Posted on 06/18/2006 1:06:12 PM PDT by RWR8189
The governor of Maryland fired one of his appointees to the Washington Metro transit authority board for stating a negative opinion of homosexuality on a cable TV talk show. The board member, Robert Smith, had said: "Homosexual behavior, in my view, is deviant. I'm a Roman Catholic." The governor, Robert Ehrlich, said Smith's remarks were "highly inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable."
"Insensitive" sounds like a fair comment. "Deviant" is a harsh word for expressing one's non-approval of homosexuality. The governor is on less firm ground with "inappropriate." Smith's comment certainly was apropos of the talk-show topic, gay marriage. He was explaining why he opposed it. "I'm Catholic" was shorthand for "I take my religion seriously and, like millions of other Christians, my views on marriage and my non-approval of homosexual sex are biblically based."
Ehrlich's third adjective, "unacceptable," is surely debatable. Did he mean that all members of Washington-area boards are required to approve of homosexuality, or just that they must suppress any non-positive views during TV discussions of same-sex marriage? The governor, a Republican who is up for re-election and is trying to move from the right to the center, clearly hasn't thought the issue through. He certainly seems to be banishing Smith for a thought crime. Perhaps he did so because he knew his Democratic opponents would come after him for tolerating "hate speech" if he let Smith stay on. Smith argues that his social opinions have "absolutely nothing to do with running trains and buses" and that they haven't affected his actions or decisions on the board.
Maybe it's not a good idea for government transit specialists to be pronouncing on divisive social issues. But they clearly have a right to do so. The Supreme Court says the First Amendment protects the right of public employees and appointees to speak freely on matters of public concern. So if Smith wants to sue over his firing, he seems likely to win. At any rate, liberals routinely argue that people should not be fired for behavior or speech unrelated to their jobs, such as professors who make loony remarks out of class, or schoolteachers who have children out of wedlock.
Why didn't Gov. Erhrlich simply say that he disagrees with Smith, but considers him an excellent public servant, which the Washington Post coverage of the story makes clear he is? The answer is that in Washington, and among the elites everywhere, approval of homosexuality is now mandatory. In the old days, employees were fired for being gay. Now they are far more likely to get fired for failing to approve homosexuality or for some remark that the gay lobby resents.
In colleges and schools, regulations on "hate speech" now protect gays from criticism as well as meaningful debate. Andrew Sullivan, the prominent blogger and a gay man, says he is troubled by attempts "to prevent or even criminalize the expression of hostility to homosexuality, or gay rights, or indeed any another form of gay speech." Criminalizing such criticism, and even biblical citations against homosexuality, are no longer unusual in Europe and Canada.
Sullivan cites the case of Lynette Burrows, a British writer on children's rights, who drew an inquiry from Scotland Yard for saying on a radio talk show that she did not believe male homosexuals should be allowed to adopt boys. "It's a risk," she said. "Would you give a small girl to two (heterosexual) men?" She said it was "sinister" to have a police investigation of a comment that hurt the feelings of gays. Also in Britain, Anglican Bishop Peter Forster drew a police investigation after telling a newspaper, "Some people who are primarily homosexual can reorientate themselves." In Canada, criticism of homosexuality is essentially illegal. An ad in a Saskatchewan newspaper listing biblical citations against homosexuality was ruled a human-rights offense. The man who placed the ad was directed to pay $1,500 each to three gay men who were offended by the text.
In the United States, though speech control usually runs afoul of the First Amendment, schools routinely support the pro-gay Day of Silence and ban the Day of Truth, set up by Christians to counter what they believe is organized use of public schools for gay lobbying. A prominent intellectual, talking about gays, complained about "the fascist policing of public discourse in this country by nominal liberals." That was Camille Paglia, who can avoid the speech police because she is brave, candid and lesbian.
Establishing any preferred or protected class seems to violate this standard.
What I don't understand is how a society can be brainwashed to "normalize" behavior that is unhealthy by any reasonable standard.
Gee, just when everyone is sick and tired of "protected classes." Too bad.
I don't think Erlich helped himself with this action.
I'm offended by the gross caricatures of the negative stereotypes of women that homos affect. They can start sending me some cash...
Deviant is not harsh -but logical and legitimate. Homosexual
behavior /Sexual Orientation is not natural therefore deviant. Prior to the political decision by the APA (1973)
to drop homosexual behavior from the DSM Treaments Manuel
as Deviant behavior it was recognized as deviant behavior.
that decision wa sNOT based upon any scientific date but was purely political The APA was among the first of the
"already captured" Sad to see nothing has changed in that
region since the Park Police protected half naked lesbians
at the Promise Keepers Stand in the Gap Rally in 1997.
"Deviant" is a harsh word for expressing one's non-approval of homosexuality."
I strenuously disagree. It IS deviant behavior, and when I say so in relevant discussions, I raise my eyebrows and smile when I am told I am intolerant. But the point is made and I wont back down.
They have it bass ackwards in more ways than one.
They've decided to cover their ass?
Semper Fi
In this case, royalty is more to the point, i.e. queens.
;-)
LOL!
I'm not surprised. Sodomites will get special privileges and will become the norm just like the ancient Greeks and we go down the tubes as nation just like ancient Greece.
Religious beliefs are not needed in order to justify the view that "homosexual behavior is deviant".
Homo-agenda ping.
How is it that the media honors and glorifies such confessions and then pretends that the behaviour admitted is something less than revolting.
It's funny,a person can claim offense at seeing the ten commandments posted at a court house but can't claim offense at the thought of two guys kissing
For 6000+ there has been this book out there that has stated men would make what is wrong, right and what is right, wrong. This book has never been proven false in it claims, and ONLY it's claims have been proven true.
This book is called the bible. When a society no longer has standards, throws out THE standard bearer, holds no one to an accountability or responsibility so there can be no judgements, and accepts perversion paraded as normalcy, then your empire becomes brainwashed into believing the biggest LIE ever told.
America is sliding down hill with homos they same way it slid with abortion,all to the same cesspool.Satan always gives perversion a good argument and it does'nt take much in a weak minded country.Never give credit or even listen to arguments from the other side.Turn your mind off when these people speak!
Gays have been a "protected class" for the last 25 years or so. Barney Frank is a classic example. Remember the "page scandal" in Congress. All the congressmen who were having sex with female pages were censured & resigned or were voted out of office. Barney, who was buggering a male page, was not touched at all. Also, Aids is the first, and only, political protected disease.
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.