And people should make every effort to oppose this abuse of the referendum system. It doesn’t need to be abolished. Just modified to limit the laws its can be used for.

I’d have no trouble with such a vote as it would easily pass in every state.

Look, the fact is we had better get used to these public votes because that is how our system works.

If you can’t make your point without calling people names, it’s not a very good point.

“Members of Psalm 100 voted unanimously to remove senior Will Thomason, who is gay, on Aug. 28 for his views on homosexuality.

Crisp said the University did not find enough evidence to conclude that the group’s expulsion of Thomason was based on his sexual orientation rather than his beliefs.”

Tell me about equality…

But then it occurred to me that Dr. McCaskill is a middle-aged deaf black woman whose employment by the one employer she’s had for most or all of her working life is being threatened, during this dire economy. And who, if she loses this job, will be trying to get hired elsewhere in the wake of a messy public firing. If she had gotten along well with her employer until just now, she may be feeling rattled enough that it’s affected her judgement. So she might be less particular than she normally would be about whom she associates with, feeling that she can’t afford to turn down allies. As to her talking like a node in the anti-gay machine, she might be acting on bad advice from some of these newfound friends. And feeling embattled and isolated can sharpen anyone’s tone.

Or this is the real Angela McCaskill coming through.

The offer of university president Hurwitz for her to come back to work was hardly unconditional, and the quoted text from that public offer read condescendingly, like the prodigal employee needs to find her way back so the good, benevolent university administration can help her see the error of her ways and put her back on track. I’m not sure Hurwitz actually is offering anything new here.

Meanwhile, McCaskill has just taken what looks like a newly aggressive legal stance.

If there’s some kind of legal jockeying for position here, I’m not understanding it.

I feel as though there is information that is not public that is necessary to fully understand what is going on here.

I’ve read on the ‘Net that some think the university’s actions here are flatly illegal.

Talk about losing the war… this may well have just single-handedly cost us the first year that we had an advantage — in 4 states, and cost us every gain we have made in the African American community this year.

I haven’t seen the numbers, but I understand the mechanics of identity politics. This could set us back years.

F-ing idiots. So glad everyone here feels morally superior. The rest of us would kind of like to get married if you could get out of our way now.

I cant imagine any reason she would object.