Source

WISCONSIN — A student newspaper is receiving national heat for a recent article on gay adoption, causing administrators to review and reform their prior review policies.

The Hawks Post published two opinion pieces about the issue of gay and lesbian adoption, one in support and one opposed. The more conservative article outraged many, including parent Nick Uttecht, according to the Green Bay Press-Gazette. Uttecht, who is gay, saw the article when one of his children brought it to his attention. Uttecht said the Hawks Post article is ‘why students commit suicide.’

Here’s an excerpt from the piece:

“In the United States only 11 states allow same-sex marriage. Most do not because our government is generally based off of religion and the Bible. Also, If one is a practicing Christian, Jesus states in the Bible that homosexuality is (a) detestable act and sin which makes adopting wrong for homosexuals because you would be raising the child in a sin-filled environment.

“A child adopted into homosexuality will get confused because everyone else will have two different-gendered parents that can give them the correct amount of motherly nurturing and fatherly structure. In a Christian society, allowing homosexual couples to adopt is an abomination.”

The original piece continues…

Todd Carlson, superintendent of Shawano School District, issued a statement last week stating, ‘There is no intent by the school district to advocate for any of these positions. As a place of learning, Shawano school district strives to cultivate a positive environment for everyone.’

The article did not match the tone of the school district’s mission, Carlson wrote.

The student opposing gay adoption quoted the Bible, calling homosexuality a sin. Uttecht and others are afraid the article encourages bullying and want to know why the piece was allowed to go to press.

The district implemented new guidelines for all schools, ‘to be sure that all articles are properly reviewed before going to print,’ Carlson said in the statement.

The Kettle Moraine Press Association is a scholastic journalism organization based in Wisconsin. KEMPA Executive Director Linda Barrington has free speech concerns about the school’s response.

‘I’m so pleased they published the article on this topic and they presented both sides,’ Barrington said. ‘It’s the student newspaper. For the district to react like that, it isn’t reasonable all all. I feel the district is opening themselves up for a lot of problems if they’re going to open it up for prior review.’

Barrington said the student newspaper should remain in the hands of the students, not an administrator. The paper is for students and should be student run, said Barrington.

Predictably, the right is all over this, slamming the school board and defending the editorial. A far right group has stepped in to defend the student:

UPDATE: The Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit Christian legal organization, now says it is representing the student who wrote the column. The group is demanding the school district apologize for its treatment of student Brandon Wegner, or it “will take all appropriate measures to vindicate the rights” of Wegner.

In a letter to the school district, the organization claims Wegner was accused of violating a bullying policy and was required to meet with administrators without his parents’ knowledge.

According to the letter, students were required to remove the page with the column from the newspaper before distributing it in school.

Liberty Counsel also claims the district’s bullying policy is unconstitutional.

Here’s a take on it from a right leaning website:

Nothing in the remainder of the editorial is couched in threatening language of any kind. It’s mostly citations of magazine articles and opinion polls, mixed with the author’s opinions, which is generally acknowledged as the point of an editorial. For example: ‘A child adopted into homosexuality will get confused because everyone else will have two different-gendered parents that can give them the correct amount of motherly nurturing and fatherly structure necessary for raising a child.’

One may disagree with this, perhaps strenuously, but to censor it as ‘bullying’ and erase it, as an artifact of intolerable evil, is simply Orwellian and oppressive. This child is being taught that his opinions are unacceptable, indeed illegal, and so is his religion. A verse from the Bible, or any other book, could be quoted to menacing or intimidating effect – for example, by writing it on the wall of their house with blood-red paint. Such verses could also be surrounded by other language to make them into an imperative. That was not done here.

Now, the student newspaper may have editorial standards that preclude the quotation of Bible verses on the editorial page, or the use of this particular verse. Editors reject or modify submissions all the time. (I have no direct experience with this myself, but that’s what I’ve been told.) The author might have been asked to trim his work for length, leave out the provocative Leviticus passage, or leave out all of the Bible quotes and simply provide a broad description of what they say, to buttress his point about the tension between Christian faith and gay adoption. None of those things happened.

This particular essay passed those standards and was actually published, at which point a gay parent took offense and demanded censorship. That is exactly what is happening here. There’s nothing ambiguous about it. Those who disagree with this editorial are not arguing with it, in the healthy exchange of ideas that one might hope for in an academic publication. They are suppressing it, and salting the earth above its grave by declaring the expression of these ideas to be a thoughtcrime.

Furthermore, the young author’s work is being twisted and misrepresented to fit him into the ‘bullying’ crusade, so the cowards involved can climb on their high horses and pretend to be oh-so-enlightened about it. No one is worried about the entire school establishment ‘bullying’ the student who wrote this essay, other Christian students, or students who disapprove of gay adoption for the non-religious reasons cited by the author.

Where are the noble champions of free speech, who should be rushing to this student’s defense? As quoted by the Press Gazette, David Hudson of the Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group First Amendment Center offered this meek objection:

“Bullying is a serious concern, and I don’t take it lightly. But I hope it doesn’t lead to squashing different viewpoints. I do think (gay adoption) is an issue people are deeply divided about. Hopefully student journalists don’t have to fear they’ll be squashed if they take a controversial view.”

And here are some classy comments from the site quoted above …

The Queer Queen Quest of shoving this psychopathology into the lives of white Christian Conservatives and their families is nothing more than the worthless liberal therapy recommended by other worthless liberal queers and lesbians and supported by queer and lesbian judges.

So far, the damage done will require hundreds of legislating-from-the-bench liberals to be removed and replaced with strict interpreters of the Constitution. This will take no time at all if Republican’s ever secrete testosterone again.

The young man did a good job on his editorial. Good for him and shame on the cowardly school district. Gay views can be published attacking Christian views, but no response is allowed from Christians … and the left thinks suppressing speech is “open minded.” Suppression of Christians and speech.

We all pretty much stand outside of the issue and make philosophical arguments, either pro or con, but I know that entering into honest communication with the individual homosexual willd provide you with enough reason to pity them. They are some of the most miserable creatures on earth, full of regrets, shame, hopelessness, and bitterness. Sure they can make a good show of it when surrounded by other homosexuals but in the quiet and lonely moments of life…………..

And here are some more from the posting of the story over at Fox News:

I speak my anti-pervert opinions in public and the only demeted ****** who ever dared to criticize me spent the night in the hospital. Opposition to sexual perversion (including homosexuality) in public is nothing more than good taste and common decency.

When homosexuals can produce a child without outside help, then you can rear them. Do you not believe that your abhorrent personal behavior effects the child? Is it okay then to smoke crack in front of them, or to watch porn with them sitting there?

Children learn by watching and imitating… Just because your “lifestyle” is okay with you, and you have convinced a bunch of liberals and weak minded politicians hungry for votes to agree with you does not make it a moral or acceptable behavior. The homosexual “demographic” is less than 3% in the United States, but with all the noise they make it sure seems like a lot more.

God loves everyone, but as long as you continue in sin… and yes, it is a sin… God reserves the harshest words possible to describe it… AN ABOMINATION… you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. But if you repent and turn away from sin, God is willing and just to forgive you of your sin.

Homosexuality needs to be illegal again. Homosexuality is perversion and Satan owns all perversion. Homosexuals are very sick people. God destroys homosexuals from cover to cover in his Word because Satan owns the lifestyle. All Liberals do is bully their way to everything they want and it’s sickening.

And it goes on and on…

As a victim of bullying and as a media person, I have some strong opinions on this.

Firstly, I don’t know how relevant the Free Speech argument is here. This is a school newspaper, not a government entity. In general, there is no free speech at newspapers or other media. They can just choose to print and publish whatever they want.

Secondly, I don’t think it was so much what the student said but how he said it. You can present a counter argument to pretty much any controversial issue without needing be offensive and/or mean spirited about it.

For example, if you were writing an editorial piece against abortion you could write:

Abortion is wrong because all life is sacred to God and to Him it’s the same as committing murder. Any woman or girl who has an abortion is a no good heathen no better than a prostitute.

Or you could write:

I do not believe in abortion because I believe all life is sacred and should be protected. I feel for the pregnant women who get themselves in a position where they are considering abortion and understand their reasons for doing so, but I still believe they are wrong in their decision to terminate unborn life.

Same issue, same point of view, just one more rational and far less combative than the other.

I agree with the gay man who objected the piece when he said: “this is why kids commit suicide”. He is EXACTLY right on this point. There have been many young LGBT people that have taken their own lives in part due to bullying and mistreatment by religious people who take every opportunity they can to run gays down.

As a Christian, this kind of treatment of gay people appalls me. You want to disagree with someone? Fine, but there’s no reason to be a jerk about it. Christians are supposed to treat people with respect, NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE.

“Christians” such as the people who made the comments above are doing a major disservice. They are acting in such a way that anyone who sees it will never want to step foot in a church ever again. I can’t say I blame them.

I’ve been down the long road when it comes to bullying. It’s a rough path to walk and something I never want to do again.

Ultimately, we need to ask ourselves this question: Is it EVER OK to treat someone poorly, simply because of who they are?

The answer should almost always be: “NO.”