JaKE Emeritus --

The substitution of "allusion" for "illusion" leads me to believe that you are a graduate of Cooley and are trolling us.

Begone, little gnome, with your delusions of grandeur because your little picture on ATL is the closest thing you'll get to success. I'll wager that you'll find a lucrative job as a janitorial assistant in an all women's school who is in charge of disposing female sanitary products.

Best of luck with that.

NO ONE CARES!! GIVE IT UP ON THIS STUPID STORY!!

I wonder if these same people opposed the nomination Obama's nomination of a bigot to sit on the Supreme Court. I also wonder if they oppose other forms of discrimination, such as "affirmative action."

1...you are an idiot.

T14 refers to 4 schools. T10 refers to 3 schools, and T6 refers to 4 schools (since Berkeley is now tied with Chicago). HYS refers to...surprise...HYS.

Criticize the system if you must, but do so only after you understand it.

1...you are an idiot.

T14 refers to 4 schools. T10 refers to 3 schools, and T6 refers to 4 schools (since Berkeley is now tied with Chicago). HYS refers to...surprise...HYS.

Criticize the system if you must, but do so only after you understand it.

This post is addressed to Commenter #2:

My apologies for the typo; I had my assistant type this as I dictated, which sometimes results in unintended errors.

While your hypothesis that I will be a pauper cleaning bathroom stalls is unfounded, I am thrilled to see that you are as disgusted by impoverished and uneducated people as much as I am.

1,

do you work for a v17 by any chance, and did you fail the NY bar?

I am reminded of the scene in Platoon where the soldier bashes in the screaming Vietnamese woman's head with his rifle. Atrocious and unjustified but the piercing shrieks were horrendous. The most offensive sound I have ever heard.

I wonder if the Yalie was screaming at the psycho and he just flipped.

Of course professors would sign a statement making clear that the school does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Couching a legal argument against gay marriage as "discrimination" is a wholly political way to label it, equating it with civil rights for people with immutable characteristics. I'm sure many people claim that they would never choose to be gay, but until it's shown that it is an immutable characteristic (i.e., not merely a behavior), it is not worthy of being labeled a suspect class.

Not All BC Law Professors Believe in Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation:

Is this title not also inflammatory rhetoric?

Not All BC Law Professors Believe in Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation:

Is this title not also inflammatory rhetoric?

Remind me again, why do Professors have tenure?

Dear Elie:

I know you think that this blog is a (well reinforced) soap box for your liberal race baiting, but perhaps every so often you could also cover news about law firms and the people who work at them. I give you this as an example: http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/09/75-million-offer-could-end-heller-employees-suit.html

You know, it was about a year ago that law firms started to implode. Maybe some anniversary coverage to see where we are now would be appropriate. That, or you can continue to wait for Kash to turn her head so you can swipe pieces of her Turducken.

Jake Emeritus -- is that your picture? because your nose dominates your face, if so.

We need to bomb BC back to the stoneage!

-DOJ Secure

10,
I don't think they choose to be gay but doubt they are born that way. I think it's like one's first language. I wasn't born to be an English speaker and didn't choose it. My early surroundings made it so. I believe gays are formed the same way. A lot of gay men had little or no male role model during early childhood.

Don't conflate two separate issues, Elie. I can reasonably oppose the government promoting the marriage of two same-sex people and still be a strong proponent of equality for all with regard to workplace and educational opportunities.

Since the beginning of our country, the government has rightly incentivized the marriage of a man and woman. The formation of families has successfully served as our nation's foundation. There is nothing unreasonable or closed-minded about requiring a very high burden of proof from a very small minority of groups as to why a radical change to the most basic and fundamental building block of our country won't have severely detrimental effects to our current and future generations of children and families.

This article is gay.

This site should avoid any attempts at appearing impartial on any issue after its coverage of this story...you've lost that credibility

It is wrong to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation? When did that start? Oh well, at least we can still discriminate on the basis of race and gender. That cant take THAT away from us.

#10, when did you choose to be straight?

#17, got a link proving your stupid analysis?

#18 A gay family is a family too.

All of you, just admit that you think gays are icky. That's what this comes down to.

17 -- the whole issue of immutability is nature v. nurture. Nature is immutable, nurture is learning or performing in line with a modeled behavior. To my knowledge, and I'm ready to be corrected if wrong, the SC has never found "nurtured" characteristics to be the basis for according rights.

19 FTW

18 - First of all, it's not that small a minority. Second of all, this is the kind of argument that people used in support of laws that prohibited blacks and whites from marrying.

Just for yucks, what are these potential severe detrimental effects that worry you so much?

This is a tired, trite story. Can we please move on?

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST THIS IS NOT YOUR LIVE JOURNAL. STOP RAMBLING ABOUT BORING SHIT THAT ONLY YOU CARE ABOUT.

Choosing to be in gay asshole spelunking relationships is not a civil liberty, right, or even a privilege. It is a sin and fucking gross as hell.

22 FTW, 28 FTL. That is all.

====
1 and 7: you are a reckless asshole.I hope your children are failures.

this is totally homophobic, but when I read #22, i totally pictured the words coming out of Barney Frank's mouth.

mmmmm....Barney Frank's mouth

22,
Do you believe that sexual orientation is completely uninfluenced by nurture? Do you think child molesters and those into bestiality are "born that way" too?

22, did Lindsey Lohan choose to be gay/lesbian or has she been gay all along?

29 (who is really 22)

Sorry for overpowering your feeble mind with my efficient, powerful, and correct analysis of the matter at hand.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go get married, and then go divorce on Monday . . . BECAUSE I CAN!

28

I go to BC Law and I'm already bored by this non-story. For the sake of humanity, please stop pretending that people care about this, you fat miserable bastard.

Ellie, the worst part of all this is that you think you're standing up against oppression when you are in fact part of an oppressive crowd.

"All of you, just admit that you think gays are icky. That's what this comes down to."

As I do incest and child rape. Isn't this a good enough standard. If I find something repulsive I want it banned.

Has anyone tried the Angus mushroom burger at McDonald's? It's like the Iron Chef finals are happening in your mouth!

Agree with 35. Elie is fat.

37

Yep. It's just yet another example of how "open-minded" liberals are only open-minded if you agree with them. Otherwise, you're nothing but a homophobe or hill-billy.

34/28 -

If you're not a troll, then you are a disgusting, close-minded bigot who is not worthy of any response - analysis of any kind is irrelevant.

If you are a troll, well then, I feel even sorrier for you.

Oh, and 32, you're comparing homosexuality to pedophelia and bestiality? Yeah, way to contribute to the debate.

Why don't you all admit that you just hate gay people for whatever reason so that we can stop the dialogue now.

25/29, not 22, but do co-sign 22.

Nothing like a recession to separate the big boys from the posers. The new LA trinity is Gibson Dunn, Skadden, and Jones Day. Latham and OMM have failed miserably.

23, you are incorrect. Religion is entirely nurtured, and the SC accords rights on that basis all the time.

I just had an Angus Mushroom burger from McDonald's and I feel like I just stepped out of a Wolfgang Puck restaurant!

I am officially changing my name to Angus

44

The Angus Burgers at McDonald's are BANGING.

I enjoyed reading these comments

I was just musing the other day how it seems odd that the left considers sexual orientation to be immutable while simultaneously considering gender to be mutable (i.e. you can't change who you like, but you certainly can change from a man to woman, or woman to man)

43, freedom of religion is in the constitution explicitly, which makes it a totally separate issue.

Someone help! An angus burger just impregnated my mouth! It caused a culinary orgy!

48 - it's gender identity that is immutable, not the physical part.

48

Great point. But, don't try telling that to the queers, bigot.

41 offers the classic gay-rights activist olive branch: "Why don't you all admit that you just hate gay people for whatever reason so that we can stop the dialogue now."

Many opponents of state-licensed heterosexuality of course do not hate gay people.

But with every reference to "breeders" I have heard from the more snarky of my gay friends, I wonder how many gay people are coming to that futile, jealous hatred of the naturally compatible body parts heterosexual couples possess.

51,

Ummmmm, good point, but physically changing your gender is both possible and is just all the rage. It's sooooooo fabuloussssssssss!

51:
So does that mean that a person who looks like a man, walks like a man, talks like a man, and has a man's physical characteristics, but otherwise has the gender identity of a woman should be called "she"? How is the world outside of this individual supposed to know this?

Or is gender identity purely a matter of how a person "looks/acts"? I'm confused...

-48

This is totally delicious, but I just pictured Barney Frank eating a juicy Angus Burger and I touched myself.....down there

Look Elie, this is getting old quick. Why do you insist on using ATL to push your own agendas? Stop your witchhunts and stop posting stories which no one cares about.

Is it really irrational discrimination to ask a couple before the state bestows the benefits and protections designed for their union if there is any chance at all they will be able to procreate?

If not, why have civil marriage at all? Why not just let each religion do its own thing and let people draw up their own contracts between themselves, employers, insurers, etc.?

Yo I JUST remembered that Jesse Dukeminier, the author of THE property casebook that I used back in my day, was, you know, a good homo pound every now and then.

48/55 - Ok, I'll be clearer - you seem to be suggesting that since someone can physically change their gender simply by having an operation and taking hormones implies that homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic - my point is that the immutable element is the person's gender identity, not what they do their body through operations and hormones.

- 51

58: great point.

58,
I'm beginning to think that your suggestion is the best way to deal with this whole thing, but there are two problems: (1) tax benefits (do you propose ending the tax benefits of marriage?) and (2) intestacy. The whole reason we have a set of "default laws for when people die without wills" is because so many fail to make the contractual arrangements you are referring to.

58 = 61 = Moron

Who says that the married people have to procreate, your religion??? If a man and woman can't produce children, either due to age or physical condition, should the state deny them a marriage license?

53 - You're wrong, it wasn't an olive branch. It was me clearly saying there is no point in debating someone who is clearly a bigot and won't change their mind. It's called picking your battles.

Just because two men don't possess compatible body parts to procreate doesn't mean that they should be prevented from visiting each other at their death beds just because one of their families doesn't like the idea that their son is gay.

- 41

Yo, 63, I'm happy for you, I'm gonna let you finish, but breaking the character of your avatar is the biggest mistake of all time! of all time!

62: 1) what marriage tax benefits? You mean marriage tax penalty, right? If a gay couple adopts the child tax credits, etc. are available now. 2) Too bad. Execute a will. You can even do so online now for about $50.

The point everyone is missing is that marriage, even if through a state marriage license, is inherently a religious function that the state adopted. Hell, the Catholic church won't even perform the ceremony unless you get them the license first.

Granted, the act is completely secular, but it's a holdover from religion. This is one reason why there is a push against gay marriage. They can just enter into civil unions.

There is very little that they cannot do because they are not married. Gays just want it so badly because it's something they are not allowed to have. It's like a 2 year old begging for your car keys.

God damnit, Elie. Could you just write one post that isn't dripping with invective, religious intolerance, and liberal elitist disdain?

60, wait, so a person's gender as reflected in his chromosomes and physical characteristics is changeable, but his "identity" based on what he's thinking and feeling that day is somehow "immutable"?
Okay whatever you say.

65

Just expressing myself, through a solo.

now hold on everybody, I'm sure we can express our opinions in a reasonable, well thought out, and non-inflammatory manner

FAGGOTS!

whoops, guess not

62,

I was actually not advocating that we abolish the idea of civil marriage. Rather, I was suggesting that we narrow it to the core of the common good's concern with it---i.e., natural procreation, child welfare, intestacy, etc. It seems to me that these interests do concern the common good. The first concern, natural procreation, is only possible between heterosexual couples. I think a just society can thus create special protections and benefits for individuals who seek to procreate naturally so that those individuals can care for their children without relying upon direct state welfare. By extension, the justification for having civil marriage might apply to infertile or homosexual couples, but only if those couples show their use of the benefits and protections will actually advance the common good interest that justify any reason for having civil marriage status in the first place.

The question becomes to what extent shall we do this and what are we willing to do to make marriage laws more strictly tailored to the common good they support. Do we require fertility tests of couples without children before allowing them to marry? Do we require infertile couples to prove they can and will adopt a child if we allow them to marry? These are possibilities, however, they will no doubt scandalize those most covetous of their amorphous "privacy rights"?

Conservatives and liberals keep missing the point in these debates. Marriage should not be used as a badge of moral decency, as so many conservatives do. Yet it should also not be coveted as a badge of social acceptance, as so many liberals do. It is its own thing with its own specific and extremely important public goods that far surpass the desires, interests, or appearances of the couples disputing it. If we're not very careful in the next few years, we may lose sight of that good.

58

70-72: that was a long way to go for a joke.

I lol'd

53,

I agree with everything you said. But I believe presuming your interlocutor is a bigot is to make yourself a pot after calling a kettle black.

41

41,

I agree with everything you said. But I believe presuming your interlocutor is a bigot is to make yourself a pot after calling a kettle black.

53
(Sorry, I got our numbers mixed up.)

41

I am laughing at loud at you. Seriously. Get a life . . . or a wife . . . whichever you can legally obtain first.

fag·ot also fag·got (fāg'ət)
n.

1. A bundle of twigs, sticks, or branches bound together.
2. A bundle of pieces of iron or steel to be welded or hammered into bars.

tr.v. fag·ot·ed also fag·got·ed, fag·ot·ing also fag·got·ing, fag·ots also fag·gots

1. To bind into a fagot; bundle.
2. To decorate with fagoting.

Errrybody go get yo'self a Angus Burger, ya heard?

28 = post of the day!

68,

Do you really think that transgender people choose their gender identity based on "what he's thinking and feeling that day"? And go through hormones and surgery based on that whim?

And the bigger point: who are you to tell them who they are or what they are feeling? You need to treat people with more respect.

And you should call them whatever they want to be called. Just like we call you by your name (even if I think it should be "Dumbass").

58, 73

Go back into your cave or under the rock that you've been living under.

82,

No body thinks that a person decides to be an alcoholic, but every alcoholic has decided to take their first drink.

53/76/77 -

Read post 28 again. It's not a presumption. Anyone who refers to homosexuality as "a sin and fucking gross as hell" is a bigot in my book.

- 41

58, 73:

Marriage isn't necessary for procreation, and your proposal would ensure micromanaging by a big government for decades to come.

I'd advocate for less government infringement on civil liberties, abolition of marriage, and increased community involevment in child rearing. You know, it takes a village.

82--That's the risk he/she/it takes. Now go back to your ACORN work, you heathen.

83,

I see you're also among the diplomats for the culture of love! Thank you for the warm audience.

58

1 - biggest dick of a post ever

41 = troll

Dear conservatives:

You are aware, aren't you, that 40 years from now, when your grandchildren learn that this country used to deny certain fundamental rights to gay people (just as it did with respect to women and African-Americans), they will then experience profound embarrassment, disappointment and disgust in discovering that you were the very bigots who promoted such intolerance? Do you really want them to have to see these comments in which you defended the hateful ignorance that will seem so foreign and shameful to them?

Just curious.

Hey 82: Boom. Roasted.

-84

86,

That marriage is not simply for procreation is debatable. (We are after all debating that.) For that very reason, I believe the issue is best resolved democratically and not judicially.

Though I can sympathize with your fear of a big brother government, I wonder if you can tell me why we permit government to mettle with marriage at all then?

58,73

Dear Above The Law:

Please attempt to cover topics that I, a straight male WASP, actually give a sh*t about.

Sincerely,
Straight Male WASP (in Republican bow tie)

87 = troll/flame/deferred 3L

95, You got me. I just can't figure out what to do with this $80k check I just got! Looks like I'm gonna go make it rain!

84, and all the other right wingers out there who want big government to intervene in people's individual lives and associations:

All of your opinions are incorrectly based on the assumptions that (1) there's something wrong with being gay, bisexual, or transgender (something no one can show, and something that avoids the whole "choice" issue), and (2) that you have a right to use the power of government to institutionalize discrimination against those people based on their characteristics. Also, gender nonconformity and homosexuality, and bisexuality occur commonly in nature. It is God's plan.

You're just another in a long line of McCarthy, Torquemada, and Stalins... afraid of anything that doesn't conform to your narrow (and soon to be historically outdated) conception of what is right.

And 85 is right.

94 this should be of the utmost interest to you. After all, if you are in fact a straight male WASP sporting a Republican bow tie, you're probably gay.

*Slap on the ass* Now get back in there!

58, 73

I support allowing people who love each other to get married, without all the absurd strings that you want to attach. Perhaps it is you who is not a diplomat for the culture of love. In any event, you are entitled to a forum, not a wam audience. The receptiveness of the audience reflects the quality of your ideas.

83

haha 70-72. it's essentially a summary of what happens everytime a post on gay marriage goes up

Dear 91,

No. We conservatives are aware that our grandchildren will far outnumber those of the liberals after they have dwindled their numbers by promoting abortion, contraception, childless marriage, and population control.

Perhaps then we can get back to trying to carve out genuine and lasting happiness and let this crazy self-infatuated sexual revolution fully revolve.

Hopefully, you'll figure this out someday and lend a hand.

Regards.

I love watching the left get their panties in a bunch whenever some conservative throws out anything resembling bigotry or racism. Do you people have jobs?

DOJ SECURE

83, 85

Why do people need a license to love each other and live with each other? Isn't *that* big government? It seems to me by advocating that civil marriage be extended to homosexual couples you are just asking for more big government.

That's right 101, when we reach that promised land, we will all be able to jet off to see our Argentinian mistresses without being maligned by the evil left. Stay strong brother.

SO tired of all the homo articles. So very, very, very tired. Kind of makes me wish everyone would just return to the closet.

101--I give you a virtual Obama terrorist fist bump

103,

Where have I advocated extending civil marriage to homosexual couples? I have written only to oppose the absurd restriction proposed by 58, 73 that only people who intend to produce children be allowed to marry. He would deny marriage to heterosexuals not able to or not interested in having children.

83

104,

Its no surprise that the loose morals of liberal free-love and unhindered sexual gratification have permeated to all parts of society, even the South Carolinian governor's mansion. In fact, its just another testament to the degradation it has caused.

83,

Forgive me for misrepresenting your position, I am getting lost tracking all these numbers.

Nevertheless, my question remains. What justifies any government regulation of marriage licensing?

103

93-

If I had my way, government would not be allowed to dictate which kinds of relationships are better at all. I think it should get out of the marriage business.

It should also get out of sponsoring any "faith based initiatives".

@103/109

Simple answer: Taxes.

Dear 101:

For purposes of demonstrating how abhorrent and false your response was, I set about making a few minor adjustments to it, which would have rendered it a perfect example of what a rascist bigot would have written in the '60s in response to the Civil Rights Act, but it was so disgusting that I couldn't bring myself to actually allow the words to materialize in any written form. It's pretty easy so I'm going to assume you can figure it out for yourself (hint: "mongrelization" and "racial purity" would be featured prominently).

You're pathetic.

I graduated from BC, and when I was there, they had a course in Butt Fucking I and Butt Fucking II. You had to pass both in order to graduate. It should come as no surprise that a bunch of the professors there favor backdoor fucking.

109

Short answer: the interest in governing the relationships that are both acceptable and unacceptable in our society.

NOT 83, but on his team, but only if I get to be captain.

yeah, I was right

-70-72

96, I hope you're planning to saturate your student loans 'cause you seem to be unaware of the fact that you have no job. Oh, wait, it's fine. Obama will give a speech, you will wake up to an oil well in your backyard, and all will be right in the world.

Rain on.

112, can you teach me how to use big words so I sound smartly as well???????

103,

I'm not a proponent of big government or intrusion into people's private affairs, so I'm not really one to make the argument for government regulation of marriage licensing. At a minimum, it provides a nonreligious analog for people who want to get married and have their union recognized in a way similar to those created in religious ceremonies. Since the licensing is done at the state/local level, I am less concerned about its making government bigger, which is more threatened by Washington.

83

116--I'm not deferred. I'm not a 3L either. And sadly, I don't have an $80k check. But I do enjoy the juvenile and illogical back-and-forth banter that goes on here.

Who's up for an early happy hour? I am!

I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

I'm Barack Obama?

I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

I'm Barack Obama?

112,

You're mistaken. I advocated neither selective breeding nor anthropomorphosis---both I detest as much as I detest the culture that tries exalt individual sexual pleasure and liberation over the fundamental human right to life.

Your disdain is misdirected and, I think, has blinded you to my point. When I say "conservative" you call to mind a Nazi. Isn't this stereotype unfair? Moreover, by giving it so much attention, you've distracted yourself from the important point: the worldview of liberals who extol the virtues of abortion, contraception, childless marriage, and population control lack any sustainable worldview for humankind. They are like the conservatives who believe we can continue consuming natural resources ad infinitum.

101

91 -- again, there's a fundamental difference, a reason why many black leaders chafe at the gay/black rights comparison, between immutable characteristics and things not yet shown to be immutable. If, by the time my kids are learning that, it has been shown to be such, they will learn that this was until recently a matter of unsettled science, just like we learned of the creationism/evolution schism, which has since been resolved.

118,

Forgive me if my response seems harsh, as I do not really know how else to word it. But doesn't it seem pathetic that anyone should have to kneel before the altar of the state of be bestowed with a "status" that is simply a hollowed out religious ceremony?

It seems unnecessary as well, as many nonprofit groups, including many mainline Protestant churches, have begun marrying homosexual couples.

Why should the state be in the business of bestowing these classes, if that is all marriage is about?

I had this professor for "Marriage Law" at BCLS. He is terrible. He constantly touted the value of marriage to society and the importance of "duty" to the family to a class full of female law students. He never made any directly sexists remarks, but everyone in the class was aware where his line of reasoning was going. It was apparent that he felt having a family was a duty and not dedicating yourself to that duty was wrong. A large portion of the class went to the Dean of Students to attempt to get some non-conservative reading into the syllabus or to replace this professor. Unfortunately, the dean felt that he was entitled to teach the topic as he wished as long as he was not being blatantly offensive. BC should not allow sexist or homophobic professors, and his views should not be tolerated at what is an otherwise decently open law school.

112,

By the way, the next time you are exhausted by trying to compare your interlocutor's statements with a villainous straw man (as you were in doing so with mine), perhaps you should consider that the words you are shoving into your opponent's mouth do not fit with what your opponent has said.

You can paint me with the Axis of Evil brush, if you wish. Just remember: the paint is from your brush.

101

125,

Your story reads like a Christian creationist account of listening to a lecture on evolution. You had a professor that never said anything offensive to you, but you attempted to have him censored for his beliefs.

Then, on this forum, rather than disprove his argument, you simply appealed to what you perceive as the prevailing opinion that a conservative espousing the duties of parenthood must be a homophobe.

If I have misunderstood your posting, I'm sorry.

127,

I was offended by the class because it only included one side of the issue. He never addressed any of the feminist views on marriage or even discussed gay marriage. He limited the class reading to his views and things that supported his views. I can tolerate anything as part of a balanced debate; I personally was offended by his opinion which was creatively veiled as lawyers manage to do. Academically, I was appalled by the closed nature of his teachings, his refusal to address feminist arguments when I raised them.

To one attempted feminist argument, he responded, "well why don't we look at this rationally, that theory doesn't work..."

I view his recent involvement in the gay marriage issue as personally offensive. Again, if he had written a well researched scholarly article and not made blatant misstatements, I would disagree but have less than an issue.

We attempted to remove him from our class not because he was conservative, but because he refused to acknowledge or teach other viewpoints and was forcing his view down our throats as the one true answer. To pass his exam, you couldn't give your opinion because he provided no class time or material to opposing views and you had to site to class material.

I see this gay marriage debate and his role in it, making unfounded and incorrect statements, not only as personally offensive but as irresponsible for someone in the academy.

I have had conservative professors that I loved, but I respected their views because they stated them well and with dignity. I see this as fear mongering, which I will never approve of.

Being opposed to same sex marriage=big government intrusion into people's private lives

Teaching that parents owe a duty to their families=sexist

And you clowns wonder why The Anointed One (who BTW is apparently a hateful bigot based on his public statements about gay marriage) is seeing his administration go down the tubes in record time.

Not everybody shares your views Elie, god liberals live in a world entirely to themselves...

I have never understood homophobes or the hatred of gays that some on this thread display. I am a male, and I think gay sex is gross, but not as a bigot or anything. I think having sex with another man is gross in the same way as having sex with a 400 lb woman is gross, it's just gross. But I have no problem with gay people at all, if you are not hurting anyone then what you do in your home is your business and that's fine. I just really dont understand how people can have a moral problem with homosexuality, it makes no sense. While I realize most homophobes are in the closet and refuse to acknowledge the gay dreams they have, and then bash gay people to hide their own gay fantasies, those people are just pathetic. Who cares what a person's sexual preference is, what does that have to do with anyone else?? I love how Louis CK puts it: one could understand anger with homosexuality if gay people just ran around fucking random people up the ass on the street, but since that doesnt happen, where is all this hatred coming from??!!

Seriously folks, grow the fuck up. Two gay people being in love is fine, there is nothing wrong it, it has absloutely no affect on straight people, or anyone else. If you find it gross, fine, so do I, but there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Let people live their lives in peace, it has no affect on anyone else, so shut the fuck and move on. How about we start worrying about the rising unemployment, failing economy, fucking douchebags like Kanye West, you know the real important issues in this country.

128,

Indeed, you must have been offended, as your spirited response reveals. Yet, personal offense is a liability and not an asset when we debate these important issues. It presents the most dangerous temptation to command assent by force rather than engender mutual understanding by deliberative exchange.

I was merely suggesting that your classmates' attempt to to "replace this professor," as you put it, was quite similar to this professor's method that "limited the class reading to his views and things that supported his views."

I've had more professors that I disagreed with than the other way around. Being among a handful of conservatives in an elite law school will introduce one to the experiences of viewpoint discrimination quite quickly. Yet, each argument and thick-headed professor or pupil gave me an opportunity to learn something and educate someone. We'll always be debating something as important as gay marriage. We must remember not to through the baby of debating even those adverse to us with the bathwater of errors we do not believe.

127

129,

Of course parents owe duties to their children. It was the manner in which he explored those duties that was offensive. Motherhood to him was the highest duty, and to do anything other than that was a belittling of the highest call. Therefore, if you weren't completely fulfilling your duty, i.e. staying home with the kids instead of practicing law, then you were not living up to your full potential and highest duty. I find that line of reasoning to be simplistic and sexist. I feel that I can both be a good lawyer and a good mother.

His focus was all on philosophy and only moderately touched on marriage law and divorce, which he also sees as a terrible wrong. I signed up for a class believing I was going to learn about marriage law, not have conservative philosophical arguments spouted at me. If he had done a section on those arguments and a section on feminist arguments and so forth, I would have felt that it was a brisk argument, but that is not how it was.

I'm simply saying he should act like a professor and address alternative views instead of dismissing them, and he should fully research his claims before stating them. He used arguments in his ad that have been proven to be untrue. Again, I feel like this all ties back to closed minded and fearful approach and not real debate.

I see both the positive and negative legal arguments for gay marriage. I hate to see the untrue statements muddying an already hostile debate. I don't believe it is befitting a professor.

is it just me or are the liberals on this list the ones who are most totalitarian about censoring dissidents?

Jake E.-

Here is your problem: you are either a complete douchebag for dictating to an assistant a post to an ATL blog OR an even bigger douchebag who lies about dictating to an assistant to cover up your own stupidity when someone points out you used the wrong word in your ATTEMPT to sound intelligent. Either way, you should just kill yourself.

129--don't like the readings, don't like the prof, so why did you stay in the class? seems like an easy solution here....but maybe that's just silly...much easier to bitch and moan for a semester and try to get a professor, who everyone knows has very traditional views about marriage and the roles of men and women, removed from teaching the class (he likely came up with).

136,

Add drop had ended. Trust me I tried to escape. Silly me for thinking a class called "Marriage and Family Law," would be about, oh, I dunno, the law!

I had no idea he had traditional views, and even if I had, I would have expected to hear both sides of the argument, as I have with almost every other conservative professor I've had and enjoyed discussing issues with. This was a "my way or highway" class, which was my major problem.

It's one thing to have an opinion. It's another to force it down students throats. He had an obligation as a professor to explore multiple aspects and views on an issue, not to use his position as a bully pulpit. Learning should involve as many views on a topic as possible, not just one. It should be common sense that a class on the foundations of marriage should include at least a token nod to the opposing feminist view points.

Again, I am only saying that as a professor he should have opened and welcomed a debate on gender, on the role of marriage in society, etc. instead of bending the class to his will.

137,

I sympathize with being unable to leave the class. i certainly remember being trapped in a few myself. I know B.C. is putatively Catholic, but i also know how liberal its faculty is. Isn't it the prerogative of a Catholic college to employ at least one professor that teaches the Catholic social thought on the most important issue in that movement?

Surely no professor can represent every viewpoint in a class, and given the prevalence of feminist critical legal studies (taught by Catharine Wells at B.C., I believe), students have many options within their tenures, if not within a single course.

That would be fine: call the class "Catholic Social Thought and Marriage" not "Marriage and Family Law"

Demanding equality of marriage rights between homosexual and heterosexual couples is denying the very real difference between mutual masturbation and procreative intercourse.

Per se, the mutual masturbation poses almost no public good, but it also poses little public danger (at least no more than procreative intercourse). It is like eating candy.

Procreative intercourse, however, poses the important public good of future generations and the danger that a child will be neglected or abused.

Thus, government has many justifications for enacting a marriage licensing regime for couples routinely engaging in or likely to engage in procreative intercourse, but very few for regulating couples routinely engaging in mutual masturbation. Thus explains the difference in treatment.

127 writes:

"We attempted to remove him from our class not because he was conservative, but because he refused to acknowledge or teach other viewpoints and was forcing his view down our throats as the one true answer. To pass his exam, you couldn't give your opinion because he provided no class time or material to opposing views and you had to site to class material.

I see this gay marriage debate and his role in it, making unfounded and incorrect statements, not only as personally offensive but as irresponsible for someone in the academy.

I have had conservative professors that I loved, but I respected their views because they stated them well and with dignity. I see this as fear mongering, which I will never approve of."

He is a "professor," not a high school social studies teacher. A professor, especially in an elective course, has the authority to pick and choose what he thinks is appropriate to study. Other professors, of course, will disagree. But that's what being professor means.

Moreover, he probably thought that since the academy is dominated by "enlightened" types such as yourself who cannot believe that anyone who is rational, thoughtful, or informed could possibly disagree with your view on human sexuality, he figured that this was the one opportunity where you could hear the other side.

There is a certain irony in saying that a professor did not teach a course "the right way" when the central premise of gay marriage is that there is no "right way" for sex organs to function. According to the Catholic--and classical Christian view--sex organs have an intrinsic purpose that may only be fulfilled in opposite sex copulation within the confines of marriage. Now you are suggesting that "classes" have an intrinsic purpose that no one has the right to violate. But why is it okay to be more sure of that belief than it is of the belief that sex organs have an intrinsic purpose?

What you're doing is picking and choosing what dogmas cannot be challenged--your view on classes should function--and those that can--your professor's view on how marriage should function. So, at the end of the day, you are just as narrow and committed to an unchallengeable vision as your professor. The difference is that you think your dogma is not a dogma, and he realizes that his is a dogma. That makes him more open-minded and more teachable, and more likely to exhibit tolerance toward you than you have given to him.

Why isn't anyone talking about polygamy?

--Warren Jeffs

elie is the worst type of liberal. the worst.

@137

Since you seemingly claim that it is improper for someone with "conservative" family views (whatever that means) to allow their intellectual understanding and conclusions bleed into their teaching materials, you must be outraged by the mere thought of allowing homosexuality to be taught in public schools (which is clearly high on the agenda of your LGBT friends).

I applaud you for your consistency.

So, to recap. Conservatives believe that private actors such as corporations should be able to discriminate against gays and lesbians (and african-americans and women and anyone else who is not a straight white males). But private educational institutions should not be allowed to discriminate against conservatives and homophobes and racists, because in the one arena where they are actually the minority, higher education (for now), they really can't deal with the rules that they impose on others in all other arenas where they are the majority.

Y'all should really try to be intellectually honest. Because you actually believe that the government should be able to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation with respect to marriage. Which is certainly an extension of the private actor thesis. But when liberals want private actors (such as private law schools) to discriminate based on homophobia, y'all get up and arms and suddenly love individual rights of free speech and such.

In other words, y'all are too gay for words. It's time to man up and admit that you just hate gay people.

-- Lawyer Gay Secure

@145 - You lost all credibility as soon as you typed "Y'all"...

145,

Let's recap further, shall we?

B.C. is that it is a private actor---one that claims its identity in Roman Catholicism which has developed the most elaborate social thought on marriage to date and expressly condemns homosexual marriage.

So, perhaps you should cut it some slack, based on your private actor thesis.

By the way, I have no doubt you could spark up a very spirited debate about homosexual marriage at B.C. that would involve the feminist faculty and a majority of students would be on the liberal side. The vile ambition of our B.C. commentator's classmates is that they wanted to eradicate even this last vestage of opposition to their viewpoint. That ambition persists with ATL's continuing coverage of this very unsensational happening.

134: It's not just you. Liberals always want to stifle all debate.

Global warming? No debate - you're a flat earther if you don't believe.

Affirmative action? Only a racist would oppose it.

Obama? Same thing.

Did you vote for Prop 8? Burn in hell you bigot, and by the way, this was not at all about government regulation of religion, which is why we want the Mormons to lose their tax-exempt status.

Against the health care agenda? You're a Nazi.

When your ideas don't stand up to scrutiny, just attack the detractors personally.

148, By your score, I'm a double racist bigot Nazi slated to burn in hell while I ponder the earth's lack of rotundity.

@149, Yes, but are you Mormon?

150, Ah, you caught that. Well, five of six isn't half bad.

Yes, 146, but I went to Harvard so I can get away with sounding liking a hick. You? Not so much.

-- Lawyer Gay

Yes, 146, but I went to Harvard so I can get away with sounding liking a hick. You? Not so much.

-- Lawyer Gay

152, so Harvard is where you learned to enjoy buttsex?

no on h8te!

Gay people are so gay. They suck.

Dear gay ATL writer(s),

I'm am so utterly fed up and sick of reading your liberal agit pro. Every gay story that comes out, you people cover in some overtly tendentious manner.

Please hop back on whatever GLBTQRXYZ float you just jumped off and drop this. NOBODY CARES!

On a purely technical, in re your sophistic title for this piece: this is no more "discriminatory" than current marriage laws are "discriminatory" against Mormons because they forbid bigamy, polygamy, polyamory, &tc.

I wouldn't abide any law that said a gay man couldn't marry a gay woman. That would be significant discrimination. But that's not what's being put forward. The fact is any gay man can marry any gay woman he likes. But he can't marry another man. And neither can I.

The law does not respect sexual orientation. And as such it occurs at the appropriate level of generality.

Homogamy is a joke. And serves no purpose. The government is not in the business of supporting or affirming your relationships. The government does not exist to applaud your coming out the closet narrative.

The governement is only involved in marriage at all because of children. And how important they are to the propagation of our culture and way of life.

Ergo the government privileges marriage as an estate, as a class, to incentivize and support. Even though some are childless.

And, btw. I'm not Catholic. But BC IS A CATHOLIC INSTITUTION!! As such, they should act in accordance with their church's teaching.

157, that is the most illogical incoherent drivel ever written on the comment board of ATL. Your argument fails because you ignorance blocks out reality. If the government is interested in the welfare of children, then they should support gay marraige given the numerous amount of children in foster care who need stable homes. Coupled gays will often have moderate to high income levels (two incomes is better than one) that are well suited to raise children.

Dear Above the Law:

I'm so, so, so sick of this stupid story.
If this is all you can do, please go back to the closet.

157, what law school did you attend where they taught you how to write like an 1800's Supreme Court Justice?

Elie Mystal:

Drivel and bilge of the is sort should be relegated to your MySpace page.

Elie Mystal:

Drivel and bilge of this sort should be relegated to your MySpace page.

Elie Mystal:

Drivel and bilge of this sort should be relegated to your MySpace page.

157 is suggesting BC Law school shouldn't teach Roe v. Wade, what a fucking idiot.

yes, 157. We get it. You think the government should be able to discriminate against gays. You think private institutions should be able to discriminate against gays. But you don't think any institution (private or public -- e.g. NYU or BC Law) should be able to discriminate against homophobes. It's a set of beliefs which are grounded in no coherent principles other than hate and disgust. Congratulations for being a hateful idiot.

-- Lawyer Gay

Appreciate the hyperbolic intro, but I rather doubt the significant contribution of homosexuals to the propagation and cultivation of our species--past, present, or future. Most are entirely uninterested in children, especially male homosexuals. In toto, they're a relatively small segment of the population. We're not going to upend things for a smaller subgroup of a small subgroup. And for basically what amounts to making people feel included, massaging their self-esteem, etc.

164. Come on, dude. Get off the pipe. I said or implied nothing of the sort. That's just a flagrantly invalid inference. That or your equivocating with the word 'teach'.

If what you mean to say is that I think BC law school shouldn't, as a Catholic institution, flout the Roman Catholic Church's teaching and promulgate a pro choice agenda, then yes.

165: I'm neither hateful nor an idiot.
And my argument was about private/public discrimination. I think you have a point here, in fact.

I quite simply believe that specious language games are being play that take advantage of the ambiguity of the term 'discrimination'. And I see absolutely no compelling government interest in homogamy whatsoever

Gays should have their rights - 20% off Vaseline - now get the f*ck back in the closet and shut your cock holes.

"Appreciate the hyperbolic intro, but I rather doubt the significant contribution of homosexuals to the propagation and cultivation of our species--past, present, or future."

Good lord. Without us, your art would consist of Thomas Kinkade paintings. Your shopping would consist of Walmart. Your fine dining would consist of Olive Garden and Longhorn's. Your movies would consist of Crank and Crank II. And your intellectual discourse would consist of your posts.

-- Lawyer Gay

168,

Good lord. Without "breeders" your gayness would consist of nonexistence.

-- Lawyer au Naturale

157....

"you people" ????

Every ONE of...... "them?"

I see, Fitzgibbons referred to gays as "homosexuals." What a distortion! Now I understand the controversy about the commercial.

Note to casual observers, try reading 147, 157, 166 out loud in the voice of "Stewie" from Family Guy. It's really funny.

Sounds like just another in a long line of closeted babies using big words to cover up their self-hatred for their attraction to men?