Mayor Gavin Newsom’s bombastic in your face proclamation on the family, “whether you like it or not” has come home to roost in the California genderless marriage debate. And, at the center is a group of first graders, used as pawns in that debate.
The San Francisco Chronicle reports in an article headlined Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day:
A group of San Francisco first-graders took an unusual field trip to City Hall on Friday to toss rose petals on their just-married lesbian teacher – putting the public school children at the center of a fierce election battle over the fate of same-sex marriage.
First Graders? First Graders? Wow! Tossing rose pedals on their just married lesbian teacher? How many parents signed off on that field trip? Liz Hafalia’s photos from the Chronicle confirm this most incredible story:
If anyone needed any proof that children, the youngest of school children will be exposed to gay marriage in ways that many parents will find objectionable, here it is in living color. If you’re so inclined you can even watch the video here.
According to the Chronicle:
The 18 Creative Arts Charter School students took a Muni bus and walked a block at noon to toss rose petals and blow bubbles on their just-married teacher Erin Carder and her wife Kerri McCoy, giggling and squealing as they mobbed their teacher with hugs. Mayor Gavin Newsom, a friend of a friend, officiated.
What a surprise, Mayor Gav, again at the forefront. Remember him? He’s the one who on his own initiative, and even before the California Supreme Court mandated genderless marriage by judicial fiat, and in direct contravention of the popular will of California’s voters started issuing marriage licenses for genderless marriages several years ago. Of course he was eventually rebuked by the courts–still his actions were instructive, and even prophetic way back when.
According to the article, a parent supposedly came up with the idea:
A parent came up with the idea for the field trip – a surprise for the teacher on her wedding day.
“She’s such a dedicated teacher,” said the school’s interim director Liz Jaroslow.
A dedicated teacher? That’s the basis for hauling first graders out to gay weddings, in the midst of a heated political campaign?
The other justification? Why, it’s a teachable moment–of course:
But there was a question of justifying the field trip academically. Jaroflow decided she could.
“It really is what we call a teachable moment,” Jaroflow said, noting the historic significance of same-sex marriage and related civil rights issues. “I think I’m well within the parameters.”
Yeah, I’d say its a teachable moment, all right. It teaches the voters of California that the fears and concerns expressed in the Proposition 8 ads that this decision will directly impact the youngest of school children, are based in fact, not fear. Remember that California Education Code section 51890 about the requirement to teach about marriage to all school aged children? Well, here you go folks.
Even the San Francisco Chronicle conceeded that this stunt provided crediblity to the Proposition 8 campaign’s claims:
Nonetheless, the excursion offers Proposition 8 proponents fresh ammunition for their efforts to outlaw gay marriage in California, offering a real-life incident that echoes their recent television and radio ads.
“It’s just utterly unreasonable that a public school field trip would be to a same-sex wedding,” said Chip White, press secretary for the Yes on 8 campaign. “This is overt indoctrination of children who are too young to have an understanding of its purpose.”
The trip illustrates the message promoted by the campaign in recent days, namely that unless Prop. 8 passes on Nov. 4, children will learn about same-sex marriage in school.
“It shows that not only can it happen, but it has already happened,” White said.
Already happened indeed. Whether you like it or not, Californians–it’s here to stay, unless we take back via the ballot box that which the California Supreme Court took away in the stroke of a pen: Traditional Marriage between a man and a woman.
Messenger and Advocate 
October 12, 2008 at 8:38 am
nice try with the fearmongering, but you failed to mention Education Code section 51240:
51240. (a) If any part of a school’s instruction in health
conflicts with the religious training and beliefs of a parent or
guardian of a pupil, the pupil, upon written request of the parent or
guardian, shall be excused from the part of the instruction that
conflicts with the religious training and beliefs.
(b) For purposes of this section, “religious training and beliefs”
includes personal moral convictions.
So nothing is going to be forced on to your precious snowflakes.
next…
October 12, 2008 at 9:31 am
Phouchg wrote, “So nothing is going to be forced on to your precious snowflakes.”
“Precious little snowflakes”? What is that supposed to mean?
October 12, 2008 at 10:44 am
I have put 5 kids through the California public school system, and every time the kids are taken on a field trip somewhere, permission slips must be signed by the parents.
If parents of children in this particular class were not given the option to say yes or no on whether or not they approved of their kids’ participation in this outing (heh!), I would think the school has just opened itself up to one major lawsuit.
If every child’s parents did give permission, and were fully informed as to the nature of the trip, I would think that we should have no complaint in the matter. Does anybody know what the actual circumstances are in this case?
October 12, 2008 at 10:59 am
Does anybody remember the ‘advice’ we received from Brother Brigham about having you children taught by godless heathen?
The problem isn’t ‘gay’ marriage – the problem is government. You worship the beast, you get the beast
January 5, 2016 at 11:15 am
You worship a fraud, you become a fraud.
October 12, 2008 at 11:01 am
well you know, homosexuality is catching. you have to make sure your kids aren’t exposed at an early age. You don’t want them to catch gay.
October 12, 2008 at 11:52 am
Mark says:
Yeah, it’s in the part of the article he conveniently left out:
You can read the whole article here.
If your going to make a point, make it honestly and not with half-truths. Doing otherwise only makes the church look bad.
October 12, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Guy, why would you lie like that and not give the full story? I am somewhat disappointed that you conveniently left out the part about parental permission. I did not expect such deception and half-truths from you. While I know you are passionate on this issue, it lessens your credibility on other topics.
October 12, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Gary asks: “How many parents signed off on that field trip?”
The article says: “As is the case with all field trips, parents had to give their permission and could choose to opt out of the trip.”
Gary, what happened here?
October 12, 2008 at 2:01 pm
#7 THIS
Sorry Guy, your post has FAILed. You lose one internet. Please leave it in the box by the exit.
October 12, 2008 at 2:59 pm
/blushing
I meant “Guy,” not “Gary,” of course.
(I know I’ve done this before. I think I have a mental block involving combining your first and last names. In any case, I’m sorry.)
October 12, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Phouchg #1:
Facts . . . not fear. Next . . .
Mark N. #3
I’m not suggesting there weren’t some sort of slips, or some notification. It’s still unbelievable parents of first graders would subject their young children to this political hoopla. I would be very curious to see exactly what the notification was. The article doesn’t say, exactly what these parents were told.
Not Ophelia #6:
I left nothing out conveniently. In fact, I linked to the entire article in the first sentence of the second paragraph, above the fold. Your additional link in your comment was just noise. I seldom quote an entire article in a post, and always, always link to the entire article so folks can read it themselves and make up their own minds. Surely you are capable of doing that.
Half-truths? This school took first graders to a lesbian wedding so they could throw rose pedals on their lesbian teacher. That was not a half truth, and was the primary focus of my post. You miss the forest for the trees. The problem was the judgment to take first graders to this type of activity, period.
I don’t speak for the Church. Do you?
michael #7:
Lie? First graders did not go to a lesbian wedding in San Francisco to throw rose pedals on their lesbian teacher? Why is it even relevant for first graders to know their teacher’s sexual preferences? I’ve already repeated that I linked the entire article as soon as I mentioned it.
June er, Julie Smith #’s 8 & 10:
No problem.
Nothing, as far as I can tell. I stand by my question. I would like to know exactly what these parents signed off on. What exactly were they told about this field trip? A trip to city hall, or participation as flower throwers at a lesbian wedding? The paper didn’t publish the notification or slip. I’m still curious to know what the parents were told, and how many actually signed off on it.
The whole point of my post was to highlight the big news, and that is a class of first graders, first graders, were transported to their lesbian teacher’s wedding to throw rose pedals on her. And this, after all the political push back from the genderless marriage activists that school children would never be exposed to the gay lifestyle. And, to suggest to the contrary was nothing more than scare tactics. Well, that’s not at all the case.
Can you imagine the hue and cry if somehow LDS public school teachers in Salt Lake City decided to take first graders to temple square to throw flowers right after the temple marriage ceremony?
October 12, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Thats right every comment that those in favor of Propostion 8 bring up is fear and hate mongering.
Typical of the activist gay lobby. This whole issue is about semantics and about mainstreaming the gay lifestyle.
Will all these things issues that the church brings up about tax emempt status, elementary education,adoption etc,come to fruition immediately. Of course not. Of course if you would have said that gays would be able to marry 25 years ago people would have laughed at you and said you were crazy. I believe that Prop 8 will lose and as they say the camels nose will be in the door of the tent. Eventually all those things that we are fear mongering about will become reality. It will just take time.
October 12, 2008 at 7:12 pm
It’s still unbelievable parents of first graders would subject their young children to this political hoopla. I would be very curious to see exactly what the notification was.
Me, too. However, one must keep in mind that A) this is a San Francisco school, and B) it’s a charter school, which, to my mind at least, says maybe it’s going to be a little more liberal than your typical California public school.
http://www.creativeartscharter.org is their website, and one can read their most recent newsletter at the site, along with pages detailing their mission and philosophy, their handbook, code of conduct, and so forth.
At first glance, it doesn’t look all that different from the school all my kids went to.
January 5, 2016 at 11:17 am
Also, it’s not “political hoopla” except to frightened fundamentalists like you.
Normal well adjusted people see it as two people in love getting married with the support of their community.
October 12, 2008 at 7:21 pm
There is really nothing sinister going on here, nor is this an example of teachers being “REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.”
Had this been an interracial marriage shortly after Loving v. Virginia, it would have served as an excellent middle or high-school civics lesson. Had one of the marriage party also taught a first-grade class, it would have likewise provided an educational opportunity for those students.
October 12, 2008 at 7:22 pm
The problem was the judgment to take first graders to this type of activity, period.
I think that people read into this thread the idea that you might have believed that this activity was done without the knowledge or permission of the parents of the children in this class. I’d be upset, too, if one of my kids’ classes tried to do that sort of thing, but this was not the case here. Given that, according to the school’s website, so much parental involvement is required for a student to be able to attend the school, I would imagine that the teacher’s orientation was not kept a secret from the parents of the kids in this class. They saw it as a happy occasion, and the majority were OK with their kids participating in the event.
We are in favor of people making their own decisions and exercising their own agency here, right?
October 12, 2008 at 7:34 pm
It seems my link to the Official Voter Information Guide didn’t work. Here it is again.
October 12, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Guy #11
“In fact, I linked to the entire article in the first sentence of the second paragraph, above the fold. Your additional link in your comment was just noise. I seldom quote an entire article in a post, and always, always link to the entire article so folks can read it themselves and make up their own minds.”
But you conveniently only quoted sentences which support your specious argument.
“Facts do not cease to be facts simply because they are ignored” – Aldous Huxley
Mark N. #15
“We are in favor of people making their own decisions and exercising their own agency here, right?”
The church is in favor of agency – until somebody dares to exercise it…
October 12, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Oh BTW Guy, any comment on Education Code section 51240? You know, the one that says that any parent can opt-out?
51240. (a) If any part of a school’s instruction in health
conflicts with the religious training and beliefs of a parent or
guardian of a pupil, the pupil, upon written request of the parent or
guardian, shall be excused from the part of the instruction that
conflicts with the religious training and beliefs.
(b) For purposes of this section, “religious training and beliefs”
includes personal moral convictions.
October 12, 2008 at 8:35 pm
How about we teach 1st graders to read, write and do arithmetic and worry about civics until about 4th grade on. Seeing how our state pretty much sucks across the board in how it ranks in these areas.
How about letting kids just be kids for awhile. They just grow up to fast and our world just seems to insist on it with what we heap on them.
October 12, 2008 at 8:51 pm
How about we teach 1st graders to read, write and do arithmetic and worry about civics until about 4th grade on.
Of course, age-appropriate instruction makes perfect sense. However, this was an unusual situation, where their very teacher was participating in one of the new marriages of same-sex couples. So, I believe, the field trip was somewhat an exception to the normal curriculum.
Otherwise, you are right that kids need to be kids for a while.
October 12, 2008 at 8:52 pm
any comment on Education Code section 51240? You know, the one that says that any parent can opt-out?
Strictly speaking, the wording of that section (assuming you’ve quoted it correctly) says it refers specifically to “instruction in health”. I doubt that this particular field trip was done with that subject in mind.
Nevertheless, the school’s website is clear that all field trips require a form signed by the parent, giving their permission for the child’s participation in the event.
October 12, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Here’s another interesting article from April of 2004, regarding a pretrial ruling as to how the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund might be harmed by the outcome of cases “Lancy Woo v. Bill Lockyer, 04-504038”, and “San Francisco v. The State of California, 04-429539”, which alleged that “California’s statutory ban on same-sex marriage violates the equal protection and due process clauses in the state constitution”.
See http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1081348852574
October 12, 2008 at 9:20 pm
And, it would probably be helpful to make the text of the California decision about the unconstitutionality of denying the term “marriage” to same-sex couples available to all, so they can come to their own understanding as to what the court’s ruling was:
http://www.law.com/jsp/decision.jsp?id=1202421436825
October 12, 2008 at 11:43 pm
First…if the first grade class had gone on a field trip to throw rose petals at their hetero teacher who was marrying someone of the other sex, this happy occasion wouldn’t be an issue with the Rightists and Christianists. Let’s be clear…these first graders, with the permission of their parents, went on a field trip to see their teacher get married. That’s all it was, and that’s all it meant to them. Let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that first graders are even slightly aware of, or effected by, the upcoming Prop. 8 vote…(which you insinuate by complaining that they shouldn’t be dragged into a “political” situation). First graders don’t know politics from peanut butter. One might even suggest that you just used these first graders to further your own agenda…I thought you were against that sort of thing?
Secondly, let’s remember that same gender marriage is legal here in California. You really have a problem with children seeing two people who love each other legally wed?
And thirdly, let’s remember that children raised by gay people, and children that are familiar with gay people from an early age are just as psychologically healthy as children who are raised by hets and not familiar with gay people growing up – according to myriad sociological and psychological research conducted over decades (this I’m aware of having worked for 3 decades in the field of psychology, and having two master’s degrees in the field). In fact, children who are raised by gay people or who are familiar with gay people while growing up statistically are more tolerant of different types of people upon reaching adulthood. Of course, many Rightists and Christianists prefer to ignore the research and stick with their comforting fear of differences and change, and their own “ick” factor. Although I’d like to see hets breed a whole lot less, and I have an “ick” response to hets doing the slippery…I’d never dream of denying them their right to marry the person they love.
So, let’s summarize:
1. Field trip to see teacher get married. Normal.
2. Children’s awareness of gay marriage and gay people. No affect.
What’s left? Only your disingenuous, psychologically-unsophisticated, inaccurate and twisty attempt to whip up fear using the tired old “they are after our children” argument that Rightists and Christianists have used for centuries against every single group of people that they haven’t wanted to acknowledge as fully human. Your selfish, blatant attempt to make gay people into some dangerous “other” and a threat to children’s healthy development is shameful and deceitful.
Regarding Gavin’s statement (accurate, but ill-timed)…perhaps you’re unaware of what is obviously a growing reality across the world:
Belgium, Norway, Canada, South Africa, Netherlands, and Spain recognize same gender marriage as legal. In the U.S., California, Conn. and Mass. recognize it also.
Aruba, Isreal, France, Dutch Antilles, and the state of NY recognize foreign same gender marriage.
The following countries recognize legal civil unions and registered partnerships
Andorra
Belgium
Czech Republic
Denmark
Ecuador
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
Iceland
Luxembourg
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Portugal
Slovenia
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Uruguay
The following countries which already recognize same gender civil unions are debating upgrading them to full marriage:
Australia (TAS)
France
Hungary
Iceland
New Zealand
Portugal
Sweden
United Kingdom
United States DC, (HI, ME, MD, NH, NJ, OR, VT, WA)
It should be obvious that same gender marriage isn’t going away. And it should also be obvious even to the most delusional Rightist/Christianist that eventually marriage-equality will be legal at a federal level in the United States. We’re here, we’re queer, we fall in love, we are going to get married…get used to it.
So my message to you and to other intolerant Rightists and Christianists is to please examine your unconscious psychosexual fears, and also take a good look at your fear of differences and change. Stop viciously attacking good people who want to marry the person they love. Stop imagining that the world will fall apart if your rigid, hetero-dualistic view of the world slips into the past. It already has in many parts of the world and…not surprisingly, the world didn’t end.
Secondly, let’s remember that same gender marriage is legal here in california.
And thirdly, let’s remember that children raised by gay people, and children that are familiar with gay people from an early age are just as psychologically healthy as children who are raised by hets and not familiar with gay people growing up – according to myriad sociological and psychological research conducted over decades. In fact, children who are raised by gay people or familiar with gay people while growing up statistically are more tolerant of different types of people upon reaching adulthood. Of course, many Rightists and Christianists choose to ignore the research and stick with their fear of differences and change, and their own “ick” factor. Just like they did with inter-racial marriage…nearly word for word. Although I’d like to see hets breed a whole lot less (6.5 billion people now, 9.5 in 40 years…think, people!) and I have an “ick” response to hets doing the slipper…I’d never dream of denying them their right to marry the person they love.
So, let’s summarize:
1. Field trip to see teacher get married. Normal.
2. Awareness of gay marriage and gay people. No affect.
What’s left? Only your hateful, bigoted attempt to whip up fear using the tired old “they are after our children” argument that Rightists and Christianists have used for centuries against every single group of people that they haven’t wanted to acknowledge as fully human. Your blatant attempt to make gay people into some dangerous “other” is shameful and immature.
Regarding Gavin’s statement (accurate, but ill-timed…perhaps you’re unaware of what is obviously a growing reality across the world:
Belgium, Norway, Canada, South Africa, Netherlands, and Spain recognize same gender marriage as legal. In the U.S., California, Conn. and Mass. recognize it also.
Aruba, Isreal, France, Dutch Antilles, and the state of NY recognize foreign same gender marriage.
The following countries recognize legal civil unions and registered partnerships
Andorra
Belgium
Czech Republic
Denmark
Ecuador
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
Iceland
Luxembourg
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Portugal
Slovenia
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Uruguay
The following countries which already recognize same gender civil unions are debating upgrading to same gender marriage:
Australia (TAS)
France
Hungary
Iceland
New Zealand
Portugal
Sweden
United Kingdom
United States DC, (HI, ME, MD, NH, NJ, OR, VT, WA)
It should be obvious that same gender marriage isn’t going away. And it should also be obvious even to the most Rightist/Christianist that eventually same gender marriage will be legal at a federal level in the United States.
So my message to you and to other intolerant Rightists and Christianists is to examine your internal, unconscious psychosexual fears, and also take a good look at your fear of differences and change. Stop viciously attacking people who want to marry the person they love. Stop imagining that the world will fall apart if your rigid, hetero-dualistic view of the world slips into the past. It already has in many parts of the world and…the world didn’t end.
What will you do when your child or grandchild invites you to their same gender wedding? Will you be archiac and mean-spirited with a closed heart? Or will you wish them happiness, with genuine love in your heart for both of them? Will your dogma bring you comfort then? You see, it isn’t about dogma, is it? Its about love, and kindness, and happiness on a personal basis. Can you afford this? If not, you may want to ask yourself if that’s the kind of person you imagined that you’d grow up to be.
October 12, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Massive cut/paste error in the previous post. Don’tcha just hate that? 🙂
Here’s the corrected version:
First…if the first grade class had gone on a field trip to throw rose petals at their hetero teacher who was marrying someone of the other sex, this happy occasion wouldn’t be an issue with the Rightists and Christianists. Let’s be clear…these first graders, with the permission of their parents, went on a field trip to see their teacher get married. That’s all it was, and that’s all it meant to them. Let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that first graders are even slightly aware of, or effected by, the upcoming Prop. 8 vote…(which you insinuate by complaining that they shouldn’t be dragged into a “political” situation). First graders don’t know politics from peanut butter. One might even suggest that you just used these first graders to further your own agenda…I thought you were against that sort of thing?
Secondly, let’s remember that same gender marriage is legal here in California.
And thirdly, let’s remember that children raised by gay people, and children that are familiar with gay people from an early age are just as psychologically healthy as children who are raised by hets and not familiar with gay people growing up – according to myriad sociological and psychological research conducted over decades. In fact, children who are raised by gay people or familiar with gay people while growing up statistically are more tolerant of different types of people upon reaching adulthood. Of course, many Rightists and Christianists choose to ignore the research and stick with their fear of differences and change, and their own “ick” factor. Just like they did with inter-racial marriage…nearly word for word. Although I’d like to see hets breed a whole lot less (6.5 billion people now, 9.5 in 40 years…think, people!) and I have an “ick” response to hets doing the slipper…I’d never dream of denying them their right to marry the person they love.
So, let’s summarize:
1. Field trip to see teacher get married. Normal.
2. Awareness of gay marriage and gay people. No affect.
What’s left? Only your hateful, bigoted attempt to whip up fear using the tired old “they are after our children” argument that Rightists and Christianists have used for centuries against every single group of people that they haven’t wanted to acknowledge as fully human. Your blatant attempt to make gay people into some dangerous “other” is shameful and immature.
Regarding Gavin’s statement (accurate, but ill-timed…perhaps you’re unaware of what is obviously a growing reality across the world:
Belgium, Norway, Canada, South Africa, Netherlands, and Spain recognize same gender marriage as legal. In the U.S., California, Conn. and Mass. recognize it also.
Aruba, Isreal, France, Dutch Antilles, and the state of NY recognize foreign same gender marriage.
The following countries recognize legal civil unions and registered partnerships
Andorra
Belgium
Czech Republic
Denmark
Ecuador
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
Iceland
Luxembourg
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Portugal
Slovenia
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Uruguay
The following countries which already recognize same gender civil unions are debating upgrading to same gender marriage:
Australia (TAS)
France
Hungary
Iceland
New Zealand
Portugal
Sweden
United Kingdom
United States DC, (HI, ME, MD, NH, NJ, OR, VT, WA)
It should be obvious that same gender marriage isn’t going away. And it should also be obvious even to the most Rightist/Christianist that eventually same gender marriage will be legal at a federal level in the United States.
So my message to you and to other intolerant Rightists and Christianists is to examine your internal, unconscious psychosexual fears, and also take a good look at your fear of differences and change. Stop viciously attacking people who want to marry the person they love. Stop imagining that the world will fall apart if your rigid, hetero-dualistic view of the world slips into the past. It already has in many parts of the world and…the world didn’t end.
What will you do when your child or grandchild invites you to their same gender wedding? Will you be archiac and mean-spirited with a closed heart? Or will you wish them happiness, with genuine love in your heart for both of them? Will your dogma bring you comfort then? You see, it isn’t about dogma, is it? Its about love, and kindness, and happiness on a personal basis. Can you afford this? If not, you may want to ask yourself if that’s the kind of person you imagined that you’d grow up to be.
October 13, 2008 at 9:23 am
I don’t see the big deal about it being a lesbian marriage. Parents can easily opt out, and nobody would be making a peep if these children had been wasting time at a hetero ceremony. I wouldn’t have signed off just because I’d rather have my kids going on field trips to museums, sewage treatment plants, or potato chip factories. What are you learning at a wedding?
October 13, 2008 at 9:28 am
If it had been just “a wedding” I doubt they would have gone. Since it was their teacher’s wedding, this made it different.
October 13, 2008 at 9:45 am
I just hope the witnesses — including the children — learned the real difference between this mockery and real marriage. Everyone knows this already. Phony vows between homosexuals do not and will never constitute a marriage, regardless of what he civil courts and the laws say.
October 13, 2008 at 10:18 am
Likewise, phony vows between heterosexuals outside of the temple do not and will never constitute a real celestial, eternal marriage, regardless of what anyone outside of the LDS Church might say.
October 13, 2008 at 10:57 am
Wow… Children will learn about tolerance to other people’s ideas and lifestyles… how scary!
Let us all shelter our children that they never find out the realities of life! Let us raise them in a way that they alienate anything that is not in tune with their own upbringing!
Oh… note: I am being sarcastic.
I rather have my children understand different ideas, cultures, lifestyles and teach them in my home what we believe is the true path to happiness. I would hate it if they ended up as sheltered and as ignorant as some grown ups are.
October 13, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Jeff wrote,
Your rant is typical of too many who are pushing same-sex marriage. Instead of acknowledging that your opponents may have legitimate concerns, you accuse them of hate, intolerance, and bigotry. For good measure, you throw in some gratuitous insults wrapped up as psychoanalysis.
If you want to be taken seriously, do try practicing some of that love and tolerance you urge on the rest of us.
The LDS Church and others who are supporting Proposition 8 are not viciously attacking anyone. They are not stopping you or anyone else from entering into a loving, lifelong commitment that has all of the benefits of marriage except the name.
I see the LDS Church’s actions as being entirely defensive. The news release “The Divine Institution of Marriage” (13 August 2008) frames the issue very well:
The news release goes on to summarize some of the possible outcomes of state-church conflict over homosexuality:
Hence, LDS Family Services could lose its license to offer adoption services in some states if it were to discriminate against homosexual couples on religious grounds. Would you consider that a desirable outcome?
Do you believe that the LDS Church should lose its tax-exempt status for its teachings on homosexuality?
Do you believe that religious organizations should be forced to celebrate homosexual unions, even when such unions violate the religious principles of those organizations?
Thus, Brigham Young University could lose its accreditation and tax-exempt status for discrimination against homosexual couples. Would you consider that a desirable outcome?
October 13, 2008 at 1:25 pm
The LDS Church and others who are supporting Proposition 8 are not viciously attacking anyone.
The ruling makes it clear, however, that the court believes that the titles “civil union” or “domestic partnership” convey a “second-class citizenship” message, which “would be understood as validating a more general proposition that our state by now has repudiated: that it is permissible, under the law, for society to treat gay individuals and same-sex couples differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals and opposite-sex couples”.
So, while the Church is attempting to portray this as not being an attack, the court maintains that “affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children”.
How does one “impose appreciable harm” on someone without it being an attack?
One group says, “we’re not harming or attacking you”, but the court has stated otherwise.
October 13, 2008 at 1:59 pm
P. K. Andersen Says: “Hence, LDS Family Services could lose its license to offer adoption services in some states if it were to discriminate against homosexual couples on religious grounds. Would you consider that a desirable outcome?”
Yes.
P. K. Andersen Says: “Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions. . . .
Do you believe that the LDS Church should lose its tax-exempt status for its teachings on homosexuality?”
No
P. K. Andersen Says: “Do you believe that religious organizations should be forced to celebrate homosexual unions, even when such unions violate the religious principles of those organizations?”
No
P. K. Andersen Says: “Thus, Brigham Young University could lose its accreditation and tax-exempt status for discrimination against homosexual couples. Would you consider that a desirable outcome?
Yes, absolutely.
October 13, 2008 at 2:38 pm
P.K.Anderson says: “I see the LDS Church’s actions as being entirely defensive.”
If the LDS church is feeling defensive, it is because they have strayed once again beyond their realm of expertise and qualifications…and are rightfully being swatted back into their place. In their righteousness paranioa they see any attempt to contain their lust for power (and their precious tax-free status) as an attack. If the LDS Church (or any/all churches) owned the institution of marriage, their interest in it would be more understandable… but it doesn’t, and in the Western world it has no legitimate claim to it. Because people can be married and divorced without the permission of any church, no church has the right to bring definition to what is an obvious civil issue. Since churches can’t terminate the civil ramifications of marriages, it should be obvious that they have no say in determining who may start one. Churches that insist that they do have that right are encroaching into civil territory, aggressively playing politics in an attempt to blur the critically important line between church (which in its devotion to irrationality cannot be trusted to act sanely in political matters) and the State. I’ll point out that the most vocal opponents of inter-racial marriage we’re Christianists, in case modern religionists have forgotten. They we’re (and still are) the most irrationally vocal against woman’s equal rights.
People tend to be remarkably patient toward religionists, ignoring their irrational cosmology as long as they remain good citizens who respect the Constitution. When religionists become so wealthy as institutions (largely due to a tax-exempt free ride) that they want to be the government and determine civil policy, it is time to stand up to them and protect rationality. Religionist’s narrow “us against them” view of the world with enemies in every direction is archaic and inherently dangerous, and certainly not a rational basis for governing in a free world. It isn’t surprising that religionists are feeling that they need to defend their religious irrationality when increasingly the world is done with it. Religionists of all stripes would do themselves a favor by reading “The End of Faith” by Sam Harris. With 6.5 billion people currently on the planet, expected to increase to 9.5 in just 40 years – religion, with its “us against them” view of the world, is just to dangerous to be encouraged.
Compassion and justice always win in the end, and since religionists have rejected compassion and justice, and cling to fear and division instead…it is the rationalists that will prevail. Same gender marriage is about love, compassion, and justice…ideals that morally bankrupt institutionalized religion no longer understand. Since they no longer understand these things and actively war against them, I see no reason why they should enjoy tax-free status at everyone else’s expense. Pay your own archaic, irrationalist way.
October 13, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Jeff,
Would you strip all non-profit organizations of their tax-exempt status, or just groups that you deem to be insufficiently rational?
October 13, 2008 at 11:44 pm
P.K. Anderson,
No, just just religionist institutions that irrationally believe in sky gods, devils, and an archaic, poorly written history book (selectively enforced) – that they try to impose on government. Those who oppose the ideals of the Constitution, and ignore the legal boundaries between church and State. Those that selectively discriminate against law-abiding tax-paying citizens based on their natural variant, affectional-sexual orientation.
October 14, 2008 at 5:51 am
Jeff,
So you think that the government should discriminate against law-abiding, tax-paying citizens based on their religious beliefs. Would you consider such discrimination to be compatible with the ideals of the Constitution?
October 14, 2008 at 11:37 am
Guy,
I am amazed at the controversy this issue is raising around the internet, and on the Bloggernacle particularly. I thought the issue was settled — the brethren have spoken. I chose to follow their lead long ago, whatever course they set.
Perhaps there are many who feel otherwise. I don’t know whether to believe they are less faithful or not. I choose to believe they are simply misled or confused.
October 14, 2008 at 11:55 am
This thread is not about who does or does not the brethren. It is about whether or not the fears are real which suggest that legal same-sex marriage REQUIRES that young children be taught there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage. Now that is paraphrased from the voter’s guide. If the fear is that any child might be “exposed” in any way to gay marriage, then I suppose those fears have been realized.
October 14, 2008 at 12:00 pm
That was supposed to read “follow the brethren.”
October 14, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Jim,
Although the opinions of Church leaders may carry great weight in the Church, they are not infallible. Nor are faithful Church members required to follow their lead without question.
Instead, we are asked to consider the issues for ourselves, decide what is right, and act accordingly. As the First Presidency wrote in their letter dated 22 September 2008,
Moreover, we Mormons are a minority. We cannot expect others to look to “the brethren” for guidance. It is up to us to persuade our fellow citizens to see things our way.
October 17, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Jeff, I really enjoyed your long-winded pseduo-intellectual post. All three times.
[edited by admin. If you want to continue to comment on this blog, you will be respectful, both to those who oppose 8 and who are in favor of 8. Your comments were insensitive, tasteless, and I’ve removed them. Do it again, and I will ban you from further commenting.]
The fact of the matter is that it happened and was a huge waste of in-school time. The “what if it was a hetero wedding” arguments are spurious as the school would have been highly unlikely to plan a fieldtrip for something so mundane.
In all seriousness though, I doubt anyone who spends a great deal of time on these bloggernacle blogs is going to have his or her mind changed on the issue at this stage of the game.
October 21, 2008 at 3:12 am
I find Jeff’s tactics of persuasion perplexing. He seems to want to convince me to adopt his viewpoint, but any rational person can see that that sort of hatred and intolerance would only drive people away. He’s exactly what he accuses others of being.
October 22, 2008 at 4:42 pm
[…] Whether You Like It Or Not (Or Gay Marriage Day For 1st Grade) Messenger and Advocate – October 12, 2008 […]
October 29, 2008 at 2:20 pm
“The “what if it was a hetero wedding” arguments are spurious as the school would have been highly unlikely to plan a fieldtrip for something so mundane.” How do you know this? The kids surprised their beloved teacher at the courthouse steps after her marriage. Why do you think the type of marriage had anything to do with it?
And, how will this hurt your children? Are you planning on them being unkind to those kids in marriages (or civil unions) you consider less than God-blessed? I sincerely doubt it.
November 3, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Whatever…his voice makes me sick
November 5, 2008 at 9:55 pm
So I was told, who am I to impose my religious beliefs on others who proudly claim to be able to seperate their political beiefs from their religious beliefs! Which is a sad excuse if you ask me. Yet who are GAY people to impose their lifestyle on me and my children.
This isnt what Christ left us, these werent His teachings. God is Anti-gay and Pro-Life! May He have mercy on your souls when He decides to come back for His people, the people who stood up for what He stands for!
February 8, 2009 at 12:38 am
Marriage is not a privilege or a right to be demanded by every self-serving, narcissistic person who things of nothing but indulging ones glands. Marriage is a a covenant of sacrifice and surrender. Anything less is a manipulative, swindling, narcissistic, cowardly lie.
How is it people can say the vows and dump them later in an adulterous affair? Such liars and whores and thieves.
When sincere people marry, they seek permanent bondage. They say so, and they mean it. It is as though their love and commitment were so deep and sincere they would gladly accept and even seek accountability before God and swear their souls away to hell should they ever choose in the future to turn away from the vows and live unfaithful to the principles of marriage.
When sincere people marry, their love is truly sincere enough to seek to offer accountability as if to swear to ones spouse and children never to violate their right to live together in love continuing to enjoy the shared family resources and home.
But, America and most westerners and especially Californians usually lack the courage, the integrity, the sincerity to allow anybody have the freedom to be sincerely bonded in marriage. They want to reserve for themselves the “right” to break free, to have a roll in the hay at their spouse’s and childrens’ horrible expense. They want their unilateral no-fault divorces. They’re liars and hypocrites who want a marriage ceremony but no sincerity. They’re cowards who have no backbone to take responsibility. They want to be whores and make someone else pay for their sins.
Then there are the California professionals in law. Some are deeply honest and deeply loving and caring and devoted to justice. I know because one of my close friends in Southern California is that very kind of divorce attorney. Deeply honorable and caring.
However, many are happy to drag the faithful and innocent into court, threaten them with the most grave losses of everything precious, and hold out their money like a Mafia thug committing extortion. And many judges are perfectly happy to let them do this. After all, if extorting from the faithful and destroying the families of small children for profit makes attorneys rich, then the state legislatures have to raise judges’ salaries to keep them on the bench.
So, here in California we have a prostitution of justice and a prostitution of marriage.
So, why in the world would the homosexual community even want to have the mess we heterosexuals have?
Instead of battling over whether homosexual marriages should be allowed, why not work on fixing the marriage laws that are already on the books now? Only a blithering idiot or a liar would ever claim they are truly Constitutional. They’re cowardly and reprehensible and evidence of supreme incompetence for those who would ever support them. Competent and honest politicians and citizens war against all they stand for. But, it’s one thing to cackle and crow how pro-family and pro-marriage one is, and it’s another thing to take action and make things happen.
If you want to see how competent a politician is, just look at the divorce and suicide rates, in his or her area and see if they are rising or dropping drastically.
February 8, 2009 at 1:10 am
[…] Daniel Says: February 8, 2009 at 12:38 am […]
December 3, 2009 at 8:39 pm
I have to apologize for my last posting. I was unaware that this was a Mormon group. Although I appreciate the stand the Mormon church and its people take regarding the family, being a Christian and not a Mormon, I have a different foundation from which my values come. In a sense, we do share a belief in God and believe the Bible is important, and many moral values are shared. So, in ia way, we can speak in regard to what would be derived from those shared values. Still, where we come away from those shared values, it will bring us to a different conclusion as to what foundational values should be accepted.
Regardless, I feel I have come into a Mormon group and preached beliefs I had, and in a sense, though I hold those beliefs, I owe you an apology if I have violated the teachings of your church in a setting that is meant for people of your church to discuss, and for that I hope you will forgive me and understand this was a mistake on my part.
Thank you!
Daniel J. Dick
August 10, 2010 at 9:12 am
[…] with the news organizations you pull your news from. They will shape your values and character, whether you like it or not. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)They Know Its A DisasterDid the media misreport in […]
August 21, 2010 at 8:13 am
I am sure the permission slip did not mention it was a gay marriage.