A Christian college in rural South Carolina is putting its foot down when it comes to students gay sexing on campus.
It all started back in March 2014 when OutSports featured the stories of Drew Davis and Juan Varona, two gay volleyball players from Erskine College and the welcoming response they received from teammates after coming out.
It seems school’s board of trustees found all that tolerance and acceptance inappropriate, so they decided to do the only thing that seemed decent and rational… They banned gay sex.
A statement released a few days ago read, in part:
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
We believe the Bible teaches that all sexual activity outside the covenant of marriage is sinful and therefore ultimately destructive to the parties involved. As a Christian academic community, and in light of our institutional mission, members of the Erskine community are expected to follow the teachings of scripture concerning matters of human sexuality and institutional decisions will be made in light of this position.
The statement was added to the school’s website. It will soon be added official manuals. The board has yet to determine how exactly the policy will be implemented, but they are determined to find a way.
We’re not sure which is weirder, college administrators trying to police students’ bedroom behavior or the fact that it took them almost a year to respond to a story that, frankly, nobody remembered anymore.
Erskine College spokesman Cliff Smith urged people not to misunderstand the new policy.
“We’re not trying to be hateful,” he said.
“I would hope the conversation would be [gay students] feel loved, respected and cared for,” he added, “and that their faculty and staff are interested in them as individuals.”
Yeah. Perhaps a little too interested.
Related stories:
This Private Christian College Confiscated Every Copy Of Their Newspaper For Being Pro-Gay
Christian College Expels Lesbian Student And Then Bills Her For Tuition
Christian College Forcing Staff To Sign Anti-Gay “Statement of Faith”
Giancarlo85
Um…
Next headline: Christian college gets sued for invasion of privacy and violation of equal protection clause.
Yes this is a private college, but private businesses need to be held accountable to the US constitution.
wysevice27
“I would hope the conversation would be [gay students] feel loved, respected and cared for”
…as you ban them from having sex?
By that logic, the Jews should have been basking in the warm glow of Hitler’s love, respect, and care for them.
lauraspencer
Where does it say that this is directed at gay students?
Am I misreading “….all sexual activity outside the covenant of marriage is sinful…”?????
This “ban” seems to also include heterosexuals as well. It isn’t directed at just the gays.
Many moons ago when I was looking at colleges I made choices on where I wanted to go based on distance from home, size of the campus, educational program, cost of tuition, sports teams, alumni success, etc. With all the technology we have today it seems rather simple for students to research schools to determine which one is right for them. If a student doesn’t want to attend a religious school with strict rules about sex then it is simple. Choose another school. I’m sure there are many colleges that have no problem with their students having sex…..actually most of them.
aequalitasTN
@lauraspencer: I suppose you could say it is not targeted specifically at LGBTQ individuals, but if that is so, then the “religious freedom” protection bills pending in 10 states right now which would allow discrimination also don’t specifically target the LGBTQ community. Like all legislation, the truth is in the INTENT of the legislators and the TARGETS of the enforcement action. So, let’s talk about it in a year or so when the school has expelled a dozen or so LGBTQ individuals and not touched a single heterosexual, unmarried couple under this policy.
On another note, it is always baffling to me that the Right-wing Christians always say that they “love and respect” individual members of the LGBTQ community, but just disapprove of their “lifestyle” or their “sin.” Let’s place the shoe on the other foot for a moment: “Well uncle Jim and Aunt June I love you both, but the fact that you are having heterosexual sex is an abomination before god. So, while I think you are great as people, this particular aspect and trait – namely the way you express the love between yourselves – is ridiculous, but let’s still be friends, even though I hate you all being together and will attempt to undermine it and legislate against it, and you, every chance I get.” Sounds pretty f***ing ridiculous either way to me.
Giancarlo85
@lauraspencer: You’re not reading closely enough. This rule was the result of two gay athletes coming out. The Christian college probably wouldn’t recognize same sex marriage, so two of the same sex are barred from having sex to begin with. So yes, the ban is directed at gay people because of the general wording it contains.
BJ McFrisky
@Giancarlo85: Um . . . no.
Businesses are private, and therefore need not adhere to constitutional guarantees.
You’re alluding to a dictatorship, which, as much as the left may want it, will never happen in this country.
Giancarlo85
@BJ McFrisky: WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONGGGG!
Okay, so if this college says they don’t want black students they can’t be in trouble? Civil Rights Act applies to businesses. If a private business violates the US Constitution they can be held liable and sued.
So tell that to the bakers getting in trouble.
No, you right wingers are all about authoritarianism. You want corporations to control everyone in the name of “free market” nonsense. Then you want everyone to be as delusionally nationalistic like yourself. Anyone who opposes gets called a “commie liberal”.
Use your brain for once, frisky.
Giancarlo85
@BJ McFrisky: Do you have any clue about the country you live in? Anti-discrimination laws applies to private businesses too, doofus.
wysevice27
@BJ McFrisky:
Agreed. The Constitution exists to protect private citizens and their businesses from government oppression, hence it’s phrased as “The people’s right to XYZ shall not be infringed,” instead of “The people shall have the right to XYZ.”
But it’s still ridiculous to say you hope your gay students feel the love, when you’re making rules that target them.
aequalitasTN
@BJ McFrisky: Wow, really? All businesses? I would agree with your premise if you had said religious based non-profit businesses (even though I think I is ridiculous to discriminate against people no matter who you are, religious or not, based on an inherent trait), people still have a right to their religious beliefs. Seriously though, if we accept you premise, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not apply to any business and the country can return to the stone age. Brilliant.
Giancarlo85
The Constitution has been amended several times and laws exist to protect people from discrimination, even when it comes to private businesses. Private businesses are NOT free to do as they please. Or else some private businesses in certain states would still have “whites only” signs in windows (or at least up until the 1980s).
Now whether South Carolina has anti-discrimination laws on the books is unlikely… but there is a possible case in federal court here if a student is unjustly expelled.
Frisky will defend any republican state and any conservative even though they are engaging in clear discrimination.
orrine
Is out of marriage heterosexual sex also banned in this college?
jwtraveler
Like they’re really going to prevent students from having sex. We know how effective bans on underage drinking are.
lauraspencer
@orrine….that’s the point I was making from what I read above.
“….all sexual activity outside the covenant of marriage is sinful and therefore ultimately destructive to the parties involved.”
What the school stated is also directed at heterosexuals and not just gay students. If the LGBT students have issue with this “law” on campus then they can fight or protest against it by referring back to the “law” that the school has written. I doubt that in 2015 straight students wouldn’t put up with this.
The easiest solution is to do research on schools and not enroll in them. If enrollment goes down then the school will have to change their policies.
Giancarlo85
@lauraspencer: A general law/rule can be misapplied and can be unfair towards certain groups of people.
wysevice27
@lauraspencer:
The better question is: who goes to a Christian college, expecting progressive values from the administration?
People self-sort. I doubt atheists and Buddhists are lining up to go to Christian college.
GG
@lauraspencer: Hi Laura. I agree with you that there is an “incompleteness” to the story as it is presented here. Upon further investigation, I discovered a paragraph included in the college’s statement which Qweerty omitted, as follows:
“Christ affirms that marital union is to be between a man and woman (Matt 19:4-6). The Bible teaches that monogamous marriage between a man and a woman is God’s intended design for humanity and that sexual intimacy has its proper place only within the context of marriage (1 Thes. 4:3-5, Col. 3:5-7). Sexual relations outside of marriage or between persons of the same sex are spoken of in scripture as sin and contrary to the will of the Creator (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 1 Tim. 1:9-11).”
You are correct that the policy is directed at both gays and unmarried heterosexuals, though they offer an option (marriage) for condoning heterosexual sex, but none for gay sex.
wysevice27
@GG:
“You are correct that the policy is directed at both gays and unmarried heterosexuals, though they offer an option (marriage) for condoning heterosexual sex, but none for gay sex.”
Now, let’s find find the line in the Constitution which says that private religious institutions have to offer options for condoning gay sex.
GG
@wysevice27: Not quite sure what your point is, as I made no claims as to anything the constitution says or doesn’t say.
Ladbrook
The bigger question is what does SC’s famous gay senator, Lindsey Graham, think of such bigotry. As a lawmaker and openly gay man, he….
Oh, wait a minute… never mind.
Giancarlo85
@Ladbrook: Can’t stand that f’king neocon. If he was President, we would have troops in Syria and thousands of Americans coming back in bodybags.
avesraggiana
So what’s wrong with a little gay butt sex?!…
NiceNCool1
They’re obviously concern trolls.
Desert Boy
Interesting. I’ve always found pussies “icky” but, I keep this view to myself.
Jonty Coppersmith
@Giancarlo85:
Just to be clear, there is no case either in state court or federal court. For one thing, religious colleges may be exempt from anti-gay discrimination laws. Second thing, there are no laws protecting teh gay from discrimination in South Carolina. Third thing, there are no federal laws protecting us from discrimination.
Giancarlo85
@Jonty Coppersmith: Colleges have been sued before for thus exact thing if the rule is implemented. Second, not all religious organizations are exempted. If they are for profit businesses fair game. While there are no explicit protections, a lawsuit can still occur (and has occurred on a number of occasions).
aequalitasTN
@Jonty Coppersmith: There can very well be a case depending on how the new policy is enforced. If it is enforced exclusively against LGBTQ individuals and not against the unmarried, heterosexual couples, then it is 100% actionable. Companies and institutions are sued every day for selective enforcement of policies, and you can be damned sure that if the policy is not uniformly enforced a federal judge will not grant summary judgement, so there goes the defendant’s ability to recover defense cost. Though, admittedly, you may be right that a dismissal due to the religious nature of the college; however, I would be willing to bring the case. The EEOC has been itching to expand Title IX definitions, and I would be willing to bet that some of the Article III judges on the bench in the District of SC would be willing to entertain the notion, and I doubt you would get much push back on appeal to the USCA for the 4th Circuit either.
Geoff B
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the reason some of these colleges get away with this crap is because they are in states where there is no protection from LGBT discrimination. And as to another poster asking why gay students would attend these colleges, might it be because they were forced to by their parents and it was either that or be on their own? Maybe for some it was a choice of some bullsh*t school like Liberty or Bob Jones or incur criplling debt by choosing a school that may treat them like a human being. I would go a step further by suggesting the financial laws be changed where in the case of a student was forced to forgo parental support, they not be forced to disclose their parents financials as a basis for finacial aid.
lauraspencer
@Geoff B….I paid for my own education working jobs and taking out student loans. Anyone else can do the same thing if they don’t want to be indebted to their parents.
Geoff B
@lauraspencer: You make a good point, and I don’t know your age, but as someone who is only 20 years removed from college years, tuition has gone up astronomically. I paid for school tending bar underage. Not every 19 y/o can do that making 50K a year. If these kids can’t depend on their parents’ largesse, they shouldn’t have to disclose parental income which won’t benefit them is all I’m saying. BTW, Love your handle. Get back to Port Charles and get Luke right! He’s having some problems. Lol
DarkZephyr
@lauraspencer: Oh Laura. This is not the only article that has reported on this story. They enacted this law specifically because two students came out as gay. Whatever their excuses for doing so, that’s why they did it. Is it ok with you if we think they are douchebags for doing it and for teaching that gay sex is wrong and that marriage is only for 1 man and 1 woman? Do we have the right to have an opinion about this?
jason smeds
The Bible doesn’t actually ban homosexual feelings.
n900mixalot
We need more gay lawyers.
People, the federal government can ONLY regulate private industry under certain circumstances. When it comes to discrimination, private actors can only be regulated if they are discriminating based on race or alienage. That’s it.
Even where they are blocking a fundamental right, like sexual privacy, this is private action, not government or state action. And just because they receive state funding does not make them a state actor.
So all of this back and forth about “they are in breach of the Constiitution” DOES NOT APPLY. It does not apply to private action, except where race and alienage are concerned if the actor is private.
Good night.
Giancarlo85
@Geoff B: Many Republicans want to make it impossible for common people to afford college. Republicans hate prosperity or educated people. They are the ones that want to hike up college tuition and make it only available for the elite.
I have completed both my undergraduate and graduate degrees here in California and it is still more affordable than other states, with better quality.
Giancarlo85
@n900mixalot: Absolutely wrong. The federal government regulates the private sector in many other respects and not just with rights, but also with taxation, environmental regulation and building code regulations (more local and state regulations).
And if they violate any sort of state regulation and are receiving state or federal funding they can see that funding eliminated.
So you are wrong in many levels.
wysevice27
@Giancarlo85: @n900mixalot:
Get a courtroom.
Giancarlo85
Oh and I just named three ways the federal, state and local governments regulate private businesses, and that isn’t even the beginning how many regulations exist. And with education, if such an institution wants accreditation they need to meet certain state and federal standards. That is another regulation in a sense. How wrong can one be… Lmao.
Ellipse Kirk
“We’re not trying to be hateful,” he said. <- No, you don't have to try. It's your nature to be hateful.
jwtraveler
@lauraspencer: Wouldn’t it be great if college students could just focus on studying instead of having to work to pay for college, and if they could graduate and start out in life without a mountain of debt? All other industrialized countries provide free or cheap college education to young people to give them the best start in life. Then later on, when they have a decent income, they pay it forward with their taxes. It seems to make a lot more sense to me.
wysevice27
@jwtraveler:
Or, or, we let them pay their own way working as go-go boys.
vive
@Giancarlo85, I think you may be forgetting that people like BJ McFrisky would be absolutely fine with “Whites Only” businesses.
tricky ricky
then they better damn well ban masturbation too.
jizzchucker
Where will all those boys go to get blow jobs in private now?