I keep coming back to this

There is one simple point that I keep coming back to when I think about the issue of gay marriage.

Proponents of gay marriage insist that it is an issue of equality. We are denying them fundamental rights, treating them like second-class citizens, etc. “Love is love.”

Marriage isn’t just about love, though. If it was, why do so many people who love each other live together, instead of getting married?

And the thing we keep forgetting: the relationship between one man and one woman is fundamentally different from the relationship of two individuals of the same gender. They will interact differently; physically, mentally, emotionally, sexually, they interact differently.

Examine it from the level of friendship for a moment. Two women who are friends interact differently from two men who are friends, and from a woman and a man who are friends. This is why the books in the series “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus” have sold so well. It is a fundamental truth that we communicate and relate differently, as different genders. Women have women friends, and they get together for certain types of activities. Women have men friends, and they do different things together. I know some of this is stereotypical, but in this case, I think the stereotypes hold fairly true. I love my husband, but if I wanted a shopping buddy, he’s not who I would take. If I want to play a video game or watch sports, though, that’s a different story. And I accept that my husband needs to talk sports and action movies with people who know more than me and enjoy those things more. (Although we both enjoy baseball and can talk about that fairly knowledgeably.) These are surface level examples of what I’m trying to get at.

I remember being in college and crying on a roommate’s shoulder over life in general being rough at that point in time. I would never have expressed those feelings to a male friend. I needed female companionship at that moment, because I trusted that my friend would respond the way I needed at the time. I knew, woman to woman, how she would react.

Then there’s the physical interactions, which are obviously different between heterosexual and homosexual couples. I’m not trying to say here that one is better or worse than the other, I’m just making the point that the interactions are different. The anatomy is different. Physically, most heterosexual couples can also create offspring. A homosexual couple can never, on their own, create offspring. The consequences of their actions thus are different.

From my perspective, I believe that these two types of couples interact differently on so many different levels. (Personally, I think that is may be why some people choose a gay or lesbian lifestyle. They enjoy the emotional and social interactions with people of their own gender more than with people of the other gender.)  The relationships are not the same. Why do people keep insisting that they are? And if the relationships are fundamentally different, why do we have to call them the same thing?

A quick poll

I’ve been thinking about a good friend of mine who’s currently a high school senior. She made friends with a girl in one of her classes. This girl was obviously an outcast, and obviously unhappy. My friend decided she could use a friend, and made an effort to reach out to her. She talked with her, she listened to her, and they struck up a genuine friendship.

Then, people started telling my friend that the other girl was lesbian, and had a crush on her. My friend, who has no inclination that way, told these other people it was none of their business. She said if the other girl felt that way, then that was between them and no one else. She wasn’t going to stop being her friend just because a bunch of gossips decided to butt in. She stuck up for her friend, and chose to remain her friend, even though she doesn’t  believe that homosexuality is a good choice.

So in this situation, who’s the bigot? My friend, who would never vote in favor of legalizing gay marriage but chose to treat this girl kindly regardless of her sexual orientation? Or the other teens, who tried to drive a wedge between them, who ostracized the poor girl in the first place, but who might choose to vote for gay marriage? Isn’t it the way we choose to treat people that should matter?

Now, I’m curious about something. Who here thinks that by legalizing gay marriage, suddenly people who are homophobic won’t be any more? If those teens voted for gay marriage, would that redeem them from their day to day hateful behavior? If my friend voted against it, would that undo all the good she’s done in this girl’s life?

(And in case you are wondering, the situation I presented is real. It’s not about me, and it really is about a close friend of mine. I didn’t want to use her name, to preserve her privacy.)

Separation of Church and State

I haven’t blogged about any of this in a while for a few reasons. First, the election is over, and I was hoping everything would die down. While it has a little, the fight to preserve traditional marriage continues. And frankly, I got a little worn out. I don’t like arguing with others. I don’t like when people are angry. I know this is a sensitive issue, but I still wish we could all just talk about it calmly and, even if we just aren’t going to see eye to eye, accept that we have different opinions and that’s okay.

But I decided to start writing about this again, because it’s still very important to me. One thing that I keep hearing about that is indirectly related, is the issue of separation of church and state. Opponents of California’s prop 8 keep arguing that it was unconstitutional for Mormons (among MANY other religious groups) to work together in support of an issue they felt strongly about. Our country’s laws do permit any agency to work together in regards to issues. Churches can promote issues, but not individuals.

But what about separation of church and state, you say? Well, there’s a very vital piece of information that people tend to forget about the concept of separation of church and state.

It’s just that, a concept.

There is no law concerning separation of church and state.

The First Amendment simply states that Congress shall “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereofmake no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” All that means is that they cannot force people to practice or forsake any particular religion. That’s why so many people left Europe in the first place – they wanted to practice a religion other than the state religion, free from the persecution which dogged them in Europe.

There is no law that says you can’t practice religion in public. There is no law that says you can’t pray in public for fear of offending others. There is no law that says a public official can’t mention God for fear of offending someone.

The idea of separation of church and state mostly comes from the philosophies of Thomas Jefferson and John Locke. (See the great wikipedia article on the subject here.) My favorite part in the article is this wonderful quote from Jefferson:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

He’s praising the First Amendment because it protects each individual’s right to worship how he pleases. It PROTECTS OUR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Religion was that important to the founding fathers; they made sure our right to worship was one of the first things addressed in the constitution. By prohibiting people from expressing their religious beliefs in public, I believe we are stripping ourselves of our religious rights. Schools can’t have Christmas trees, public prayer is now a shameful thing, and heaven forbid you ask someone not to take the name of the Lord in vain. How come they can offend me as much as they want by swearing and using offensive language toward the God I love, but I can’t offend them by mentioning that very same God in a positive context?

Back to the issue at hand… The 1st Amendment DOES mean that a public official cannot use his or her office to promote a specific religion, or force others to believe it. Expressing one’s beliefs, however, is not necessarily promoting them.

If I’m a teacher, and one of my kids asks me about my religion, and I say, “I believe in God and His Son, Jesus Christ,” are you turned into a believer? Of course not. It simply informs you of my beliefs.

If I said, “I believe that God will strike you down right now, if you don’t bow down and pray to Him,” then that would, in my opinion, be crossing the line. That’s threatening, forcing my beliefs on others.

In my opinion, this is part of what’s wrong with modern America. In our eagerness to avoid giving offense to – let’s admit it – the minority of Americans who do not believe in God, we strip ourselves of our rights to worship. Judges have used the phrase “separation of church and state” so frequently, in justifying their case rulings, that they have, in essence, created a new law, one that our lawmakers never intended. Judges are not intended to make laws, but to interpret them. (And legislators aren’t supposed to influence judges by telling them that they disagree with the laws the people just voted on. We DO believe in separation of powers, but hey, who cares about that part? Not our judges or legislators, evidently.)

Publicly elected officials are now scared to death to do anything that might be construed as religious, because they might get slapped with a lawsuit, and they might not get re-elected – the most terrible fate on earth, I know. In our society’s eagerness to be “politically correct,” we avoid any semblance of religion, including many “old-fashioned” values that seem too closely related to our Christian roots. And this is where the whole issue ties into prop 8 – our society has decided that it’s unfashionable to believe in being modest, honest, chaste, and polite, or anything else having to do with the Ten Commandments. It’s too religious. And heaven forbid we should use that freedom of religion, guaranteed to us by the First Amendment.

Unless, of course, your religion is Atheism. Because even believing that there is no God is a religion. It’s a way of looking at the world, and it informs your choices and beliefs. It’s different than 99% of the religions out there, so we tend to forget that it’s a religious way of life too. By not allowing those of us who believe in God to admit it in public, we are forcing the religion of Atheism on our country.

Where’s that idea of separation of church and state when you need it? Maybe I should go protest down at the courthouse.

Is interracial marriage the same type of issue as gay marriage?

This seems to be the big new argument out there now. Advocates of same-sex marriage are claiming that forbidding homosexual couples is just like the discriminatory laws that didn’t allow interracial marriages.

I can see where this argument is coming from, at least. I still don’t think it’s the same thing, however, and here’s why.

People of different races are all the same on the inside. Genetically, there is no difference between a black man and a white woman. They are the same. Our discrimination laws originated to prevent us from discriminating against someone on the basis of their outward appearance: gender, age, race. Proscribing interracial marriage was based on the outward appearance, but there was no reason to forbid those people to marry.

Same-sex couples, however, are a different matter. There is an obvious genetic difference between gay couples and heterosexual couples – two women or two men are not the same as one woman and one man. We’ll also have to get back into why people are gay, here: is it choice, or is it a genetic abnormality?

If it is choice, then these couples are choosing an alternative lifestyle. They are choosing to deviate from what society considers normal. People are free to choose to live alternative lifestyles, but they do have to live with the consequences. Americans don’t seem to like the fact that their actions have consequences, especially when those consequences are negative. That’s why we’re in this economic crisis. It is not any one individual’s fault; Americans chose to overspend, banks overextended themselves, and no one was prepared for the consequences.

So when a gay couple has a relationship, what are some of the consequences? Well, they can’t procreate, for starters. Gay couples have higher rates of STDs, including AIDS. Gay couples tend to be less stable. And, up until recently, they were not allowed to marry. When they made the choice to live that lifestyle, they were aware of that consequence. Is it good for society as a whole to let gay couples get married, to teach our children that homosexuality is equal to hetersexuality, to perpetuate a condition that is, at heart, an aberration from the norm? Assuming that it is a chosen behavior, the more we teach our small children about how great and wonderful homosexuality is, the more people will choose it. Eventually, society dies out when its population growth declines too far.

What if we argue instead that people are not gay by choice, but that it is a genetic tendency and we shouldn’t “punish” them for being made that way by forbidding them to marry? This goes back to the interracial marriage argument – if these couples are genetically different, genetically “flawed” according to mainstream society because of their homosexual tendencies, then they are not genetically equal to a heterosexual couple. They are not the same, and do not merit the same privileges. Marriage isn’t just about a couple who love each other; it is a societal contract. Marriages are about more than declaring one’s love for one’s spouse to the world; it is a bond that declares you are responsible for one another, you are responsible for your children, and you acknowledge your children as your own. Marriages were created to organize families, not to validate lovers’ feelings.

If we allow same-sex marriage on the grounds that it is discriminatory to prevent any two people who love each other from getting married, then it is only one more step to incest. It is only one more step to legalizing marrying children who are too young to be married. Beyond that, it is only one step further to legalizing polygamy. After all, these people all just love each other, right? What’s wrong with that?

What’s wrong with that, is that gay marriage, incest, child marriages, and polygamy, are not good for society. They are bad for society because of their effects on the gene pool, and they are bad for society because of their social effects. When we tear down the traditional family, we tear down the last place our children are safe from the world. By making marriage all about the couple and forgetting about the children, as society has been doing for the last several decades, we wound our children terribly. Look at divorce rates; look at fatherless children; look at gang violence; look at teenage promiscuity and teenage pregnancy rates. All these things are on the rise, because we’ve become selfish as a society. We are all about Me, My, Mine. Marriage ought to be about creating a home for our families, not about personal gratification. Perhaps there would be less adultery if we stopped to remember that – it’s not just about meeting an individual’s sexual needs (or, more often, wants). It’s about providing security for each other, providing emotional support, providing a refuge, a safe haven. It’s about responsibility. It’s about providing a safe place for children to grow up, taking care of their needs, until they are ready to go out into the world. And as much as they may want to, two moms or two dads will never be equal to a mom and a dad in their abilities to raise a child.

The Aftermath

Has surprised me. I knew opponents of 8 would be unhappy, of course, but the extremity of the opposition has, yet again, astounded me.

Apparently, Mormons are SOLELY to blame for the passing of Proposition 8. The Mormon church is, according to these people, bigoted and hateful. All becase the LDS church encouraged its people to vote in favor of what many would consider a moral issue.

I had been wondering on what exactly the statistics were, and I found Bird’s blog post here that has exactly the information I was looking for. She clearly shows that the LDS population was not solely responsible for the passing of Prop 8.

And I’ll try to clarify our church’s involvement a little, in case you were wondering. Our Prophet did encourage us to support Proposition 8. However, nothing was required of anyone. Members were free to vote according to their own conscience, as they always are. Church funds were never used to support the issue. Money came from individual members of the church who felt like they wanted to donate to the cause. Church buildings were never used to house activities supporting Prop 8. We did not discuss activities surrounding the campaign in church. Church time, money, and land WAS NOT USED to support the campaign. Church MEMBERS used their own money, tim, and homes to organize and participate in the campaign as they saw fit.

We are a religious people. We have the freedom of religion granted to every American. We also have the right to vote according to our beliefs, and the right to express our political opinions and support any political campaign that we want to.

And if I still see protesters outside of the temple at my sister’s wedding in a few weeks, I am going to be VERY VERY ANGRY. The temple is, to us, a house of the Lord. Literally. It is a place of peace and spiritual devotion. To assault us on holy ground is offensive to me. Especially since no one is bothering the Catholics, Muslims, Jews, or Protestant churches who also supported Proposition 8. Protesting outside our temples does nothing other than upset and offend individuals who may or may not have supported the Proposition 8 campaign, and infringe on OUR constitutional right to practice our religion.

Maybe, instead of protesting and harrassing people, proponents of gay marriage could find a more constructive way to try to get their way? Search for a compromise, instead of attacking people who may not have had anything to do with it? Just a thought.

Why I think people saying that homosexuality is a natural impulse is a copout

I’ve been debating with myself for a while now on whether or not to post this. Not because I’m afraid of offending anyone – because I’m pretty sure I already have; but because it’s a bit personal. And I know lots of the people that read this blog. But I feel like I should make every effort I can to persuade anyone out there who is still undecided to vote in favor of Proposition 8, to preserve marriage between a man and a woman.

I’ve heard many opponents of Prop 8 use this argument: Homosexuality is a genetic impulse in many people; they were just “made that way” so why should we punish them by depriving them of the right to marry the one they love?

For starters, I don’t believe that outlawing gay marriage is depriving anyone of rights. Sorry, but you never had that right in the first place, until 4 of 7 judges decided to create a new law by overturning the vote of an overwhelming majority of Californians.

But here’s my main point: Even if we do accept the premise that at least some people are “naturally” gay – even though studies show that environment and upbringing do have a large impact on one’s sexuality – why does that make it a good thing? We have many natural impulses that are contradictory to the good of society, and we don’t legalize those behaviors just to cater to those individuals who have those impulses and act on them.

I’ll give you a few examples: A man “naturally” has a worse temper than other men. His anger management issues lead him to harm his family. Does he get out of trouble for his behavior and the harm he has done to those around him because he is genetically predisposed to be angry?

Some people are more likely to be overweight because of their genetic makeup. My brother is one of these. I am honestly afraid that he will die within the next ten years if he doesn’ drastically change his lifestyle. He is 31. Is it alright for him to just give up and say, I’m genetically predisposed to be obese, and everyone around me should just accept that fact? Should we all be content to watch him slowly die of his own self-neglect?

What about mothers who abuse drugs while they are pregnant and their babies are born with severe problems and drug addictions? Shouldn’t we help the baby fight the addiction rather than simply saying “it’s natural, so it’s ok”?

What about men whose inability to control themselves and their libido turns them into rapists, pedophiles, child abusers, and child pornography addicts? It’s natural for a man to have stronge sexual desires, isn’t it? But the way these men express their behaviors is harmful to society as a whole. Shouldn’t we punish them, even though sex drive is a completely natural human behavior?

And here’s the personal example I promised you: I have depression. It runs very strongly in my family on one side. I have struggled with it since I was about ten years old, I would guess, but I wasn’t diagnosed with it until I was in college. My life as a teenager was extremely difficult, and I never understood why I was so different until many years later. I am genetically predisposed to the condition because of my family heritage. It makes me sad, angry, anxious, and lethargic. Sometimes all at once. There are days when it is a struggle just for me to get out of bed.

But I do it. Why? Because I love my family more. I have two small daughters to take care of, and a husband I love dearly. I support him by taking care of our children and our home. If it were just me, there are probably days where I would lie in bed and do nothing at all except let myself be sad.

I can’t indulge in that type of behavior, even though I want to sometimes. First, I know it is bad for me. Second, I know it is bad for my family. Third, I know it is bad for society – I have something to contribute to my neigborhood, my church, my city, and my state. I am responsible for more than just myself. The natural impulses that come with depression are quite strong, but my love for my family is stronger. I know that if I give in to those impulses, I would be hurting my family.

So my depression is natural. It’s genetic. I can’t help it.

I am left with a choice: do I give into my natural impulses, or do I fight it and do what is best for those around me?

And just because I have this “natural” condition, would that make it right if I did lie in bed all day and neglect my children?

Obviously not. It would be understandable, but it still wouldn’t be right.

So stop complaining that homosexuality is natural and we need to make concessions for gay people. We all have things that we are fighting, our own internal demons, but we still have to be responsible members of society, concerned with the greater good before our own desires.

What is tolerance

My husband read this great article by Orson Scott Card the other day, and I have to share it with you all. Go read it at http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=4740.

Card writes about how we should be able to disagree respectfully, and why the LDS Church opposes legalizing gay marriage. His point that really caught my eye, though, was this:

“I speak from experience: My family and I have close friends who are gay, some of whom have entered into lawful marriages. They know we don’t agree that their relationship is the same thing or should have the same legal status as our marriage, but we all accept that strong and clear difference of opinion and move on, continuing to respect and love each other for the values we share.

Only when a gay friend demanded that I agree with his or her point of view or cease to be friends has the friendship ended. What is odd is that in every case they called me intolerant. They misunderstood the meaning of “tolerance.”

Tolerance implies disagreement — it means that even though we don’t agree with or approve of each others beliefs or actions, we can still live together amicably. When we agree, we aren’t being tolerant, we’re being uniform.

It’s uniformity or submission these former friends wanted, not tolerance at all.”

You might object and say that this refers only to Orson Scott Card’s understanding of the word tolerance. But you’d be wrong. Here’s what the dictionary has to say under the entry “tolerance”:

1.	a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own; freedom from bigotry.

2.	a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own.

Tolerance, therefore, can only exist when we agree to disagree. Some gays are opposing Proposition 8 under the guise of desiring tolerance from heterosexuals. However, the ones doing the name-calling and vandalizing signs are more often opponents of Prop 8 than not. Legalizing gay marriage; requiring that we treat it the same as heterosexual marriage; teaching it as the same in school; suing photographers, doctors, newspapers, adoption agencies, and newspapers for expressing a different opinion and standing by their religions; threatening to even remove the people’s right to vote on the issue in San Diego… None of these things sound like tolerance to me. This is not peaceful co-existence. This is not agreeing, politely, to disagree. This is attempting to force the opinion and habits and standards of a vocal minority on the majority of the population under the guise of “rights” – even though the right to marry is not protected, and establishing gay marriage directly contradicts existing federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act, which states: DOMA defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws.

How can forcing the 96% of the population that isn’t gay to endorse homosexuality truly be considered tolerance? Gay activists aren’t fighting for tolerance of their behavior. Their rights are already protected as domestic partners under the California family code. They gain nothing by marriage, except the validation of the rest of the community, and the ability to force others to support their beliefs. Legalizing gay marriage does not gain them more rights; all it does is undermine our society and confuse gender issues until we are all one homogenized, featureless lump. They are fighting to PROMOTE A GAY LIFESTYLE. Not for tolerance. If they were so big on tolerance, perhaps they’d be a little more TOLERANT of their opposition. You know, those of us who are out there fighting for our children, our educational system, our right to parent our children and teach them our own morals, our religious freedom, our freedom of speech, and the rights of future generations of children to be born into a home with a mother and a father who love them and are socially responsible to them.

Please support real tolerance, and vote in favor of Proposition 8. Otherwise, dissent becomes illegal.

Liar liar pants on fire

So you’ve probably seen the No on 8 TV ads by now which state that there is nothing in the law that requires children to be taught about marriage in school. Technically, this is a true statement. What they aren’t telling voters, though, is that schools do teach about marriage. Here’s the facts from the California Board of Education website:

(This comes from an article here: ) Most interestingly, BOE President Mitchell seems unaware of guidelines on his own Web site, which state that 96 percent of school districts accept the technically voluntary sex education curriculum. Further, the California Department of Education (CDE) Web site notes specifically that in the 96 percent of school districts that do accept the curriculum, they are REQUIRED to include instruction and materials that “teach respect for marriage.”

So 96% of California schools teach sex ed. The schools that teach the established curriculum about sex ed are required to teach about marriage. So, in essence, at least 96% of California schools will be required to teach about homosexual marriage if Proposition 8 fails. I think that qualifies as lying by omission for sure.

I found this interesting as well. It comes from the California curriculum guide about health education: The approach of this framework is to encourage districts to work with parents and community members in developing curriculum, especially in the area of family living. The intent of the curriculum in this content area is not to invade the privacy of families and their right to teach values to their children but to assist families in teaching about family living and encourage effective family communication.

So California’s guide concerning health and sex ed says that they should respect family values. Yet I still worry about what is going to be taught in schools if Prop 8 fails. Conservative parents will be upset if homosexuality is taught as prevalently as it is in Massachussets schools; gay parents will protest if their lifestyle isn’t taught, if Prop 8 fails. And which side do you think the (cough – LIBERAL) judges and CTA will choose?

Letters to the CTA

These are actual letters that have been sent to David Sanchez, the president of the CTA. It always heartens me to know that I’m not alone in this fight. There are letters from parents and teachers expressing their displeasure at the CTA’s $1 million donation to the No on 8 campaign. I think the second one down is my favorite so far. If you readers have any letters to add, go ahead and add them in as comments – Please remove last names as I have done here, to protect individuals’ privacy.

Mr. Sanchez,

 

I have been a teacher for 30 years here in California . The position the CTA has taken on Prop 8 is a joke. Why is it so difficult for you to show real leadership and stand up AGAINST political pressure? I realize the union is filled with liberal democrats like your self and the people who work for you.

Your union that you are in charge of does not represent my views and what I believe in. I will no longer maintain my membership in ANYTHING associated with the CTA. If the union has a political stance on an issue, I will find out what it is and vote the opposite. Your views on Prop 8 are morally and ethically wrong. The million dollars spent could have been given to kids that need it instead of supporting a position such as gay and lesbian rights. Are you kidding me? You hide behind the cover of equal rights because you do not have the guts to call it what it is. It is morally reprehensible. The people of the state of California will agree with me, watch what happens on November 4^th.

You are a disgrace to the profession of teaching, to your family and to the state of California .

I hope one day we can meet so I can REALLY tell you what I think of your liberal view points.

I hope I hear back from you, I probably won’t because you have no guts. You are a 100% coward!

I hope to hear from you.

Bill *****
—————————————-

To David Sanchez, CTA President

Dear Mr. Sanchez:

I am very disappointed to know that the CTA has donated $1M to the “No on 8″ campaign. I read that your justification is that teachers believe “in teaching the importance of equal rights for all.” How ironic that you chose to support the rights of gay activists, at the expense of the children you are committed to serve. Clearly, gay rights are not the issue, as California law already grants homosexual unions the same rights as married couples. What is at issue is mainstreaming homosexuality into society by equating homosexual union with heterosexual marriage. And by so doing, you indoctrinate our children beginning in public schools with your politically correct definitions of the family unit and field trips such as in the recent news in San Francisco. What is so glaringly obvious is the fact that gay couples are not even capable of conceiving children naturally, and that in order to exercise their right to “parent,” they would intentionally deprive a child of either a mother or a father. The gay community could not have less of a stake in children’s rights. As teachers, you should also know that current science shows homosexuality to be a spectrum phenomenon whereby a person’s sexual identity is affected by environment as well as genetics. Legalizing gay marriage profoundly affects our children’s environment. The CTA’s support of the gay community’s right to change our society’s definition of marriage (which is the only right at issue in Proposition 8), is directly at our children’s expense. As teachers, you are expected to safeguard and defend children’s rights. Shame on you.

-Judy *****

————————————-

The following letters are some of the ones sent in on a blog:

http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/cta-tuesday-response/

Dear Mr. Sanchez,

To me, this has nothing to do with equal rights. All I am fighting for is to protect a word. MARRIAGE. I have a gay niece that is in a committed relationship and I support her in that. I have also told her that I do not believe that she should be able to say that she is married. Committed, taken, whatever, just not married. She even understands this and does not think that I am not fair in my views. My children do not need to know the specifics of what goes on in anybody’s (private/intimate) relationships. We as parents should discuss this with our own kids. I do realize that there are parents out there that are “dropping the ball”.

I never thought that I would be looking into the option of Home Schooling my 3 kids, but now, I may have to consider it. Or, move out of this state. Of all of the things for the CTA to support. Did they really think that this would not cause alarm with others? I cannot believe that anyone in their position could be that naive.

As for equality, what is not equal. We are all human beings with the same needs. To be loved and cared for. We all have that. Find a new word that works for this situation, and I will use it and support it. Not marriage, married or any sense of this word. It is taken by MAN & WOMAN / HUSBAND & WIFE.

As teachers and educators, you should be supporting children and their parents. I know quite a few teachers that are appalled at what the union did with their hard earned money. They will be fighting for refunds.

Discouraged,
Deanne *****

———————————-
October 21, 2008

Arcohe School
Herald, California

My children did not attend school today. As you probably know, there was a statewide sickout today for parents to keep their children home from school in protest of the recent political donation of OVER $1 MILLION dollars to the NO on Proposition 8 Campaign by the California Teacher’s Association. The teacher’s association should be involved with issues that support our children’s education, not in promoting an issue that is so anti-family and having nothing to do with education whatsoever. I am angry that the California Teacher’s Association is so closely tied with activist gay issues. Our schools are not social experimentation labs for the gay rights lobby. The amount of money the CTA donated to the NO on 8 campaign is staggering. It shows the lengths to which they will go in supporting the gay agenda in our schools.

We opted to not send our boys to school today in protest and want you to know that if the public schools start teaching about the homosexual lifestyle and same-sex marriage and presenting it as equal to and as normal as traditional marriage, we will have no choice but to cancel our children’s attendance in the public school system. This is OUR state, and OUR public school. Please do what’s right for OUR children, and encourage the CTA to do the same.

Sincerely,
(signed)

 

————————————–

Mr. Sanchez,

I sent my daughter to school today because I did not want to hurt the local teachers. They work hard and are devoted to teaching our children. I cannot imagine that they would be happy with their hard earned money being spent on an agenda that clearly only benefits a minority of the members of the CTA. I am confident that your political statement was not the will of the majority of the CTA members and that is the only reason that I sent my daughter to school. I never thought that there was an agenda to indoctrinate my child in the school system until just now. Your actions convinced me gay marriage will in fact be taught in our school system if we do not pass proposition 8.

Sincerely,

Erik *****

————————————-

To the teachers of my (daughter),
I am contacting you today regarding CTA’s political contributions to the No on Prop 8 campaign. I was asked to participate in a state wide sick out yesterday, October 21, to protest CTA’s actions, and seriously considered participating. However, I placed the immediate financial needs of our school district above my personal feelings, and sent my daughters to school.
Please consider the message that those contributions are making to parents of public school children in this state. It was my understanding that the Union’s mission is to represent the needs of teachers, and that they can only make donations to issues that affect teacher’s “on the job” needs. Therefore, issues regarding a teacher’s private life should not be addressed by the union. Regardless of how you feel about same-sex marriage, I hope that you will demand a refund of the portion of your dues that were used inappropriately.
Thank you, (signed)

————————————–

David A. Sanchez,

I am appalled that you as the President of CTA thought it prudent to give over $1,000,000 to the “No on Prop 8” Campaign. Parents all over California have been afraid that the defeat of Proposition 8 would adversely affect our children’s education, that there would be a constant slant in all that our Teachers offer, that would try to legitimize homosexuality.

How incredibly arrogant of you and the CTA to try and push through the legalization of same sex marriage, when the people of California voted to have the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman, a few short years ago. Obviously you all think you know what is best for our children, and we should no longer have the right to guide our children to have the ideals we hold dear. At the very least the CTA should have remained neutral on this issue, so that parents could feel as though there were a possibility that the whole same sex union idea could be approached with some objectivity.

Your actions in regard to Proposition 8 have made it clear that parents have much to fear if Prop 8 is defeated. I am convinced that your actions here are just a hint and a whisper of what is to come in our school system, and it really scares me.

I am the mother of 7 children and have had my children in California public schools every year for the past 27 years. I have 4 years left to go with my youngest. If Prop 8 is defeated, I intend to bring my children home, and home school them myself, and I know at least 20 other families who feel the same. How many families to you think will “jump ship” so to speak if Prop 8 is defeated? I would venture to say that there would be many unemployed teachers and administrators throughout the state of California….so you have apparently not only caused harm to families and children, but also the very teachers who rely upon the support of the CTA.

I want to make it perfectly clear that neither I nor anyone in my family would ever treat a same sex couple with any degree of disrespect, but Prop 8 isn’t about equal rights, because they already have them. I believe they simply want the world to validate their lifestyle so they no longer need to feel uncomfortable about living their lives contrary to the laws of nature.

Mr. Sanchez, I fear you have just made the biggest mistake of your life. You ought to think twice (or three times) before you take on the concerned parents of California. Our voices will not be silenced.

Sincerely,
Lynda *****

———————————–

Dear Mr. Sanchez,

The California Teachers Association, the organization you lead, exists to protect and promote the well-being of its members, to improve the conditions of teaching and learning, and to advance the cause of quality public education. I can’t help but ask, what does Proposition 8 have to do with advancing the cause of quality public education in our state?

Quite frankly I am furious that my money, my union dues, are being used in such a manner. CTA’s actions certainly don’t promote my well-being or improve the already difficult conditions in which I teach. By involving CTA in this proposition you have violated your own mission statement. You considered one side of this argument, made it your own, and used my money to support it.

To say that your decision to oppose Proposition 8 is based on CTA’s desire to promote human and civil rights is not only flawed, it’s a one-sided, close-minded perspective. What about my civil rights to believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman? Where am I being represented as a paying union member of the California Teacher’s Association on this issue?

Just today I heard an advertisement on the radio stating that California ‘s teachers support no on 8. I am infuriated that you have labeled me, a California teacher, as endorsing something I wholeheartedly oppose simply because I am a teacher.

In the past I have stood by CTA and my local San Juan Teachers Association as a representative. When called upon, I have willingly spoken on their behalf to local television, radio and newspaper outlets on issues relating to education. But now, Mr. Sanchez, I am angry and disappointed in your leadership. I see clearly now that you represent me in name only, because you certainly don’t represent my well-being, my civil rights and my opinions. If you are unable to capably stand as a leader for all paying members of CTA, perhaps it would be wise to instead stay out of an argument such as Proposition 8 and use your member’s money in a way that helps them better educate their students.

You had no reason to get involved in this matter, unless you are trying to use the political power and financial backing of CTA as the engine to drive your own personal or political agenda. It’s quite obvious that you are not interested in representing me and thousands of others who share the same opinion.

I look forward to your response to this concern, particularly a detailed explanation of how you have ethically represented me and held true to CTA’s mission statement in regard to Proposition 8.

Sincerely,

Dianna *****

Third Grade Teacher

Carmichael, CA

————————————

Speechless

Wow. I’m horrified at this newest news article that has come out about homosexuality being taught in elementary schools. Why in the world we need to be teaching 5 year olds about gender issues is beyond me. Children are so easily confused by so many things at that age; throwing homosexuality at them is incomprehensible to me. Most of these kids aren’t going to face their own sexuality for several more years. Why not present information to them at that time? Why teach our kindergarteners about it? I would be horrified if my child came home from kindergarten one day and said they had learned about sex in school that day. Why are they teaching about sexuality of ANY type? And why are they ONLY teaching about homosexuality? Why not teach heterosexuality also, if you’re going to get into the issue?

So parents of children at this public – yes, public – school in Sacramento find out that their 5 year old children are being taught to be pro-gay. They are having a “Coming out day” tomorrow. Parents were not told, the event wasn’t listed on online calendars, and the event is being held almost two weeks after the traditional “Coming out day” that is observed in high schools. Sure sounds like SOMEONE is trying to sneak something into the curriculum to me.

And before anyone jumps on my case, I will state my opinion that there is a big difference between teaching children to be tolerant of gays and teaching them to be pro-gay. In my view, being tolerant in this case simply means accepting that someone chooses a different lifestyle than the majority. Being pro-gay is actively promoting a gay lifestyle, and teaching our children that it is just as good as a heterosexual lifestyle. Studies have shown that gay relationships are less stable; homosexual practices account for more new instances of STDs; homosexual people engage in sex with more partners, thus furthering the spread of diseases and leading to unstable personal relationships; and homosexual relationships even have a stronger tendency toward violent behavior than heterosexual ones. Does that sound just as good to you? It doesn’t to me.

Vote YES on Proposition 8! Please, remember, the failure of Proposition 8 will have dire consequences for our children.