Vote No protest going on outside my window (Page 2)

Well, you forgot the Q's...whoever they are.

Thanks.....now I'm as lost as a bastard cat.

Well, you left out the important part: "What is different here is that if the marriage amendment passed, it would be a really big step in the wrong direction for a key group of people at my school."  I didn't understand that to mean that only these "key people" were in favor of the public opposition by the BoT.

I don't know anything about the University, its faculty or its students, but I assume there is a reason the OP said that the LGBTQ (I'm still a little lost on Q) community at this particular university is "key."

I think you just roll with it at this point.

Think of it as Q = Queer = Questioning how one identifies........

Neither did I took it as an opinion by the OP but now we are arguing semantics.

The University is supposed to represent a diversity of students not just the "politically correct" ones for lack of a better term.  The best way it can do that is to stay out of the fight.

If a majority of the faculty, a majority of the student body (that's an assumption), the local community and the church associated with the University all oppose the amendment and are calling upon the BoT to publically oppose, does that make it simply "politically correct?"

Staying out of it is one thing, but I think you're quick to decry this particular situation as caving to political correctness.

Questioning? Like am I a father, a husband, a coach, a triathlete...?

Why do you feel this way?  Voting is an individual thing.  No company or organization should speak on behalf of all of it's members as to where they stand.  When The CEO of General Mills casts his vote, it will be in his name...Not the name of General Mills.  

I think it is ridiculous for Companies/Churches/Organizations to feel that they can speak on behalf of their members.  Especially non-profit/non-taxed organizations.  Taxes and representation should be equal and their money should not be able to sway politics.  (I know...that is ridiculous)

Being self-aware is half the battle.

x4

Most religions would disagree.

Most of the controversy arising from legalizing / banning gay marriage is because marriage is BOTH a religious and legal arrangement.  That's why you'll sometimes see civil unions offered as a way to segment those things.

Some gay marriage proponents argue that marriage is so intertwined into our legal system that civil unions can never be the same, so they won't accept them as a solution.  Religious institutions say marriage belongs to them and they can define it as they please, since they were around long before the government.  Round and round we go.

I think the school is wise to steer clear.