Thank you for commenting here and providing more information both about the event and about your motivations for participation.

I think that the concerns of the readers at this site was not one of excluding voices to only “mainsyream” opinion, but rather that this not be an artificial debate wherein the participants were selected so as to result in a particular conclusion. I think they feared that selecting the Phelps sisters would limit argument against the amendment only to religious rants, causing it to appear as though those who favor the amendement do so only out of adherence to extreme Levitical law.

If the Phelpses presented logic, law, and philosophy to religion then it would seem that our concerns did not come to be.

First of all, the Stonewall group really did reach out to several local and national proponents of Amendment 2, so let me reject in the most strenuous way the idea that their inviting Westboro was a crutch for what Stonewall or I feared would be a weak argument against Amendment 2. The students had no money to pay the expenses of any speaker, so their choices were limited. It was very important to them that the event include some kind of juxtaposition of views, in addition to the panel scheduled for the afternoon. The Stonewall students worked very hard on this event and it pained me (and them) to see them criticized and, at times, even ridiculed in this way. I was willing to participate in the debate because it relates to my research on the role of law in how heterosexuals come to see themselves (heterosexual subject formation) and a current article on how new Right operatives have made what are really reactionary views come to seem “conservative” by co-opting liberal ideas like “balance” and “diversity” for their ends. And Nate Phelps is right about his family. I have never followed the Phelps but what I saw today reflected experience and savvy with debate formats and traditional legal arguments, although of the more theocratic variety.

Second, and more disturbingly, what the debate brouhaha showed me was how poorly many people understand the function of a public university, the culture of intellectual exchange, and the rules of the game, as far as U.S. speech culture is concerned. Except on those rare occasions when a public university is addressing a question about its own corporate identity, the speech that goes on at a public research university is that of the many people and institutions that make up the rich mosaic which is a public university. To suggest some kind of vetting or oversight by administration officials of student activities, as some have, is the kind of prior restraint that Anglo-American legal culture long ago decided was repugnant to what we think of as freedom.

Moreover, the function of the academic enterprise is truth-seeking, not balance, although I realize that I am violating post-modernity’s Nicene Creed against the possibility of truth. The organizer of a speech event – students or otherwise – have the freedom to pursue their vision of its content and participants. To argue that the presence of “mainstream” institutions (whatever those are) is a proxy for the kind of intellectual rigor needed for truth-seeking is a big mistake: what this argument is really saying is “Please confine the scope of your inquiry to the existing consensus, as I have more faith in that than in having to think for myself about new material.” One of the most important decisions that a glbtq person must make is whether to see himself through his own eyes or through the perspective of straight society which, in case you hadn’t noticed already, IS the mainstream . A little original thinking on this score is not such a bad thing.

Finally, we are experiencing an important moment of openness and realignment in how we think about the gay-straight question. As I see it, it is an age of schism and cleavage in the heterosexual community, in the sense that faith communities are splitting on this issue (for Heaven’s sake! they should – what could be more important to a faith community than bearing witness to truth?) and that legal developments like the Defense of Marriage movements are calling the question, allowing people to take clear, public positions, so that we can see where people stand and act accordingly. (It’s about time.) A key thing that is happening is that heterosexuals are becoming increasingly aware of their individual and collective role in majoritarian abuses against sexual minorities. Some heterosexuals embrace the new consciousness; some object vigorously, trying in vain to put the toothpaste back in the tube; but most are still undecided and would benefit from a clear exposition of what is at stake when a supermajority works at erasing the existence of a minority. If you care about helping people to make choices that serve their core values (be they the values of old time religion and majoritarian overreaching or those of the secular human potential movement), you can help most by revealing the truth of what is at stake in these so called “marriage protection” amendments. In my opinion, today’s debate did that in spades, making a contribution not just on this issue but to speech generally as a way of finding and affirming your values.

Just for the record – the last two weeks have probably been the most stressful 2 weeks of my professional life due to intense hostility and scrutiny over this event, but now that it’s over, I feel relieved, proud of the courage and integrity of our Stonewall Legal Alliance and its leadership, grateful that I had the opportunity to bear witness to my truth on the question, and more convinced than ever about the value of open exchange on questions of faith and public policy.

Remove the veneer of a coifed hairdo, the haute couture and the refined and well rehearsed false argument that Amendment 2 is only about protecting the sanctity of marriage from the likes of Janet Folger & those of her ilk, what do you have? Shirley & Margie Phelps!!!

The offer to participate was made by the debate organizers to numerous, more ‘mainstream’ of the Amendment 2 Supporters but alas, they declined.

So now we get to see the debate framed in its proper context: Hate & Homophobia at the expense of the thousands of Senior citizens who’ll be hurt by Amendment 2 vs. sound legal arguments defending the equality of all citizens of the State of Florida. Sounds like a great debate! I’ll be there!

I don’t know, if my family can do anything, they can debate. 11 of my siblings are attorneys and have made a career of presenting cohesive arguments. In my opinion, where they fail utterly is in their fundamental premise that the bible is the inerrant word of some supreme being. All discussion that flows from that premise must fail.

I am one of those who believe it was genius to invite them. Personally, I am able to conjure up a bit more respect for their in your face brand of hatred toward gays then the equivocating, prevaricating rhetoric from the kinder, gentler gay bashers of the main stream christian movement. Neither is palatable any longer as far as I’m concerned. However, If their presence in a legitimate forum further discredits the failed societal policy of hatred toward gays, more power to them.

Ha, ha, ha! Right on P! That’s exactly right.

I think, to paraphrase AJD, the folks of the Stonewall Legal Alliance are both very smart and very stupid. More directly, they are too smart for their own good.

Randy had it right when he said, “FIU, via this campus group, Stonewall Legal Alliance, just stacked the debate in this Associate Professor’s favor. Sure there are two Phelps against him but don’t be fooled by appearances … all mouth + no heart = bigot brain coma.”

That’s a very clever approach. Too clever. It will be seen through by anyone with half a brain. (Meaning the Phelps girls will be oblivious, of course.)

Randy was also correct when he said that “this is not education or a true debate. It will be a freak show and completely unfair to those seeking to know the true arguments for and against” the proposed amendment.

If the people at FIU couldn’t get decent, reasonable amendment proponents to debate they should have cancelled the whole affair. Debating with the Phelps clan only makes a mockery of the University.

I wish we would all ignore them and let the embers die. They should have been ignored 10 years ago when Matt Shepard was their opportunity for media attention. They have had more than their 15 minutes of shame.