Jump to content

California


Recommended Posts

Sorry. I think what LA and John are saying is, is that if at all possible they'd like to be the ones addressing all the gay/lezbo/transexual/hermafrodit/goat!@#$ingetcetcetc. without the schools/Gov getting involved in how THEY want to raise their children. I dont think they're asking for too much.

 

You don't get to always make that decision unless you raise your kids in a bubble.

 

Prop 8 was not about teaching something in the schools. That was some domino way down the line and there's nothing stopping schools from teaching it anyways.

 

Telling adults in loving relationships that they can't marry is a lot worse than the mere chance a kid might hear about gay marriage in school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 257
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

That being said, I have to agree that what is taught in schools at times should be left to the Parents whether they do anything with that power or not.

 

I have seen and had too many teachers on both sides of the aisle that insist on being the authority on something instead of encouraging students to seek their own understanding. Kids will learn on their own with or without their parents consent and because of the personal nature of the institution of marriage, I believe it should be left up to a child's family, just as I believe that Religion except as historical notes or as a comparative elective should not be taught in K-12.

 

I have enough explaining to do with my boys than to have to fight some teacher over their opinion on this issue one way or another.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The previous vote was for a measure (law). The court invalidated it, and then gays ran to get married. This time, it was a Constitutional Amendment. As far as I know, that can't be overturned.

 

Proposition 8was reworded by Ex-Governor and Mayor of Oakland Moonbeam (now the Attorney General) a few weeks ago to be against the "rights" of gays to be married.

Previously, when it got all the signatures, it simply stated that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

There is a loophole. The schools have to teach about marriage and that included gay marriage. by defining marriage, they can't teach gay marriage to kindregardeners or 1st graders.

 

There have been reports of some schools having kids (even 1st graders) sign some sort of pledge without it being sent to the parents first.

 

The No on 8 people who were asking us all to be tolerant were not tolerant at all. Massive numbers of Yes on 8 signs were destroyed. Near me a guy stapled up his McCain/Palin, Yes on 8, and local signs about 10 feet up his palm trees to protect them. Someone either used a ladder or something else to destroy his Yes on 8 sign, while leaving the others alone.

In Modesto, some guys from a church were putting up signs. A bunch of goons beat them up and stole the signs (about 100).

 

 

Also the notification for abortion- Your kid cannot get an aspirin or a vitamin at school without you being notified, but she can go and get an abortion without you knowing about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

If the issue was really about banning teaching gay marriage in elementary school, the ballot prop should have been about banning that. It wasn't. The two biggest sources of funding for YES on 8 were:

 

1) Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

2) Knights of Columbus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. I'll work on not using that term anymore. I cant promise anything, but I'll try. Its so difficult with some of the resident...well.. you know.. well maybe you dont know, being one of them sometimes.

 

I kid, I'll try :oops:

This going to get me in trouble, because what I said was true, but I am not that sensitive... however, my shame deal worked on you :unsure:

 

Got a first rate education on it from my Puritanical mother, it happens....

 

P.S. Coli won't understand until he has kids, I agree and he doesn't understand.... It is a whole new ball game when you have your own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't get to always make that decision unless you raise your kids in a bubble.

 

Prop 8 was not about teaching something in the schools. That was some domino way down the line and there's nothing stopping schools from teaching it anyways.

 

Telling adults in loving relationships that they can't marry is a lot worse than the mere chance a kid might hear about gay marriage in school.

 

In your opinion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

That is what happens when you right bad law. You don't think some talented lawyers and teachers who have an agenda wouldn't push the issue. Go back and write the law tighter. Now you know why it takes 300 pages to give $300 Billion away to provide for liquidity to banks and brokers on Wall Street.

 

And from the opposition's standpoint, it is an easier political argument to make, legitimate or not. Take the time to write the law narrowly and you won't have the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This going to get me in trouble, because what I said was true, but I am not that sensitive... however, my shame deal worked on you :unsure:

 

Got a first rate education on it from my Puritanical mother, it happens....

 

P.S. Coli won't understand until he has kids, I agree and he doesn't understand.... It is a whole new ball game when you have your own.

 

 

I didn't think you were dude. I think you're one of the most rational thinkers on the left here, I respect that. I think you can tell that by the way I respond with you. And you're right, coli will know one day. :oops:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....this same issue has been voted down over the entire country so I am not alone.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the issue was really about banning teaching gay marriage in elementary school, the ballot prop should have been about banning that. It wasn't. The two biggest sources of funding for YES on 8 were:

 

1) Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

2) Knights of Columbus

 

Jon.....I do see your point here.

 

This is not a religious issue for me as I am a "live and let live" person......

 

My reasons for voting on 8 were entirely different

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is what happens when you right bad law. You don't think some talented lawyers and teachers who have an agenda wouldn't push the issue. Go back and write the law tighter. Now you know why it takes 300 pages to give $300 Billion away to provide for liquidity to banks and brokers on Wall Street.

 

And from the opposition's standpoint, it is an easier political argument to make, legitimate or not. Take the time to write the law narrowly and you won't have the problem.

 

DING DING DING

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 if that were to happen I have no problem with it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...