Claims by No On California Proposition 8 Campaign Growing More Desperate?
This pledge card was signed by a kindergartener at Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science in Hayward, CA last week. Teaching children to be accepting of others should be commended, but forcing children to sign pledges that include references to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community when these children can barely write their own names and when parents are not allowed to opt out of these class activities, is deplorable.
“Clearly, this is nothing more than a floundering campaign grasping at straws to save its effort,” said Chip White, Protectmarriage.com – Yes on 8 campaign spokesman. “It’s quite sad because those who are hurt most are voters. We invited the No on Prop 8 campaign to debate Proposition 8 this weekend in a live, televised format, but it declined our invitation. If the No campaign is so confident in its arguments, why refuse the debate?”
Claims reporting Proposition 8 has nothing to do with schools, to Proposition 8 will cause a high-tech brain drain, are being passed off as fact. These claims are nothing but noisy rhetoric and last minute campaign stunts aimed at confusing voters instead of educating them.
Claim: Proposition 8 has nothing to do with schools
A few weeks ago children in a 1st grade class attended their teacher’s gay wedding in San Francisco on a school-organized field trip. The principal called it a “teachable moment.” That sure sounds like same-sex marriage instruction in schools.
This week kindergartners at Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science in Hayward, CA, were asked to sign pledge cards saying they would not use anti-LGBT language. Parents who felt their children were far too young for such a discussion, most at an average age of 5 who are just learning the basics of reading and writing, were not permitted to opt-out, but instead had to keep their children home from school.
As we have clearly demonstrated, California Education Code Section 51933 states schools “shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.” According to the California Department of Education website, 96% of schools teach this curriculum. And under the Supreme Court’s ruling, current California law means marriage instruction includes instruction on gay marriage. Thus, gay marriage is already part of the curriculum. Perhaps because of these simple facts, Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell refuses to debate.
Claim: Proposition 8 would have no effect on a church’s tax-exempt status.
The No on 8 campaign used a classic lawyer trick, rolling out a group of lawyers yesterday to falsely state our concern about the impact of same sex marriage on religious freedoms, and then saying our concerns are false. For the record, the Yes on 8 campaign has never said that churches, acting as churches, would be forced to perform gay marriages. However, it is clear that where churches interact with the public square, in providing social services or even conducting business, their tax exempt status is at risk.
In one well publicized case, Catholic Charities in Boston ran adoption facilities that managed 700 cases since 1987, most involving children with special needs. Catholic Charities placed such children into parents in traditional marriages, according to their faith. After gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, the state told Catholic Charities it had to place children with gay marriage couples as well. Faced with such a decision, Catholic Charities reluctantly decided to stop providing adoption services.
Another religious non-profit, Ocean Grove Campground in New Jersey, lost a portion of its tax-exempt status on a rental pavilion because it refused to rent the facility to a lesbian couple for a civil commitment ceremony.
Claim: Proposition 8 discriminates against gays and lesbians
Under California’s current domestic partnership law, (Family Code Section 297), gay couples are awarded the same legal rights and privileges as married couples. California has the strongest civil union/domestic partnership law in the nation, and Proposition 8 does not take away any of those rights.
Claim: If Proposition 8 passes there will be a brain drain to gay-friendly Massachusetts.
Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for five years and California still remains the epicenter of technology, biomed and other science-based industries. If a “gay brain-drain” was going to happen, shouldn’t it have started 5 years ago?
Flap learned at the blogger conference call yesterday that indeed the No on Proposition 8 campaign has replaced many of their staff and the campaign may be at the last minute replacing all of their television ads. There was even talk that the No campaign was going to put You Tube ads on broadcast television.
Good luck with that.
But, at least today, Flap has had an opportunity to sunshine some of the false claims being made – new campaign staff or not.
Update:
Why is the No on 8 sending out disingenuous e-mails to decline the debate challenge?
Letter below:
Technorati Tags: California Proposition 8, Gay Marriage
8 Comments
Paula
I really like the line “Leading newspapers have concluded Proposition 8 has nothing to do with schools”. When in doubt, go straight to the experts–the media! LOL…
Paulas last blog post..Why I cannot vote for Obama
prop8discussion
thanks for this post it’s awesome. i’m going to link.
you might find these interesting.
1. In Brazil, the senate is considering a law which would imprison anyone for saying homosexuality is wrong:
http://www.tfp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1057
2. This article goes through studies to show:
a. same-gender relationships show statistically higher rates of abuse and violence
b. same-gender relationships (especially long term) have higher rates of disease (including but not limited to AIDS)
c. same-gender couples (on average) do not practice monogamy as part of their relationship (ex: even in committed relationships partners have multiple sex partners). And in places where civil unions or marriage (netherlands) is possible, they are less likely to take advantage of these benefits than heterosexual couples. And when I say less likely i mean by a huge percentage.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02&f=PG03I03
prop8discussions last blog post..Articles you should Right Now
Pingback:
Kerry Carpenter
As I understand it, the gist of the debate is whether the legal meaning of the “marriage” contract should include anything other than the traditional “one man – one woman” arrangement. As noted, that is the historic basis for the family unit because it aligns so nicely with biology! Parthenogenesis is for aphids.
From a strictly legal standpoint, recognition of same-sex marriages would open the door for a whole variety of other combinations that would clamor for equal status. A prime example is polygamy/polyandry. Right behind would be things like people marrying animals, or wanting the state to recognize marriages between animals. Once a legal term has been opened to allow something other than its traditional meaning, it’s hard to put the genie back in the lamp.
I am something close to 100% certain the founders of this nation did not contemplate the constitution being amended for things such as this. That’s why the amendment process is burdensome, to assure that only those changes truly deserving adoption could make it. For those of us solidly in the hetero camp, it is hard to understand how anyone could be attracted to their same sex. However, it obviously happens and no one fully understands how. Some will argue that it is “natural” and that “God made me this way, so it must be okay.” Those are lame arguments and could be equally applied to any sexual or moral “perversion” such as child molestation, wife beating, bank robbing or driving a Hummer.
As our society declines morally and as people are more willing to define almost any kind of behavior as “normal” and acceptable, those behaviors become more common. The difficult question is, given our beliefs in the moral agency of man (by your choices and works, you define your eternal destiny as a Christian), what is the proper role of government in such matters.
Save_Californias_Constitution
Last week the Yes on proposition 8 campaign held a rally at Riverside Wesleyan Church in South Sacramento to introduce us to Robb and Robin Wirthlin, a Massachusetts couple currently appearing in Yes on 8’s ads talking about how their son Joey was read a book called King and King.
What the Yes on 8 campaign didn’t mention, was that Robb and Robin Wirthlin are devout Mormons who have been on their LDS mission. You see, Robb is the grandson of LDS elder Joseph B. Wirthlin and the couple had moved into the progressive Lexington school district knowing that district had an anti-bias curriculum called “Windows and Mirrors.” That curriculum was intended to allow every child to see their family model and to see every other child’s family model. It is meant to help children of single parents, divorced, dual household children, children of interracial couples, Jewish and Muslim children and yes, children of same-sex couples, see themselves as equal.
Second graders talk about and draw or paint their homes and families constantly. In fact, Joey Wirthlin already knew a girl in class with two mommies, Jessica Soens. This book was nothing new to him. ‘
But the Wirthlins asked the court only to allow images and material of traditional two parent, heterosexual family models to be presented. That’s fine for their son, but it’s not okay for other children. The Wirthlins have never thought about the welfare of other children, and that’s why the Federal and recently the U.S. Supreme Court called the case “frivolous.”
Most telling, when asked if she had a message for California’s 52,000 children of same-sex couples, Robin shrugged her shoulders and even seemed to snarl as she said, “No.”
That’s right, Robin, who the Yes on 8 campaign produced as their best embodiment of a loving parent, has no message for the 52,000* children of same-sex couples or the 140,000* California children of a gay or lesbian parent, or the countless teens coming of age, realizing they might be gay or lesbian and needing positive, loving role models. These children are the ones proposition 8 will hurt. These are the children to consider when casting your vote.
The Wirthlins, like their Mormon brethren, have no affirming message for those who are not of their ideal family, or their ideal child. “We do not offer our children the freedom to live outside the teachings of the church,” stated the Wirthlin and Parker’s website. In fact, gay and lesbian Mormons are routinely kicked out of the church and out of their families.
The love these Mormon parents have for their children is not unconditional.
It seems the Norman Rockwell portrait of the Wirthlins is a facade as thin as the canvas of a real Rockwell portrait. The difference is these one-dimensional caricatures are trying to get you to cast your vote for hate and bigotry.
Do you really want to adopt the vision of the Mormons on issues concerning marriage?
Please, find empathy for the non-traditional families who will be hurt by this discriminatory proposition. Please respect the intellect of our conservative state supreme court. And don’t legislate away the rights of fellow citizens simply because you can or because your personal religious beliefs aren’t theirs.
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 8. Not just because prop 8 is discrimination. Not because it’s unjust, unnecessary, or because it legislates away the rights of your neighbors. Vote no for the children of California. Those Children Robin Wirthlin has no message for. Send them your message of hope with your vote supporting their rights.
(The number of California children with either a gay or lesbian parent and those with same-sex couple parents is attributed to a 2006 Stanford University study which used the U.S. 2000 Census for its calculations.)
Flap
Source please?
Obviously this piece was copied from someplace and the anti-Mormon bigotry is apparent.
limor
uhh… just this morning, the No-on-Prop-8 folks were AT MY SON’S SCHOOL, PASSING OUT CARDS AND FLYERS! there was a gamut of them! i felt so disrespected! once issues like this begin to affect my child or someone else’s child, that’s where i draw the line! this morning’s herd was just the beginning of how this already has affected schools…
oh, by the way, did i mention that my son is only 7 years old??? we aren’t talking middle school or high school here, folks!
they should be ashamed of themselves.
ultraCatholic
I never understood why it should be a legal thing anyway. Marriage is a religious institution. They always cry about separation of church and state, I say separate it. Then the church would decide who can and cannot get married.