A new week

 


 

I start physical therapy tomorrow morning. Fun.

Country heart&star

This one really aggravates me. Teachers in the states that have “legalized” same sex marriage, are required to teach even kindergarteners about marriage. Now when I was in school, teachers didn’t even teach about marriage until high school, in Family Life courses. So why do they require teaching about marriage now? Can we say “indoctrination?”

How Does Gay ‘Marriage’ Affect Education?

‘The Supreme Court has made it clear that once a state orders gay Marriage advocates in California are rolling out a second television ad showing how same-sex “marriage” would change what’s taught in the classroom.

Gay activists, in their effort to defeat California’s marriage amendment (Prop. 8), are claiming homosexual “marriage” has no effect on education.

Yet, in the only other state that has legalized gay “marriage” — Massachusetts — schoolchildren are seeing some of the most egregious effects following the 2003 court decision.

In 2006, a Massachusetts teacher read the gay-friendly book “King and King” to her first-grade class, which included Joey Wirthlin. His parents, Robert and Robin Wirthlin, met with the school principal to request they be given advance notice before such material was taught to their son.

Two courts decided schools are not required to inform parents in advance of teaching about same-sex relationships. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal.

“The Supreme Court has made it clear that once a state orders gay ‘marriage,’ public schools are going to be teaching about gay ‘marriage,’ ” said Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage “There is no parental opt-out.”

Voters in California — and Arizona and Florida — should take note.

“Proposition 8 protects our children from being taught in public schools about ‘same-sex marriage,’ ” said Yes on 8 co-campaign manager Frank Schubert. “We’re talking about 7- and 8-year-old children being exposed to gay ‘marriage’ in the schools, including being read a book that includes a scene of two men kissing.

“Our opponents want Californians to think that gay ‘marriage’ is only about two loving adults, but (it) has profound consequences for all Californians, not the least of which is what kids will be taught in public schools.”

California’s Education Code (Sections 51890 and 51933) requires that teachers instruct children as young as kindergarteners about marriage. If the marriage amendment fails, teachers will be required to teach young children there is no difference between gay “marriage” and traditional marriage.

As for parental rights, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already taken care of that.

In the 2005 case Fields v. Palmdale School District, the court ruled that parents’ rights to control their children’s education end at the school door.

One Man, 72 Votes

The excitement over the spike in voter registrations has quickly turned to suspicion as officials in almost a dozen states have launched investigations to determine whether these nine million Americans are actually eligible. In the weeks leading up to November 4, the New York Post found dozens of people who have different names but share the same story. Most of the accounts, like Christopher Barkley’s, are from swing states and involve ACORN, the “community activist group” submitting the bulk of the new voter applications. Barkley says he was “hounded” to register by ACORN workers in Ohio, a crown jewel of the presidential race. “I kept getting approached by folks who asked me to register. They’d ask me if I was registered. I’d say yes, and they’d ask me to do it again.” Ohio voter Lateala Goins told a Post reporter, “You can tell them you’re registered as many times as you want; they do not care. They will follow you to the buses, they will follow you home…” Another man in Cleveland says he “was given cash and cigarettes” by ACORN representatives for registering a whopping 72 times in the last year and a half. The fraud gets even worse in Texas, where one county found that 4,000 of its registered voters were dead-but even that didn’t stop many of them from voting! In Florida, a state that President Bush won by less than 600 ballots in 2000, the Sun-Sentinel learned that more than 30,000 felons are still on the rolls, despite the law rendering them ineligible. Although 11 states are investigating ACORN’s role in widespread election fraud, time is short. With the nation on edge and Americans sharply divided as to who can lead us back, democracy cannot become corruption’s next victim. Regardless of who wins, we all have a stake in an honest process.

On Marriage, A Supreme Injustice

Although homosexual activists remain zero for fifty in their efforts to change the definition of marriage by democratic means, Connecticut’s Supreme Court on Friday became the third one to judicially mandate recognition of “marriages” of same-sex couples, following the example of Massachusetts in 2003 and California earlier this year. As with those earlier decisions, this one came by the narrowest of margins, 4-3. Justice Richard Palmer’s majority decision suggested that the traditional definition of marriage discriminates on the basis of both sex and sexual orientation. But Justice Peter Zarella’s dissent pointed out that the majority failed “even to identify, much less to discuss, the actual purpose of the marriage laws,” which is “to privilege and regulate procreative conduct.” Pro-family forces in Connecticut face a long struggle to reverse this judicial activism-according to the Hartford Courant, a ballot question in November would call for a constitutional convention. Fortunately, voters in California, Arizona, and Florida already have marriage amendments on the ballot November 4. We urge them to seize this opportunity and take the definition of marriage out of the hands of activist judges once and for all.

Palin Breathes New Life into GOP Bid

Speaking at a Pennsylvania rally this weekend, Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin (R) made a passionate appeal to voters on the role of life in this election “…It’s hard to think of many issues that could possibly be more important than who is protected in law and who isn’t-who is granted life and who is denied it. So when our opponent, Senator Obama, speaks about questions of life, I listen… Senator Obama has voted against bills to end partial-birth abortion. In the Illinois Senate, a bipartisan majority passed legislation against that practice [while] Sen. Obama opposed [it]. Most troubling, as a state senator, Barack Obama wouldn’t even stand up for the rights of infants born alive during an abortion. Senator Obama is a politician who has long since left behind even the middle ground on the issue of life… In times like these, with wars and a financial crisis, it’s easy to forget even as deep and abiding a concern as the right to life. And it seems our opponent hopes that you will forget. Like so much else in his agenda, he hopes you won’t notice how radical his ideas and record are until it’s too late.” Both Sens. Obama and McCain can clarify their position on this and other fundamental issues in the final debate on Wednesday. In “An Open Letter to Bob Schieffer,” FRC’s Ken Blackwell urges the CBS moderator to raise these important values issues. To read Ken’s prescription for a candid forum, log on to http://www.townhall.com.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “A new week

  1. Can we say “indoctrination?”Yes, but what do you expect? A government that has the power to mandate “education,” and to define what “education” is, combined with power to regulate “marriage” and to define what “marriage” is, by its very nature will combine the two to “educate” about “marriage”. Of course, teaching the opposite (i.e., the Christian [read: correct] definition of marriage) would also be “indoctrination” to the extent it requires students to understand a certain definition of a certain concept. For that matter, anything that is “taught” could be labeled “indoctrination.” However, it is only popularly applied to politically controversial subjects as a derogatory term. The solution to gay-marriage “indoctrination” is to circumscribe state power to a) define “marriage” and b) “educate” about marriage. when I was in school, teachers didn’t even teach about marriage until high schoolI wouldn’t even do it then. That’s still “indoctrination” about a social issue. Public education shouldn’t try to teach students about social issues, which are inherently polarizing and best left to the personal decisions of the kids’ parents. To put some of the (valid, in my mind) claims in opposition to Prop. 8 in perspective, here is Dale Carpenter at Volokh discussing the flaws and strengths in some of the arguments. Near the end, he states:It’s true, as alleged in a second ad produced by supporters of Prop 8, that schoolchildren in Massachusetts have been informed that gay couples are permitted to marry. The second ad, also narrated by Professor Peterson, cites a First Circuit case rejecting parents’ First Amendment and substantive due process claims to an exemption from classroom instruction. Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008). That may or may not be right as a matter of federal constitutional law, but the underlying issue is the narrow exemption provided in Massachusetts law relating to parental notice and exemption from classroom instruction on sex education. In contrast to California, Massachusetts does not provide as much local school district control and does not include the same exemptions for discussion of marriage.So, unlike in Massachusetts, whether California’s little princesses are taught in schools that they have a right to marry other little princesses (a specter tenderly raised in the second Prop 8 ad) depends in the final analysis on whether that’s what their individual school districts and parents permit them to be taught. In some school districts, say San Francisco, parents probably won’t mind such instruction. In others, say Bakersfield, they will. Pluralism, not gay-marriage propaganda, will reign if that’s what parents demand.So, if DC is correct, the ultimate result will be more local control of education, which I always thought was the Conservative (if not outright Republican) plank.

  2. @MrParadox – When I say marriage was taught in high school, I didn’t mean whether same sex was right or wrong. It certainly wasn’t an issue back then.  Nothing needs to be taught about marriage at all, which is exactly my point. And now parents cannot opt out of it being taught that same sex is ok. Their only option is going to be to pull their kids out of school. I agree that schools should not teach about social issues. It has nothing to do with the 3 R’s. Family life should be left to families.

  3. :heartbeat:Our world is getting worse and worse by the moment… just as the prophets have said in the Bible; in the last days… we have to put action and prayer into play here… do what we can do as citizens of this country (vote, pickett, petition, etc…) and do what we can do of citizens of heaven (pray, saturate ourselves with the Word of God, etc…)!
    Blessings to you guys… love ya!

  4. @SingingMom – Family life should be left to families. :yes:now parents cannot opt out of it being taught that same sex is ok.This is where the news release you posted simply gets the law wrong. They cite Fields v. Palmdale School District as the controlling case. But the issue in Fields was “simply whether the parents have a constitutional right to exclusive control over the introduction and flow of sexual information to their children.” Fields v. Palmdale School Dist. 427 F.3d 1197, 1203 (C.A.9 (Cal.),2005)BUT, that case was decided in reference to a survey by “a “mental health counselor”…enrolled in a master’s degree program at the California School of Professional Psychology” to ““establish… a community baseline measure of children’s exposure to early trauma (for example, violence).”” which was “administered…during school hours” Fields v. Palmdale School Dist. 427 F.3d 1197, 1200 -1201 (C.A.9 (Cal.),2005)California Education Code, §51933 says “Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships” BUT ONLY IF the “school district … elects to offer comprehensive sexual health education.” California Education Code, §51938 states: “A parent or guardian of a pupil has the right to excusetheir child from all or part of comprehensive sexual health education.”Fields doesn’t apply. But under state law, the following points are relevant:-If Prop. 8 passed, a school district that chooses to provide “comprehensive sexual health education” would have to teach respect for gay marriage.-A parent could excuse their child from just that part of the program.-Currently, a school district that chooses to provide “comprehensive sexual health education” still has to teach respect for gay relationships, married or not.-But, A parent can currently excuse their child from all or part of the program, anyway. :so-cool:

  5. @SingingMom – Yes, Massachusetts…effete liberal fishermen up there. Here’s a link to the MA. case: http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/07-1528-01A.pdf. A cursory glance indicates the state created a fantastically clever loophole to get around the opt-out requirement. :hammer:On the other hand–the following jumped out at me from the opinion:we have found no federal case under the Due Process Clause which has permitted parents to demand an exemption for their children from exposure to certain books used in public schools. (p. 32)Remember–the case as litigated was only talking about whether the parents had a federal claim. The court in the quoted sentence says there is no case establishing a federal right to opt-out of specific curricula. (And that’s the difference w/ California–CA has a statutory opt-out right for “sex ed” and the program in question would be administered under that program.) The irony is that for the court to rule otherwise would be for the court to create a federal right without any basis in precedent — the very sort of judicial activism Republicans and Conservatives routinely criticize. :oh-no:Additionally, the court explicitly held: If the school system has been insufficiently sensitive to [parents’] religious beliefs, the plaintiffs may seek recourse to the normal political processes for change in the town and state.And then simply concluded:They are not entitled to a federal judicial remedy under the U.S. Constitution.For AFA or anyone else to argue that this holding means “There is no parental opt-out” is misleading. That embraces a positivist, nationalist view of personal rights in which anything held not to be protected by the Constitution is laid bare by the same. On the contrary, just because the court will not engage in judicial activism and recognize a federal constitutional right to opt-out does not mean there is no legal recourse. In fact, the parents can resort to the democratic process.In other words, if we (Christians) are going to insist that gay marriage supporters eschew judicially mandated recognition of certain rights, and instead make efforts to change by democratic means, we should do likewise. :goodjob:Of course, all that said, in my perfect world it wouldn’t even be an issue because I agree that schools shouldn’t even be teaching about family issues or any social issues at all. :yes:On an unrelated (but mentioned) point: did you see this? :what:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s