Gay Rights

Proposition 8 must be repealed because it justifies intolerance. In addition, Ken Starr and Richard Peterson's view on LGBT rights is incorrect because the movement is for civil rights. Pepperdine University must readily ignore Ken Starr because no university should be a beacon of intolerance. Finally, there's never a justification for intolerance against LGBT people and is why people who support Proposition 8 all have an incorrect stance on LGBT rights.

First of all, Pepperdine University is a Church of Christ affiliated school.  It is not affiliated with Seventh Day Adventism.  In fact, as far as other Church of Christ schools go, it is considered to be a very liberal school.  Nothing like Bob Jones University.  Not a good comparison, really.

Second: why do so many people ignore the fact that Ken Starr is widely regarded in the American legal community as one of our nation's foremost constitutional scholars...which made him an obvious hire for the Yes on 8 legal defense, regardless of his personal politics.  Regardless of one's opinion or emotion about Prop 8's civil rights ramifications, the legal case against it was unsound.  Like it or not, Californians can, and did,  amend their constitution with a simple majority vote.  Calling Prop 8 unconstitutional was a legal contradiction in terms from the moment the amendment passed.  Of course the Yes on 8 people hired a constitutional scholar to defend their case.  Why wouldn't they want to get one of the best?

Now, if you want to attack Prop 8's constitutionality from a federal level, have at it.  But to call a lawyer a "fascist" or a member of the "Homophobic Right Wing Elite" because he was defending a legal--and yes, constitutionally sound--case just makes the gay rights crowd sound like the irrational haters.  Not good, folks.

Finally, with regard to Pepperdine's role in all this: free speech is free speech, and any university would have been out of line to discourage Mr. Starr from pursuing his outside legal career.  Let's look at a hypothetical.  Let's say that the head of the Pepperdine theatre department wants to resume his/her career as a professional actor while maintaining his/her duties as a professor and department head.  What if the professor gets a gig in a play at a prominent L.A. theatre, playing a gay character in a play which advocates gay rights? Would Pepperdine have the right to say, "No, you may not perform in this play because it might reflect poorly on the university and affect our donations from conservative parents and alums"?  Of course not.  So why be critical of Pepperdine for allowing Ken Starr to pursue his outside professional activities, or for allowing Richard Peterson to appear in the Yes on 8 commercial?   Let's not forget that Pepperdine Law professor Doug Kmiec was one of Obama's most prominent campaigners last year. Political activism and pursuit of one's extra-university career is a right enjoyed by both sides of the political spectrum at Pepperdine, it seems.

This is a great country, in part because we are allowed to disagree with one another in public.  I think Pepperdine should be commended for remaining neutral as a body, while still allowing the widest berth possible for their faculty, staff, and students to live out their beliefs and opinions, however unpopular they might be.