FIRSTY MC-FIRST!

if this post is first, we're all getting laid off

3; thank god

Go eagles!

Beating a dead horse, I know, but the NYU Thio thing had nothing to do with gay marriage.

Gay Eagles!

"If you believe that marriage is a basic civil right, then the issue can transcend the normal bounds of academic discourse."

This is how liberal bullies impose their views on an unwilling populace. They cow their enemies with shouts of "racist!", "homophobe!", etc. But the old tricks aren't going to work anymore, especially when it's obvious how hateful so-called liberals are.

yeah 8 - dey took mah job

hurr durr

Apparently Elie believes free speech is good for positions he supports but not for those he does not.

I suppose I should know the answer to this question, but is Boston College Law accredited by the American Bar Association and in good standing?

As a BCLS alum I can tell you that the social/political activity is overwhelmingly liberal, and the faculty is composed of many, many more active liberals than conservatives. During OCS anti-Salomon Amendment signs and pink triangles would litter the campus and many liberal faculty members would preach their agenda in their lectures. Therefore I find it kind of funny that ONE SINGLE professor comes out with a conservative viewpoint and of course the "tolerant" lefty academics go nuts. Dean Garvey is 100% correct, all viewpoints should be allowed equal protection, you can't pick and choose to only allow the viewpoints that you happen to agree with, which all too often is what happens in academia...

Suck my ass, Mystal, you fat racist walrus.

Jumanji!

8 = internet tough guy

I'm pretty sure I don't care about this. I just hope it doesn't consume this site as did the Thio non-story this summer.

OCI

marriage is not a civil right. if the government wants to extend privileges to people who get married then it can, but it doesn't turn it into a right. u have a civil right to cornhole and even live with or be with whoever you want. just dont come ask the government to hook u up with any privileges if the person ur cornholing happens to be cornholing u back. its a policy decision plain and simple. so it is more than appropirate for academic discourse. the government has decided as a matter of policy that i can't smoke weed or snort coke legally. as a libertarian i think its bad policy but i don't say its a civil right and i sure as hell dont ask for tax deductions on my dope money

Gay marriage has never been a fundamental right. In fact, throughout the course of history, homosexuality has been outlawed. So lets stop acting like this is a fundamental right or something. Do the due-process/ fundamental right analysis and you will find that its not...(and you can't just say that "marriage" is a fundamental right, because "marriage" has ALWAYS been defined as a union between a man and a woman...so you'll have to plug in "gay marriage" into your due process/fundamental right calculator)

Just because you wish something was a fundamental right doesn't make it so. Under ATL's logic because I know want government run health care to be a fundamental right (which it has never been), then it must be so...oh wait...that probably is ATL's point of view...

Also, so what if someone actually comes out against gay marriage? Why the big deal? Just because ATL happens to disagree with his view doesn't make him wrong. Its funny how liberals get upset when someone isn't "tolerant" of their views, however, they are never "tolerant" of a view that opposes theirs.

Its articles like this that makes me think Ellie is just a biglaw reject who couldn't hack it as an attorney so he goes out and spews ridiculous garbage on a blog. Get over yourself and go get a real job.

BC is a Roman Catholic institution. The Catholic church's position on gay marriage is clear. That a professor at BC articulates a position that is consistent with the RC Church should neither offend nor surprise anyone. Students who are offended by anti-gay marriage views might consider going to another school....

so wait Elie - are you saying that if I believe the "right to life" is a basic civil right, then pro-choice rhetoric goes beyond the bounds of normal academic discourse?

I couldn't disagree more with the professor, but I think the Dean is taking the right approach here. There shouldn't be a law professor litmus test on gay marriage anymore than there should be a law professor litmus test on abortion.

How much you want to bet that alumni fundraising gets a big boost from this? I'm putting my check in the mail as we speak.

The Anti-Traditional Marriage crowd are hypocrites. On one hand they say "love is love, and everyone should have the right to marry" yet on the other hand they don't think there should be plural marriage or incestual marriage. They only want their definition of marriage to be the norm.

It's also funny how they try to paint supporters of Traditional Marriage as extremists, yet the vast majority of America believe in Traditional Marriage. The Anti-Traditional Marriage crowd are the extremists.

The fact that one law professor's opinion on gay marriage (the majority opinion of the american public, i might add) is news-worthy shows exactly how far off the deep-end legal academia has become. It appears the new moral code is "thou shalt not hurt any liberal person's feelings".

Good for them.

What is the point of putting a law school professor in the ad if he is just going to echo the anti-gay marriage talking points, instead of speaking of the LEGAL ramifications or issues of gay marriage? So he says there would be lawsuits - well DUH, there are lawsuits for everything.

20 pwned MysTTTal.

where is coked up williamsburg guy from yesterday?

"If you believe that marriage is a basic civil right, then the issue can transcend the normal bounds of academic discourse."

Elie - pull the stick out of your **s. Free speech is free speech. It isn't modified by the subject matter. The KKK had the right in Skokie, and the views they sough to - and did - express were objectionable to just about everyone.

Is this the new neo-liberal approach to conmstitutional law?

By the way, when will you post your HLS transcript?

20 = best argument of the day. Fuck you Elie.

22, I'm not so sure that alumni fundraising will be improved. BCL is very liberal, surprising I know, but the students and alums are just as liberal. Not to say that everyone is, but the vast majority. So for every pro-traditional marriage, or pro-free speech alum who donates you are probably going to lose two donations from the pro-same-sex marriage alums.

Get your terminology straight, 23. Nobody is anti-traditional marriage.

- happily married straight guy who thinks people opposed to gay marriage are bigots

23 - You completely miss the point. There are other, very important reasons why incestual marriage and plural marriage are problematic - although I actually I think that plural marriage is ok if all parties involved are consenting adults. The issue is that in incestual marriage and plural marriage there are often innocent victims - i.e., children of incest who have a much higher chance of birth defects, and young women who are forced into plural marriages. There is no such victim analogue in gay marriage. Comparing gay marriage to incestual marriage or plural marriage is a tool that many conservative pundits use to cover their true reasons (whatever those may be) for their belief that gays shouldn't marry.

In any case, it's just a matter of time before all the crap arguments are cast aside and gays are afforded the same rights of marriage as heterosexual people. Deal with it.

I am offended by your use of the term "heterosexual."

33, there are already laws against statutory rape and coerced marriages. People in incestuous marriages also don't have to have kids, just like gay couples. Young women are forced into monogamous marriages too, but we don't seem to be banning all of those. So why are you banning _all_ incestuous and plural marriages again?

Hahahahahahaha.

The anti-gay movement is soooooooooo on its last leg. If it has to resort to this terrible commercial to makes its point, I know the LGBT movement has gained enough traction to forever change public opinion. Three years ago I would have been all riled up, pointing out how nothing this guys says makes sense, how he's homophobic, and how BCLS should fire him, etc.

Now I realize that this guy is on the wrong side of the debate -- and we should let him talk our ears off. His opinions and legal justificaitons seem more and more outdated as each day passes.

BTW, it's unimportant, 23, that the "vast majority of America believe in Traditional Marriage" (good luck defining that). BUT, it is important that more and more people are accepting of gay relationships. We are reaching the tipping point!!

Anyway, moments like this make me realize how much closer we are to equality.

Yawn,
A gay lesbian lawyer

34 - that's fair.

- 33

32 - I guess the Pope is nothing but a bigot under your logic...

Well, la-dee-FRICKIN-da!

BC is a Roman Catholic instutation OK?! What did you think they were going to do? Lay the professor off and have him live in a van down by the river?

Can we fix it?

Nope, it's fucked!

Check out what the Law Students are saying about this: http://www.eagleionline.com/

38, don't forget the biggest bigot of all, Barack Obama.

"my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."
-- Barack Obama

Basic Civil Right- like owning a gun, unless you are a felon and then its no longer a basic civil right.

Sorry Elie, we are all out of silver platters and spoons.

From the main post from a BC Student: "but are of course disappointed that he thinks this professor’s views were within appropriate civil discourse."

WTF? - Why would this not be within appropriate civil discourse? It is a ballot amendment in Maine. Are the views of one side of the ballot amendment the only views that are acceptable? No wonder BC is such a TTT, it lets in morons like the person who sent that email. Open minded is letting all view points be aired, not the liberal open minded definition of we like free speech as long as it agrees with my point of view.

36-

"Traditional Marriage (good luck defining that)"

1 woman, 1 man.

apparently HLS is also a "TTT" since they let in Elie, who appears to share the same view as the BC student who wrote that e-mail

35 - I never said I was banning anything. All I said was that there are public policy reasons for why incestual marriage and plural marriage are traditionally bad things - although admittedly, I don't get too spun up about plural marriage because as you pointed out coercion can be a problem whether or not a marriage is plural. The point is that many conservatives scream and yell about how gay marriage is bad just like incestual marriage and plural marriage. The fact is that there is no public policy reason for why gay marriage is bad, and comparing gay marriage to plural and incestual marriage is just a cover for the true reasons why many people don't want gays to be able to marry. If we're going to argue about whether gays should or shouldn't be able to marry then let's be honest with each other. I believe that a large number of people who don't think gays should be able to get married have some conscious or unconscious personal problem with homosexuality - that's not a good enough reason.

45 --

hahahahaha.

oh man, read some history books.

36

I would support gay marriage but not lesbian marriage- I think the risk of physical abuse in a lesbian marriage are much higher and more severe.

Well said, 47.

Fight the hate.

Oh my god! Not every academic supports gay marriage!? And they are actually making that opinion public!?

There is a big difference between being against gay marriage and thinking just being gay is immoral and evil. Big difference.
http://www.stupidrightwingers.com

As many have said before, gay marriage is a great idea...let them be as miserable as normal married folks. The fact they are queers shouldn't change anything in terms of letting them suffer the consequences of marriage.

Butt fucking isn't all it's cracked up to be.

47, no the argument is not "gay marriage is bad just like incestual marriage and plural marriage." The argument is that if "marriage" is expanded to gay marriage there is no reason why it can't be expanded to the other categories, yet liberals seem to think there is some dividing line between them. What's the difference denying this "basic civil right" to incestuous and polygamous couples? The fact that some turn out "bad" is not good enough.
Or you can always admit that all types of marriages should be allowed.

44 - couldn't agree more. There are many countries where opposing views are not allowed to be heard. The USA, thankfully, ain't one of them.

Obama and many other politicians are opposed to gay marriage too. How offended by that are you, Elie?

I love hate.

Hatey hate hate.

Love it.

@17 -- thoroughly enjoyed your comment.

One comment: This is a policy decision, and policy is largely shaped by social and societal norms and by political voice. So its not unreasonable to "ask the government to hook u up with any privileges if the person ur cornholing happens to be cornholing u back."

56, but I thought we want the US to be just like Europe.

55 - This liberal does believe there is a dividing line between gay marriage and certain other forms of marriage. Like I said, I actually don't have a problem with plural marriage generally, if a group of people want to get married and no one is being coerced then let them, what do I care. But if a brother and sister want to get married, any children they have run the risk of major genetic complications. What are you going to do, make the brother and sister sign a commitment not to have children? If you can figure out a way to make that work, then great, but I don't see how. So there is your public policy reason for why incestual marriage is bad - and since there is no public policy reason for why gay marriage is bad - there is your dividing line.

And by the way, to say that the argument is only about how letting gays marry is a slippery slope to allowing plural marriage and incestual marriage is inaccurate. The conservative argument also often compares gay marriage to bestiality. How do you justify that?

I'm going to use the pro-gay marriage approach in my next hearing. After my opponent argues I am just going to tell the judge that my opponent's position is beyond the bounds of civil discourse. Bingo!

55, slippery slope arguments generally fail in constitutional jurisprudence. Yours fails here. As 47 already said, there are policy reasons that justify banning incestuous and polygamous marriages. Whether those policy reasons are still valid or will hold forever is a different matter. There is no policy reason to draw a line between gay and straight marriage. Slippery slope is not persuasive.

If you want to advocate on behalf of incestuous and plural couples, have at it. But don't insult all of us by suggesting that it has anything to do with gay marriage.

48- All that matters is US history, which is 1 man, 1 woman.

I actually support your position, but you sound like a like a little kid trying to defend it, so please stop because you are shooting yourself in the foot.

I think you are probably 36, so follow through with what you said, and let the idiots talk your ears off. You don't need to defend yourself on this one.

63: But the adopted children of gay couples will undoubtedly become liberal . . . a well-document mental disorder. There's your policy distinction.

33 - So 3 lesbians should not be allowed to marry? Who the heck are you to say they can't be married. Love is love!

Just because some polygamist marriages produce abuse (like every other form of human relationship is capable of), doesn't mean they all should be.

And how come a brother and a sister can't have a loving relationship without kids.

Once again, just another way the Anti Traditional Marriage crowd are hypocrites.

And yes, "Anti Traditional Marriage" is the correct terminology. It is those who oppose the Traditional Marriage definition of 1 man and 1 woman.

Why can't I walk down the street nude? It doesn't cause birth defects, etc. Am I supposed to believe that society can enforce certain standards against acts that offend our traditional ideas? What?! That's crazy!

61, what about a gay incestuous marriage? No children so you would wholly support that, right?

And for straight incestuous marriages, just mandate genetic screening or that they don't have kids (adopt or get a donor if they must). Incestuous couples can have kids without marrying so I'm not sure why it's so crucial to not confer on them the "marriage" label.

66: you're an idiot and a reactionary. No one is "oppose[d]" to a man and a woman being married. Being "anti" your definition does not equate to being "anti" marriage itself.

47: Apparently you agree with those "many conservatives who scream and yell" about plural marriage being bad. You are clearaly attempting to differentiate gay marriage from plural marriage...why, unless you have "some kind of conscious or unconscious personal problem with plural marriage"?

Boston College didn't defend the "Anti-Gay Marriage Professor." The university defended one's right to free speech. I can't stand intolerant hypocrites that affirm the need to respect one's rights to free speech and then want to crucify anyone who speaks out against whatever cause they're promoting. Not only does most of America agree with the professor, but President Obama agrees. No one is calling for his resignation (at least for these statements).

68 - This is what happens in these arguments - you continue to throw out what-ifs and ignore the real issue. Explain to me in simple terms why two gay people who love each other shouldn't be afforded the same civil benefits of marriage as a man and a woman. Forget all of the other stuff for a minute, and just answer that question.

On the incest point -- you're going to let two people marry but tell them not to have kids? I thought one of the fundamental purposes of marriage was to promote healthy families, including children. Seems a bit contradictory to me.

- 61/47/33

66 - Oh I see. So only your definition counts, right? Everyone else is an idiot.

Traditional Marriage is marriage "only between 1 man and 1 woman." The Anti Traditional Marriage crowd are against that definition. Thus, anti.

Or did you not learn logic?

People can continue to say this is liberal bashing of professor freedom. That is fine. But this issue is very personal for a lot of students. In case you forgot, we can get married in MA. Some of us are. Some of us have children. We have families. This isn't an issue on healthcare reform or gun control. It's about our relationships. And it's beyond the pale that someone our tuition is paying for stands up and demonizes us and our relationships under the guise of academic freedom. I accept that there are intellectual debates that we can have over the legal issues with same sex marriage. I respect that Fitzgibbon has written articles on those issues. None of that was reflected in this ad. There is nothing civil about this discourse. Concern over the children is a pretext for calling gay people pedophilies or people who want to "convert" children into being gay. It's absurd. I don't get uptight over ATL commenters because most just revel in getting to spout filth behind the anonymity this site provides. But be clear, this isn't a political issue. It is a personal one for dozens of students who are being taught by this man.

I think 73 is meant for 69.

73 - read the posts first. gracious.

60 - only in the lifespans and literacy rates, not the speech restrictions or techno music.

-56

73, I did learn logic and I also learned English. When you place the word "anti" before a term, it modifies that term. Therefore, anti-traditional marriage literally (and exclusively) means being opposed to a man and woman being married. Which no one is.

The way you'd like to use the phrase, you would need to say Anti-Definition of Traditional Marriage. And that sounds stupid. If I were a reactionary with some language savvy I'm stick with "pro-gay marriage."

Stop trying to make "fetch" happen.

BC is a catholic institution. What do you expect?

BC is a catholic institution. What do you expect?

BCLS Alum & former Garvey student here.

While I don't understand the problem people have with extending the same legal rights straight couples have to gays who want to get married, I also think that marriage is partially a religious construct.

I can understand why people of faith take issue with calling it a marriage instead of a civil union. The important thing to me is that gays can have the same legal rights that straight people enjoy in a marriage.

As for Garvey, I'm not a conservative and I don't have a problem with him. I find it troubling that people can't handle being around those with different POV. Some of my more liberal friends and classmates seemed to shut down when anyone took a position opposite their own. Disagree with them and you become Satan.

Personally, I thought the best thing about being a BCLS student was meeting intelligent and thoughtful conservatives. By not shouting in their faces and calling them hate mongers, I learned a lot more about their beliefs, and in turn, about my own. Most of the time we agreed to disagree, but our discussions never became angry and we were always respectful.

I hope that current BCLS students/faculty can engage Prof. F in a discussion about gay marriage rather than castigate him as a hate monger. That will never change his mind and he will-if anything-become even more entrenched in his views.

So do I get to shout down people from speaking out about anything that I think should be a civil liberty for me?

The guy who thinks his "rights," which have never until the last few years been adopted or validated anywhere in the course of human history, are being insufficiently protected (i.e., created), gets to punish and prevent speech by any who oppose him?

Fine then - my civil rights are being violated by a government that keeps me from inhaling/takes my earnings/keeps me from f---ing sheep. Anyone who speaks out in favor of outlawing weed, collecting or increasing taxes, or preventing me from congress Mary and her little lambs should be fired from their job! They're infringing on my civil rights! Intolerant, lambophobic bastards! This must be stopped!

44 - well said. I read that student quote and cringed

Stupid Masshole Mormons and their weird teachings.

Wouldn't free human anatomy lessons clear things up?

"Dean Garvey is clearly right insofar as academic institutions must be grounded on the free exchange of thoughts and ideas, even when those ideas are controversial. "

Why does the next sentence always start with a "But"? Shouldn't the preceding sentence the end of the discussion?

In our country, bad or wrong ideas aren't meant to be silenced. They're meant to be brought out in the open to be mocked, ridiculed and overwhelmed by good and right ideas.

Flaming liberal here. What is the problem with what the professor did? And when did law professors become so important that we need to censor their opinions, especially when the opinions are inline with those of his employer? This is a nonstory.

Why am I reminded of the Tom Lehrer song entitled "National Brotherhood Week"

Oh, the white folks hate the black folks
And the black folks hate the white folks
To hate all but the right folks
Is an old established rule

But during National Brotherhood Week
National Brotherhood Week
Lena Horne and Sheriff Clark
Are dancing cheek to cheek
It's fun to eulogize
The people you despise
As long as you don't let 'em in your school

As far as Maine is concerned, I'm surprised they didn't call on Margaret Somerville from McGill. Her particular axe to grind against same sex marriage, and I quote, goes "to the nature of marriage as the societal institution that represents, symbolizes and protects the inherently reproductive human relationship."

I guess you shouldn't be allowed to marry if no kidlets are in the offing...

The title of this piece is very misleading because, at least superficially, the Dean is only defending academic freedom and stating that the professor broke no rules or regulations in filming the commercial.

Dude, at first I thought that this professor was engaging in an intellectual debate.

Then this dude Elie told me that gay marriage fucking transcended the bounds of normal academic discourse.

I was like, "Wow, how the fuck do you know that, dude?" And this dude Elie told me that he can tell when shit transcends the normal bounds of academic discourse and becomes academically transcendent to some people.

And I was all, "Holy shit! No way!" And Elie was like, "Way, dude."

Ed. note: Although you maybe the pride of KFC, you're an embarrassment to Harvard, Elie.

The mere fact that the school issued such a statement is evidence of the intellectual imperialism perpetrated by the left and their fear of intellectual honesty.

12-

You've been watching too much cable news. There are not two equal sides to every story. Sometimes (in fact, most of the time), one viewpoint is better than another. Sometimes there are even more than two sides to a story. And sometimes, in pursuit of being "fair and balanced", we mistakenly give credence to a viewpoint that has no basis in fact.

Academic institutions, particularly those that are private, are not CNN-style forums where two sides to every story must be presented to boost ratings. Instead, they are forums where ideas are debated until the best ones emerge.

As a result, BC has taken a clear stand: that those who oppose same-sex marriage have as valid a viewpoint as those who support it.

That's a position that is out of step with most highly educated people and institutions (see post Prop-8 polling data showing that education was a bigger factor than race in voting trends), and BC should be held accountable for that.

91 -

Oh man. Get over yourself and your viewpoints. Even assuming (and this is a BIG assumption) that universities are supposed to reach consensus on the "best" viewpoint (however you would define that), it is still unclear what the "best" viewpoint is with gay marriage. Would you really be comfortable attending an institution that routinely fired professors for not adopting the "best" viewpoint adopted by the university? How is that not brainwashing? You know what . . . I am wasting my breath . . .

As for the rest of this garbage, it truly is a sad intellectual time. First the NYU Dr. Thio, and now this. The law school deans overwhelmingly defend their positions that, commensurate with nearly every institution's mission statement, the college has not only a right, but an obligation, to present alternative viewpoints. The deans are right, but I fear they are from a dying generation.

Current students go through life simply adopting socially acceptable viewpoints-of-the-moment, then creating ex-post rationales to support their viewpoint, then declaring that viewpoint to be the only acceptable viewpoint, then crowning that viewpoint is an inherent right, then deriding anyone who disagrees as not worthy of having an opinion.

Wake Up. Read symposium. Read some John Locke. Learn that opposing viewpoints are the essence of understanding.

Understand that debate is essential to learning, and differing viewpoints are essential debate.

And in doing so, learn to debate professors you disagree with, rather then petitioning the school to expell them and squash their views.

I am 100% for gay rights including marriage, adoption, etc.

I am also 100% for the right of this bigoted hack to spew his paranoid discriminatory bile.

90-

People with higher IQs and more education are statistically much more likely to be liberal/progressive than those with lower IQs and less education. So what you're taking for an evil liberal agenda is merely a reflection of the demographics.

And I for one would be really scared for our education system if the smart people weren't in charge. But I guess you'd prefer a more madrasa-based educational system, where we are taught a particular form of religion rather than science or critical thinking. That sounds like a great way to advance our society!

I'm sure you'll baselessly dismiss this as imperialism. But I'm equally sure you won't have a calm, non fear-based, "intellectually honest" position to back it up. Nothing like fiery language to combat facts and reasoning, huh?

I grow weary of the "basic civil right" rhetoric. Secular marriage is essentially a contractual issue and the government has always imposed restrictions to further government-endorsed ideals. Now, those ideals certainly may shift. For example, the approval of no-fault divorce and our increasingly virtue-less society have already lead us away from the ideal that children deserve to be born into a home with one father and one mother present. Genderless marriage is simply another step down that path.

94: Statistically, you're mom stars in bukake films. Where do I get this from, "The Big Book of Fantasy Numbers" that you cited.

95 - so being gay = virtueless? Is that what you're saying?

72/61/47/33 - You said, "Explain to me in simple terms why two gay people who love each other shouldn't be afforded the same civil benefits of marriage as a man and a woman."

I'm not 68, but I offer the following:

There is no important societal reason to afford the same benefits to any other marital structure.

Traditional marriage was condoned by government not because the government wanted to honor or endorse the lifestyle of traditional marriage, or as a result of an inherent human right, or as a way to ostracize a subset of society. It did so because society stood to gain a concrete benefit by encouraging traditional marriage. Traditional families encouraged population growth (historically good for countries, and still good for countries, regardless of whether you think it is good for the world) and fewer wards of the state. Gay marriages provide no such benefit. I happen to think plural marriages have a much better argument to extension of marital benefits.

And note, we are talking about government benefits bestowed for selecting a particular kind of association. We are not talking about allowing a fundamental human right of association. Association is a right; marriage is a benefit.

Of course, with divorce becoming freely available over the past 50 years, and with the advent of the welfare state, one could argue that government has already decided that the family unit is no longer important to the wellbeing of the state. But that only argues for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether, not for an expansion of government meddling in relationships.

But strangly, as we move towards being a more secular, more social society, we seem to find ourselves seek personal legitimacy from our government rather than from our selves or from our gods. And thus, we have people arguing that marriage should be expanded, not because it is important to society, but because it is important to individuals that society endorse their personal relationships.

Now answer my question:

"Explain to me in simple terms why three people who love each other shouldn't be afforded the same civil benefits of marriage as two people."

- 70

-94

Yikes.

[QUOTE]
But I guess you'd prefer a more madrasa-based educational system, where we are taught a particular form of religion rather than science or critical thinking.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, yeah. I enjoy the fact that my "elite" institution has religious studies classes. I have never taken one, and I never intend to. But I like the fact that I am able to, and others who wish to are also able to.

31- check out the increase in fundraising at BC Law once they axed their jewish dean years ago.

I want a liberal to answer this question. Why did you vote for, and why do you continually vociferously defend, a president who has stated that he holds a view that you consider to be "beyond the bounds of civilized human opinion?" A view that, if expressed by anyone without a "(D)" behind his or her name, gets that person branded a bigot, beyond the pale of the human race, or a closeted homosexual (that last one always cracks me up when dished out by liberals who momentarily forget that "homosexual" is not supposed to be an insult).

You stand behind a president, and exclude him from your criticisms. One of these two is true:

(1) Obama is opposed to you on an issue that is SO important for you that it fills you with hate when people don't agree with you (yet you like a good tool voted for him), or

(2) He is a liar who is not man enough to be honest about his religious beliefs. In my book, not having the cojones to be truthful about your religious beliefs in front of the entire world would be pretty f___ing pathetic no matter what your religious persuasions are.

Please, liberals, tell me which one of those two you think is true. Either he is dishonest in distancing himself from gay marriage, or you are for continuing to support him in spite of his opposition to it.

Oh, and 92, I am laughing in your virtual face if you think that "equal time" is devoted to each side of the gay marriage argument in law schools. Do/did you even go to law school?

This "not every argument is worthy of being presented equally" is trotted out by liberals every time they need to squelch out a debate that's going on. They think "your view is not worthy of being aired" is a winning argument (good luck in court with that). If news orgs devote equal time to two sides, that is because it is a hotly contested and closely divided issue. There are no "is rape wrong?" debates on the news.

I know your response already - "but EDUCATED people are not divided on the gay marriage issue. . . " I'm not going to waste time detailing out how incorrect that is. . . If you said that you would just be another liberal who (1) thinks that educated people are all liberal and (2) think that, somehow, conservatives despite their lack of education or couth, control all of the economic resources in America and use them for oppression. . .yawn. ..

70/98 -

The issue is not about the benefits that a particular association, union, marriage, etc. has for society, it is about equality. Take for example two couples, one gay and one heterosexual. Now suppose that one of the two people in each of those relationships is on their death bed in the hospital, and the family of each of those people refuses to let the dying person's partner see them. In every state the heterosexual married partner has the right to see his or her dying spouse regardless of what the family thinks or says, while in most states the gay partner does not. That's just one example of how not extending marital rights (or whatever the hell you want to call them) is problematic.

To answer your question... I think they should have the same rights. If you read my earlier posts carefully you'll see that while I recognize that there are historical public policy reasons against plural marriage, I don't really think it's problematic. Like I said, if three consenting adults want to be married, it's up to them, why should I care. Issues of victimization in plural marriage can be dealt with other ways.

-72/61/47/33

101 here - the end of my post is directed at 91, not 92. Sorry for the typo.

101 - Spot on.

And also, I think it is ironic how the "Fairness Doctrine" is making a comeback as left-wing ideology grows.

- Obvious conservative uneducated racist/bigot whose intelligence must be minuscule considering his political views...

105 - BUT, as I understand it, liberals only plan to apply the fairness doctrine to radio (some BS about "public airwaves"). Not, interestingly, to printed papers or to television networks (though they might find some rationalization to apply it to the WSJ and Fox News selectively)

100 - our Jewish dean was brilliant and well-liked by students and faculty. I don't know why you assume his departure was directly related to any increase in donations which you are apparently claiming. BCLs & BC may be Catholic schools but don't assume Catholics can't appreciate anyone but their own.

"People with higher IQs and more education are statistically much more likely to be liberal/progressive than those with lower IQs and less education."

94 - You misspelled "arrogant."

Fitzgibbons, cum to my bed.

I want to FUCK you.

-gross old man

Fitzgibbons, cum to my bed.

I want to FUCK you.

-gross old man

101/105 here - It looks like no one is going to take me up on my offer to explain the Obama's-opposition-to-gay-marriage conundrum.

I can hear the crickets chirping. . .

111 - ok, i'll bite. I voted for him and I disagree with his position. But I agree with alot of other things he believes in and I thought overall he would be a better president than McCain. You can't win them all.

Plus, I actually think he is pro gay marriage, but took that position because of politics - that's what politicians do.

92:
"Current students go through life simply adopting socially acceptable viewpoints-of-the-moment, then creating ex-post rationales to support their viewpoint, then declaring that viewpoint to be the only acceptable viewpoint, then crowning that viewpoint is an inherent right, then deriding anyone who disagrees as not worthy of having an opinion."

Spot on.

Time for Polygamy

Thne future of the USA is Islam!!!

Time for Polygamy

Thne future of the USA is Islam!!!

112 - OK that's fair. You don't like one aspect or viewpoint of a politician but vote for him because he's better than the other one. I can accept that. I suspect that's the case for a lot of people. Do you, then, see how it might be considered unfair to label 70+% of the country a bunch of "bigots" based on the exact same view, but not the most prominent opponent of homesexual marriage?

Also, if you think Obama is in favor of gay marriage, are you comfortable with him blatantly lying about his viewpoints? Yes, politicians take positions. "The wealthy should bear more of the tax burden." "Guantanamo Bay should be closed immediately - but it's complicated so I don't know when it will happen." "The Patriot Act erodes Constitutional rights - but wait, now that I'm president it should be renewed." Those are positions, and can be changed with minimal discomfort. "My religious beliefs dictate X" is not a "position." It is a statement about one's fundamental beliefs. If untrue, it is simply a lie.

Now, one could give Obama the benefit of the doubt and say he really does believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but if the country decides to allow homosexual marriage, then he will uphold that choice as the people's representative. All of this is fine. But the same people on this thread calling every conservative a bigot with views outside of civilized human discourse should then attach that label to Obama as well.

116 - Bigot is much too strong a word. I believe in gay marriage and realize that lots of people don't. That doesn't make those people bigots. Some of them may be, but that's not really what's important. What is important is honest, rational dialogue that gets to the heart of the issue and avoids getting caught up in distracting comparisons that both sides of the issue raise.

Am I comfortable with Obama blatantly lying? Good question. There are lots of things that all politicians do that bother me. But the bottom line is I voted for him over McCain because I thought that we would be better off with him in charge. Doesn't mean I don't think he's full of crap sometimes.

- 111/72/61/47/33

@100, I don't know what you point is, but Dean Soifer is awesome and he was able to, with Dan Coquilette's help, raise a load of cash and helped build the now not-so-new facilities. Losing Dean Soifer to University of Hawaii was a huge loss and I believe that Lahey had a hand in it. Is Garvey able to raise more money? I don't know, but please don't diminish Dean Soifer's accomplishments.

Oh, his name is Aviam Soifer, not the "Jewish Dean."

BC is not a Roman Catholic institution - it's a Jesuit school like Georgetown. If this were a professor at Georgetown, you can bet some of these GULC tards on here wouldn't be saying, "these students knew where they were going when they decided to go there."

As for Dean Garvey - there's a reason why BCLS has sunk like a rock in rankings the last few years and he's it.

People here, most of whom I am going to assume went to or are attending law school, seem to really confuse freedom of speech/thought with rights to employment. Law schools are businesses and they certainly can and should for their own reputation, rankings and finances dictate how their employees behave - obviously with as much freedom as possible. Demonizing students for being gay I think is where an acceptable line can be drawn. No one would be arguing otherwise if it was based on race or gender (well come of the commenters on here probably would just to be contrary know-it-alls), but I think we all know that isn't something tolerable in educational institutions.

95:

grow weary of the "basic civil right" rhetoric. [Slavery] is essentially a contractual issue and the government has always imposed restrictions to further government-endorsed ideals. Now, those ideals certainly may shift. For example, the approval of no-fault divorce and our increasingly virtue-less society have already lead [sic] us away from the ideal that children deserve to be born into a home with [two parents of the same race] present. [Interracial] marriage is simply another step down that path

92 & 101:

91 here: I think we actually agree in principle: a marketplace of ideas is good.

Where I think you're missing the boat is that there needs to be some objective standard to . Otherwise, you're just shouting past eachother and seeing who can scare enough people to their side with hyperbole and made-up statistics. That's where analysis and scientific fact come in.

And I actually think that most colleges do a great job at encouraging critical analysis: i.e., separating fact from fiction in proving or disproving a theory. It's just that, by defending as "legitimate" a viewpoint that is based more on emotion than fact (gay marriage is wrong because butt sex is oogy to me and I don't want my kids to learn that we have gay neighbors), Fitzy and now Boston College have demeaned the level of discourse to a Fox News/MSNBC/CNN-level argument where a policy position based on personal emotion is esteemed as much as -- if not more than --one based on a rational basis. And there have to be two sides to every story, cause it allows the moderator to seem fair to the casual observer, even when they may just be lazy.

So colleges generally have not failed in creating vigorous debate in my view, but BC's defense of Fitzy suggests that BC does not value fact-based debate.

70/98 -- Your position dismisses the notion of equal protection of the laws entirely. Perhaps you do so intentionally, but note that there is a difference between seeking positive affirmation from the government versus seeking the same treatment (rights and obligations) from your government as other similarly situated persons. I think LGBT Americans by and large are seeking the latter (and if the former, then no more than striaght couples).

Second, though from an equal protection standpoint, I see no problem with law abiding, consenting polygamists entering into a civil marriage contract with each other, I do have a problem with the IRS giving such marriages tax benefits that would grant them preferences over other marriage contracts.

So, let me get this straight. Conservatives believe that there should be less government and that private actors (including corporations) should have the freedom to discriminate as they wish (i.e, freedom of association0. But when private actors such as educational institutions deign to discriminate against those with conservative beliefs, they whine and complain about discrimination and freedom of speech. Despite the fact that particular institution is not a government institution. You can't have it both ways, hypocrites. If corporations should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (or lactation), then private educational institutions should be allowed to discriminate against homophobes and y'all should just shut up about it. What comes around goes around, biatch.

As far as BC, it should kick this ass to the curb. He's not making a legally reasoned argument. He's spouting absolute nonsense that any intelligent person should be ashamed to be associated with. Let's be honest with what is speech and what is inflammatory propaganda which has no basis in fact.

If I were a prospective gay law student, I would avoid BC at all costs.

-- Lawyer Gay

ps 101, not all of us 'liberals' are enamored with Barack Obama. In fact, I did not vote for him in the primaries precisely because of his position on gay marriage and his association with anti-gay pastors such as Donnie McClurkin (who he used as a platform to get in with the conservative African-American community and catapult his campaign).

I have been criticizing him regularly (on gay boards) since the primaries. His position on gay marriage and his administration's defense of DOMA and its repudiation of the promise to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell is infuriating. He is way more socially conservative than I would like.

I voted for him only after much thought -- in the end he and Biden were closer to my political positions than McCain and Palin (though McCain is surprisingly good on gay issues -- Palin is not).

I support health care reform so I support him on that issue, though again I don't think he is progressive enough (willing to give up the public option should be off the table).

So, please do not paint such broad strokes. Thank you.

-- Lawyer Gay

23 = RIGHT ON.

Why do gay people want to be able to marry? If you want to be like us so bad, then stop being gay. First, get some therapy for whatever traumatic childhood event caused you to be gay in the first place. Second, find yourself a nice biological fit with a member of the opposite sex, as nature intended, and you too can be a proud biological parent in a nice heterosexual marriage.

197-

Why do [left-handed] people want to be able to marry? If you want to be like us so bad, then stop being [left-handed] . First, get some therapy for whatever traumatic childhood event caused you to be [left-handed] in the first place. Second, [use your right hand], as nature intended, and you too can be a proud biological parent in a nice [right-handed]marriage.

127

Why do [left-handed] people want to be able to marry? If you want to be like us so bad, then stop being [left-handed] . First, get some therapy for whatever traumatic childhood event caused you to be [left-handed] in the first place. Second, [use your right hand], as nature intended, and you too can be a proud biological parent in a nice [right-handed]marriage.

Funny how people can creatively think of a million "public policy reasons" against polygamy and incest [side note: if it's really a "basic civil right then rational basis doesn't apply] but then suddenly draw blanks regarding homosexual marriage.

Polygamists have a higher incidence of pressuring young women into marriage. Gay men have a higher incidence of pedophelia. Brothers and sisters have a higher chance of having children with birth defects [side note: this has been debunked with regard to cousins, who are similarly banned]. And gay men have a higher chance of spreading AIDS.

So there are reasons for approving gay marriage but not polygamy. But let's not kid ourselves and think that the differences are "fundamental" such that this hallowed "civil right" doesn't apply to people with a high risk of birth defects.

97: I was getting more toward the exponential growth in promiscuous heterosexual sex during the last generation or so.

121: Clever rewrite, but let's be serious. Comparing the bundle of rights associated with marriage to the bundle of rights associated with being a free human being is disingenuous. Sorry for the missplleing.

'Gay men have a higher incidence of pedophelia.'

In the words of Joe Wilson, you lie, 130. Research has shown that the presence of pedophilia is the same in the heterosexual community as in the homosexual community (in fact, it's slightly less in the homosexual community). So stop spreading ugly lies.

-- Lawyer Gay

131- The freedom comparison is logically indistinguishable. But even if you try to distinguish slavery, the interracial marriage comparison is 100% indistinguishable.

130- Your facts are incorrect on pedophilia stats. Also, using AIDS as a reason to deny gays and lesbians marriage undermines your entire argument. Lesbians as a group have the lowest incident of AIDS of the entire bunch. Also, most gay men never contract HIV, so you'd be vastly overreacting by barring all gays from marrying. Indeed, now that I think of it, just expanding blood tests to LGBT couples would take care of much of this, wouldn't it. Oh, and finally, encouraging long-term monogomy (i.e., MARRIAGE), reduces spread of all STDs, so gay marriage might actually serve to prevent the increased incidents of AIDS. But something tells me that you're not the kind of person who's position on this issue is easily swayed by facts...

"Indeed, now that I think of it, just expanding blood tests to LGBT couples would take care of much of this, wouldn't it."

That's the whole point. You can blood test cousins and siblings too. Yet, they are still denied their fundamental civil rights.

132/133

Gay men are roughly 2.5% of the total population, yet constitute roughly 1/3 of all child molesters. K. Freund and R.I. Watson, "The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study," Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (Spring 1992)

30 percent of studied Canadian pedophiles admitted to having engaged In homosexual acts as adults, and 91 percent of the molesters of non-familial boys admitted to having no sexual contact other than homosexual. W. L. Marshall, et al., "Early onset and deviant sexuality in child molesters," Journal of interpersonal Violence (1991).

I take it you concede that gay men have a higher incidence of AIDS.

The whole point here is not necessarily that gay marriage should be banned. The point is that, contrary to a substantial portion of the above posters, there are, in fact, public policy reasons for banning gay marriage in the same manner as there are reasons to ban incest and polygamy. And to dismiss this legitimate debate as "hiding true beliefs" -- to use 47's not-so-clever strawman -- reduces the debate to liberal white noise.

Thus, if you're really looking to be philosophically consistent from a civil rights perspective, -- that is, ignoring public policy in the name of individual right to marry whoever one desires -- then you must allow polygamy and incest along with homosexual marriage.

135 - wouldn't allowing gay people to participate in the very institution (marriage) that is used to keep straight people from being gigantic dirty whores solve a lot of those problems? Wouldn't letting gay people get married "teach" them to value monogamy? Also, you're a tool.

<-------- hearts 124. Will you marry me!?

-Lawyer Student gay.

135 -
Nice outdated statistic.

And if you're really set on making gross generalizations about the sexual abuse of children, I have a great one for you.

Statistically, gays don't sexually abuse children. Men sexually abuse children.

www.csom.org/pubs/female_sex_offenders_brief.pdf

We should clearly ban man from getting married. Only lesbian marriages from now on.

135 -
Nice outdated statistic.

And if you're really set on making gross generalizations about the sexual abuse of children, I have a great one for you.

Statistically, gays don't sexually abuse children. Men sexually abuse children.

www.csom.org/pubs/female_sex_offenders_brief.pdf

We should clearly ban man from getting married. Only lesbian marriages from now on.

135 -
Nice outdated statistic.

And if you're really set on making gross generalizations about the sexual abuse of children, I have a great one for you.

Statistically, gays don't sexually abuse children. Men sexually abuse children.

www.csom.org/pubs/female_sex_offenders_brief.pdf

We should clearly ban man from getting married. Only lesbian marriages from now on.

135 -
Nice outdated statistic.

And if you're really set on making gross generalizations about the sexual abuse of children, I have a great one for you.

Statistically, gays don't sexually abuse children. Men sexually abuse children.

www.csom.org/pubs/female_sex_offenders_brief.pdf

We should clearly ban men from getting married. Only lesbian marriages from now on.

135 = (ok, you all know) ugly little troll who has nothing better to do with his pathetic little life than to try to make his pathetic little life more interesting by pretending to be the foremost authority on ... probably just about everything.

Once again, the intellectual left resorts to name-calling and personal attacks when they are unable to hold their own in the arena of debate.

Ok, I'm feeling like humoring the fool. Let's take 135's (unsupported) premises to their logical conclusion:

Groups of people (based on sexual orientation) who have higher than average STD rates should not be allowed to get married.

Groups of people (based on sexual orientation) who have higher than average child sexual abuse rates should not be allowed to get married. Men are more likely to sexually abuse children than women.

Therefore, lesbians should be allowed to get married before straight couples and gay male couples, as they have the lowest STD rates and are the least likely, statistically, to abuse children.

135, to be intellectually honest, your own position dictates that you must support lesbian marriage, since your only cited basis for denying marriage to a group is STD rates and pedophilia.

So elementary logic shows us that your prior positions show that you must support lesbian marriage. Do you have some other reason you'd like to cite that you forgot to raise in your other posts? Or should we just cut right to the chase and talk about the Old Testament?

143, you don't even see the irony in this, do you?

"Once again, the intellectual left resorts to name-calling and personal attacks when they are unable to hold their own in the arena of debate."

143, you don't even see the irony in this, do you?

"Once again, the intellectual left resorts to name-calling and personal attacks when they are unable to hold their own in the arena of debate."

145/146: The irony was in 94 calling conservatives dumb and dishonest, and then dismissing them for using emotional, unreasoning language to combat the "facts and reasoning" of liberals.

That was rich.

It's fascinating that the anti-gay marriage front has to find an out-of-state law professor to try and prop up their prejudice. The radio ad in question is full of lies about how marriage as we know it will end and how the courts will be full of new law suits that will force gay marriage in churches and bankrupt Maine. Pure rubbish. Mainers know a meddling outsider when they see one and in Maine this guy has no standing.

119, the Jesuits form a religious order under the ROMAN CATHOLIC church. Yes -- BC is a Jesuit institution like Georgetown; it is also a Roman Catholic institution, like Georgetown.

123 – The equal protection clause does not mean that governments cannot ever treat different people differently. Classifications can be built into laws if such classifications have a rational basis. I provided one such basis.

- 70/98

As a BC alum, I am disgusted at the response of the Law School, the vast majority of its professors, and its pusillanimous dean, John Garvey, to the laudable, accurate, and eminently Catholic comments of Professor Scott Fitzgibbon in the ad he filmed.

I applaud Professor Fitzgibbon for his courage to stand up publicly against the homosexual agenda. Anyone who has done so knows the consequences of such an act--late night phone calls, vile and insulting correspondence, threats against job and family, attempts at intimidation, etc. I speak from experience on this matter.

Were BC a truly Catholic institution, any and all the faculty who favor homosexual "marriage" would be fired immediately. As it is, they rule -- and as a result, I will never, ever even consider sending my children to BC for any reason. And I actively discourage other Catholics from doing so.

Spread the word. BC may be "jesuit" but it's certainly not Catholic.