Johnny Coli

That's bull. His undoing was by his own hand. Lieberman was defeated by Lamont in the Dem primary in a wave of anti-Iraq war sentiment (and he's still a pro-war cheerleader), bullied and pouted his way onto the ballot as an Independent, accepted with open arms millions of GOP campaign dollars and won with a huge percentage of the Republican vote. Look at the CT 2006 exit poll breakdowns. Lieberman won that race becasue 70% of the republicans voted for him...because he was a pro-Iraq war pro-Bush candidate. Joe Lieberman hasn't been a Dem in a long time, hasn't represented his Democrat constituents in a long time and has vocally chastized and waved his finger at the Dems for close to eight years now. Joe Lieberman can go fug himself, and he'll have plenty of time to do it once he finally makes his switch official.

Heard on the radio that him and Reid had a pow-wow today. Nothing was resolved but we should know soon enough. His goose is cooked. The Dems are going to fall short of 60 so Lieberman has no leverage. They'll boot him out of the Homeland Security Committee Chair and he'll be free to officially switch parties. I don't think Lieberman or McCain have a shred of dignity left between the two of them.

Look, what's done is done, but you and others were the ones complaining and making a huge stink about the school getting in the way of your parenting, yet none of you had ever read the California Education Code showing you what rights you have as parents. Like I said, it's on to litigation now, but you actually had all the information you needed to make an informed vote. I'm not a lawyer. I just Googled looking for the CA Ed Code, lo and behold it was online, and a quick scan showed me what rights I would have if I was a parent in CA with a child in the public school system. The Prop 8 people lied to you, and few if any bothered to a) listen to the school superintendent who said it was a lie, or b) look for themselves. I'm not a parent, though, so what the hell would I know?

Its maddening, because the very rights that the parents wanted (ie the right to protect their kids from what they consider inappropriate material in a classroom) they already had, and if they unknowingly voted for this amendment (thinking the above) they inadvertantly and needlessly took away the rights of an entire class. It's sad, really. I read an article that there are close to 60,000 students in the California public school system who have gay or lesbian parents, a portion of which were able to get married between June and now. What now? How do those kids feel today?

This idea that Prop 8 would somehow open the door for gay marriage being taught to elementary school kids without the consent of the parent seemed like a stretch to me, but I figured I take a look for myself. The CA Education code is actually online at Findlaw (California Education Code). Specifically, any discussion of marriage would fall under Chapter 5.6 California Comprehensive Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Prevention Education Act. Article I, section 51930 lays out the general provisions: (1) To provide a pupil with the knowledge and skills necessary to protect his or her sexual and reproductive health from unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. (2) To encourage a pupil to develop healthy attitudes concerning adolescent growth and development, body image, gender roles, sexual orientation, dating, marriage, and family. Comprehensive sexual health education" is specifically defined as: ...education regarding human development and sexuality, including education on pregnancy, family planning, and sexually transmitted diseases. Under chapter 5.6, Article 2, section 51933 says that school districts may provide comprehensive sexual health education, consisting of age-appropriate instruction, in any kindergarten to grade 12, inclusive, using instructors trained in the appropriate courses. It is under this article of chapter 5.6 (paragraph 7) where the subject of marriage is specifically mentioned: (7) Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships. So, just to summarize here so far, any discussion of marriage has to be specifically part of a comprehensive sex health ed curriculum. As a quick aside here, there is absolutely nothing in the code right now prohibiting your schools from discussing gay marriage, or gay civil unions. Nothing. It's not listed in the prohibited topics section. It is Chapter 4, if any are interested in seeing for yourself. You may be amused to know that in CA teaching communism with the intent to indoctrinate is prohibited. But that's an argument for another thread. Now, the article that follows is what the Prop 8 sponsers spewing the fear that duped many into voting for it (if that was why you specifically voted for it, as some of you have stated in this thread) didn't want you to see, and probably counted on nobody actually looking at the code (and shame on the anti-Prop 8 crowd for not countering with this head-on). Article 5 of chapter 5.6 is the Notice and Parental Excuse section of the Comprehensive Sexual Health Education chapter. Specifically 59137 (I'm adding the emphasis): It is the intent of the Legislature to encourage pupils to communicate with their parents or guardians about human sexuality and HIV/AIDS and to respect the rights of parents or guardians to supervise their children's education on these subjects. The Legislature intends to create a streamlined process to make it easier for parents and guardians to review materials and evaluation tools related to comprehensive sexual health education and HIV/AIDS prevention education, and, if they wish, to excuse their children from participation in all or part of that instruction or evaluation. The Legislature recognizes that while parents and guardians overwhelmingly support medically accurate, comprehensive sex education, parents and guardians have the ultimate responsibility for imparting values regarding human sexuality to their children. And the relevent part of 59139: A pupil may not attend any class in comprehensive sexual education or HIV/AIDS prevention education, or participate in any anonymous, voluntary, and confidential test, questionnaire, or survey on pupil health behaviors and risks, if the school has received a written request from the pupil's parent or guardian excusing the pupil from participation. So, CA parents of children in the public schoool have a very broad "opt-out" provision already in place that requires the school to notify them in advance of any discussion about sexuality. This was in place regardless of whether Prop 8 passed or failed. Any discussion of gay marriage (or any marriage, for that matter) would fall under the comprehensive sexual health education curriculum, parents would have to be notified ahead of time, and the student could be excused from that curriculum. In fact, you as a parent can notify your child's teacher ahead of time in writing specifically what you don't want your child to be taught. You as a parent have that right. I understand that when it comes to your own children as a parent you have every right known to mankind to raise them as you wish. But that is not the issue here. It is a shame, though, that a gay couple who just want to get married, just want to retain all the rights afforded a "married" couple under federal law, and most likely just want to raise a child as all hetero couples do, will now lose that right because of a sytematic campaign of fear and outright lies from the anti-gay marriage crowd.

That race hasn't been called yet. There's a better than good chance that Stevens isn't going to win.

All of which has nothing to do with Proposition 8.

It is not the same issue as it is in a state that hasn't already granted its citizens a specific right. They have the right to get married in CA, the ban removes that right and invalidates those who already have exercised that right. That is what is different. I suspect a court will eventually agree that taking that right away is unconstitutional, no matter how many people in CA voted for the ban.

And that would make for an excellent discussion and I'm not arguing that the government has the right to teach kids anything they want. I'm arguing that Proposition 8 had absolutely nothing to do with teaching about gay marriage in schools. The issue of teaching gay marriage isn't in any of its language, and the only reason this was brought up was because it was used as a scare tactic to get the ban to pass. And it looks like it worked as we've got several people on the board who only voted for it because of some non-existent possibility that it would teach their kids about gay marriage.

Do you have any other specific rules as to who can discuss policy, or is it just limited to excluding people who don't have children from discussing public school issues?

I think the legal issues that will be debated over this example will go on for a long time. This is not the same as other states that imposed a ban in a state that already didn't have gay marriage. In this case you have an entire group of citizens that currently have a specific right, that are about to have it taken away by the whim of the people. I happen to think it's a very provocative legal discussion.

You're actually stating that I have no idea what I'm talking about because I don't have kids, and you're calling me a retard?

What was the point of asking me (and already knowing) whether I had kids? Why ask it? Does my not having children yet make any of my points less relevant? And I'm not insulting you, how you raised your kids, nor have I asked a single personal question of you.

I think the problem, legally, will be in the wording of the actual amendment, to whit "Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." That right there would invalidate the current marriages, and if it doesn't you'd never be able to defend the case that another gay couple wanting to also get married wouldn't be infringed.

That's what the discussion is about. What should I assume from you asking me if I'm going to have kids and telling me things will be different when I do, in a thread discussing gay marriage and whether kids should hear about it?

Do you wear a scarf, gloves and wool hat on a sunny day in August just on the chance that it might snow, because that's the argument you people are making here. And snow in southern California in August has the same chance of happening as "the gays" springing some agenda on kindergartners because homosexuals have the right to call their union a "marriage."

I can guarantee you that our children will have plenty of gay and lesbian people playing significant parts in their lives, because they already play significant parts in our current lives. Seriously, I just don't see the big deal about letting two committed people get married, and I certainly don't know why you'd want to shield your children from something like that. It makes no sense, what-so-ever.

So, you were willing to cast a vote for a ban that would invalidate the marriage of thousands of couples, tying it up in the courts for years, destroying families and costing millions of dollars in the process (and ultimately failing because you can't deny something to someone that they have already been granted) all because you were worried or squeamish about the improbable chance that some time in the next 12 months or so, however unlikely, that your child might come home from school with "My two Dads" or ask you why her friend has two moms? How long do you think you'll be able to shield you kid from "the gays"?

And, years down the road when this gets finished being litigated in the courts, where ultimately it will be ruled that you can't infringe upon the rights of thousands by denying them what they already had, his kids will have either found out about "the gays" from their friends, the news or hopefully him.

You voted for the ban. The ban will invalidate probably 25,000 marriages. The ban wasn't "Banning the teaching about gay marriage to John from Hemet's kids." It was "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry." EDIT: You people voting for the ban were aware that you were invalidating thousands of legal marriages, right? You know, when you cast your vote to save your kids from reading "My Two Dads."

Good timing, as the 2010 census is coming and these State Senators will still be seated for the 2011 redistricting. Just to stoke a few of you a bit more, the Dems now have total control of 27 state legislatures in the US and 29 governorships. Fabulous timing.

I think you Californians are going to be in for a long legal battle, during which thousands more gays will get "married." The ban doesn't go into effect until the election is certified, and that's not coming for a while (read there are hundreds of thousands of provisional ballots, absentee ballots, etc, to be counted). I really don't think the whim of the people will hold up in court once tens of thousands of people will have their rights infringed upon. You had over 18,000 gay couples married in the five months since they could, probably going to be a mad rush for thousands and thousands more before the election gets certified. Not sure the State can just invalidate all of those marriages. It's one thing to ban these marriages in States who don't already have it, its another to invalidate 25,000 couples' marriages based on the vote of the masses.

Not sure what's more funny, your ridiculous "natural law" statement or the fact that you think homosexuality brought down 16 great civilizations. I'd love to see that list, especially the three "great civilizations" that weren't destroyed by homosexuals.

Blacks maybe (link: don't see data for black men, but black women were 75/25), but all other races were split almost evenly. Looks like the biggest factor was age. The 40+ crowd were for the ban, but the 30 and under were overwhelmingly against it. That bodes well for the future...if you are pro-gay marriage.

Well, then I was wrong and owe you an apology.