McCaskill's petition...what does it look like?

Here it is. Go here and see exactly what the petition looks like that Dr. Angela McCaskill signed. Reading it says that this recent bill (now law) on allowing same sex marriage (Civil Marriage Protection Act) should be voted on by the people of Maryland rather than allow the Maryland legislature to craft the bill and pass it and for the governor to sign it to make it a law. There is nothing anti-gay about it but a support to let democracy take place. It is suggesting that democracy ought to be the route to let the registered voters of Maryland to either approve or reject this (the then) proposed bill (Civil Marriage Protection Act) at the next general election. If it passes, then it goes through the proper legislative channels to be voted on, passed and eventually becomes a law. If the voters reject the bill, they have in place an alternative language to define natural marriage.

Seeing the petition in its full form makes Gallaudet University's appearance of "neutrality" even worse seeing that prejudice and acts of discrimination and bullying are more likely when they put Dr. McCaskill on administrative leave thus violating her civil rights and her first Amendment Right. Whoever began this witch hunt had nothing more than the desire to see Dr. McCaskill go. And if it came from one of the staff or professors at Gallaudet University then that person probably had issues with McCaskill herself in the beginning otherwise a witch hunt against her wouldn't have happened.  Maybe it's this person who started the witch hunt ought to be fired for conduct unbecoming?

Hat tip: "Candy"

Charles Wirick YouTube Video Response

Finally, Charles Wirick has something to say on YouTube video.

Previous blogs on Charles Wirick

Mystery of the missing BnB's Wirick article
The curious case of the Wirick case
Charles Wirick responds to charges in his blog
Poll: Was Charles Wirick bullied and targeted unfairly?
The Charles Wirick's Case: Part 3 of 3 - Ganged up? 
The Charles Wirick's Case: Part 2 of 3 - Rumors
The Charles Wirick's Case: Part 1 of 3

Gallaudet University's irresponsibility over a play

This caught my attention even though this happened some 5 months ago. Gallaudet’s Theatre Arts Department hosted a play, under the direction of assistant professor Ethan Sinnott, which tries to reinterpret the life of Jesus Christ by portraying him and his disciples as gay. Now, this is not about their message they are trying to impart but rather the irresponsible use of a "religious theme" in the effort to "repaint" a historical religious figure. Not only was this irresponsible but it smacks of hypocrisy as well. Instead of using the image of Jesus Christ in the play why not use image of Mohammed instead to deliver the same message of tolerance? Just to make an obvious point here. But, of course, they wouldn't dare do that or else they get the full fatwa delivered to them rather quickly. Oh, wait, they did get a fatwa in the U.K since Muslims regard Jesus as a messenger of God, and revere his mother, the Virgin Mary. In short, blasphemy.  Yet they used the image of Jesus Christ because it was "easy picking" since you don't expect as much of an outrage via through death threats, arrests, or capital punishment through religious decrees.  Issuing decrees of arrest or execution is going way overboard, in my opinion, but I'm sure you get the picture now.

No one should have the right to use government funds or use institutions and be accessory on allowing plays to be portrayed of that nature, especially when Gallaudet University gets 70% of its funding from the Federal government. Now, it'd be interesting to ask the president of Gallaudet if he would actually approve the same play but it would use Mohammed instead. The answer would be a very predictable one, of course, you'd already know that. And you know why, too. What Gallaudet University did was in poor taste and irresponible at the same time.

There are better ways to discuss taboo subjects about tolerance but this certainly is not one of them. I believe there are room for mature discourses but not in such a way when hypocrisy could be cut two ways here.