California

[Jon in Pasadena]

the closest i think that made for argument of the supreme court would be the 9th amendment:

Existence of other rights for the people.

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

 

Or possibly the 14th:

Section 1.

 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

Otherwise, the gays have to wait their turn, as the minority that bends over for society at large.

What I'm hearing is that they'd most likely challenge on the 14th: since some gay couple have already been granted marriages, with all the associated rights and privileges, how can you now deny others the same rights/privileges without violating the equal protection clause? It will doubtless take a while to work its way through the system.

[Dibs]

How'bout its his business , and not the Gov/Schools business how his children are schooled on it?

I see and understand the point here.......however it seems to me that making the decision to vote against it based upon this is out of context to the importance of the pros & cons of the situation.

 

Schools teach many things which "should be taught by the parents". Unless one feels that the act of teaching about gay marriage can turn children gay(or there is some inherent danger in this specific issue), it is simply just another on a long list of things already being taught at schools which should perhaps be left for the home. To 'make a stand' against this concept is all well and good, however if there are many members of the community that will suffer because of that stand.....the decision seems out of context.

Simply.....if there is no legitimate danger to the children.....the concept is happening anyway.....people/society can suffer because of it.....and the individual agrees that it is the 'right' thing for gay marriage to be allowed.....standing on a principle as the only reason for opposing makes no real sense.

 

The only argument I can see(apart from religious or bigoted reasons) is that there would be some legitimate danger to the children.....which I can't see.

 

 

 

**There are actually some opposing arguments for teaching certain 'social issues' at school. I have no doubts that most posting in this thread would be teaching their children in a responsible non-bigoted fashion......but many, many, many people are bad parents.....or parents with poisonous attitudes to certain races/religions/groups/etc. There is good argument that not only the society as a whole benefits from children being taught 'social issues' but the children themselves would, who otherwise would not get a reasonable perspective on the issues.**

[John Adams]

EDIT: Now I read your post regarding discrimination. That is a very valid point, not real sure why you didn't make it in the first place. What you should be questioning is why are these laws not drafted better? If they were, this measure would have sailed through California. Most every poster in this thread, myself included, have no problem with gay marriage and really believe it ought to be legal.

 

You draw me back in.

 

The law that was drafted is NOT to allow gay marriage; it's to ban it. People in CA voted to define marriage as between a man and woman. That's it. End of story. The law said sh-- about schools.

 

But because people in here would rather not explain gay marriage to their kids (or have the schools do it PERHAPS--oh the horror), a lot of gay couples are now explaining to their kids that their so-called friends--people like LA, Jon from Hemet, Eryn--forbid them from marrying. All I know is that for my homosexual friends, that is not an easy thing to do--to tell your kids that your friends don't view you as equal. Again, I compare it to black parents explaining to their kids why they can't drink from water fountains. It's what they had to do but it wasn't easy.

 

It's always been about discrimination and pain. What else would banning gay marriage be about? It's others who keep bringing up schools.

[John Adams]

How am I suppose to explain this to my kids? YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDIN ME!! If this is on the front table for teaching your kids, well...........

 

Reread my post. It's a big issue for homosexual couples with kids. They were just told--resoundingly--that they are not entitled to marry, after previously being told they could. In fact, millions of people sent that message into their home: YOU ARE NOT WORTHY OF BEING MARRIED. Gay couples, of course, would discuss this with their kids. Not easily, but they do.

 

Why? Because (at least for the people posting here) people can't handle their kids hearing about gay marriage in schools alongside straight marriage. Yep. That's the reason.

 

OK. Now I'm out. Just wanted to close those loops. Have fun.

[Wacka]

And being across the country, you don't know Stojan about what is going on out here.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

You draw me back in.

 

The law that was drafted is NOT to allow gay marriage; it's to ban it. People in CA voted to define marriage as between a man and woman. That's it. End of story. The law said sh-- about schools.

 

But because people in here would rather not explain gay marriage to their kids (or have the schools do it PERHAPS--oh the horror), a lot of gay couples are now explaining to their kids that their so-called friends--people like LA, Jon from Hemet, Eryn--forbid them from marrying. All I know is that for my homosexual friends, that is not an easy thing to do--to tell your kids that your friends don't view you as equal. Again, I compare it to black parents explaining to their kids why they can't drink from water fountains. It's what they had to do but it wasn't easy.

 

It's always been about discrimination and pain. What else would banning gay marriage be about? It's others who keep bringing up schools.

I understand your argument and the law not being about teaching material in schools. The problem is one of politics. Once this issue has been raised in conjunction with the marriage issue, it touched a nerve that brought out the loss of control parents feel about what is being taught to their children in schools and since there are plenty of examples of groups with agendas and teachers pushing them in schools, it provided an avenue for those parents to take a stand, despite it not being directly relevant to the issue at hand. But it was relevant to the lack specificity in the way the law was written and the folks that opposed the issue on so called religious grounds knew they would lose unless they could expand their support. They found a side issue that struck a nerve. So whether or not the law was silent on the issue or not is not good enough. Gay marriage supporters in California are going to have to address this issue in order to overcome the political road block put in their path.

 

They may want to put in some prohibition language to teaching such material to include a ban on teaching religion and morally sensitive issues in schools without specific parental consent to garner greater support and have said class taught only as an elective, not required. That being said, I can understand the frustration of having a non-sequitor issue being used to derail the original issue. It happens all the time and is good political strategy when you are in opposition to something but don't have enough support.

 

I wrote my senior your thesis on a political fight in Virginia where both sides used side issues to get what they wanted. The 3rd battle of Manassas, VA. A developer bought a piece of land to build a mixed use shopping mall/residential apartments. The local board approved it and authorized funding for the roads to be built. After getting the some of the roads built he changed the plans to a much larger shopping mall. The local anti-sprawl folks fought it and brought in some dubious Civil War history on the land and environmentalists because there was a small creek on the land.

 

The upshot was they were able to kill the development based on these ancillary issues. Ironically, it was resolved by the local Congressman getting some pork barrel spending which had the Feds buy out the land for a $30 million profit for the developer and the developer had another piece of land down the newly paved road which still fell under the original zoning alteration which he was able to build the originally designed multi-use shopping plaza. All in all it was a cluster, but that is what sometimes happens on these deals. Not saying it is right.

 

My question for you is are you going to sit on your moral high horse and complain or are you going to be a pragmatist and try and resolve the issue and anticipate any others that the opposition might be able to dream up which could gain traction and provide another road block. Think about it.

[Johnny Coli]

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.

[The Dean]

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.

 

 

"I'm not prejudiced against the gays, and they should be married if they want...but, I don't want my kids hearing about that stuff."

 

 

When people tell me that I wonder why they don't simply just stamp a giant "BIGOT" on their forehead, and "HYPOCRITE" on their ass.

[elegantelliotoffen]

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.

 

Stop making sense! You'll make the wingnuts heads explode!

[erynthered]

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.

 

Nice work. I was going by LA's and John's take being that they are the ones in Cali.

I'll also apologize for calling you a retard* last night.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(* disclaimer: I reserve the right to "change" my mind at any time I see fit. )

[K-9]

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.

 

Wow. Thanks for taking the time to illuminate the CA law on the matter. CA seems to have a very progressive system in place actually. One that fully appreciates the critical role parents play as partners in the realm of public education. I say that because some posts in this thread have used it to take the usual potshots at public education. As if it's a beast intent on corrupting children or some such nonsense. As if the big bad "government" shouldn't ever have a role in helping us educate our children.

 

I firmly believe that the government's chief role is to protect the citizenry from those that wish to cause us harm. As do most in this community. What I DON'T understand is the seeming lack of appreciation for the fact that a well-educated citizenry is a vital step in achieving that protection. But that's a subject for another thread.

[erynthered]

Wow. Thanks for taking the time to illuminate the CA law on the matter. CA seems to have a very progressive system in place actually. One that fully appreciates the critical role parents play as partners in the realm of public education. I say that because some posts in this thread have used it to take the usual potshots at public education. As if it's a beast intent on corrupting children or some such nonsense. As if the big bad "government" shouldn't ever have a role in helping us educate our children.

 

I firmly believe that the government's chief role is to protect the citizenry from those that wish to cause us harm. As do most in this community. What I DON'T understand is the seeming lack of appreciation for the fact that a well-educated citizenry is a vital step in achieving that protection. But that's a subject for another thread.

 

Yup, they're doing a great job.

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7120400730.html

[Ramius]

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.

 

Stop it Johnny. Could you imagine what schools would teach if cali had actually passed prop 8? This would probably be the new curriculum:

 

Kindergarten art - Ok kids, today we are finger painting gay pride rainbows for everyone to hang on their fridge.

 

1st grade Math - If 2 gay men are involved in sexual relations, how many balls are present?

 

2nd grade History - Ancient Rome: a study of buttsex in the senate

 

3rd grade Science - How gay sexual intercourse with his students made Aristotle a great ancient scientist

[K-9]

Yup, they're doing a great job.

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7120400730.html

 

Thanks for making my point. Damn right we need to do a better job!

 

Ironic that our public school students, who USED to be at the top in math and sciences, would now be trailing students in countries whose governments subsidize their educations on a per-capita basis that would make your head explode.

 

Ask yourself what's changed in the American public school system that's allowed this to happen? And when that change started to occur? And please spare me the usual propaganda about teachers unions and the education associations.

[bartshan-83]

One of the more interesting threads I've read here. A lot of ingrained opinions, but a lot of good point/counterpoint. Way to do some research, JC. I'm curious as to the response to this.

[elegantelliotoffen]

Thanks for making my point. Damn right we need to do a better job!

 

Ironic that our public school students, who USED to be at the top in math and sciences, would now be trailing students in countries whose governments subsidize their educations on a per-capita basis that would make your head explode.

 

Ask yourself what's changed in the American public school system that's allowed this to happen? And when that change started to occur? And please spare me the usual propaganda about teachers unions and the education associations.

 

The rise of home-schooled jesus freaks!

[Johnny Coli]

Wow. Thanks for taking the time to illuminate the CA law on the matter. CA seems to have a very progressive system in place actually. One that fully appreciates the critical role parents play as partners in the realm of public education. I say that because some posts in this thread have used it to take the usual potshots at public education. As if it's a beast intent on corrupting children or some such nonsense. As if the big bad "government" shouldn't ever have a role in helping us educate our children.

 

I firmly believe that the government's chief role is to protect the citizenry from those that wish to cause us harm. As do most in this community. What I DON'T understand is the seeming lack of appreciation for the fact that a well-educated citizenry is a vital step in achieving that protection. But that's a subject for another thread.

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?

[IDBillzFan]

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?

I appreciate your research. What you posted supports what you say, and it supports what I say. It's a difference in opinion, and I'm personally confident in my position on the issue that matters to me and my family the most. But that's a good post above and I appreciate your diligence.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

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?

 

 

Which is why this law likely will be struck down. There are supposedly 20,000 Gay married couples under previous Cal law, I don't see how this will stand up under the equal protection clause of the Constitution. I don't know what Cal law says on the matter?

 

Hmm, I stand partially corrected...

 

Protecting Liberty is never easy, ask 2nd amendment supporters. Also, the RW ran a helluv a misinformation campaign and Gay Rights supporters were not willing or able to get their message out well enough to debunk this falsehood... It allowed folks to hide behind the issue.

 

Simply the Gay Rights supporters got Swift Boated and didn't respond soon or effectively.

[Boomer860]

Which is why this law likely will be struck down. There are supposedly 20,000 Gay married couples under previous Cal law, I don't see how this will stand up under the equal protection clause of the Constitution. I don't know what Cal law says on the matter?

 

Hmm, I stand partially corrected...

 

Protecting Liberty is never easy, ask 2nd amendment supporters. Also, the RW ran a helluv a misinformation campaign and Gay Rights supporters were not willing or able to get their message out well enough to debunk this falsehood... It allowed folks to hide behind the issue.

 

Simply the Gay Rights supporters got Swift Boated and didn't respond soon or effectively.

Yep , I guess they took where the sundon't shine