Comments

  1. says

    As wrong and ignorant as the little sh*t was, he was merely quoting the Bible, in all its wrongness. I don’t think it’s really fair to punish him for that. But it might be good to get him some accurate information about gay adoption. He’s young yet, maybe there’s still time to save him from the religious brainwashing of his upbringing.

  2. say what says

    Ok

    allow it BUT arrest the kid and the Liberty Law firm then for incitement

    Your free to say it but your inciting murder, so lock them up for that

    “…direct incitement or by approving or supporting another crime committed in the past..”

    & most penal codes have “..Who, in a public meting, through the media, by spreading of a writing or by any other means of technical reproduction leads or incites to the practice of a definitive crime will be punished with imprisonment for a term up to 3 years or by fine, if any more serious penalty cannot be declared by imposition of any other legal legislation,…”

  3. yuninv says

    Um – the article lead to nothing, nor did it incite anything – therefore your point is moot.

    Free speech for all – period – not just the things of which we approve.

  4. Dave says

    Where were the teachers and staff *before* the paper was published? How did this piece even get through?

    It’s factually inaccurate. It cites irrelevant information.

    Punishing the student seems excessive, since there was no opportunity for his mistakes to be corrected proactively.

  5. John Equality says

    What if this were an article arguing that Jews are parasites who killed Jesus and are unfit to live, quoting Adolf Hitler?

    What if this were an article denouncing black people as an inherently inferior race of people who are unintelligent and lazy and belong in forced servitude?

    Would we still be arguing that the kid is entitled to his opinion? Or would we say that these are offensive and inflammatory statements that have no place in civil discourse?

    What if it were an article attacking the Pope and the Catholic Church for their anti-woman, homophobic, pro-pedophile actions and positions? Would Liberty Council still rush to its defense as free speech?

  6. Brad says

    I have to agree with the conservative thinkers and the legal counsel who stepped in. The kid was asked to provide opposing opinion on the issue and should never have been punished/chastised/rebuked. We cannot argue for our free speech rights (as homosexuals) and then expect others to clam up. It irritates me to no end when people like Tony Perkins, Ann Coulter, Brian Brown and the like, say inciteful and hateful things, but I always remember that they are increasingly on the losing side of history. Let’s hope this kid learns something about tolerance and love form this experience.

  7. David in Houston says

    The ignorant homophobe has ever right to spew his bigoted garbage… and the public has every right to condemn him for it. So I agree that he shouldn’t have been punished for writing the article. It would have been better all around if each student has included a rebuttal to their opponent’s article. Then the situation would have been self-contained.

  8. Robert in NYC says

    Well, what if any kid used other quotes, especially one condoning the stoning to death of women for adultery or children for insolence? Hetero polygamy is also condoned in the old testament. I’d love to see another kid draw attention to that and see where it goes.

  9. says

    Interesting how Liberty Counsel is MIA when people are complaining about school-sponsored prayers and the Gideons passing out Bibles to fifth-graders.

    Nor surprising — just interesting.

  10. says

    Wow.

    You folks should read the original story and look at the facts.

    There were no serious sanctions, and the piece WAS published. They just decided not to republish it. The REAL harm was done to any children of gay and lesbian parents in the school, including the boy who initially brought it home to his gay dads.

    It was totally inappropriate to have this discussed in the school paper, and the school realized that after the first complaint.

    Oh, and Liberty Counsel is NOT a “law firm specializing in first amendment rights,” it’s a firm that specializes in fighting gay rights wherever it thinks it can, usually on religious liberty grounds. They’re the ones who fought to take the kids away from the lesbian mom in VT.

  11. says

    Wow.

    You folks should read the original story and look at the facts.

    There were no serious sanctions, and the piece WAS published. They just decided not to republish it. The REAL harm was done to any children of gay and lesbian parents in the school, including the boy who initially brought it home to his gay dads.

    It was totally inappropriate to have this discussed in the school paper, and the school realized that after the first complaint.

    Oh, and Liberty Counsel is NOT a “law firm specializing in first amendment rights,” it’s a firm that specializes in fighting gay rights wherever it thinks it can, usually on religious liberty grounds. They’re the ones who fought to take the kids away from the lesbian mom in VT.

  12. greg says

    Not the issue here but, since a couple of commenters have already said “he was just/merely quoting the Bible”, I’d like to point out that Jesus doesn’t in fact say anything about homosexuality, contrary to what ‘Brandon’ wrote in his opinion piece. Leviticus is in the Old Testament and is frequently cited by those wishing to find justification for their prejudice, but they always seem to gloss over the other ‘sins’ that Leviticus rails against, many of which they themselves commit unknowingly. Correction, ignorantly

  13. Jeff B. says

    I don’t think most of you understand, what bothers me most about the article was:
    “…because our government is generally based off of religion and the bible.”
    What are the teachers in Wisconsin teaching these kids? This high school student seems to have no concept for the basis of the founding of our country. This is what we should be fighting, ignorance over basic American History. When people have this belief of the founding of our country, then how can they even understand the concept of civil rights? Our country was founded on escaping the oppressive Monarchy in pursuit of freedom of relgion and speech. If people think we were formed as a theocratic republic, then of course they are going to fight to make all laws biblical.
    This is a problem of ignorance, not bigotry. The poor kid doesn’t know any better because of his theocratic brainwashing.
    Regardless he was not shouting “Fire” in a crowded theatre, there is no reason to censure him, maybe some education would help. His comments are mild compared to some we read here daily.
    However, is the subject appropriate for a high school newspaper? Where was the faculty editor/advisor? Probably smoking a cigarette and reading his bible in the teachers lounge…

  14. Terry says

    He advocated the death of a group of people for nothing other than sexual orientation, hie is an ignorant little bugger that is probably parroting a lot of what he’d heard and taught to believe

  15. Randy says

    If there is a such a thing as hate speech, that point-counterpoint is it. It says that the USA is a Christian nation. It says that gay people shall surely be put to death (quoting the same verse from two different versions of the Bible, plus a related verse). It assumes that all homosexuals are male.

    A high school is not a university. The students are not adults. The opinion piece is totally inappropriate.

    Also, may I comment on the pathetic counterpoint, which all but admits that gay people are icky and seems to almost apologize for recommending gay people be allowed to adopt.

  16. Michael says

    Some countries prosecute people for handing out literature which calls for the death of homosexuals. However, in America, “death to homosexuals” is put out by out public school system and handed out to grade schoolers…

  17. Chadd says

    1. Jesus himself never said that about homosexuals.
    2. Our government is NOT generally based on the Bible/Christianity.

    The article should not have been published as written because it is inaccurate, even within the realm of Christianity.

  18. Eric Payne says

    As loathsome as the little brat’s opinion is, he is entitled to that opinion. And his opinion, in this particular instance, is double protected by the First Amendment – his opinion is formed by his religious belief and he has the absolute right to freedom of speech.

    The school could (and possibly, should) have done more to disclaim his opinion. You know, that old standard: “The opinion reflected her is that of the author, only, and not that of (the newspaper), the editorial staff of the paper, the publisher… etc…

  19. graphicjack says

    Incidentally, he’s wrong on many levels. Where in the Bible does Jesus say that homosexuality is wrong? Our government is not “based” on religion… religious freedom, yes, but seperation of Church and State. So if a third of people don’t believe in gays being allowed to adopt, doesn’t that mean that 2/3 of people think gays SHOULD be able to adopt, and isn’t that a MAJORITY? If a minority should be allowed to call the shots, then shouldn’t Prop 8 be overturned, because a MINORITY of the popular vote was FOR equal marriage? The holes in his article are huge… maybe aside from quoting Leviticus, he should have spent some more time thinking of some even remotely valid agurements. Oh, right… there aren’t any.

  20. say what says

    @ greg & Chad

    You are wrong

    Jeebus had these words ascribed to the myth

    Mathew 5:17,18,19

    “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.”“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

    Luke 16:17

    “It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.”

    —————————–

    Since earth and the heavens are still around… unless the earth exploded and all the stars have burned out without my noticing……..myth jeebus did in fact uphold every last nasty bit of the Mosaic law which in fact does condemn us. It also demands the death penalty for eating shrimp

    Instead of trying to reconcile your homosexuality with barbaric myths, it is more logical to just relegate said myths to where they belong = the myth sections of libraries along with stories of ra, odin, thor, zeus etc

  21. says

    No surprise that Liberty Counsel is involved. Their raison d’être is to take on cases that stir up anti-gay sentiment among conservatives while painting religious bigots as victims. Any case that they’re behind should be viewed with suspicion.

    It’s possible that this point-counterpoint article could be educational and promote discussion in the school, but it is so factually inaccurate and hateful it’s more likely it was merely spreading misinformation and creating a hostile environment. The truth is, there is nothing close to free speech in schools. There are many many many things one cannot say in a classroom environment. For this piece to be published, there needed to be a constructive reason and some fact checking by responsible adults.

    When the first 3 sentences of a student piece are all factually incorrect, and the rest is overtly hostile, there’s a problem that goes beyond free speech. So much for teaching moments . . .

  22. KT says

    According to the article, the principal said the student was not punished or called names. He said the student actually started the conservation. I agree that the student has the right to his opinion but stating matter of factly that gays should be put to death, even if he was quoting the Bible, is disruptive in my opinion.

  23. princely54 says

    Until we have a “hate speech” law in the US that’s like Canada’s, this kind of speech is just classified as bigoted. It’s not criminal in any way, no matter how offended one might be.

    The kid is obviously ignorant and the counter-point to his ignorance needs to be LOGIC and EDUCATION, not criminal charges.

    Free speech also affords us the opportunity to hit back just as hard and long. (And, yes, double meaning is overtly implied.)

  24. Jack says

    Funny how the same people that claim this speech is “incitement” or “not free speech” are the same people who say similar things about Republicans… So if we’re going to throw this kid in a cell, y’all are gonna be in there next to him.

    And quoting from the bible is not a call for gays to be killed. That’s a specious argument, at the very best.

    Finally, if it’s disruptive, you punish the disruptors. Allowing the speaker to be punished for what others do in a reaction is called the “Heckler’s Veto,” and it’s unconstitutional. Otherwise, to get anyone punished for First Amendment speech, all one would have to do is cause a disruption because they disagree with it, and BLAMO, the speaker gets punished! Not how it works, guys.

    And yea, I’d support the decision to publish a point-counterpoint on why religion is nonsense. Or an article that Jews are the world’s problem (and I’m Jewish). Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

    But hey, at least the kid has been exposed for the moron he really is…

  25. Frank says

    Actually, Jesus is never quoted in the Bible as saying that homosexuality is “detestable” or a “sin.” In fact, Jesus is never quoted as saying ANYTHING about homosexuality. Nothing. Not one word. Jesus did, however, say:

    “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye”

  26. says

    The “punishment” the student faced is being described by Liberty Counsel; since they are a virulently anti-gay law firm, their interpretation of the events should not be taken at face value.

    And, again, there is hardly an absolute right to free speech in high school. There is speech that is appropriate in a school setting and speech that is not; what is considered appropriate is obviously a subjective matter. The purpose of schools and school newspapers is to educate and create educational dialogues. Is an opinion piece that is full of inaccuracies and quotes Bible verses calling for gay people to be put to death educational or overtly hostile? One can respect the First Amendment and still be opposed to airing this bone-headedly wrong and hateful editorial in a school setting.

    And, please, no one is going to throw this kid in a cell. He’s being propped up as a propaganda piece by a frothy law firm. Hard for him to play the victim card.

  27. Jack says

    Ernie:

    It may be subjective, but high schools still can’t engage in viewpoint discrimination. So if they want to avoid this kind of thing, they have to silence the people in favor of gay adoption as well.

  28. Chuck Mielke says

    C’mon folks, let’s keep this in context: a high school boy (not, as a group, known for erudition or discretion) is asked to write half of a pro/con opinion piece on same-sex marriage. Would you expect Chaucer? Woodward & Bernstien? No; you expect half-assed research and sophomoric analysis.

    As a gay man in Wisconsin, I can empathize with the gay dads and their son. It’s very easy to feel like the whole state is taking a crap on you when these things happen. But we need to keep perspective and move forward.

  29. Ozymandias71 says

    On one level, I can applaud the newspaper for bringing this issue up – and readers can easily see the difference between the pro-adoption arguments (facts, statistics) and the anti-adoption arguments (rhetoric, religious dogma).

    However, on a personal level, if I and my partner had my adopted child come home from school with an opinion piece that took direct aim at my ability and suitability to be an adopted parent, and cited ‘Gays must die because God said so’ rationale, I would be tremendously offended too.

  30. says

    “It may be subjective, but high schools still can’t engage in viewpoint discrimination. So if they want to avoid this kind of thing, they have to silence the people in favor of gay adoption as well.”

    They did. BOTH opinion pieces ran and then BOTH were pulled from extra copies of the paper. (Neither viewpoint was actually silenced, since they both ran initially and are now freely available for perusal.) But Liberty Counsel is only concerned about the free speech rights of anti-gay people. That’s why their It’s Only About the First Amendment shtick is laughable. They would never support pro-gay first amendment rights. Liberty Counsel is engaging in viewpoint discrimination; that’s their true legal specialty.

    It’s also unclear that they have any evidence that the student was “punished” for his views any more than the pro-gay student was “punished” for hers. One has to take their word for it (the school denies it), and, given their legal track record of stirring up antigay sh*t for no one’s benefit but their own, taking their word on anything is a mistake.

  31. Jack says

    Ernie: I was referring more to the people who are saying the school shouldn’t have run the counterpoint and/or should have punished the student.

    Liberty Counsel definitely has a slant, but they don’t have to be viewpoint neutral since they aren’t the government. I think they are a bunch of jerks, but I’d rather have more people defending free speech (even when I disagree with it) than less. We have our orgs that will take on our free speech cases (and the politicization of the ACLU means they would never take the anti-gay side of this, so perhaps groups like this are even necessary).

  32. MammaBear says

    The whole “it’s just in Leviticus, Jesus didn’t say it” line of attack strikes me as irrelevant.

    If what the kid said follows from the Bible, and we’re going to make some crazy exception that anything that’s said in that book is, well, gospel, then what is the beef? That he quoted the wrong passage, or attributed it to the wrong 2000 year dead source?

    The problem is treating the Bible as some kind of magic book – it’s full of hatred and stupidity as well as wisdom and enlightenment, and it shouldn’t have anything to do with laws or politics.

  33. LedianEvrae says

    As a Lesbian… And a mother… And a person who likes to chime in on ridiculous political and ethical debate….

    You can’t ask a kid in HS to do an op-ed and then slap his face for his opinion…. He did not say HE thought all gays should be put to death, but rather, by quoting the bible, he said GOD thinks all gays should be put to death (which I think is ridiculous by the way….. MY god loves me unconditionally and made me who I am… why would God hate me for that??)

    I think that sometimes, we are SO conditioned to see the “hate” in others against us, that we jump when perhaps we shouldn’t.

    Perhaps the school should have caught this before it was published… Perhaps just that little tiny bit about being put to death should have been deleted if it was so potentially offensive… And then explain to the CHILD (and we ARE talking about a child here) that there is a way to express your beliefs and opinions with TACT and RESPECT and DIGNITY… which is something many of us in this country are in shortage of I see.

    Thanks for hearing me.

  34. says

    When I taught English at the state university, one of the exercises I found effective in improving one’s rhetorical skills is to ask the student to think of the issue he/she is most passionate about and then defend, in essay form, the opposite opinion. Someone said this was a classroom exercise in Brandon Wegener’s school. It’s actually a very powerful way to introduce a young mind to the way a lawyer’s brain works. And exercises like this are NEVER meant to be published, even with a descriptive note that says it’s a classroom exercise because that note can be deleted anytime.

  35. says

    Liberty Counsel isn’t interested in “liberty” or in “counsel” … they seek notoriety and cash. Both are items that the religious fringe are more than willing to provide.

    Why, oh why can’t the fanatics spend their time, energy and money helping the poor and the needy?

  36. Alex says

    It’s a shame that “journalists” no longer take the time to get an informed, unbiased opinion on the topic their covering. If they had contacted a lawyer who wasn’t biased, she would have told them that the law on this matter is fairly clear.

    The student has very little right to have his story published. Assuming he wrote this article for a class (it’s possible that he did not), the school can choose not to publish any piece for “legitimate pedagogical” reasons. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988). While a handful of states have changed this, Wisconsin is not one of them.

    On the other hand, it’s probably unlikely that the student could be “punished” for his speech. This is arguable a closer call, since the school could certainly argue that the piece was a “material disruption” to the school. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). This seems unlikely however. If they cannot prove it, then the student gets the protection of the first amendment from punishment by his public school.

    There is an exception to the first amendment for incitement. What this student wrote is almost certainly not incitement. While incitement doesn’t need to actually lead to violence/harm, there must be a much greater likelihood that such harm would happen than occurred here.

    However, depending on whose version of the story is true, it is unlikely that what happened to this student will be recognized by any court as “punishment.” No court will try to censure what a school administrator says to a student short of continuous and totally unprofessional harassment. If he was kicked out of his journalism class that might be a little different, but the school could argue he was kicked out for academic reasons, which courts will generally not second guess.

  37. Alex says

    BTW, my sarcastic quotes around “journalist”, which I now regret (rhetorically, not substantively), were not meant as a dig at towleroad but at the original piece, which did not bother to get inform about the state of the law in story about a lawsuit.

  38. says

    Alex, the school did publish the piece. Both POVs on adoption by gay parents were published and both were pulled from extra copies of the paper. The school did not seek to punish the student. According to the school, after the pieces were pulled, the student initiated a discussion with the superintendent. This is where the student says he was “punished”, in a private conversation, and this is where we get the Liberty Counsel version of events, though they weren’t present, and this is where the superintendent disputes the student’s (and LC’s) claims. I think there are some misunderstandings around what actually happened in this case, ones perpetuated by the zealots at Liberty Counsel.

    Jack, I didn’t say Liberty Counsel shouldn’t have a slant, I was only saying that their particular slant (anti-gay) is more important to them, in my opinion, than any free speech concerns. I’ve followed their other work. The ACLU has supported the free speech rights of anti-gay nuts like Fred Phelps, as have I. But I don’t buy the Liberty Counsel claims here at all.

  39. says

    I agree with Alex that the article quoted here and the news report are totally biased in their failure to get at the real journalistic facts.

    Liberty Counsel, if they did their homework, would not be called just “a non-profit law firm specializing in first amendment rights” It’s an arm of the Falwell empire that is virulently anti-gay.

    Of COURSE the kid should feel ashamed — but it’s the opinions of the public and reasoned arguments that will make him feel that way. The principal doesn’t have to do anything, and likely didn’t do anything, certainly not anything illegal.

    As usual, Liberty Counsel’s case will be thrown out, but not until after they attain notoriety by distorting the real facts of the case.

  40. says

    as everyone who knows the bible has stated, this horrid young man has falsely attributed words to Christ that are in fact NOT attributed to Christ in the Bible.

    He has therefore lied – broken God’s Ninth Commandment – in order to “make his point”, and has thus lied ABOUT Christ. He should be put to death on earth, but the good news is he’s now damned to Hell for what he’s done.

    if, you know, you believe in that sorta thing. as he clearly does.

  41. Drake says

    What about his misstatement that in the USA, government is based on the bible? Wrong. Governments in the US are based on their constitutions which the US Supreme Court has interpreted as separating church from state.

  42. says

    the reality is this: the kid’s “opposing argument” was based on specious prejudicial bigotry. nothing more.

    he clearly has no understanding of the bible, and his stance was borne of nothing but anti-gay bias.

    Rod Dreher’s comments, in particular, smack of the specific type of insecure ignorance that is currently holding America back from meeting its potential.

    “favored class”? we’re “annoyed”? what a profound refusal to understand nuance.

    this kid is an idiot.

    and those of you can’t understand it are embarrassing. imagine an “opposing view” on interracial marriages that said “well, the blacks have the features of animals and behave primitively because they’re a lesser form of human and this is evidenced in ghettos across America because more americans agree that blacks are primitive people who were born to be slaves” and ask yourself if that’s not hateful or inflammatory.

    i know why the US is decades behind other countries when it comes to human rights issue – it seems too many of you are taught about “opinions” and aren’t taught about the difference between Opinions and Facts. You’re so adamant defending a “right to an opinion” that you’ve forgotten to discern and see if the opinion is worth having, worth defending, or even remotely relevant or correct. this country needs a massive dose of Intellectual Discernment.

  43. Timzilla says

    They just gave three Muslims 7-years under hate crimes law for pamphleting the same sort of religious rhetoric advocating the death penalty homosexuals. I love the UK.

  44. The Milkman says

    I’m less incensed by the biblical quote (we’ve ALL heard that before) and more disappointed that the product of this student’s exercise in researching the negative position on this issue was so poorly executed. The Biblical proscription was the only “evidence” supporting his position… all that shows is poor effort and a sub-standard understanding of how to craft a cogent argument.

  45. says

    not to mention a piss-poor understanding of his own Christianity, Milkman.

    the kid effectively proved that he believes:
    1. Christ in fact failed in His mission on the cross (which saved people from levitical law) and thus did not Save Anyone
    2. the 9th commandment doesn’t matter
    3. Christ was around for the…uh.. Old Testament…
    4. Christian beliefs trump human rights

  46. Jim says

    I’m no bible authority but I don’t recall Jesus quoting the passages cited in the article (leviticus). Leviticus is Old Testament and Jesus is New Testament. Someone who has more familiarity with the subject should check it out but I think he wrongly attributed Leviticus statements to Jesus- and if so he is wrong about what Jesus would have said.

    That said I am not religious, raised a Catholic, I long ago “lost” my faith and don’t care to regain it.

  47. says

    Jim, he not only falsely attributed words to Christ, but he did what all stupid faux-Christian bigots do and cited Levitical Law. Christ’s Sacrifice on the cross, theologically speaking, Saved Us from Levitical law. that’s why Christians don’t follow them!

    every time a Christian cites Levitical law they in fact are stating that Christ failed in His supposed mission on the cross.

    how about them apples, eh?

    but hey, we can’t look for consistency with the Religious Right. They’re the ones constantly clamoring for praying in school, and public prayer, despite the biblical citations attributed to CHRIST HIMSELF which state that prayer should not be done in public, but in private (“in your closet”)

    but hey, “Biblical Marriage” means that only virgins can marry and and women have to marry their rapists.

    you dont’ see folks out demanding those two things though, eh?

  48. Dan says

    This is free speech? When are these bible thomping assholes going to put the rest in. There are 176 or 178 abominations in the bible.Why do they just quote what they want at that time. Maybe it would be ok if we decided that we should go by them all. Like kill a child who back talks there parent, BUY OUR SLAVES FROM OTHER LANDS THAN OUR own, dont sleep with your wife on period. If we went with actually in the bible then women would be a personal property. They pic and choose. Thats the probvlem.

  49. JTHoot says

    Then allow me to publish an opinion piece where I quote my favorite author, who says that all Christians should be rounded up and executed. What? They’re my very personal, deeply-held beliefs, don’t I have a right to mention them even though they’re only tangentially related to the topic of prayer in school? THIS IS PERSECUTION, OMG

  50. ns says

    Wow, the commenters here can’t read. The student against gay adoption cited Leviticus as evidence of homosexual sinfulness. He did not state that he believed gays should be put to death, and it is libelous to put those words in his mouth.

    At the same time, the column is fatally flawed by its historical ignorance, and could have been edited/censored on those grounds unless Wisconsin has state laws that create additional student rights beyond the scope of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. Students do not have equal free press rights as adults in most States, so the demand by Liberty Counsel is probably absurd. The Hazelwood case involved a principal skittish about stories on divorce and abortion. Liberals were right to bemoan that outcome, and should not be calling for more censorship just because it can be used to silence antigay beliefs.

    Instead of crying foul to the administration, the gay parents might have considered asking their child to write a letter to the editor. The Superintendent handled it very poorly, and that would be the basis of any lawsuit. Perhaps the article could have been quashed based on a heightened sensitivity enacted on behalf of vulnerable gay students, but not to protect the sensibilities of the offended gay parents, I don’t understand what this has to do with a bullying policy.

  51. Mykelb says

    This kid took the easy way out. He didn’t base his argument on fact or science but on myth based nonsense. He will learn from the wider world at large just how wrong he is.

  52. says

    “The Superintendent handled it very poorly, and that would be the basis of any lawsuit.”

    All the superintendent did was pull both editorials, pro and con, from extra copies of the paper. That’s it. Then the anti-gay student engaged him in a private conversation. The student’s interpretation of that private conversation differs from the superintendent’s. Not much of a basis, but then Liberty isn’t really interested in free speech or a real lawsuit, they’re only interested in getting media attention via anti-gay propaganda, using the student as their prop.

  53. J. Page says

    Free speech is not without consequences. You are free what you want to say, but be prepared for the consequences.

    One must remember, “Christians” are constantly hanging themselves on a cross all the while they are hurling stones.

  54. kpatrick says

    in school you waive certain rights. you don’t get a lawyer when you feel you’ve been censored in school, you just shut up, admit you’re wrong and get over it.

  55. craig says

    I think the kid is getting too much flack.

    It’s an op-ed piece, let the moron say whatever he wants. His side is poorly written garbage which relies entirely on religious quotes to stand on. The girl kicked his ass in this….

    I never saw where he was calling for gays to be killed in the here and now… to say he was bullying was a stretch…hes a narrow minded nitwit moron, but thats it.

  56. Mark Alan Dellavecchia says

    Wegner made a factual error in his article. At no time in the Gospels does Jesus make any reference to homosexuality. “WWJD?” It would be nice if his followers followed his lead and did as he did.

Leave A Reply