Shirvell vs. Armstrong
For months, Michigan Assistant Attorney General Andrew Shirvell has been running his own personal crusade against University of Michigan student assembly president Chris Armstrong, who happens to be gay.
Shirvell started a blog called Chris Armstrong Watch, which he recently closed to all but invited readers. He described the blog as “a site for concerned University of Michigan alumni, students, and others who oppose the recent election of Chris Armstrong — a RADICAL HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVIST, RACIST, ELITIST, & LIAR.” The photo of Armstrong and a gay pride flag with a swastika photoshopped onto it is from one of his posts.
Shirvell has attended multiple meetings at U of M to protest, criticize, and attack Armstrong in various venues. Armstrong has filed for a personal protection order, and the U of M has issued a trespassing warning against Shirvell.
All of which leaves me wondering, what the hell is wrong with this guy? What is it about homosexuality which causes people to so completely lose their shit? This is the assistant attorney general of the state of Michigan, and he’s facing a PPO and potential harassment charges over what? The fact that Armstrong likes men?
I’ve seen some commenters suggest Shirvell is closeted himself. I have no idea about the man’s sexuality, and I don’t care. Could he be gay, and lashing out at Armstrong as a way to externalize his own conflict? I guess so. But many of these comments seem aimed at hurting/insulting him with the implication that he’s gay, and that makes me uncomfortable.
“Gay” is not an insult. It’s not a weapon or a way to score points in an argument, even an argument against a bigot. If Shirvell is gay, then this whole mess becomes more tragic … but it doesn’t explain where Shirvell developed this obsessive loathing for homosexuality to begin with.
I’m sure there are things people do in the bedroom (or elsewhere) that would squick most of us out. For Shirvell, it’s homosexuality. Me, well, there are certain fetishes that make me cringe a bit to think about. But so what? That’s my problem.
Here’s a radical idea for Mr. Shirvell. If you don’t like homosexuality, don’t have sex with guys. If I think the use of produce in the bedroom is icky, I should keep the carrots and cucumbers in the crisper.
Voila! Problem solved!
Where the hell do you get off bullying consenting adults about what they do in the privacy of their own bedroom? What messed-up logic makes someone think this is okay? We’ve seen the results of this kind of bullying. Is that the ultimate goal, to bully Armstrong and others like him to suicide?
I don’t get it. With all the real problems out there, why would someone spend so much time and energy on this kind of pointless hate?
Shirvell has taken a personal leave of absence from his position. He will face a disciplinary hearing when he returns to work.
I wonder if Shirvell’s disgust about homosexuality is as strong as my own disgust at the idea of a man like him representing me and my state.
Steven Saus
October 6, 2010 @ 10:09 am
Isn’t it worse than just representing you? I’d be concerned that an asst. AG publicly displaying such bigotry wouldn’t fulfill his role in law enforcement – even after a “disciplinary hearing”.
Ken Marable
October 6, 2010 @ 10:14 am
Considering how over the top he has gotten in his attacks on Armstrong – even stalking the guy at his house, this certainly seems to go beyond disagreement into some serious issues and instability. I know that gets thrown around way too easily, but looking at his actions, this looks like textbook hate-filled stalker obsession.
Unfortunately, the sane among us see this and just scratch our heads wondering what his deal is. (And I’ll definitely have to steal the line “If you don’t like homosexuality, don’t have sex with guys.” – Perfect!) But this kind of obsession sure appears to be much deeper than disliking gays, and I hope the fallout is harsh for him. Not just because I utterly disagree with his general viewpoint, but because stalking and cyber-bullying are serious issues that need serious consequences.
I have never been a fan of Mike Cox and I certainly don’t know the intricacies of the law, but I hope he cuts the “Well, it’s not at work, so oh well” attitude and fires the guy. Having a stalker as assistant attorney general doesn’t reflect real well on us, and I don’t think an “employee assistance program” is going to fix that.
Jim C. Hines
October 6, 2010 @ 10:17 am
Depends on the outcome of the hearing. And with elections coming up next month, I’d say his job security is in question…
Jim C. Hines
October 6, 2010 @ 10:22 am
Cox’s initial response was along the lines of, “Oh, I don’t like it, but he has Freedom of Speech and it’s in his off hours.” I saw a follow-up article that said Cox has now seen the blog, and implied that he was reconsidering his stance. Because yeah, freedom of speech is great. But stalking and harassment and libel and such go way beyond freedom of speech…
zollmaniac
October 6, 2010 @ 10:33 am
“Here’s a radical idea for Mr. Shirvell. If you don’t like homosexuality, don’t have sex with guys.”
So full of win. I actually laughed out loud and it made people look at me funny.
Dave Klecha
October 6, 2010 @ 10:37 am
I was under the impression that he came to the job along with Cox, and since Cox isn’t up for reelection, chances are Shirvell’s job is about to be a moot point.
But it would be nice to see him go out ahead of January with a black mark on his record.
Tweets that mention Jim C. Hines » Shirvell vs. Armstrong -- Topsy.com
October 6, 2010 @ 11:03 am
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Corinne Duyvis and Elaine Corvidae, Jim C. Hines. Jim C. Hines said: New Post: Shirvell vs. Armstrong http://bit.ly/bktnGa […]
Jann M.
October 6, 2010 @ 12:19 pm
Amen, Mr. Hines! While I am a great supporter of free speech – even when I don’t agree – it seems that Mr. Shirvell has crossed the line. Why can’t we all just get along – and leave what consenting adults do alone? Thanks for the thoughtful commentary.
Jim C. Hines
October 6, 2010 @ 1:12 pm
I struggled with that a bit. I try to support free speech, even when I hate what’s being spoken. But this pretty clearly crosses into bullying, stalking, and trespassing, and is no longer (in my opinion) protected behavior.
Steven Saus
October 6, 2010 @ 2:11 pm
I guess I’m still hung up on the public persona (and legislative power) here. When I was in the military, I could be politically active – but not as a member of the military. That kind of public/private persona thing is used all the time – when John Scalzi got elected SFWA president, he made a big point of saying that at his personal blog, it was not in his role as SFWA President, and vice versa.
It’s an imperfect system, but at least gives the impression that the individual is conscious of the problems involved, which means they’d be more likely to avoid them.
From your summary, I get the impression that Shirvell was not making the distinction between his private and public personas. To me, that’s a bigger deal, since his public persona has so much more power than the typical Michigan private persona.
Does that make sense?
Jim C. Hines
October 6, 2010 @ 2:14 pm
It does make sense, but I haven’t seen any interviews with him or his blog, so it’s not something I can really speak to.
KatG
October 7, 2010 @ 9:47 am
Shirvell sees Armstrong as a fellow politician whose platform is advancing the gay agenda, i.e. trying to force the university population to accept gays as normal in society and gay political views. (One could argue that since the university population voted Armstrong into office, they’ve already mostly done this.) In particular, Armstrong was advocating gender neutral housing as an option for students at the school — that means women and men living in the same dormrooms. According to Shirvell, this is a “radical redefinition of gender norms” that must be opposed. Most other people who object to gender neutral housing tend to do so on the grounds that it promotes heterosexual sex and living together in sin, the same as coed bathrooms. Shirvell seems to regard it as part of a permissive homosexual conspiracy. As an alum of the university, he decided to make it his mission to get Armstrong ousted to protect the student body from Armstrong’s loose morality and radical political control. (Which also greatly aggrandizes the power of a college student president.)
In other words, the man is mentally ill and probably in need of medication. He has built Armstrong up into a fantasy figure, fixated on him, and stalked him. It is unlikely that Shirvell is gay; he’s just not in touch with reality. And the conspiracy rhetoric of anti-gay rights activists — that homosexuals are radical activists trying to seize power and change young people, etc., feeds right into his delusions.
Anita K.
October 7, 2010 @ 10:35 am
Yeah, that dude just scares me. Seems just a wee bit obsessive, and I do mean that in a “needs to be under the care of a good psychological care professional” sense.
As a gay person, I find myself wondering the same thing as far as why and how gay is such a slur, and why people get so freaked out by homosexuality. If you dont’ like it, don’t do it; otherwise who cares? But when I think back to my own experience figuring out that I liked girls, I remember that the only impression I had of homosexuality from growing up in a conservative Christian environment was that all gay people were promiscuous, devil worshipping, drug addicted, and worse; I don’t know where all that ideology started but certainly it is well entrenched now, and for people who haven’t ever given it a second thought it’s pretty persuasive. And it isn’t the first time people have done that to a group they hate, just look at how Jews were treated in the middle ages.
On a positive note, I encourage anyone who wants to combat this idiocy and to give a little hope to the gay young people who obviously need it to make a quick video for Dan Savage’s “It Gets Better” project!http://www.youtube.com/user/itgetsbetterproject
Jim C. Hines
October 8, 2010 @ 9:49 am
“It Gets Better” seems like an awesome project. I’ve seen that popping up a lot in discussions and links, and I’m glad it’s getting out there.
Yeah … I can see the attitudes and stereotypes and prejudices, but they just seem so stupid. I recognize it, but I can’t wrap my brain around why people obsess so much over who someone wants to sleep with. As long as it’s consensual and not hurting anyone (or not hurting anyone without their consent), why do we care???
Anita K.
October 8, 2010 @ 1:33 pm
Well… the fact that you can’t understand it and find it stupid, and encourage that attitude in your books, and presumably with your children, is what give me any hope for the future. 🙂
Jim C. Hines
October 8, 2010 @ 1:35 pm
A brief mental exercise if you need a smile: Talia vs. Shirvell.