Why Gay Marriage Matters to You

October 18, 2008 · 12 Comments

This issue is important not only because the sanctity of marriage is threatened.  Who wants an increasingly socialist state, antagonistic towards anthing resembling Christianity, to demand every child’s participation in this kind of forced indoctrination?

http://protectmarriage.com/article/proposition-8-who-s-really-lying-

Dear Friend,

The top issue that has emerged in the Proposition 8 campaign is whether same-sex marriage will be taught in California public schools if the initiative is not enacted. Opponents of Proposition 8 are spending millions of dollars on television commercials telling voters that the Yes on 8 campaign’s claim that gay marriage will be taught in public schools is a lie. Yet a review of public records filed with the First District Court of Appeal in Boston shows these same organizations who claim our statement is a lie fought to make it true in Massachusetts.  Specifically, they fought to ensure that gay marriage be taught in Massachusetts public schools, even over the objection of parents who sought an “opt out” for their children. Gay marriage was legalized by Massachusetts courts in 2003.
 
Further, their assurance that parents can always “opt-out” of such instruction when it is taught is belied by the fact that in Massachusetts, they argued successfully that Massachusetts’ parental opt-out provision should not be permitted.
 
“These damning public records show that it is in fact the organizations leading and financing the No on 8 campaign who are lying to California voters,” said Yes on 8 campaign manager Frank Schubert. “On one coast of the country they tell judges that gay marriage should be taught to children in school at the youngest possible age. But, on the opposite coast, here in California, they have the audacity to tell voters that gay marriage has nothing to do with public schools.”
 
Lying…who’s really lying?
 
The Yes on 8 campaign has been airing television and radio commercials factually presenting what happened in Massachusetts where second graders were taught in class about gay marriage using the book, “King and King.” This book is about a prince who married another prince, and includes an illustrated scene of the two men kissing. In response, the No on 8 campaign has purchased at least $1.25 million in television time to run an ad that says, “They’re using lies to persuade you…[Prop. 8] will not affect teaching in schools. Another lie.” (Source: No on Prop. 8 Ad available at www.noonprop8.com)
 
In the greatest irony, of course, just two days after the No on 8 “Lies” television commercial began airing, a first grade public school class in San Francisco was taken on a field trip to a lesbian wedding at City Hall, officiated by Mayor Gavin Newsom. School officials said they wished to provide their five and six year old students a “teachable moment.”
 
It should also be noted that the day after the first Yes on 8 ads began running, the Los Angeles Times reported that “Newsom called the (Yes on 8) ad ‘classic distraction’ and misleading.”  Ten days later, he officiated at the above-mentioned and now infamous field trip.
 
“Not only do the organizations leading the No on 8 campaign want gay marriage, under the guise of ‘diversity,’  taught in public schools, they believe it is important to teach it at the earliest possible age,” Schubert said. Massachusetts begins its “diversity education” to five year old children in kindergarten.
 
According to legal records on file with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, Massachusetts in the case Parker v. Hurley (514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.2008)), some of the very organizations who are funding and driving the No on 8 campaign have argued vociferously that gay marriage should be taught in the public schools under the guise of “diversity,” and any attempt to prohibit such instruction – or to permit parents to opt their children out of it – must be stopped.
 
The following are statements filed in amicus curiae briefs in Parker v. Hurley. The statements show how organizations leading the No on 8 campaign are lying to California voters when they say gay marriage will not be taught in California public schools.
 
From the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Amicus Curiae Brief:
“In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents.” [p 5]
 
“Diversity education is most effective when it begins during the students’ formative years. The earlier diversity education occurs, the more likely it is that students will be able to educate their peers, thereby compounding the benefits of this instruction.” [p 3]
 
(Note: The ADL is a leading member of the No on 8 campaign, and publicly announced they had joined the campaign opposing Proposition 8 on September 9, 2008.)
 
From the Human Rights Campaign Amicus Curiae Brief:
“There is no constitutional principle grounded in either the First Amendment’s free exercise clause or the right to direct the upbringing of one’s children, which requires defendants to either remove the books now in issue – or to treat them as suspect by imposing an opt-out system.” [pp1-2]
 
“In short, there can be no serious dispute that the books in issue are both age-appropriate and reflect the growing diversity of American families.” [p 9]
 
“Lexington’s selection of the [three] books…for inclusion in its curriculum is firmly rooted in the long-recognized tradition of public schools as a place for disseminating the knowledge and information that helps to foster understanding between diverse groups and individuals for the overall benefit of society.” [p 13]
 
(Note: The Human Rights Campaign has organized one of the largest recipient committees to oppose Proposition 8. The committee, Human Rights Campaign CA Marriage PAC (ID# 1307246) has received more than $2.2 million in contributions (as of 10/8/08), including over $100,000 from the Human Rights Campaign itself in non-monetary contributions. The committee has funneled over $2 million of its funds to No on 8, Equality for All (ID# 1259396), the main No on Proposition 8 campaign committee.)
 
From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief:
“Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children’s book…King and King.” [p 9]
 
“This court has astutely recognized that a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would fatally compromise the ability of a school to provide a meaningful education, a conclusion that holds true regardless of the age of the child or the nature of the belief.” [p 18]
 
“First, a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would subject a school to a staggering administrative burden…Second, in contravention of the axiom that ‘the classroom is peculiarly the ‘marketplace of ideas’’ [citations], a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would chill discussion in the classroom…Third, the coming and goings of those children who have been opted out of lessons would be highly disruptive to the learning environment. Moreover, such comings and goings would fatally undermine the lessons that schools teach the other students.” [pp 22-23]
 
(Note: The Northern California Chapter of the ACLU has also formed a Proposition 8 opposition committee: No on Prop 8, Campaign for Marriage Equality, a project of the ACLU of Northern California (ID# 1308178). This committee has collected $1.6 million in contributions (as of 10/8/08), including more than $70,000 from the ACLU of northern California, as well as $8,000 from the ACLU Foundation. This committee has contributed $1,250,000 to No on 8, Equality for All (ID# 1259396), the main No on Proposition 8 campaign committee.)
 
These are the facts. This is the truth about the calculated efforts to deliver gay marriage into our public school classrooms, against the wishes of the people of our state. Voters may differ about how they feel about gay marriage, but there is no disputing that the organizations funding and leading the No on Proposition 8 campaign have already revealed, in their own words, their desire to impose this subject on children in the public schools – ‘whether you like it or not.’
 
To make sure Californians know the truth, we need you to do three things right now:
Forward this email to your friends and family right now, and ask them to forward it to their friends. Every California voter needs to know about this.
Watch the truthful ads the No on 8 campaign doesn’t want you to see, and donate to keep them on the air.
Please volunteer today, and we’ll put you out in the field talking to voters directly — as thousands are already doing.
Thank you for all that you do. Please spread the word and make sure your neighbors know the truth before they vote!

Sincerely,

Frank Schubert
Campaign Manager
ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8

 

www.protectmarriage.com
© 2008 ProtectMarriage.com. All Rights Reserved. ProtectMarriage.com is a project of California Renewal (I.D. #1302592) | Contact Us

Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: , , , , , ,

12 responses so far ↓

  • johnbisceglia // October 19, 2008 at 3:42 am | Reply

    The amount of money being spent on each side of this PROP 8 “debate” is SICK. I personally do not think my civil rights are up for debate.

    I KNOW I HAVE A RIGHT TO CIVIL MARRIAGE.

    OUR marriages would not cause any families ANY grief beyond challenging THEIR spiritual arrogance. THEIR desire (the “RIGHT” and anti-equality bigots) to deny OUR family civil marriage HAS-IS-and-WILL cause(d) trauma and harm to countless LGBT Tax-Paying Americans.

    This is a culture war, and we’re using the right weapon in the wrong way. DON’T SPEND MONEY for civil rights, WITHHOLD MONEY for civil rights.

    And for any gay young ones out there who can’t wrap their brain around this alleged pain and the need for legal equality, you may not experience it yourself until MUCH later in life, through issues with estate-planning, pensions, hospitalization, property, and death, for starters….creating emotional and financial pains worse than you could ever possibly imagine. Have you not seen the films TYING THE KNOT or FREEHELD?! If not, do so.

    But let’s keep marching and chanting, and now paying….for the “chance” of justice and equality. Look, I understand why people are paying for good PR. But can we step back and look at the precedent it sets for the next 30 years?

    Let’s hold an EQUALITY FUNDRAISER! Pathetic.

  • twoblogright // October 19, 2008 at 9:27 am | Reply

    Joe,

    I think the point about the “Yes on 8″ piece is that the effort of “No on 8″ supporters overreaches beyond simply creating a legal status for gay marriages.

    “No on 8″ is part of an extensive agenda that includes persuading young children to not only accept but to celebrate homosexuality. This effort involves mandates for government paid employees to teach the virtues of homosexualtiy and gay marriage in public schools.

    I don’t expect public schools to teach Christian morals, I expect them to teach, math, science and literature.

    It’s not legitimage to make the argument that all indviduals who reject homosexualtiy on moral grounds are bigots. The attempt to equate contemporary supporters of traditional marriage with those who supported slavery or racial inequality ignores a host of obvious differences.

    One thing I hope contenders on either side of the issue can share is a profound grattitude that in this country we are free to engage in a debate and decide the issue democratically.

  • queerunity // October 22, 2008 at 10:19 am | Reply

    Marriage equality is a family values issue! Why shouldn’t same-sex couples and their children have access to the 1,049 rights and benefits that come with marriage? Like the right to visit a loved one in a hospital, or to file joint tax returns. Marriage as a term has evolved, it used to mean a man with many wives, than it was a woman being the property of her man, now it is about love and financial planning. Gay & lesbian couples should have the same access to this beautiful institution and would only serve to strengthen it. Don’t hurt our families, vote NO on prop h8!

  • prop8discussion // October 23, 2008 at 2:04 am | Reply

    thanks for this post.

    Marriage is our culture’s ultimate expression of equality–it takes one man and one woman to create children. Even if a marriage can’t have children or choose not to have children the definition of their relationship expresses this equality.

    One could see a lesbian union as a marginalization of men, or a homosexual union as a marginalization of women.

    I don’t believe government should sanction the marginalization of any gender (or more importantly, parent). And even though some families can’t have children, or choose not to have children, you can’t separate the child-issue from the marriage issue.

    there is a great discussion here:

    http://prop8discussion.wordpress.com/2008/10/20/separate-but-equal/

    yes on prop 8!

    p.s. your blog is on a black list. awesome right?
    go here:
    http://lezgetreal.com/2008/10/yes-on-prop-8-blog-roll.html

  • beetlebabee // October 24, 2008 at 2:02 pm | Reply

    It’s more than just “love” at stake here. I think it’s important to recognize the human rights of the children involved. France rejected same sex marriage because it trampled the rights of children.

    MONTREAL, March 20, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In late January, a 30 member parliamentary commission of the French National Assembly published a 453 page Report on the Family and the rights of Children, which rejected same-sex marriage.

    DeSerres, told LifeSiteNews.com “Referring to the rights of children as a human rights issue, the report argued that children ‘now have rights and to systematically give preference to adult aspirations over respect for these rights is not possible any more.’”

    In the report, the commission says that “the child represents the future of society.” The commission asks legislators to make sure that “children, confronted with mutations in family models, be fully taken into account and not suffer from situations imposed upon them by adults.” It adds: “The interest of the child must take precedence over adults’ exercise of their freedom (…) including with regards to parents’ lifestyle choices.”

  • Alfonse // October 26, 2008 at 6:25 pm | Reply

    I think marriage equality is about more than just family values, it about the real expression of love, no? I think Gavin Newsom has a pretty good take on it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW2BGqnEXag

  • Bio Teacher // October 28, 2008 at 12:59 am | Reply

    Wow such passion and misinformation. First, under the laws which govern the registered domestic partnerships, same sex couples can enjoy all of the legal rights that are guaranteed to couples who must by law register for their marriage license. The problem is only 5% of the same sex couples have filed for this protection. If they feel so passionate, why do they not take the steps necessary to ensure their rights are protected? Second, having just finished our unit on ecology, which covers such things as populations and genetic diversity, organisms which do not reproduce face extinction. By their choice to remove themselves from the natural order of all living things, does set the same sex couple apart. Third, since marriage is a title which is connected directly with religious commitment, marriage should be the label connected with that commitment. Couples who seek to not have a religious marriage and are “married” by a civic employee such as a city mayor, have selected to have a civil union/domestic partnership. The same sex community can have any kind of “party” celebrating their relationship, no one is stopping them. The support of prop 8 protects those who choose to practice their religion from same sex couples who will seek to be married religiously even though that life style goes against the religions moral code. Is that discriminating? No, that is religious freedom.

  • losthillz // November 1, 2008 at 5:26 pm | Reply

    This is a message for anyone who would use the Bible and/or their Christian faith to claim that homosexuals deserve anything less than completely equal treatment under the eyes of the law, including the right to marry the person of their choice.

    It took almost 2000 years for extremist Christians to fully acknowledge the evils of slavery (which is clearly condoned in the Bible).
    Their mainstream brethren finally helped them understand.

    It took even longer for extremist Christians to accept the right to vote for women and non-whites. Their mainstream brethren dragged them along.

    It took even longer for extremist Christians to acknowledge that segregation was wrong. Their mainstream brethren showed them the way.

    It took even longer for extremist Christians to tolerate the right to inter-racial marriage. Their mainstream brethren set the example.

    In 2008, many church goers, clergy members, and religious scholars from around the Christian world respect gays and lesbians as equals, deserving of equal rights in the eyes of the law and, more importantly, completely deserving of God’s love – unconditionally.

    Modern science is in complete agreement that sexual orientation has fundamental genetic, biologic, and developmental origins which establish sexual orientation by birth.

    God doesn’t make mistakes, and God doesn’t want you to treat others as if they were mistakes.

  • cyclestump // November 3, 2008 at 12:34 pm | Reply

    There are two sports, one is called (American) Football, and the other Rugby. These sports co-exist in the world, in this country and even in the towns we live in.

    The Football folks don’t say, “Rugby, you should conform to the way OUR sport is played”. And conversely, Rugby doesn’t say, “Football, you should conform to the way OUR sport is played”. They each happily play their respective games, with no intention of changing the other.

    It depends on where you are, but you may have an advantage and be more popular if you are a fan of Football, than Rugby, and vice-versa.

    Rugby players can, and do, join Football teams, and vice-versa.

    One day a Rugby player showed up at the Football field to play in that day’s game. He trotted onto the field in his Rugby outfit and holding his Rugby ball. “We’re going to play with MY ball because I have civil rights as a person. You can’t make me play by your rules.” he said to the Football teams.

    It’s simple, by opposing Prop. 8, gays are trying to change the Heterosexual’s game.

    Vote YES on 8!

  • dudley // November 4, 2008 at 12:37 pm | Reply

    You have to vote YES to control those damn fags! You can’t let them have what WE have. It actually doesn’t go far enough! It should restrict the rights of Blacks and Mexicans and Catholics too. We can’t let them get married! And don’t forget about Italians, Jews, Indians, Muslims, Irish, and them damn dirty Yankees. None of them should be allowed to marry. And Scientologists. Forget about it. And Bus Drivers. And Nurses. And Grocery Store Clerks. We need to control all these other people who are not like us. What will happen if they can get married? I’ll tell you… They will be married! Just like us. They don’t deserve it. Only we deserve it. We are the only ones who should be married – and we should be able to tell other people that they can’t be married.

  • truth out // November 12, 2008 at 12:34 pm | Reply

    The initiative that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, cannot be done by a mere constitutional amendment. Rather, it must be done by a revision of the entire Constitution and the Legislature would have to be involved.
    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-marriage11-2008nov11,0,5162523.story

  • The Yes on Prop. 8 Blog Roll // February 27, 2009 at 9:17 am | Reply

    [...] Mitt BlogReal ToleranceTwo Blog Right/Akinas 4 prop 8California CrusaderMamaProWKA NeenThe CoffeysThe Orange Juice Blog (*No on 8 site, [...]

Leave a Comment