile climate surrounding those perceived as resisting efforts to redefine marriage.
McCaskill, Gallaudet's chief diversity officer, also is the first black, deaf woman to have received a doctorate from the federally chartered private university in Washington for the deaf and hard of hearing. The well-regarded McCaskill had worked at Gallaudet for more than 20 years as of 2011, when she took the job. Her formal title: deputy to the president and associate provost for diversity and inclusion.
McCaskill championed the opening of a resource center for gay and lesbian students at Gallaudet, and her work has been described as "LGBT-supportive." Gallaudet President T. Alan Hurwitz praised her last year as "a longtime devoted advocate of social justice and equity causes."
But McCaskill's status as a model "diversity and inclusion" officer changed when the university discovered she had joined 200,000 other Marylanders in
signing a petition to put to a referendum the state's new law allowing same-sex marriage. Her mere participation in the political process would come at the cost of her job and reputation. She would be excluded, not included, by the intolerant forces of "tolerance."
On too many college campuses, "diversity" long has excluded diversity of thought. McCaskill's case reveals the repercussions individuals increasingly face for even the slightest deviation from the politically correct norm.
Her signature on the petition signifies nothing more than her belief that this was an appropriate issue to put before voters -- that questions regarding the foundational institution of marriage are best reserved for the people of the state, not its legislature or courts.
In this sense she and her fellow Marylanders are no different from the citizens of Maine, Minnesota and Washington, who supported similar ballot actions this year.
"I thought it was important that as a citizen of the state of Maryland, I could exercise my right to participate in the political process," McCaskill explained through a sign-language interpreter at a recent news conference. She signed the petition after a church service in which her pastor addressed the ballot initiative, she said, but has not publicly taken a position regarding same-sex marriage.
What followed was a chain of events eerily reminiscent of the intimidation and coercion faced by many supporters of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
McCaskill's action as a private citizen was made public when the Washington Blade, "the newspaper of record for the LGBT community," posted online the names, addresses and signatures of all who signed the Maryland petition. A Gallaudet colleague saw McCaskill's name and reported her to the university, asking for disciplinary action.
Hurwitz, Gallaudet's president, rushed head-long to comply. McCaskill was first asked to apologize for having signed the petition. When she refused, she was notified by email that she would be put on administrative leave with pay until the university decided her fate.
"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," Hurwitz wrote in a statement posted to the university's website announcing her suspension.
The forces of tolerance, campus edition, felt the need to make an example of her. By its actions, Gallaudet has signaled that administrators, faculty and students with politically incorrect views are not welcome.
Most likely to feel the sting of the thought police are those whose views of marriage are informed by their faith commitments. Will bringing traditional ideas on marriage, family, life and faith to bear in the public square be treated as a "thought crime" on university campuses, in workplaces, by government officials?
The consequences of altering the definition of marriage are only dimly understood. Angela McCaskill's experience sheds light on that prospective future. In the words of an adage: Actions speak louder than words.
Way way back they WERE all racist railways. And they more likely would have lost money and or been attacked and burned out if they allowed the races to mix on their rail cars.
What if the business refused to rent the hall for inter racial marriages? Or they didn’t want to serve Catholics? No dogs or Irish allowed, as the signs used to read.
Way way back they WERE all racist railways. And they more likely would have lost money and or been attacked and burned out if they allowed the races to mix on their rail cars.
What if the business refused to rent the hall for inter racial marriages? Or they didn’t want to serve Catholics? No dogs or Irish allowed, as the signs used to read.
This is getting rather old with you only willing to ask questions, but not answer them.
My position is pretty clear by now, and if you can’t deduce the answer to identical questions from the previous iterations we’re going to be here all week.
But to address your first paragraph, because they were all racist at the time, no such law could ever have been passed or enforced so it’s pretty moot. You might want to look into Reconstruction and what a debacle it was.
I’ll just have to assume you’re OK with a Catholic having to host gay wedding receptions since you’re so focused on dodging an answer.
Then I would have to assume you were OK with no dogs or Irish, discrimination against Catholics and blacks having to ride in the baggage cars based on the same logic.
Do you think being treated as a second class citizen in access to public accomodations (hotels trains restaurants etc) is compatible with the guaranteed right to liberty?
Then I would have to assume you were OK with no dogs or Irish, discrimination against Catholics and blacks having to ride in the baggage cars based on the same logic.
Do you think being treated as a second class citizen in access to public accomodations (hotels trains restaurants etc) is compatible with the guaranteed right to liberty?
As it appears that you don’t care to make this a discussion but rather a series of accusations, I think I’ll take a pass. Either you don’t get my point, or are being obtuse. I’m not going to waste any further time trying to deduce which is more likely as it is not worth my time.
(See Thomas Sowell's discussion of the matter in a 2005 townhall.com column.)
For my own part in the legislation defining "public accomodations" I would draw a distinction between bed-and-breakfast accommodations in which the owners are renting parts of their own home (or its grounds for receptions) and those in which the area rented to the public is not part of their residence or its grounds, applying non-discrimination laws to the latter, and offering maximum latitude to the proprietors' freedom of association in the former. (Similarly for church owned halls -- if the hall is on the same property as the parish and used for religious purposes at all, freedom of association should apply, while if it's down the block and only used for rentals, it's a public accommodation.)
thanks! and I agree.
from Up From Slavery.....
“At one time Mr. (Frederick) Douglass was travelling in the state of Pennsylvania, and was forced, on account of his colour, to ride in the baggage-car, in spite of the fact that he had paid the same price for his passage that the other passengers had paid. When some of the white passengers went into the baggage-car to console Mr. Douglass, and one of them said to him: “I am sorry, Mr. Douglass, that you have been degraded in this manner,”
Mr. Douglass straightened himself up on the box upon which he was sitting and replied: “They cannot degrade Frederick Douglass. The soul that is in me no man can degrade. I am not the one that is being degraded on account of this treatment, but those who are inflicting it upon me.””
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.