Thanks, Elie. We wouldn't want a single day to go by without a "gay" story. This site is so heterophobic.

Why the fuck should a professor have to change his readings at the request of a class? What the fuck is wrong with these entitled little assholes in law school? Last time I checked they were not forced to take the class and I'm certain the class description made it clear how the course would be structured. No wonder these losers can't find any jobs.

More political proselytizing. Please scrub and replace with something relevant.

3 is spot on.

Mystal was okay voting for an "anti-gay marriage" POTUS.

Marriage: Law and Theory... there is a theory for that too? I understand what's wrong with schools offering these "law and banana" classes - it's academically prestigious, b/c other nimrods are doing it too - but what's wrong with people wasting their time on such BS?

So this guy does what every professor does in the nation, but because he has conservative views rather than spewing liberal bs like 90% of the professors out there this is an issue?

Why do most law students mistakenly believe that all other law students support a gay marriage agenda? Plenty of us don't, and it doesn't spring from homophobia or hate-or religion.

Why do most law students mistakenly believe that all other law students support a gay marriage agenda? Plenty of us don't, and it doesn't spring from homophobia or hate-or religion.

3 misses the point. The issue is not that he does not have a right to tailor his class how he chooses, but the fact that students at BC Law pay for a legal education, not indoctrination in one view of a particular legal issue. I think it seems plausible that a course titled Marriage: Law and Theory would cover all viewpoints on that issue, not just his. The students were disappointed that he was again using his position at a professor of "law" to espouse his particular beliefs on this one issue instead of using his position as a professor to educate. The only defense for it is that Fitzgibbon is well known for his stand so any student taking that class should have known the way the class would be tailored. Maybe they were hoping it would be a forum for the academic freedom of debate that is used as an excuse for why Fitzgibbon can go up to Maine and promote hate and bigotry.

Oh and BC Law student here - with a pretty good job lined up. Plenty of us get jobs that are as good as the jobs people here seem to think belong to only T10 students. I guess having a personality and not being socially retarded does factor in every once in a while.

And left-wing professors (the vast majority) are so receptive to conservative requests to change their reading lists ....

8: most liberal professors I have had in law school at least allow dissent and invite opposing views.

9: where does it spring from then?

How many states have banned gay marriages? That's right, a majority of America has made your sport illegal.

“He refused to include any readings from the feminist or GLBT groups into the curriculum, despite requests that he do so,” said Monica Jo Molnar ‘08, a student in Fitzgibbon’s class and a member of the group that approached Wylie."

Sorry, but a law class is not a democratic endeavor. Also, Catholic jurisprudence is about humanity, and what it means to be a good instance of human kind, as such, according to the long standing teachings of the Church (and ancient Judaism for that matter) GBLT actions are evil and disordered.

Let me add that the views of Prof. Fitzgibbon is shared among many other Catholic law profs, lawyers, and judges. And yes, these folks teach at the prominent Catholic law schools throughout the country, at Notre Dame, Villanova, Loyola Chicago, and St. Thomas MN. Also, I'm sure amidst Elie's little homo auto de fey, he'll even find law profs who share Prof. Fitzgibbon's views at secular law schools as well.

God this is retarded.

Do conservatives cruciify every whack-job liberal proff who cant wait to shove their half-baked theory down the throat of law or undergrad students?

Its so disengenious that its laughable.

Ellie, you suck.

ATL, please keep your politics out of these pages. Its really making coming to visit the site a drag. I am going to keep away from reading ATL because of this constant preachiness

boston college is a Catholic law school. not a shocker to be consistent with the Catholic church on gay marriage. not a shocker if they are not pro-choice or don't teach divorce as an option either.

11 is gay!

11,

I'm a BCLS Alum, liberal, and am pro-gay marriage as well. I would just point out that there are courses that have a big political-bias reputation in the other direction. E.g., Professor Greenfield's Corporations, or more affectionately know as, "Corporations for Commies." Now I took that course and enjoyed it very much, but it was absolutely clear what perspective the professor had, and really all the readings were tilted in that way (including the professor's own book that was assigned). Arguably, the class did not "cover all viewpoints on that issue" but "just his."

I'm not sure if people asked Greenfield to alter the curriculum, but I have heard more conservative friends comment with frustration of the course.

I ask of you, is this holding Fitzgibbon to a different standard than we hold of other liberal professors?

This is hilarious, seeing as I doubt any of this would be cast in the same light if it were a pro-LGBT professor who denied anti-gay marriage readings in his class.

I had professors who were so left wing that they may as well have been communists. They would end their classes with a 5-10 exposition on why X conservative viewpoint was stupid and wrong -- abortion, gun rights, death penalty, etc.

Eat it, LGBT students. You're finally experiencing what it has been like for conservative students.

BC is a shit law school, and 11 only wishes he could get a "pretty good job."

lol.

This is pretty much why I hate liberals . . . and Ellie.

20 - apparently it is holding him to the same standard. The school shut the students down, did they not? My argument was simply that class called simply Marriage: Law and Theory should discuss the law and theory, not Fitzgibbon's views. And even if it's heavily weighted in his direction, he should, as a professor, treat other viewpoints with respect. I have never heard of anyone complaining that Greenfield shuts his students out of the conversation simply because they are conservative.

Greenfield's corporations course makes it clear from what angle the issue is being taught. And there is always another corporations class taught at the same time for your conservative friends (ie: Renee Jones).

22 - Weil in NYC - pretty good job if you ask me. In this economy going to such a "shit law school," I'd say I'm pretty happy with it. What about you?

11,

Glad to hear you have a "pretty good job" lined up. A word, though.

At least to me, you don't come off as legitimately laid-back by implicitly calling others out on ATL for not having a "personality" or being "socially retarded."

Usually in my experience, it's the people who feel the need to brag about how 'normal' they are who are the worst to deal with. Overcompensating for something.

Just chill out, hang out, and do good work.

- Someone who went to that law school in Cambridge

25 - I completely agree with you. I'm simply pointing out that while a degree from a T10 school is certainly something to be happy about, it isn't everything and plenty of people without one get the same jobs. And of my friends who do legal recruiting, most of whom also went to those T10 law schools, their largest complaint is the fact that many people from those T10 law schools let it get to their heads, are often times insanely difficult to work with because they think they know everything (see: most of the comments on ATL) and say things like, "someone who went to that law school in Cambridge."

Oh and who feel the need to have "a word" with people. I appreciate your advice. I know because you got to Harvard, I should probably take it to heart. Thanks for making my point.

11, A word of advice:

You have just proven that you are either 1)not smart or 2) a liar

You see, if you really are going to be a NYC summer at Weil, then you have narrowed yourself down to a handful of people in real life, and people love to "out" others on these message boards. This would prove you to be not smart. OR...

You really don't have Weil NYC lined up, in which case you are a liar.

Yet another article on ATL with a pro-gay, anti-conservative bent. This is not journalism. This is a screed using "sources," "quotes," and "complaints" to say "We don't like this guy's position, so it must be wrong if he is teaching it in a law school." Putting question marks at the end of rhetorical sentences does not change that.

#26: Harvard is a shit law school too, so don't worry about it.

I agree 100% with this article. But why stop there? Why not complain if a pro-life professor teaches Constitutional Law? What about a professor who supports harsh punishments? He shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a Criminal Law Class.

Can't the president just teach all of our law classes?

27: is there a reason to fear being "outed" because of anything I've said here?

Also, never said it was a summer job, did I?

is this for real? 99 of all sexuality courses in law schools are taught by profs with deep, passionate commitments to same sex marriage, new legislation, etc.

so is the idea that the prof's beliefs disqualify her/him from teaching a course on that topic -- but only if they have conservative views and not liberal views? or is the idea that if you have any views on the topic you are disqualified? or is the idea that a prof can have views and still teach?

would any of this prof's opponents be willing to pay me a dollar for each day i had to hear a politically engaged law prof express her views in class? i seriously doubt it.

11 -- considering that Weil NYC is going to hire like...20 people for summer 2010, it is HIGHLY doubtful that they are going to take BC students.

So quit yer lying'.

I don't see any conservatives complaining when liberal professors exclude scholarship by conservatives from the curriculum. If you don't like the syllabus, then you don't have to take the class.

Finally, anti-gay marriage =/= anti-gay. Only the intellectually lazy conflate the two. So long as the prof is respectful to gays as individuals while maintaining a stance against a "right" to gay marriage, I see nothing wrong with that.

#34: you don't see conservatives complain about it? Talk about intellectually lazy. I think we both know you know that isn't true.

Can the law school claim that it is “welcoming” to gays and lesbians when it had an anti-gay marriage professor teaching its marriage and the law class?

Can the law school claim that it is "welcoming" to diversity if it is opposed to having professors who hold controversial opinions?

I took a class on sexual orientation law at HLS a few years ago, taught by an openly lesbian visiting professor, in which we were required to read and honestly discuss a number of anti-gay rights, conservative perspectives on sexual orientation issues in family law (think Maggie Gallagher and similar.)

I also took a capital punishment class at HLS taught by an abolitionist professor (Carol Steiker) in which conservative/retributivist readings were read; in which those of us who supported the death penalty (granted, only five of us in a class of 100) were encouraged to share our views amidst vigorous dissent; and in which the policy questions on the final exam were worded in a way to allow for conservative or liberal responses to the death penalty. Despite my openly center-right stance on the issue, I received an A.

So yes, I think it's legitimate to require both conservative and liberal professors to expose their students to opposing viewpoints; and to evaluate students fairly on exams regardless of their personal philosophies. I am sure many liberal and conservative professors fall short of that mark; it's unfortunate regardless of which side of the political divide they are on.

So the prof who called Rehquist the devil incarnate in class and then spent the semester telling us how great Brennan is and how evil conservatives wasn't intolerant of my views? He didn't include one thing that wasn't a liberal diatribe, but you know what I got an A because I could pick apart his arguments using his shitty source material.

Why didn't these kids fight the fight instead of being sissies and going to complain to the dean. Head's up kids, real world doesn't work that way.

Blah, blah, boring.

Here's a more important question.

Who would win in a thumb-wrestling contest? Fitzgibbon, or Dr. Li-ann Thio?

Just remember, folks, Thio would have been Johnnie Cochran's dream client. No gloves fit her.

All of this in-your-face, everyday homo stuff that you spit out is really alienates your readers. Keep going.

All of this in-your-face, everyday homo stuff that you spit out really alienates your readers. Keep going.

21: welcome to the rest of your life in the highly educated world.

This topic is gay. Please stop posting about it.

what #8 said. i had to skip out on taking crimpro because it was being taught by a hardcore lefty. you dont hear me bitching.

#42 is dead on. If you don't like living among highly educated people who aren't close minded and bigoted in their views, then find another profession. Draconian views of marriage like Fitzgibbon are rare, archaic and embarrassing. Conservatives like to play the oppression card when the liberal majority (or rather, just the highly educated, fair minded majority) tells them to shut their bigoted mouths up because they are sick of listening to the drivel. Get real. Conservative views of marriage are over - you lost. Get over it. In a few decades, this will be as silly an argument as separate but equal and school segregation and you fools who stood up and advocated for views like Fitzgibbon to be heard will look as ridiculous as the Klan.

Shut the f*** up with your nonsense. We're sick of hearing it. I didn't suffer through law school to listen to this nonsense any more.

And for you people who are bitching about this post and the other related to it...LEAVE. This is not your blog. This blog owes you NOTHING. Elie, et al. have the right to post about whatever they choose. If you don't like it, start your own blog and see if you can get the traffic ATL gets. Sick of listening to it.

#44: yes we do, you just did. except you are so lame you do it here and not somewhere relevant.

Why are we discussing gay marraige? We have yet to decide the question of whether we should let gay people live.

Prof F.

45 - The conservative view of marriage lost? Really? Have you paid any attention to the news? 29 states have constitutions that do not allow gay marriage. Another 19 states have passed statutes that ban gay marriage. The largest state in the union saw its constituents embrace a conservative view of marriage just a year ago. All kinds of polls continuously show that the split between

I'm sick of listening to idiots like you on ATL who make stupid statements that completely lack support.

Cry me a river for these law students at this Jesuit institution. Not enough opposing viewpoints? The prof. was clearly biased against gay marriage? Shocking and outrageous!

I passionately support same-sex marriage. Still, I hardly expect a Catholic institution to be a neutral moderator on this disputed issue.

@37, Thanks. Now re-commence the drowning out of common sense.

Exactly right, 37. My classes at HLS exposed to both conservative and liberal approaches to various issues. They were classes teaching analytical thinking and questioning -- of all viewpoints, not dogma.

Odd that conservatives get all up in arms about "free speech" and teaching both sides of an issue when they think they are being oppressed. Do they have any integrity to principle?

Anyhoo, it's time for the BC students to riot and get his ass fired. As a commenter above, law school is not a democratic institution -- and homophobes should not be tolerated.

#48: Among legal scholars? I don't think so. That was the point. And CA polling clearly shows that if held today, Prop 8 would not have passed. In the last decade, polling has shifted DRAMATICALLY towards marriage equality, or at the very least, equal rights as marriage for same sex couples. Looking demographically, the numbers shift even further when you take out age groups of 60 and older or people who don't have college educations. The trend is clear. This issue is lost. It was lost in 2004 when MA made it legal. The only delay will be in stacking a Supreme Court that will take this decision out of the states and put it where it belongs, on the federal level. Thinking and looking long term, as I said before, this issue is clearly going to come out with people like Fitzgibbon on the wrong side of history.

#49: would you say the same about Georgetown. BC is Jesuit, just as Georgetown is. Anyone familiar with the Jesuit tradition knows that, particularly in their professional schools such as law schools, they aren't as archaic as how you'd have us believe they are. The majority of the faculty at BC and most Jesuit law schools do not agree with Fitzgibbon.

omg a law professor who only wants to hear his own views! This is news!

Elie, your extreme-left crap is getting tired. You should quit or they should stick a fork in your fat behind. Oh my! Someone has and teaches a view on the substance of a course they teach! This is no different from teaching originalism or "living constitution" in a con law class. And how is it somehow out of keeping with law school protocol to say that you have to marshal the sources you're given into a coherent argument; ever heard of a closed memo? Yours is an imbecilic argument.

11,

BC Law students are destined for a penurious lifestyle. You do not work at Weil. My uncle is a partner and no BC students were given offers. Have fun working at a regional firm and getting owned in court by attorneys of my stature.

-3L going to school in New Haven-

My brother's girlfriend's sister's boyfriend's dad is a partner there and he says you're full of shit #55. Oh and that your uncle is gay.

(And that you don't go to Yale)

55 - of COURSE you go to Yale. Only someone at Yale would bother asking his uncle about what someone on ATL says in the comments. Except of course you didn't ask your "uncle" anything and probably don't go to Yale. You, like 11, are a liar. As are most dipshits on this site.

#56

You are an imbecile. Please crawl into a hole and die. Trust me, no one will care.

-your mom-

Isn’t Boston College the school for all the Catholics who didn’t get into Notre Dame?

What's Notre Dame?

so, when paul bulter teaches that all black jurors should engage in jury nullification because all whites are racist, why doesn't that cause students to complain.

I

Could the law school claim that it is “welcoming” to those with sincerely held traditional religious beliefs if it had a pro-gay marriage professor teaching its marriage and the law class?

59 - ND sucks every bit as much dick as BC does, possibly even a little more, and if I were forced to choose between those two shit-holes I would take BC.

62, that is the norm in every law school. The reason this is getting attention is because the teacher has taken a right position instead of the evolved left view.

As a Catholic, I do not support gay marriage. As an American, I support states giving the exact same license to every couple that wants to be legally recognized as such. Then, if the priest or rabbi does not want to convey the marriage blessing, that is their right and business. The government should stay out of the sacrament business.

@39 -- Dude(ette) -- Did you see the size of those hands? The answer is self-evident. QED.

http://menagealaw.blogspot.com/

@48 -- You are on the wrong side of histrory. And too ignorant and hateful to acknowledge it. How do you look at yourself in the mirror every morning, knowing that your views would cause more pain and suffering in the world? People who love each other should not be able to be with each other because some bearded invisible fairy in the sky should say they can"t? Really? Maybe you should join the Taliban. I hear they are looking for recruits.

To the BC students who think Fitzgibbon is too conservative: DON'T TAKE HIS CLASS. A perk of being a professor is that you get to choose the content presented in class. If that content offends you, don't take the friggin class!

To the BC students who think Fitzgibbon is too conservative: DON'T TAKE HIS CLASS. A perk of being a professor is that you get to choose the content presented in class. If that content offends you, don't take the friggin class!

First, anybody who takes a "law and _____" class or a law school class with the word "theory" in the title and DOESN'T expect full-on indoctrination of the professor's views is an idiot. Yes, some professors are fair-minded and won't give you a horrible grade for criticizing their views, but you're rolling the dice if you take that approach on an exam.

Second, what the hell are people so afraid of about professors spouting off their views? It's one thing to make elementary school kids sing chants about Obama, but you're maybe 25 years old when you're taking law school classes and you should be able to handle people with viewpoints different than yours. Or is it that liberals are afraid their views won't take hold if they're not forcibly preached in every classroom in the country?

Third, I think something like 8 countries in the world allow gay marriage. It's explicitly illegal in about 2/3 of the United States, and legally uncertain in most of the remainder. I agree that the trend is towards allowing it, and if that result comes across democratically then so be it. But it's pretty g**damn arrogant to sit there and act like the viewpoint held by humanity for thousands of years and still held by the VAST majority of mankind is bigoted and exclusive to idiots. Comparing the opposing viewpoint to racism is really the last refuge of the scoundrel. And watch the sh*tstorm that will happen if a liberal president stacks the Supreme Court and imposes gay marriage on the nation before there is a dramatic shift of opinion on the matter.

Can ATL please fire Elie?! This is outrageous. ATL is never high literature, but an open call for censorship of a tenured professor?! What kind of crack has Elie been smoking? This is complete and utter rubbish.

And this is for Ms. Molnar - if you don't like the class, DROP OUT. There's a marketplace of ideas out there, after all. It's hard for me not to think that this spoiled little twit was trying to get Professor Fitzgibbon for his viewpoint. Too bad Fitzgibbon is still a tenured professor and Ms. Molnar still a nobody.

@45:

"Conservative views of marriage are over - you lost. Get over it."

Last I checked, a super-majority of states (including hippie-capital California) explicitly banned same-sex marriage. Many of them, in response to same-sex advocates shoving their views down the throats of others, upped the ante and amended their constitutions to express their outrage and disapproval. But you were saying something about winning?

"I think it seems plausible that a course titled Marriage: Law and Theory would cover all viewpoints on that issue."

Holy shit this person has never been to law school. Ever heard of "Crictical Race Theory" or "Critical Legal Studies" or "Women and the Law". Newsflash: the courses don't cover all viewpoints. Hell, they don't cover more than one viewpoint.

i am pro-gay marriage but think this is ridiculous. what a waste of an article.

According to his bio, Professor Fitzgibbon teaches jurisprudence, corporations, securities regulation, and contracts. Are gay and lesbian BC Law students comfortable learning about these subjects from an anti-gay marriage professor?

seriously?

I took several classes in law school that were out-and-out indoctrination in a professor's point of view. And all those points of view were liberal... which is not surprising, given the liberal leanings of the vast majority of law professors. I learned to keep my non-liberal viewpoints to myself until I was sure that the professor would not attack me for them. (And there were plenty of profs who would have.)

If you take a seminar whose title includes the word "theory," you should expect indoctrination in the professor's viewpoint. If you don't like the professor's viewpoint, then don't take the class. There are plenty of other law school courses in which you can be indoctrinated in pro-gay-marriage views.

I think all of you guys are missing the most ridiculous part of this article, which is where Elie explains how he got a B in torts by (surprise!) writing a political screed instead of demonstrating the ability to provide legal analysis.

Who here thinks torts is the only subject where Elie has one of these stories? You know, the kind that goes "On a [bankruptcy/commercial transactions/federal courts] exam, I tried to answer a standard [legal] issue by arguing that [law] was never an appropriate standard to apply and that the scheme — and the entire study of [the class I just took] in general — was devised to [oppress people I like politically]. It ... didn't go well for me."

Elie, you seem to have a lot of latent gay-panicky momma's boys among your readership, castigating you for expressing what they are too afraid to admit to themselves.

I hope you're proud of yourself, young man!!!

#77 is right. Elie is a product of the "I am special" gold-star, soccer participation trophy generation where his mindless parroting of whatever liberal claptrap he was fed was rewarded with extra soft pats on his bulbous head and extra servings of cheese doodles.

He got a "B" in almost every class he took (when he was lucky) because he couldn't figure out that gold nuggets didn't fall from his mouth and from his pen just because he believed in himself. Gasp... in law school you actually have to THINK and REASON. I still can't believe the soapbox this guy has. His brain and reasoning are absolute mush.

Congratulations. I now feel sorry for this guy.

Ellie, saying that a professor's view point is "the radical and probably wrong legal view" as compared to mainstream legal scholarship is the best praise you can give someone. I leave it as an exercise to the read to figure out why the foregoing is true.

God, who hired an idiot to run this website after Lat left?

The law as it stands always results in things some people disagree with. That's the natural result of a profession supposedly full of independent thinkers but based on stare decisis. If you can't argue within a framework that you don't agree with, you're either going to be a terrible lawyer or a terrible thinker. Either way you need to learn to STFU because it's going to be a career necessity.

64: "As a Catholic, I do not support gay marriage. As an American, I support states giving the exact same license to every couple that wants to be legally recognized as such. Then, if the priest or rabbi does not want to convey the marriage blessing, that is their right and business. The government should stay out of the sacrament business."

Speaking for the Gays, TITCR. What the fuck do I care about some dood in Italy who's a hat choice away from being Grand Wizard of the KKK... leave marriage to jebus and Him churches and leave rights to the states.

FitzGibbon is a putz, but he is surpassed in putzdom only by the most liberal blowhard on the BCLS faculty: Kent Greenfield (his real name is Harold, but "Harry" doesn't fit with his "image"). This douchenozzle actually wrote a book called "The Failure of Corporate Law" wherein he basically regurgitates Ralph Nader's stale ideas for reforming corporate law. And whereas students merely expressed concern that FitzGibbon's views would skew grades, Greenfield's most definitely affected grades.

On a related note, Greenfield clerked for Souter. I still have not met a Souter clerk who could reason his way out of a syllogism. 5/5 so far and all brain dead.

I used to champion liberal social reform, but if it means being associated with the shout down liberals and Harry Greenfields of the world, I'll pass.

Reading these comments makes me remember why liberalism is a brain dead, illogical ideology.

So, 11, does BC have a course on "Law and Hypocrisy"? How about "Law and Irony"?

You need both.

My Con Law professor used to skip Scalia opinions in class discussions and spent 10 minutes on the 2nd amendment.

"there is a lot of scholarship available that suggests Fitzgibbo.."

Really? IS there? IS there a bunch?

87- there IS a lot of time left for you to rescind you misplaced criticism. There is a bunch.

Ok, I'm not trying to be an asshole here, but if you got BC law, you've got WAY bigger problems then this one.

There was a big flap at my school in '01 or '02 about a pro life society- it doesn't mean shit now. I have been out 6 years and what matters now is having a career and providing for yourself and/or family.

To anyone at BC my advice would be to look at the big picture and not get wrapped up in this nonsense. Half your professors will be gone in 5 years, the administration will be different, and you will need to be an adult and provide and you can leave the idealistic, worthless arguments to the jobless.

It never ceases to amaze me at just how stridently vocal people can get about these liberal non-issues. LGBT identity nonsense, puppy farms, don't ask don't tell, etc. etc.

We're spending ourselves into oblivion and all anyone can bitch about is how some jerkoff law prof makes them FEEL. Shut the fuck up, the lot of you.

"However, on the gay marriage issue, there is a lot of scholarship available that suggests Fitzgibbon is the one with the radical and probably wrong legal view."

Wow. Just... wow. This is exactly where the gay rights bus is going to veer of a cliff. Suddenly the gays are claiming not only an argument in favor of expanding the concept of marriage, but that any argument AGAINST expansion is "radical" and objectively "wrong." I'm speechless.

You've made a lot of good, legitimate progress in the past 30 years, gays. You're no longer persecuted or discriminated against. Don't you think it's time to quit while you're ahead? The rational, moderate majority that was persuaded by your arguments against persecution is not going to be persuaded to take the next step and actively promote homosexuality, which is what gay marriage is all about. And if you persist in attacking anyone who voices opposition to your efforts you're going to alienate the fan base that supported you to this point.

I support gay marriage as much as any good "Ally" can. But I am floored by the notion that someone would enroll at a Catholic law school and then complain that one of the professors has the same views as the Catholic church. It's also worth noting that this view is not some fringe idea. In fact, it is consistent with the law in 44 states at the moment and just 5 years ago was consistent with the law in all 50.

To everyone (and Elie):

Stop worrying about this. Fitzgibbon is old, no one actually takes him seriously on issues relating to equality of any sort, and his nonsense views are on the outs.

Let's look at the state of the LGBT movement in 2000 and today. In 2000, no states had gay marriage, few had civil unions or other domestic benefits, DOMA and DADT were relatively uncontroversial, few states prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the workplace or housing, and people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell were actually taken somewhat seriously.

Now let's look at the present age. There's same-sex marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships in over 15 states, DOMA is soon to be either struck down or repealed by Congress, DADT is on its way out, 21 states and over 140 cities and counties prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment, a similar number prohibit the same in housing, the "moral majority" has proven itself to be an irrelevant bunch of bigots, and numerous state supreme courts and courts of appeals and federal district courts and courts of appeals across the country are holding that sexual orientation has ABSOLUTELY no relevance to a person's ability to contribute to society, be a parent, adopt children, be a teacher, and anything and everything else under the sun. Also, there was Lawrence v. Texas.

So there we have it. In less than ten years (compare to over 90 between the end of the Civil War and Brown v. Board), there has evolved a strong consensus that separate and unequal laws recognizing same-sex relationships and bigotry and discrimination in the public sphere against homosexuals are morally and legally wrong.

Of course, people on the other side (or Scalia) will claim that this is the result of a well-funded army of fabulous lawyers intent on shoving the homosexual agenda down the throats of people (read: bigots) everywhere, but after your side suffers so many losses, it's time to re-check your attitude. It's glaringly obvious that cultural attitudes change slowly over time and we're in the middle of a massive change right now. As more and more people who oppose civil rights for gays get to know someone who is gay or lesbian, have to listen to their children come out, or just engage in dialogue of some sort with an LGBT person, ignorance, fear and bigotry slowly melt away.

The arc of history is clearly and indisputably (most would say) on our side. The choice of which side to plant yourself on is a morally loaded one. Be warned. You will be judged harshly by future generations (like Fitzgibbon) should you make the reactionary, bigoted choice.

That is all.

91, I couldn't agree more with you. The economy has been since the late 1960's multiple series of bubbles and busts and here every friggin' moron is fighting a cultural war.

The economy is in the shitter and has been for a long time for most people who haven't been lucky enough to go to law school.

The loss of U.S. manufacturing means lots of common products are no longer made here and the elimination of formerly stable jobs. When there are no blue-collar jobs anymore and all you have are pseudo white-collar jobs there is something wrong.

Justice Scalia missed the point that smart people should be doing something more productive than law. The economy has been so bad for so long, including most scientists and engineers, that law was a refuge to make some serious money. No finally things have caught up to lawyers.

But nevermind actually fixing the economy, let's distract ourselves with LGBT, abortion, race, and what ever other phobia there may be. I suppose this is what you get in a liberal arts economy.

I will interrupt the insult -athon ( why do these boards always seem to end up that way) to make a couple of relevant points regarding Prof. Fitzgibbon - 1) he is a superior teacher and a recognized scholar in securities law particularly in the area of transaction opinions 2) he is a practicing Catholic who happens not to be a hypocrite when it comes to personal beliefs and religious beliefs (i.e. he actually walks the talk and is willing to take the consequences) and 3) BC Law is lucky to have him given the way superstar faculty jump around these days. Fitzgibbons's class on Representing Start-ups which he taught with some of his former Ropes & Gray Partners was the single best class I took in law school and helped me enormously professionally.

With regard to promoting diversity and the school's response to the complaints about Fitzgibbon I am glad BC Law is trying - when I was there a friend of mine's BMW was vandalized to the tune of $2K for the sin of having a Reagan sticker on his car and no one really seemed to care. The school is way to the left on most everything to the point where I don't give what I should to the institution even though I owe much of my professional success to professors like Fitzgibbon, Ault and Glendon (who was poached by HLS).

Any good law school worth its salt should provide an education which transcends the class room or the lecture hall. It would seem that Prof. Fitzgibbon has "provoked" a discourse regarding the legal definition of marriage that goes go well beyond the four walls of the classroom and that is a good thing for the students and for the school. The job for BC Law School is to make sure it is an intellectual discourse and not just invective flying all around from all sides.
As to the article that has generated 90+ comments it misses two points which would be relevant to the legal profession generally - 1) given the economy is this really about one professor's personal views or is it about the latent fear among students about voicing an opinion in class which the student believes could impact one's grades and therefore one's job prospects(ignoring the practical solution of dropping the class and taking a different one for the moment) and 2) the article seems to ignore that in 2004 and again in 2008 a number of states held referenda in which the voting public voted to limit the legal definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman - the article should ask whether this is much ado about nothing (other than #1 above) since one has to ask the question regarding whether Fitzgibbon is out of bounds or in the mainstream( I am talking about the country here and not law school faculty opinions) or do some students at BC Law have a problem with the democratic process generally and what should or could BC Law in specific and law schools in general be doing to prepare their students to practice law in a society where everyone has the right to vote and that vote counts as much as his or hers (as much as that newly minted JD may consider that that general public vote to be ill or uninformed). I for one doubt that those voting for Proposition 8 availed themselves of the "available scholarship" prior to voting. The fact that Fitzgibbon taught a seminar (read elective) about something he had a personal interest in (as opposed to being a recognized legal expert in) might have been an attempt by BC Law to present a differing point of view -that is a good thing - the purpose of law school is to teach its students to think, to think critically and to learn to develop writing and drafting skills that start that student along in the process of being a strong advocate for his or her client be it in private practice or public practice. Complaining about Fitzgibbon because his class lectures specifically and his personal viewpoint generally could be interpreted as unwelcoming to gay students seems to be a procedural move rather than substantive argument - having a professor agree with the status quo inside the ivy walls serves no greater purpose than to make things comfortable for all involved for three years. Amen and Alleluia should be limited to the Chapel and not the classroom at Boston College. Running off Professor Fitzgibbon will only result in a 10 place drop in the US News ranking (remember no job no student loan repayment). For those who have a problem with Fitzgibbon -take his course on Securities Law Regulation and feel free to apologize to him at the end of the course for trying to run him off - you will also learn that he is much smarter than you which is nice to know given the cost of attending BC Law.

I like to visit this site for firm news (pay, layoffs, etc) and gossip but am instead being greeted on a regular basis by the opinions of a morbidly obese grotesque. Is anyone really under the impression that people come here to read editorials from some 20-something washout? I can only assume he thinks being highly opinionated is a smokescreen behind which he can conceal mediocre intelligence and poor writing. He's mistaken.

I'll be reading the WSJ from now on.

94 FTW

This post is addressed to commenter no. 94:

You said, "You will be judged harshly by future generations (like Fitzgibbon) should you make the reactionary, bigoted choice. "

To quote one of my favorite gay people in the 20th century, "In the long run, we are all dead."

94 - you sure seem insecure and belligerent for someone who is sure history is on his side. Thanks for the warning but I think I will think whatever I want rather than simply fall in line with the herd mentality of the pro-gay marriage minority. I'm sure you realize your argument (i.e., that we should simply agree with whatever we think will be the majority view in the future) is ridiculous.

100: That is a pretty pathetic rebuttal to the substance of 94's post.

94's point was that gays, like other historically subjugated goups (blacks, women), are slowly, but surely, earning and gaining equal rights to those in the majority. For many years, courts, legislatures and civil society found race and gender highly relevant in the government's distribution of burdens and benefits (voting, education, marriage, property rights, etc.) and as acceptable bases for discrimination the public sphere. Now, there is a near-unanimous consensus that those actors were incredibly wrong to do so and their actions were morally repugnant. So it is with sexual orientation.

ATL has truly jumped the shark with this thread. It's bad enough that Ellie's post implies that opposition to gay marriage (which continues to be the majority view in the United States) is mere ignorant bigotry, akin to "creationism." But he goes further and questions whether a law school (a Catholic one, no less) can even have a single opponent of gay marriage on its faculty and still be "welcoming" of gays.

Here's a reality check: Most Americans couldn't care less about gay issues in general. It's emphatically not like racial discrimination, which had troubled the consciences of non-Southern whites long before the civil rights era. Gays do not inherit disadvantages in life based on discrimination against their parents, as African-Americans long did and arguably continue to do.

Few people in this country have any desire to harm gays and lesbians or to interfere with whatever you all do in private. We would rather not hear so much about it all the time, but we aren't trying to stop you. But not wishing you ill doesn't require recognizing gay relationships as "marriages." If you think that's bigotry, too bad. That sort of "bigotry" is here to stay.

102's point sounds simple enough until you realize that it is completely irrelevant to the central issue of whether sexual orientation should be a factor in the government's distribution of burdens and benefits and whether sexual orientation is an acceptable basis for discrimination in the public and private sphere. For some information on the point of burdens, see the well-researched NYT story here (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/your-money/03money.html?em) and on the point of discrimination, 102 is completely avoiding the issue of whether discrimination against gays in employment and housing should be prohibited, as it is on the basis of race, gender, color, national origin, etc.

I'll be here all afternoon, folks, destroying conservative arguments, myths, and lies against the equal treatment of homosexuals and same-sex relationships.

94, 101 and 103.

104, You're going to have to be here a lot longer than that, as defending a hopeless cause takes forever.

105,

Not really. I have made the affirmative case for LGBT rights and dispatched conservative arguments in 20-30 easy minutes thus far. Still waiting for a well-reasoned and coherent rebuttal.

94/101/103

I suppose that I should know the answer to this, but is BC Law accredited by the American Bar Association and a member in good standing of the Association of American Law Schools?

In Artie Lange voice: Waaaaaaaaahhhhhh! The syllabus didn't have any books that expressed my point of view!!!! Wwwaaaaaahhhhhh!!!

Last I checked, BC is a Catholic university. If the students thought the issue was too big for them to handle, there were lots of other schools to choose from.

If you are a BC Law student, you knew exactly what you were getting when you signed up for a class with Fitzy, particularly one about marriage. So quit bitching.

This reactionary should not be permitted to teach anywhere. Free speech means saying the right thing.

It's very annoying when people confuse the free speech and academic freedoms of tenured faculty on important matters with the intellectual and logical coherence of their speech on such matters. No serious person (Elie excluded) would contend that Fitzgibbon should be censored; the relevant point is that the intellectual underpinnings of his anti-gay marriage arguments and the ad he appeared in are impoverished in facts, logic and coherence. The same was true with Li-Ann Thio, which was why NYU was correctly mortified at their decision to extend her a visiting offer after reading her ignorant polemic in print and in front of Parliament.

GAYS ARE NOT HUMAN.

Someone please explain the moral difference between the following consensual relationships:

1) Man and Man relationship

2)Brother and Brother relationship

3)Dad and Son relationship

4) Polygamist relationship

What is the reason to allow gays to marry, but not the other groups?

At first glance, I thought the Dean was Noah Wyle.

112 is correct: To be sure, what we define as anti-gay sentiment can have no rational foundation, and must be suppressed. As you say, the ad is incoherent because of the views the man has.

It isn't the sixties anymore: academic freedom is no longer necessary to the revolution.

114's challenge cannot be answered without a discussion of the purposes behind the government sanction of marriage and the benefits that flow from this sanction and an understanding of equal protection jurisprudence. If you're ready to go there, 114, I'll be right behind you and will proceed slowly through the theory and the arguments, but I'm not sure you are.

Let the gays marry!!!!

Besides -- man on man sex is HOT to watch.

114,

Are you serious?

Everybody has a sexual orientation. You are confusing sexual orientation with sexual behavior between parent child and among several people [polgamy].

Should men and women be prevented from marriage b/c that will lead to fathers marrying their daughter - or brothers marrying their sisters?

Your question demonstrates the utter stupidity of the anti-gay marriage. Stupidity is not a virtue!

114,

Gay rights are INDIVIDUAL and CIVIL rights - not group rights [polygamy].

Please read the Constitution

114,

Gay People are born with an homosexual sexual orientation. Should they be left out in the cold re: federal marriage benefits?

If you don't understand the concept of sexual orientation - which is scientific, not political or religious - then at least refrain from making ignorant comments.

121, what about people born with pedophilic orientation or those who are born with a predilection for sheep? What federal benefits should they expect?

It's not as if a simple legal/logical argument wins the debate for gay rights. It's just not that easy.

Unlike some of the commentators above, I found HLS to be very intellectually stifling. A number of professors really tried to cram-down a leftist agenda... so, yeah, demonizing one prof. who goes the other way (so to speak) seems very wrong to me.

At least Elie knows who his boss is. @$$ kissing is important in our business no matter what your orientation.

If it's a slow news day a piece like this every once in a while provides a place to vent (it really was garbage) and ATL won't lose too many readers (including myself), but too much of this drivel will most certainly piss a lot of people off. So watch it, guys. Thanks.

114,

Marriage is all about equal rights of individuals to marry whoever they choose.

So, like 120 said, three people wanting to marry each other doesn't count, since they're a GROUP of people, not individuals.

And, like 121 said, the goverment can discriminate all it wants under the police power if the discrimination has nothing to do with an immutable trait. Believe it or not, if the government wants to deny marriage to all Republicans it can -- that's not an immutable trait.

Good posts, 104.

As to this comment by another commenter "You're no longer persecuted or discriminated against. Don't you think it's time to quit while you're ahead?"

Um. Do you read the papers. People are still beaten up and even killed (most recently in NYC) just for being gay. When I was attending law school, I was jumped by a group of teen-age kids and hit over the head with a lead pipe for being gay. We are still persecuted.

As far as discrimination, every review I get says that I am technically a great lawyer -- diligent, smart, client focused, creative when necessary, great analytical bind , good business mind, clients consistently request to work with me. But I can't break into partnership because of this intanglible they called "presence." Now this decision is made almost exclusively by straight men -- there are not out gay equity partners and very few women equity partners on my team. You can't tell me that this presence factor isn't influenced in large part by their perception at what a male leader should look and act like. Men are supposed to be masculine, etc. etc.

The lavendar ceiling is real.

-- Lawyer Gay

Can Elie do a post on how his fat ass is bankrupting the American health care system?

Lat (who is gay, and thus actually has skin in this game) would never have used this blog for slanted political rantings or to blatently attempt to discredit or incite harassment of a tenured professor for espousing an opposing political view.

Lat! Can you hear me? Take your blog back. Now.

122,

Child molestation is the same as being gay? Sex and relationships between two consenting adults is the same as pedophilia? Are you serious? Your argument would exclude heterosexuals from marriage - because they have a sexual orientation. If we let heterosexuals marry what about men marrying little girls or women marrying boys?

Children are too immature to consent to sex with an adult - although in some countries men marry girls.

Pedophiles can be gay or straight. Either way its wrong for reasons that are obvious. Pedophilia is a mental disorder. Homosexuality is innate and biological. Read the scientific studies - not the political or religious arguments.

Can someone point out credible scientific study that concludes that sexual orientation is a genetic condition? Just curious, because it seems that a homosexuality gene would have been eliminated through evolution (i.e. no ability to procreate, no ability to pass on the gene).

126,

People born with an homosexual orientation is NOT a POLITICAL issue. It is a scientific fact. Homosexuals' brains are biologically different from their heterosexual counterparts. Gay men's brains are structurally more similar to an heterosexual woman and lesbians' brains are more similar to heterosexual men with respect to that portion of the brain that regulates sexuality.

This is not about pedophilia.

122,

What do gay rights have to do with politics? What difference does it make if you are a Republican or a Democrat. Does that change a person biology?
Ask Mary Cheney. In fact I am confused as to why Republicans are not the ones behind gay civil rights. I thought the GOP stood for INDIVIDUAL liberties and freedom? Or have the religious fundamentalists taken over your party? Do you want to side with religious fundamentalists? What does the bible say about the punishment for fornication? What about oral sex b/t men and women being sodomy? How is sodomy punished in those ancient religious books?
What about children who disobey their parents?

Keep using ancient religious texts to drive your social agenda and before you know we will be like Iran.

128,

Genes, prenatal hormones,. and brain structure are the 3 primary biological causes. Google it - there are many studies.
In addition - ask any person if they chose to be gay - I have meet thousands of gay people and I have never met one who chose being gay. They just are.

128,

Genes, prenatal hormones,. and brain structure are the 3 primary biological causes. Google it - there are many studies.
In addition - ask any person if they chose to be gay - I have meet thousands of gay people and I have never met one who chose being gay. They just are. And almost all knew from a very early age that they were different in some way

This non-story gives the gays a bad name.

Can I complain that my Con Law professor didn't believe that I deserved an A in his course?
It's not enough for me that I believe I deserved the grade, I want my professor to believe it, too. In fact, he should be punished for not believing that I'm the smartest person in the world. Obviously, he only gave me a bad grade because he hates me. I know because I asked fifty people and they all said I deserved an A. He taught the course from major Supreme Court decisions that dealt with constitutional questions, which is an approach that I don't believe in and could not bring myself to follow. I don't think this should count against me. He should have known that I would be taking his class and altered his assigned readings and personal beliefs accordingly. I already know everything in the world - the only thing that determines my grades is whether or not the professors are smart enough to realize that, too. Ergo, the legal education system is flawed and everyone who disagrees with me is radically bigoted and that's the only reason why I'm unhappy and jobless.

Seriously?

As a male WASP, I've learned how to take professors' rants about how the only reason I have the privilege of listening to their rants is because I am single-handedly responsible for oppressing every single person in the world in every single period of history. But I'm not dumb enough to even think about getting any of them fired because THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PROFESSOR THAT ACTUALLY KNOWS EVERYTHING. That fact shouldn't bother people. You can't rely on professors to teach you everything that you ever learn in your entire life. You can't expect them to tell you who you are.

There are people in the BRIC countries that would have a smirk on their faces if they knew this thread reached a 130+ posts.

Anybody where the national debt stands? Or what the fiscal policy for the dollar is for the next 6 months?

123, 120

Please elaborate how individual and civil rights apply to individuals in groups of 2, but not groups of 3....

NOTHING IS MORE ANNOYING THAN PEOPLE SAYING "READ THE CONSTITUTION" AS SUPPORT FOR THEIR ARGUMENT.

THE CONSTITUTION IS AMBIGUOUS IN MANY ASPECTS. TAKE A CON LAW CLASS.

120- So, exactly where in the Constitution does it give gays the right to marry?

Thats what I thought.

133, you're an idiot.

The question is not whether a student could get a decent grade, it's whether a law school class, taught by a law school professor, was of educational worth. A professor who teaches a class on a subject that is simple single-perspective indoctrination, rather than reflecting the scope of current legal thought, has abjectly failed in his occupational duty as a professor and provided his students - paying customers of the school - with a useless product that does not meet the standards of an accredited law school.

Even the conservatives in the class should have been appalled and offended by his unprofessional behavior, seeing as how learning a set of arguments without the opposing side's position leaves one at a severe disadvantage when attempting to engage in discussion of the subject. We are working in an adversarial system and knowledge of the opponent's arguments is vital.

I have had professors with whom I radically disagree - one of my professors this term holds political views that I consider downright neanderthaloid - but I have never found myself with a professor who was unwilling to teach every side of a subject. All have been open about their personal opinions, and respect and encourage challenges to them. This is reflective of a quality education with quality professors, rather than the lack of rigor and professionalism displayed by Fitzgibbon.

I'm surprised by the general conservative response on the subject (well, not really, but I ought to be). I would have imagined, ideally, that those who were particularly interested in free and fair market systems would be outraged by the negligent substitution of an inferior, substandard service product to an unsuspecting customer, and would be completely respectful of that customer's right to take legally-permissible action to pressure the service provider into taking appropriate corrective measures. The conservative response, however, has been entirely DISrespectful of that scenario, in such a fashion as to indicate a greater interest in socially conservative grandstanding and kneejerk anti-liberal bias than any sort of moral or theoretical coherence.

Additionally, suggesting that it "gives the gays a bad name" is a ludicrous statement. Are you assuming that all of the people in the class or all of the individuals protesting are gay, or even liberal? Aside from the fact that the story doesn't give anyone a bad name besides Fitzgibbon, that declaration and the assumptions and systems of blame and bias behind it display rather clearly an anti-gay animus that is, really, completely embarrassing.

138, please read George Orwell's Politics and the English Language.

99: I never would have imagined you a Keynesian.

128 - To the extent that a gay person's siblings/nieces/nephews are more likely to survive than a straight person's siblings/nieces/nephews due to the extra resources that a gay non-parent is likely to have available to them, it is evolutionarily beneficial to have a (most likely, recessive) "gay gene" present in the population.

It's a Catholic school(granted a Vatican II apostate institution). If you got a problem, go somewhere else and take your evil ideologies with you.

On Judgment Day, you'll find that God is one-side when it come to gay "marriage".

133,

The Equal Protection Clause.

Actually, Prof. Fitzgibbon's course seems more akin to learning creationism from a scientist. Law school stands, if for nothing else, for process and method.

The very fact that Ms. Molnar and her colleagues made a compelling argument about including feminist and GLBT scholarship suggests that they are, at least somewhat, already familiar with and sympathetic to the viewpoint they wish to see included.

On the other hand, being required to argue the other side of a contentious debate, to see exactly how intellectually defensible it is and isn't, seems to me closer to an actual education.

145, your excessive use of commas, if nothing else, serves to demonstrate, it appears to me, an embarrassing lack of command, of, it would seem, the English language, and, perhaps, any writing skills, whatsoever.

"So, exactly where in the Constitution does it give gays the right to marry?"

Probably the same place where it gives individuals the right to bear arms, makes the commerce clause meaningless or gives a fetus or a person a "right to life" or the president unlimited power in any war, no matter how amorphous might the war be.

Or are only conservatives allowed to have an activist approach to interpreting the constitution?

-- Lawyer Gay

FIRST!

leave it to elie to find small stories about fags. Why don't you rename this site " A fag's View of the Law" or something like that

94 kicked everyone's ass in this thread.

94 said this --> "the arc of history is clearly and indisputably (most would say) on our side" --- Not only is that a baffling contradiction (trying to say that most think it's indisputable? only most?) Also, it is based on the childish fiction that there is some predictable "arc of history". I assure you nobody's ass was kicked.

Hey 94 here's a harsh judgment for you:

"Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels." Matthew 25:41

Nor the effeminate(effeminate means homosexual in the Bible)...shall possess the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:10.

You've been warned. People who live their lives playing a game of chicken with God tend to end up on the losing side for eternity.

152 - Bluebook citations please.

BOO HOO. As a student I had to sit through core curriculum classes (such as con law, property, torts, etc,) taught by lefty professors who did not share my conservative beliefs. In fact, they were generally hostile to any conservative opinions in the class. I had to regurgitate their vapid political viewpoints on exams in order to pass. Why should it be any different for those on the political left. If you don't like the elective, then drop it.

itt: conservatives with ~160 lsats build a strawman and beat, beat, beat him down.

OP sounds like the Bizarro version of my law school experience: same problem with one-sidedness; different political bent.

Cornell claims to be welcoming of Jews and Christians but holds a Biblical law class taught by a Jew and Christian hating athiest that flat out makes fun and trashes the Bible daily.

Where's the post on that?

ATL = Liberal sewage.

Since when does having a dick stuck in your ass entitle you to rights

158

this has nothing to do w particular sex acts. It has to do w sexual orientation -- who u committ ur life to, make a family with, grow old with. Why do anti- gay bigots always focus on specific sex acts?
Why should heterosexuals who cannot procreate get special rights bc they stick dicks in vaginas?