No on 8’s Hypocritical Argument – Gay Marriage in Public Schools?

Read this great editorial from the Orange County Register!  John Maxfield explains why gay marriage will and is being taught in California public schools, despite claims from our esteemed State Superintendent Jack O’Connell and his friends in the California Teachers Association. 

One of the major discussions surrounding Proposition 8 involves parental rights to opt their children out of instruction that goes against their personal beliefs. Same-sex marriage supporters are saying, “No, of course we won’t teach your children about same-sex marriage in school. But just in case we do, you’ll always have the right to opt-out”. Mr. Maxfield argues against this hypocritical statement by quoting the California Safe Schools Coalition website (many members of this coalition are also No on 8 supporters):

“. . .parents do not have the right to notice about and to opt their children out of diversity education programs that include discussions of sexual orientation or other controversial topics. . .

So long as the purpose and content of these diversity programs are “carefully articulated” and do not include sexually explicit content (i.e. discuss the human reproductive organs and their functions), parents are not entitled to prior notice and the opportunity to opt their children out.”

Do you see the hypocrisy? Publicly, the No on 8 people are telling us they will never even consider teaching same-sex issues in schools. But privately, they are planning how to make it happen, including how to skirt around the opt-out laws!

Read the entire article here:

No On 8’s Hypocritical Argument

For more information about Prop 8, visit What Is Prop 8?


3 comments so far

  1. abbyearth on

    One of my favorite yes on prop. 8 blogs (including yours 🙂 is

    Keep up the great job on your awesome blog and please donate to! We’re in the final hours!!

  2. prop8discussion on

    as i’ve studied this issue, i’ve realized that the state really does have a responsibility to protect its children.

    France took a year studying the issue BEFORE they decided. They rejected same-sex marriage because of the rights of children.

    Every child has a right to a mom and a dad. This is how they grow and learn best. While homosexual parents might be really good people, they can’t equal a mom AND a dad.

    society has an obligation to provide this basic and natural/biological right to its children.

    there is a cool discussion going on here:

    and here:

  3. Franco on

    The battle for free speech and conscience

    by Craig A. Huey

    Many voters who are for same-sex marriage—or don’t care either way—are joining forces with those who believe in protecting traditional marriage to vote “yes” on Proposition 8.

    Why? Because Proposition 8 restores individual freedom and protects free speech. A “no” vote destroys liberty, empowers judicial activists and creates a climate of lawsuits and coercion.

    What happened

    By a 4–3 decision, the California Supreme Court voted to force “same-sex marriage” on California. This decision overturned Proposition 22, which states that marriage is between a man and a woman only.

    In 2000, an overwhelming 61.4% of California voters passed Proposition 22. This court ruling overturning the California voters’ decision is history in the making.

    A civil right?

    Marriage is being “redefined” as a civil right; this new definition will radically change our society. That’s the problem—and that’s why gays, heterosexuals, Christians and Jews, Democrats and Republicans are joining together to vote “yes” on Proposition 8.

    No other political decision to change American society (as we’ve known it for more than 200 years) even comes close to this one. The three dissenting votes rightly pointed out that this is not a civil rights issue, it’s an issue of choice. The four judges who voted for “same-sex marriage” did so based on a distorted view of “civil liberties.” The four judges said, just as you can’t discriminate against people based on their race, you also can’t discriminate against people based on their “sexual orientation.”

    But choosing one’s personal sexual behavior isn’t the same as what defines one’s race.

    Confusion and danger

    Redesigning society based on this confusion—that a chosen sexual “orientation” is no different from the unchosen, unchangeable characteristic of race—is based on faulty and dangerous reasoning.

    There are some things we don’t choose. No one can choose his or her race or height—any more than he or she can choose any gene. Whom we enter into a relationship with, however, is voluntary—it’s a matter of free will. Homosexual behavior is a choice, not a civil right. Race is not a choice, and is a civil right.

    Why real rights are in danger

    Now, because of the court’s decision based on newly created “civil rights,” our religious liberty and freedom of speech are in danger. If Proposition 8 isn’t passed, watch for costly lawsuits to mount against churches if they don’t allow homosexual “weddings.”

    Last year in New Jersey, a lesbian couple sued the Methodist Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association after it refused, for religious reasons, to let the “couple” hold a ceremony on the camp’s property. The camp has lost part of its tax-exempt status and expects more court challenges.

    Stifling freedom of speech

    Watch out for more churches, religious organizations and pastors to grow increasingly reluctant to speak out against what they call the sin of homosexuality for fear of accusations of “hate speech,” “discrimination” and “violating civil rights.”

    Canadian Evangelical Pastor Stephen Boisson was recently banned from expressing his opposition to homosexuality, ordered to pay $5,000 for damages for “pain and suffering” and to apologize to a homosexual activist for writing in a newspaper it was wrong to teach 5- and 6-year-olds that homosexuality is acceptable behavior.

    Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family has to edit references to homosexuality out of his radio broadcasts in Canada so he doesn’t get prosecuted for “hate speech.”

    Stifling freedom of conscience

    Religious employees, Christian schools and bookstores, photographers, wedding-cake bakers, rental agencies and other businesses—all of them could be targets of ruinous lawsuits.

    In New Mexico, Elaine Huguenin, a professional wedding photographer, was fined and found guilty for not wanting to photograph a lesbian wedding.

    And just last month, the California Supreme Court found guilty two doctors in San Diego who refused to inseminate a lesbian woman. They referred her to another doctor. After she had the child, she sued, winning her “civil rights” case that would force the doctors to act against their own freedom of conscience. They will be potentially subjected to paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney fees to the lesbian.

    Proposition 8 is easy. Whether you agree with same-sex marriage or not, Proposition 8 is needed to protect freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. Voting “no” on 8 is voting against freedom of religion and opening the door to lawsuits and harassment of those who disagree with homosexuality.

    Voting YES is protecting the American dream and stopping the erosion of liberty.

    Craig A. Huey

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: