Same-Sex Marriage and Education

Education, Politics — By on October 13, 2008 at 2:10 am

In my post last week I made the point that one consequence of the state sanctioning same-sex marriage would be that the same-sex lobby would be able to use our schools to normalize homosexuality. “No on 8″ proponents counter my argument by assuring us that this is not the intention at all behind the legalizing of same-sex marriage in California. Somebody from the “No on 8″ campaign should have told that to eighteen first graders who attended the wedding of their lesbian school teacher just recently.
Providentially, I received this notice from a good friend just today:

NEWS RELEASE Contact: Chip White, 916-215-4392 and
For Immediate Release Sonja Eddings Brown, 818-993-4508
First Graders Taken To San Francisco City Hall For Gay Wedding

SAN FRANCISCO, October 11 – In the same week that the No on 8 campaign launched an ad that labeled as “lies” claims that same-sex marriage would be taught in schools to young children, a first grade class took a school-sponsored trip to a gay wedding. Eighteen first graders traveled to San Francisco City Hall Friday for the wedding of their teacher and her lesbian partner, The San Francisco Chronicle reported. The school sponsored the trip for the students, ages 5 and 6, taking them away from their studies for the same-sex wedding. According to the Yes on 8 campaign, the public school field trip demonstrates that the California Supreme Court’s decision to legal same-sex marriage has real consequences.

“Taking children out of school for a same-sex wedding is not customary education. This is promoting same-sex marriage and indoctrinating young kids,” said Yes on 8–ProtectMarriage.com Campaign Co-Manager Frank Schubert. “I doubt the school has ever taken kids on a field trip to a traditional wedding,” Schubert said.
When asked by the Yes on 8 campaign, The San Francisco Chronicle reporter said she did not know if the school had ever sponsored a field trip for students to a traditional wedding. Telling the Chronicle that the field trip was “a teachable moment,” the school’s principal believes it is perfectly appropriate for first graders to attend a same-sex wedding. Officials in other school districts disagree.
“Prop. 8 protects our children from being taught in public schools that ‘same-sex marriage’ is the same as traditional marriage,” said Santa Ana Unified School District board member Rosemarie “Rosie” Avila. “We should not accept a court decision that results in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It shouldn’t be forced on us against our will,” Avila added.
The lesbian teacher’s wedding was officiated by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. Newsom is featured in a Yes on 8 television ad, released last week, in which he arrogantly declares of same-sex marriage: “The door’s wide open now. It’s gonna happen, whether you like it or not.”
The Yes on 8 campaign’s ads explain that if the voters do not overturn the California Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling, teachers will be required to teach young children that there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.
“It’s totally unreasonable that a first grade field trip would be to a same-sex wedding,” said Chip White, Press Secretary for Yes on 8. “This is overt indoctrination of children who are too young to understand it.”
The field trip underscores the Yes on 8 campaign’s message that unless Prop. 8 passes, children will be taught about same-sex marriage in public schools. “Not only can it happen, it has already happened,” White said.
###
Media contacts:
Northern & Central California (Sacramento Press Office): Chip White, 916-215-4392
Los Angeles & Southern California: Sonja Eddings Brown, 818-993-4508
Protect Marriage, 915 L Street, # C-259, Sacramento, CA 95814
For more information, visit www.ProtectMarriage.com


Tags: , , , , ,
  • http://makinghome.blogspot.com Jess @ MakingHome

    Wow. I am stunned. I would like to say “I can’t believe this has happened”, but it IS believable. All too believable. What an assault on culture.
    Thanks for sharing this.

  • HiDesertRat

    I would like to know where the parents are on all of this? How does the school get the funds to sponsor a field trip to a gay wedding? Did the parents sign the consent forms for the children? What if I didn’t want my child to go, where was he/she? It just seems the schools have crossed so many lines here and if it didn’t have the proper legal forms filed, there should be action taken by the parents. I am sure the funds could have been better spent getting supplies for the classroom.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    I notice this story has no links to it, no specifics on which school did this trip, when, who the teacher getting married was etc and the only direct quotes are from those against the ballot. Anyone have a link to the actual story? Hmmmmm….
    That being said, I don’t think it is proper that field trips are being done for teacher’s personal business like getting married. If there’s a trip to city hall and the kids happen to see a wedding happening that’s one thing but having a field trip just to watch a teacher get married is IMO as inproper as having a field trip to watch a teacher’s divorce get finalized. If there’s a teacher who wants to invite her students to her wedding she should send invitations to the parents and conduct it as a private affair. The school shouldn’t be involved and that would include letting the class out for the day.
    This is a variation on the political correctness argument. You may recall that flawed argument goes like this: If gay marriage is legal then PC police will suppress those who disagree with it.
    The problem with this idea is that it assumes PC police are ok, it’s just that you don’t want them enforcing gay marriage. America is premised on the idea that PC police are NOT ok. PC should be opposed when found rather than try to shape policies that make a PC police that happens to be enforcing your own particular preferences.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Well this seems to be the story:
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/11/MNFG13F1VG.DTL&hw=wedding+school+trip&sn=001&sc=1000
    The school was the Creative Arts Charter School…as the name suggests Charter schools do NOT have to operate under the normal rules and regulations of public school (that’s the idea, they are supposed to be experimental schools). All the parents not only agreed to the excusion but are making a video with their kids. That shouldn’t be surprising because Charter schools are entirely voluntary.
    Pro side- Parents agreed and the fact that it’s a Charter school gives it more slack than a normal school. Charter schools are only a few steps away from the voucher school system conservatives advocate & considering how enthused the parents were I suspect the right would see quite a few more examples of this then they would like.
    Con side- I still wouldn’t approve the mixing of politics with the school system (as the upcoming proposition was clearly being emphasized here). If there wasn’t a proposition coming up I might cut the school some slack as a Charter school but if I was in the school I’d object to this as too much mingling between teachers and students. Let socialization happen off the clock if that’s what everyone wants.

  • ex-preacher

    Today’s post is an example of a fairly common logical fallacy:
    “Argument From Adverse Consequences (Appeal To Fear, Scare Tactics):
    saying an opponent must be wrong, because if he is right, then bad things would ensue. For example: God must exist, because a godless society would be lawless and dangerous. Or: the defendant in a murder trial must be found guilty, because otherwise husbands will be encouraged to murder their wives.”
    In this case, Dustin tells us that we must not approve of gay marriage lest young children be taken on field trips to witness gay weddings. Dustin doesn’t even feel the need to prove that all children would experience this consequence. It is enough for him that any child anywhere might. It is a sign that anti-gay marriage folks have run out of arguments against same sex marriage itself.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Indeed but it’s not even clear how banning gay marriage would prevent what he is complaining about? What would stop this school from doing a field trip to witness a Civil Union ceremony?
    The problem, if it is one, is the trade off you get with either vouchers or Charter Schools. Because this school is NOT part of the normal public school system it is populated by people who all agree with each other. The echo chamber effect allows the liberal parents to all go for a field trip meant to endorse voting a particular way on an upcoming proposition. Perhaps the benefits of having a small niche school devoted to creative arts outweighs the downside of the echo chamber. But a real advantage of a unifed public school system is that it does require a degree of tolerance for diverse viewpoints. Such a field trip probably would not happen in the normal system because even San Franscisco has parents who do object.
    I hope some on the right can see the echo chamber when its victims, here, are on the left because the echo chamber is suspect #1 in the almost complete intellectual bankruptcy of the right. Essentially someone posts crap and almost everyone else pats him on the back for it. The end result of this intellectual affirmative action is Sarah Palin.

  • smmtheory

    No, intellectual affirmative action would be giving your ideas more merit than they deserve.

  • smmtheory

    P.S. If you are a victim here Boonton, it is of your own doing. Only God knows why you continue reading and commenting on these posts when you feel victimized.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Hey idiot, read the fing post! I never said I was victimized. What a loser, and you actually got offended when I said you’re the stupidest person on this list.

  • http://coyotehowls.wordpress.com Howling Coyote

    Excuse me but T do see some leaping to conclusions and some hysterical rhetoric here. Please read this quote and confirm the source that I have provided for you.
    “As is the case with all field trips, parents had to give their permission and could choose to opt out of the trip. Two families did. Those children spent the duration of the 90-minute field trip back at school with another first-grade class, the interim director said.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/11/MNFG13F1VG.DTL
    (1) It was an optional field trip.
    (2) Parental permission was required.
    (3) Two families opted out and those children spent the duration of the 90-minute field trip back at school with another first-grade class.
    So what are your so bent out of shape about?

  • http://coyotehowls.wordpress.com howlingcoyote

    The story was reported and this is a quote from it:
    “As is the case with all field trips, parents had to give their permission and could choose to opt out of the trip. Two families did. Those children spent the duration of the 90-minute field trip back at school with another first-grade class, the interim director said.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/11/MNFG13F1VG.DTL
    (1) It was an optional field trip.
    (2) Parental permission was required.
    (3) Two families opted out and those children spent the duration of the 90-minute field trip back at school with another first-grade class.

  • smmtheory

    This is what you posted Boonton:

    I hope some on the right can see the echo chamber when its victims, here, are on the left because the echo chamber is suspect #1 in the almost complete intellectual bankruptcy of the right.

    And it’s obvious that you associate yourself with the left. Sure looks like you are embracing the victimology.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    And it’s obvious that you associate yourself with the left. Sure looks like you are embracing the victimology.
    Hey idiot, I was talking about the parents at the Charter School who didn’t see anything wrong with the field trip whose premise was to support a no vote on an upcoming proposition. Once again, you are the stupidest commenter here.
    Howling Coyote
    So what are your so bent out of shape about?
    Well there is a problem here, two kids get left behind and have to do school work because their parents don’t want their kid to attend a wedding they may disagree with or don’t want their kid to attend an event supporting a vote on an upcoming proposition…while everyone else gets the day off of school and gets to go on a fun field trip.
    Imagine this gay teacher had instead joined an outfit like Exodus ministries and was going to a ‘graduation’ ceremony’ to celebrate being ‘cured’ of homosexuality. A lot of the same parents who sent their kids to the wedding would almost certainly not send their kids to that.
    In both these cases the proper thing is for the teacher to invite the parents to bring their kids to these ceremonies on their own time and not turn it into an official school field trip.

  • Chris L.

    HC, I have to admit that Boonton’s reply covers most of the reasons why it should have not been allowed. One additional reason is that it opens the possibility of retaliation against the kids who opted out.

  • smmtheory

    The irony of this is so thick you could cut it with a log splitter.
    The Catholic Church had a dozen or so priests that sexually abused dozens of children and because the heirarchy tried to rehabilitate them, the leftists came from all over wanting to hold its metaphorical feet to the fire. Yet here we have almost a whole class of children being sexually abused by their teacher (at a Charter School no less AND with explicit parental approval!) and we have leftists from all over that see nothing wrong with this kind of sexual abuse. The only difference is that this abuse is more nuanced (less physical) and is also more politically correct.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    And exactly how is this ‘sexual abuse’?

  • Rob Ryan

    “Yet here we have almost a whole class of children being sexually abused by their teacher (at a Charter School no less AND with explicit parental approval!) and we have leftists from all over that see nothing wrong with this kind of sexual abuse.”
    Did I miss something? Can you explain how this field trip has anything to do with the sexual abuse of a child?
    Waste of a school day, in my opinion, but nothing more sinister than that.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    I get it, a child be exposed to a gay woman is just like a child being sexually molested by a full grown adult. If the children had been raped smmtheory would consider that just as bad.

  • http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com Dustin Steeve

    Ex-Preacher:
    I have committed no logical fallacy. My argument is that should proposition 8 fail, the same-sex lobby would make the necessary legal positioning to use our school systems to normalize the same-sex lifestyle in the eyes of America’s youngest generation. I posted the above post as evidence for my argument in order to counter claims by the “No on 8″ crowd who, in my opinion, make disingenuous promises that they would not use our school systems to normalize same-sex behavior.
    I escape the fallacy of which you are accusing me because I am not asking people to judge the morality of same-sex marriage based on this argument. I am trying to scare nobody into believing one way or the other on same-sex marriage itself. I assume that my audience has made that judgment already. What I am trying to do is help my fellow citizens identify the true legal battle happening in the background of this proposition.
    Coyote:
    “In both these cases the proper thing is for the teacher to invite the parents to bring their kids to these ceremonies on their own time and not turn it into an official school field trip.” I agree with Boonton’s response to your question. I would add that I find it very troubling for adults to condone teaching children that the same-sex lifestyle is healthy and natural when, in fact, many of us do not agree with this assessment.
    If anyone has run out of arguments, I believe that it is the same-sex lobby. Instead of using argument to convince a majority of Americans to support their position, they are attempting to undermine the American voter via shady judicial maneuvers and indoctrinate an entire generation of American children who do not have the tools of reason and the knowledge bank of western/American thought & heritage to draw upon. This is shameful behavior. I think that we ought to educate children in the way that we have always educated them until such a time as we, as a nation of mature voting adults, come to a conclusion on this critical issue to the health and well being of the American family.
    As a young adult, I have exposed to the shameful tactics of the same-sex lobby and I am acutely aware of how they have “won” the support of so many of my peers without bothering to make a single, reasonable argument in defense of the same-sex lifestyle and culture. I plan to write more on this in a later post.
    Thanks for the feedback everyone!

  • Ben

    The children were not sexually abused but they were taught a message. Marriage puts society’s stamp of approval on a relationship. It says this is something good that we should all support and try to make last forever. The children were also taught that homosexuality is good because the law says it is good. As the parents had a right to have their children taught that message Californians have a right to say they don’t want their children taught that message. The best way to do that is to support proposition 8. Homosexuality is a taste that can be acquired and it can be obsessive.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    The children were also taught that homosexuality is good because the law says it is good.
    Well actually they were taught that because that’s what their parents believe and their parents showed their approval by attending the ceremony. If the kids had gone to divorce court would they have been learning divorce was good? How about drug court?
    Dustin
    My argument is that should proposition 8 fail, the same-sex lobby would make the necessary legal positioning to use our school systems to normalize the same-sex lifestyle in the eyes of America’s youngest generation
    You’ve demonstrated no such thing, though. This field trip required no legal positioning and could have happened even if 8 passes. This ‘normalization’ is clearly due to the fact that the parents of these kids believe it to be so. As I pointed out the field trip happened not because gay marriage is legal in California but because a mini-echo chamber was created in this school by focusing in a niche group of like minded people. Echo chambers the right would see increased rather than decreased.
    As for no reasonable arguments being advanced in favor of gay marriage, you are free to close your eyes and cover your ears as much as you want. Plenty of reasonable arguments have been advanced for it. You are free to mount a case against them, if you can, but please dispense with this fantasy that your loss of public support is some type of legal trick or mind control hypnosis via school field trip.

  • smmtheory

    The ultimate echo chamber:
    A trusted teacher standing in front of classroom of unknowing children teaching them that homosexual behaviour is normal and healthy behaviour so that many years later, they will think it is a teachable moment to send their own children to see a same-sex mockery of marriage, codifying forever in most of their minds that mysogyny and mysandry of homosexual behaviour is normal, healthy and acceptable behaviour.
    It is a shame that more and more people are not mature enough to realize that teaching a child wrongly about sexuality is sexual abuse more insidious even than physical abuse because the children don’t even realize that they have been abused, they don’t know to seek help and repair for the abuse; consequently ending up sexually abusing their own children in the same manner.

  • ex-preacher

    Thanks for responding, Dustin. I was starting to wonder if you and Rachel actually read the comments.
    I’m surprised to hear you say that you are not trying to convince anyone to vote yes. You clearly are and I don’t know why you fell the need to deny it. No matter.
    You say: “My argument is that should proposition 8 fail, the same-sex lobby would make the necessary legal positioning to use our school systems to normalize the same-sex lifestyle in the eyes of America’s youngest generation.”
    As Boonton points out, why couldn’t a teacher in a school do the same even if 8 fails? Even in my state where civil unions don’t exist, some churches and other groups have same-sex commitment ceremonies. What would keep a teacher from taking a field trip to one of those? There is simply no connection between the two parts of your argument. Perhaps what you really need is a constitutional amendment prohibiting field trips not approved by a council of evangelical conservatives.
    Tell me how your argument differs from the following hypothetical:
    If we approve freedom of religion, then the “freedom of religion lobby” will subvert our children by taking them on field trips to religious ceremonies, including those of Satanists.
    When you tell me what’s wrong with that line of reasoning, you will know what’s wrong with your argument.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Imagine one day smmtheory wakes up with superpowers like spiderman or superman. He is confronted with a choice. 40 miles to the east a bus with 18 kids is going to watch a gay marriage ceremony. 40 miles to the west one child is about to be raped by a child molester.
    It would seem that smmtheory would fly east since he considers what is about to happen to those 18 kids to be sexual abuse and preventing 18 wrongs is better than preventing one. This is a deeply sick person we have here. And he is also stupid.

  • smmtheory

    This is a deeply sick person we have here.

    And I’m being treated for my sickness; take my medication everyday. What’s your excuse?

  • smmtheory

    p.s. the answer to the conundrum is obvious. I throw the child molester under the bus, thereby preventing both instances. But that really says nothing to the failure of parents to recognize the abuse they are helping to perpetrate upon their own children.

  • http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com Dustin Steeve

    Boonton:
    “You’ve demonstrated no such thing, though. This field trip required no legal positioning and could have happened even if 8 passes.”
    I have demonstrated a trend. In the first post, I submitted video evidence of the mainstreaming of same-sex education in the public schools contrary to the parent’s best interest for their children. The legal grounds for this, as argued by the Family Research Council and others, was the legalizing of same-sex marriage. In the second post, with the press release, I submitted evidence that in a place where same-sex marriage is most avant-garde, same-sex marriages are being viewed as an educational “opportunity.” The reason that such “opportunities” are not more widely presented despite current Civil Union laws (which I also discussed in the first post) is due to current laws regarding the definition of marriage which would be radically altered should prop 8 fail.
    “As for no reasonable arguments being advanced in favor of gay marriage, you are free to close your eyes and cover your ears as much as you want. Plenty of reasonable arguments have been advanced for it. You are free to mount a case against them, if you can, but please dispense with this fantasy that your loss of public support is some type of legal trick or mind control hypnosis via school field trip.”
    I disagree with your point of view on the matter and offer you two challenges: Please present to me any state in the union where the same-sex lobby won their constitutional right to same-sex marriage via argumentation whereby they convinced voters of the reasonableness of their claim and the voters, via a proposition, voted in the right to same-sex marriage. I further challenge you to point to me a mainstream, same-sex marriage advocate who has made a reasonable argument to the American people whereby we have a political and philosophical stop-gap, one that comports to reason, that prevents us from redefining marriage perpetually.
    If you can show me these things, it would be very helpful for me. However, I have looked and not found any compelling claims which have caused me to change my mind.
    Ex-Preacher:
    “I’m surprised to hear you say that you are not trying to convince anyone to vote yes.”
    You should read more carefully what I actually said. My posts are not regarding the morality of same-sex marriage, I am not asking anyone to render a judgment on same-sex marriage because I am assuming that most reasonable people have already done so. My assumption is that, in the state of California, most people believe that same-sex couples ought not be denied the same basic rights that we all enjoy, they ought not be denied the ability to commit their lives to one another, they ought to have the same legal protections (in areas of medical questions, estate planning, etc) as heterosexual couples. However, simply because they ought to have these legal protections does not mean that the same-sex lifestyle ought to be seen as normal, healthy, or the same as heterosexual marriages, etc. The latter is the issue truly at stake, not the former. I am asking people to recognize what is truly being asked of them via proposition 8.
    People are being asked if same-sex marriage ought to be culturally condoned and the same-sex culture (including families and marriages) normalized in our society. Given current laws regarding civil unions in the state of California, contrary to what anti-8 advocates claim, this is not an issue of rights or legal protection as same-sex couples already enjoy the same legal benefits as heterosexual couples and they enjoy a few legal perks in areas like adoption.
    Let me be most direct: I escape your fallacy charge because I am not claiming that same-sex marriage is bad BECAUSE it would be taught to our children in public schools.

  • ex-preacher

    I don’t think we are communicating clearly on what you are arguing, but I’d still like to see you address my other comments.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    I disagree with your point of view on the matter and offer you two challenges:
    On your first challenge I reject your premise that only voter referrendums explicitly establishing gay marriage are valid. Recall I objected to the contention that gay marriage has been enacted through some type of legal trick. The decisions for gay marriage are based on state constitutions that either have language similiar to the ERA (rejected for the Federal Const. in the early 80’s) or deal with the creation of ‘marriage but in name only’ institutions.
    On the first, one of the objectiosn to the ERA was that it would legalize gay marriage. These arguments were articulated over 30 years ago by P. Schlafey and were applauded by the right. Fair notice was more than given that ERA language could leave an opening for gay marriage and voters choose to adopt it in some state constitutions with no clarification that gay marriage was to be excluded. I challenge you to show me a state which does NOT have a constitution approved by its voters. I find it amusing that the right had no problem saying decades ago that particular legal language meant one thing but when judges actually buy the argument they turn around and decry legislating from the bench.
    On the second we have a clear equal protection issue. Again this is an area where the states have long been on notice that such laws had to strike a careful path around the legal arguments that could be mounted against them. Given that the voters either enacted such laws or elected representatives that did so (and so far have failed attempts to clarrify their wishes against gay marriage by ballot) I feel my statement stands.
    Furthermore, isn’t it kind of suspect that we are now taking votes to be the final say on the matter? When the FMA was being proposed I don’t recall any on the right objecting that the amendment made no provision for states whose voters wanted either gay marriage or even civil unions. It was ok to trash the will of the voters then, I wonder if the prop 8 fails in this election if Dustin will back off and yield to the wishes of California’s voters?
    I further challenge you to point to me a mainstream, same-sex marriage advocate who has made a reasonable argument to the American people whereby we have a political and philosophical stop-gap, one that comports to reason, that prevents us from redefining marriage perpetually.
    I fail to see why this is a valid test for whether or not reasonable arguments have been presented in favor of gay marriage? At one time arranged marriages were rejected yet those arguing against them were not required to present a definitive theory of marriage that would end all discussion or debate about marriage forevermore settling not only the current topic of debate but all possible debate topics!
    ….This sounds like a slightly mroe sophisticated version of the slippery slope argument (in more base form it goes something like “If gay marriage why not human-sheep marriages?”). The response is any person wishing to mount an argument for some other type of marriage (be it something wacky like bestiality or something like polygamy) must do so and be evaluated on its merits.
    The legal grounds for this, as argued by the Family Research Council and others, was the legalizing of same-sex marriage
    As has been pointed out, no such legal grounds are necessary. Even without gay marriages there will be civil unions and barring that there will be churches willing to perform gay marriage ceremonies regardless of legality. The proper challenge to political correctness in schools is to challenge PC when it shows itself, not to try to shape policies so the PC is to your liking. Beyond the simple education of what the current law is, schools should not be taking stands in either direction about any marriage straight or gay. For decades Catholics have had to contend with the fact that divorce and remarriages are clearly accepted by civil law. Even a traditional male-female marriage cannot be assumed by a public school to be without objection by some of its students and their parents.

  • ex-preacher

    Perhaps I could understand your argument in this post better, Dustin, if you completed the following sentence:
    “I believe California voters should approve Proposition 8 because . . .”

  • http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com Dustin Steeve

    Ex-Preacher,
    After reading your and Boonton’s comments, I agree with you, we seem to not be communicating clearly. Given the feedback which I have received, I think it would be most helpful if I started a new post regarding my position on same-sex marriage as opposed to starting in the middle (as it were) of an argument the termination of which will be a yea or nay vote on Proposition 8.
    Please expect that post sometime next week.

  • http://www.waronsavings.com/ Robert

    Fellow Christians!
    BEWARE OF MORMONS BEARING GIFTS! Vote *NO* on 8!
    This is an attempt from the Mormon “Church” to gain credibility among evangelicals. Don’t be fooled. A simple google search on mormon evangelical relations will reveal a lot about their plan.
    You’d tell your kids “Don’t accept candy from strangers.” Set a good example by not doing it yourself.
    (See the War on Savings)

  • http://www.baytzim.com/ Joe

    There are a few Evangelicals who are seeing through the lies. See Reverend Joe’s NO on 8 website, for example

  • Bill Brown

    I wish someone would write who actually understood the legal ramifications of excluding a specific class in a Constitution! This issue has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality, and everything to do with constitutional protections. If marriage continues to exist at all in a legal sense, as it currently does, our state laws mandate that this legal status be available to all adult loving couples in the state. If this proposition passed, it would immediately a separate class of citizens that are thrust into legal limbo. The spiritual side of marriage has absolutely nothing to do with proposition 8. Churches have and always will have every right to operate within the lines of their own doctrines. Remember that we are talking about LEGAL marriage and not SPIRITUAL marriage. When churches launch an all-out attack on a state constitution, one might wonder if they longingly look back to the “good ole” Dark Ages. A little ignorance goes a long way. Vote NO if you value the freedoms we’ve worked to keep.

  • Bill Brown

    I wish someone would write who actually understood the legal ramifications of excluding a specific class in a Constitution! This issue has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality, and everything to do with constitutional protections. If marriage continues to exist at all in a legal sense, as it currently does, our state laws mandate that this legal status be available to all adult loving couples in the state. If this proposition passed, it would immediately a separate class of citizens that are thrust into legal limbo. The spiritual side of marriage has absolutely nothing to do with proposition 8. Churches have and always will have every right to operate within the lines of their own doctrines. Remember that we are talking about LEGAL marriage and not SPIRITUAL marriage. When churches launch an all-out attack on a state constitution, one might wonder if they longingly look back to the “good ole” Dark Ages. A little ignorance goes a long way. Vote NO if you value the freedoms we’ve worked to keep.

  • Bill Brown

    I wish someone would write who actually understood the legal ramifications of excluding a specific class in a Constitution! This issue has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality, and everything to do with constitutional protections. If marriage continues to exist at all in a legal sense, as it currently does, our state laws mandate that this legal status be available to all adult loving couples in the state. If this proposition passed, it would immediately a separate class of citizens that are thrust into legal limbo. The spiritual side of marriage has absolutely nothing to do with proposition 8. Churches have and always will have every right to operate within the lines of their own doctrines. Remember that we are talking about LEGAL marriage and not SPIRITUAL marriage. When churches launch an all-out attack on a state constitution, one might wonder if they longingly look back to the “good ole” Dark Ages. A little ignorance goes a long way. Vote NO if you value the freedoms we’ve worked to keep.

  • larry the plumber

    why is it wrong to “normalize” gays to kids?
    why is it wrong to teach kids that someone different is ok?
    why is it right to teach kids that a gay person isn’t normal?
    why is right to “normalize” them into a culture where God Hates Fags?

  • smmtheory

    why is right to “normalize” them into a culture where God Hates Fags?

    Why is it wrong to let children wait until they are adults to let them decide whether gay behavior is acceptable to them?
    Why is it wrong to teach kids to differentiate between right and wrong behavior?
    Why is it right to teach children that aberrant behavior is normal?
    Why is it right to propogate the myth that the Christian culture says God hates fags?

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Dustin, are you still planning to post on this topic?

  • http://www.vtewizchr.dwil.com jhslyoek otjwnvpu

    cbml nedb vyahg npot mbdlhyk xekizuwdy jbdgzk

  • http://www.rvax.com/ Vacuum-Cleaners

    Interesting article.

  • http://digitsy.com Digitsy Global Store

    Great Online shopping – music,musical instruments, books, video, electronics, toys, software.http://www.digitsy.com