By Douglas V. Gibbs
My personal opinion is that homosexuality is a sexual deviation, and should not be justified as normal. The gay behavior should not be taught as something good to our children in the public schools, and should not be able to change the language regarding the definition of marriage. That said, we must also recognize that in a free society such as America's, people are free to do things that may not be societally accepted. In other words, though groups, such as conservatives, are characteristically against the gay agenda's attack on the sanctity of marriage, and the attempt to force societal acceptance through tactics of thuggery and deception, the right of an individual to be gay remains intact. Homosexuals have every right to practice their deviant behavior. However, gays must also recognize that those that disagree with their behavior also have a right, in a free society, to voice opinions of opposition.
The question, however, is whether or not someone in public employment has a right to their First Amendment right of free speech, or must such people exhibit no opinion regarding an issue like homosexuality.
Andrew Leo Shirvell is Michigan's Deputy Attorney General, who is now under scrutinization for his actions in regards to his opinions regarding one of the most pressing cultural issues of the day, homosexuality, and its growing presence on college campuses. Mr. Shrivell has made it his personal crusade to expose the University of Michigan's gay Student Body President Chris Armstrong. His crusade is not only against this single individual, but his growing concern regarding the presence of gay orgies at his alma mater.
To expose the facts about these homosexual activities, Shirvell has a personal blog, where he criticizes the activities, and has called Armstrong a “Nazi-like viciously militant homosexual activist” who is “Satan’s representative on the Student Assembly.” Shrivell has done this not just once, but many times over. In fact, his entire blog is dedicated to "battling" college homosexuality.
It comes as no surprise that the liberal media has taken up the case and is siding with the gay agenda and the supposed presence of repression on this one, stating that Shrivell’s statements are “cyber bullying.” Many leftwing legal analysts say that his acts are a violation of the anti-bullying laws of Michigan, though the state has no "cyber-bullying" laws in place. Some believe that federal cyber-bullying laws can be applied to this case, laws that Shirvell is supposed to be legally bound to enforce, rather than breaking.
Shirvell's defense that he has First Amendment rights during his personal time brings the U.S. Constitution into the argument. But where does the fine line between Free Speech and criminal libel and slander exist? Should Shirvell, despite his day job, be able to promote his opinions during his personal time in an outlet such as a personal blog?
Christian groups have come to Shirvell's defense, upholding his defense that his is a case of the Constitutional right to Freedom of Speech. Shirvell's history is one of siding with Christians on social issues, such as vocally promoting Evangelical values, protesting voter registration efforts of abortion advocates in 2004, boycotting a pizzeria for displaying a rainbow flag on its door in 2005, and joining the conservative blog, Right Michigan. In 2008, he issued a statement celebrating the departure of Sean Kosofsky, former policy director for gay-rights nonprofit Triangle Foundation, from the state of Michigan. Shrivell has slammed the homosexual group Log Cabin Republicans, personally emailing them to say, “You are all sick freaks!”
Earlier this year, Shirvell also joined extreme Reverend Fred Phelp’s Westboro Baptist Church to protest a homosexual play about murder entitled, “The Laramie Project,” earning Shirvell the moniker “the anti-gay heckler” in the liberal press.
Standing up for your values, or voicing your opinion regarding an issue such as the gay agenda is one thing, but there has to be limits. I agree with Shirvell that homosexuality is a deviant sexual behavior that is a detrimental variable in the ever-growing culture war America seems to be engaged in. I agree with him that the gay agenda is thuggish, and the lifestyle is damaging to the fabric of a moral society. But, as wrong as their behavior may be, gays have the freedom to engage in that lifestyle, and to be student body presidents if their ambitions should lead them to such a position.
Which returns us to the questions regarding Shirvell's opinions on his blog. Should he be able to post his opinions, as a tax payer paid employee, on his personal blog? Should he be able to compare gays like Armstrong to Nazis?
Would a gay Deputy Attorney General be allowed to post anti-Christian posts about a Christian college student on a personal blog? Would a gay Deputy Attorney General be allowed to put in his posts comparisons of the Christian student to historical fascists? Would the likes of Anderson Cooper come to the defense of the Christian Student Body President if that was the case? Should the liberal media be expected to come to the journalistic aid of a Christian student if he was treated similarly by a gay Deputy Attorney General?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, in a free society. Shirvell has a right to his free speech outside of working hours.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Shirvell's defense that he has First Amendment rights during his personal time brings the U.S. Constitution into the argument. But where does the fine line between Free Speech and criminal libel and slander exist? Should Shirvell, despite his day job, be able to promote his opinions during his personal time in an outlet such as a personal blog?
Christian groups have come to Shirvell's defense, upholding his defense that his is a case of the Constitutional right to Freedom of Speech. Shirvell's history is one of siding with Christians on social issues, such as vocally promoting Evangelical values, protesting voter registration efforts of abortion advocates in 2004, boycotting a pizzeria for displaying a rainbow flag on its door in 2005, and joining the conservative blog, Right Michigan. In 2008, he issued a statement celebrating the departure of Sean Kosofsky, former policy director for gay-rights nonprofit Triangle Foundation, from the state of Michigan. Shrivell has slammed the homosexual group Log Cabin Republicans, personally emailing them to say, “You are all sick freaks!”
Earlier this year, Shirvell also joined extreme Reverend Fred Phelp’s Westboro Baptist Church to protest a homosexual play about murder entitled, “The Laramie Project,” earning Shirvell the moniker “the anti-gay heckler” in the liberal press.
Standing up for your values, or voicing your opinion regarding an issue such as the gay agenda is one thing, but there has to be limits. I agree with Shirvell that homosexuality is a deviant sexual behavior that is a detrimental variable in the ever-growing culture war America seems to be engaged in. I agree with him that the gay agenda is thuggish, and the lifestyle is damaging to the fabric of a moral society. But, as wrong as their behavior may be, gays have the freedom to engage in that lifestyle, and to be student body presidents if their ambitions should lead them to such a position.
Which returns us to the questions regarding Shirvell's opinions on his blog. Should he be able to post his opinions, as a tax payer paid employee, on his personal blog? Should he be able to compare gays like Armstrong to Nazis?
Would a gay Deputy Attorney General be allowed to post anti-Christian posts about a Christian college student on a personal blog? Would a gay Deputy Attorney General be allowed to put in his posts comparisons of the Christian student to historical fascists? Would the likes of Anderson Cooper come to the defense of the Christian Student Body President if that was the case? Should the liberal media be expected to come to the journalistic aid of a Christian student if he was treated similarly by a gay Deputy Attorney General?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, in a free society. Shirvell has a right to his free speech outside of working hours.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
1 comment:
I don't think the question is simply: "...is whether or not someone in public employment has a right to [his or her] First Amendment right of free speech..."
As a conservative, I have traditional beliefs (Christian specifically) and fully appreciate one’s right to have an opinion. Juan Williams’ firing is an archetypical example of what happens when nonsensical and counterproductive idea-suppression occurs. If we do not air our prejudices, how can we be educated as to their falsity or allow others to disprove these beliefs as to that particular person? Beyond the productive reasons to share our opinions, so long as they are fact-based because conjecture based in intentional ignorance can never be productive, it is a fundamental right. The main problem with this case is that a civil servant (taxpayer subsidized) in a public position of authority exercised such unprofessional behavior. We attorneys are supposed to be models of ethics, and the last thing we need is one more creepy or distasteful act in the profession. And the last thing America needs is one more uncivil person. Write a blog, speak at the school, but stalk someone in the wee hours with a camera? "Immature" just doesn’t seem strong enough.
Post a Comment