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.
I’m not talking my graduates here. I’m talking the staff they hire. I’m also not talking people who went deaf over time, but those who were born that way. There is a drastic difference between the two in my experience. The born deaf are those I’m citing and I’ve heard others with even more interaction than me echo the opinion.
I would assume that as you went deaf over time, you were educated in the normal system.
True enough, but the popularity of said arguments means that you need an effective counter. “Grow Up” isn’t going to get a lot of traction. Explaining that the quest for fairness leads to even more unfairness is what you need to do.
I had occasion to experience this insularity early upon losing my hearing. I visited a support group for the deaf without knowing ASL and felt very left out. Nobody really talked to me. If what you say is correct, maybe they were unable to do so.
Anyway, with medical advances these days, the “deaf community” is an ever-shrinking group.
Where do you draw the line?
I think people should be obliged to keep their sexual habits secret and none of it would really matter politically or legally.
Two men staying together in the same hotel room? Pass a law against it!!! Oops, now my brother and I have to rent different rooms when traveling together?
A man and woman living together unmarried? Pass a law against it!!! Oops, now a brother and sister cannot live under the same roof.
I never said a law.
How we just shun people as a society and change our culture for the better?
The fact that you think this is about what 2 adults do behind closed doors shows you are way off base.
This is about what happens in schools, in the streets (Folsom Street Festival?), in peoples faces, agencies that want to punish people for not approving their lifestyle, trying to make others act as if its normal.
Those things are not okay.
You have no right to force acceptance of your unnatural behavior.
I believe I read that many deaf advocates oppose the hearing restoration technologies because they believe it will lead to the shrinking of their community.
That’s pretty scary really.
I would say I was pretty clear about my line- private property and private association. I don’t see it being any more moral to force people to associate than to force them not to associate.
Would I like all men to be angels? Yes, it would be nice. we don’t live in such a world however, and giving the government power to ignore rights for whatever the cause isn’t a really good idea. The one’s running the government aren’t angels either.
So then it would be OK to make Frederick Douglass ride in the baggage car rather than ‘forcing’ the people in the whites only train cars to associated with him?
Sorry, but I disagree, and I don’t think “grow up” is the core message of what I wrote. And I think it is a mistake to call those fake arguments “popular” and give in on that front, just as I don’t give in to all the people on FR who didn’t learn - or forgot - grammar, and use apostrophes as plurals. Language means something, it is the source of reason in our discourse, and when language becomes corrupted, discourse is damaged and reason is turned upside down.
The Left has hijacked language, ala Humpty Dumpty, using subjective words to mean what they want them to mean. The real issue is not the specific argument - “is X ‘fair’” or “gay marriage” serious as that may be - the bigger issue is the assault on objective discourse and on reason itself. This is the underlying flaw, and I think it is effective to counter - “Who gets to define ‘fairness’?”, or “By what authority does your definition of fairness prevail, and not someone else’s?” Those are devastating questions, because they cannot be answered by the hijackers. I also like saying, “you have hijacked language to use words as a weapon to get your own way - waht does ‘fairness’ mean?”
Again, they can’t answer, because the dialogue moving foward depends on all parties colluding in the idea that “fairness” or what ever other value word is being used - means what they want it to mean in that context.
Sorry, but I disagree, and I don’t think “grow up” is the core message of what I wrote. And I think it is a mistake to call those fake arguments “popular” and give in on that front, just as I don’t give in to all the people on FR who didn’t learn - or forgot - grammar, and use apostrophes as plurals. Language means something, it is the source of reason in our discourse, and when language becomes corrupted, discourse is damaged and reason is turned upside down.
The Left has hijacked language, ala Humpty Dumpty, using subjective words to mean what they want them to mean. The real issue is not the specific argument - “is X ‘fair’” or “gay marriage” serious as that may be - the bigger issue is the assault on objective discourse and on reason itself. This is the underlying flaw, and I think it is effective to counter - “Who gets to define ‘fairness’?”, or “By what authority does your definition of fairness prevail, and not someone else’s?” Those are devastating questions, because they cannot be answered by the hijackers. I also like saying, “you have hijacked language to use words as a weapon to get your own way - waht does ‘fairness’ mean?”
Again, they can’t answer, because the dialogue moving foward depends on all parties colluding in the idea that “fairness” or what ever other value word is being used - means what they want it to mean in that context.
Sorry, but I disagree, and I don’t think “grow up” is the core message of what I wrote. And I think it is a mistake to call those fake arguments “popular” and give in on that front, just as I don’t give in to all the people on FR who didn’t learn - or forgot - grammar, and use apostrophes as plurals. Language means something, it is the source of reason in our discourse, and when language becomes corrupted, discourse is damaged and reason is turned upside down.
The Left has hijacked language, ala Humpty Dumpty, using subjective words to mean what they want them to mean. The real issue is not the specific argument - “is X ‘fair’” or “gay marriage” serious as that may be - the bigger issue is the assault on objective discourse and on reason itself. This is the underlying flaw, and I think it is effective to counter - “Who gets to define ‘fairness’?”, or “By what authority does your definition of fairness prevail, and not someone else’s?” Those are devastating questions, because they cannot be answered by the hijackers. I also like saying, “you have hijacked language to use words as a weapon to get your own way - waht does ‘fairness’ mean?”
Again, they can’t answer, because the dialogue moving foward depends on all parties colluding in the idea that “fairness” or what ever other value word is being used - means what they want it to mean in that context.
Is it OK to force the Boy Scouts to have gay scoutmasters?
Perhaps those arguments might work. I may well try them in the future. however I think logical judo of turning their fairness on its head works better.
The Boy Scouts are a private club and have a right to determine membership. They are not offering something for sale to the public, or determining that they can only offer a product or service to select members of the public, they are a club for private association.
So would it be OK under your philosophy for the train company to make Frederick Douglass ride in the baggage car rather than ‘forcing’ the people in the whites only train cars to associated with him?
Now there are really two different issues here.
A) It is good for the company to do such a thing, and would I offer them my business if they did so- no.
B) Do I think it should be within their legal rights to do so- yes. It’s their business, their property and hence I believe it should be their decision.
Don’t confuse my personal philosophy of right and wrong with what I think the government should be playing with.
If the rail line declares themselves to be a ‘private rail line’ then how are they any different from the Boy Scouts? The Boy Scouts will take anyone who wants to join (within reason). A business is no more or less of a private association.
Or should I ask, so you assume companies don’t have rights? Does the freedom of association dissolve in the case of a corporation?
OK, since we’re in the realm of companies offering services to the public and what they are allowed to do. Say I’m Catholic and I own an event hall. Do I have to host a gay wedding reception against my will?
So in your world it would be OK for a train company to force a black man to ride in the baggage car.
A train company is organized to provide a service for a fee and make a profit; not to promote an ideology or to form an ideologically aligned association of people.
Offering one form of service to people and an inferior service to other people (paying full fair and then having to ride in the baggage car), or denying them service, is not currently legal in these United States.
You seem to think this type of thing should be legal.
I disagree.
So you think that the Catholic should have to rent his hall to the gay wedding then?
You seem to have missed that question.
You also have distorted my response. I thought it was clear enough. I said it should be legal. I didn’t say it would be good. And you have decided how a private train company should be organized. If someone was dumb enough to run “Racist Rail Lines”, it should be his option. He would lose money hand over fist and well he should, but it should be his opportunity to be stupid and wrong.
Though you are correct, I do think such a thing should be legal as private citizens and corporations should have the ability to decide how to use their property. You are stepping over a line if you decide otherwise for whatever cause no matter how good. If the government can tell you how to use your property (beyond not using it to harm others), it’s really not yours.
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.