#53485 Gay Marriage

[Damasta]

Well, I'll kick this one off. It's sure to get interesting.

I am morally and politically against so-called 'gay marriage'. And yes I see a distinction between moral and political opposition on this issue. But setting aside my personal beliefs on the matter, I think the Church Newsroom has some informative things to say about the Church's stance on Proposition 8. For example, the Church recognizes many rights already enjoyed by homosexuals:

The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.

As the writers mentioned, (true) hate speech and ill-treatment of homosexuals is in no way condoned:

The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people.

I suspect that the "hateful comments and jokes that are EVERYWHERE" mostly consist of offhand comments, such as "That's so gay" or "You homo". While these are still unacceptable, they are negligent rather than flagrant.

Concerning those who chose to oppose Prop 8:

As Church members decide their own appropriate level of involvement in protecting marriage between a man and a woman, they should approach this issue with respect for others, understanding, honesty, and civility.

And what I think is the most important (at least regarding the reader's concerns):

Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place “church and state on a collision course.”

The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example, advocates and government officials in certain states already are challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and only place children in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in Boston has stopped offering adoption services.

Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions. Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership.

Many of these examples have already become the legal reality in several nations of the European Union, and the European Parliament has recommended that laws guaranteeing and protecting the rights of same-sex couples be made uniform across the EU. Thus, if same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, there will be substantial conflicts with religious freedom. And in some important areas, religious freedom may be diminished.

...

As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations. These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.

To summarize, allowing gay marriage might have legal ramifications for the Church and for families. Some legal professionals claim that these concerns are baseless. Perhaps they are (but I think that's unlikely given the way things have already been going). In any case, the Church is playing it safe. Even if the reader disagrees with half the political spectrum trying to legislate their beliefs and morality (obviously they don't mind if the other half does), I think they can appreciate that Proposition 8 also legally protected the Church and its assets. And I hope that that can calm their troubled heart.

[crmeatball]

Whenever a topic arises in a Mormon community, such as the 100 Hour Board, which is both religious and political in nature, I am often disappointed in the response of many people. Reading the responses posted by the writers on this topic are no different. There are several points I found troubling. The first of these is the seemingly apparent need to analytically and logically question whether the official position of the Church on this matter was right or wrong, almost as if the political component of the discussion somehow has more value or weight than the religious component. We are not talking about public health care or who should be our congressman, but considering the definition of an institution instituted by God's own hand here on earth. We are encouraged to question what the prophets tell us. However, we all to often ask the question to the wrong audience. We question it within ourselves or question it in public, but that is not who we should be petitioning for answers regarding this doctrine. We should be asking our Heavenly Father if it is correct - and asking in faith. Interestingly, I was reading an example of this just this morning. Nephi, following his father into the wilderness, said the following:

And it came to pass that I, Nephi, being exceedingly young, nevertheless being large in stature, and also having great desires to know of the mysteries of God, wherefore, I did cry unto the Lord; and behold he did visit me, and did soften my heart that I did believe all the words which had been spoken by my father; wherefore, I did not rebel against him like unto my brothers.

Nephi did not look into himself and analyze whether his father is right or wrong, he asked the Lord. When we are not sure about something we hear, whether in a Sacrament meeting, stake conference or even in General Conference, this is the pattern we should use to question. We must "ask in faith, nothing wavering." But when we become belligerent and outspoken against the Lord's anointed, that is in fact apostasy. However, I think the point Hobbes was trying to make was the fact that should our personal views conflict with those of the First Presidency, perhaps we need to re-evaluate our position. This is not to say we blindly follow, but we should be seeking out our own personal witness, just as the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve have done prior to releasing positions such as the one related to Prop 8. Alma perhaps said it best. Referring to our testimonies, he said:

And now behold, I say unto you, my brethren, if ye have experienced a change of heart, and if ye have felt to sing the song of redeeming love, I would ask, can ye feel so now?

Can we feel this desire in our hearts? Are we seeking daily to have this experience? We need to use our agency to make choices and decisions, then confirm those (ie question them) with the Lord. He will give answer to prayer and provide comfort when we are troubled, just as he did Nephi when a prophet asked him something which was hard.

The second thing which has been troubling me is the argument that by defining marriage as between a man and a woman is somehow forcing our beliefs upon another group. The institution of marriage has three major components to it - Religious, Social and Legal. The first, which is also the oldest and original, is the religious component of marriage. Marriage was originally instituted with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden as a covenant between the Lord and the husband and wife. In this case, it was purely religious, where the covenant made established an eternal union between the two, allowing them to share in God's power of creation (See Elder Holland's BYU devotional "Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments). As time progressed, the religious component of marriage became corrupted, became a temporal institution, but still held up the religious aspect of allowing for creation to take place. Contemporary views would eliminate this component, stating that for many there is no religious component, but the lack of personal belief does not change the definition of marriage.

The second component of marriage is a social aspect. This is how a society views marriage and what sort of social benefits might result from being married. These benefits are not directly measurable, in the manner legal benefits are measurable. This social aspect is how the word "marriage" is defined. It is how society views "marriage." It stems from the original religious component of marriage, and is really a secular extension of such. Take for example how our culture as a whole views a couple simply living together compared to a couple who is married. The married couple is given a greater social status (I am not trying to point out if this is morally right or wrong, this is just an example). This social status is not defined in any lawbook, textbook or law. It simply is how the local culture defines things.

The final component of marriage is the legal one. This is how married couples have death benefits, visitation rights and so forth. Most of the legal aspects deal with property law. Many historians claim this is the origination of marriage, as a method to protect property rights, however, the Lord has revealed otherwise.

In order to understand how Prop 8 will change the definition of marriage, we must take into account all of these components. In the state of California, gays and lesbians already have been given an even playing field when looking at the legal component of marriage. Civil unions provide equality toward the legal component of marriage. The social component is really where this is getting hung up. By forcing the definition of marriage to include gays and lesbians or any other definition, you are actually legally forcing society to conform to one group's definition. Remember, society's definition is not legally defined, it is defined as the amalgamation of everyone's individual and personal beliefs. Should the majority of a given culture's individuals personally believe in gay "marriage," then that society will automatically provide the definition. It is something which should not be forced. Perhaps this is why the Founding Fathers were silent on this issue. It never occurred to them that they needed to define marriage. In their society, it was a given that marriage was between a man and a woman. So to legally change the definition of the word marriage to include "gay marriage," you are in fact forcing society to conform to something they might not agree with.

I know this is a long post (really, not long enough to really formulate and define a proper argument), but my point is this. When the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve provide an official position, we ought to give careful consideration as to why they are giving this position. We are welcome to personally disagree, but if we do (and if we don't) we need to prayerfully ask the Lord to confirm for us the doctrine we are being given.

[Gay Blade]

I suspect that the "hateful comments and jokes that are EVERYWHERE" mostly consist of offhand comments, such as "That's so gay" or "You homo". While these are still unacceptable, they are negligent rather than flagrant.

I think it is fair to say that it is common at BYU to find students who hate the sin of homosexuality. If the topic comes up, don’t you usually find the students expressing revulsion at the very thought of two men being intimate with one another, or two women being intimate? Perhaps you haven’t noticed the little shudder of abhorrence as they contemplate this “unnatural” and “unholy” union. There seems to be at BYU a strong dislike, distaste, and animosity toward homosexual acts, but a person with a same-sex attraction only sees this as the natural fulfillment of a loving relationship.

It is all very well and good to say you love the sinner, but hate the sin when in your mind you can clearly differentiate the two. However, if you hate my child, and tell me how ugly and disgusting my child is, would it not be natural for me to feel that there is something lacking in your love for me? My feelings are very much a part of me. They define who I am. If you tell me that my deepest loving feelings are disgusting and revolting to you, and yet you say that you still love me, I can’t help but feel that your love is feigned.

If you are in a group of people and someone says “Let’s look for clothes with blue,” you find that suddenly all the blue seems to stand out and receive your notice. You no longer notice the other colors. Likewise, when you are sensitive about your feelings of same-sex attraction (or your good friends are sensitive), all the comments that viciously attack those feelings are noted and felt more keenly than they may be to you. Am I too sensitive, or are you perhaps insufficiently sensitive?

If we agree that hateful comments are frequently made at BYU against the practice of homosexuality, can we see that such comments might be taken as hateful against “gay” people themselves whose deepest desire is to have this forbidden fulfillment of the unbidden yearning of same-sex attraction?

[TheBlackSheep]

I've been trying to stay out of this as much as possible, but I think I can explain the "EVERYWHERE" comment, or I can at least explain what I meant when I agreed with it. I do think that the word "EVERYWHERE" is an overstatement, but back when the Prop 8 stuff was going on, I didn't. I can't tell you how many times I called people in tears, and I'm not gay. I am of course pretty sensitive to this, and I think Mr. Blade is right when he says that you notice things more when you're sensitive to them, but I still think the point of view is valid.

Just recently I got pulled back into this discussion with BYU people somehow, and someone who I respect said that werf thought that we have a double standard when it comes to equal marriage rights, meaning that we really love gay people and want them to be happy but that we also believe we need to protect the institution of marriage. Werf said this reminded werf of right after Michael Jackson died, when everyone was calling him the King of Pop and being all sad, but most also thought he was a child molester. I freaked out at comparing gay marriage to child molestation, and werf apologized to me personally, saying that werf hadn't really thought werf's thoughts through and that werf didn't think her logic came close to making sense. I probably shouldn't have lost it over werf's comments, but I think the problem of BYU students making poor comparisons and inflammatory comments without really thinking about the implications of what they are saying is an all too common practice. It happens all the time. I've also had the experience of being in several classes where people felt it was appropriate to come out in class because of some subject that was being discussed, and I've watched reactions. These were good, upstanding people who completely believed in the gospel and its standards, who never planned to engage in same-sex relationships, and you should have seen some of the reactions. None were terribly overt. But, my goodness, you could tell anyway. Those, too, happened all the time. I also knew people who refused to tell their roommates that they were gay, even though they were following the Honor Code in its entirety, especially if they were guys. And you didn't have to spend much time around their roommates to know why.

Around the election it was worse. People got very passionate about following the prophet and protecting marriage and they started passing around all kinds of stuff that wasn't true. I'm sure most people didn't mean to pass along false statements, but they didn't check up on them, either. Most of those lies ('cause that's what they were) sounded a lot like, "Gay people are out to ruin your marriages and teach your children about immorality!" to me. Gay people were going to keep the right to get married, and then they were going to end our rights to only perform certain ceremonies in our temples, they were going to get rid of our tax-exempt status unless we performed marriages for gay people, they were going to sue private religious universities who refused to provide same-sex couples housing, they were going to ruin us the way Sodom and Gomorrah was ruined, that they were going to have a national holiday for a gay politician by the name of Harvey Milk who was just a sex fiend who was elected because of the district he was elected by. Nevermind precedent, precedent, precedent, and the fact that everything they said was vastly unfounded and overblown. And nevermind that only California is any kind of considering that holiday, and its for a man who helped defeat the Briggs Initiative despite what the polls said, which I think we can all agree now is a good thing. People really were using these arguments to persuade others to care about their point of view, and even though these statements had nothing to do with gay people themselves, I'd think that if, say, a Mormon were running for president, and another candidate may have sponsored push polls in a key state citing vast misstatements about the Mormon Church in order to persuade others to care about the candidate's religion, we might think that was hateful. And many of us did.

Even the fact that Prop 8 was such a big deal was offensive to many of my gay friends. Sure, church leaders told us which way they thought we needed to vote on the issue, but the church also regularly issues statements asking us to be politically active. As an RA I saw how few of my girls had any intention of voting in any elections. When I was a freshman in 2006, I was the only freshman I knew who voted in those midterm elections. And then BOOM, Prop 8 happens and BYU is a frenzy of political action. It's those crazy gay people again, so vote vote vote!

I'm not saying that the other side hasn't since done hurtful things to us. I'm not saying that I think protests on our temples or some of their hate-spewing is appropriate. I'm just saying that we shouldn't be doing it, either.

[Gay Blade]

There have been a lot of changes in California since the Briggs Initiative, also known as Prop 6, fail to pass in 1978. “The initiative stated that any teacher who was found to be 'advocating, imposing, encouraging or promoting' homosexual activity could be fired.” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briggs_Initiative). Nowadays I hear that any teacher in California who does not advocate, impose, encourage, or promote gay rights and gay equality is likely to be fired. We've made a lot of progress in thirty years.

I'm not sure whether or not you are suggesting that Harvey Milk should have a California holiday in his honor because of his opposition to the Briggs Initiative, but wouldn't that be awesome? The schools would have a perfect excuse to teach the children for a whole week or more about Harvey Milk and other gay people's contributions to society. There would be gay school pride days and activities and all sorts of things, even more than there is now. I know the California Teachers Association would be fully behind it. You know, we aren't going to change the attitudes of old people towards gays, we have to start when they are really young. In the schools. Kindergarten is not too early. We have to foster an attitude of tolerance, mutual respect, and above all equality in all things for the good of the country.

What's ironic is that it probably wasn't Harvey Milk's inflammatory rhetoric and organization that defeated the Briggs Initiative. It was Ronald Reagan and some other conservatives who came out strongly in opposition to the Initiative that changed the tide of public opinion at the last moment. Ha. Ha. And it looked at the time that Reagan's opposition to the Briggs Initiative would cost him his political career, but he spoke out anyway as a matter of principle. So probably if anyone should get a state holiday for opposition to Prop 6 it should be Ronald Reagan! Well, we should give Harvey Milk credit for it because gays deserve to celebrate a gay hero too, don't they? Maybe it should be a national holiday.

It's hard to say what the effect would have been if the Briggs Initiative had passed. Knowing the California's Supreme Court I'm pretty certain this unconstitutional Initiative would have been overturned. But that's the funny thing about speculating about what would have happened if an Initiative had passed, or did not pass. You never know unless you are a prophet.

[Cognoscente]

Wow. That's some pretty good trolling', and I don't even care about Prop 8.

Straw Man arguments are weak no matter who you're trying to demonize. I pay just as much attention to the lunatics who want to equate Bush to Hitler and blame all of societies ills on moronic, redneck, racist "Rethuglicans."

If I wanted to change people's minds about this, I wouldn't put insulting words into the mouths of others.

[TheBlackSheep]

I was merely bringing up an argument I heard at least ten times from BYU students who couldn't have told you anything about Harvey Milk at all. I'm sure that I'm not interested in the potential Harvey Milk Day or who should really get most of the credit. I just think that villainizing people when you know nothing about them for the sake of a political cause is wrong and that it happens all too often.

Never in my life have I heard a gay person say the stuff you are saying, not even my most liberal, banner-carrying, drunken, naked-marching acquaintances.

I'm not interested in discussing this matter more with you, and I hope you will put this pseudonym of yours to rest, though I won't be around to see if you do.

[Katya]

Can we get an admin to do a sock puppet check? (Do we have official forum rules on the matter?)

[Gay Blade]

Cognoscente,

Thank you for your comments. You didn’t say who you were referring to, so it could be Damasta, crmeatball, TheBlackSheep, or Gay Blade. It doesn’t seem like you meant to refer to Damasta or crmeatball.

You could have been talking about TheBlackSheep. She does use a number of straw man arguments. I agree that they are weak arguments, and she certainly does put a lot of insulting words into the mouths of others. I wouldn’t say that she is trying to demonize the Prop 8 people, just trying to make them look stupid, ill-informed, careless with the facts (if not outright liars), and hate-spewing. So if you were talking about TheBlackSheep then I say we need to be tolerant and respectful of her point of view, even if you disagree with it. To be fair, she also made gay people look ridiculous.

But if your comments were aimed at me, and I suspect they were due to the timing of your comments, and the fact that TheBlackSheep is a fellow board writer and a friend of yours, then I respectfully disagree with you. I don’t expect to change minds that are already made up-which is usually the case-but I hope to introduce some ideas in a less than dreary way. Far from trying to demonize anyone, or put insulting words in their mouth, I was giving you what I believe to be a moderate, reasonable, and not too untypical view in the gay community. I’ll give several examples that hopefully you will read and see where I am coming from. The Internet is full of examples, many of which are much more radical than mine.

To begin with, consider that idea of making Harvey Milk a holiday. A year ago there was a measure, California Assembly Bill 2567 which actually passed the California legislature by a wide margin, but was finally vetoed by the governor. Here is what one news article had to say about it (http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/news/b ... liday.html ):

February 26, 2008
A Harvey Milk holiday?
SACRAMENTO - One of the state's openly gay lawmakers has introduced legislation declaring a state holiday to commemorate gay rights pioneer Harvey Milk.
Milk, the first openly gay person to be elected to public office in a major U.S. city, was assassinated in 1978 by former San Francisco Supervisor Dan White. The legislation, Assembly Bill 2567, is sponsored by Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco and backed by Equality California, a gay rights group that has passed many bills to expand rights for gays and lesbians.
Leno's legislation would designate Milk's birthday, May 22, as a holiday, but it wouldn't cost the state money because it wouldn't give state workers a day off. Instead, it would encourage public schools to conduct "suitable commemorative exercises."
California state employees currently have 13 paid holidays, including separate days to celebrate the lives of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. and labor activist Cesar Chavez.

I thought this comment, from a gay-friendly source (http://tamhiker.wordpress.com/2008/05/0 ... nificance/ ) was interesting:

In the 1970s as the gay community was finding its place out of the closet and trying to be heard, it needed a martyr and Harvey Milk’s death filled that need. Others had served the gay liberation cause earlier and longer, but none were out-of-the-closet politicians murdered while in office. Harvey was a genuine San Francisco gay icon and hero who deserves to be remembered, but I’ve never thought of him as a “martyr” or great leader in the sense of a Mahatma Ghandi, a Martin Luther King, or a Cesar Chevaz.

Another gay-friendly source says ( http://www.pridesource.com/article.html?article=30156 ):

"Harvey Milk knowingly risked his life because he believed that by living as an openly gay man he would help achieve full equality for all people," said Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors. "His courageous leadership and vision has inspired three decades of progress in the fight to protect (LGBT) people across the nation. A statewide day of recognition in his honor would remind us that we all have the power to create positive social change and that we all have the right to live openly and with dignity and respect."
The bill also encourages public schools and educational institutions to teach students about Milk, who often is missing from history lessons.
The bill's author, Assemblymember Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, called Milk "a true American hero who gave hope to a generation of gay and lesbian individuals."

This year a new effort to make Harvey Milk day a holiday is being pushed. Says this gay source (http://www.365gay.com/news/new-bid-to-e ... k-holiday/
):

New bid to establish Milk holiday
By 365gay Newscenter Staff
01.22.2009 10:39am EST
(Sacramento, California) State Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) is hoping positive publicity over the movie “Milk” encourages Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) to support legislation declaring May 22 as Harvey Milk Day.

Leno was elected to the California Senate in November. Last year as a member of the Assembly, he pushed through a similar bill only to have it vetoed by the governor.
It passed the legislature with little difficulty, but Schwarzenegger said that while he respected the measure’s intent, he thought Milk’s “contributions should continue to be recognized at the local level.”
May 22 is Milk’s birth date. He would have been 79 this year.
Milk was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977 and shot to death a year later, along with Mayor George Moscone, by former supervisor Dan White.
White was convicted of manslaughter, and served a little more than three years in prison before committing suicide.
In the years since his death, Milk has become one of the most recognizable martyrs of the gay rights movement.
The film Milk starring Sean Penn garnered kudos and is considered likely to be nominated for a number of Academy Awards.
Leno’s bill is one of two pro-gay bills to come up this session of the California legislature. The other would protect home ownership for same-sex couples.

The new bill, SB 572 (http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/s ... floor.html)

DIGEST : This bill designates May 22 of each year as
Harvey Milk Day, and calls for the day to be observed by
the public schools as a day of special significance. The
bill also requires the Governor to annually proclaim May 22
as Harvey Milk Day.

This bill:

1. Makes various legislative findings relative to Harvey
Milk's legacy as a civil rights leader and declares that
his life and social contributions have left an indelible
mark on the history of our nation and hold a special
meaning for the people of California.

2. Requires the Governor to proclaim May 22nd of each year
as Harvey Milk Day and designates that date as having
special significance in public schools and educational
facilities.

3. Encourages all public schools and educational
institutions to observe this day and conduct exercises
remembering and recognizing the life of Harvey Milk, his
accomplishments, and familiarizing pupils with the
contributions he made to this state.

Background

Harvey Barnard Milk (1930-1978) was a San Francisco Board
of Supervisor member from 1977-78, who along with Mayor
George Moscone (former State Senator), was assassinated by
former Board of Supervisor Dan White at San Francisco City
Hall on November 27, 1978. Milk was the first openly gay
person to be elected to public office in a major city of
the United States. Milk was also known in the Castro
Community of San Francisco before his election to the Board
of Supervisors as the "Mayor of Castro Street" for his
community leadership, and was unsuccessful in his bids to
the Board of Supervisors in 1973 and the State Assembly in
1975.

Harvey Milk was named in the "Heroes and Icons" section of
Time magazine's "Time 100: The Most Important People of
the Century." Many institutions and organizations are
named for Milk, including the Harvey Milk Recreational Arts
Centre, Harvey Milk Civil Rights Academy, the Harvey Milk
Institute, the Eureka Valley/Harvey Milk Memorial Branch
Library, and the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club in San
Francisco.

In regard to the change in attitude in some school administrators consider this article from a biased, right-wing, religious source (http://www.examiner.com/x-2359-Evangeli ... gay-agenda ) Though we can’t really trust the source, it may in fact be indicative of a sea change in the schools. The article states:

California is one state that seems to be pushing the homosexual agenda more than any other. With the cooperation of the National Education Association, a teachers union, the state of California seems to take pride in promoting abnormal (not alternative) lifestyles. And now, we see what can happen to a teacher who holds fast to moral values.

Manuel Fernandez, a special education teacher in the Los Angeles Unified School District has filed a discrimination suit against LAUSD, saying he was forced to quit for not showing enough support for the pro-homosexual emphasis at his school.

Problems began for Fernandez in the spring of 2007, when he was chastised for not buying and wearing a red “Day of Silence” t-shirt. Administrators at the Miguel Contreras Learning Complex, where Fernandez taught in the Social Justice learning community, strongly encouraged teachers to participate in the pro-homosexual Day of Silence, even though the event bills itself as a student-led protest. Shortly after Fernandez declined to buy and wear the shirt, he received a written review that rebuked him, stating that he “sometimes had difficulty understanding his colleagues’ attempts at incorporating issues of social justice into the curriculum and, at times, he has not been supportive of those issues, such as LGBTQ rights.” LGBTQ is an acronym increasingly used to mean Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning.

Fernandez also drew fire for voicing the requests of his predominantly Hispanic Catholic students that a pro-gay poster be moved inside to a classroom bulletin board so they would not have to walk under it several times a day. Fernandez was then shunned by fellow teachers and administrators, given larger, more unruly classes, moved to a less desirable location, and ordered not to send any problem students to the principal’s office. Fernandez eventually sought medical treatment for stress and related medical problems and finally placed on medical leave by his physician after more than a year of harassment. Fernandez’ lawsuit, filed in state court and removed by LAUSD to federal court, alleges First Amendment violations and discrimination, harassment and retaliation under state employment laws.

Fernandez is being represented by the Pacific Justice Institute

A response by a reader is interesting:

Common now, the teacher never filed any complaints, never sought to be transfered and never went to the Union?!? The guy is a SPECIAL ED teacher! This story makes it sound as if he was transfered to a class of SPECIAL ED thugs, gang members and soccer hooligans. I wish the author would have chosen to describe the "pro homosexual" poster. Through tone and insinuation, he makes it sound as if the poster might have been two men having sex and all of the special ed kids were begging the teacher to take it down.

I think this guy is probably as mentally unstable as the rest of the far right and wants someone to pay him for forcing him to deal with the reality that EVERYONE has to respect all people in public schools - even GLBTQ kids.

Concerning the need to teach children attitudes in the schools as soon as possible, consider the responses to this article (http://www.cafemom.com/group/99198/foru ... curriculum). First, the article:

Angry Parents Suing California Schools Over Mandatory Gay-Friendly Classes
A lawsuit in California that was filed last month by angry parents who object to a gay-friendly curriculum they say is being foisted on kindergartners could well become a test case for schools around the country.
Parents in the Alameda Unified School District were refused the right to excuse their kids from classes that would teach all kids in the district's elementary schools about gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender alternative families.
The parents say they are concerned about "indoctrination" in the schools, but administrators say the course is needed to protect against sexual discrimination - and that the lessons are protected by laws in California and 10 other states.
Those states, which stretch from Washington to Maine, will now be eyeing the court results in California in a case that warring sides say pits parents' rights against a schools' responsibilities.
The contested California curriculum includes an annual 45-minute LGBT lesson taught to kids from kindergarten through the fifth grade. The kindergartners will focus on the harms of teasing, while the fifth graders will study sexual orientation stereotypes.
The move toward the new classes began two years ago, when teachers noticed that even kindergarten students were using derogatory words about sexuality, such as "fag."
The FOX News Reporting unit was present at a debate in the school district in May when angry parents pushed back against the controversial lessons, capturing over 10 hours of heated dispute, which saw parents shouting back and forth across the aisle.
Some parents like Carrie Brash said the curriculum is necessary to combat bigotry that was already rearing its head among even young children, who were bullying her daughter in school.
Brash said her daughter had to endure taunting chants of "Lesbian, lesbian, your mom's a lesbian," from kids in school.
But other parents said the new curriculum ignores other kids who have been targeted for abuse.
"My child has been the product of bullying because she's black," said Dion Evans, who noted that students have "never viewed a single video in the classroom" that deals with racism.
But Evans said he wasn't expecting the district to take care of what he called a parent's duties in educating his daughter, as the school is "already (too) strapped for cash to incorporate these changes."
"I know how to successfully parent, educate, and instill value and self-worth in my child," he said.
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,546 ... latestnews

More importantly, consider these excerpts from the responses:

And this is why we need tolerance training in classrooms. We have to undo the damage of intolerant parents. The kind that are so dead set on their bigotry that they have to sue.

Yeah... If you were really teaching your children such tolerance and understanding, you would have no problem with them learning it from everyone possible. If a school and the parents are in synch with what they are teaching the children, the only way a parent would pull their child out of a school lesson is if they disagree with it. Which means you disagree with educating children about the importance of sexual tolerance. Or you're crazy. Possibly both.

People say over and over "It's should be the parents who teach these things".. Whether it be religous tolerance, sex ed, or this.. And the bottom line is this.. Parents ~~aren't~~ teaching these things. If they were, these issues would be becoming less and less of a problem with each new generation of school age children. But they are not.. They are a problem and they are getting worse, intolerance is becoming worse, teen pregnancy is spiking again...

this is why elementary kids need it.
http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/ ... -rest.html
and for those who do not want a "homosexual" website
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/14/bullied-to-death/
it isn't about the sexual part of sexual orientation.

How much of a difference could teaching them, and other kids around them, at an early age that gay people are people just like anyone else, that they should not be treated differently, that derogatory terms like "Fag" are not okay to use..

I see this as being a very proactive thing.. Not only in regards to teaching tolerance and understanding. But also in helping to create settings and atmospheres where gay kids aren't so afraid of being who they are, who aren't constantly berated for being gay, because kids have been taught that those things aren't okay to do at school (or in life in general).

The other day I had my 7 and 9 year old at a pool party. One of the boys started calling someone a "fag". I had to yell at that kid and then explain to my kids that they were not to hang out with this ignorant piece of trash if they saw him in school. I also told every other parent I know about his poor behavior so I am sure that there are a bunch of other moms who will not welcome this boy in their house.

So, yes... I can see the need for this sort of education.

I find it so weird that so many people use religion to be bigots. I have taught my kids that there are a lot of people who have imaginary friends out there... but that they should not make fun of them for it. What's the difference? Keeping your mouth shut when you don't have anything good to say is always a nice idea when you are a child.

Here's the problem with giving parents the option to "opt out".
You may be teaching your kids to treat all people with respect, regardless of sexuality, but that doesn't mean that your neighbor who also chose to opt out isn't teaching her kids that fags are gonna burn in hell, and it's ok to tell them so.

I agree - they can't tolerate anyone giving their children a message that doesn't include (or might make the child question) the message, "...but it's WRONG."
perhaps if the schools cared more about our nation's children's moral education, which they quite clearly were not getting at home in this circumstance, this eleven year old boy that hung himself would still be here.

To all of you who don't want the schools "forcing" tolerance on your poor children: You know what? You're free to hate whomever you want. You're free to imagine the gays of the world roasting in the barbecue pits of hell, or contracting a dozen different STD's and dying in itchy, puss-filled agony, or whatever it is that pops your demented toast. Really. Have fun with that. But I don't think you're free to pass on your twisted ideologies of hatred and malice to your children while simultaneously "protecting" them from alternate viewpoints. Since we know, however, that you're going to lecture your children on how they should "love" (ie. hate, but quietly) anyone different, why don't you let the schools teach the terrifying "politically-correct" views of love, compassion, and tolerance, and once your children have heard both sides, let them make up their own minds about what they believe.

You cannot teach your children to condemn something that is as inherent to who a person is as eye color or shoe size, and also teach them to respect that person. You people try to push off responsibility for your intolerance on God, but I've read the bible cover to cover, and I know how selectively you pick and choose what to listen to and what to ignore. You have all chosen the targets for your hatred very, very carefully. Someday, history will view you the same way we now view those who used the bible to justify slavery and who used it to condemn interracial marriage.

I hope for the sake of your children that none of them turn out to be gay.

It's disrespectful to deny someone the rights that you enjoy simply because YOU don't like who they are and how they live. It's disrespectful for you to think that you get to speak for God just because you pick and choose verses out of a holy book that disagrees with itself more times than not. This isn't just about "taunting" gays. There are larger issues at stake here in the long run.
How can you love them but not be tolerant of them? It doesn't make sense. You love them but you will not allow them to live their life as they see fit? It is not harming you. I just don't understand.

Oh, so you're not a Christian. You're just a bigot. If you aren't backing up your homophobia with bible verses, then tell me, WHY exactly is being gay wrong? And the school has the right to teach your son anything that will help protect all of their students from discrimination. Forcing ignorance upon your children is not a parental right.

And who are you to say that a same sex couple cannot be in a devoted union?

And for the record, I call it a legal MARRIAGE and my WIFE, children, and I DO make up a FAMILY! And to say that we are not a family IS ignorance and bigotry.

when is the gay marriage opposition going to realize that "seperate but equal" has been proven inherently UN-equal and IS prejudice and by associating yourself with that opposition it does in fact make you a bigot??

Tolerance education is needed because sadly, parents teach a lot of intolerance to thier children from very young ages. It seems to be socially accaptable in some circles to teach intolerance and bigotry based on sexual orientation. This is why the little kindergardener with two moms or dads gets called fag or lesbo at recess. The kids doing the name calling are simply carrying on what there parents have expressed.Sadly in some circles the right answer to why are those two men holding hands is because they are fags. Those type of additudes and answers carry right into the classroom and playground.
Why should public schools even for a moment consider religion when deciding on curriculum, topics, subjects and programs? Religion is not suppose to be in public school and that included various religious groups veiws on subjects and such being taken into consideration when planning to teach something. If schools had to take every religion or religious groups views and opinions into consideration when attempting to teach things nothing would ever get taught, including core subjects of reading and math. There would always be an objection from somebody or a lot of somebodies.

This thought process is exactly why schools need classes on tolerance and how not to be a bigot! A person does not decided to be gay or straight anymore than they decided to be born with two arms and legs. Your thoughts on why you wouldn't want your child to participate in a course of this sort shows your bigotry and intolerance loud and clear.

Being gay is not a choice!!!!

Can you show me where there is a genetic make up causeing heterosexuality? I'm guessing not since it hasn't been proven either but you seem to think that it is perfectly fine and "normal" without that proof. A persons sexuality is not a choice, it's just how they are born. Some people are attracted to the same sex, some to the opposite sex and some to both sexes.

What brainwashing materials have you been reading up on with your statements of people being lead into homosexuality? There are no big bad gay gangs out there preying on innocent herosextual people in order to "turn" or "lead" them. That's actually one of the sadest, ridiculous and most ignorant things I've heard in a long time.

You don't want your children to see being gay as an option. So if they are gay you would prefer they deny and hide it while living in mental and emotional torment while they attempt to live a heterosexual life since you will be raising them to see being gay as NOT an option. Children who deny their sexuality because they have been raised to believe it is wrong, a bad choice or not an option live tormented lives full of depression, self hate, and confusion all for the sake of pleasing parents and adhereing to beliefs they had drilled into them through out childhood. For your childrens sake I hope that they are not gay I can only imagine how you will "deal with it".

Being gay is not anymore of a choice than the color of eyes or how many toes you are born with. Yes people like you are the reason schools need programs like these.

Oh, and I do think that your children's right to be educated, caring people trumps your right to try to make them idiots. Sorry.

you are already teaching them intolerance by telling them a gay/lesbian lifestyle is not RIGHT. I find it interesting that a God who supposedly does not judge seems to breed so many followers that do. I was raised catholic and my mother is a devout chistian and I had that nonsense spoonfeed to me for years. thankfully, I escaped this narrow minded line of thinking. Tolerance means acceptance and respect for ALL...and simply because someones lifestyle differes from yours, does not mean it is wrong. Its parents like you for whom these classes should be mandatory, not the children.

Hopefully you see that the views I’ve expressed do not demonize anyone, or put insulting words in their mouth.

[Cognoscente]

Listen, you smug, self-righteous old prick, you fool no one here with your ridiculous sophistry. And if you continue to condescend to people who are constantly giving you the benefit of the doubt, you have no one to blame but yourself if one of us actually calls you out on your insufferable douchebaggery.

Of course super gay websites are going to be super gay for Harvey Milk day. That's their thing. It doesn't make a difference to me, because it's obviously politically unrealistic. So I don't sweat it. There are plenty of pet political causes that have small, regional influence but don't upset the Federal status quo. The federal government has just as much a right to influence local Castro district politics as it does Alaskan hunting rights--namely, none. Let them be.

All I did was note that both sides are guilty of hyperbole and logical fallacies. I don't consider myself OR you to be heartless, evil homophobic bigots, even if we disagree with the proponents of gay marriage. I understand that you're taking a philosophic and moral stance, and I DON'T DISAGREE with you. But holy crap are you a raging a-hole to the people who DO disagree with you. If you think creating a gay puppet to voice the extremist talking points you imagine the other side to have is "a moderate, reasonable" didactic method then you don't belong in a civilized, mutually-respectful discussion anywhere, about anything. You are deliberately and personally insulting people here in an attempt to make them see the light. The protesters that show up every conference at Temple Square are just as well meaning as you, and just as boorishly myopic.

[Cuddlefish]

Please, let's be polite. Cognoscente, he's trying to get you mad. And Gay Blade, that's just a jerky thing to do, I don't even care what your political beliefs on this are. Name calling and intentional baiting do not equal a reasonable debate.

[Gay Blade]

Cuddlefish,

Well, if I had been trying to make Cognoscente mad, then that would be a jerky thing to do. But, I wasn’t trying to make him mad. I was trying to show him how inconsistent and unfair he was by responding calmly with the facts. I was polite and I did not use name-calling, despite his apparent efforts to intentionally bait me. I have found that with some people responding in a reasonable way to their intimidating behavior only infuriates them.

So, was it a jerky thing to do to refuse to get mad and try to show him he was wrong, knowing he might lose his temper? There are a lot of people who frequent this board, or who have frequented it, who are intimidated by the loud and obnoxious comments made to anyone with a different point of view. So they don’t make a comment, because they are afraid. They don’t want to be jumped on. Nobody likes that kind of rude behavior, and can live without it. Is it jerky for me to stand up for what I believe, and refuse to be intimidated by the bullies of the Board?

I’ll let you decide.

[Cuddlefish]

I have no problem with you expressing a viewpoint which is different than and perhaps unpopular with other posters, provided you do so respectfully and politely. I do have a problem with you baiting people, which is what you appear to be doing. People are more likely to thoughfully consider your remarks if you don't sound like you're trying to insult or upset them. They are also more likely to answer your remarks respectfully if you do so. It's not just you, either.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

Here's the silly thing I traced about this thread: I don't get what you're arguing about. Emphases mine.

Black Sheep:

that they were going to have a national holiday for a gay politician by the name of Harvey Milk who was just a sex fiend who was elected because of the district he was elected by. Nevermind precedent, precedent, precedent, and the fact that everything they said was vastly unfounded and overblown. And nevermind that only California is any kind of considering that holiday

Blade:

To begin with, consider that idea of making Harvey Milk a holiday. A year ago there was a measure, California Assembly Bill 2567 which actually passed the California legislature by a wide margin, but was finally vetoed by the governor. Here is what one news article had to say about it (http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/news/b ... liday.html ).

et cetera.

And Blade lists several examples trying to prove what Black Sheep said about harvey milk day... right? wrong? I don't know.

The "jerky" thing, I think, was the original mischaracterization of the general pro-gay position. Just because you're repeating what someone, somewhere said, it doesn't make it typical or a fair representation of the general viewpoint of the pro-gay people. I'm not going to quote the stupidest things Glenn Beck or Michael Savage say and try to pass it off for the general conservative position. It's not satire, it's not funny, it's not fair, and it's not productive.

[Damasta]

Three things.

Thing the First:
One of Mr. Blade's quotes is from a woman who tirades for tolerance education starting in Kindergarten. She says:

"...I've read the bible cover to cover, and I know how selectively you pick and choose what to listen to and what to ignore....
...
...you pick and choose verses out of a holy book..."

I hear this argument all the time but no one can ever give me an example of a commandment that Christians no longer follow. I am, of course, distinguishing things listed as sins (murder, rape, bestiality, &c.) and things listed as making you ritually impure (eating pork, touching dead bodies, menstruating, &c.), which were never considered sins and their observance (at least for Christians) was done away with by the advent of Jesus Christ.

Thing the Second:
I think Black Sheep misinterpreted the statement of her friend. Her friend wasn't saying that gay marriage is equally abominable as child molestation. Werf was giving another example of the double standard or "two-think". Werf's logic made perfect sense and werf didn't need to apologize. Listening carefully is just as important as speaking carefully.

Thing the Third:
Katya and Cognoscente both implied that "Gay Blade" (which I assume is either a pun on Vorpal Blade's 'nym or refers to the Zorro comedy) is actually a sockpuppet for another 'nym. Has that been verified? Do we know who? Werf and Cognoscente seem to have a history.

[Cognoscente]

It's not a sock puppet, it's a feeble attempt at humor. Vorpal admitted as much here: http://theboardmb.informe.com/viewtopic ... 8887#18887 Nothing duplicitous about it, he was pretty clear all along it was him.

I'm not a bully, dude. If you notice, I only lash out at you, and only when you're thoughtlessly antagonistic. You'll notice our non-member guest Imogen doesn't post anymore here. I hope she doesn't think all Mormons are jerks.

I'm exhausted trying to coax any semblance of rationality out of you. It's just not worth burning the calories talking about anything with a sexagenarian that argues like a nine-year-old. Congrats, fella, you win.

[Gay Blade]

I think you’ve touched on an interesting phenomenon, Waldorf and Sauron. I may be like the character Dick Deadeye in H.M.S. Pinafore. The Black Sheep can say it, and it’s golden. When I say the same thing, it is blasphemy worthy of death. At least, for some people.

This experience of coming out was probably a mistake, but it has been enlightening. When I decided to take the name Gay Blade I thought I would reveal a facet of me, my same-sex attraction. I keep this facet tightly under control, and had learned to not give voice to it, because it disturbs people. I thought I could do it in a somewhat safe manner, where for the most part it would not be taken seriously. I did expect to be treated respectfully, if perhaps only as a matter of humoring me. I hoped to develop more compassion and understanding of others as I saw the world through the lens of this facet of my nature which I normally keep locked up. I reject all labels such as “gay” and “non-gay,” but for convenience in communication I sometimes use them.

So, what do I find? Hostility. Misunderstanding. Rejection. Insults. But not from everyone, thank you. I wondered if the experience hadn’t been much the same for the students The Black Sheep says she saw “coming out” in some of her classes. Well, perhaps it wasn’t fair of me, since I knew some of you would assume that I was only pretending my feelings. And other facets of my personality modify and make more complex the single facet I’ve presented here.

None of us can speak for a wide and disparate group such as “gay” people. That’s why I thought it odd, and rather insulting, for people to think that they knew “gay” people weren’t like what I was saying. But then, to them I was just Dick Deadeye, and it didn’t matter what said. Because I said it, it must be wrong.

When Cognoscente first attacked me he did it on the basis that he thought I was trying to demonize and put insulting words in the mouths of others. Which is not at all what I was trying to do. The Black Sheep said that she had never in her life heard a gay person say the stuff I was saying, even though she herself had been saying it, as Waldorf and Sauron astutely point out. She implied that I was trying to vilify people I disagreed with. My response was to show, using conservative websites and the official legislative summary (and not super gay websites) that the views I had expressed were in fact very common. Of course quoting a bunch of people does not prove that it is typical and a fair representation, but when your debate opponents make statements implying that no gays think like that, it is only necessary to show one gay person who does, and then you’ve proved your point.

On the question of whether the desire to have a state holiday in California for Harvey Milk is a typical and fair representation for gays you have to dig a little deeper. I think it is reasonable to believe that if 24 members of the California Senate vote in favor of the holiday, and only 14 oppose it, then most of the members believe that it would please their gay constituents to see such a holiday.

As another piece of evidence, go to this website. http://hottopics.gay.com/2009/03/will-s ... again.html It seems to be a pro gay website, so while the poll they offer is not scientific, it does indicate something of statistical gay attitudes, I believe. When I took the poll these are the results I got:

What do you consider the right way to honor Harvey Milk?
No special recognition, he’s an important piece of a much larger puzzle. 11.1%
A day of recognition in San Francisco, where he had the most impact. 15.0%
A day of special significance in California, recognizing his role as a historical Californian. 29.7%
A national holiday, elevating his contributions as a human rights leader to those of MLK. 44.2%

Anyway, I suppose I’m beating a dead horse.

If I had wanted to put forth extreme views I would have used something hateful like this, which I’ve actually heard. “I think we should take little children in the schools, and give them an actual homosexual experience, without their parents knowing about it. That way the children could better know for themselves what their true sexual orientation is, or at least have less antagonistic views of those who are different.” Now, I think that is nasty.

Waldorf and Sauron, I think it would be an excellent experiment for you to try to write like Glenn Beck or Michael Savage. It would help you to see things from their point of view. Would I yell at you or claim you were insulting people, or demonizing or vilifying others? Heavens no. There are many different conservative voices in the world, and they are worthy of our respect and consideration. If I thought you were poorly representing conservatives I might say something like “not all conservatives believe that,” and I’d then quote some conservatives that I respect and show people a different opinion. I’d take the opportunity to educate people about the facts. You’d make a perfect foil to bring out what I believe.

Which is the disappointing thing in these discussions. For example, rather than use the facts, and bring forth ideas or opinions of gay people who disagree with me, all I get is an attack on my assumed motives for saying it. So, if anyone has evidence that I actually have mischaracterized the general pro-gay position, I’d like to hear it. I’d apologize for my “jerkiness.” By the way, it is interesting that Cognoscente, Cuddlefish, and perhaps Waldorf and Sauron, are convinced I’m a jerk, but apparently for different reasons. That’s okay, I’m sure I’ve got enough jerkiness to go around.

And thanks, Damasta, for your comments, confirming that what I quoted is commonplace. I also appreciated your insight, and lack of criticism of me.

[Gay Blade]

Thing the Third:
Katya and Cognoscente both implied that "Gay Blade" (which I assume is either a pun on Vorpal Blade's 'nym or refers to the Zorro comedy) is actually a sockpuppet for another 'nym. Has that been verified? Do we know who? Werf and Cognoscente seem to have a history.

I was partly thinking of the Zorro comedy. You may have noticed the picture I'm using. I was also thinking of this:

gay blade (plural gay blades)

1. (obsolete) a dashing swordsman
2. (dated) a dashing youth
3. (slang) a gay person, or person displaying homosexual qualities.
He is such a gayblade.

"Gay Blade" also refers to a gay magazine that has been around for a long time.

[krebscout]

This experience of coming out was probably a mistake, but it has been enlightening. When I decided to take the name Gay Blade I thought I would reveal a facet of me, my same-sex attraction. I keep this facet tightly under control, and had learned to not give voice to it, because it disturbs people. I thought I could do it in a somewhat safe manner, where for the most part it would not be taken seriously. I did expect to be treated respectfully, if perhaps only as a matter of humoring me. I hoped to develop more compassion and understanding of others as I saw the world through the lens of this facet of my nature which I normally keep locked up. I reject all labels such as “gay” and “non-gay,” but for convenience in communication I sometimes use them.

I confess I'm not quite sure how to take this, Vorpal. There is a difference between someone who is homosexual and someone who puts on a homosexual persona. Is this real?

Could we get some honest, straightforward discussion going instead of whatever this is?

[Damasta]

"When I decided to take the name Gay Blade I thought I would reveal a facet of me, my same-sex attraction. I keep this facet tightly under control, and had learned to not give voice to it, because it disturbs people."

Assuming you're being honest here, and not play-acting (which some of the other posters seem convinced of), where would you say you fall on the Kinsey scale? I wonder, because as 'Vorpal Blade' you've mentioned your wife.