Dr. Angela McCaskill gives her first interview to ABC 7:
"...Signing that petition is a right that I have as a citizen of the state of Maryland. It simply means that I want to see this very sensitive issue put on the ballot as a referendum in the state of Maryland,” McCaskill said.
Her attorney, J. Wyndal Gordon, says McCaskill will not express her personal view on the matter. He says she will do that in the voting booth.
Gordon says McCaskill “is considering all options, and not ruling out taking legal action,” hoping to get reinstated at Gallaudet.
After learning of McCaskill’s signature on the petition – published by The Washington Blade – an anonymous faculty member filed an official complaint with the University. Now, McCaskill says she feels bullied and she wishes this conflict never happened.
“I feel bad for our students because they go to the university and they look to us for guidance and I feel that we have failed them,” she said. “It’s been very hurtful… because I have nothing but love and support for everyone. And to have this tarnishing my name, my reputation, my character, it hurts.”"
18 Comments
This was the goal of the washington blade when they published names. To attack and take away rights. They want to get people fired for having differing political views. If the gays win will never be free.
@sw...good point. I wonder if the Washington Blade regrets their decision now that it reflects so poorly on them and their push to redefine marriage for everybody.
Probably no shame, Mominvermont; they probably suspected this wouldn't fly--most likely their goal was just to plant seeds of doubt in others, and to discourage future acts of "blasphemy" against the god of political correctness.
We saw this happen in Germany, the extremists will never stop until they take away all our religious liberties . The persecution is just beginning. People of all faiths should stand up now, otherwise they could me next.
Gay identity politics falls into lock step with utopianism; behold all the markers:
“Utopianism's equality is intolerant of diversity, uniqueness, debate, etc., for utopianism's purpose requires a singular focus. There can be no competing voices or causes slowing or obstructing society's long and righteous march. Utopianism relies on deceit, propaganda, dependence, intimidation, and force. In its more aggressive state, as the malignancy of the enterprise becomes more painful and its impossibility more obvious, it incites violence inasmuch as avenues for free expression and civil dissent are cut off. Violence becomes the individual's primary recourse and the state's primary response. Ultimately, the only way out is the state's termination.”
― Mark R. Levin, Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America
MJones
In Germany someone lost a job as a Diversity Officer because they opposed the rights of one of the groups they were paid to support?
I somehow doubt that.
I have a question and it is a real one:
Suppose for a moment that you are a deaf Christian student at Gallaudet. The Chaplain, the person to whom you are to turn when you as a Christian have specific concerns about inclusion and where you fit in the community, has just signed a petition to put on the ballot the tax deduction status of church contributions.
Would you feel betrayed?
If you can, try and imagine that gay people are people. Yes, real people. And that they feel under attack when people denounce them and put their rights up for a vote.
For just a moment put the Bible down, put down the Culture War, set aside 'what God demands' and just think about gay people as people. Not as "people who...", just as people.
Give it a try. I promise you that Jesus very much approves of thinking of the social outcast as people. He did it all the time. And don't worry, if you do you wont even be crucified for daring to see a Samaritan as human first.
The right to petition and to vote, Timothy, are legitimate rights you here oppose.Shame on you for putting identity politics over and above all other considerations. You ought to hang your head and ask for forgiveness of your fellow ciitizens.
Timothy, the petition is for a measure to affirm the bride-groom requirement of marriage. That legal requirement treats people as people.
But you want identity group politics to treat people as "gay" so in your recent comment contradicts you contradict yourself.
How did you miss that basic and obvious point made by Daughter of Eve? Right, you didn't and instead reiterated that point as if it was your own and bumping into yourself coming and going.
Heh. SSMers such as you rely on ad hoc rhetoric so much that you blithely swerve into contradictions like a blindfolded driver engaged in touch parking at the parking lot of the local grocery store on a Saturday morning.
Tell me, do you feel that the rule of noncontradiction applies to your rhetoric, or not?
Chairm,
I don't think you read what I wrote. I didn't write anything about Dr. McCaskill at all. And I didn't write about "identity group politics".
So instead of talking about what I did NOT write about, perhaps you can address what I did. My question is about deaf kids who now feel that they have no one to turn to.
I am sad that your religious beliefs or political beliefs do not consider them. When we debate these matters, we need to treat each other as humans, not "SSMers such as you" or whatever you choose to use to discount and ignore the humanity of those whom you disagree with.
i realize that this is a point wasted at NOMblog. The purpose of this blog is to use rhetoric to win a particular political position. Obviously. But as a Christian, I'm always sad when others who claim my faith ignore what its founder had to say.
Timothy, if you're going to argue successfully that a gay person's rights are up for a vote, then you're going to have to produce documentation showing that gay people are specifically identified as ineligible for that particular right. Then, perhaps your claims would hold some water.
Now, what did Christ say about marriage?
"Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave unto his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matt: 19: 4-6)
Great Points Timothy Kincaid! Your point of view is refreshing here on this site.....and I totally agree! unfortunately, the people on this site are so eaten up with their hatred for others who are not like them its really pointless. Best to let the 10 people who constantly write (daughter of Eve....etc) remain in the history books as the bigots that they are. They have a lot of bad karma heading their way.
"Gay" is not an immutable characteristic; it's an identity group, and you are using gay identity politics to argue for sex segregated "marriage." Marriage treats people as either male, or female--not "gay" or "straight," which are political identities, not immutable characteristics. You are also mixing apples and oranges in your analogy. You are confusing the unalienable right to freedom of religion, with the benefit (not unalienable) of tax deductions for church participants. Rights and benefits are not the same thing. Rights are unalienable, benefits are not. So your premise is false.
Christ never labeled people as "gay" or "straight." He gave one set of commandments which he expected everyone to follow. He gave one definition for marriage: male+female. The test isn't whether or not God loves us. The test is, do we love God, more than anything else? And how will he know? The proof is in the choices we make: "If ye love me, keep my commandments."
I would ask you to remember that not everyone who disagrees with you is your enemy, and not everyone who tells you what you want to hear, or who agrees with you, is your friend.
@ Timothy Kincaid - no. I don't believe I would feel betrayed about having the tax deduction status of my religious organization placed on a voting ballot. I guess that means gay people shouldn't feel betrayed for having SSM on the ballot.
Good points DOE.
Timithy, if not for gay identity politics why your gay emphasis? Why your claim McCatskill is paid to support the gay identity group and that is supposed to over-ride her right to petition and to vote?
Your comment clearly invoked the rule of noncontradiction but your have not said if your views are held to that rule.
The bride-groom requirement treats us all as people. You deliberately wanted readers to consider gayness first and foremost where that is irrelwevantin the man-woman basis of the law.
Your view is closely analogous with the racist view. Your own comment illustrates that your view is also analogous with religious bigotry.
How about that rule of noncontradiction?
SSMers are SSM supporters. SSM[support]ers such as you, Timothy, are people too. They are humans who support SSM. Most SSMers are not gay and some gay people are not SSMers. You see it differently, perhaps.
Your reliance on group identity politics has become the obstacle to your engaging what your fellow commenters have said throughout your participation at the Nom Blog.
For instance, what has deafness to do with the "real question" (your words) you asked about tax status under a blogpost about McCaskill? You claim your question is not about the McCaskill story so what is your rhetorical point? What has deafness to do with that tax question?
Amazing how accurate use of language to describe reality is something against which you'd object even as you ask me to address what you actually wrote.
Put aside the group identity politics and reask your question.
What is your religious creed and who is its founder ... and how do you now see that as relevant to this discussion? Are you invoking group identity or a creed? Readers might fairly think the latter but perhaps you can explain explicitly.
Well, Timothy, until you can forthrightly answer this query, you pose looks fraudulent.
I would have thought that given your certitude you would have beenwell-prepared with a solid response. That lack undermines much of what you have said here.