The following editorial is from a friend living in the city of Irvine.
“The debate is raging between the supporters and the opponents of Proposition 8-supporters say marriage should be defined as legal between only a man and a woman. Opponents want the time-honored and traditional definition to be changed to allow same-sex marriage. To muddy up the arguments swirling around this debate, the CTA has contributed one million dollars of teachers’ fees to oppose the proposition. According to the Orange County Register (10-22-08), the story of an individual lesbian teacher’s decision to take her class on a “field trip” to her gay wedding are examples of how children will be influenced in the classrooms of California by their teachers. “The claim that Proposition 8 has anything to do with schools is a lie. The way children are taught today won’t change one bit,” says Kate Kendall (National Center for Lesbian Rights) in a disingenuous argument. Her statement begs the question: What are schools teaching now about sexual orientation in our public school system?
I can only answer that question with anecdotal evidence from my perspective. After raising a family, I went back to school when I was 48 to obtain a formal education. In my last semester of a traditional undergraduate program at California State University in Fullerton, I took two simultaneous biology classes to meet a three-unit need for science credits. The classes I chose were Human Sexuality (Master’s and Johnson text) and Sexually Transmitted Diseases. As a parent of grown children and as a pastor’s wife, I was curious to see what was being taught on the college level in this discipline. The two professors disseminated all of the biological and reproductive information in the assigned textbooks. I noted that the text for the STD class was approved by SIECUS (more about that later) before publication and distribution. The dangers of unprotected sexual behavior were explicit: use condoms. I waited in vain for one of the two professors to mention the words “monogamy” and “marriage” when they lectured about sexual behavior. Neither word was ever mentioned. The very last day of class, however, the professor of the Human Sexuality class posited a carefully-worded, hypothetical question: “If a man and a woman who have never had a sexual partner and who have never used a needle for drugs entered into a monogamous relationship and practiced fidelity, would either one of them ever contract AIDS?” There was a moment of stunned silence in the class of about 80 students before they erupted with the answer, “Of course not!” And then in the stillness of the classroom, I heard a young man in back of me whisper, “Yeah, but who lives like that?” In that moment, my heart broke. I wanted to tell him, “I do. I have. My husband and I have been married for over thirty years. We’ve practiced monogamy and commitment to our vows. We signed a contract. We are true to each other after all these years.” But, of course, I didn’t say that and evidently that was as far as that one professor felt free to even hint at monogamy and/or marriage.
When I did my oral presentation in the STD class a day later, I talked about marriage and monogamy as a means to promote and practice “safe sex” and avoid the dangers of promiscuity. The professor asked for a private meeting after the class and lectured me on my “moralizing.” My GPA was in danger because I had talked about morals and values. Once again, I was heart-broken on the last day of that class when the other students gleefully handed out multi-colored condoms to each other. “I don’t need them,” I responded when they offered them to me. They were sorely short-changed in this class; they were never informed of the option of what marriage and fidelity could offer them.
Now . . . what does SIECUS have to do with all of this? Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States infiltrated our state’s educational system years ago. I clearly remember reading an article in a San Francisco paper in 1976 about the goals at that time of the militant gay activist group, ACT-UP: by the year 2000, they were intent on every school system in California teaching homosexuality as an accepted alternative life style. I was astounded at their goal. “That will never happen-that could never happen!” I thought in my naiveté. And yet, here I was 25 years later, sitting in a state university classroom with materials that had to be approved by SIECUS before they could be used for teaching. If you visit their website, www.siecus.org, you will read about their policies and advocacy, the information and education they give to schools and communities, and the lesson plans they offer to school districts and teachers. SIECUS is a deeply-entrenched group that has been and is actively working to promote social engineering within our society. Through the aggressive assault on what defines marriage and who can legally marry, the gay and lesbian community is actively attacking the sacredness of marriage as defined and practiced by the Muslin, Judeo and Christian faiths.
The goals of ACT-UP and SIECUS were announced decades ago; the slippery slope has led us to Proposition 8 in this year’s campaign. Will the wishes of a few undermine the sacred teachings and practices of the majority? I don’t know the answer. I do know that hundreds of thousands of people around the globe live out their faith and practice the wonderful richness of marital fidelity. The gay and lesbian community already have legal rights guaranteed them in a civil relationship. I would hope and pray that these same people be prevented in their quest to topple and re-define the institution of marriage between a man and a woman.”
Note: The above text is from a registered voter living in Irvine, California. The original copy of this e-mail editorial is in my files.
A few points…
First, part of your argument rests on the egregious fallacy that a gay and lesbian marriage is not one of fidelity and monogamy. While I agree that our society downplays the importance of monogamy, I do not suppose to blame that on homosexuals. If there is a degradation in the quality of marriage and fidelity in our society then those whom have had the right afforded to them need to be looked at, not those whom have not been allowed to participate in it. I highly doubt that there will be more divorces or more people will become promiscuous or cheat on each other because homosexuals have the right to be wed.
Secondly, as far as the claim that this is an attempt at social engineering, are you kidding me? What do you think organized government and religion do? Virtually all law and governance can be considered “social engineering.” The pot shouldn’t call the kettle black.
Third, Sex Ed varies by district; if a community is concerned with what is being taught as far as that subject in their schools, then they need to legislate that on a district basis, not state-wide. If you need evidence of how a district’s policies on Sex Ed affect the population, look at the fact that this district is abstinence only- how many students actually listen to that? Walk on any high school campus and you’ll see it is not effective. It ALL starts in the home, and if it is taught and enforced at home then whatever happens in the school will have little effect. Then again, Sarah Palin is for abstinence only and her teenage daughter is pregnant out of wedlock… hmm. But, that’s another subject.
Finally, as a teacher, I try to teach tolerance and acceptance, which are tenants of most faiths. I can speak most to my knowledge of the Christian faith, and can say that it hurts me that people who consider themselves Christians do not practice the charity and acceptance that is so pivotal to Christ’s teachings. I do not try to inject my viewpoints into student minds, but instead teach them to be critical, look at real facts, and make their judgements based on those facts rather than on hearsay, overgeneralizations, and blind fear. While we may all have different moral and religious beliefs, we do all live in the United States, which is a nation sprung from free, critical thinkers and is meant to be a land of equality for all.
Our kids do not live in the vacuum that the yes on 8 people want to keep them in. From middle school on up, students know peers who identify as gay,lesbian, or bi. In most cases these students are accepted and treated as equals. When will adults learn this? There are Gay, Straight Alliances on campuses that foster tolerance and understanding. Having gay marriage will not remove the mention of all things gay from your kids, after all between 5-10% are gay themselves. Wake up.
Jack O’Connell and the CTA are both making totally misleading statements about Prop 8.
Here’s precisely why and how kids will be taught gay marriage if Prop 8 fails:
The courts (or lawsuits) will eventually mandate that the state education guidelines conform to state law. O’Connell will be forced to rewrite the state guidelines to provide instruction on gay marriage whether he likes it or not. Then, local school districts will have to rewrite their own guidelines to conform to state guidelines. They’ll have to. They’ll have no choice. And, when it’s all done, children will be taught to accept gay marriage in elemenary school. It’s one thing to teach compassion and acceptance of our differences, but it’s something else to let little kids be taught ‘a prince can marry a prince or a princess can marry a princess’ That’s just not acceptable to most parents.
So, they’re not telling the whole truth when they say Prop 8 won’t affect education. Don’t be mislead. It’s inevitable that it will happen if Prop 8 fails. O’Connell and the CTA really shouldn’t get away with lying about this.