Same-Sex Marriage in Schools – Should I Be Worried?

Although the election is over, the debate continues over Proposition 8. Those opposing the proposition are currently protesting and filing lawsuits. (See my previous post,The Fight Continues)

Those of us who voted for Proposition 8 are dismayed, wondering if and when our opponents will respect the voice of the people.

One of the major issues that continues to be discussed is the effect that approving same-sex marriage will have on public schools. As an elementary school teacher, I have chosen to voice my belief that changing the state’s definition of marriage will have a profound effect on the curriculum we teach.

Many have commented that I am overreacting. Here’s a typical response:

“let’s be honest about those commercials here. When were you ever taught about marriage in school? Those commercials are targeted towards public schools which have sex ed but… there’s no such thing as “marriage ed.” Those commercials are ridiculous. And has anyone else besides me noticed that: 1. they used the same book as the prop in all the commercials 2. The commercials are all set in Massachusetts. …think about it.”

That is why I appreciated this post from The Hedgehog Blog: Proposition 8 and California’s Schoolchildren: A Primer on Falsehoods

Please read, then ask yourself, do you still think I am exaggerating? (And if you need further evidence, be sure to visit this link to the California Safe Schools that Hedgehog discussed: Question and Answer Guide on California’s Parental Opt-Out Statutes)

So I say, as long as they keep protesting, I will keep posting. And thanks, Beetle Blogger, Prop 8 Discussion, Using My Voice, and Thinking the Wright Way for doing the same!


34 comments so far

  1. Norris Hall on

    In 2000 same sex marriage was defeated by 61.4% to 38% vote. a 23 percent difference

    8 years later that gap had narrowed to
    52.47% in favor of Proposition 8 and 47.53%.
    a 5 percent difference.

    Like many Californians I voted against same sex marriage the first time around. 8 years ago it seemed a foreign idea.
    Now that I have grown much more accepting of gays, I changed my vote this time.
    People everywhere are becoming more accepting of the idea.

    Like interracial marriage, which was once condemned from the pulpit, same sex marriage will soon become an accepted fact of life in America

  2. beetlebabee on

    you know, the whole country is watching these protests and the traffic to my site has exploded. I’m sorry that some have stopped posting because now people are needed as much as ever to respond to the misunderstanding being spread by the media and these protests. The fight is moving from California, and everyone is watching and making up their minds now.

    Remember how public opinion was SO against us before we got our ads out there? That’s how it is now for the other states. They’re only seeing one side of the issue. We may be battle weary, but we can’t let the opposition go unopposed.

  3. ivoteyesonprop8 on

    You said it perfectly, I’m wondering the same thing …”wondering if and when our opponents will respect the voice of the people.” Great Post!

  4. Dan on

    Since when does mob rule make something right? I needn’t remind you that only 40 years ago interracial marriages would have been ILLEGAL in 16 states. Thank goodness for those “activist” judges, otherwise all you white men out there who have a sick preference for asian women, would be prevented from marrying those girlfriends of yours (honestly, I don’t GET the attraction, maybe you can explain it?). And, what THINKING parent would not prefer their child to grow up and learn about ALL people, regardless of their sexual orientation? Is heterosexual marriage in such peril that a parent will worry a child will “choose” to be in a same sex marriage later on in life simply because it was “taught” in school? There are some really paranoid parents out there, if that’s the case. I had sex education in high school in the 1970s in Ohio, and I was taught that gay people lived a lonely life of depravity where the only sexual gratification was sex in public restrooms. So, is that a better way to teach a child, than to give the alternative of a loving and committed LEGAL marriage? I would hope that ALL parents would prefer that their children grow up to be in a stable relationship with whomever they fall in love with. And, I wish that all the bigoted parents who voted for Prop 8 have a gay child or grandchild. They will be singing a different tune, if that’s the case. Grow up parents! Learn to LOVE your child regardless of their sexual orientation, and TEACH them that gay people exist and DESERVE the rights that YOU take for granted. There is just too much ignorance out there, and this blog is all the evidence one needs. One more thing, Prop 8 had NOTHING to do with schools. But, it is ironic that the Yes on 8 campaign actually was educating young people about gay marriage. If they didn’t know about it before Prop 8, then EVERY child now knows about gay marriage. Their commercials TAUGHT gay marriage to our kids, and I wish they’d still be on the air, because in another two years there would be a lot of eligible new voters who have no fear of gay marriage because they’d know about it without learning it in schools. The TV commercials were the teachers…

  5. Dan on

    I hope that the CA Supreme Court has the knowledge, courage and wisdom to overturn Prop 8, because it is nothing but pure discrimination. We have seen in our history as a nation that the majority of people can be WRONG about an issue, that is later corrected by the courts. If we had let the majority rule, then there might still be slavery, women couldn’t vote, and interracial marriage would DEFINITELY be banned (70 percent of the country was against interracial marriage when the court lifted the ban on it), and our schools would still be segregated. So, let’s let the courts do their job, and they will hopefully overturn Prop 8 also. In the words of Coretta Scott King, “the Constutition should be used to expand rights and not limit them, a Constitutional ban on gay marriage is nothing more than pure gay bashing. Gay people have families too, and they deserve protection and the same rights as straight families.” Once Prop 8 is overturned, I think that we should propose a proposition that would make it MANDATORY to teach gay marriage in schools.

  6. californiacrusader on

    You obviously feel passionate about the issue, but I have to disagree with you on so many points. To me, you can’t compare changing the definition of marriage to the misguided laws that banned women and blacks from voting. They are two completely different issues. Also, I see a difference between respecting your viewpoint and embracing your lifestyle. I gladly will do the first. I refuse to do the second. How would you feel if it was mandatory for public school children to be taught that homosexuality is a sin? That would be just as inappropriate in a public school setting as teaching that gay marriage is something normal we should just accept. Please, watch this youtube video:

  7. standingfortruth2008 on

    Hey Dan, you have some very good questions. You seem a little upset and I am not sure if you have a bit of an issue with Asians and Caucasians in relationships, I hope not, but I want to weigh in with my thoughts.

    First of all, the Supreme Court is not always correct. I think you and I would agree that Plessy v. Ferguson was one such example.

    Secondly, if the California Supreme Court agrees with Prop 8, will you then accept their judgement? On that vein, I would ask also if you have read their opinion this year? It is a heavy read at 172 pages, but if you are really interested in the logic that they follow, I suggest you read it. If you have read it, and the Supreme Court agrees with Prop 8, then, where does that leave you and I in our discussion?

    I say this because I believe that if the Supreme Court agrees with Prop 8, then the Gay Marriage supporters (which I will include you in for this discussion) will most likely not accept their decision. What will happen next? Will gay Activists advocate a Civil War? We had one over slavery, is this the next one? Will you all move to Canada or Amsterdam or Massacussetts? I think not, but it would be interesting if thousands of Gay Couples actually took that route to show their true protest.

    OK, let’s discuss your view of Gay Marriage. I think you are saying that if there are two adults in question, it is OK, no matter what the gender. Based on that logic, are you also advocating that we accept all forms of marriage so as to not discriminate? Would you be OK with Muslims having more than one wife (as their religion allows, provided the strict guidelines are followed)?

    Are you OK with non-Muslims having polygamous relationships (religious or not)? Are you OK with 2 married adults (who are not married to each other) having a relationship outside of their marriages (in other words, adultery)?

    Following the logic, are you OK with 2 consenting adults having a relationship based on money for sex (in other words, prostitution)?

    My logic on all this is that society sets the norms for our moral standards and for laws. I believe that Gay Marriage will open the door to all of these (I have questioned above) being normalized and accepted. There is a lot of research on the fact that Gay Marriage destabilizes societies and most importantly, undermines families as a whole. If you want the links to them, I will gladly share them.

    Please don’t think that I am bashing you, I am just trying to see where your logic and feelings lie so that we can discuss this. I would love to converse on this if you are willing to civilly discuss it.

    There is a very good and very deep article written by one who is much more well spoken than I at explaining what I just tried to share. It is found here:

    I hope we can have a civil conversation, if so, feel free to respond back or stop by my blog as well.


  8. Dan on

    I’m no constitutional lawyer, but as I see it, the CA Supreme Court might have their hands tied on this one. However, they did put gay people in a protected class, similar to race and gender, meaning that it will be very hard for them not to see Prop 8 as nothing but pure discrimination. Will this mean that they will overturn Prop 8? I SURE HOPE SO! The 52 percent of misinformed CA voters (who ACTUALLY thought that churches would lose tax exempt status for refusing to marry gay couples- FALSE, and that gay marriage would be taught in schools, at least in California that was FALSE, maybe it’s true in Massachusetts, but we’re talking about CA aren’t we?) actually wrote discrimination into our constitution. This is a SHAMEFUL day for all Californians. What if the people had voted that interracial marriage was against their wishes (as 70 percent of the people actually felt in 1967 when the court rightly threw out the ban), would you feel that this should STILL be the law of our land, despite the “majority’s” decision on this? I would hope NOT. And your so-called statistics about gay marriage destroying societies don’t hold up. In fact, there have been studies that show that lesbian couples make BETTER parents than a man and a woman, and the American Psychiatric Association has endorsed gay marriage saying that it not only is good for the individual, but good FOR SOCIETY. Do some research and see if you can find something different…
    By the way, could you please answer my question. If YOU had a gay child or grandchild, would you prefer that they learn that gay people are perverts (as I learned in high school in Ohio), or would you prefer that they learn that gay people CAN and DO have fulfilling adult relationships, often surrounded by loving children? Which would YOU prefer your gay child to learn in school? Or would you teach them the FALSE information that they have made a poor “CHOICE” when deciding to CHOOSE to be gay, when gay people face discrimination on a daily basis, public humiliation, and are now being told that they are not GOOD ENOUGH to have their relationships legally recognized? Finally, I’ll leave you with a very wonderful article written by a protestant minister. After you’ve read it, then we can talk about civil unions verses marriage…
    By the way, gay people have TIME on their side, their is NO DOUBT that gay marriage WILL be the law. Let’s check back in on this issue in about a decade, and see where things are. How about that? Once the old people die away, the young people that were 65 percent in FAVOR of gay marriage will have spoken, and hopefully a Supreme Court with a more liberal bias will have spoken, and gay marriage WILL be the law of the land. Have you seen the mass destruction of society in Canada, Spain and Uruguay since they passed gay marriage? NO, if anything their societies have gotten stronger, while OUR society is in trouble…
    Contrary to popular misconception, there is not one societal institution
    called “marriage”. There are actually two: one is religious and the
    other is civil. A religious marriage is between you and your higher
    power; a civil marriage is between you and your government.

    Let’s assume for the moment that you are a Catholic. You can go down to
    City Hall and get hitched, but the Church would not recognize it or
    consider you to be married as far as God is concerned. Barring that
    religious ceremony, you would still be living in sin, despite being
    legally married and enjoying all the privileges the state provides to
    those who have entered in such a union. Similarly, your parish priest
    could marry you in an endless ceremony involving kneelers and incense
    and votive candles, and you would then be married in the eyes of God.
    But unless you secured a marriage license first and returned it fully
    filled out to the county clerk’s office, you would ONLY be married in
    the eyes of God. And while that may keep you from burning in hellfire,
    you would not be entitled to any of the legal benefits of marriage in
    your state.

    So there you have it: two completely different types of marriage. The
    only way in which they coincide is that the government has been kind
    enough to legally recognize marriages performed by clergy (as long as
    the appropriate paperwork and filing fees accompany it), allowing
    couples to kill two proverbial birds with one proverbial stone. That,
    however, is the only way in which the two types of marriage overlap.

    A religious marriage, among other things, allows you to have sexual
    relations with your spouse without incurring the wrath of God. It is, in
    theory, supposed to last until death you do part, but as we all know,
    that is one part of the “sanctity of marriage” that many of its most
    ardent defenders choose to ignore. A civil marriage, on the other hand,
    guarantees nothing in the afterlife. It does, however, grant the married
    couple tax breaks, joint ownership of property and assets, inheritance
    rights, next-of-kin and medical decision rights, and Social Security,
    Medicare, and disability benefits, among others. This is just the tip of
    the iceberg: there are actually 1,400 legal rights conferred upon
    married couples living in the United States. Most of these benefits
    cannot be secured by entering into a mutual contract. The upshot:
    denying a couple the right to a civil marriage means denying them these
    benefits. Many opponents of same sex marriage like to
    claim that gays and lesbians already enjoy the right to enter into a
    civil union. Unlike a legal marriage, however, employers and insurers,
    for example, are not required to recognize a civil union – conferring
    rights becomes an option and not a requirement.

    The United States of America may have a predominantly religious
    populace, but it is officially a secular nation. There is a
    constitutional separation between Church and State; in fact, this
    separation is one of the main precepts upon which this country was
    founded. Our fore-parents were fleeing from the tyranny of the Church of
    England and wanted to form a nation of civil laws completely separate
    from God’s law. Every citizen has the right to Freedom of Religion – but
    also to freedom FROM religion. In America, nobody has the right to
    impose his or her religion on anyone else.

    So despite what Prop 8’s proponents would have you believe, the issue of
    same sex marriage has nothing to do with religion. Just as the Catholic
    Church (or Mormon Church or Lutheran Church or your local mosque or
    synagogue) is free to not recognize my marriage, they are free to not
    recognize ANY marriage, gay or straight. The claim that churches will
    lose their tax exempt status for refusing to perform gay marriages is a
    patently false one. Gay marriage was legal in California prior to
    Proposition 8’s passage and no church lost anything. It makes for a
    great scare tactic, but there is not one iota of truth in it. Ask
    yourself: is the church required to marry you? If not, then it follows
    they are not required to marry anyone.

    So now that we’ve established that state conferred marriage rights have
    nothing to do with religion, we are left with civil marriage. Civil
    marriage is the only issue on the table in the same-sex marriage
    conversation – and is where the Constitution becomes involved.

    The federal Constitution has an Equal Protection Clause, part of the
    14th Amendment. The EPC states that “no state shall… deny to any
    person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” and it
    empowers the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states. So
    every time that a politician or activist screams that “judges are
    imposing their will on the people” when they overturn a law or ballot
    measure on constitutional grounds, they are being intentionally
    dishonest: all the judges are doing is interpreting and enforcing the
    Constitution. Attacking the judiciary may make for good politics, but
    the judges are merely doing their job. We have three branches of
    government, we have checks and balances, it’s how the nation was

    Because of the Equal Protection Clause, no state may grant protection
    and benefits to any citizen that they do not grant to all citizens.
    Segregation was once considered legal under the concept that blacks and
    whites were kept separate, but treated equally. This despicable
    “separate but equal” doctrine was overturned by the U.S. States Supreme
    Court in the landmark case Brown v. The Board of Education. Today,
    opponents of same sex marriage want to bring back the unconstitutional
    concept of “separate but equal” by advocating that heterosexuals be
    granted civil “marriages”, while same sex partners be granted civil
    “unions” – separate but theoretically equal. Putting aside the fact that
    any such arrangement would not pass constitutional muster, civil unions
    are hardly equal anyway, in that they do not provide all of the rights,
    benefits and protections of marriage. The good news for opponents of
    same sex marriage is that the Equal
    Protection Clause limits only the powers of the government and not
    those of private parties. Again, this means that churches, synagogues
    and mosques can choose on their own whether or not to perform or
    recognize any marriage, while the state may not.

    Now I’m no lawyer, but it really does seem to me to be that simple.
    Legally and constitutionally speaking, as I see it, the government has
    two options: grant no couple marital rights and protections or grant any
    couple who wants it those same rights and protections. There really is
    no wiggle room. Either get out of the marriage game altogether, and let
    religious marriage be the only game in town… or abide by the Equal
    Protection Clause.

    In America’s not so distant past, whites and blacks could not intermarry
    in some states, and these anti-miscegenation laws were not overturned
    until 1967. You heard me – 1967. In the Supreme Court case Loving v.
    Virginia, wherein such laws were declared unconstitutional, the Court
    cited – you guessed it – the Equal Protection Clause. Well, just as the
    states no longer have the right to refuse marriage rights to interracial
    couples, they similarly have no right to deny them to same sex couples,
    on the exact same legal grounds.

    Proposition 8 passed by a simple majority of voters and it would amend
    California’s Constitution to eliminate the rights of same sex couples to
    marry. This is a clear violation of the federal Constitution, which, as
    I’ve written, prevents any state from denying to any person within its
    jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Proposition 8 is, by
    definition, federally unconstitutional and will likely end up in front
    of the U.S. Supreme Court, challenged on Equal Protection grounds. If
    past is prologue (and the Court is big on precedent), the Supremes will
    have a hard time upholding a ballot measure so clearly in violation of
    the 14th amendment. But we shouldn’t be too sanguine about our chances,
    because as evidenced by the loathsome decision handed down by the Court
    in Bush v. Gore, the court has shown itself willing to make decisions
    that go against every legal precedent it has previous held when it feels
    like putting politics first. Were they
    to reject so clear a 14th Amendment violation in this case, it would be
    a true stain on the nation.

    Regardless, the next time someone tries to tell you that a ban on same
    sex marriage is about religion, or free speech, or the protection of
    children, don’t believe it for one second. That’s politics, not policy.
    Religious marriage, although sadly much discussed in this case, is not
    relevant to the discussion. Unfortunately, opponents of gay marriage
    will continue to cloud the issue with myriad attacks that are
    wholly irrelevant and appeal solely to emotions or religious
    preferences; arguments by which they attempt to give their own deeply
    held personal beliefs or biases the power of law. And while I understand
    they may personally be repulsed by the idea of same sex marriage – and
    fear a nation that tolerates it – there were plenty of Americans who
    were equally repulsed by the idea of interracial marriage; of women’s
    suffrage; of giving African-American slaves full citizenship. This is
    precisely why we have a constitution – and a judiciary to
    enforce it – and don’t interpret our laws based on the whims or
    prejudices of the populace.

    Once again, for the cheap seats: religious marriage will continue to be
    what it is and always has been; this is only a matter of civil marriage,
    only a matter of whether or not any state government may deny any
    citizen rights and protections granted to other citizens. The short
    answer is, no state may. And since the government has no immediate plans
    to take away the 1,400 marriage rights that get conferred upon those
    preferred couples, then they must confer them on any adult couple who
    wants it as long as they pay for the license, have the ceremony
    performed by a judge, justice of the peace or willing clergy, and return
    the license fully filled out.

    Rev. Adam Carl
    November 7, 2008

  9. Dan on

    Dear California Crusader:
    I live a LIFE, not a LIFESTYLE. I take GREAT offense to that word, because it is usually a word used by ignorant religious folks as a way of demeaning gay people and is also meant to show that gay people “choose” to live a certain way. Did YOU choose, californiacrusader, to be straight? If so, WHEN did you CHOOSE this? It’s stupid, and you need to get some education about the origins of sexual orientation before you call someone else’s LIFE a lifestyle choice. Scientists are getting closer every day to confirming the theory that many people have always felt, and that is that people are BORN with their sexual orientation. It is NOT a lifestlye CHOICE. If so, as I said in my last post, WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would choose a life where they couldn’t even marry the person they love? WHO????????????????

  10. Dan on

    By the way, I don’t object to white men marrying asians, I just don’t GET the attraction, that’s all. I don’t find ANY asians attractive. Sorry folks, that’s just the way I feel…

  11. californiacrusader on

    The last thing I want to do is to offend, and I would appreciate if you would offer me the same courtesy. Let’s drop the name calling. I think we could go round and round about whether homosexuality is something you are born with. You believe yes, I believe no. Let’s move on to other topics, because that’s one we won’t agree on. To answer your question, if I had a child who said he was gay, of course I would still love him. For me, it’s not about hate. I don’t hate gays, I don’t hate you, and I especially wouldn’t hate my own child. But, you seem to be saying that unless I relinquish my personal beliefs about homosexuality, my love would be a lie.

  12. Dan on

    California crusader, OK, now we’ve established some civility. No more “lifestyle choice,” OK? That’s terminology from the 1950s, and we don’t use that any more than we use the “N” word to describe African-Americans. As soon as I hear someone use the lifestyle choice argument, I immediately know a LOT about them already. Don’t forget I’m originally from Ohio and my father’s an evangelical minister. As soon as I could think for myself I knew that the religion I was being taught was NOT for me. And, I rejected it. I’m a recovering evangelical, and will have a lifelong struggle to get away from the brainwashing I had shoved down my throat as a kid. So, can you eliminate that from your vocabulary, since it is LONG since outdated, PLEASE? You still haven’t answered my question. Would you want YOUR gay child to learn that they can be in a stable and monogamous relationship, or that they are a pervert that needs to CHANGE? PLEASE ANSWER…
    You have so much to learn. Where do I begin? Prop 8 had NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR RELIGIOUS beliefs. It simply means that those who do not worship as you do should be FREE to worship as THEY please. Is that a deal? I won’t be forced to believe as you and you will NOT be forced to be in a same sex marriage. Is that a deal? Let ME be free, and I’ll let YOU be free. Sounds pretty equitable to me…
    Secondly, I found the article about the APA’s endorsement of gay marriage on mental health grounds, and for the good of the children involved in these relationships:
    Therefore be it resolved that:
    “In the interest of maintaining and promoting mental health, the American Psychiatric Association supports the legal recognition of same-sex civil marriage with all rights, benefits, and responsibilities conferred by civil marriage, and opposes restrictions to those same rights, benefits, and responsibilities.”

  13. californiacrusader on

    I wish we could agree, but I think we have reached an inseparable divide. If it was only about your personal beliefs, I wouldn’t care. If it was that simple, I wouldn’t have even started this blog. There are just too many negative implications for American society if we approve same-sex marriage. I won’t get into all the issues here, because I mainly focus on schools, but please visit those on my “Best Marriage Blogs” link for more info.

    By the way, what are your thoughts about the protests in front of El Coyote restaurant? I think they’re doing more harm than good by yelling profanities at those who choose to visit the restaurant. The diners didn’t support Prop 8, it was the manager. And she’s out of state!

    Dan, I’m frankly a little worried by what might happen if the No on 8 people next choose to target schools. Will I be outed as a Yes on 8 supporter? Will they force me to resign because I voted for the proposition?

  14. beetlebabee on

    “And, what THINKING parent would not prefer their child to grow up and learn about ALL people, regardless of their sexual orientation?

    Laying the derogatory slam aside Dan, I think that it’s perfectly reasonable for parents to have the right to teach moral values in their own home, including how same sex marriage is framed. Same sex marriage is a moral issue, and moral issues should be taught at home, especially when children are young and impressionable.

    Getting emotionally wrapped up in the idea that the supporters of the marriage amendment are all anti-gay does your side a disservice. It’s intellectually sloppy to discount an entire argument with one fell swoop labeled “hate.”

    If you want tolerance, give tolerance.

    There were two incidents before the election that made the point that SSM is being taught in the schools, first the school field trip to a lesbian wedding, and then the Hayward incident where kindergartners were made to participate in “coming out” day. Their parents were not notified prior to the event, and in fact after the event they were told they COULD NOT opt out even if they wanted to. There’s a growing trend in our society that tramples the rights of parents to teach their children moral values, and there are those in the educational community who are taking advantage of that. Instead of respecting other’s values, they take it upon themselves to preach their own personal values in the classroom, sometimes in direct opposition to the will of the parents. To me, that’s just wrong.

    There is a summary of the Hayward incident here along with the pdf of the notice mailed to parents telling them they COULD NOT opt out. It’s truly eye opening.

  15. Dan on

    Well, no you have a right to vote Yes on Prop H8, and I certainly don’t advocate violence against those who supported 8. That’s just plain wrong. But, did you also know that the Yes on 8 campaign sent threatening letters to businesses that wouldn’t support them well before the election, when they found out these businesses were against Prop 8? These letters have been published on the No on 8 website, with the signatures of high officials in the Yes campaign, but I’m not sure if they are still posted there, since the election is long over. Is is nothing short of EXTORTION, and I think there are lawsuits pertaining to it as we speak. But, I think you guys WILL live in shame once we have gay marriage. This is what happened to the KKK members in the south once blacks were afforded certain rights. As I said, in ten years when we have national gay marriage, I hope you will still hold your head up proudly as a supporter of Prop 8 (I would frankly be embarrassed to take away rights from ANYONE, and that even includes Mormons)!
    I’m still awaiting an answer to my question. IF you had a gay child, would you want that child to learn that they can live in stable and loving relationship, or live a life alone and in shame? PLEASE ANSWER. This is the crux of the matter. I recently told my evangelical minister father that I was married to my wonderful partner on Oct 10. He has accepted my partner into our family, and has actually surprised me with his kindness. My mother is another matter. She is like you in that she can’t wrap her mind around the fact that people don’t choose their sexual orientation. She is holding out for the day that I will meet that special GIRL. It AIN’T goin to happen, I’m afraid to say! Anyway, please answer my question, because I don’t know about your life, but I would like to know how you would handle a gay child. My parents certainly didn’t think that was in the cards for them, and yet that’s what they got. Would you hope that your child could be married someday? Doesn’t EVERY parent want that for their child…..? I want you to stop and think about the possibility of a gay child, and then put yourself in those parent’s shoes. To simply ignore a child’s gay sexual orientation, and pretend it doesn’t exist is a mistake. It didn’t work for me, that’s for sure…! You can’t pray away the gay…

  16. californiacrusader on

    I think I can answer your question now that I better understand why you are asking. If my adult child had decided to live with a partner of the same sex, and call that his family, then yes, I would be accepting of his partner. Yes, they could come to family functions, etc. And, of course I would be kind to him and his partner. But, I would not support the idea of that relationship being called “marriage”. I know it sounds utterly contradictory to you, but that’s where I stand. It’s like your father. Even while showing kindness to you and your partner, doesn’t he still preach over the pulpit that homosexuality is a sin?

    Thanks for agreeing that violence and intimidation are not the solution to our impasse. Let’s work this out peacefully. That’s the message I think we need to send to both sides.

  17. beetlebabee on

    Dan, Your information about the letters is truly shocking. What happened to the businesses? Did they get boycotted? Were they outed in the news? Has anyone lost their jobs like Scott Eckern? Did they hassle little old ladies who gave a hundred bucks like the no’s hassled Marjorie Christoffersen?

    To my best knowledge, that is a singularly No on 8 tactic thus far.

  18. beetlebabee on

    The no supporters have gone even a step further creating websites to “out” individual donors. The thing that’s shocking to me is that even the media is complicit in the persecution of individuals who gave to the Yes campaign. The L.A. Times doesn’t seem to have a problem encouraging it’s readers to hassle their neighbors. They created a searchable database of the donor list. Has the yes side done anything like this? No. On the L.A. Times site, you’re encouraged to look up your neighbors. Even people who donated their lunch money are on there.

    The subject of vandalism, harassment, boycotting, and domestic terrorism is completely onesided as far as I’ve seen in this campaign. If I were you, I would shy away from bringing it up just because it’s just embarrassing.

  19. Dan on

    Great that we can agree on something, californiacrusader. I have been thinking more about the issue of teaching gay marriage in schools. I have a big problem with people who want to deny that gay people are an IMPORTANT segment of our society, and prefer to teach their kids that we don’t exist. It’s the same mentality that people have used in relation to teaching about drugs. Parents think if they ignore that drugs exist then their children will not become involved with them. If anything, ignoring an issue makes kids explore it even MORE, because they hear about it from their peers. OK, so let’s assume that YOU are correct, and gay people choose to be gay. If this is true, then why wouldn’t you as a good parent, and teacher, teach your kids about ALL aspects of gay life? Don’t pick and choose, as my sex ed teacher did, to stereotype people into thinking that all gay people are perverts. I’m an educator myself, having been a college professor at four top institutions on the East and West Coasts, and one thing I know about students is if they don’t learn it in their class, they will DEFINITELY learn it from their friends. So, your approach of burying your head in the sand and pretending that gay people don’t exist, and that there is no such thing as legal gay marriage simply will NOT work. Is there ANY child in CA who has not already heard about gay marriage by now? Unless their parents don’t allow them to watch TV, or don’t allow them to associate with other children, I would say that EVERY child in this state has already heard about gay marriage. You are simply TOO late. This is the reason that the young people under 30 are so much in favor of gay marriage. Being gay is not the dirty word or shameful thing it was when we were children. EVERY child either knows someone who is gay if not in person at least they know them from TV sitcoms, the media, pop culture, you name it. There is no teenager that doesn’t know Clay Aiken and Ellen DeGeneres are gay, and they don’t like them any less for it. Do you think this would have been true in the 1950s? NO, I don’t think so. YOUR approach of pretending that gays don’t exist will NEVER work in today’s culture. I’m sorry to break the news to you, but young people simply are not as passionately against gay relationships as you are, and I have NO doubt that this will continue to change. 65 percent of people under 30 voted NO on Prop 8 in 2008. Gay people ARE on the radar screen BIG TIME. The entire country is watching this issue of same sex marriage, and with familiarity we lose fear. The children have ALREADY been educated about gay marriage. It is TOO LATE for you to try to stop it. It’s a done deal. Mark my words, in 20 years we will have nationalized gay marriage and it will no longer be an issue, just as interracial marriage is no longer an issue, despite its unpopularity when it was first allowed by the Supreme Court. You are fighting a LOST battle. We will WIN this war, and gays will NOT rest until we have the same rights you take for granted.
    And, one more thing, I’m very happy you would not deny your parental love towards a gay child if you were to have one. That’s GOOD news, and a step forward! Congratulations on your wise parental decision…

  20. Dan on

    One more thing. I saw a clever sign yesterday at the national protest against Prop 8:

    No. 1, Equality
    No. 2, See No. 1

  21. Dan on

    Dear Beetlabee, I think too much is being made about this “outing” of supporters on BOTH sides of the fence. And, yes, although I don’t condone any acts of violence against Prop 8 supporters, I would MOST DEFINTELY boycott a business that supported it. Why would I as a gay person support a business that is against MY civil rights? It’s like a black person supporting KKK member’s businesses. Makes no sense…
    It’s crystal clear that you guys are trying to hide your own discrimination by pointing out this isolated incidents, that to me are meaningless. Stick to the argument. Why do YOU feel that gay people shouldn’t have equal marriage rights?
    And, I’ll repeat my mantra: Prop 8 has to do with MY rights as a gay person, it has NOTHING to do with you, your schools or your churches. Churches would have been completely immune from any kind of legal recourse if the Supreme Court ruling had been allowed to stand. But, now that this ruling has been invalidated, you can bet I’ll be first in line to try to take away tax exempt status for churches that were involved in overturning the ruling. They deserve nothing less…

  22. Amy Adams on

    Regarding taking away tax exempt status from churches from the person commenting above. I’m not exactly sure how you think that would happen. Churches have every right to teach morals, and the members of these churches have every right to take action according to their value systems. Churches themselves cannot donate to political causes, and please be informed that the most protested against church by the no on 8 campaign (the CHurch of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) did not donate any money toward prop 8. Members did. Please undestand that Tax exempt status is not removed because MEMBERS of a church donate money and time towards a cause. If you want a different example think of abortion. Most churches teach against abortion. Using your arguement, any church that teaches against abortion and has MEMBERS (not the church itself) who support pro-life groups and give money to them, should therefore loose their tax exempt status.

  23. Dan on

    Amy, thanks for clarifying your point about tax exempt status. I did a little research, and apparently there are laws that forbid churches from endorsing certain candidates but not specific issues or causes, such as gay marriage and abortion. However, my impression is that in the LDS Mormon church there were directives that were sent to the members that urged them to support Prop 8. This is also true of the Catholic bishops. If that’s the case, then those religious groups were definitely involved in influencing the vote. Why do these churches have such an interest in this, and yet there are other church denominations that not only support gay marriage, but will actually marry same sex couples (Unitarians and some Episcopals). My point is that this issue should have never had anything to do with religion, because most gay people want CIVIL marriages, and have no interest in a church validating our unions. We want GOVERNMENTAL recognition, yet the religious folks are up in arms because they say it somehow violates their religious beliefs. As I said earlier, if gay marriage had continued in CA NO church could have ever been sued for refusing to marry gay couples. A Jewish rabbi has every right to refuse to marry a Christian couple, and he will never face legal recourse, this was the same law that would have protected ALL churches from being sued. That was a complete LIE that was perpetuated by the Prop 8 campaign. The school issue was lie number 2…

  24. Dan on

    For the person who asked about the extortion letters that were sent from the Yes on Prop 8 campaign, here is an article about it from the LA Times:

  25. Dan on

    And, here’s a more extensive article about the extortions that were perpetuated by the Yes on Prop 8 campaign against businesses who supported Prop 8:

  26. Dan on

    Sorry, I meant that the Yes campaign threatened those who were supportive of the No on 8 campaign… My bad…

  27. Dan on

    Since I hope you are trying to be fair and hear both sides of the issue. You guys like pointing out when the No on 8 supporters cross over the line in their zeal to protest the passage of Prop 8. I would like to tell the TRUE story of how some Yes on Prop 8 protesters had the gaul to go to City Hall in San Francisco a few days BEFORE the election and interrupted some same sex LEGAL weddings that were going on. To my way of thinking, this is FAR worse than any of the stories I’ve heard about the NO on Prop 8 protesters. A wedding is a SPECIAL day, that for some gay people may NEVER come again. In fact, gays only had the chance to legally marry for FOUR months out of the entire history of our state (so far). To disrupt such an historic and special moment in these couple’s lives is simply outrageous. It shows that the Yes on Prop 8 people not only have NO CLASS, but they simply could care less about the rights and feelings of gay people. This should have been all over the news, including Fox news, but it barely made it onto local news channels. The Yes protesters were hauled off to jail, and I hope that the full extent of the law was used against them. OUTRAGEOUS! If I had been one of the couples involved, I would DEFINITLY sue these Yes on 8 protesters for emotional damages. A wedding day? Come on….

  28. californiacrusader on

    Searching the internet found no evidence for your story. Do you have a link you could send us to? If not, I will have to delete your comment as an inaccuracy.

  29. Dan on

    Here’s a link to the story of the wedding crashers at San Francisco City Hall:

  30. Dan on

    A wonderful blog post, that I thought I’d share with you. I didn’t write it, but it sumes up some of my thoughts nicely:

    First we were thrown out of our families, thrown out of our churches and now you want to take away the legal stability of our relationships. Who is doing harm to whom? Can someone explain how same-sex marriages hurt heterosexual marriages? The Partner A/Partner B issue was petty … and has been corrected. The “What will we teach the children” issue is just silly — they’ll learn about us whether we are married or not. And if you can’t teach your children your own morales, you probably should question your ability to parent. The “tradition” issue doesn’t stand, many evil concepts were once traditions – slavery, women as property, interracial marriage. So please, can someone explain?

  31. californiacrusader on

    Dan, thanks for the link. I’m sorry, but a few people yelling does not compare to the horrific actions taken by gay rights activists recently (interrupting church services by throwing condoms, threatening to burn down churches, etc,etc,etc…)

  32. Dan on

    Maybe not, but you should be fair and point these incidents out. And, let’s face it, what could POSSIBLY compare to having your civil rights taken away right from under your eyes? Our country has never encountered the taking away of fundamental civil rights by vote. It is a disgrace, and hopefully the CA Supreme Court will once again do their jobs and correctly throw out Prop 8 as nothing but pure discrimination against a traditionally hated minority group. If we could only split CA into two parts, we’d be set, because Northern CA overwhelming supports gay marriage. It is the Southern part of the state that is the problem. Why are Southerners always so prejudiced? I think it has to do with the sun killing brain cells….

  33. Dan on

    I”ve changed my mind. I hope that the CA Supreme Court upholds Prop 8, and invalidates all existing marriages. I’d love to sue to get back our wedding expenses, including that cruise to the Bahamas we took, oh yeah, and a million dollars worth of pain and suffering too. Get ready for higher taxes California! You’re going to pay for my wedding!

  34. Dan on

    Dear CA Crusader, First of all, I hope you have a wonderful holiday period! Finally some GREAT news to report. Jerry Brown will no longer fight to uphold Prop 8. Instead he has reversed his previous position and asked the Supreme Court to invalidate it because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! I don’t see how the court can do anything except invalidate Prop 8 at this point. Also, the fact that the lawyer who was once the most hated in America, Ken Starr, has joined the pro-Prop 8 forces bodes very well for our side! Who would side with the man who was on a witch hunt to get Bill Clinton? I have hopes that Prop 8 will get what it deserves, and that is nullification!

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: