When gays support McCaskill

To contact us Click HERE
Here's a guy who is gay makes a point about the importance of not stifling a healthy debate and makes a note about the whole marriage thing by referring to the McCaskill/Gallaudet snafu.

As actively engaged citizens, we are supposed to be involved in healthy, productive debates about this topic from one end of the Free State to the other in advance of casting our ballots. But for some reason, decent folks with legitimate viewpoints frequently choose to remain silent. Why? 

We've seen pundits like the Washington Post's Richard Cohen saying, "The opponents [of same sex marriage] have no case other than ignorance and misconception and prejudice," (June 28, 2011). Is a statement like this intended to invite robust debate, or shut it down?

Who can forget the mayors of Boston, Chicago and San Francisco last summer, vowing to exile beyond their city limits any person or business (i.e., Chick-Fil-A) questioning the notion of same-sex marriage? Seems more like tyranny than collegial dialogue.

When the Washington Blade published the names and addresses of everyone who signed the same-sex marriage petition which led to Question 6's inclusion on the Maryland ballot, this incited multiple instances of personal harassment. It led to people being confronted by strangers in their driveways. It went so far as to jeopardize the employment of Gallaudet University's Chief Diversity Officer, Angela McCaskill. These types of incidents are meant to intimidate those who hold a differing view from expressing their views. Yet these folks had only signed a petition, not a letter of condemnation.

People who don't have a prejudiced, homophobic bone in their bodies are afraid to make known the fact that they're not prepared to jump on board with same-sex marriage. The too-clever proponents of the new law have conflated the issue of ending prejudice against gays with the notion of same-sex marriage. They are unrelated.

Doug Mainwaring is right. Dr. Angela McCaskill only signed a petition, not a letter of condemnation. Equally true is that the stifling of true dialogue through fear and intimidation will not go anywhere. The very act of turning this into a personal agenda for the ulterior purpose to make sure McCaskill gets fired is nothing more than a personal harassment case. In short, the hallmark of a bully. Yet the irony plays itself out here when president Hurwitz requested that Gallaudet University establish an anti-bullying policy for faculty, staff, and students back in 2011 stating (see page 2):

We are currently developing an anti-bullying policy for faculty, staff, and students. A brief video, “It Gets Better,” was made by Gallaudet students and is available at http://youtu.be/WoaYsF_OzXU."

It gets better? I beg to differ. Who would've thunk that a faculty member would actually try and bully another faculty member into submission in the hope of getting that member fired?