*sits in men's room stall next to Fitzgibbon, gets into a wide stance*

you know you want it Fitzgibbon.

-gross old man

I suppose I should know the answer to this, but is Maine accredited by the United States Congress to be a state in good standing under the laws of our nation?

And he won't (Dean Garvey) because he agrees with this filth.

He sounds like a self hating closeted gay.

How about you start posting articles about law professors or other lawyers in anti-traditional marriage ads or that want to deny democratic rights of citizens to define what the state will promote and what it will not?

This isn't news. This is the gay lobby trying to do an expose on a professor exercising his constitutional right of speach and exercising some academic freedom.

Would you post this article if his argument were against making incest legal? No one is even arguing that homosexuality should be illegal here - just that it shouldn't be the state's job to promote it.

Incest and gay marriage aren't civil rights.

He is not cute or stylish enough to be one of us. You guys are stuck with him.

-- A Gay

LOL, 3.

Isn't Boston College pretty liberal? I hope this retarded fucking douchebag gets Thio'd.

6 - Do you have examples of such ads? Feel free to email them to ATL or post them here in the comments.

Also, nice spelling: it's "speech," not "speach."

Professor FitzGibbon is offensive.

Please moderate.

Everyone at BC Law knows Fitzgibbon's politics. He doesn't keep it a secret. Thats probably why, to some extent, he is teaching at a Catholic affiliated law school. I don't agree with his politics and I didn't think he was a great Contracts professor, but at least, on this issue, he can't be accussed of hiding the ball.

5, you sound like a self-hating closeted Republican.

See? It works in reverse too.

6

:Loving v. Virginia, faggot

Glad to see that Elie continues to support free speech. Not.

5 you sound like a pathetic, sexually confused kid that is trying to justify your perversion.

BC is a Catholic law school, 9. He won't get kicked out for saying these things, even if the Jesuits (who are quite liberal) run the law school.

Fake law school. Didn't read.

Chicago 2L

To borrow a line from 8 mile,

Lat's gay, Fitzgibbon's a faggot.

Fitzgibbon makes a well-reasoned argument against the liberal agenda.

Ergo, he is a racist.

16 secretly longs for a hot beef injection.

Cum meet me in the men's room in 5 minutes.

6 - while you have a right to free speech, your employer may also have a right to fire you for offending members of the faculty and student body by implying their sexual orientation is perverting children. Free speech isn't completely free. He won't get arrested for it, but he damned sure should get fired for it. Of course the administration at BC Law favors this sad draconian view of equality, so he will probably get a pat on the back before he gets fired.

His arguments are based in no rational thought or truth and it's an embarrassment for BC Law. He's also a terrible contracts professor.

Admit it Elie, you only posted on this because Lat was butthurt about it, which is odd because you'd think he'd be used to it by now.

The good professor takes it hard and raw in a van down by the river...

this is totally racist, but I read 23's comment in the voice of Bruce Vilanch

18 - Like Chicago is a real school?

Harvard 2L

So a non-bleeding heart liberal law prof deserves a post? What's that say about the rest of the ivory tower set that is attempting to warp minds while spouting their communist propaganda?

(a) this guy is a long-time professor at bc and a known arch-conservative

(b) dean garvey supports this rhetoric but likely will not comment one way or the other

(c) bc is a catholic school. this anti gay business should not be shocking.

(d) the mostly liberal faculty will likely stage some sort of protest

10 - nice attempt. It is a thought experiment. Consider that there are thousands of professors making moral and civil arguments daily on C-SPAN or other policy oriented media. They aren't news. This is only news because of the gay lobby trying to attack this professor by equating pro-traditional marriage to racism and bigotry. They aren't the same.

Nice catch on the typo. The fact that you proofread annonymous blog posts is so screwed up as to be laughable.

(a) this guy is a long-time professor at bc and a known arch-conservative

(b) dean garvey supports this rhetoric but likely will not comment one way or the other

(c) bc is a catholic school. this anti gay business should not be shocking.

(d) the mostly liberal faculty will likely stage some sort of protest

@9 BC is not very liberal

BC is a joke of an institution with a terrible football team.

"Are gay and lesbian BC Law students comfortable learning about these subjects from an anti-gay marriage professor?"

They sure should be. Remember, the C part of BC is Catholic. If you want a radically modern view of marriage, I think you'll find it in many many other places in the Boston area. We pro-family, pro-life types uncomfortably sit through a plethora of pro-choice, pro-gay nonsense at law schools and deal with it, so too can the lavender types.

And remember, all these claims to rights derive jurisprudentially from Catholics. See Vitoria and the other Spanish scholastics on the Native Americans. Which brings the question, if God and his commandments are stripped from a theory of rights, do rights hold any real meaning beyond what the state defines them as? If not then welcome to Neitzchean hell.

This is totally racist, but I read 27's comment in the voice of someone who frequently says "dey took our jerbs!"

"I find it hilarious that anti-gay marriage groups constantly complain of “out-of-state” activists coming in and causing a ruckus."

Really? Ever hear of Prop 8, Elie?

Defending traditional marriage = "the systematic denail of civil rights to gays and lesbians"?

Way to frame the issue there, Elie. You'd fit right in at the NYT or WaPo.

Alas, I imagine even they have literary standards (e.g., spell check, basic grammar, etc.).

This guy's eyes get really big and weird at about 0:26-0:27 of the commercial. Kinda funny since he's pretty much expressionless throughout.

But Fitzy, what about Beauregard in the Haberdashery?!?

But Fitzy, what about Beauregard in the Haberdashery?!?

BC = Catholic School

Catholics = Against Gay Marriage

People Surprised by This = Ra-tards

34 = racist.

20 FTW...

Sigh. ATL. So predictable. "Law Professor Makes Advertisement" is almost as newsworthy and exciting as "Law Professors Comments on Law in Law Review Piece."

Elie, are all the feeds on in your RSS reader found in the LGBT folder?

1,

DESCRIBE how you want to fuck him in the mouth.

tyia

The real crime is how Fitz teaches contracts.

We had to read all these excerpts from the talmud and every hypo involved Beauregard and his haberdashery.

Ended up getting an A without ever going to class because if anything he was only confusing people who went.

His hypos would involve like 30 sub-hypos and tangents so you couldn't even take notes or remember what the hell the original point was anyways.

How could you not vote yes on Question 1? That music was pretty damn scary.

Typical Lib: "We need to have a dialogue about the most importanant issues of the day, so that our community can reach a common understanding and come together. Do not be alarmed, I'm a lib, so I have an open mind."

Conservative: "In that case, let's start from the beginning....I am against affirmative action, and I support traditional marriage."

Typical Lib/Elie: "Racist! Homophode! Quit 'systematically denying' blacks and homosexuals their rights!"

Conservative: "Well, given your inability to have a reasonable conversation, I am going to have to sit this one out."

Silence ensues.

Eric Holder: "We are a nation of cowards."

This is the status of debate in this county. A variation of this happens just about every day (see the recent articles by Maureen Dowd and Jimmy Carter, which can be summed up as this...."people who disagree with Obama on the merits of his health care plan are racist.")

Elie, like the typical lib that he is, simply cannot conceive of a world in which reasonable people disagree with him. Anyone who does not subscribe to the homosexual agenda, in his mind, MUST be motivated by a deep-seeded hatred of homosexuals.

He, like most libs who I have encountered, are not interested in having any real conversations. They are interested in conducting mini witch hunts, looking for buzzwords supplied by professors....and when one of these words appears, they get out their victim dictionary, look up the appropriate slander (in this case, "homophobe!"), and repeat it over and over again until the opposition is silenced.

I look forward to many, many, many, many posts about this on Above the Law!

"Above the Law," for those who don't know, is a blog that used to be about law firms and the legal world, but has lately been almost exclusively devoted to gay-themed legal issues.

It is almost exclusively read by law students, not actual practitioners.

I dropped out of his securities regulations class after he claimed that sales of stock affected over the internet was not governed by federal securities laws (which is incorrect).

Fitzy is entited to his opinion but I find it offensive that the video slapped Boston College Law School prominently on the screen, implying some sort of association between the school with the political position and dropping a footnote that it is for identification purposes only. They should identify him as a guy who is not qualified to teach securities laws.

Lot of talent with this bunch. Impressive.

Intelligent people can discern the difference between being anti-gay marriage and anti-gay. If a professor is opposed to bigamy is he therefor also against women?

Pity there aren't enough intellects on this site to fill a pedal-cab.

If you are not bright enough to discuss it intelligently, zip it.

Suggestion: Create two ATL sites. One for law school news that affects T14 schools, and another - Junior ATL - for law school news affecting every other school, whether accredited or not. Hate to sound like a snob, but I don't come to this site for stories about a homophobic professor at some online law school. The new site could be called Below the Law, Below Above the Law, or Above the Law but Below T14.

32 = post of the day.

Marriage is not a "civil right." It's a religious ceremony.

I'm all for civil unions and providing the same economic and social benefits that one receives through marriage.

I'm not defending this guy's comments, but saying that he supports the "systematic denial of civil rights to gays and lesbians" is just plain inaccurate.

Fitzy obviously fears a sharp uptick in the diamond stickpin market in Maine.

Approve something like this, and next thing you know, everything's going to hell. That ne'er do well Kleptor will have a field day.

"I find it hilarious that anti-gay marriage groups constantly complain of “out-of-state” activists coming in and causing a ruckus."

Seriously MysTTTal? Wasn't it the other way around in California? Wasn't it the gay marriage folks who were complaining about the out of state groups?

i don't understand how his opinion on gay marriage would affect the ability to teach contracts anymore than someone opposing affirmative action teaching a class.

or is the point to just get anyone with a divergent view out of academia?

- libertarian/gay marriage supporter

i don't understand how his opinion on gay marriage would affect the ability to teach contracts anymore than someone opposing affirmative action teaching a class.

or is the point to just get anyone with a divergent view out of academia?

- libertarian/gay marriage supporter

Suck my ass, Mystal, you fat racist walrus!

Jumanji!

Mortified BC law student here.

Professor Fitzgibbon is entitled to his opinion as a private citizen. It's the prominent use of his BCLS affiliation that makes the ad disconcerting (well, that, and the fact that it plays like an ad for a bad personal injury lawyer). No one pays attention to the "fine print" that his opinion does not represent BC Law School. It reflects on all of us here.

Inappropriate Fitzy.

WTF is this news? Law profs make public commentary on policy issues all the time, even if they usually do it in print. Is there a gag rule on not endorsing liberal-social-policy-agenda-of-the-day?

Why is it that you "traditional marriage" advocates love to rail about your constitutional right to express yourselves in the same breath that you criticize gay marriage advocates for having the nerve to disagree with you? You have the right to compare gay marriage to incest. I have the right to call you a bigot. The difference is, of course, I'm right and you're wrong.

18 & 26: Kiss my prestige!
- Cooley 1L

OH Fitzy, how disappointing.

I had him for 1L contracts. Nice guy, decent-but-bland as a teacher. That commercial was more energetic than he normally is.

BC Law is generally liberal, but there are some old-skool conservative Catholic types there still, and he is apparently one of them.

If I am poudning Fitzy in the ass right now, am I Jewish?

The Pumper

"Are gay and lesbian BC Law students comfortable learning about these subjects from an anti-gay marriage professor?"

"Pretty soon you'll be saying they should have their own schools!"

Another BC Law student here.

To be fair, he never mentions gay-marriage related in his contracts class. In fact, it's a stretch to say he says much contracts-related in his contracts class.

Above posters have mentioned that his class is a joke, he's very confusing, etc. All true. I learned contracts from Farnsworth, not Fitzy.

Finally -- screw him for making this commercial.

I had Fitzy for contracts and corporations. He is a very decent man and great professor who has been there a long time. Several outspoken members of the gay community were in his classes, whether by election or because they were assigned to him as a first year. He treated everyone with respect and everyone liked him. Can't law professors stand for issues and teach law at the same time? What's the difference of openly gay teachers, who also are employed by BC, teaching a bunch of straights? Everyone calm down

"I support judicially sanctioned gay marriage."

--Warren Jeffs

45 and 48 - Hurrah!

God forbid people have an opinion on this issue supported by a discussion of the legal implications for not passing this legislative proposal. Oh no!

To the wacko libs (Elie and company), can we please refrain from conducting these "internet lynch mobs" on ATL? Perezhilton does plenty for your cause.

My massive 9 inch cock would fit nicely into Fitzgibbon's asshole.

uuuuhhhhhhhh

Cum to me Fitz

In contracts class he used the strongly enunciated phrase "shacking-UP" quite a few times to describe cohabitating heterosexual couples. It was clear that he disapproved, though in his defense he kept the social commentary at a minimum, at least in 1L contracts.

Ironically though, it seems he wants to relegate homosexuals to third-tier "shacking-UP" status permanently. Not QUITE the same thing as telling them to drop dead, but the difference if one of degree and not of type.

67-- learn to write coherently.

Assuming one supports civil unions that have all the same legal rights as marriage, isn't it possible for one to believe that "marriage" is a term with a specific meaning without being a bigot?

Can someone please explain to me the difference between being anti gay-marriage and anti-gay? And please don't use the phrase "respect for the institution of marriage." I'm not trying to provoke anyone, I just hear anti-gay marriage people claim to not be anti-gay all the time, and for the life of me I can't understand the difference.

Ellie, how about asking whether conservative Christian law students are comfortable learning law from radical liberals? You are a closed minded Ivy League moron. You can't even write coherent posts. You're a total complete joke. If you were a good lawyer you'd be out practicing. You FAIL.

70 - buy a dictionary if you're having a tough time with the big words.

I am gay and was married in CA pre-prop 8. Commercials like this are frustrating to me, and I would not have loved to see one of my law professors in them.

That said, BC is a Catholic school, and one would hope that there are conservative professors there. If anything, academia needs more conservative voices to challenge some of the ridiculous head-in-ass crap that comes from the left.

From the sounds of it, at least some students were unaware of Fitzgibbon's social views, which suggests that he does a decent job keeping them out of the classroom. Given his apparently very strong opinions, this is commendable.

Moreover, his comments are misleading, but they are a far cry from “straw-in-nose” hate speech.

Upper level students can choose whether to take his classes, and incoming law students who can't handle learning contracts from someone who opposes gay marriage probably shouldn't be attending a private Catholic school anyway.

Just my opinion.

71--

There's a fantastic South Park episode that well-illustrates the problem with that thinking. In the episode, the government agreed to give gay couples all the same rights as hetero couples. But, rather than call them "married" the government decided to call them "butt buddies." The problem is more symbollic than practical-- civil unions send the message that gay relationships aren't as valued as heterosexual relationships. That's what it always boils down to. No one puts that much stock in the semantic definition of a word--just look at the way people have been using "socialist" lately.

"Are gay and lesbian BC Law students comfortable learning about these subjects from an anti-gay marriage professor?"

I had multiple professors in college who were openly against pornography. In public and in private they were adamant that it demeaned women, that it perverted a natural act and that it was tantamount to prostitution. I can guarantee you that there were students in these classes who regularly viewed pornography. I wonder if these professors ever stopped to think if these students felt comfortable learning math, geography, or U.S. history from them? Does it really matter?

BREAKING NEWS IN RACISM

The government tries to deny a black man scheduled for execution the ability to recieve a last minute stay, pardon, or commutation!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,550780,00.html?test=latestnews

Well said, 45 and 48.

Elie, were you trying to provoke controversy with your one-sided post, or are you really that closed-minded and arrogant?

It is so ironic that a law professor is in favor of denying civil rights to a specific population. Maybe someone should send him a copy of Brown v. Board of Education.

I'm married and don't feel threatened by gay marriage at all. Divorce threatens marriage. Domestic violence threatens marriage.

Why is it so important to these people to oppress someone just because they are different?

32- Please read Locke's "Second Treatise on Government" before the next class and bring a book report.

51- Marriage is governed by statute in every jurisdiction. The last line of the ceremony is: "by the power vested in me by the state of.... "

76 --

That's a reasonable policy argument, but my point was slightly different. Is someone who supports civil unions but believes there is a semantic reason not to call it "marriage" (someone like -- oh, I don't know -- President Obama) necessarily a bigot? My point goes more to the disappearance of civil discourse in this country than to the actual policy arguments.

71

What's worse, a far left liberal or a far right conservative?

Neither - they're both equally detrimental to productive debate in this country. Elie - you are just as bad as a hick redneck when it comes to espousing political views, except you have some AA earned degrees to help you express your radical opinions more coherently (although that's questionable at times).

Why is this news? I'm sure even more law professors have chimed in on the PRO gay-marriage side. Surely Ellie isn't insinuating that those in favor of gay-marriage are objectively right and those opposed are objectively wrong?

Lat, did you not make partner because you were oriental, gay, or both?

Hey 49 - suggestion: stop making your suggestion about creating two different ATL's. You do sound like a snob and if you don't like what you read, go read something else that will satisfy your elitist ego.

Elie is a freaking idiot. So a law professor thinks homosexuality is wrong, who cares? So do the vast majority of Americans. Quit acting like he’s off in left field—if anything, you are.

On a more practical note, try sticking to legal issues instead of your usual promotion of buggery. If I have to read one more post on lavender law conferences, butt piracy or homosexual law societies/conferences/circle jerks I'm going to send P.E. to confiscate Elie's doughnuts.

71/82--

I'm all for civilized discourse, but the problem comes from both sides of the issue. Liberals are a little too eager to scream bigot. Conservatives are a little too eager to compare homosexuality (or homosexual marriage, but again we're talking about semantics) to things like beastiality and incest. Both sides desperately want to be right, but you can't win a debate over values. Personally, and I could be wrong, I think that that opposition to gay marriage derives from some... lack of comfort with the idea of homosexuality. Whether that comes from religion, culture, or simply a vehement belief in the definition of a word, it's a bit prejudiced. That doesn't make conservatives bad people, but it's a disagreement over the fundamental place of homosexuals in society. And that sort of conversation is going to heat some blood.

On another note, do you really think Obama doesn't support gay marriage? If the political winds on the issue shifted, so would he.

re # 57

If identifying yourself as a professor at a particular university implies that university's endorsement of your views, there are an awful lot of liberal professors who have committed the offense Fitzgibbon is being accused of. Riduculous. The intolerant folks are the ones who want to silence a law professor's right to speak on an issue simply because they don't agree with his position.

This is old hat. When are we going to have a post about the systematic denial of civil rights to the polygamists?

Hey, as long as we're not talking about mass-rape of entire communities of underage girls, I could give a fuck if people want to marry more than one person. Why can't three men and four women all marry each other? Doesn't affect me, don't care.

90 - Polygamy should stand or fall on its own merits, which I have never put much thought into. Not endorsing polygamy, but throwing all non-traditional couplings into the same basket is stupid.

When people's main argument against gay marriage is to invoke polygamy, incest, beastiality etc it makes it pretty clear that they have no good argument against gay marriage itself.

"32- Please read Locke's "Second Treatise on Government" before the next class and bring a book report."

81 - Before there was Locke, there was Vitoria. Please bring a book report. Also, check your history of marriage, it wasn't always governed by the Hobbesian state.

75 FTW!!!!!!

and did anyone else notice how big this guys hands are!!!

HE has MAN hands!

I find it hilarious that pro-gay marriage groups constantly complain of “out-of-state” activists coming in and causing a ruckus (e.g. Mormons). Yet here, pro-gay people are bitching about a law prof starring in an ad.

God, Elie is a retard.

32 - I always thought that the "C" in BC stood for college. You can't possibly be that stupid, right?

"When people's main argument against gay marriage is to invoke polygamy, incest, beastiality etc it makes it pretty clear that they have no good argument against gay marriage itself."

Actually, what the argument demonstrates is that if the marriage definition can be flexible with respect to the sex of the two parties to the covenant, then so too can there be flexibility as to the number of parties involved, and further, to the animal classification of the parties involved. If marriage can be between a man and a man, then why can't it be between a man, woman, man, parrot, and dog? Or why can't one, marry oneself and receive federal tax benefits. Why all the sentimentalism between a man and a man?

Stupid is as stupid does.

96- I am that stupid, nevertheless, Boston College is a Catholic institution. The crucifixes should give that away.

45 - YOU LIE!!

Don't lecture about trying to have a conversation when the entire month of August consisted of conservatives figuring out ways to invade meetings and disrupt them by yelling and screaming.

Hey Pot, it's the Kettle. Guess what, you're black.

Whether or not this measure passes, churches can't electioneer (in ANY election, even school board) if they want to preserve their tax exempt status. So the statement that if Maine recognizes same-sex marriage "churches will lose their tax ememptions" is just a lie.

OMG, you ppl are crazy - let them man be anti-homo if he wants, who cares. Got too much other stuff on my mind in Securities Law to care about gay/lesbian stuff....jeez

45 - your post was awesome. I abbreviated it and posted it on my Facebook, hope you don't mind.

As has been said, why are we talking about this? Lat's attempt at supporting diversity has illustrated the problem with such programs - when you separate and overly empower individuals because of some aspect of themselves then they focus on that as their entire identity and reason for living. It's like Juan Williams always having to talk about Obama's "blackiness." I mean, Obama's black? Really? Thank goodness the news is there to point out how being black changes the way he does everything and how everyone deals with him. Can we move on? Elie, you are gay and mad. We get it. Stop talking about it. There are plenty of places who are dedicated to promoting gay marriage. You don't need a legal tabloid to discuss it every day. I just didn't think this site was supposed to be about promoting specific policies by its editors.

100-

I don't think you understand the point.

CAN WE PLEASE TURN OUR FULL AND UNDIVIDED ATTENTION TO THE PLIGHT OF THE SUMMERS TO WHOM MAYER BROWN HAS SO CALLOUSLY FAILED TO GIVE OFFERS? THIS IS TRULY CAUSING SUFFERING OF THE HIGHEST DEGREE, AND NONE OF US SHOULD REST UNTIL THIS INJUSTICE HAS BEEN REMEDIED.

First Amendment.

103 -- which is?

--100

90, 91, 92-

Lawrence v. Texas was step one;
Federally mandated same-sex marriage laws are step two; and
Federal approval of polygamous marriages is step three.

Every argument made by the supporters of gay marriage is equally applicable to the legalization and judicial sanctioning.

--Warren Jeffs

(p.s., do you think the Lavender Law Conference would be willing to be hosted at one of my Texas compounds?)

What happens in Boston, stays in Boston...with the rest of the gahbage.

maybe the government could stop recognizing marriage altogether. if you've lived with a person or persons for five years you are now considered to be part of a family unit. to add a member to the unit, member must live with the unit for five years.

benefits.

boom headshot.

45: So are there two legitimate sides to miscegenation laws too? Because the defenders of those also said they "supported traditional marriage."

Typical RW Repsonse: Race Baiting! That's Completely DIfferent!

Liberal: How?

[SILENCE]

Typical RW Repsonse: Race Baiting! That's Completely DIfferent! JESSEJACKSONJESSEJACKSONALSHARPTON!!! RACE BAITING!!!

[RINSE, REPEAT]

It's got nothing to do with electioneering.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

The term "churches could lose their tax-exempt status" overstates the case a bit.

97. I can tell you've really thought this through. Comparing a marriage between two consenting adults to marriage between a human and an animal? Are you congenitally stupid? Because you are doing a good job of acting that way.
You undermined you own argument when you used the word covenant - which implies agreement on both sides (apparently you may not have learned this in law school). Last I heard humans were capable of forming covenants, but animals aren't.

110:

Hint: read the 14th amendment. Perhaps you will uncover a difference.

97 - why can't we keep the definition reasonable, i.e., between humans? To borrow from your argument, why the sentimentalism between a man and a woman? I suspect the answer is religion. Sorry, but I don't like your religion and I don't want it deciding civil rights issues in the U.S.

Also, terrible style of writing. Very tough to read.

CAN WE PLEASE TURN OUR UNDIVIDED ATTENTION TO THE PLIGHT OF THE SUMMERS TO WHOM MAYER BROWN HAS SO CALLOUSLY FAILED TO GIVE OFFERS? THIS IS TRULY CAUSING SUFFERING OF THE HIGHEST DEGREE, AND NONE OF US SHOULD REST UNTIL THIS INJUSTICE HAS BEEN REMEDIED.

110, since you seem to think race and gender are equivalent, that means we should get ride of separate male and female bathrooms, right? After all, separate black and white bathrooms are illegal.

Oh wait, maybe there's something different about Asian-white marriage compared to male-male marriage.

If incest and homosexual marriage are so different as you claim, please explain...

Don't try to genetic mutation argument. Already sounded proven incorrect.

C'mon 110, give it a shot.

@98 What crucifixes? The ones that are nonexistent in the law school?

To everyone saying BC=Catholic=can hate the gays, here's a bit of BCLS's non-discrimination policy.

Boston College Law School is committed to a policy against discrimination and harassment based on age; sex; race; color; religion; national origin or ancestry; sexual orientation; disability; or marital, family or military status

So, yeah, that would theoretically include professors discrimianting against students. I don't plan to take any classes with him-- why would I want to support someone who sees me as less of a person? There are plenty of other excellent professors to learn from,; I don't need to be taught by a bigot.

@115

You raise an excellent point. Law school students and graduates who spent summers working at law firms should be legally entitled to continued employment. The right to employment is a fundamental civil right that impacts life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

Someone should propose a constitutional amendment, a ballet initiative, or a proposition. California, I nominate you.

117: I'm not 110, but I'll give it a shot. Incest is different because it has in it an inherent problem of equality. Both individuals do not come into the situation as equal actors, even if they are both above the age of consent. It comes from a family relationship, where people form relationships that tamper with their ability to truly consent. We as a society can't care that much about genetic incest, since we allow adoptions and sperm donation where the parents don't have information on the child's history-- one of these kids could easily grow up to marry a genetic sibling or half sibling.

HOW DO YOU "TEACH" GAY MARRIAGE IN SCHOOL?

What a dumb shit.

I want to sleep with my son.

-117

117- you must be kidding about incest and the genetic mutation argument.

STFU Gays?

120, so why shouldn't we ban marriages with age inequality or wealth/status inequality? Or a US citizen marrying a poor foreigner? Or a famous celebrity marrying a starstruck fan? When did "inequality" between the marriage partners become such a great concern all of a sudden?
Not to mention incest includes sibling marriages.

I think everyone is missing the larger point here. Massachusetts snapped Maine away from its sovereignty, much like one snaps off a greasy potato-chip induced shit, back in the 1820's because the place sucks moosecock. If there exists anywhere on Earth a place that gay marriage shouldn't matter it is here. Every person of both genders wears lumberjack shirts, has facial hair, a mullet, and aspires to someday own a 1983 Camaro IROC-Z. Having spent four terrible years up there at one of the BBC colleges, I can solemnly attest that there already exists a fair amount of inadvertant same-sex marriage, just because it can be so hard to tell women from men up there.

Let the poor bastards be up there, with their potatoes and unincorporated townships and second-lowest per capita income in the country and Sbarro's and meth labs and 6 million acres of undeveloped forest and large cities of 30k to 60k people. The tallest building in the state is a fucking dorm at Bowdoin. The economy is so bad that dudes are fucking shooting each other over placement of lobster pots - no joke. If they want to cover each other in maple syrup and find their own asslobsters between shifts at Bath Iron Works, who are we to say no?

118-

Your reasoning is flawed. In your mind, a professor who is against gay marriage = giving worse grades and otherwise discriminating against homosexuals. How strained is that?

Do you honestly think that your law school professors give a damn about your sexual orientation? Do you think that Fitz's seating chart includes a section that identifies all the students who are married to same-sex partners.

Your approach to the issue is exactly why the LGBT movement continues to suffer. It is illogical, hypocritical, and whiny. Way to help the cause!

Those who partake in ass-spelunking should be allowed to form civil unions, and the government should get out of the "marriage" business and authorize only civil unions for everyone. If you want to get "married" go to a church.

1 and 2 would have been moderated in other threads.

And why is this news? Why is it offensive that one professor goes to bat for the his side, when so many have been so vocal for the pro-gay side for so long?

For the record, I was uncomfortable spending the better part of a decade deflecting the incessant ramblings of unhinged liberal professors, but I never even so much as badmouthed them in private. In retrospect, perhaps I should have started a blog.

Elie, you're a joke. Please open a new site called "What Elie thinks, without regard for reality, the law or equality." You've profited so profoundly from your self-inflicted victim mentality that you are forever tainted to write reasonably for a publication under any other title.

29, 48, et al.

When discussing civil rights, the positions of those who try to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry the person of their choice actually are logically and legally indistinguishable from the arguments advanced by those who have fought against blacks, Jews, Irish, etc. throughout our history. It's the age-old story of a privileged class of people in power who (1) judge a minority group to be immoral, regardless of whether that group actually harms or even associates with the privileged group, and (2) seeks to use the powers of government (police, taxes, etc.) to oppress that minority group on the sole basis of #1.

When we as a society endow any bare majority with the power to limit the freedoms enjoyed by a minority. It's the tyranny of the majority, and it's precisely what our founding fathers warned against. Left unchecked, it can lead to the worst moments in our history (Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, Stalin, the Holocaust, the Salem witch trials, McCarthyism, genocide in Africa, and countless more).

You, sadly, are just another fearful fundie seeking to impose your fascist law on those who are different. You're clearly on the wrong side of history, and on a more personal level, it's sad that you live your life in such fear.

Props to ATL for having articles like this. If someone's going to be a stupid asshole and do ads like this, at the very least let them be accountable, and let the hundreds of young, impressionable students this guy is responsible for instructing know about his prejudices. He has ever right to say this shit, but others have every right to expose him for being a right-wing, intolerant, stupid, retarded bigot.

127-- this is 118. What did I say about grades? Its discrimination, whether or not it affects grades.
You're reading too much into what I said.

Thank you, Professor Fitzgibbon, for having the moral courage to speak out on this important issue. He is not seeking to deny anyone's rights, but to preserve the sanctity of marriage. Professor Fitzgibbon should be lauded and applauded, not denigrated by harpies.

1119. I thoroughly support your 'ballet' initiative. What kind of tutus do plan on wearing?

133- Please provide relevant evidence for your assertions:

(1) we are speaking of civil marriage rights, not religious ones, so how is "sanctity" relevant?

(2) How will allowing more people to marry the person they love negatively impact anyone else's marriage?

(3) Professor Fitzgibbon is seeking to deny millions of LGBT Americans the right to marry the person of their choice. Therefore, he is seeking to deny people's rights. What gives you (or your particular brand of religion) the right to say which taxpaying and law-abiding citizens are worthy of partaking in certain civil benefits?

(4) Why are you so afraid of people (and presumably all lifeforms) who are attracted to members of the same-sex? Are you afraid that deep down you (or your loved ones) may be gay, and you're not quite sure how to deal with that?

What is a marriage performed in a courthouse other than a "civil union"?

BC should fire this guy so he can assume his rightful place at Regent or Pepperdine.

Kudos to 135.

Thank you, Southern whites of the 1960s, for having the moral courage to speak out on the important issue of segregation. They are not seeking to deny anyone's rights, but to preserve the heritage of the South. These white people should be lauded and applauded, not denigrated by harpies.

--133

135 - sorry to chime in, but:

(1) the word "marriage" itself stems from religious underpinnings that have tacitly been adopted

(2) it is the principle of the thing. How does people being tortured in Iraq negatively effect my enjoyment of life? It doesn't directly, but I still give a shit. (And yes I just compared gay marriage to torture, fuck off)

(3) You assume (a) that marriage is a "right" and (b) that the civil benefits of marriage cannot be made otherwise available

(4) I don't care if 133 is a closet case

Every time a read a comment on this blog that was written by some angry conservative who feels compelled to bravely expose the liberal "hypocrisy" of an innocuous post expressing the view held by most civilized people (you know, in favor of civil rights, human decency, equality, etc.), I picture some balding, chubby loser, sweatily typing away at his desk at some crap firm somewhere in some stupid city in the middle of the country. I'm not really interested in debating the merits of your pathetic (almost adorably so, if you weren't so actively ignorant) little arguments. I merely felt like sharing that image.

140-

i. I accept your apology, just don't let it happen again.

(1) You seem to have a problem with examining oppressive historical institutions. Tacit adoption of something does not make something lawful, beneficial, or "right". If anything, it's a great reason to scrutinize it, particularly when it means that millions of taxpayers and their children will be deprived of state benefits. See slavery, women's suffrage, etc.

(2) By your logic, I can pass a law oppressing any group I don't like, regardless of a reason, and the group can't do a thing about it.

(3) Yes, I do assume those things. Civil Marriage is a fundamental "right", at least in my country and state (US and CA). See Loving v. Virginia, In re Marriage (Cal. 2008). Second, the entire question we're debating is whether the civil benefits of marriage should be made available to gays. I'm not sure what you mean by "otherwise" -- they either are or they aren't. And that means doing so on an equal basis, at least as far as the state is concerned.

(4) I care, but only because this particular closet case is advocating trying to use the power of the state to limit the freedoms and rights of others. Maybe if they examined their own prejudices, they wouldn't be so anti-gay. Try it! Not only can self reflection be fun, but and it can even lead to less oppression and genocide. See, we all win when you're smarter!

*pounds Fitzy hard in the ass, he discovers his homosexuality as he anally orgasms*

142-

(1) less

(2) pedantry

Also, you are misreading Loving.

144-

(1) more

(2) analysis

Also, you are lazy, and know nothing of the law

Fitzy looks like Droopy the Dog, which I actually find sort of endearing.

145- FTW

I'm confused at the arguments bandied around here that suggest that this law professor was making legitimate legal arguments. Did you listen to the commercial or are you just assuming that he did?

He essentially says that homosexual marriage (which apparently is what the conservative bigots call same sex marriage to make it seem more clinical and less attractive to the general population) will be taught to children in public schools. That statement taken alone is ridiculous. What about it is being taught, exactly? That it exists? And this from the same people who advocate for teaching about God in schools? You bring me your God to prove he exists and I'll gladly say kids should be taught about it. In the meantime, I'll show you tens of thousands of gay married Americans. I am not sure I understand the harm in public school students knowing gay people can get married in places like Massachusetts, etc. Do you want your children to live in the dark? Clearly what he is doing is what often happens - scare tactics with no legal basis. Keep the gays away from our children because they are perverse and will taint our children somehow.

BC is a catholic institution, yes. But it also has a non-discrimination policy against LGBT students. And I have no doubt if his remarks were sexist or racist, advocating against women voting or miscegenation, no one on here would defend him.

Everyone knows that the conservatives are on the losing end of this issue. Gay marriage is a reality in six states and once it becomes the case in CA, NY and IL - the majority of the civilized part of this nation will have extended the rights that should be afforded gay taxpaying citizens and the rest of the country can FO frankly.

Then in 100 years, the kids from the South will have another reason to be embarrassed about the place they grew up - resistance to abolitionist movement, resistance to integration and resistance to marriage equality (based both on race and sexual orientation).

Bigotry is a hard lesson for some people to learn. They try and try and try over and over to demonize and fail miserably every time. This issue will be no different, frankly. And our grandchildren can be disgusted by the likes of Scott Fitzgibbon and the morons that post on this blog.

Oh and the people on here who brag about the law school they went to are so amusing. Seriously - congrats on wasting $200K to work in an industry you clearly find so fulfilling that you spend all day on Above the Law.

148, you make a really great point -- one that too few people make when confronted with the ridiculous "it'll be taught to children" scare tactic.

Unfortunately, lots of powerful people in this country have a real problem with children being taught to anlayze evidence in class. It puts their bigoted religious beliefs in jeopardy, since they know deep down they can't withstand scrutiny.

141-

that's cool, we imagine you as an unattractive and cripplingly lonely 29 year old doing doc review at some shitbag v-90 firm, smirking at your own openmindedness and tolerance despite the fact that you walk faster every time a black guy looks at you on the way back to your shanty in williamsburg.

Wait, wait, wait. Everybody seems to be missing the most startling aspect of this story:

There are gays in Maine?? Seriously, Maine???

Gays don't wear flannel, ergo, Fitzy doesn't have to worry about gays in Maine.

152- Actually, lesbians sometimes wear flannel. Thus, Fitzy's campaign of oppressive is wholly justified.

150 - you hit the nail on the head. Indoctrination and thinking for one's self don't usually go hand-in-hand.

I would invite anyone who seriously thinks this professor makes sound legal arguments against same sex marriage to actually read the articles he has written on the subject. Or don't, it's 30 minutes of your life you'll never get back.

Dear 151:

You may be right about the Williamsburg part (although I'd hesitate to describe my apartment as a "shanty" -- it's more of a "nook"), but at least I'm not a bigoted dick who's clinging desperately to whatever prejudice is left in this country, and (as 149 aptly pointed out), giving my future offspring yet another thing to be embarrassed about.

Kind regards,
141

131, how is NYU?

Fitzy's wife is Asian. So interracial marriage is okay, but gay marriage isn't.... according to him.

As a petty and childish LGBT student, i don't feel comfortable learning securities regulation from someone who can make arguments against my right to marry someone of the same sex.

Fitzgibbon- no worries. If BU is too bigoted against moral values to keep you employed, there may be an opening at BYU. They like people like you there...

@155:

Well, my future offspring, being raised and steeped in conservative values, will far outnumber yours. We are already working on number 7- if we can't outvote you now we will in the next generation. Until Obama forbids us from procreating, that is...

@157:

Asian women have vaginas. Men don't. Interracial marriage is ok, but gay marriage isn't...according to biology.

141:

Looks like you voted for one of those "uncivilized" people for president. Oops- look like your future children will be embarrassed after all:

"I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman" --Barack Obama, 2008.

BTW- for someone who seems to fashion himself an intellectual, you are surprisingly lazy in making your "argument," which seems to run as follows: laws restricting marriage by race are now discredited in the minds of nearly all Americans. Ergo, any and every restriction on marriage is therefore a manifestation of bigotry. Perhaps this is a news flash, but having a behavioral proclivity to do something (here, be involved sexually with people of the same gender) does not give rise to a "civil right" to engage in said behavior, much less compel the rest of society to sanction it by elevating it to the unique status of marriage. If objecting to various behavioral proclivities (of which homosexuality is just one) makes one a "bigot" then that word has obviously lost any substantive meaning.

Also, it's comforting to know that liberals champion a more "civilized" society. You know- one that involves things like, e.g., an inalienable right to suction out the brains of unborn infants.

Give me a break.

I love that people actually seem to be worried about the "impressionable" law students to whom he's teaching contracts. Let's give the gays some credit - he's probably not the first person they've met that disagrees with their lifestyle. And unlike friends and family members, he's not going to care about their personal lives. As ridiculous as he is for worrying what children are taught in public schools, it's incredible to me that people are concerned for these students at a private [not to mention CATHOLIC] law school.

When you say he "decided to shoot a commercial" do you mean he produced it? The production values are terrible.

His office looks like some film noir private dick's office with those venetian blinds.

Or like Michael Corleone's Lake Tahoe office in Godfather II.

Plus the distracting legal citations at the bottom of the screen make it seem like it's subtitled in case law.

162:

Why don't you show me a shred of social scientific evidence that tolerance/condonation of homosexuality leads to more homosexual behavior?

Oops, you can't?

Who's the bigot now?

@161:

Women have vaginas but not all women can bear children.

Should they be allowed to marry?

Your concept of marriage deserves to be codified as part of the plumbing code, not as public morals legislation.

BC student here:

Strange guy and below average professor.

Also, he wears the same suit everyday and looks like a mole.

162:

I wish we had post-birth abortion so we could get rid of people like you.

160:

1958 called. It wants you and your birth control methods back. Why do retards like you insist on reproducing yourselves over and over again? I can't think of anything more narcissistic than plaguing society with miniature versions of a right-wing idealogue.

...because left-wing ideologues are so much cooler, smarter, and usually better looking. You dink.

Left-wing people are cooler.
The people who go around calling themselves Republicans nowadays are, by-and-large, assholes.

135/142/144

Tone down the hyperbole. Seriously, he is trying to deny millions of people the right to marry? There are only a million and a half people in Maine. That would make Maine even gayer than your argument.

Man, that commercial convinced me. And panicked me. Must be doing its job.

Man, that commercial convinced me. And panicked me. Highly effective. A CLIO contender.

BC Law Student here. Finally I can speak out on any issue I please. Tomorrow, I'll voice my opinions on the following:

1) Minorities at the law school must be kept in cages.

2) Gay people must wear shirts that identify themselves as such. The shirts will read "BC Superfag". Instead of an Eagle on the front, they will have a picture of Donna Versace.

3) No more womens.

Homos are only marginally worse than black people. Only marginally.

BC Law is the Hofstra Law of Massachusetts.

Free speech only if you agree with Liberals.

And if you have a problem with it, don't go to a Catholic Law School.

Only in law school is an opinion which is the majority of Americans' worthy of this treatment. Most of you posters make me want to puke. You champions of liberty have no problem smearing those who have legitimate constitutional disagreements on the merits.

Fitzgibbon has the majority view, and the view of our president.

172-

Just because you don't like a fact (and can't explain how it's wrong) doesn't make it hyperbole.

By even the most conservative estimates (3%), there are over 10 million gays and lesbians in America. Even taking just those over 18, that still leaves you with at least 5 million gays, many of whom would like to get married.

So "millions" is perfectly accurate.

"I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman."
- Barack Obama, 2008

181 - Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that Maine was the whole country. I have no problem with your argument that there are 10 million gays in America. The argument that Fitz is working to deny marriage to all of them has no basis in fact. Provide evidence of his lobbying or other work in other states, and I will accept your argument. Otherwise, it is mere speculation and hyperbolic scare tactics.

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.