College President Marries

I think congratulations are in order for the marriage, the manner in which it serves as an example for the rest of us and, lest I forget, a scholarly contribution of the first order.

Larry Shillock, associate professor, at 8:10 am EDT on September 19, 2007

In response to feudi pandola

You raise an important point. You say, “Straights had the word first. Let them have it. What do homosexuals care you call their unions as long as it guarantees them the same rights, duties, and obligations as heterosexual marriages.”

Well, when women in this country weren’t allowed to vote (an honor for *white* males) would an appropriate solution have been to allow this only if women ‘voting’ had been called ’suggesting’ instead (after all, men “had the word first").

At any rate, congratulations to the happy couple! With divorce rates so high it is always refreshing to see two people make it work. God bless.

What’s in a name?, at 10:10 am EDT on September 19, 2007

Reading this story is bittersweet, writing as I am from a state where our highest court has just upheld the ban on same-sex marriage. Heartfelt congratulations to Mr. Hexter and Mr. Kollmeier.

In response to “feudi pandola:” first, did “straights” really own the word first? Seems that Boswell’s research, cited in the story, calls into question the commonplace assumption that straight people “own” marriage and always have. Second, yes, the word matters. Other systems, such as civil unions, generally do not afford the same legal rights that marriage does. Further, civil unions do not afford couples the same cultural recognition that marriage does. Sure, I would accept civil union as a first step toward marriage, but advocating and/or settling for a separate system for gay and lesbian people only serves to highlight, reinforce, and perpetuate discrimination. Yes, the word matters.

the word matters, at 10:15 am EDT on September 19, 2007

from the right

Two comments to challenge the pc trend:

First, throughout the article, references are made to the college and the town/state where people are so welcoming and accepting. My question is, are they equally accepting of those who belive that homosexual relationships are contrary to the way mankind (and womankind) are designed (created, built, biologically evolved) to be. I believe the answer is “No.” They are accepting only of their own “narrow” view that all relationships should be accepted equally. (And yes, I know many will become irate at my comment, appalled that I am suggesting that homosexual relationships are in any way “wrong,” because ‘everyone knows that homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality!’ And in being appalled at me, you are proving my point that the cry for tollerance is one sided.)

Second, here’s the real issue behind the opposition to gay marriage: As gay marriage is accepted as a completely normal activity, equal in every way to a heterosexual marriage, the door will close on their right to question or disagree with homosexuality in any way, for any reason, in any application. Those who believe (sincerley and intellectually) that homosexual activity is NOT condoned by God, can choose NOT to hire a pastor or teacher or counselor who would promote a belief that is in direct opposition to their sincerely held religious doctrines. That practice of religious discretion is protected under the constitution. But the protection of that right to hire only like-minded leaders and the right to teach reasonable (although politically/socially incorrect) doctrines will be erroded as homosexuality is regarded as no different from heterosexuality.

And even as I right this, I know that many of you can not imagine that a person can be philosophically opposed to homosexual behavior and still be accepting and tolerant of the people who practice it. Do not equate that philosophical difference with hate speech, homophobia, or a desire to do harm to or reject people. Doing so is similar to saying that any one who promotes Islam wants America to die in Jihad.

ALP, at 11:20 am EDT on September 19, 2007

I really had to laugh at one comment here. It’s ironic that this individual asks people to be tolerant of intolerance.

Silly, at 12:20 pm EDT on September 19, 2007

feudi pandola,

May I, as a member of the heterosexual population, request that you speak for yourself and not request things in “fairness” to all of us straights that I personally do not want?

I don’t own the word marriage and don’t want to. I only own the right to share my own marriage with my husband.

Thanks.

maggie, at 1:30 pm EDT on September 19, 2007

Feudi and ALP

Feudi, As a “married member of the heterosexual population” I want to state for the record that I do not have anything against gays using the word “married".

Neither does my wife. I am pretty sure we, she and I, agree on this. I think that gays should have all the rights, responsibilities, and “marital bliss” that the rest of us experience.

neither do we, my wife and I, recognize any bloggers right to speak for us.

ALP, you are entitled to your religious views and practices. It is when you try to impose them on the rest of us through legislation that I become “intolerant".

Bob, at 2:55 pm EDT on September 19, 2007

Congratulations to the happy couple!

How many confusions can ALP get into one post?

1. Despite the elaborate pose of being part of a beleaguered minority, ALP represents a majority that successfully *prevents* most such marriages in the US.

2. Many of us don’t see heterosexuality or homosexuality much less marriage as “natural.” You don’t need any doctrine of nature here! It’s just not clear to us why the state ought to be enforcing ALP’s view about who should be allowed to get married.

3. ALP is free to believe anything and write and say anything. The confusion is that ALP uses “intolerant” to conflate criticism with suppression. ALP’s views should never be suppressed; they can however be criticized — criticism is also free speech. If calling a silly statement silly is intolerant, we’ve fallen into the worst kind of relativism.

4. What ALP really really wants is for someone to knock the chip off his/her shoulder, to call bad names, so he/she can then argue for some sort of moral equivalence of intolerances. Let’s deny him/her that satisfaction; the key problem, anyway, is poor thinking.

c, at 3:25 pm EDT on September 19, 2007

ALP

When rereading ALP’s original argument in regards to homosexual tolerance as belonging to those with equally “narrow” views for those who oppose it, I had to agree with him on the surface. I think left wing progressives can be brutal in their attacks when it comes to the opposition. But I also think how far we as a nation have come when disagreeing with individuals that have any sort of bias and bigoted viewpoints (sincerely or intellectually). From those who sincerely believe that women are inferior to those who intellectually make a case for white supremacy. I view people who oppose gays full legal equality in the same boat as racists and mysogonists. I absolutely uphold their right to believe what they want, but our nation has evolved and continues to evolve and strive for access to equality. Believe what you want ALF, but don’t put your hate in the way of my full rights as a U.S. citizen, less we start taking away the rights of women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, or anyone who is not a land-owning, white, able-bodied, heterosexual, protestant, male.

VSM, at 9:15 pm EDT on September 19, 2007

Intolerant not of people, but an idea

ALP,

Few people are intolerant of those PEOPLE who oppose homosexuality, we’re just intolerant of the IDEA. That’s called “taking an opposing view.”

As intellectuals and teachers, many of us are intolerant of people who hold views for no articulate reason other than, “my religion (or holy book) tells me so.”

You’re free to make arguments for mandatory heterosexuality, like: we need more humans on the earth, or everyone should be busy raising children, or some other reason, but if you’re going to represent The Right, as your headline claims you do, you need to do a bit better. I’m sure there are some good arguments out there, we just haven’t heard them from you or anyone on the Right.

Tom Henning, at 4:20 am EDT on September 20, 2007

Gay Marriages

I believe ALP has every right to his opinion and he or she brings up some good points. We all do not have to accept gay marriages. I personally believe gay marriages are wrong, but, to be honest, I dont care if two men or two women get married. Its not my business to stop people from doing or being with someone they claim to love. Furthermore, I dont care if gay marriages are legalized in every state because people have the right to make their own choices. I do not believe the governing body of a given country has the right to dictate what citzens can and can not do! What really annoys me is when people bring up interracial marriages in America and compare them to gay marriages. It simply is not the same! Same sex is same sex. And seriously, how different is African American culture, Asian American culture, Spanish American culture, and white American culture from a global perspective? I am currently living abroad in a developing country in Eastern Europe. Being the only African American female in the entire country (well almost anyway) I understand that American culture is American culture regardless of one’s skin color.

Nero, at 5:05 am EDT on September 26, 2007