What same-sex marriage doesn't have to do with kindergarten
The backers of Proposition 8 argue that the ban on same-sex marriage is about protecting school children.
From what?
According to the pro-Prop. 8 ballot argument -- which is being challenged in court, with the case expected to be heard today -- same-sex marriage isn't about "live and let live." No, it contends, a continuation of same-sex marriage would force on our children, from the earliest years of grade school, a curriculum that teaches that gay marriage is fine.
"State education laws require teachers to instruct children as young as kindergarteners about marriage," the argument reads. "If the gay marriage ruling is not overturned, then teachers will be required to teach young children that there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage....That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It should not be forced on us against our will."
The only problem is that everything about this argument isn't just specious, it's just wrong.
According to curriculum experts with the state Department of Education, Section 51890 of the Education Code -- the section cited by the Proposition 9 camp because it calls for teaching children about the legal and financial responsibilities of marriage -- is not a requirement for schools. It's an expected part of instruction for school districts that want a state-funded health curriculum.
Things fall apart more when you get to the kindergarten thing. There is nothing in the Education Code about the age at which children should learn about marriage. The grades at which students should be taught certain subjects is contained on the content standards, and the standards for health education don't mention marriage until high school, at which point students are supposed to learn about the differences between just-plain dating, committed relationships and marriage. The curriculum standards, by the way, aren't mandated either. They are, as the Pirates of the Caribbean put it, more sort of guidelines.
I imagine that as part of this, high schoolers might indeed learn that same-sex marriage is legal in the state of California. And, call me crazy, but I think they can handle it.
Look at it this way. California teenagers also learn extensively about drugs in their health classes. As part of that, they might well hear that California has legalized the medical uses of marijuana. They're certainly not being taught to go light up.
The court would be doing everybody a favor, even the Prop. 8 backers, to get this language off the ballot. It would save them from looking downright silly.
Photo courtesy of EPA/Olaf Kraak.
We can talk about mandates all day, but if gay marriage is legal in California, then students -- when marriage is discussed -- will learn that gay marriage and traditional marriage are equal.
No, that might not be mandated, but it will be taught by teachers at their own discretion. It's already happening in Massachusetts, where students in some schools are being read the gay children's book "King & King." No, that's not mandated, but parents can do little to prevent it from happening. After all, it's legal in the state, right? When it's legal, school officials have the law on their sides and parents can do nothing to stop it.
Yes, gay marriage legalization will change what children are taught in schools.
Posted by: Michael | August 07, 2008 at 06:44 AM
I have to agree with the opponents of gay marriage in that it hurts children. California needs to respect traditional marriage, because it's no secret that the liberals don't just want recognition of their immoral actions but also they want to change mindsets and even to brainwash young innocents. California liberals have made much headway in legalizing this sort of thing and the voters in the state need to curb them by approving Proposition 8.
Posted by: Steve | August 07, 2008 at 07:35 AM
Right-wing Christians are lunatics!
Posted by: Flex | August 07, 2008 at 08:09 AM
Either way children in CA will not be taught that 'gay' marriage and traditional marriage are equal....because in fact they are not! Traditional marriage is recognized by every state and the federal government, same-gender marriage is not.
So really, what children in CA will be taught is that just because you LOOK like everyone else, WORK like everyone else, DO YOUR CIVIC DUTY like everyone else and PAY YOUR TAXES like everyone else we still live in a country where the majority can AND WILL infringe on your right to the pursuit of happiness FOR ABOSOLUTELY NO GOOD REASON!
Posted by: christine | August 07, 2008 at 09:14 AM
Massachusetts and California do not have Marriage Equality! Marriage Equality is having ALL of the rights of marriage, including the 1138 federal marriage rights, not a legal category labeled "marriage" which is devoid of those rights. Barak Obama supports granting “civil unions and other legally-recognized unions" (including domestic partnerships and marriage) the 1138 federal rights of marriage. Presently, that includes 10 states! That would be Marriage Equality! Who cares what it is called? The vast majority of the LGBT community is more interested in their rights than the title.
The backlash to our marriage-only strategy has brought us an entirely new body of anti-gay laws: the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and 45 states passing laws or constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. 17 of those laws/constitutional amendments went further by also prohibiting civil unions and domestic partnerships. However, domestic partnerships and civil unions have never been successfully reversed on a direct challenge. The difference between California's same-sex marriage and California's comprehensive domestic partnerships is moot. When will our community start putting reality before rhetoric? True Marriage Equality can only be won in Washington, DC. That is where we should be focusing our energies.
www.EqualityWithoutMarriage.org
Posted by: Leland Traiman | August 07, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Why are none of these religious organizations and backers of Prop 8 worried about the Baptists teachers indoctrinating the Catholic kindergarteners or the Mormon teachers from indoctrinating the Church of Christ schoolchildren in their particular religious beliefs? That is exactly what this spurious claim by the Prop 8 backers is tantamount to. Why not call this exactly what it is: fear mongering!
Posted by: Carl | August 07, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Do people honestly think that talking about being gay, or the fact that gay marriage exists is going to "harm" anyone? Now lets just say that being gay is some how not okay (which I would never say myself) talking about it won't make your kids gay, it will educate them on what's going on in their society. So you want to enforce hatred and discrimination, or teach your kids that being gay is wrong, then do it in your own home, but the fact of the matter is, this is something that actually exists, and just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean that denying reality is the answer.
Posted by: Mandy | August 07, 2008 at 10:57 AM
God forbid children learn how hetero-SEXUAL and homo-LOVING relationships are built on the same Sacred, Christ-like Love. That would make these poor children think all humans are created equal in God's eyes. The abomination!
GAY TAX PROTEST
Posted by: John Bisceglia | August 07, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Michael: If continuing to perform gay marriage will change what is taught in school at all, what it will change is at most that teachers will stress the limits of the role of the state in regulating marriage. Thus, the schools will teach children to recognize the religious and cultural roots of marriage.
Steve: If you're going to say mean things about liberals, then please have the courtesy to back them up with some evidence or some logic. The only way in which same-sex marriage affects children is that it helps the children of same-sex couples get stability in their lives.
Flex: Let's not assume that everyone who opposes same-sex marriage is Christian. Plenty of Christians (like me) support it.
Posted by: Patrick | August 07, 2008 at 11:18 AM
I'll accept the arguments about traditional marriage when the gay marriage opponents tackle the other threats to "traditional" marriage - drive through wedding windows, Elvis impersonators, wing walking and scuba diving weddings, weddings in Klingon, and no fault divorce. Once we get those impediments to "traditional" marriage cleared up for the heterosexual couples, then we can start to worry about the impact of homosexual marriages.
We have so debased the institution with the casualness and stunts that are allowed today, that the concepts of life long monogamy that "traditional" marriage champions use as a cudgel against gay marriage are mere phantasms.
If they want to address those issues and make divorce a serious business, they should add them to their continuing stream of anti gay marriage proposals. Let's see them get that passed. But there is no way they would have the guts to ever try a holistic approach to "traditional marriage" propositions and not just the icky gay stuff.
Civil unions don't seem to address everything, and gay people look happy when the get married. Unless they can really argue that the state is going to force me to marry a man, I just say "let people be happy"
Posted by: Jose | August 07, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Scare, scare, scare. That's the only tactic the opponents of marriage equality have left. Let's not forget the duly elected representatives of the people of California (the legislature) has TWICE passed a marriage equality bill before the Supreme Court made that mute. According to every poll, Prop 8 is going to fail this Nov, Massachussetts has revoked their "1913 law", the New York Assembly has already approved marriage equality (with the Senate to follow in '09), President Obama will push through the repeal of DOMA & DADT; it's only a matter of time until true marriage equality is a reality in the U.S. whether the religious right likes it or not.
Posted by: WeTheSheeple | August 07, 2008 at 01:11 PM
If the backers of Prop 8 really want to preserve traditional marriage, then let them go for it all the way, as it was historically done for centuries. Parents would pick out their children's spouses for them years in advance; brides and grooms would not meet until their wedding day; a hefty financial transaction would take place in the form of a dowry and maybe some land and animal exchange; husbands and wives would be married for the sake of legal and contractual matters, but maintain mistresses and lovers on the side (wait, they still do that part...);and divorce would be cause for excommunication from the church and society at large. That's traditional marriage. Anything less than that is just being namby-pamby.
Posted by: HistoricalPerspective | August 07, 2008 at 04:09 PM
Hiding behind children as a shield ("marriage is about procreation," "same-sex marriage will be taught in kindergarten," "to turn out okay, kids can only be raised by a mother and father") tells us these "adults" have a lot of growing up to do.
Common sense and experience tell us these "adults" have little understanding about someone else's marriage, or their own.
The only things being "protected" by Prop 8 are fear, bigotry and hatred.
The last place to enshrine that display of immaturity is in the Constitution.
Posted by: ldfrmc | August 07, 2008 at 04:26 PM
Why not "protect" marriage in a way that REALLY gets the job done: outlaw divorces (retroactively for one generation back, naturally) and force - under penalty of jail time until they repent - any couple that procreates. Ah, shucks, make it anyone that has vaginal sex.
I mean, we DO want to "protect marriage", right?
Posted by: trai_dep | August 08, 2008 at 10:34 AM
The gay agenda seems to be that "Heather Has Two Mommies" starts in the fall for K-6. Here's the site:
http://www.healthiersf.org/News/HealthAwarenessMonths/Gay%20Pride%20one%20pager%202008.pdf
Posted by: Paul Benedict | August 08, 2008 at 05:40 PM
My partner of 35 years (and my spouse of 1 1/2 months) raised to young girls that were abandoned by their biological father at birth and a burden to their mother at age 9. We raised them in an openly gay environment with love, religious freedom (at one time we spent a year in weekly meetings with Mormon missionaries), ethical values and compassion as the basis of our family beliefs. They are, now, both productive members of society, heterosexual and raising families of their own with the same values that we taught them.
We were blessed by their presence in our lives.
Posted by: Jack | August 08, 2008 at 05:46 PM
I don't think God, Jesus, or Kinergardener's care if anyone is gay or straight... just ask them!
The more the country figures out how boring gay people are, the more no one will care or "oppose" them or what they do...
Posted by: ADD | August 09, 2008 at 10:32 AM
I am a kindergarten teacher and used to be a health educator and hiv antibody test counselor. I teach values and patriotism and of the pursuit of haapiness and the freedoms we enjoy. A 5 year old is just beginning to understand these values. I see the adjustment they go through when there is a new baby in the house or just one on the way. I can't imagine what the confusion of these issues would add. Children deserve so much- They are precious- if only each can be raised in a home iwth a mom and a dad.
We voted on this issue and... this is my poem about my thoughts
Four judges legalized same sex marriage-
From San Francisco has come disparage
For, in 2000 marriage was defined
As between a man and a woman, we outlined
What was voted on and passed by 61%
Has to be recomposed and needs our endorsement
As world history's sacred institution
Must be placed in our state's constitution
Though we feel for those in sexual exclusion
To embrace their union as marriage is delusion
For our children we cannot define this as mainstream
Though gays want acceptance and higher esteem
We've given them all the rights of marriage
And, sadly they still fight on and dare edge
To infringe on what God has ordained
And, for their small numbers society's more pained
But, what of our creator- who said, "Thou shalt not"?
And of our founding father's and of all that they fought?
We've commandments for how we should live
And, we can't grant things that aren't ours to give
I feel for those of gay circumstance
I know they want romance and an equal chance
I've counseled them for the antibody test
And, I know that their feelings are hard to rest
Please do not call this bigotry or hate
For I am concerned about our futures fate
Let's focus on family and build its foundation
For there lies the future of our good nation
Let's not redefine marriage or tear it apart
But, pray for it with every depth of our heart
And unite and fight for the noblest cause
For the purest of standards of our God's laws
Posted by: kelly miller | August 11, 2008 at 09:05 PM
I have no doubt that this September as school begins, there will be a gay kindergarten teacher somewhere in the state that will be asked by a student about the wedding picture on his desk. When the teacher responds that he is gay, and gay men fall in love and marry other gay men, the child will say, "oh", and then go on doing what kindergarten students do. The teacher's explanation will not cause the student to become gay, it will not cause the breakdown of "traditional marriage", nor will it bring the end of civilization. It will simply be accepted as a fact that is part of the child's world. If a parent wants to attach some other meaning to gay marriage that is their choice, but I don't see a problem with the teacher's actions.
Posted by: kurt dearie | August 14, 2008 at 09:13 AM
Kelly,
Please tell me you are not a teacher. That you are not an educator. Please tell me that you counsel no one. It terrifies me to think someone like you actually come in contact with children at all much less help to form their perceptions of the world. Your poem truly depressed me.
P.S. The Archbishop of Canterbury seems to think gay marraige is fine by God. I assume you think you know better.
Posted by: LPY | August 14, 2008 at 09:10 PM
Re Mr/Ms Miller's contribution:
Just because it rhymes, that doesn't make it a poem.
A poem has depth and abstraction, emotion and insight. What's listed above is a jingoistic jingle for ossified minds; a coupleted primer as shallow and unthought-out as the narrow frightened sentiments it attempts to encompass.
I've been a domestic partner for three years and got married just this month. Believe me, marriage is a much different social status. People understand what married means, what the commitment is. Marriage brings an equality and dignity to a relationship that a separate-but-equal scheme such as domestic partnership cannot touch.
When I showed her my ring, the utter happiness in my mother's eyes was undeniable. She has seen all her children marry someone they love. Why are you so frightened to share this simple joy with everyone who seeks it?
And just because you ask us not to call your little ditty "bigotry or hate" doesn't mean it isn't so...after all, you called it a poem, and your composition hardly qualifies in that realm under any artistic or academic description.
Posted by: Mark McD | August 17, 2008 at 06:10 PM
In reference to an earlier post above (and one of the arguments for Prop 8), since when does learning in school "hurt" children? Shouldn't kids learn about how our society works, including the ins and outs of marriage? It would really "hurt" children to be left in the dark about marriage; especially later in life when it is important to make informed decisions about relationships.
As mentioned in the story, schools are not mandated to teach students about marriage. Most students are either never taught about marriage in school or if they are, it typically happens when they are teenagers. Ask around and you'll be hard pressed to find kids learning about marriage in school. Maybe this lack of education contributes to the incredibly high divorce rate.
I believe marriage should be taught in school - in its entirety. It should be explained that most marriages in the US are essentially two separate institutions: a religious one and a legal (civil) one. It should be explained how people marry, how people divorce, as well as the benefits and consequences of both. And there is no legitimate reason why gay marriage shouldn't be included. In fact, it wouldn't even be called gay marriage - it would just be called "marriage."
Religious and other private entities have the right to not accept same-sex relationships and marriages - I believe they are entitled to that right. But when you're dealing with a legal/civil issue in which everyone but one minority group is able to enjoy rights and benefits on a national or state level, you have a reason for change. If the Catholic church (or any other religion) refuses to accept same-sex marriage, so be it. But if the federal and state governments refuse to accept same-sex marriage, it is blatant discrimination.
As a country, we've managed to grow from ignorant and close-minded to somewhat more open-minded and accepting of other people and their differences. But we still have a ways to go.
It's unfortunate that so many people still don't realize that we are all different and yet we are all the same.
Posted by: Jason | August 18, 2008 at 09:55 PM
I read the article, and while I found it interesting... I found it quite bias. I support Prop 8, and EDUCATION CODE SECTION 51890-51891, states that it is offered to K-12 to be taught about marriage. Which means that yes same sex marriage can be taught as early as Kindergarten.
Posted by: Kelly Ewing Powell | October 08, 2008 at 11:33 PM
How is this hurting the children? They are teaching this in school because they want the children to be more open and accepting about this issue. They aren't brainwashing children at all! Religion isn't being taught in school and you hardcore christians seem to have no problem with it! So why cant you accept gay marriage being taught in school? You aren't involved in their relationship, and you have no right to prevent same sex couples from getting equal rights. And what makes you think a child will grow up happy from a heterosexual couple? Ever heard of divorce? Hypocrites.
Posted by: PYK | October 13, 2008 at 01:29 AM
I am for Prop 8 and it is because of my beliefs. What makes me think a child will grow up happier in a heterosexual family? I believe that traditional families are ordained of God, and believe happiness is best achieved when we follow the principals and ordinances of God, therefore, Yes, I believe children will be better off in traditional families. I don't want my children being taught it is okay to be romantic someone of the same sex. I believe it is wrong.
Posted by: Kelly Ewing Powell | October 14, 2008 at 03:39 PM