Quick question on Prop 8

[ERCougar]

I haven't been on the board in a few days so I don't know if this has already been discussed, and I'm leaving out the door for a race, so I don't have time to find out.

I've gotten two emails in the last few days with a video of this guy talking about what happened in Massachusetts after their Supreme Court decision. They showed a few of the books that have been read in their kindergarten class, one of which shows a couple of men/male figures kissing. Doesn't this seem a little aggressive? I don't mind having the conversation with my child explaining things he may come across in life and discussing how we all have different values and that people may choose differently than ours. But I'm not really dying to have it rammed down his throat.

So my question is for you lawyers...I'm telling my wife that this is more a function of the local school board deciding they want to include this in the curriculum than it is a function of the SC decision, i.e. this book would have been included regardless of any decision made by the SC. She disagrees. So to you attorneys or educators: How does the SC decision affect school curriculum?

[exUte]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

I haven't been on the board in a few days so I don't know if this has already been discussed, and I'm leaving out the door for a race, so I don't have time to find out.

I've gotten two emails in the last few days with a video of this guy talking about what happened in Massachusetts after their Supreme Court decision. They showed a few of the books that have been read in their kindergarten class, one of which shows a couple of men/male figures kissing. Doesn't this seem a little aggressive? I don't mind having the conversation with my child explaining things he may come across in life and discussing how we all have different values and that people may choose differently than ours. But I'm not really dying to have it rammed down his throat.

So my question is for you lawyers...I'm telling my wife that this is more a function of the local school board deciding they want to include this in the curriculum than it is a function of the SC decision, i.e. this book would have been included regardless of any decision made by the SC. She disagrees. So to you attorneys or educators: How does the SC decision affect school curriculum?

Two things. It gives the local school board the cover needed to use these books without fear of legal action. It also gives the ONE parent in the district the legal basis to force the school board to use these books.

At least that is according to a school administrator I know.

That's why many believe there are HUGE unintended consequences by passing these 'non-discriminatory' laws/propositions.

[TripletDaddy]

Truthfully, it has no bearing, which is why the Yes camp cannot really outline a specific hypothetical path to destruction.

Currently, a teacher is not prohibited from telling kids that some people have two mommies or two daddies. After the Prop 8 vote, nothing will change. Let's assume that Prop 8 passes by a 100% margin...not a single No vote. The next day at school, a teacher can still tell kids that some people have 2 mommies or 2 daddies. Gays can still adopt. Nothing changes.

Prop 8 only goes to the definition of marriage. It does not give school boards any more or any less power to form curricula.

The Mass. example is one of a teacher using poor judgment, not an example of systematic indoctrination on the part of the state school system.

For those with elementary aged kids, how much marriage is taught to kids, anyway? I don't remember any lessons on marriage when I was in elementary school. What exactly do these current heterosexual lessons entail? Do they encourage kids to get married?

[creekster]

No school is required to teach anything. In CA, if you teach sex ed (and abotu 95% of schools do, including elementary schools), you must teach respect for marriage. If same sex unions are marriagethey must be included in that instruction. Exactly how they teach will be up to the local school board and schools.

Parents will also not have the rifght to require notification before same sex marriage is taught, although they will have the right to opt out of such instruction, at least in CA, as they can opt out of almost anythignin california.

Both sides of the debaet in california have misstated the likely effect of this issue on educaiton, IMO.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Truthfully, it has no bearing, which is why the Yes camp cannot really outline a specific hypothetical path to destruction.

You are incorrect. If you want, I can dig out the education code sections. If you teach sex ed, you mUST teach reaspect for marriage and both sides agree this will include all types of marriages. and, even if they tell the kids that someone has two daddies, they cannot say they are married if they cannot marry legally.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by creekster

You are incorrect. If you want, I can dig out the education code sections. If you teach sex ed, you mUST teach reaspect for marriage and both sides agree this will include all types of marriages. and, even if they tell the kids that someone has two daddies, they cannot say they are married if they cannot marry legally.

I actually already posted the links and the text yesterday in a different thread. Here is the code section to which you are referring.

Education Code (EC) 51933 (Outside Source) specifies that school districts are not required to provide comprehensive sexual health education, but if they choose to do so, they shall comply with all of the requirements listed below.

Comprehensive sexual health education instruction shall be age-appropriate and bias-free, and all factual information shall be medically accurate and objective. Instruction shall be appropriate for students of all genders, sexual orientations, and ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and it shall be accessible for English language learner students and students with disabilities. Instruction shall encourage communication between students and their families and shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.

While you are correct that the final clause does say that instruction shall teach respect for marriage...it ALSO says teach respect for committed relationships. So Prop 8 really has no bearing. The Code already states that committed relationships (gay or straight) shall be taught.

I guess there is one thing that would be finalized with Prop 8.

Teachers can talk about gays in civil unions.

Teachers can tell kids that gays can adopt, be good parents.

Teachers can still tell kids that some kids have 2 mommies and 2 daddies.

The only thing a teacher cannot do is say that gays are "married," because technically, they would not be "married" per Prop 8.

If the hysteria over gay marriage is the poor example and confusing message it allegedly sends to kids, then the issue isnt really the definition of the word. It is the very basic notion of gays living together and raising kids. Prop 8 won't change that in the slightest.

But I agree....teachers would not be able to say that gays are "married."

[creekster]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I actually already posted the links and the text yesterday in a different thread. Here is the code section to which you are referring.



While you are correct that the final clause does say that instruction shall teach respect for marriage...it ALSO says teach respect for committed relationships. So Prop 8 really has no bearing. The Code already states that committed relationships (gay or straight) shall be taught.

I guess there is one thing that would be finalized with Prop 8.

Teachers can talk about gays in civil unions.

Teachers can tell kids that gays can adopt, be good parents.

Teachers can still tell kids that some kids have 2 mommies and 2 daddies.

The only thing a teacher cannot do is say that gays are "married," because technically, they would not be "married" per Prop 8.

If the hysteria over gay marriage is the poor example and confusing message it allegedly sends to kids, then the issue isnt really the definition of the word. It is the very basic notion of gays living together and raising kids. Prop 8 won't change that in the slightest.

But I agree....teachers would not be able to say that gays are "married."

I dont disagre with you. If they can get married, and a sechool teaches sex ed, then they must teach respect for that marriage. If they can't get married, they will teach respect for a committed relatiojnship. but it is not marriage. COmmitted relationships will also, presumably, include diferent gender couples as well.

This is exactly why I said both sides have overstated the issue with respect to schools. While the differnce in what can be taught to children will be subtle at best, it is different and it will change. OTOH, for the state superintendent to appear on TV and claim that it has absolutley nothing to do with teaching or children is just as disingenuous and ignores the reality of the law.

This has never been about school instruciton, in my mind. I do not personally adopt these argumetns nor rely on them for my approach. This is about the definition of marriage, nothing less and nothign more. THis is why I think governemtn should simply get out of the marriage business and make all meanignful distinction between couples and individuals based on some form of civil unions while marriage becomes a religious issue. Indeed, I think this is where the issue must end up, eventually.

Even so, as an issue of obedience and faith I choose to support Prop 8 and will vote for it, and I do this with no ill will to gays or lesbians or anyone. In fact, I do this regreting, at some level, the impact it will have on some of my frineds and family, as I know it will be hurtful to them no matter what I say or how I expalin my position. If by some measure history judges my support to be wrong or bigoted, then so be it. I must act based on my conscience and my belief and I am doing so.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by creekster

I dont disagre with you. If they can get married, and a sechool teaches sex ed, then they must teach respect for that marriage. If they can't get married, they will teach respect for a committed relatiojnship. but it is not marriage. COmmitted relationships will also, presumably, include diferent gender couples as well.

This is exactly why I said both sides have overstated the issue with respect to schools. While the differnce in what can be taught to children will be subtle at best, it is different and it will change. OTOH, for the state superintendent to appear on TV and claim that it has absolutley nothing to do with teaching or children is just as disingenuous and ignores the reality of the law.

This has never been about school instruciton, in my mind. I do not personally adopt these argumetns nor rely on them for my approach. This is about the definition of marriage, nothing less and nothign more. THis is why I think governemtn should simply get out of the marriage business and make all meanignful distinction between couples and individuals based on some form of civil unions while marriage becomes a religious issue. Indeed, I think this is where the issue must end up, eventually.

Even so, as an issue of obedience and faith I choose to support Prop 8 and will vote for it, and I do this with no ill will to gays or lesbians or anyone. In fact, I do this regreting, at some level, the impact it will have on some of my frineds and family, as I know it will be hurtful to them no matter what I say or how I expalin my position. If by some measure history judges my support to be wrong or bigoted, then so be it. I must act based on my conscience and my belief and I am doing so.

fair points. i agree.

[ERCougar]

Thanks for the responses. Two quick further questions:
1) Would there be some basis in challenging the inclusion of gay relationships as "committed relationships" as they have no legal basis to be called that (heterosexual couples could fall under "common law" marriage)? Sincere question--not making an argument here.
2) Hasn't the California SC already overturned this proposition? What's the difference between CA and MA with respect to definition of marriage? It seems like any sort of scenario painted by Prop 8 proponents would already be happening in CA.