Americans are not pulling in the same harness re gay marriage *UPDATED*
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.
