Proposition 8 and Santa Claus in the schools
Credit the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign for its clever ability to poke people right in their discomfort zones. Generally, the target is getting people to believe that the children of California will be indoctrinated into tolerance of the gay population. The latest wave of ads, from what I read (Nope, I still don't watch or listen to campaign ads.), grabs one high-profile case of a Massachusetts teacher who read her students the picture book "King and King," about a prince who's supposed to find a princess to wed but finds another prince instead.
And really, I don't know what the teacher was thinking. The book's writing is lackluster, the characters undeveloped, and the illustration a downright mess.
But it's a theoretical reach from there to the Prop. 8 mantra that same-sex marriage equals schools teaching children as young as kindergartners all about gay marriage. The state has an Education Code and an instructional framework that don't call for teaching marriage at all until kids get older, and even then in only the most bare-bones way, like the difference between dating and marriage. State law also is quite clear on the subject of parents' rights not to have their children attend lessons on sexual and other highly personal matters.
Yes, first graders in San Francisco attended their teacher's lesbian wedding as a field trip. Parents have to sign permission slips for field trips, too, even if it's to the post office. (Two parents opted out.) The parents could well have given permission for their children to attend a civil-union celebration. Prop. 8 wouldn't change what teachers read to children or whether students see their teachers in a loving same-sex relationship. All the things that scare Prop 8's proponents the most could happen even if it passed.
One way or another, kids are going to learn things at school, whether from teachers or fellow students, that go against their parents' beliefs. Part of learning tolerance is learning that people think differently and believe differently; this is a lesson that both schools and parents teach, and that's not to even mention what the kids learn from playing Halo.
(Attention, those who believe in Santa Claus -- spoiler alert!)
I'm reminded of one of my son's own kindergarten lessons, when the teachers talked someone into dressing up as Santa to hand out gifts -- without advance warning to parents. "Mommy, Santa does exist!" Sam came home and announced, despite our frequent teachings otherwise. "He was at school today." When I argued that this was a man dressed up to look like a make-believe character, he countered, "Oh, no, this was the real Santa. Mrs. H told us so."
So the authority figure spoke, and then the real authority figure spoke, and he learned that sometimes teachers say things that we don't agree with, or even things that are downright wrong. Sorry, Santa.
Image of the "King & King" cover courtesy of the Ten Speed Press website.
CaliforniaEducation Code (EC) 51933 specifies that school districts are not required to provide comprehensive sexual health education , but if they choose to do so, they shall comply with all of the requirements listed below. …Instruction shall encourage communication between students and their families and shall teach respect for marriageand committed relationships.
According to a study posted on the California Department of Education’s (CDE’s) website, 96% of California school districts voluntarily provide classroom instruction under the California Comprehensive Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Prevention Act (Education Code,§§51930et seq). That study states:
HIV/AIDS prevention education and sex education are nearly universally taught in Californiatoday. Ninety-four percent of surveyed schools provide HIV/AIDS prevention education, as is mandated by law, and an even larger number, 96%, provide sex education despite having no requirement to do so.
[The anti-Prop-8 side's] cleverly worded denials try to trick voters into thinking schools do not teach about marriage,” said Chip White, press secretary for Yes on 8. “But for the 96% of public schools that teach sex education, state law requires them to teach about marriage.”
http://www.valuesvoternews.com/2008/10/who-is-doing-smearing-over-issue-of.html
The truthful propoents of SSM just shrug and say, so what? They say that kids should be taught gay marriage in the public schools.
If Proposition 8 is defeated then their efforts will redouble in the schools. They will be eager to press an advantage. They are fond of predicting that children will come to see gay marriage (merged with bonafide marriage) as normal and anyone and any view which opposes it as bigoted. They strongly desire to teach this in public schools.
It is nonsense for them to deny that. In fact, prominent propoents of SSM have voiced this desire, and that shrug, in Massachusetts and are backing the anti-Prop-8 side today with financial and other types of contributions.
Look at it this way.
California citizens directly voted on passage of the man-woman cirterion as an explicit provison in the marriage statute. This was in the context of a much more narrow version of domestic partnership status. Not a full-on merger with marital status. Proposition 8 says what that statutory provision says. No rights are eliminated.
But remember how domestic partnership was sold as a compromise? But the more truthful proponents of gay marriage admitted that they consider domestic partnership just a stepping stone to what they really wanted.
Now that stepping stone has become a rock thrown through our windows. It is used to bludgeon opponents as bigots -- a false accusation for most citizens in thsi very tolerant and state.
The core of the "gay marriage" movement is a form of identity politics which is gaycentric. They are not democrats, not in practice and not in argumentation. See their sneers about majority rule and about judges being empowered to rerwrite the very marriage law that The People have dirtectly legislated.
No form of identity politics should be pressed into government policies, nor into the laws in a pluralistic society that abides by the rule of law rather than the rule of a sectarian interest such as the propoents of "gay marriage".
Schools are a big target and if you want to have the chance to pushback and redress the corruptive influence tha has already taken root in the public school system, reset the table and reassert the principle that --
"The People have a government, not the other way around."
Posted by: Chairm | October 25, 2008 at 07:00 PM
Robby, in repy to Randy's list:
We're not talking about incest, polygamy or marrying animals. We're talking about two people of the same gender who make a commitment to one another in a monogamous relationship receiving the same rights as other tax paying citizens doing the same receive.
It's typical fear tactic to bring irrational and irrelevant comparisons into the discussion, so knock it off.
And if you want to go down the "slippery slope" argument, I am happy to. Let's talk about the slippery slope of writing religious based discrimination into the state's constitution. This could get messy if it passes.
Posted by: Sick of lame arguments | October 24, 2008 at 07:35 AM
I still have yet to have anyone give me an example of how Prop 8 "protects" "traditional" marriage. How does two men or two women marrying in any way demean a heterosexual union.
And while we're at it, the "traditional" marriage everyone wants to protect (AKA Biblical marriage) was a means to treat women as property and a way for families to move real estate back and forth. I mean, if you're going to use the Bible as your reason for voting YES, then let's at least be honest about what it really means.
People who say...I accepts gays, I have no problems with them, they are some of my best friends, etc. and who are voting YES on Prop 8 are hypocrites and fooling themselves about the extent of their acceptance. A YES vote is discrimination and hate, pure and clear. At least be honest about your bigotry.
Posted by: HW | October 24, 2008 at 07:31 AM
I love the list from Randy:
Fathers can't marry their daughters
Mothers can't marry their sons
Brothers can't marry their sisters
Men can't marry more than one woman at a time
Women can't marry more than one man at a time
No one can marry their dog, horse, or other attractive animal
Are these people's "rights" being trampled on? Can't they marry who they want? Am I a bigot for not supporting them if they wish to marry?
Posted by: Robby | October 23, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Births out of wedlock, if you remember correctly that a man and a man and a woman and a woman can’t have babies, the rate of wedlock and marriage is not related to the legalization of gay marriage. The legalization inter racial marriage was once seemed to be a threat to marriage, and if you say that now you are cast out of society. If two people love each other, why would you deny them happiness?
Posted by: You can call meV | October 23, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Matthew, that was exactly what Stanley Kurtz pointed out at the beginning of his now famous research. Problem for you is, that wasn't the end of the story. Instead of stopping there, he went further into the data in both the Netherlands and Scandinavia, comparing rates of marriage and out of wedlock births with other European countries and, guess what? There is a strong connection if one cares to see it.
Comparing the few years of gay marriage in Massachusetts to the decades of secularization that lead up to legalized gay marriage in the Netherlands is a poor comparison. The point is, there were much ballyhooed predictions that legalized gay marriage would strengthen marriage in general in The Netherlands and it did quite the opposite. It may take longer to have the same effect here because of many factors, including the fact that our country is not nearly as secularized as The Netherlands is, but it certainly will happen just the same.
Posted by: Doug | October 22, 2008 at 10:55 PM
I should also state that they have strong families, the parents just aren't always married. Their society nutures family regardless of marriage.
Posted by: Matthew | October 22, 2008 at 08:38 PM
Doug, the Netherlands had low/declining Hetersexual marriage rates BEFORE SSM were legalized. Why don't we look at our own states that have legalized SSM. No difference. Mass. still has the best marriage statistics.
PEACE
Posted by: Matthew | October 22, 2008 at 08:33 PM
Everyone, Prop 8 is attempting to deny 2 legal adults the right to get married, please stop bringing religion into it.
The Church (how ever you want to imagine it) offers matrimony, which is a religious ceremony that is ONLY binding within the religion of your choice.
The State (Gov of: Federal, state, county , city, etc.) offers marriage, which is a LEGAL contract between 2 adults and the State, and carries legal responsibility.
You have to apply for a marriage license, and your denomination HAS to be RECOGNIZED by the State. If it is not, or you take too long, then you will not be given the marriage license. The State is being nice to the Church when it allows you to only have 1 ceremony. Otherwise, you would have to go to the appropriate State office and have the civil ceremony.
I would wager that most people who propose Prop 8 never had a marriage ceremony, but the State, in comity/deference/and a sign of good faith, accepted your Church ceremony as a valid SUBSTITUTE for the States civil ceremony of marriage.
As for the whole school argument, don't parents have the right to enroll their kids into a faith based school? I think that if they are enrolling them into a public school, the are, by default, authorizing the secular curriculum.
PEACE
Posted by: Matthew90605 | October 22, 2008 at 07:51 PM
Luke, what is the core meaning of the relationship type that you have in mind when you refer to "marriage"?
Please cite the law that affirms this core. If we can't identify the core of the thing, then, how could you possibly expect society, through the law, to regulate the boundaries around it?
Indeed, how would public schools teach "marriage" if there are no essential features, at law, that distinguish the conjugal relationship from other types of relationships?
I can point to the man-woman criterion and to the marriage presumption of paternity and to the anthropological record that demonstrates that the core of marriage, as I have described it, cross cultural, religious, geographic, and historical lines. Marriage is a social institution first and foremost. Its legal shadow is not the the institution itself.
SSMers generally depend on axiomatic assertions that are leaps of faith. They would impose a peculair form of sectarianism on all of society.
You are in denial if you think that sex integration is not central to marriage; or that responsible procration is nonessential to marriage. The social institution is not government-owned, however, I can see that SSMers here assume the government owns the foundational social institution of civil society.
The boundaries around marriage are based on its core. This distinguishes the conjugal from the nonconjugal relationship types. Those boundaries vary, sure, but the core remains the same even in irreligious or athiestic societies.
So you are simply wrong to say that religious views of marriage are being imposed just because your own sectarianism would be rejected by a pluralistic society.
The challenge that you and all SSMers still have to meet is to state, plainly, the core of the relationship type you have in mind and to then cite the legal requirements that define that core and the boundaries that are rationally drawn around that core.
Right off you can drop any pretense about love being a requirement for no such legal compulsion exists in any place that SSM has been enacted or imposed. Likewise sexual attraction for the same sex. And so forth.
There is no core to SSM. It is hollow. Instead, it is a vehicle that is fueled by gay identity politics. The core of the SSM campaign, and of its argumentation, is the desire to innoculate that form of identity politics.
That's what the charge of bigotry means when SSMers seek to insult and dismiss those who oppose their project.
Each time you call someone a bigot, you remind us all that it is your side which seeks to restrict the liberty of others. Each time you pretend that this is religion v. state you demonstrate that you lack a fulsome understanding of the social instituton of marriage.
But not: your failings are not the basis for imposing SSMm on all of society. Your failings are not sufficient reason to abolish the man-woman criterion of marriage. Your failings do not provide a ratiional basis for undermining, if not abolishing, the marriage presumption of paternity.
And, your failings being as they are on this subject, do not persuade a free people that their foundational social institution is merely a legal program owned and operated by Government. You may wish to be enslaved, but SSM argumentation has reminded us that our liberty is threatened when identity politics -- of whatever form -- is prressed into government policy and into the law of the country.
It was the California Supreme Court majority which amended the state constitution when it issued its profoundly flawed pro-SSM opinion. The People have a government, sir, not the other way around -- and the marriage amendment will set right what gay identity politics has sought to trample.
Posted by: Chairm | October 19, 2008 at 06:55 PM
Jim, you can have whatever religion norms you want, and same-sex marriage is not going to change that. What you ought not be able to do is impose your religious norms on people who do not share them, such as by restricting the legal rights and esteem for same-sex couples in California. This is doubly true, because Christian conservatives and you do not offer reasons to justify your norms, only faith - hardly relevant or convincing for anyone of a different or no religion.
Since Christian conservatives cannot offer convincing reasons in support of norms that marginalize gay people, they have to resort to derision of anti Prop. 8 substantive comments and to forceful restatements of their norms - marriage is between a man and a woman, gay is wrong, and so on.
So, while same-sex marriage is not an Establishment Clause issue, it is a matter of equality and dignity for gay people, opposed with all of the arrogance of religious people who insist everyone live by their rules but who refuse to reason with anyone about why their rules are what they are. The failure of Prop. 8 does not restrict Christian conservatives´ freedom to define marriage and family the way they choose. The success of Prop. 8 codifies in the California Constitution the inferiority of gay people and the inferiority of their relationships.
And an aside on Prop. 8 bigots´ ghoulish distraction tactic of bringing up same-sex marriage in elementary school: Putting aside for a moment that it is, in fact, a distraction tactic, to strip gays of a constitutional right, let us assume arguendo all of the worst nightmares of the Prop. 8 proponents came to pass: Princesses marry princesses at storytime, first-graders take mandatory field trips to gay weddings, and the Dark Horsemen of the Gay Agenda visit sex-ed classes to give how-to demonstrations. So what? Kids would learn that in California the law treats people equally regardless of sexual orientation (gender, or race), that people have sex, and that some people have sex with partners of the same gender. To defend their norms from rational scrutiny by the next generation, religious conservatives demand license to coerce kids and cloak these messages in condemnation. There is hardly a surer sign of the poverty of their message about marriage and family.
Posted by: Luke | October 19, 2008 at 09:32 AM
I like being able to choose my faith as well which is why I'm voting yes on 8. I don't need you or anyone else redifining my morals for me. And that's ultimatly what no on prop 8 want, to redifine my morals and my religion. Your all so tolerant to the homosexual lifestyle but not very tolerant to my religous beliefs.
Posted by: Jim | October 18, 2008 at 11:13 PM
The man-woman criterion of marriage does not infringe th establishment clause. If that was the problem, then, the pro-SSM court cases would have been decided on that basis in plain view.
Even in irreligious or athiestic societies the man-woman criterion is recognized as definitive of marriage.
This is not about religion v. state. It is certainly is about the pro- "gay marriage" side pushing for their sectarian view of government.
We live in a pluralistic society. With Prop 8 there will be more liberty, not less. With the imposition of "gay marriage", less not more liberty.
Posted by: Chairm | October 18, 2008 at 10:12 PM
If I wanted to live under a state-mandated religion I'd move to Saudi Arabia, or better yet, Israel. I like it better here in America where we get to choose which faith to belong to or from which to abstain.
Doesn't anybody believe in the separation of church and state anymore? Does anybody truly want the government telling them how to worship? What's happened to the conservative voters in this issue? Where are the voters who want the government to have less, not more control over our private lives, including religious issues? Writing Prop 8 into the state constitution moves us closer to having state-sponsored religion. Do we really want that?
Posted by: Respectful Non-Christian | October 18, 2008 at 10:45 AM
The quality of comments from the anti-Prop-8 side is abysmal.
Karin,
In an earlier blogpost you expressed distress at the spouting of misleading assertions.
What do you think of the nonsense listed by Nancy at October 17, 2008 at 05:18 PM? Her comment is straight out of the anti-Prop-8's talking points.
The first axiom of the side that is against prop 8 is that to disagree is itself an act of hatred and bigotry. Do you, Karin, agree with that axiom?
The anti-side really ought to be more forthright. Do you wish to see the public schools teach that "gay marriage" is marriage?
If you would, then, please state clearly the core, the essentials, the nature of the relationship type that you have in mind when you refer to "marriage".
I ask because those on the Yes side are campaigning for the core of marriage, while those on the No side are campaigning in the name of gay identity politics which, from what they say, is at the heart of their push for "gay marriage". The two things are not one and the same. So we can foresee what is really going to be taught about marriage in the public schools -- and it is NOT the core of the social institution.
See Schools and "same-sex marriage"
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2008/10/schools-and-ssm.html
Posted by: Chairm | October 17, 2008 at 10:33 PM
I am an overweight man. I have been since I was younger. People tell me I should exercise, or quit being lazy, but from since I remember, I just love to eat, and don't like to exercise much. In fact, the thought of exercising makes me feel ill. Going to a buffet, or eating a big ice cream cone, those kinds of things make me happy. I get really upset, and my feelings are hurt, when people call me fat. Those intolerant fataphobes need to quit hating fat people. I am sick of going to Disneyland, and not being able to ride Space Mountain or the Matterhorn because of my fatness. I'm sick of TV ads, movies, and the media who portray fat people as ugly or non-beautiful. Since I feel so bad, I should find other fat people like me, then I can feel accepted. I know! I'll file a lawsuit challenging the definition of fat. I'll try to force restaurants, theaters, and all public places to accommodate my fatness, and if anyone looks at me funny, or whispers something, I'll try and get the state to recognize my fatness as just as physically fit and healthy as being skinny is. Once people are forced to think of fatness as normal, ok, and exactly the same as being physically fit, THEN they will accept me, right?
Posted by: Real Tolerance | October 17, 2008 at 09:14 PM
Consequences of Prop. 8 passing:
* A state constitution will now have language in it that says that everyone is equal except one group of people.
* Fundies will be emboldened to try to change the constitution to remove more civil rights from gay people.
* Other hate groups will get the idea that discrimination can be written into the constitution, including against women and minorities
* Children of existing gay families will lose the right to health care
* Existing gay families will lose the legal protections afforded married couples, including the right to visit your spouse in the hospital, the right to take over the legal affairs of your spouse if they become incapacitated, etc.
* Long legal battles that will waste the state's money will ensue as civil rights groups move to reverse Prop. 8 and have it declared illegal.
* The State of California will lose millions in revenue from hosting gay weddings (read the legislative analyst report)
* Churches and religious institutions will not have any protection from legal restrictions or requirements, unless they are state-funded.
* Schools will not be stopped from "teaching" homosexuality since educational curriculums are decided by local authorities and have nothing to do with the state constitution
* California will have made a strong statement saying that Hate is OK - this may be the worst effect of all. We will reap the rewards of encouraging hate, which are societal dischord and unrest, and breaking the contract people expect with our country which is that we are all treated equally with respect under the law.
VOTE NO ON PROP 8. Hate is not a family value.
Posted by: Nancy | October 17, 2008 at 05:18 PM
To all readers: If the day after election day, early in the morning, birds chirping, dogs barking, you can knock on a suburban familes home...a woman comes to the door with infant in her arms, smile on her face and wife behind her with toddler in tow, ask them 'maam, please let me see your wedding rings, thank you' then state 'please bring me your marriage liscense' when she brings it from her filing cabinate...if you can tear it up in front of her face to tears in her and her families eyes and then state with the coldest heart of hearts 'I, by the state of California hereby state that your marriage is no longer valid, good day!' then vote yes on 8...
Posted by: Richard Cortijo | October 17, 2008 at 01:33 PM
The r-e-a-l story and events belittle the seriousness of what's at stake for all of us...
Take a look at www.ifprop8fails.org and www.preservingmarriage.org, and www.protectmarriage.com
That is not a story, it's our lives.
Prop. 8 is about American Freedom for ALL of us, and that's real, too.
If prop. 8 fails, it will hurt all of us, including same-sexuals, because it is a direct attack on basic freedom. And once a special interest group is allowed to make new laws, other special interest groups will be quick to follow.
Vote Yes! Prop. 8.
Vote Yes! American Freedom
Let's you, me, and same-sexuals work together to restore freedom of voice in our beautiful California and use the millions of dollars to help the hungry and poor instead of trying to force new laws that will cost even more and take even more away from those truly in need of basic life support like food and medical care, especially in this economic storm.
Posted by: starjane | October 17, 2008 at 11:09 AM
It never occurred to me that this could be so confusing since we are talking about a proposition in CALIFORNIA which is in the USA, which has a constitution which was founded on JUDAEO-CHRISTIAN principles.
Traditional marriage in this context means none of the things you list. What is DOES mean... drumroll please... one man + one woman.
Posted by: Doug | October 17, 2008 at 08:46 AM
Every time I hear someone justify their ignorance and hate by saying, "we must protect "traditional" marriage", "traditional marriage is between one man and one woman", "you people should not try and re-define "traditional" marriage". I cringe. People, there is NO SUCH THING as "traditional" marriage. In certain tribes of Africa it is "traditional" for a man to marry several women; some of them young. In certain countries it is "traditional" for a woman to marry many husbands. In other countries and tribes it is "traditional" for boys to perform certain rituals including body modification, drinking "mans milk" (and yes, that is what you think it is), and do other rituals before being able to become a man in order to get married. In other cultures, women have to go through various rituals before being able to marry. There are also cultures in which there are male and female individuals that participate in or help with the daily (including sexual) activities of the actual married party; this includes male helpers helping the "husband" and female helpers helping the "wife". I could go on, but my point is that "marriage" is anything but "traditional". What many of these people mean when they say, "it is one man and one woman", is that they want it to be as in the bible. However, this is not entirely accurate because the bible does NOT exactly define marriage as one man and one woman that chose one another and then married. Indeed, many of the prophets had multiple wives and concubines, according to the bible it is ok to RAPE a woman and then she MUST marry you. So, it is wrong when they say, "one man and one woman" and mean it from a biblical context. Indeed, the bible does not support this. No, these people are grasping at straws to try and justify society's and their own continued denial, persecution, and oppression of rights to a group of individuals simply because they do not like what those individuals are. They wish to somehow justify denying homosexuals rights that the rest of society enjoys because deep down they know there is NO justification. VOTE NO ON 8.
Posted by: Me | October 17, 2008 at 12:20 AM
As a 63 year old bisexual grandmother with a happily married heterosexual daughter, and because I, myself, am the daughter of a Lesbian mother whose memory I honor and respect, I feel I must speak out against Prop. 8.
I am not a Christian. However, the woman who has been my partner for nearly nine years, IS a Christian. We have not chosen to marry. Yet, we oppose this proposition because it seeks to amend our state Constitution, not to ADD a civil right, but to REMOVE one. If I were a true conservative, I would not approve of changing the state Constitution so easily. I take our Constitution more seriously than that.
Moreover, if I were a Christian (which I am not) I would have more faith in the institution of marriage than the supporters of Prop 8 seem to have. I would believe that it would take something much more dangerous than same-sex marriage to hurt, damage, dishonor or interfere with the sacred meaning of marriage to Christians. If I believed in a Christian God (which I do not) I would have more faith in His laws and His teachings than to imagine that, unless mere humans "protected" them, they could not stand on their own merit. In short, I am appalled that the sanctimonious supporters of Prop 8 have so little respect for their own belief system that they feel they have to shore it up with legislation.
The God I don't believe in is much stronger and much more powerful than that.
Respectful Non-Christian
Posted by: Respectful Non-Christian | October 16, 2008 at 08:48 PM
Okay, I'll respond to the list contest throw down.
Fathers can't marry their daughters
Mothers can't marry their sons
Brothers can't marry their sisters
Men can't marry more than one woman at a time
Women can't marry more than one man at a time
No one can marry their dog, horse, or other attractive animal
I won't list those by name who are prohibited from doing so
But just because you can think of doing it, and just because it's something your really, really want to do, doesn't mean it's constitutionally protected
Posted by: Randy | October 16, 2008 at 08:25 PM
Someone hasn't been paying attention.
"Proponents, on the other hand, have not offered a conception of equality and fairness for gay citizens in California that is consistent with a regime of no same-sex marriage."
See: Domestic Partnership Registration Act
"What we have here instead is proponents' trotting out the bogeymen of gays' indoctrinating children..."
See: http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1815820715/bctid1822459319
"Prop. 8 proponents are making quite a big deal over other people's private choices."
Huh? Who's "private choice" has been made into a "big deal"? I haven't seen a single word written here about a person's "private choices". You just made that one up, didn't you.
I will happily mind my own business when the attacks on marriage have ceased.
Please vote YES ON PROP 8
Posted by: Doug | October 16, 2008 at 07:02 PM
Jon T, for vibrant clashes of ideas to be successful, all participants have to be esteemed equally, and the state may not designate inferior classes of people. This is why racial equality and the legality of interracial marriages, for example, are issues removed from any clashes of ideas over public policy and are assumed as prerequisites to public, democratic decision-making. Opponents of Prop. 8 have made a persuasive case why public recognition of same-sex marriage is an issue of equality and hence a prerequisite in the same category. Proponents, on the other hand, have not offered a conception of equality and fairness for gay citizens in California that is consistent with a regime of no same-sex marriage. What we have here instead is proponents' trotting out the bogeymen of gays' indoctrinating children, which strikes me as a giant case of projection, given that social conservatives are the only ones caterwauling about preventing kids from exposure to ideas that run contrary to their own norms. Also, there is much selfish citing of one's own personal religious or other normative beliefs, as if those beliefs, not supported by evidence and not bolstered by any refutations of the arguments about self-determination and equality that Prop. 8 opponents have offered, were authoritative (see comments by Doug, Monica K, et al.). They are not authoritative; those who come to a clash of ideas and have only unsupported assertions and personal faith to offer lose the debate. Prop. 8 proponents are making quite a big deal over other people's private choices. Why? If you all do not have the decency to respect gay people as people and hence engage them seriously about concerns of equal entitlement to self-determination, equal respect in public for their intimate relationships, and the like, the least you all can do is mind your own business and stop the constant attacks on their relationships. You are not required to be friends with gay people. You are not required to hold a gay parade. You are simply required to extend to others the same courtesy you demand for your own marriage and your own family. And yet even that is too much for you. How sad. People who are so secure about the merits of their definitions of marriage and family relationships, and the way they practice those relationships, do not behave this way.
Posted by: Luke | October 16, 2008 at 02:55 PM