On October 26, following a long conference call, I sent this e-mail to the national offices of the ACLU asking for clarification of their concerns regarding our speaking/writing publicly:
Thank you for the conversation the other day. Michael and I did discuss it and have a few follow-up questions before we can make our decision. I would like to talk about these by phone, but wanted to send you the questions ahead of time. Let’s schedule a time to talk.
1) You stated that your expectation was that plaintiffs not publicly speak about the underlying factors of the case.
a) It was clear that our “Wannabe Dads” blog was unacceptable. But what all else would be included. Would there be an expectation that we cease or curtail our other on-line communication and platforms (other blogs, social networking, etc.)?
b) What is included in “underlying factors of the case?” Just our pursuit of adoption or the broader topics of our family and our relationship? Some of the things you cited from our blog as being issues seemed quite broad (more on that in a moment). We need clarification.
c) What is included in “not publicly speaking”? Our primary concern here is not in our roles as advocates, activists, and public figures, but my ministerial responsibilities. Core to ministry, as I practice it, is sharing one’s own story in order to invite others into sharing their stories and opening up about what is happening in their lives. Would you consider conversations at church events (classes, meetings, fellowship) to be speaking publicly? What would be the ACLU’s expectations regarding my preaching and writing as a minister, where I often share personal stories?
2) You asked if there was anything we’d ever written or said in the past that could be problematic. I answered that I wasn’t sure what might be problematic. My assumption is that any number of things I’ve written or said could be used or twisted by someone else. When you cited the example of my philosophical opinion on the nature of rules, that gave me pause, because if that is the sort of thing that is problematic, then yes, I think lots of things I’ve written and said – on-line, as a columnist, in academic writings, in sermons -- could be an issue. I guess I want clarification on this point.
We have some further broad concerns, but clarification on these specifics would be helpful.
My trip to Paris and Hurrican Sandy, which flooded the national ACLU offices, delayed our follow-up conversation, clarifying these concerns. Then Michael and I had a long talk, before sending this e-mail:
We have decided to continue to participate in the lawsuit. I continue to have profound personal and theological disagreements with the restrictions, but we are committed to trying everything we can to have a family.
We had continued to post during the first part of our conversations with the ACLU, but by November we had suspended writing on the blog.
-- Scott
