California

[IDBillzFan]

Not trying to be a smartass here. But how, exactly, does marriage, of ANY kind, get taught in public elementary school? Is it like math, history, social studies, marriage, lunch, then science? Are there teachers out there with degrees in marriage education? I'm just trying to imagine how "marriage" becomes part of a curriculum. How was that going to be implemented?

I'll have to go back to the articles, links, etc. to answer that specifically, but essentially, California state law requires health classes to instruct students about marriage.

[K-9]

However, some seem to want to link black oppression to homosexual oppression, yet the black community doesn't seem to see it in the same light. That was my point.

 

I agree. And I can certainly understand, given the horrific history of violence against them, why the black community wouldn't see this discrimination in the same light. It's not like boatloads of homosexuals were taken from their homeland and bound to slavery for hundreds of years afterall. Nor do I recall learning that homosexuals weren't allowed to eat at the same restaurants or drink from the same water fountains or stay in the same hotels as non-homosexuals.

 

But discrimination is discrimination and many homosexuals/lesbians have been harmed, both physically and emotionally, simply because they were different. Some have even been killed simply for being of a different sexual orientation. And they ARE denied certain legal rights enjoyed by traditionally married couples.

 

I know you know all this. My point is that, at least in my way of thinking, those that know most the pain of discrimination would be the first to object to it.

[John from Riverside]

The problem with the proposal was that it left the door open for gay marriage to be taught at the elementary school level. I was skeptical of that loophole because I personally have no problem with gays marrying provided they are held to the divorce laws as well. But that loophole does, in fact, exist, and given the extremely liberal nature of this state, I wasn't in the mood to see if they'll test that loophole. The question ultimately became: "Are you okay having your five-year-old taught about gay marriage in school?"

 

Saying "no" to that question doesn't make me stupid.

 

Yeah....before calling californians stupid (and some are) folks you have to understand all sides.

 

The majority of us who voted no against this wasn't against same sex marriage (I personally dont care) but that it left the option open to be taught in schools (which DO care)

 

As it was explained to me they still have the exact same rights they would normally have in marriage now.

[John from Riverside]

I'll have to go back to the articles, links, etc. to answer that specifically, but essentially, California state law requires health classes to instruct students about marriage.

 

That is how I took it as well.

[K-9]

I'll have to go back to the articles, links, etc. to answer that specifically, but essentially, California state law requires health classes to instruct students about marriage.

 

Thanks for the insight. No need to go back to the articles. If it's a state law and it's a part of a health class curriculum, I see the conflict for lots of parents. Totally understandable.

[bills_fan_in_raleigh]

The question ultimately became: "Are you okay having your five-year-old taught about gay marriage in school?"

So you dont think kids will be learning about gay marriage when

they start asking why their best friend johnny has 2 mommies or 2 daddies?

[erynthered]

So you dont think kids will be learning about gay marriage when

they start asking why their best friend johnny has 2 mommies or 2 daddies?

 

Then let the parents tell them. Why does the Gov have to do that. You're not a parent, are you....

[bills_fan]

So you dont think kids will be learning about gay marriage when

they start asking why their best friend johnny has 2 mommies or 2 daddies?

 

 

I think LA and John's point is that kids should learn about it from their parents, when their parents believe they are ready to know it. Not when the school decides to teach the subject. As a father myself, I can completely understand this point.

 

The gay marriage movement has been overreaching for years on this measure and this is just another example. If the goal was to confer all of the benefits of marriage on gay partners (and thus,immeasurably improve the lives of gay folks nationwide), thats what they should have gone for. Instead, they want to make a social statement via use of the word "marriage" and delay real-life, helpful benefits to gay people. Ridiculous.

 

Get the benefits first, then make the social statement. By then, it won't be much of an issue.

 

Now, they overreach again, from what it sounds like, by allowing teaching to elementary school students. Absent that, it seems the measure would not have passed.

[Kelly the Dog]

I'll have to go back to the articles, links, etc. to answer that specifically, but essentially, California state law requires health classes to instruct students about marriage.

This is a good article that shows both sides and doesn't take sides on the issue. IMO, the bill was worded poorly because it didn't take into consideration the other law that said marriage should be taught in schools. It wasn't at all designed to teach gay marriage in schools by anyone. The problem was only that marriage was discussed in schools by law, and this would allow gay marriage, so opponents extrapolated that to say that the schools were going to go out and teach it in class when there is no instance or history of that.

 

I'm not at all surprised it passed though, and I don't think that gay marriage should be taught in elementary schools. Not that it was going to be.

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ga...0,6474352.story

[IDBillzFan]

So you dont think kids will be learning about gay marriage when

they start asking why their best friend johnny has 2 mommies or 2 daddies?

That scenario does not demand that the government should teach him. When we take our son downtown and he sees a homeless person sitting on a street corner with a sign and a cup, and asks what the guy is doing, should I let the government explain that, too?

 

Our friends have a five-year-old who the other night asked his parents what a step-father is. They explained it to him. That's what parents do. That's not what government does.

 

What I think you're missing here is that folks like myself believe in personal accountability. We don't need the government doing everything for us. In fact, I'd prefer they start doing less. It ain't happenin', but it's my preference.

 

IMO, the bill was worded poorly because it didn't take into consideration the other law that said marriage should be taught in schools. It wasn't at all designed to teach gay marriage in schools by anyone.

Exactly. In fact, if that loophole didn't exist, I would have voted against the ban. For as long as I've been able to think for myself, I have supported gay rights. In fact, in my last job, I had hired a lesbian in a sales position, and was successful finding health care that would cover her partner. During the interview, she point-blank asked me "You do know I'm gay, right? Is that problem?" I told her "You're a great salesperson. I don't care if you have sex with a sheep if you can meet your quota."

 

On the other hand, I don't live my life strictly by the Bible. So while I won't discriminate against gays, I won't discriminate against people who take the Bible literally.

[Kelly the Dog]

Exactly. In fact, if that loophole didn't exist, I would have voted against the ban. For as long as I've been able to think for myself, I have supported gay rights. In fact, in my last job, I had hired a lesbian in a sales position, and was successful finding health care that would cover her partner. During the interview, she point-blank asked me "You do know I'm gay, right? Is that problem?" I told her "You're a great salesperson. I don't care if you have sex with a sheep if you can meet your quota."

Do women even have sex with sheep? Ewe.....

[Johnny Coli]

I hope you realize that the proposition passed only because of the OVERWHELMING support of blacks and latinos.

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.

[IDBillzFan]

Do women even have sex with sheep? Ewe.....

They can try if they want, but something tells me it's going to end baaaaaaadly.

[John Adams]

So you voted not to prohibit gay people frmo marrying (here's the text).

 

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.

Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly from sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments.

In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

 

And the reason is because your kids could be taught about homosexual marriage in public schools, where they are already taguht about hetero marriage? By the way, if you fell for the tactic that a "No" vote on Prop 8 meant that schools would teach about homosexual marriage to your kids, shame on you. You fell for a baseless scare tactic set to snare your bigotry hook, line, and sinker.

 

And even if your kids did hear about same sex marriage at school, who cares? You don't think they're hearing about worse things from their teachers?

 

How insane. So because gays now can't marry in California, your kids are safe from ____(?)___. You have an alarmingly narrow-minded set of values if you deprived people of the right to marry just because there was a chance of kids hearing about same sex marriages.

 

Someone said this is a fight over the word marriage because homosexuals can be civilly united and get the same rights. If the rights are the same, why create a different legal word. Answer: there is a legal difference. Once the terms are different, the rights start to differ. If it's "just" a word, it should apply equally to marriages between men-men, women-women, and men-women. Who gives a hit? Except a whole lot of people who care about how adults contract their love with one another.

[ieatcrayonz]

I hope you realize that the proposition passed only because of the OVERWHELMING support of blacks and latinos.

Of course he does. He goes to an Ivy league school.

[GG]

Someone said this is a fight over the word marriage because homosexuals can be civilly united and get the same rights. If the rights are the same, why create a different legal word. Answer: there is a legal difference. Once the terms are different, the rights start to differ. If it's "just" a word, it should apply equally to marriages between men-men, women-women, and men-women. Who gives a hit? Except a whole lot of people who care about how adults contract their love with one another.

 

Marriages are also sanctioned by churches and a big outcry was that by legalizing same sex marriage, you would have forced religious institutions to sanctify same sex marriages. Would you imagine the scenario that if the law passed, could a couple sue the Catholic Church for denying them the right to be married in the church? I think that you can make a case there, and that's why there was very large opposition from religion.

[John Adams]

Marriages are also sanctioned by churches and a big outcry was that by legalizing same sex marriage, you would have forced religious institutions to sanctify same sex marriages. Would you imagine the scenario that if the law passed, could a couple sue the Catholic Church for denying them the right to be married in the church? I think that you can make a case there, and that's why there was very large opposition from religion.

 

Don't be a nitwit. You're smarter than this. If your above "case" could be made, divorced Catholics would be suing the Church every day to force them to sanction marriages. Churches are under no obligation to sanction any marriage they don't want to. Jesus H.

[MattyT]

Churches perform funeral rites without signing the death certificate. It would be nice if they would do the same with marriage licenses.

[GG]

Don't be a nitwit. You're smarter than this. If your above "case" could be made, divorced Catholics would be suing the Church every day to force them to sanction marriages. Churches are under no obligation to sanction any marriage they don't want to. Jesus H.

 

Just bringing up a point in the campaigns. Marriage is sacrosanct to religious organizations, as they have deeper roots in those institutions than in governments. If there was an error, it was for the secular state to officially recognize "marriage" as a legal entity, as opposed to a "an ever-lasting union between two people (provided that both agree to abide by the contractual terms described herein, upon which time the union shall dissolve, provided that the following sums and bodily parts are delivered)"

 

But because the state got involved in marriage, and now wants to define/redefine it, the religious folk are saying, hold on not so fast it's our property. That's why the word is so important.

[IDBillzFan]

And the reason is because your kids could be taught about homosexual marriage in public schools

Yes. I can't help it if you don't agree with me. Frankly, I prefer the schools don't teach about marriage in the first place. But if I put my child in the public school system, I currently do not have that choice.

 

You can raise your child your way, and I'll raise my child my way. You'll ultimately notice I'll never stand in judgement of your parental skills or requirements.

 

Just don't miss what is at the core of my decision: NEVER underestimate the ability of California government to work a loophole.