Americans are not pulling in the same harness re gay marriage *UPDATED*
Bookworm on May 13 2009 at 12:01 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
Domino fashion, state legislature after state legislature is rushing to pass bills authorizing gay marriage. New York is about halfway there, although the New York Senate may be less easy for gay marriage proponents than was the Assembly. If the bill becomes law, New York will joint Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont and Iowa as those states that recognize gay marriage. In each case, the initiative will have taken place, not in the ballot box, but amongst the “elites,” either in the legislature or on the courts. (And I do recognize that the legislatures are less “elite” than the courts, but they’re still representative bodies, and not direct citizen votes.)
When Americans have had the right to vote, they’ve been less enthusiastic about gay marriage than either their representatives or their judges. California seems to heave back and forth in a perpetual tug of war, with voters insisting on traditional marriage (although by shrinking margins), with elected officials (Gavin Newsom), courts and the legislature working hard to overrule popular feelings.
When you actually get your boots on the ground — that is, when people have a direct say in the matter — it becomes apparent that average voters are less than enthused about gay marriage, especially when it comes to the amount of information that states insist their children receive about gay and lesbian relationships. Even as I write this post, the Alameda school board is hearing an incredibly contentious debate about a 9 part relationship curriculum that includes a segment on gay and lesbian relationships.
The nub of the debate appears to be the fact that the Board’s lawyer advised that students’ attendance at the class is mandatory — despite the fact that the California Education Code specifically grants parents the rights to have their children opt out of classes that teach lessons antithetical to their family values. (This ferocious debate is so current, it’s not even on the internet yet, although here is a link to a video report from a few days ago about the issue now before the Board.) This means that the attorney is effectively contending that it is impossible for parents to have a value that conflicts with the elites’ desire to teach very young children about homosexual relationships.
As you know, my views about gay and lesbian relationships are irritating to all concerned. I believe that marriage is a unique institution that should be limited to one man and one woman per marriage. However, I also believe that consenting adults should be able to do what they want to do (although I deeply oppose the exhibitionist desires so prevalent in the gay community to do it on the streets, at such venues as the Dore Alley Fair or the Folsom Street Fair), and that two loving hearts should be able to join together without shame.
I fully support civil unions, which would grant to gay couples all of the legal rights currently extended to straight couples, and I believe those unions should be recognized from one state to another. Just don’t call it marriage. Keeping that distinction also ensures that such institutions as the Catholic Church won’t be sued for refusing to marry gay couples, something that would be a civil right if gay marriages were legalized, but that would violate fundamental church doctrine.
Lastly, I hope my children are neither gay nor lesbian. This is not because I think badly of gays and lesbians. I don’t believe they’re evil or perverted. I do know, though, that they trend towards a lifestyle that is heavy on alcoholism, partner abuse, drug abuse, promiscuity, and, for men, HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. This is documented. Nor are these behaviors simply a product of repression and the resulting depression. Indeed, they seem to be worse, not better, in the most liberal cities. To the extent that I want my children to have the easiest life possible, my preference is that they gravitate towards a milieu that has lower incidences of all those damaging behaviors and diseases. Being straight won’t immunize them entirely against those risks, but it will lessen the risks.
And to the extent that I want my children to have the easier path, I don’t want the schools to teach elementary school aged children — who have very limited analytical skills at best — that it’s totally okay and just an equal choice to live the gay or lesbian lifestyle.
I’m not asking for the opposite, of course. That is, I don’t want schools to teach that gays or lesbians are bad or should be insulted or avoided. I pretty much want the school to be silent on the topic when it comes to the little kids. Teachers should be militant in ensuring that “gay” is not used as an insult and that feminine boys and masculine girls are not teased or bullied. Respect for all children should be the byword in every school. But I truly do not believe that it is the schools’ responsibility to suggest that homosexuality is just as easy a path as heterosexuality, because it’s not.
Having said all that, I’ll wrap around to my original point, which is that I suspect my views are pretty synchronized with those held by vast numbers of American parents (and certainly with many of the parents currently at the School Board meeting in Alameda). All of us have gay and lesbian friends and family members whom we love and respect. If our children turn out to be gay or lesbian, we will love them regardless. But to the extent that the gay and lesbian life is a tough road to hoe, it’s not what we wish for our children and we don’t believe public schools should be pretending that it’s all beer and skittles.
UPDATE: Here’s the story from last night’s news.
UPDATE II: Don Quixote, when I saw him for lunch and discussed this post, got to the heart of the matter: “Why are the schools teaching values in the first place?” There’s no doubt that, if little Johnnie comes from a home in which his parents teach him to hate gays or lesbians or blacks or Jews or Hispanics or Asians or [fill in the blank], if little Johnny puts that hatred into effect by bullying members of those categories, it is the school’s responsibility to stop that bullying.
Put another way, a libertarian or conservatively run school would punish Johnny. A progressive or liberal run school (and that’s what public schools are), instead devotes itself to reeducate the child to remove the taint of his family’s bad thinking. This view, incidentally, explains why the Alameda County School District’s attorney held that parents cannot opt out. This is not a values question, which would trigger the statute; this is a an “evil thoughts” question, and the school district’s mandate, as it sees it, is to stamp out evil thinking.
Related posts:
- Honest debate about marriage and gay marriage
- The fall out from legalizing gay marriage *UPDATED*
- A restrained judge ejects gay marriage from the courts
Email This Post To A Friend
12 Responses to “Americans are not pulling in the same harness re gay marriage *UPDATED*”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I am not a parent, but I am definitely on your wavelength. I am also worried about the fact that many activists don’t know when to stop with their demands. Some of these activists have problems unrelated to discrimination and use bullying to get their way. I really don’t want them to have more power. I’ve known quite a few gays who were very different, so I don’t equate the loonies with all gays.
Your views don’t irritate me; you have expressed my own views pretty exactly. I don’t mind at all if gays have formalized civil unions and with them all the legal rights shared by marriage partners–just don’t try to legally redefine marriage as something it’s never been, with all the legal ramifications that would come with that in our litigious society. Because legally suddenly it becomes the issue of FORCING other people (and their children in public schools), and their churches and church-based institutions to not just tolerate gays on an individual level as they have been doing all along, but to have to actively accept and approve of “gay marriage” (or pretend to) as equivalent to traditional marriage, which it is not. Suddenly it becomes an issue of forcing the majority of people to think, believe, and act contrary to their own experiences and beliefs, and that is never a good idea, especially in a supposedly free society that supposedly wants to foster tolerance and acceptance.
You want to see the death of the public schools, start legalizing a new definition of marriage and forcing it on people’s children in the schools against their parents’ wishes. Contrary to the gay activists’ agenda, this is no way to foster freedom or tolerance.
Rightly or wrongly, too many people see an injustice in having to go to this extreme (legalizing “gay marriage”) for too small a majority, who are otherwise treated by law pretty much equal to everybody else in all practical terms. There are other ways to address civil inequalities without legally redefining marriage. To use an old-fashioned term, gays are seen as being “bad neighbors” (or even bullies) in pushing other people too far and expecting others to give up too much in this instance. And drawing parallels between legislating “gay marriage” and ending slavery or miscenegation is risible, as black and other Christians against “gay marriage” eloquently point out. The vast majority of Americans know that traditional marriage cannot and should not be redefined by the stroke of a politician’s or judge’s pen, just to assuage the fantasies of a very small minority of militant gays.
Of course, the important distinction here is between what is legally enforced vs. what private individuals say, do, feel, and think among themselves. The fewer laws the better.
Voters in 30 states have affirmed marriage as between a man and a woman — and I’d bet Iowa voter when given the opportunity do the same. If this were any other issue, that would have been heralded as an “emerging national consensus” by the media and the elites. I doubt gay activists and their allies are that concerned about marriage — what they really seek is compliance of conscience to constrain the majority as Zabrina notes above. Adhering to traditional values, a traditional view of marriage, and to religious scruples which even if they tolerate do not condone homosexuality are to be reduced to thought crimes. Investigate and you’ll see this process is already well under way.
>>…what they really seek is compliance of conscience to constrain the majority as Zabrina notes above.>>
And status as a minority from which they can claim the privilege of discrimination.
After all – in a “don’t ask don’t tell” situation, how can you claim discrimination? In order to claim discrimination, you have to come “out”. If you come “out”, _you’re_ out. So – in order not to suffer discrimination, all you have to do is keep your preferences quiet. And if someone just wants out of the military, why not just claim to be gay? How do you “prove” that you’re gay? You can appear to be gay without _being_ gay – if you wanted to …so…
As far as the gay marriage issue itself goes, I don’t much care either way. If it is established for precisely the correct reason – to allow two gays to monogamously marry, and partake of the revered and valued tradition – then, OK by me. As long as it is done so by the will of the people of that State. Not by the national government, and not by judges.
That’s why when a Legislature passes such a law, I just shrug. That’s what legislatures are for, passing laws. Sometimes I think they’re boneheaded, sometimes I don’t. If they err against the people sufficiently, the people will respond and toss em out. So, in a few of the cited states – Maine, for example – it’s not a big deal to me that it happened
What does bother me, though, is that courts are doing this. And that even when legislatures do this, they are not doing it out of allowing gays to join into a revered and valued tradition… they are doing it out of spite, and casting it as a civil rights victory. I would remind people that in the most commonly cited parallel case – the miscegenation case Loving vs Virginia – the cherishment, respect, and love for monogamous marriage was reaffirmed. That’s never true at all with any of these “gay marriage as a civil rights” decisions.
And that is the reason why, when I have to make a choice, I always am consistently against gay marriage. Because it’s not about revering monogamous marriage; for the vast majority of proponents of gay marriage, it’s about poking a stick in marriage’s eye. It’s about defeating traditional values. Watch them when they celebrate such a “victory”, listen to their rhetoric when the mask drops. You’ll see what I’m talking about.
Zabrina is right — if this is forced on the nation, it will quickly get to the government schools, and LOTS of parents will pull their kids out.
In many public school systems, sending your child to the government schools is a form of child abuse *now*…..if Obama has his way, that will be true in most of them.
Really, folks…..if the government is going to fund education (and why should they?), let them do it the way they fund grocery-buying…..by giving VOUCHERS (just like food stamps) so that parents can shop around and buy their education from the school they prefer that their kids attend. Why does it make sense for food, but not for school?
Earl #6
>> Why does it make sense for food, but not for school?
Because the leftists aren’t interested in indoctrinating the heads of lettuce, Earl.
Put another way, a libertarian or conservatively run school would punish Johnny. A progressive or liberal run school (and that’s what public schools are), instead devotes itself to reeducate the child to remove the taint of his family’s bad thinking. This view, incidentally, explains why the Alameda County School District’s attorney held that parents cannot opt out. This is not a values question, which would trigger the statute; this is a an “evil thoughts” question, and the school district’s mandate, as it sees it, is to stamp out evil thinking.
I’m sorry but that would require the crucifixion of most of the school board as well as the union bosses.
I don’t think they are sufficiently serious about stamping out evil thinking, so they should simply stop playing with Other People’s Lives. They are not the KGB nor even the CIA.
by giving VOUCHERS (just like food stamps) so that parents can shop around and buy their education from the school they prefer that their kids attend. Why does it make sense for food, but not for school?
Because you can’t let the hicks, gun nuts, and bible clingers, as well as poor black families that are the slave-serfs of Obama and white Democrats, loose. You need to control them. Food controls them just fine whether they buy lettuce or stale bread or champagne. They will need it, and the vouchers will be what they will kill, steal, or bribe for.
But if you gave vouchers for parents, they would then escape the plantation. How can you indoctrinate a new generation of slave children if the parents take their children and leave the plantation? No, you have to keep them in the House, as House Slaves. Or if they are in the field, they must be in the field supervised by the straw boss and the overseer.
Only truly elite and powerful/rich families like the Kennedies, Clintons, even the Bushes, and especially the Obamas get to choose what school gets to teach their children. The rest of you all are a peculiar resource that the corrupt and powerful must acquire. And even if the powerful and rich had good intentions, absent their guilty need to serve themselves first over our bodies, they could easily fall into the trap of Bush. He could easily start listening to DC insiders and forget all about just exactly what the system he was supporting was doing to the people at the bottom.
Even if they had good intentions, they are too far from the consequences of their policies to understand why those policies are wrong. they can only rely upon second hand or third hand reports. Which is why government is not efficient the further away it goes from a region, and why Washington DC and the federal government is particularly inefficient.
“Why are the schools teaching values in the first place?”
Schools taught values because the values of society were reflected in the curriculum and the instructors as well as the behavior of the peers. Schools now continue to teach values because the societal background has changed and now schools are one of the most effective weapons to use to turn out cog machines and newly minted slaves for the threshing.
All societal functions and institutions teach values. This is not a yes or no proposition. The only thing that matters is what cultural values are being taught, not whether they should be. Because children will learn how to behave one way or another in a school, because they spend so much time at it.
Please read up on the Spartan school for boys.
Would civil unions as an alternative to marriage be an acceptable alternative to the activist homosexual community? I doubt it, since this isn’t about marriage—it’s about payback, it’s about sticking it to those traditionalists who have and continue to remind the gay practitioner that homosexuality is deviant behavior—since that’s what the APA considered it less than 40 years ago.
Gays have been able to make contracts, to live in arrangements mirroring marriage for decades. These issues are of course, a red herring to the real issue—which is not monolithic in motive, but certainly united in purpose, the destruction of Christian tradition, in my opinion.
And let’s not kid ourselves, these religious exemptions to current and propose same-sex marriage laws are merely a tactic to get “reasonable” people to buy into these laws. Does anyone actually believe these exemptions will hold up to Supreme Court review in a few years?
To the new order, your hope that your children don’t become gay is in contradiction to what they will and are being taught. And rather than hoping your children don’t fall victim to a gay bent, the activist would say your concern should be directed instead to discovering the causes of these psychological impediments to a satisfying gay lifestyle. I’m sure there is still a gay person out there convinced it is the condemnation of homosexuality by the religious traditionalist causing all these gay neuroses. We just need to eliminate these voices and all will be well, in spite of your assertions to the contrary.
Leaving any moral component aside, I doubt the proposed curriculum is going to point out any of these unintended side effects of homosexuality.
We approach Sodom and Gemorrah all over again. No, it’s not imminent, but we approach nevertheless. The longest journey etc.