Gay marriage spurs debate among voters
The question of whether homosexual couples should be allowed to legally marry has drawn protesters and supporters to the streets near Fresno State in the past few weeks.
Supporters of Proposition 8 wave posters in the air on the corner of Herndon and Cedar and just down the road on Maple, a similarly resounding opposition is raised by demonstrators.
But on Nov. 4, the right of homosexual couples to marry in California will be in the hands of voters. Prop. 8 would add a new amendment to the California Constitution stating “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” according to California General Election Official Voter Information Guide. This amendment would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.
Many students would be affected by the outcome of Prop. 8 including Tom Hayhurst who married his partner, Dan Waterhouse, a Fresno State graduate, on Oct. 29. They met about five years ago, in the spring of 2003.
Waterhouse and Hayhurst are hopeful the proposition will not pass.
“We’d love to see it lose,” Waterhouse said. The two had a very simple civil ceremony but they plan to follow it up celebrating with family and friends in the future.
When it comes to the proposition, Hayhurst and Waterhouse feel the heart of the matter is that their civil rights are being challenged.
“A fundamental right cannot be made unconstitutional,” said Hayhurst, “and marrying someone of your own choice is a fundamental right.”
Originally they had planned to marry after the first of the year, but Prop. 8 changed that. In order to allow their union to be legally recognized, regardless of the election’s outcome, the two had to move up the marriage date. According to Waterhouse, “Everyone married before midnight Nov. 4 should remain so, regardless of the vote.”
“The word marriage is basically just a word, but it expresses the commitment and is a civil right I’m entitled to,” Hayhurst said.
That commitment is something both are dedicated to; they have engaged in many rallies against the proposition and have put many hours into the cause.
Joining them at many of these rallies are Dakota Draconi and her wife, Corky Draconi. Dakota is the Vice President of United Student Pride, the LGBT club on the Fresno State Campus.
The two women, like Hayhurst and Waterhouse, have been exceedingly dedicated to the “No on Proposition 8” cause. They were married on Aug. 30, and were thrilled to have the same legal rights as married straight couples.
Many supporters of Prop. 8 claim homosexual couples share the same rights as straight couples under domestic partnership laws, only without the legal designation of “marriage.” According to the experiences of both couples, restrictions under these laws are many, and those differences are at the front lines of their argument.
Dakota shared a repetitive fear she has every time her spouse walks out the door.
“For years it wasn’t just that I was afraid she would get into an accident. It was more than that. I was afraid that she would get into an accident, and I wouldn’t be allowed to be with her in the hospital.”
Under domestic partnership laws, unmarried domestic partners do not share the legal rights of visitation and medical decisions as legally married couples. They also do not share the legal standing of married couples in inheritance cases.
Katie Bishop is a married college student at Fresno State who supports Prop. 8. Bishop is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and bases her support on her religion.
“I support Prop. 8 mainly for religious reasons,” Bishop said. “Marriage has been ordained by God to be between a man and a woman. Any other definition would not fulfill the purpose of family life. I believe that children need a mother and a father. Gender is an essential role and characteristic that was given to us to provide for our children and our communities. Both men and women have something unique to give to children and this is taken away when the child is raised by a same-sex couple.”
But Bishop was certain to point out she had no problem with homosexuals as individuals, although she supported Prop. 8.
“I am not homophobic and I have nothing but positive feelings for those who are involved in a same-sex relationship,” Bishop said. “I do not agree with their lifestyle choices, but I recognize that it is their choice and every person should be allowed to live the way they so choose.”
Preservation of traditional marriage was a major reason Bishop supports Prop. 8. However, Dakota saw this a different way.
“The threat to traditional marriage is divorce, and interpersonal violence,” she said.
The Draconis, along with Waterhouse and Hayhurst, both felt religion was not the heart of the issue. Dakota asked if her friend, who was Buddhist, should not be allowed to get married for religious reasons.
She continued to address another issue often raised about the purpose of marriage; procreation.
“If marriage’s purpose is to create children, then should old people not be allowed to get married? What about infertile couples? Should they not be allowed to get married?” Dakota asked.
Prop. 8 will go before California voters on Tuesday, and neither side is certain which way it will go.
“It is a dead heat, and every vote counts,” Hayhurst said.
Related Content
A verified e-mail address is required to post a comment.
Views expressed in the comments section are not representative of The Collegian unless so specified. Comments must be approved by a moderator before they are published. Comments that are inflammatory, profane, libelous and/or posted under a false name may be removed at the discretion of The Collegian. Comments may be used in the print edition of the newspaper. Be sure to pick up next Friday's issue of The Collegian for featured comments.
80 Responses to Gay marriage spurs debate among voters
Leave a Reply
Connect with us »
Recent Posts »
- Legalizing same-sex marriage gets step closer
- Eighth-inning comeback vaults ‘Dogs past alumni
- Daughter of iconic Mexican painter, muralist visits campus
- Fun ideas on a budget for that special someone on Valentine’s Day
- Notes & Asides, 2/13/12
- Fast Forward [comic]
- Fresno State Softball vs. University of Toledo Rockets [video]
- ASI prepares recommendations for Task Force
- Bulldogs run north
- Campaign to help premature babies asks for students help
- Researchers seek alternative to ozone depleting pesticide; collaboration key to success
- Jimmy Collier: activist, musician
TO all those who oppose prop 8:
No matter what you believe about the bible, it makes it clear that Gays have been around since at least the time of Moses (Moses wrote Genesis). Also, by the same logic, the marriage covenant prominent in Judeo-Christian society, and in other ones has been around as long.
Until fairly recently, the primary purpose of marriage was procreation. Look at Fiddler on the Roof, where the parents don’t fall in love officially for 25 years. So I think we would all agree that that has now changed. Even if I was infertile, I would want desperately to be married to someone I love.
But why is the link between marriage and childbearing important? Studies show again and again that a Father and Mother provide a stronger basis for society. Part of this is because the religious culture of marriage is one where you stick it out, thru thick and thin. You love and serve and help each other.
Something else has changed recently…divorce has become rampant in society. So this link that protects children is being dissolved.
If I was unable to bear a child, I still would want that link to allow me to protect my wife who I love.
I will find this, if someone is crazy enough to want me. That won’t be impacted by the vote November 4th. So I would protect my children if I received with such a responsibility in the future.
So growing up I had to sort through the pain of divorce I saw not directly but indirectly to decide this is what I wanted. Some make my choice, some make others, such as living together with or without children without the big commitment. As I already explained, marriage with these promises are the best way for children to grow up, by far.
Now, I’ve made my choice, but the rising generation has not. The problem with Gay marriage is it says nothing about this Judeo-Christian promise–again, regardless of what you believe, the bible makes it clear that there is a dislike of Gays by the former of this bond, be it God or some wise man, so we can’t equate the two relationships as being equal.
So, if Gay marriage happens, the bond will fade more from culture…and once the bond goes away, marriage will not be important. Childbearing will be next to go, as people are able to avoid this and simply have careers. Childbearing and child rearing are obviously essential for our society to continue to prosper.
So by making things equivalent, which are not, Marriage will die.
Don’t believe me? Finland has Gay Marriage and one of the lowest overall marriage rates in the world. As far as childbearing goes there is an Average of 2.1 people per household, not good.
But people still are Gay, so what do we do about them? The statistics proposed are frightening.
So people who face this attraction face a lonely road, as it is generally unacceptable for some of the reasons I described. It is a trial. Now if you are like me, I believe they can stay chaste. For those of you who aren’t that optimistic, California already has Gay protection laws, that do NOT interfere with marriage.
TO all those who oppose prop 8:
No matter what you believe about the bible, it makes it clear that Gays have been around since at least the time of Moses (Moses wrote Genesis). Also, by the same logic, the marriage covenant prominent in Judeo-Christian society, and in other ones has been around as long.
Until fairly recently, the primary purpose of marriage was procreation. Look at Fiddler on the Roof, where the parents don’t fall in love officially for 25 years. So I think we would all agree that that has now changed. Even if I was infertile, I would want desperately to be married to someone I love.
But why is the link between marriage and childbearing important? Studies show again and again that a Father and Mother provide a stronger basis for society. Part of this is because the religious culture of marriage is one where you stick it out, thru thick and thin. You love and serve and help each other.
Something else has changed recently…divorce has become rampant in society. So this link that protects children is being dissolved.
If I was unable to bear a child, I still would want that link to allow me to protect my wife who I love.
I will find this, if someone is crazy enough to want me. That won’t be impacted by the vote November 4th. So I would protect my children if I received with such a responsibility in the future.
So growing up I had to sort through the pain of divorce I saw not directly but indirectly to decide this is what I wanted. Some make my choice, some make others, such as living together with or without children without the big commitment. As I already explained, marriage with these promises are the best way for children to grow up, by far.
Now, I’ve made my choice, but the rising generation has not. The problem with Gay marriage is it says nothing about this Judeo-Christian promise–again, regardless of what you believe, the bible makes it clear that there is a dislike of Gays by the former of this bond, be it God or some wise man, so we can’t equate the two relationships as being equal.
So, if Gay marriage happens, the bond will fade more from culture…and once the bond goes away, marriage will not be important. Childbearing will be next to go, as people are able to avoid this and simply have careers. Childbearing and child rearing are obviously essential for our society to continue to prosper.
So by making things equivalent, which are not, Marriage will die.
Don’t believe me? Finland has Gay Marriage and one of the lowest overall marriage rates in the world. As far as childbearing goes there is an Average of 2.1 people per household, not good.
But people still are Gay, so what do we do about them? The statistics proposed are frightening.
So people who face this attraction face a lonely road, as it is generally unacceptable for some of the reasons I described. It is a trial. Now if you are like me, I believe they can stay chaste. For those of you who aren’t that optimistic, California already has Gay protection laws, that do NOT interfere with marriage.
Alright, folks. Let’s put it this way. Bigotry is bigotry. Everyone has at least one. Me, I can’t stand Muslims. Even before 9/11 I didn’t like them and the towers falling just reinforced my bigotry. But the big difference between bigotry is fascism is that *I* don’t want to prevent Muslims from getting married or renting apartments. And, for the love of Pete (no pun intended), I’m a KANSAN!!! Apply the laws evenly for EVERYONE or not at all. The government can’t force your church to hold the ceremony but they can’t (or shouldn’t) prevent one consenting adult from entering into a contract with another consenting adult.
And don’t give me that red herring crap about “Buh.buh.buh… But then there’ll be polygamy and child molesters marrying 4 year olds!!” Listen to the following set of words REALLY SLOWLY so they sink in. Consenting. Adults. Legal. Contract. Can a 4 year old enter into a contract? No. Can I sell more than 100% of the stock in my company? No, so I can’t enter into a contract for more than 100% of joint assets either (i.e. polygamy.)
Good gravy, folks. A KANSAN is calling you on the carpet for being small minded and bigoted. And Mississippi looks at us and says, “Man, we may be 49th in the nation in everything but at least we’re not Kansas.”
Alright, folks. Let’s put it this way. Bigotry is bigotry. Everyone has at least one. Me, I can’t stand Muslims. Even before 9/11 I didn’t like them and the towers falling just reinforced my bigotry. But the big difference between bigotry is fascism is that *I* don’t want to prevent Muslims from getting married or renting apartments. And, for the love of Pete (no pun intended), I’m a KANSAN!!! Apply the laws evenly for EVERYONE or not at all. The government can’t force your church to hold the ceremony but they can’t (or shouldn’t) prevent one consenting adult from entering into a contract with another consenting adult.
And don’t give me that red herring crap about “Buh.buh.buh… But then there’ll be polygamy and child molesters marrying 4 year olds!!” Listen to the following set of words REALLY SLOWLY so they sink in. Consenting. Adults. Legal. Contract. Can a 4 year old enter into a contract? No. Can I sell more than 100% of the stock in my company? No, so I can’t enter into a contract for more than 100% of joint assets either (i.e. polygamy.)
Good gravy, folks. A KANSAN is calling you on the carpet for being small minded and bigoted. And Mississippi looks at us and says, “Man, we may be 49th in the nation in everything but at least we’re not Kansas.”
Norm,
Please don’t jump to illogical conclusions. I was attempting to show why *this particular law* is bad from a Christian perspective. Government by man, of course, does need to make and enforce laws. But man’s laws must be careful not to infringe on the freedoms that God gave us. Anytime the state makes a law that takes away our freedom, the burden is upon the state to demonstrate an overwhelming interest *of the state* for limiting freedom. There is no such state interest in restricting same sex marriage. This is exactly why the CA Supreme Court made its ruling striking down prohibitions against same sex marriage.
Not only does this NOT take God out of society, it makes way for God IN society. It gives people to find God in their own way, and in their heart, not by force of law. You cannot legislate a belief in God, or any particular interpretation of God’s law. Government is best when it stays out of the way of people’s religious beliefs. Allowing people to believe as they will is the antithesis of the state outlawing religion.
Your argument about legalizing drugs, prostitution, etc., is also illogical. The state can (and has) demonstrated a compelling reason to enact secular laws restricting those activities. There are good *secular* reasons for having laws against drugs, prostitution, etc. The same cannot be said for same sex marriage.
Your comment wanting to follow His Word is also problematic. Different people hold different beliefs and interpretations of His Word. The United States was created as a pluralistic society, therefore different beliefs must be respected, even if they don’t agree with yours (or mine). The only way different beliefs can be respected is if secular government refrains from creating laws based purely on religious beliefs. This is the problem with Prop 8. The only argument for Prop 8 is a religious belief. There is no logical secular argument for Prop 8. When I am concerned about following His Word, I seek spiritual counsel from my Church, not my government.
Norm,
Please don’t jump to illogical conclusions. I was attempting to show why *this particular law* is bad from a Christian perspective. Government by man, of course, does need to make and enforce laws. But man’s laws must be careful not to infringe on the freedoms that God gave us. Anytime the state makes a law that takes away our freedom, the burden is upon the state to demonstrate an overwhelming interest *of the state* for limiting freedom. There is no such state interest in restricting same sex marriage. This is exactly why the CA Supreme Court made its ruling striking down prohibitions against same sex marriage.
Not only does this NOT take God out of society, it makes way for God IN society. It gives people to find God in their own way, and in their heart, not by force of law. You cannot legislate a belief in God, or any particular interpretation of God’s law. Government is best when it stays out of the way of people’s religious beliefs. Allowing people to believe as they will is the antithesis of the state outlawing religion.
Your argument about legalizing drugs, prostitution, etc., is also illogical. The state can (and has) demonstrated a compelling reason to enact secular laws restricting those activities. There are good *secular* reasons for having laws against drugs, prostitution, etc. The same cannot be said for same sex marriage.
Your comment wanting to follow His Word is also problematic. Different people hold different beliefs and interpretations of His Word. The United States was created as a pluralistic society, therefore different beliefs must be respected, even if they don’t agree with yours (or mine). The only way different beliefs can be respected is if secular government refrains from creating laws based purely on religious beliefs. This is the problem with Prop 8. The only argument for Prop 8 is a religious belief. There is no logical secular argument for Prop 8. When I am concerned about following His Word, I seek spiritual counsel from my Church, not my government.
One thing leads to another. This really is the bigger problem. It will not stop with marriage. It will enter into our right to free speech and all other kinds of areas. Read the link below to see how. This is not paranoia, this is reality. It is happening already.
Religious Liberty Threats
“…making gay marriage a legal right will likely impose serious constraints on religious speech, assembly and worship; once gay marriage becomes the law, those who oppose it become outlaws.”– A. Picarello, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
http://www.becketfund.org/other/NLJ%20Opinion%20SSM.pdf
One thing leads to another. This really is the bigger problem. It will not stop with marriage. It will enter into our right to free speech and all other kinds of areas. Read the link below to see how. This is not paranoia, this is reality. It is happening already.
Religious Liberty Threats
“…making gay marriage a legal right will likely impose serious constraints on religious speech, assembly and worship; once gay marriage becomes the law, those who oppose it become outlaws.â€â€“ A. Picarello, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
http://www.becketfund.org/other/NLJ%20Opinion%20SSM.pdf
I think it is up funny how both side’s of Prop 8 are going at each other. Here in America we have the right to vote any way we want and it is No One’s business which way we vote.
All the name calling is wrong and I think it is sad how everyone is ready to turn on each other at any time, our fore fathers would be so proud!!. We all need to come together and stop fighting against each other because one day none of this will matter.
I think it is up funny how both side’s of Prop 8 are going at each other. Here in America we have the right to vote any way we want and it is No One’s business which way we vote.
All the name calling is wrong and I think it is sad how everyone is ready to turn on each other at any time, our fore fathers would be so proud!!. We all need to come together and stop fighting against each other because one day none of this will matter.
JasonJack: Finland doesn’t have gay marriage. Try again.
JasonJack: Finland doesn’t have gay marriage. Try again.
Norm,
Please note that the Picarello piece is an OPINION piece. Do not pass off opinion as fact. He speculates on what *might* happen. What *will* happen if Prop 8 is passed is that people’s rights will be eliminated. Let’s deal with reality and not speculation.
The “one thing leads to another” argument cuts both ways. Prop 8 ELIMINATES RIGHTS. If it is this easy to eliminate rights for one group of people, how long until someone wants to amend the state constitution to eliminate *your* rights. It is your responsibility as an American citizen and as a Christian to protect the rights of other. Protect their rights before you lose your own.
Norm,
Please note that the Picarello piece is an OPINION piece. Do not pass off opinion as fact. He speculates on what *might* happen. What *will* happen if Prop 8 is passed is that people’s rights will be eliminated. Let’s deal with reality and not speculation.
The “one thing leads to another” argument cuts both ways. Prop 8 ELIMINATES RIGHTS. If it is this easy to eliminate rights for one group of people, how long until someone wants to amend the state constitution to eliminate *your* rights. It is your responsibility as an American citizen and as a Christian to protect the rights of other. Protect their rights before you lose your own.
Norm–you think the Becket Fund is a reliable source for factual information? It’s put together by a bunch of hysterical “Christians” (and I use the term loosely) trying to whip their fellow Christianists (read Taliban) into a frenzy. Give me a break!! I believe in religious freedom, but I DON’T believe that “religious freedom” places one particular “religion” (in this case runamuck zealots) above the rest of the American people.
Norm–you think the Becket Fund is a reliable source for factual information? It’s put together by a bunch of hysterical “Christians” (and I use the term loosely) trying to whip their fellow Christianists (read Taliban) into a frenzy. Give me a break!! I believe in religious freedom, but I DON’T believe that “religious freedom” places one particular “religion” (in this case runamuck zealots) above the rest of the American people.
For all those people out there prepared to vote no on this proposition, I must encourage you to broaden your views on the issue and ask yourself if this proposition is not too restrictive. I am an individual full of love. I happen to love people, lots of people. What if I want to marry, three men, and six women? Why can’t I do that? I also happen to love my family members. Can’t I marry them as well, my brothers, sister, parents and cousins? I also really love animals; dogs, cats, goats, horses. I want to marry them, all of them, I love them.
Should not the great state of California give the same equal recognition to my choice and hopes for marriage, as traditional heterosexual marriage, or same sex marriage?
So let me ask you, my fellow proponents who are prepared to vote no on prop 8. Do any of my views make you uncomfortable? Would you have a problem with public schools teaching your children that polyandry, polygyny, marriage of man and beast and marriage to family members is normal and equal in the eyes of the state? If my comments make you uncomfortable, then you are to narrow minded, insensitive, and intolerant. Why must the definition of marriage in California be numerically, sexually and specie restrictive. Let me remind you, people like me love people, animals and lots of other things; and I want, no demand the right to marry all of them. I ask you, my fellow Californians who are prepared to vote no on proposition 8, to respond and support truly unrestricted marriage in California. Will you, my fellow ‘no on 8′ voters pledge to support those of us who want to marry beast, cousin and multiple persons?
For all those people out there prepared to vote no on this proposition, I must encourage you to broaden your views on the issue and ask yourself if this proposition is not too restrictive. I am an individual full of love. I happen to love people, lots of people. What if I want to marry, three men, and six women? Why can’t I do that? I also happen to love my family members. Can’t I marry them as well, my brothers, sister, parents and cousins? I also really love animals; dogs, cats, goats, horses. I want to marry them, all of them, I love them.
Should not the great state of California give the same equal recognition to my choice and hopes for marriage, as traditional heterosexual marriage, or same sex marriage?
So let me ask you, my fellow proponents who are prepared to vote no on prop 8. Do any of my views make you uncomfortable? Would you have a problem with public schools teaching your children that polyandry, polygyny, marriage of man and beast and marriage to family members is normal and equal in the eyes of the state? If my comments make you uncomfortable, then you are to narrow minded, insensitive, and intolerant. Why must the definition of marriage in California be numerically, sexually and specie restrictive. Let me remind you, people like me love people, animals and lots of other things; and I want, no demand the right to marry all of them. I ask you, my fellow Californians who are prepared to vote no on proposition 8, to respond and support truly unrestricted marriage in California. Will you, my fellow ‘no on 8′ voters pledge to support those of us who want to marry beast, cousin and multiple persons?
Kay Lynn ,
While I agree with you about the bickering here. Keep in mind that if our fore fathers had lost the war (Thats right WAR, the worst form of bickering) They would have been hung, shot or otherwise executed for being traitors, spy’s and other crimes against the government. When you push people to the point they no longer agree with the government they live under they have a big tea party and create their own set of laws. You might know it as the Deceleration of Independence. I would not be ashamed thinking that our fore fathers whom, killed, burned and destroyed to make their point and win Independence might look down or not be proud of us. They may very well be disgusted that we have not fought hard enough to preserve the intent of their original laws. This is not meant as an attack on gays or anyone for that matter, It is just a point of facts in history and my opinion. Personally my worst fear is that Prop 8 will fail and the real battles begin. Hell has no furry like the Soccer Mom that feels she is trying to protect her child by keeping them home the day they teach gay life at school.
PS, Please don’t insult my intelligence trying to say they don’t have to teach gay marriage in schools ( I have seen the ads), just look how fundamental rights are used to make the case for gay marriage. It is clear that if it remains law. The first time it’s challenged in a school the gay rights groups will be right there trying to shut down the school and have all the teachers that don’t want to teach gay marriage fired. If you say that is not going to happen then you are only fooling yourselfs… They will be there waving the law, tossing personal rights and tolerance out the window. You ask how can i say this… because gay or not it’s what the winner of any battle would do..
Kay Lynn ,
While I agree with you about the bickering here. Keep in mind that if our fore fathers had lost the war (Thats right WAR, the worst form of bickering) They would have been hung, shot or otherwise executed for being traitors, spy’s and other crimes against the government. When you push people to the point they no longer agree with the government they live under they have a big tea party and create their own set of laws. You might know it as the Deceleration of Independence. I would not be ashamed thinking that our fore fathers whom, killed, burned and destroyed to make their point and win Independence might look down or not be proud of us. They may very well be disgusted that we have not fought hard enough to preserve the intent of their original laws. This is not meant as an attack on gays or anyone for that matter, It is just a point of facts in history and my opinion. Personally my worst fear is that Prop 8 will fail and the real battles begin. Hell has no furry like the Soccer Mom that feels she is trying to protect her child by keeping them home the day they teach gay life at school.
PS, Please don’t insult my intelligence trying to say they don’t have to teach gay marriage in schools ( I have seen the ads), just look how fundamental rights are used to make the case for gay marriage. It is clear that if it remains law. The first time it’s challenged in a school the gay rights groups will be right there trying to shut down the school and have all the teachers that don’t want to teach gay marriage fired. If you say that is not going to happen then you are only fooling yourselfs… They will be there waving the law, tossing personal rights and tolerance out the window. You ask how can i say this… because gay or not it’s what the winner of any battle would do..
Logical,
They are suddenly going to start teaching about marriage in school because gay marriage is now allowed? I have two girls in school. One is half way through high school. They never had a class that taught about marriage. Not once.
So that argument is not valid. Schools aren’t going to suddenly start teaching about marriage because gay marriage is suddenly legal.
Also in the state of California where this law is going to be passed any parent may remove their student from a class that teaches anything they don’t wish their child to learn. It’s in the law. Check it out. I know. I have used it in the past.
Logical,
They are suddenly going to start teaching about marriage in school because gay marriage is now allowed? I have two girls in school. One is half way through high school. They never had a class that taught about marriage. Not once.
So that argument is not valid. Schools aren’t going to suddenly start teaching about marriage because gay marriage is suddenly legal.
Also in the state of California where this law is going to be passed any parent may remove their student from a class that teaches anything they don’t wish their child to learn. It’s in the law. Check it out. I know. I have used it in the past.
Brandon,
Thanks for the feedback, you are correct for 75% of the schools. I did some quick looking and it seems that only about 25% of the schools in Calif rely on some special funding from the state that comes with strings attached. The strings being among other things are that they are mandated to teach about marriage as part of home economics and sex education.. So if the issue was to be pressed they could effected by a loss of funding if they objected to being forced to included gay marriage in the curriculum. I would assume this is in the middle school years.
“Education Code section 51933 makes it clear that schools that teach “comprehensive sex education” have to teach, “respect for marriage and committed relationships”. This is something no school district can get around.”
Brandon,
Thanks for the feedback, you are correct for 75% of the schools. I did some quick looking and it seems that only about 25% of the schools in Calif rely on some special funding from the state that comes with strings attached. The strings being among other things are that they are mandated to teach about marriage as part of home economics and sex education.. So if the issue was to be pressed they could effected by a loss of funding if they objected to being forced to included gay marriage in the curriculum. I would assume this is in the middle school years.
“Education Code section 51933 makes it clear that schools that teach “comprehensive sex education†have to teach, “respect for marriage and committed relationshipsâ€. This is something no school district can get around.”
Logical,
Yes, But both of those classes are electives and are not required. A parent can very easily not allow their child to be part of them. In fact a permission slip is sent home with a full list of the curriculum of such classes, so the student doesn’t get to end up in one of those classes without the parents permission. ( I checked with two of the local schools.)
This simply is not a good argument in any form to not allow it.
Logical,
Yes, But both of those classes are electives and are not required. A parent can very easily not allow their child to be part of them. In fact a permission slip is sent home with a full list of the curriculum of such classes, so the student doesn’t get to end up in one of those classes without the parents permission. ( I checked with two of the local schools.)
This simply is not a good argument in any form to not allow it.
Brandon,
While i accept that the argument may be weak. It is still part of the equation.
Two of the things that I feel did the worst damage for the gay cause in the media..
1) Gavin Newsom boasts that, “whether you like it or not”
Because it’s clearer now that we, the people don’t like it, and don’t like having it shoved down our throats.
2) Gay Marriage Day For 1st Graders.
Taking a class 1st Graders (that had permission, granted) to a gay marriage hit to close to home with many parents. It may have seemed that logical thing to do from the gay perspective. But this was not like taking them to watch the first moon launch. It only shocked many parents into drawing a line and feeling it had been crossed.
Brandon,
While i accept that the argument may be weak. It is still part of the equation.
Two of the things that I feel did the worst damage for the gay cause in the media..
1) Gavin Newsom boasts that, “whether you like it or not”
Because it’s clearer now that we, the people don’t like it, and don’t like having it shoved down our throats.
2) Gay Marriage Day For 1st Graders.
Taking a class 1st Graders (that had permission, granted) to a gay marriage hit to close to home with many parents. It may have seemed that logical thing to do from the gay perspective. But this was not like taking them to watch the first moon launch. It only shocked many parents into drawing a line and feeling it had been crossed.
JasonJack or whatever your name was… before you try to blame gays for marriage decline in Finland why don’t you get your facts STRAIGHT.
Same-sex marriages are NOT legal in Finland!! Let me educate you where it’s legal:
South Africa, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Canada, Norway (beinging Jan-01-2009), the U.S. states of Massachusetts, and Connecticut.
Oh, and if you did your research, you would see that out of all the states in the U.S., Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate still, and they’ve had gay marriage for more than 4 years.
JasonJack or whatever your name was… before you try to blame gays for marriage decline in Finland why don’t you get your facts STRAIGHT.
Same-sex marriages are NOT legal in Finland!! Let me educate you where it’s legal:
South Africa, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Canada, Norway (beinging Jan-01-2009), the U.S. states of Massachusetts, and Connecticut.
Oh, and if you did your research, you would see that out of all the states in the U.S., Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate still, and they’ve had gay marriage for more than 4 years.