Cyber Musings

(from my myspace blog, November 2008)

In the past few weeks, I have had numerous discussions with proponents of Proposition 8, on Myspace, on Facebook, in online discussion groups and in person. I have listened to radio programs presenting both sides of the issue and have heard numerous comments from callers to the programs. I have read online blogs and comments and numerous articles, both for and against Prop 8. During this time, I have repeatedly heard the mantra from Prop 8 supporters: "Vote for Prop 8. Save the children". They have tried to convince voters that gay marriage details were being taught to young children in our public schools. When given assurances that this is not the case, Prop 8 supporters point to highly partisan news articles, usually more hyperbole than fact, which were actually about teaching diversity acceptance with respect to LGBT issues and not about teaching gay marriage details. Even those Prop 8 supporters who acknowledge that the articles are about teaching acceptance of diversity with respect to the LGBT community, criticize teaching acceptance as unnecessary and inappropriate for young children. Some of them of them claim teaching diversity acceptance in schools forces parents to have to answer their children’s questions about their child’s gay classmates or a classmate’s same sex parents, which they find highly unpalatable and deem inappropriate as a topic of discussion with their young children. And finally, they believe and claim to California voters that supporting Prop 8 will "save" our children by making all this unpalatable stuff go away.

The particular example I read most recently that was cited as evidence that our schools are teaching marriage in early grades, was of a teacher who asked that her Kindergarten students fill out pledge cards vowing to be LGBT allies and speak out in support of their fellow students. Let me say right up front that I oppose students signing pledges of any sort. It’s far more effective to teach and model acceptable behavior than to mandate that students sign pledges to behave in a particular way. ( I consider pledge cards as a behavior modification method inappropriate for any age student). The method in this case was flawed, but the message ( teaching acceptance of differences of any kind) is still valid and necessary.

Acceptance of diversity discussions with school age children (even very young school age children) about being sensitive and understanding of ALL differences is totally appropriate, whether it be about religion, race, physical or mental disability or sexual preference. Schools are charged with protecting the rights of ALL children in their daily care. Proactively involving students in discussions of methods to ensure that all students are treated with kindness and acceptance, whatever their differences, is much more effective in reducing verbal or physical abuse. The alternative, waiting for physical or verbal abuse to take place and then punishing the aggressor is less effective in extinguishing the undesirable behavior, is likely to increase the amount of taunting due to copycat behavior, and leaves two victims with hurt feelings: the victim and the aggressor (who may have repeated a negative comment made by a parent without actually understanding the meaning of the slur.) This is more commonly the case with young children, hence the importance of teaching acceptance of differences at an early age.

Neither the issue of whether schools need to teach diversity acceptance (with regard to gay classmates or same-sex parents of classmates) nor whether parents need to answer their young children’s questions (regarding sexual preference differences) has absolutely anything to do with whether or not Prop 8 passes. Prop 8 supporters are deluding themselves if they think that by taking away the civil rights of gay couples, they will remove the necessity for diversity acceptance teaching in our schools or absolve homophobic parents of the responsibility of answering their child’s questions regarding whatever subject the child brings up. Long before gay marriage was legal in California , gay students and students with same-sex parents have been present in our public schools. This situation is not going to change, no matter the outcome of the vote on Tuesday. For years, children have been aware that some of their classmates had same sex parents, just as they were aware that some kids come from single parent families and some kids live with grandparents or other relatives or are adopted. It’s not a big deal to children. They don’t independently infuse this awareness with any particular value judgment unless they’ve been taught to disapprove of differences or have overheard slurs and negative comments associated with these differences from their parents or other adults. They will ask questions about these differences (children ask incessant questions on every imaginable topic!) and, as parents, it is our responsibility to answer their questions truthfully and at a level of detail appropriate to the child’s age and level of understanding. In our schools, administrators and teachers have a responsibility to ensure that all students are protected from physical and verbal abuse by other students over any perceived differences (be they issues of race, religion, physical or mental ability, sexual orientation, etc). Proactively teaching acceptance of diversity is the best, most effective way of achieving that end and will need to continue for as long as children repeat their parent’s negative statements about those who are different in some way , for as long as children are taught that differences in race, religion or sexual orientation are grounds for discrimination and removal of civil rights. This will not change whether or not Prop 8 passes.

(from my myspace blog, October 2008)

• The state court’s decision on marriage will not remove any rights of heterosexual marriage. Families have and will continue to have the right to teach their children about morality and sex exactly as they choose. Churches will continue to perform marriages or not for whomever they choose. The state will not get involved in changing religious marriage in any way. Legalizing gay marriage simply allows same sex couples to enjoy the rights and benefits of marriage on an equal footing with heterosexual couples.

• Thousands of gay couples have married since the decision to allow gay marriage in California earlier this year. In that time, no one’s heterosexual marriage has crumbled because gays are allowed to marry, no church has been forced to perform gay marriages, no church has lost its tax exempt status for refusing to perform gay marriages, and our state education curriculum has not changed to start teaching first and second graders about sex (homosexual or otherwise). These facts are not going to change suddenly if Prop 8 fails to pass. The outrageous lies about consequences of legal gay marriage are scare tactics meant to drum up support for discrimination against gays.

• Those who support Prop 8 because they think they otherwise might have to answer sensitive questions their children ask about gay couples already have that responsibility. Passing Prop 8 will not change that. Young children have had friends with same sex parents long before gay couples were allowed to marry in California. Children are very accepting of differences and don’t usually pass judgment on families who may be different from theirs (unless taught intolerance by their parents). Children ask many questions and will undoubtedly be curious about these differences. Parents have the responsibility to answer their children’s questions sensitively and appropriate to the child’s age and level of understanding. But that has been and will continue to be true WHETHER OR NOT gay couples retain the right to marry after November.

• I’ve heard comments from Prop 8 proponents that legalizing gay marriage erases the distinction between church and state. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Civil marriage has historically never been defined in our state constitution as excluding gay couples. Any right or benefit that is bestowed by marriage is for all who marry, not just for heterosexual couples. In fact, it is Prop 8 that seeks to erase the distinction between church and state by allowing religious organizations and their congregations to overwrite the definition of civil marriage in our constitution to match their religious definition of marriage. The vast majority of support for Prop 8 comes from the Catholic Church, evangelical churches and Mormons who have been instructed by their church to make individual donations and work for the campaign. Roughly 80% of the support for Proposition 8 comes from religious interests.

• Marriage strengthens gay couples and their families and provides benefits and protections, enhancing their security and happiness, just as it does for heterosexual couples and their families. Why should heterosexual families have an exclusive right to that protection. Legalizing gay marriage also enhances marriage as an institution overall. If those who support Prop 8 are truly interested in promoting the institution of marriage for young people, they shouldn’t seek to shut out such a large segment of our population.

• Navigating adolescence is difficult at best. Heterosexual adolescents have always had married role models to look up to. They’ve had realistic expectations of future happiness in a close relationship with the person of their choice. Young gay adolescents have not had that expectation, nor any role models of happily married gay couples, until now. It is no secret that suicide rates of gay teens are significantly higher than those of heterosexual teens. We shouldn’t overlook the very real possibility that legalizing gay marriage could significantly lower the suicide rate among gay teenagers by giving them a more hopeful, happier view of their futures as a gay individuals. I’ve heard a lot from Prop 8 proponents about Prop 8 “saving our children”, but this is one very real example of how legal gay marriage and the defeat of Prop 8 could very literally save our children.

• It is not true that civil unions or domestic partnerships have the same rights as marriage. Marriage is universally recognized. Civil unions and domestic partnerships differ from state to state. Civil unions in one state are not recognized in other states. Marriages are. Durable or medical powers of attorney for a partner or wills in a civil union have to be set up through a lawyer at a higher initial cost and are subject to challenges. A marriage license conveys these benefits on a spouse without great cost and isn’t subject to legal challenges. Sponsoring your non-citizen partner for immigration is not allowed for civil unions. Marriages can be dissolved in any state no matter where they are performed. Civil unions can only be dissolved in the state in which they are enacted. These are just a few of the differences. Civil unions may offer most of the rights marriages offer ON PAPER, but in practice, gay couples in civil unions have had difficulties exercising some of these rights in real situations. For example: everyone recognizes marriage and nobody questions a spouse visiting a patient in the hospital in a restricted visitation situation, but patients in civil unions may be required to bring legal paperwork to prove they are married and could still end up being turned away if the staff at the hospital charged with admitting family members are not familiar with the certification. Gay couples should not have to jump through hoops for their rights as a committed couple. Bottom line: CIVIL UNIONS DO NOT OFFER THE SAME BENEFITS AS MARRIAGE. Civil unions bestow a separate and unequal status, relegating gays to a second class citizen status.

• This is a civil rights issue, pure and simple. Government bestowed rights and benefits are for all citizens, not just those with the most money or the whitest skin, or those who practice the predominant religion or the majority sexual preference. Prop 8 is about discrimination and removing the civil rights of a large segment of California’s population. Heterosexual marriage has not been affected negatively by legal gay marriage. Prop 8 will not enhance heterosexual marriage in any way. It simply takes away the civil rights of gay couples.

Support marriage equality for all California citizens. Vote NO on Proposition 8!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiuMo6RihHw

NO!  Most emphatically no!  If you actually listen to the speech Obama made, the "lipstick on a pig" comment was not directed at Palin. He was discussing the idea of trotting out Bush’s repugnant policies and presenting them as new and different. The term was directed at the entire package of policies that McBush is trying to pass off as change.  Obama had used that same phrase before in a speech, long before  Palin was in the picture. McCain himself used that phrase a few months ago in describing Hillary Clinton’s healthcare plan. The phrase is a common one.    McCain’s tantrum and a demand of an apology was a diversionary tactic. He and his campaign would like to avoid any discussion of actual issues, so they make a big deal of a totally ordinary phrase and feign offense to get the media off the topic of the issues. The media should not buy into these tactics. They should hold the feet of the candidates of all parties to the flame about any claims made. We all have a stake in knowing exactly what these candidates plan to do if elected.  Lies should not be tolerated by us or by the media.  They have the resources to check claims made and debunk lies and let the world know who’s truthful and who’s not.  Trouble is, most of the major media outlets are OWNED by right wingers, who wield no small influence over what is printed or distributed over the airwaves.

I don’t agree with those who criticize Palin for running for VP because she has five children. Nobody tells men with large families they shouldn’t run for office. I also think her daughter’s pregnancy is not something that should be a focus of the campaign.  (One does have to wonder though how Palin can say over and over again that her daughter made the choice to have her baby, when she herself is opposed to other women having ANY choice, even in the case of incest or rape. One also has to question how well Palin’s opposition to sex education has served her daughter.) 

For me, the problem with Sarah Palin as a candidate is her lack of credible experience  (who in their right mind truly believes that because Alaskans live across the strait from Russia, they all have extensive foreign policy experience!?), her extreme and unpalatable positions on nearly all the issues, and her warped sense of ethics.  In her acceptance speech she lied blatantly about Obama’s positions and policies.  She insulted community organizers and people who work to help those who are down on their luck, and generally gave a "good old boys" speech full of inconsistencies and outright lies. She didn’t sell the jet on eBay as she claimed to have done, she didn’t oppose the bridge (until Congress had killed it). She was for it initially.  She fits right in with McCain and his constant waffling on what his position is on nearly every subject he’s questioned about.  She has a sense of entitlement, common to those on the far right, who would rather see their less fortunate neighbors starve and go without healthcare than pay taxes at a level that would be fair.  She has  charged the taxpayers a per diem for nearly a year’s worth of nights spent in her own home and has also billed taxpayers for travel expenses for her husband and children, (including a trip to the Iron Dog sled race (Iditerod trail), in which her husband  participated  —hardly qualifies as state business)

We’ve had eight years of being dominated by an ideologue administration and it’s time we elected more pragmatic and practical leaders to serve the citizens of this country and not their own selfish interests and those of their wealthy cronies and corporate lobbyists. Palin and McCain parrot the same tired old ideologue tripe that we’ve heard from the Bush administration for years, lying and then lying again to cover their original lies. This is not change. We need to restore our good name in the world, end this senseless war and take our country back from the wealthy private interests who have caused our economy to plummet.  We don’t need four or eight more years of the same.