If Proposition 8 fails, my school district will teach gay marriage and Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell knows it!
Of course, school board members like me, some teachers, and some parents will resist this type of instruction. But like the Borg in the Star Trek Series, the law, education code, judges and pro-gay marriage groups will eventually force their “tolerant” view of gay marriage on all children in public schools.
This is how it will work in California public schools:
Education Code section 51933 makes it clear that schools that teach “comprehensive sex education” have to teach, “respect for marriage and committed relationships”. This is something no school district can get around.
It is the choice of school districts whether or not they teach sex education. This is why the Anti- Proposition 8 campaign and Jack O’Connell say there is no requirement to teach about marriage.
What Jack O’Connell knows but doesn’t say is that 96% of school districts teach comprehensive sex education. Those numbers are from O’Connell’s California Department of Education. 96% must teach respect for marriage.
The only way out is to end sex education programs in all these school districts. That is something that just won’t happen. Look at the outcry that takes place when boards try to emphasize more abstinence. The same groups against Proposition 8 strongly support sex education in our schools. As does O’Connell. They along with the education establishment that created sex education will fight anyone that tries to abolish it.
As you can see, Jack O’Connell saying that Proposition 8 doesn’t affect children in schools is like saying the Governor’s proposed sales tax hike won’t affect people, because there is no mandate that they buy products covered by the sales tax.
But it isn’t just sex education that’s affected. Look at last year’s California Association of Teachers of English Conference. One workshop was entitled “Reading and Writing Beyond the Closet: LGBTQ Inclusion in the English Classroom”. (For those new to the acronyms it is Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, Trans-gendered, and Questioning). The 2009 conference has a whole strand on the topic.
**There is more – click the link**
October 27th, 2008 at 12:00 am
In the South most public schools are a shambles with poor funding, run down schools, low paid teachers…..therefore, there are lots of thriving private schools.
In California, we have outrageously high public education funding, run down schools, and over paid teachers. Private schools a growth industry….
So why the post….no money or lots of money…public schools appear to have severe problems. The root cause societal, school management, MTV or sugar snacks….take your pick.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Great research by Mike Spence. I would love to see Spence debate O’Connell just to ask the School Superintendent whether or not he personally favors same sex marriage be taught. Of course O’Connell wants the schools to teach such permissiveness. For O’Connell defeating traditional marriage is not enough.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Just vote NO on 8 and stop invading private lives.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:00 am
I agree with Bill. Job well done Mike! Now, can we have another FR regular comment on the California Tax code and the consequences for any church that refuses to perform a same sex marriage ceremony.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:00 am
As a student, I know that sex education does go into depth about marriage. Plus, sex education is optional; parents can see the material ahead of time and then decide whether or not to allow their child to take it. Lastly, this prop has little to do with education and more to do with denying a segment of the United States of a fundamental right. Therefore, I support gay marriage since other people’s business is none of mine.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:00 am
I did not proofread my last comment. This is what I meant to say:
As a student, I know that sex education does not go into depth about marriage. Plus, sex education is optional; parents can see the material ahead of time and then decide whether to allow their child to take it. Lastly, this prop has little to do with education and more to do with denying a segment of the population a fundamental right. Therefore, I say no on prop 8 since other people’s business is none of mine.
October 28th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Ms. Duncan:
Is it any of your business that 4,618,000 Californians voted in March 2000
to define Marriage as the “Union of One Man and One Woman?”
That was a 61% landslide for Proposition 22, as it carried 52 of 58
California counties, including many in Northern California
Those 4,618,000 votes were wiped out by 4 arrogant state judges
8 years later….
Is Democracy any of your business?
October 29th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Mr. Sills,
Respectfully, in the United States our business is constitutional republicanism, not democracy.
October 29th, 2008 at 12:00 am
A cursory read of the Comprehensive Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Prevention Education Act (the Act) shows that Mr. Spence is completely wrong.
His thesis is that sex education (which includes respect for marriage, which will include same sex marriage (SSM) if Prop. 8 doesn’t pass) is taught in 96% of the schools. But, he states, “The opt-out provision is very narrow in California and is limited to ‘sexually explicit content’ that describes the functions of reproductive organs,” which means 96% of all kids will be forced to learn about SSM.
He is wrong in three respects.
First, the phrase “sexually explicit content” appears nowhere in the Act. Therefore, it cannot be true that the opt-out provision is limited to “sexually explicit content” of any kind.
Second, sex education does not include SSM. Education Code section 51932 limits the scope of the Act: “This chapter does not apply to instruction or materials that discuss gender, sexual orientation, or family life and do not discuss human reproductive organs and their functions.” (Educ. Code, § 51932, subd. (b).) (“This chapter” refers to the entire Act, which is Chapter 5.6 of Part 28 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Education Code.) Because instruction and materials that discuss SSM would be “instruction or materials that discuss gender, sexual orientation, or family life and do not discuss human reproductive organs and their functions,” they would not part of sex education.
Third, the opt-out provisions of the Act, sections 51937, 51938 and 51939, are not narrow; they are comprehensive, covering all sex education without limitation. (I would set the provisions out in full below, but they fill four pages.) In his essay, Mr. Spence juxtaposes “opt-out provision” and “functions of reproductive organs” to imply that anything beyond “functions of reproductive organs” is beyond the opt-out. In fact, the Act’s reference to “reproductive organs and their functions” appears section 51932, not sections 51937, 51938 or 51939. Set forth above, section 51932 defines the scope of sex education itself, not the opt-out provisions. Therefore, Mr. Spence’s entire thesis—that the opt out provisions are narrow—fails. (One wonders how Mr. Spence could have missed the opt-out provisions; they are only five sections away from section 51932, and take up half of the Act.)
The bottom line is that Mr. Spence has reversed reality. He says 96% of schools will teach SSM as part of sex education and nobody can opt out. The reality is that SMM is not part of the sex education curriculum and, even if it were, the opt-out provisions are comprehensive.
It is true that the parental opt-out provisions of the sex education act do not apply to SSM instruction, because that instruction isn’t part of the sex education curriculum. That being the case, we are left with three questions:
Will schools be required to teach SMM?
Even if not required, will they teach it anyway?
If they do, can parents opt out?
I don’t know the answers to these questions. Neither does Mr. Spence.
The one thing we do know, which can easily be verified by a cursory reading of the pertinent parts of the Education Code, and which I have established beyond reasonable dispute here, is that Mr. Spence is entirely wrong.
October 29th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Ms. Duncan,
You stick to your guns. Under our system of government, not even 4,618,000 voters get to violate the constitution.
And you’ll find most complaints about “arrogant” judges to be cases of special pleading, the fallacy whereby a proponent of an argument applies different standards to similar conduct depending on whether he approves of the conduct.
In 1996 Proposition 215 was passed by the California electorate by 5,382,915 votes (55.6%) to 4,301,960 (44.4%). It legalized the use of medical marijuana. In 2005, six justices of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 215 was unconstitutional.
People of my acquaintance disapproved, on “democracy” grounds, of the 2008 ruling invalidating Proposition 22 but had approved of the 2005 ruling negating Proposition 215. That’s special pleading.
To be fair to Mr. Sills, reasonable minds can differ as to whether the California Supreme Court majority overreached when it overturned Proposition 22. (See the dissents, for example.) However, no reasonable mind would label the four majority justices—Ronald George, Carlos Moreno, Kathryn Werdegar and Joyce Kennard—as “arrogant.”
Perhaps Mr. Sills will temper his opinion.
October 29th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Adam, instead of a “cursory” read you should read the entire section.
1. You skipped the code section I cited. I don’t know how you did that. It is between the many codes you mention.
51933. (a) School districts may provide comprehensive sexual health
education, consisting of age-appropriate instruction, in any
kindergarten to grade 12, inclusive, using instructors trained in the
appropriate courses….
(7) Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.
Adam if SSM is legal, how would that discussion be avoided?
2. Again, as I point out discussing opt-out provisions shows that gay marriage will be discussed, otherwise no need to discuss opt outs at all.
Nothing in your view of the opt-out provisions negates the National Center for Lesbian Rights view about opt-outs. Are they lying?
3. To answer your three questions. 96% of schools are required to teach about marriage. You skipping a paragraph doesn’t change that. Schools will teach gay marriage. They already are, as seen in San Francisco and in other places. Parents can’t opt-out. On that NCLR and I agree.
Finally you state that neither you nor I know for sure know the answers.
All the more reason to Vote for Proposition 8 and stop a judicial usurpation of the peoples power that has unknown consequences.
October 30th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Why is it none of our business when our children will be taught something so alien to our family values? If you want private lives, keep it private! Keep it in your homes, your families and leave ours alone. Better yet, come up with your own name for your union and quit trying to get the normalization seal of approval on something the rest of us dont want to approve. We dont want to take away your freedom to choose—we want to keep our freedom to raise our children and keep their sexual instruction as we see fit. Why is it discrimination to disagree with you? We dont want it, we wont have it and it doesnt affect you at all. We dont want to persecute you—we simply dont want to be pushed into something by you! Come up with another term and push for equal rights through that term and you will see resistance slip away. Just dont ask for everyone else to have to use the same title for things very different.
October 30th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Mr. Spence,
I read the act carefully, I assure you, including the exception that you mischaracterized as an opt-out provision.
1. You are correct that subdivision (b)(7) of section 51933 provides that “Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.” You ask how a discussion of SSM can therefore be avoided. Easily, because there’s an exception to section 51933(b)(7): “This chapter does not apply to “instruction or materials that discuss gender, sexual orientation, or family life and do not discuss human reproductive organs and their functions.” (Section 51932, subd. (b).)
In reading an act, we first read its mandates and then its exceptions. If one section says we must teach about all breeds of dog, but another section makes an exception for long-hair dogs, then you don’t have to teach about long-hair dogs under the act.
(As an aside, I’ll note that the phrase “committed relationships” in subdivision (b)(7) undercuts your thesis. Same-sex committed relationships (SSCR) are already recognized by California law. As far as I know, however, and Ms. Duncan can correct me if I am wrong, schools do not teach about them in sex education class. If they do not teach about SSCR, why would they teach about SSM?)
2. “Again, as I point out discussing opt-out provisions shows that gay marriage will be discussed, otherwise no need to discuss opt outs at all.”
I don’t quite understand what you’re getting at here. Perhaps you could clarify. At any rate, you did not discuss any actual opt-out provision, you discussed the exception provision.
“Nothing in your view of the opt-out provisions negates the National Center for Lesbian Rights view about opt-outs. Are they lying?”
If you mean my interpretation conflicts with that of the NCLR, you are incorrect.
The NCLR states that parents have a right to opt out of sex education. (“LGBT Legal Issues for School Attorneys,” pp. 31-32 and att. H, p. 49.) It states parents do not have the right to opt out of “programs other than HIV/AIDS or sexual health education, such as programs designed to encourage respect and tolerance for diversity . . . .” (Id. at p. 31.)
“Other” is the key word here. Your point was that sex education is taught in 96% of schools and parents can’t opt out. But the “no opt out” rule doesn’t apply to sex education, it applies to “other” programs. You have yet to establish that “other” programs are taught in 96% of schools.
3. “96% of schools are required to teach about marriage.”
Correct.
“Schools will teach gay marriage.”
I assume you are correct, but you have not established that this applies to 96% of schools. Education, if any, about SSM will be part of tolerance and diversity education, not sex education. How common is tolerance and diversity education. (And how often, even in tolerance and diversity education, do we see education about SSCR? If not very often, we can expect education about SSM to be equally infrequent.)
“Parents can’t opt-out.”
You may be correct. (The NCLR, at least, agrees. I’m not sure I do. What about religious objectors?)
4. “Finally you state that neither you nor I know for sure know the answers. All the more reason to Vote for Proposition 8 and stop a judicial usurpation of the peoples power that has unknown consequences.”
Well, my purpose was not to advocate for or against Proposition 8, it was to correct your misstatement of the law.
But now that you raise the issue, ignorance of consequences does not lead to a default “yes” vote on anything. (I would think the opposite is true.) We don’t vote for X because something bad might happen if we don’t, we vote for it because something bad will happen if we don’t. When we are faced with unknown, possibly adverse consequences presented by a situation, our first step should be to identify and deal with the consequences.
Once we do so, we should take measured, not drastic steps. For example, here we could pass a law that tells teachers not to teach SSM in schools.
Denial of a fundamental right to avoid unknown consequences is too strong a measure. It should be a rare event and our last resort, as evidenced by our never before having put the constitution to that use.
Good talking with you. I am glad to see a thinking man set out his reasoning on an issue. Apologies for the “One wonders . . .” parenthetical in my original comment—there was no need for such snark.
October 30th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Ms. Brosell,
You realize that your reasoning applies equally to interracial marriage?
Proposition 8 is discriminatory by definition: It grants a state boon—“marriage”—to some couples but not to others.
The question is whether the discrimination is proper. (Some discrimination is proper—we discriminate against incest, polygamy, and marriage between children, for example.) Saying that you don’t want same sex marriage or that it is alien to your family values doesn’t answer the question unless you’re willing to say that what the majority wants is always proper.
Is what the majority wants always proper?
October 30th, 2008 at 12:00 am
(“Yes” is an acceptable answer.)
October 31st, 2008 at 12:00 am
Mike Spence really wants Prop 8 to fail. This is why. Mike Spence, as a school board member, made a motion to reconsider a school board decision to eliminate a class that included the teaching of “non-traditional marriage.” The students in the class, in written communication with the school board, stated they enjoyed the part of the class that told them when to marry, who to marry, and that they could marry “anyone.” The same class which Spence wanted to return to school district even held mock “same-sex” marriages.
Spence states that current law requires schools to teach “respect for marriage and committed relationships.” Furthermore, Spence does not say that the current law has had any impact on schools and students in the slightest way. Mike Spence knows that a “committed relationship” is between individuals outside the bounds of marriage, which includes those of the same sex.
As is Spence’s habit, he mixes two issues that have nothing to do with each to try to make a dubious point at best. He states “look at the outcry that takes place when boards try to emphasize more abstinence”, thus school boards can’t opt-out of “sex education.” No, the outcry comes when school boards try to teach “abstinence, only.” Also, why would Spence care if the liberals from San Francisco complain if the school district he represents agrees with him? Remember, Spence says those outside a school district should not be involved with attempting to influence policy or elections, although Spence raises 95% of reelection funds from outside his district.
Spence brings up a lawsuit from 10 years ago. What he fails to mention is the workshop gave teachers information on how to handle the issue – where students could get counseling, discussing with parents, etc. A far cry from the “chicken little” statement Spence is trying to make you believe.
To me the issue is simple, why are schools teaching about marriage, sexual orientation, or family life? That is the job of parents and others, not schools. By looking at test scores, many schools can’t teach reading, writing, and arithmetic. Maybe, if school board members, like Spence, would concentrate on their elected duties, not political ambitions, our children would receive a good education.
But, then again, Mike Spence may really want Prop 8 to fail, as he was the only board member to want to keep a class that taught about “alternative life-styles and same sex marriage.”
October 31st, 2008 at 12:00 am
As usual John you speak about things you make up or have no knowledge about. At least you should have mentioned that your daughter on the West Covina School Board Jessica Shewmaker didn’t support the resoution adopted by the board to support Proposition 8.
October 31st, 2008 at 12:00 am
Anyone can go look at board minutes. You sound like Obama and many Democrats – just claim it is not true, thus they will think it must not be true.
Mike, you dislike the idea that I post your record and you can’t hide from it.
The fact is clear – you wanted to keep a class that taught about “same-sex” marriage – period.
October 31st, 2008 at 12:00 am
Yes John you are so clever. Everyone knows my long track record secretly supporting SSM. I’m a hero amongst the no on Prop. 8 folks for my efforts to indoctrinate school children.
OR you could look at the board minutes, they are on-line and show you are wrong and that your daughter refused to support Propsotion 8.
As for the posts, I could delete them but you have the absolute right to be foolish.
October 31st, 2008 at 12:00 am
Once again Mr. Spence you illustrate why schools must focus on reading, writing, and arithmatic.
You are a perfect example of what happens when vocabulary is not taught.
Since you insist on bringing up my daughter, something which you indignately tell me not to do, when I was repeating a story you told me and about 30 others. I would like to point out to you that my daughter voted to abstain. So you can play with words all you want, but abstaining means you are not taking a position.
As she stated at the meeting, WCUSD does not teach marriage, Prop 8 does not change how we will teach marriage or the Ed code.
Thus, it was her position that it was inappropriate for the Board to vote on an issue that did not impact either of the above. She further urged board members who felt stongly either way to contact the side of the issue they felt strongly about and add their name to the list of endorsements.
I know you will come back and tell me your children are minors, but my children our my children, regardless of age. This is about you and me. My daughter is capable of speaking for herself. Which see did quiet well at the Board meeting I refer.
I would have found it humurous, if I did not know you and your sexist attidtude. An attitude which prevents you from understanding or believng that any female, much less one my daughters age does not need guidance from her “daddy” or anyone else for that matter. To paraphrase John McCain, “I am not Jessica and Jessica is not me.”
BTW, how can a person who claims to be a “conservative” and a “Republican” threaten to delete a post which simply gives the facts, even when you disagree. Next, will I be thrown off the plane.
November 1st, 2008 at 12:00 am
Mr. Shewmaker, consider your goal and whether your method is effective to reach it. The issue, in this article at least, is whether the Education Code will require that SSM be taught in schools if Prop. 8 passes. Mr. Spence’s position is that it will be. I have confuted that position.
Once a proponent’s position has been confuted his choice is to concede the point or distract from it, and with distraction implicitly admit his unreasonableness. (Or, in this medium, he could disappear, which would have the same effect.)
You stepped in one comment too soon. Your dispute with Mr. Spence gives him an opportunity to ignore the ruins of his argument, for which, if that is his goal, he could thank you.
November 1st, 2008 at 12:00 am
Adam,
I understand and appreciate your comment to me. Fortunately, Spence once again showed his real leaning and thought process with his comments.
November 3rd, 2008 at 12:00 am
The discussion misses one of the most important points: the law itself is a teacher. If prop 8 fails, the law teaches that homosexuality is the moral equal of marriage. Public schools will inevitably follow suit, and the next generations will be taught such moral equivalence. Moral relativism will become official public policy.
November 4th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Mr. Reinach, I agree with all but your last sentence. I would have called it moral pluralism rather than relativism. Moral pluralism, as I understand it, admits of limits to equally valid, colliding values, for example, the competing values here of equality and morality.
However, I quickly find myself in over my head on the topic, and will concede the point.
More importantly, I would argue that moral relativism (or pluralism) will not “become” official public policy, but rather has always been official public policy.
November 6th, 2008 at 12:00 am
How do you get a majority of people to agree on this issue, then vote for Obama?
Was this a vote for marriage or vote against Newsom rubbing the public’s face in the issue?
November 6th, 2008 at 12:00 am
You scare some of them with deceptions about their kids being affected and you push the sin angle in church. (Ironic that you’re willing to deceive people in the name of morality.) Some people were probably duped into thinking it was a vote for marriage, but I suspect most were afraid for their own kids.
I guess Mr. Spence isn’t the kind to admit when he’s wrong.