Splicetoday

On Campus
Apr 17, 2015, 09:35AM

Friends School of Baltimore Screws Up

My alma mater promoted a bigoted alumnus and all I got was this infinite sadness.

Peace dove picture.jpg?ixlib=rails 2.1

I love the high school I went to, and I’m dumbfounded that it would proudly promote this feature in Wednesday’s Washington Post. Friends School of Baltimore should be ashamed of any association with Ryan T. Anderson, an alumnus who is considered the “conservative movement’s fresh-faced, millennial, Ivy League-educated spokesman against same-sex marriage.” A hundred years ago he’d be riding horses in white robes, but in 2015, if you’re telegenic and an enthusiastic debater, you can promote intolerance on morning talk shows and get puff pieces written about you in major newspapers.

What a clown. After a torrent of criticism from students and alumni, Friends removed its link to the article, and Head of School Matt Micciche issued an apology that has also been removed. Right on cue, Erick Erickson at Red State decried the imaginary “Intolerant Left,” who “did not want to confront not an opposing argument [sic], but even the mention of someone who makes the opposing argument.” Would you even give the time of day to a member of the Westboro Baptist Church? Ryan T. Anderson is nothing more than the TV-friendly version of the same thing: a “devout Catholic” stuck in the Stone Age and hung up on gay marriage because it challenges the integrity of his belief system. Believe in what you will, but there is nothing “civil” about standing in the way of love. Your God means nothing to me and has no place in any court in this country. Denigrating other people for their sexuality is hate speech, and same-sex marriage has absolutely zero impact on bigots who hide behind religion who would be better served seeing psychiatrists than attending Sunday Mass.

Erickson says that his friend Ryan “is perhaps the leading voice in the country in support of traditional marriage. He makes a very forceful, but also very civil argument, in defense of it. His work has been quoted by members of the United States Supreme Court.” I’m not impressed. Is there a civil argument in support of phrenology, or against equal pay for women? No. These are black and white issues of discrimination and disrespect. Anderson even recognizes that it’s “a losing argument to oppose the legality of same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds,” so he’s going the Won’t somebody please think of the children? route: he’s happy if “Americans at least consider his message: that government’s interest in regulating marriage is to protect the offspring that come only from the male-female union, not to validate the desires of adults.” Good gosh man, you’re grasping at straws. There is nothing that makes gay people less fit to parent than a straight couple. “Gays and lesbians undoubtedly have been discriminated against […] But marriage is not part of that discrimination.” He’s run out of hairs to split. It’s just total nonsense, and if you’re so bothered by something that doesn’t affect you at all, maybe take a visit to the confessional instead of Good Morning America.

I realize that Ryan T. Anderson is just another lipsticked pig on the wrong side of history, but I’m sad that my alma mater thought it was appropriate to post this puff piece as proof of a Friends student done good. I didn’t even get to read Matt Micciche’s apology before it was taken down and the whole mess was swept under the rug. Not exactly the best example for your students. Stand by your mistake and withstand the vile comment thread. Quakerism implores one to look for the inner light in everyone, but I have a hard time seeing anything but darkness in the rhetoric of a bigot in a bespoke suit.

—Follow Nicky Smith on Twitter: @MUGGER1992

Discussion
  • Nicky, clearly your expensive education didn't do you much good. Otherwise you might have learned to engage with people's arguments, instead of resorting to namecalling. That guy you are equating to the Westboro Baptist Church holds the same beliefs that your heroes Barack Obama and HRC held not too many months ago.

    Responses to this comment
  • "There is nothing that makes gay people less fit to parent than a straight couple" There are a number of studies that confirm this. Those studies can be located by a search of the Internet using a search engine.

    Responses to this comment
  • Liberal lions like Obama and Clinton, who gave us DADT and DOMA, take advantage of useful idiots like Nicky for campaign donations. Let's stop arguing against science, folks. homosexuality is an unnatural act and homosexuals are incapable of procreation. Remove the moral and religious arguments and it's still wrong.

    Responses to this comment
  • Are you time traveling from 1950? Most of America has answered the question of gay marriage: live and let live.

  • not really. gay marriage has been rejected in even the bluest of blue states. Federal judges don't speak for the people. Your ilk may be louder and more obnoxious, but its still an unnatural act, anatomically. Why are you so anti-science?

    Responses to this comment
  • why are you so anti-science?

    Responses to this comment
  • I'm a gay activist and have been for a long time. I knew that gay marriage would be a reality one day. And that's what's happening. I am also aware that my right to free speech is one of the things that helped make gay marriage a reality. Did they teach you about free speech and the marketplace of ideas at your Friends school? If they did then you know the guy who was spotlighted in the Post has a right to express his opinions. He should't be shut down because his ideas fill you with "infinite sadness". You counter ideas with more ideas. Put your silly sadness away and grow up. Fight with the tools of the mind instead of acting like some lame wimp who can't listen to opposing viewpoints without bursting into tears and hiding from those ideas. Grow up. Fight like those of us who've been on the frontlines of the movement have done. You'll be a better person for having done that. Free Speech, Freedom of Expression, Free Thought -- all sacred principles of our society.

    Responses to this comment
  • I'm gay. Came out when I was 14, in the mid-90's. I'm sympathetic to conservatives for a number of reasons - mostly because the left is scary and intolerant of anyone who doesn't agree with them on every little issue. Beyond hilarious that you're now a hateful bigoted Klansman - who needs to be harassed and publicly shamed by the social justice warriors - for holding the same exact view on marriage as Barack Obama held a scarce three years ago. The fashions of the hip little children of the Left change so quickly.

    Responses to this comment
  • The Left is so quick to shut down debate with insults and derision. They feed on Division - with a capital "D" - and pit one group of people against another. It is their stock in trade and Nicky is a perfect example. We are in white robes? We are "lipsticked" (sic) pigs? How are these insults constructive? How do they advance the dialog and debate? Gay marriage vs. traditional marriage. Rich vs. Poor. AGW vs. Denier. Liberal vs. Conservative. All of the divisions are a creation of the Liberal Democrats. All of the "STFU's" come from the left. "The debate is over." "Climate Justice" where the Denier isn't debated or dismissed, but the Denier is legally held responsible for the imaginary damage that is done to an imaginary victim. They want to make denying AGW a criminal offense. When Sims was drafted in the NFL and kissed his boyfriend on national TV, a Miami Dolphin tweeted something to the effect of "Yuck". For that, he was suspended for 2 weeks and required to go to sensitivity training. Denied his living and sent to re-education class. When the Gay Marriage crowd learned that the new CEO of Firefox -and founder - had donated to the CA Marriage amendment in 2008, he was drummed out of office. Denied his livelihood even though he was a founder of Firefox. The gay lobby is a sore winner, not happy with "the tide of history" but now requiring that we all smile, instead of retch, at the sight of 2 bearded men kissing. Please. Allow me to apologize in advance. I retch every time.

    Responses to this comment
  • first we are told that what others do in their own bedrooms is none of our business. But then a small yet vocal minority wants everybody to know just exactly what they're doing in the bedroom, and it doesn't stop there. We have seen the bullies host Kiss In's at Chic Filet, and run Mom & Pop pizzerias out of business because they don't agree with a lifestyle. These cowards can push around harmless, good folks but are too scared to go lecture Mosques and black churches about their anti-gay marriage stances.

    Responses to this comment
  • I've supported same-sex marriage for as long as I can remember. I lived in SF from the mid-70's through the late-80's and did volunteer work with men diagnosed with AIDS related illnesses during the peak of the AIDS crisis in SF. I once fired a produce worker at a natural food co-op I managed in SF after he jokingly made nasty comments to two gay employees. I signed up for an account here just so I could comment on Nicky Smith's fallacy-ridden essay. As someone who has long supported and fought for LGBT rights, I feel "infinite sadness" when I encounter other supporters of LGBT rights who communicate in ways that I believe will do more harm than good for everyone - members of the LGBT community and society in general. Smith's entire argument, such as it is, is based on the premise that anyone and everyone who says they oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds (I'm an atheist, BTW), is a bigot who is hiding behind religion. This would necessarily include not only many Christians (including many African American Christians throughout the US), but millions if not billions of Muslims throughout the world, many Buddhists, etc. Is this a sound premise? No. I have no doubt that many people who claim to oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds are bigots hiding behind religion, but to argue that this is universally the case is absurd. If that premise were true, then of course it would follow that everyone who opposes same-sex marriage can legitimately be likened to KKK members, and it would follow that no "civil argument" can be made in support of the opposing view. But the premise is not true, and Nicky Smith could determine this by meeting face to face with some people who claim to oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds. I'd suggest that Smith visit a church whose members are predominantly African American, who mostly oppose same-sex marriage, and who would be willing to discuss the matter with Smith. At least Smith would probably hesitate to liken them to KKK members, and Smith might actually be willing to listen. The point of listening wouldn't be to open oneself to the possibility that maybe same-sex marriage is wrong, but would be to open oneself to the possibility that maybe some people exist in this world who have radically different beliefs than me on certain issues, and who I can't dismiss out of hand as bigots and haters who deserve nothing but contempt.

    Responses to this comment
  • I not commenting on Nickie Smith's opinion as to what is bigoted or not, but she is ignorant of history. She mentions Ryan T. Anderson's opinon on same sex marriage and then comments,"A hundred years ago he’d be riding horses in white robes". Ms. Smith is of course comparing Mr.Anderson with the KKK. This is where Ms. Smith's low information liberal education becomes apparent. The KKK was the "enforcement arm" of the liberal Democratic Party. It was the Democratic Party that burned crosses and lynched young black boys and black men.

    Responses to this comment
  • You, durhonka, patlark, etc. should follow your own advice/comments. Pot/Kettle; glass houses, you get the drill

    Responses to this comment
  • Ms. Smith, you are the bigot. Worse, you are incoherent. Most people who oppose same-sex marriage are not doing so because they want to "stand in the way" of love. Where do you come by such an idiotic notion? Let me ask you: if you discovered that (at least some) opponents of same-sex marriage had reasonable and rational grounds for opposing such unions, would you then cease the hysterical, dishonest attacks against such people and (at least attempt to) engage their arguments in a sensible, adult manner?

    Responses to this comment
  • Clarification: by "opposing such unions" I do not mean "granting the same rights and protections to homosexual couples that are enjoyed by heterosexual couples." I mean that "marriage" should remain solely between people who can produce children and that some other means (civil union, etc.) should be reserved for any union that cannot produce children.

    Responses to this comment
  • Nicky: bravo on not taking the bait and responding to this "barrage" of comments. Texan and Hunchback excepted, every one of these commenter accounts was set up yesterday and judging by the usernames/writing styles, I'd bet they're all the same (insert 20 adjectives here) person.

  • Could be, Mary, but the article was linked on Real Clear Politics, which often gets people to the site for the first time. But I especially got a hoot out of the comments who assumed Nicky was a woman.

    Responses to this comment
  • marymac, I did set up my account yesterday, and I said so a few sentences into my comment. That comment, and now this one, are the only ones I've posted here, so I am not "the same person" as any other commenter posting under a different username. I'm sorry if you think I was trying to "bait" Nicky. And as russ observes, I did see a link to Nicky's article at Real Clear Politics. It wasn't my intention to add to a "barrage" of comments, and I tried to keep my tone civil.

    Responses to this comment
  • I thought the first few were sarcastic buddies of Nicky until they continued thru the weekend. Now that I know they were linked from RCP I'll just say Mazel Tov Nicky

    Responses to this comment

Register or Login to leave a comment