Ross Boomer, the Forum Editor, is a Censor and Intolerant of Free Speech

Ross Boomer, CMC '09, pictured in orange, with the brocoli on his plate

I recently commented on a bigotted post against Mormons on the Forum's website in which Nico Brancolini, CMC '11, effectively argued that anyone who didn't support Proposition 8 was a bigot. [Editor's note: He argued other things as well, incredulously that gay marriage was good for business in the state of California. I asked for evidence on that point as well.]

I kept my cool, but pointed out that for many of us who oppose homosexual marriage the issue isn't one of "civil rights" but of special rights and the fear that gay marriage isn't the final battle for homosexual activists, but the opening of a long battle to deprieve religious institutions and others of their rights of association. I posted all of the cases that I had gotten from NPR (of all places). I argued that a lot of those who advocate for homosexual marriage are thugs who use the state to get people to agree to their lifestyle choice rather than debate the legitimate points their opposition have. And what did Ross Boomer do? He behaved thuggishly and censored my comment. He even argued that calling Mormonism a "creepy cabal" was okay.

I have but two questions for Mr. Boomer, editor of the Forum, is the Forum actually a forum? Or can you censor whomever you like because you were given an unelected position?

I'm used to activists, like Ross, behaving badly when they get other people's money at Claremont McKenna. But I was grateful for the level of support I've been getting from students on the Forum's website. Thanks to Ilan Wurman, Scott Yingling, and David Kalin, but most especially Dan O'Toole. His response is worth restating here. Who knows it might be censored next!

To Ross and Josh:

I know you guys pride yourselves on how sophisticated, thoughtful, and open-minded you think you are. But to actually have these qualities, one would need both the courage to challenge his assumptions and the intelligence to recognize irony.

It has become characteristic of gay marriage activists to assert rather than to argue. Thus Josh excuses what any normal person would recognize is plain statement of bigotry:

“Also, if someone’s goal was to declare war on my right to marry, I would probably not hesitate to call them names like a ‘creepy Mormon cabal’ too, even if it is slightly incendiary.”

A war on your right to marry? First of all, can you show me where this right comes from? The reality is that marriage is an institution, created by the government, to foster the most stable environment for the generation and raising of future citizens (children). The people retain the right to tailor institutions they create to the ends they see necessary. You can make an argument to the people to extend the sphere, but calling them bigots and forcing them to accept any willful assertion of how to change their institution by calling it a “right” can and should be seen as an attempt to undermine the institution itself.

Perhaps this is why advocates of gay marriage aren’t alarmed by all the ways gay marriage is then used to sue and attack private institutions that disagree with gay marriage. Anyone who disagrees must be forced to agree. Rather than consider this point, Ross believes it would be better to silence someone like Charles when he points it out. Better to let nobody see it.

So the irony couldn’t be clearer. Ross disagrees with Charles’s argument that gay marriage activists rabidly try to force their beliefs down others’ throats by shutting their critics up and refusing to debate their claims by, well, shutting Charles up and refusing to debate his claims. Who knew college would be so much like Animal Farm?

I suppose the hypocrisy is easier to swallow when you tell yourself pleasant little lies. Here’s how Josh rationalizes what Charles has to say:

“The funny thing here is that Charles isn’t even against gay rights at all, so I have to assume he’s just whining for whining’s sake. He believes the Forum should not be allowed to publish anything he disagrees with because he pays student fees that go toward ASCMC and running the Forum, so he lashes out on whatever he can.”

Yeah, that’s it. Charles doesn’t believe The Forum should publish anything he disagrees with. How Astute.

That The Forum now censors dissent is appalling, but not surprising. Besides Max Davison’s classic humor columns, it has never posted anything of any intelligence. Keep up the good work.

Cheers,

Dan