First graders take school field trip…to teacher’s gay wedding
Welcome to reason number 9,999,987 to homeschool. I guarantee you this is the tip of the iceberg for the anti-Proposition 8 propaganda campaign in California. Via ProtectMarriage.com:
In the same week that the No on 8 campaign launched an ad that labeled as “lies” claims that same-sex marriage would be taught in schools to young children, a first grade class took a school-sponsored trip to a gay wedding. Eighteen first graders traveled to San Francisco City Hall Friday for the wedding of their teacher and her lesbian partner, The San Francisco Chronicle reported. The school sponsored the trip for the students, ages 5 and 6, taking them away from their studies for the same-sex wedding. According to the Yes on 8 campaign, the public school field trip demonstrates that the California Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage has real consequences.
“Taking children out of school for a same-sex wedding is not customary education. This is promoting same-sex marriage and indoctrinating young kids,” said Yes on 8—ProtectMarriage.com Campaign Co-Manager Frank Schubert. “I doubt the school has ever taken kids on a field trip to a traditional wedding,” Schubert said.
When asked by the Yes on 8 campaign, The San Francisco Chronicle reporter said she did not know if the school had ever sponsored a field trip for students to a traditional wedding. Telling the Chronicle that the field trip was “a teachable moment,” the school’s principal believes it is perfectly appropriate for first graders to attend a same-sex wedding. Officials in other school districts disagree.
“Prop. 8 protects our children from being taught in public schools that ’same-sex marriage’ is the same as traditional marriage,” said Santa Ana Unified School District board member Rosemarie “Rosie” Avila. “We should not accept a court decision that results in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It shouldn’t be forced on us against our will,” Avila added.
The lesbian teacher’s wedding was officiated by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. Newsom is featured in a Yes on 8 television ad, released last week, in which he arrogantly declares of same-sex marriage: “The door’s wide open now. It’s gonna happen, whether you like it or not.”
The Yes on 8 campaign’s ads explain that if the voters do not overturn the California Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling, teachers will be required to teach young children that there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage. “It’s totally unreasonable that a first grade field trip would be to a same-sex wedding,” said Chip White, Press Secretary for Yes on 8. “This is overt indoctrination of children who are too young to understand it.” The field trip underscores the Yes on 8 campaign’s message that unless Prop. 8 passes, children will be taught about same-sex marriage in public schools. “Not only can it happen, it has already happened,” White said.
Here’s the SF Chronicle piece that ran on Saturday. Excerpt:
On Friday, McCoy and Carder, both in white, held hands on Newsom’s office balcony overlooking the rotunda and recited their vows.
“With this ring, I thee wed!” Carder said, shouting the last word for emphasis.
After traditional photos, the two walked out City Hall’s main doors where the students were lined up down the steps with bags of pink rose petals and bottles of bubbles hanging from their necks. McCoy, a conferences services coordinator, was in on the surprise and beamed as the children swarmed around Carder.
The two said they have participated in the campaign against Proposition 8 and planned to travel around San Francisco on Friday afternoon in a motorized trolley car with “Just Married” and “Vote No on 8″ banners…
…Creative Arts administrators and parents acknowledged that the field trip might be controversial, but they didn’t see the big deal. Same-sex marriage is legal, they noted.
“How many days in school are they going to remember?” asked parent Marc Lipsett. “This is a day they’ll definitely remember.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Maybe they should spend more time in the classroom « Right Minded Online
- First Grade Field Trip to Teacher’s Gay Wedding : Stop The ACLU
- Gay High School? « Northern Thoughts And Reflections
- Pieces of a Whole » Blog Archive » So, what are YOUR kids learning at public school?
- The Other McCain: School field trips, 2008
- Yet Another Reason to Home School Children | Pirates! Man Your Women!
- Will what happens in San Francisco stay in San Francisco? « Iowa Defense Alliance
- First Graders Taken To Gay Wedding « The Forum
- Blog DeVore » Blog Archive » (Almost) Unbelievable – the pro-tax, pro-big government, teachers’ union just gave $1 million to oppose traditional marriage
- Michelle Malkin » California teachers vs. traditional marriage
- PrestoPundit
- SansPretense » On Education, Part I: Empowerment through education
- SansPretense » On Education, Part II: Exploitation through Indoctrination
- Forget the lawyers, it’s time to shoot the teachers! Part II « Mark Epstein
- Michelle Malkin » Who will quell the anti-Prop. 8 rage?
- Michelle Malkin » Obama’s Sept. 8 speech to schoolchildren
- Inspiration…or Marching Orders? « Patriot Burr
- GayPatriot » Has Any Previous President Ever Addressed Schoolchildren . . .
- Indoctrination By The Anointed One « The Underground Conservative
- UrbanGrounds | Obama’s Innocuous Little Speech
- BizzyBlog
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Education, Proposition 8
Right Pundits
» Joe Lieberman: Fort Hood Shooter Is ‘Home-Grown Terrorist’Legal Insurrection
» Bruni de la Motte for Health Care CzarRiehl World View
» Obama: No Military Death Shall Go UnexploitedLegal Insurrection
» In The End: No Public Option, No Abortions, No Pelosi, No ReidThe Other McCain
» Paralysis by analysisThe Powers That Be
» Obama: ‘Don’t Jump to Conclusions’ About Ft. Hood; Immediately Jumps to ConclusionsLegal Insurrection
» NY Times Names Names
The ACLU never defended NAMBLA’s right to have sex with underage boys (which is illegal), they merely defended their free speech. And the ACLU also defended the Westboro Bapist Church.
oh please this is laughable!! an organization that is dedicated to pedophilia shouldn’t have free speech.
lets review the case…
and here is what their ‘free speech’ says to do:
link
its a criminal enterprise, advocating the rape of children…no surprise a good LIBERAL group like the ACLU would defend them…
OMU lets hear you stirring defense of that good LIBERAL group the ACLU
and how they bravely defend NAMBLA’s right to rape children..
I really don’t care how shocked you are, in fact you can be shocked in one hand and spit in the other hand and see which one fills up first.
I can hate or love anyone I want for any reason I want and I will guarentee you over and over that the word “Omu” will never factor into my feelings. I hate several gay people, not for being gay, but for being a$$hats. Like Barney Frank, I will never forgive him for what he did to this economy with his horsing around with Fannie Mae. And I will never forgive anyone that gives him a free ride simply because he’s gay.
As a matter of fact, the ONLY people I’ve met that openly hated gay people for being gay were liberals. A very good friend of mine “came out of the closet” and the ONLY people with the gall to act indignant were self professed liberals who castigted her and made her life a living hell. We conservatives didn’t care, she was a friend before, she’s a friend now. The only difference was a lable that liberals decided to attach to her.
And if history has any honesty what so ever it will be the liberals, not the conservatives, who will be reflected upon badly. Liberalism is merely a polite term for childish behavior, spineless decisions, and groundless accusations. I still laugh when I think of all those foolish liberals who accused Ronald Reagan of being anti-gay. Ronald Reagan, movie star, president of the Screen Actors Guild, close friends with Rock Hudson. The man who had to watch his friend slowly die of that horrible wasting desease anti-gay?
You self righteous, self absorbed, sad lonely individuals slay me with your unintentional humor.
They are loving adult couples just wanting to commit to each other right? So why do you hate people who are different from you? Do you have some sort of phobia???
BTW OMU, you have not proven that I hate gays. You continue to lie about it and I am calling you on it. You are a flat out bigoted liar who hates people different from you. Why are you such a liar? Why do you hate people different from you?
Hell, I just want examples from omu’s first statement I quoted, sonfdy–do you think you’ll get a response? lol
Omu
Based upon your premise if a gay is killed by a heterosexual, it is a hate crime (rolls eyes), I supposed Randy Kraft killed all of his victims because they were heterosexual males. Your assignment is to determine the number of gays killed by heterosexual males vs. the number of heterosexuals killed by gays.
wighttrasch: Not a reasonable one. I am not going to accept this type of emotional blackmail. Screw them if they can’t handle the truth.
Liberal support of gay marriage rights has nothing to do with gay marriage. Support for gay marriage is merely a lever — one of many — that is used by the Left to undermine Western, and more particularly, American values. Its aim is to dilute the meaning of marriage to the point where it has no meaning. Since marriage is the fundamental relationship on which society is built, destroying marriage as an institution is a key objective of the Left.
Was there ever a groundswell of demand for gay marriage? I didn’t see it. The fact is that a committed gay couple was always free to arrange their legal relationship to mimic that of married people if they wished to do so. And although this rarely happened, it still wasn’t enough. Nor was a state-sanctioned “domestic partnership” enough. It had to be “marriage” in both name and substance. Why?
In representing a means of eroding Western values, Leftist support of gay marriage shares a common thread with the radical environmental movement, which seeks to damage the West economically; the women’s movement, which seeks to expand abortion and undermine the West demographically; and the multiculturalism movement, which seeks to undermine the West by devaluing and ultimately destroying its unique culture.
Most gay marriage supporters are just well-meaning tools who think they’re being “evolved” and sensitive to poor oppressed gays by supporting their right to get married. Typical “useful idiots.” They don’t get the big picture.
I don’t recognize my country any more.
GEEEEEEESSSS!!!!!!!!!!
How the LDS Church views this subject.
What sane, normal, loving parent hopes their child grows up to be a homoexual? None do. It isn’t normal, no more than a normal parent hopes their child would grow up to be a prostitute.
Homosexuality is a biological abnormality in some cases and in other cases a moral failure.
I would bet $100 that neither the teacher or her lesbian partner looked anything like the women on the cake topper.
I’m thinking more…PE teacher.
All of this come out the well intention anti- discrimination laws. These laws are fundamentally flawed because they deny the natural and necessary need of a human to discriminate. when we are forced by law to make artificial choices based on law and not by rational decision our constitutional rights to pursue happiness have been abridged. Civil social structure will break down an all levels because legal conveniences are ordered and natural law is prohibited.
rabid squirrell said;” Actually being married severly reduced my life, liberty and property”
was it the marriage or divorce that led to this situation?
The fact tha gay marriage is now deftly refered to as a right that is denied to gay couples (as opposed to gay individual) shows where this is going. Once marriage has been been recognized as a group right the line of attack shall be: Why are groups of two given rights denied groups of three (or more)? There will be no stopping it.
Now, the liberals will howl that this is all right wing paranoia. The same was said about conservatives who warned 30 years ago that general acceptance of homosexuality as just another lifestyle choice would lead lead to demands for gay marriage. The howls of derisive laughter from the left made it difficlut to sleep at night.Well here we are.
Liberals, who downplayed the importance of marriage , and even viciously attacked it as a form of slavery (see radical feminists) suddenly see the need for marriage in gay couple? Nonsense. It really is a transparent attempt to undermine traditional marriage, as well as get under the skin of conservatives and Christians. The traditional bond between a man and woman will be downgraded to a contract among sexual partners. Great.
Who cares what the reason is. It’s here, deal with it. What is WRONG is taking CHILDREN out of school to see this as something educational. It appears that parental outrage is missing from these articles. Now, THAT is a moral failure.
It will also lead to lawsuits against churches who refuse to perform the ceremony… hate crimes for just speaking our opinions on the subject.
This isn’t about marriage, it’s about destroying the fabric of civilized society.
Well that’s because it’s okay for same sex couples to marry. If it’s a woman to a woman she can’t possibly be subjugated to a man and therefore THAT really is the only form of marriage a woman should recognize.
/sarc
Bingo. You WILL approve. Tolerance is not enough.
Never was, really.
@ Englishqueen: I’m going to be sent to the re-education camps anyway after November. I may as well have my One Last Great Act of Defiance, right?
Nonetheless, I will NEVER, EVER perform a homosexual wedding ceremony. Not in my church, not in any church. If they want to drag me off to prison for that, let them.
I thought that parents have to sign something indicating their consent for a child to go on a field trip? If the parents were upset & didn’t want their children exposed to this, did they refuse to sign the consent? Can the school force the kids to go anyway?
But social conservatives don’t want to give domestic partnership rights to gay couples at all, and that only strenghtens their resolve and their wanting for full marriage (and as well it should). If you guys would just grow up and be practical about it, and accept a form of ‘civil partnerships’ with most of, if not all, of the rights conferred by marriage (especially including joint adoption rights) then the steam would be taken out of the marriage debate. Just look at the UK, they have a robust and fair “civil union” system for gay couples and the issue of “gay marriage” is entirely redundant. Like I said, you all just need to grow up and face reality: gay couples DO exist, and they DO raise children. Refusing to recognise this is NOT discouraging it and is only make life unnecessarily hard for these families. Just grow up for crying out loud.
Omu, please see my post #50. And PLEASE STOP ignoring inconvenient facts and making up new ones.
I support gay marriage, but this was a dumb, dumb idea. Dumb, dumb, dumb idea.
I’m curious about whether the parents all signed permission slips, but regardless of whether they did or not, taking kids to a wedding, any wedding, for a field trip is not a good use of time. I think little kids shouldn’t be roped into politics, and while I personally hope someday a gay wedding is just a wedding, it’s immensely political right now (and may always be).
If permission slips were sent home and the parents all signed them, it was still a bad idea because it assumed that all the parents were going to sign them. Imagine being the one little kid whose parents didn’t want you to go. Then you’d feel weird and maybe feel like you have to defend your parents, but you’re six. You don’t know how to defend your parents’ political views. It’s a rotten spot to put a little kid in, and if no little kids had this problem, that’s because of sheer luck on the teacher’s part. San Francisco or not, I’d think there would be people who didn’t want their six-year-old taken out of school to go to a gay wedding.
It’s in San Francisco. There is a divide between the older generation and the younger generation indoctrinated by the Public School System here. Walking precincts for Proposition 8, I found out that those young couples who grew up in liberal areas and are now having kids are more likely to view gay marriage as a civil right.
Don’t forget, this is the state that a mom hired a male stripper to perform for her daughter and her friends 16th birthday party.
couldn’t defend your last lie, so you’v moved on to more I see. typical liberal wacko. why aren’t you gonna defend your pedophile protecting liberal friends in the ACLU??? hmmmmm???
maybe you could admit you were wrong….but no that would require you to grow up
Since we are talking about California, it should be pointed out that already exists.
So Omu, please explain what the push in California for gay marriage is about.
You are absolutely the most profoundly moronic poster on MM, right4life. Without a doubt. It’s no use conversing with you at all, so you can take it that this will be the last time I will ever indulge your bizarre idiocy.
Gays in California have full domestic partnership rights. It has nothing to do with partnership rights, it has to do with receiving special rights. Equal rights would be that every adult would be able to enter into any type of social contract that they want. i.e. polygamy
its pretty obvious why you can’t…
I’ll continue to make you look foolish, though its not very hard…
loser.
Omu – you never answered my question earlier about how it’s more difficult to prosecute hate crimes then doing the ol Murder 1/2 variety. Did you know that?
Besides, a hate crime carries special circumstances with it, meaning its death penalty case. So, I thought you liberals were against the death penalty..?
I dont get it. Im perplexed, can you help me out?
(awaiting the bigot/homophobe remark in 3..2…1)
Omu is a typical wacko lib…he can parrot talking points, but cannot engage in a rational conversation…that would require thought….but then he wouldn’t be a democRAT…
I agree with you. The idea of a specific “hate crime” is ineffective and largely unneeded. Andrew Sullivan deals with this issue in his superb essay, “What’s So Bad About Hate?“, and I agree fully with his conclusion.
However, whether we use the term “hate crime” or not, Matthew Sheppard (and far too many others) was still murdered because he was gay and the climate that lead to 2 men hating an effeminate gay man so much as to brutally beat him to death is established and sustained by the attitudes and ‘opinions’ expressed in this hateful, hateful mess of a comment thread.
he wasn’t killed because he was gay. thats just more gay talking points.
do you ever tell the truth?
link
your lies don’t work here…we’re not mind-numbed liberal robots…sorry!
Domestic partnerships in California were stunted by the Defense of Marriage Act, so it’s not comparable to the UK’s robust civil partnership system.
Please stop comparing the admittance of gays into the current marriage system to polygamy. The comparision is absurd.
see how easy it is to make you look foolish OMU??
how does it feel to be made a fool out of again?
Sorry that came out wrong. Typing and thinking, clearly a task only for liberals. *lol* [joke folks]
Religious events can be regulated to some extent by the government.
Liberals want you to believe that Marriage is a religious event that CAN NOT be regulated, even when not held in a Church/Synagogue/whatever, or recognized by any Church. You see the Government is the Church, for liberals. Thus marriage is nothing more than a contract, and can be dictated by the government. Read: not you the public, but bureaucrats who are Unionistas.
Yest it’s a circular, hypocritical, and self-serving stance. However, all liberalism is just that. When you have no values, morals, or ethics; any argument can be made plausible. Today’s quicksand of thought, is tomorrow’s bed rock of enlightenment.
They argue that it’s only a contract to remove it from the realm of Religion. They then say that it’s a right, which can only come from God. This of course thrusts it back into the realm of Religion.
However since they see God as opiate for the Masses; it’s nothing more than an attempt to blunt criticism and force submission.
Omu’s comments are proof, once again, that in order to get along with liberals, you have to compromise with them.
Compromise with a liberal = coming over to their side of the argument or risk being labeled as racist, homophobic, intolerant, backwoods, uneducated…
yeah since they don’t have truth, logic, history, or anything else on their side, they have to resort to typical brown-shirt tactics…which fits their fascist world-view perfectly!
What about Jesse Dirkhising? Wouldn’t that be a hate crime, too???
Come to think of it, it really doesn’t matter whether it is labeled a “hate crime.” It was an evil, despicable act, committed by two known homosexuals against a helpless young boy, and should be punished accordingly, as should Matthew Shephard’s death.
A Charter School is not a private school. It operates on tax dollars just as regular public schools do.
This was a bad idea. “Field trips” to weddings during school hours are uniformly bad ideas.
ECS
I don’t know why this is such a huge thing with the anti-gay set. Yes, gays can be monsters, too. Of course they can. What’s the point? Are you trying to insist all gay men are like this? Or that this type of behaviour is caused by homosexuality? Honestly, I don’t get it.
OMU, all crime is based in hate. You don’t steal for love. Disrespect for someone’s life, liberty, property is due to hate. Hate is a lack of love. Too many people confuse hostility with Hate. The two are not the same, and neither needs the other to exist.
This of course makes hate-crime laws unconstitutional. They are double-jeopardy. Just ask the Rodney King Cops. Only someone filled with hate would say that was fair. That is why liberals agree with what happened to them.
We have too many laws in this country that are nothing more than a way for politicians to get votes. They have no basis to exist, other than feel-good politics. Not the way you should make laws.
Anyone who murders, does so out of hate. Elevating Sheppard to martyr status only proves the case for those who say you want privileges and not rights, or justice.
Anytime one group separates it’s self from the whole, and then demands to have rules/laws/codes written that only protect them; they demand that Justice be perverted and rendered non-existent. Everyone who crys out about Sheppard owning to his life style choice, is in this group. Only those who hate others, feeling they are superior, are able to make this claim. By doing so you have sunk to the level of the murderer. You have become that which you criticize. You are consumed by hate, and it is evident.
No, you are being absurd if you don’t think one leads to the other. Marriage is a contract. Domestic partners are in a contract. As an adult, I have the right to make contracts with any viable adult. If 3 males and one female or 1 male and 3 females want to form a domestic partnership, the legal standing and decisions will follow the gay agenda.
Jesse Dirkhising (and far too many others) was still murdered because he was a child and the climate that lead to 2 pedophiles using a child so much as to brutally beat him to death is established and sustained by the attitudes and ‘opinions’ expressed in this ‘tolerant’ ‘gay affirming’ liberal society.
You are saying that Matthew Shepard’s death was brought about by “anti-gayness” in the air, yet Jesse Dirkhising doesn’t get the same level of outrage from you.
Both died heinous deaths at the hands of evil people. Enough with the pointless questions. Please go back and review all previous posts.
Seems to me that you’re the one who has the “hate” problem.
No, it is for you to drop your line of reasoning bringing up Shepard. Gays can be evil, cruel, and sadistic just like anyone else. Gays are not pure loving human beings as you want to believe in. There are both good and bad, just like there are good and bad heterosexual people. I asked you earlier today to compare the number of murdered people by gays and compare them with the number of gays murdered by normal people. Don’t forget, Randy the GAY serial killer killed many straight young men. 16 convictions and 51 that didn’t have enough evidence. So, far, it is 4 gays have killed 68 young men and children, and straight have killed 2, shepard and milk.
You’re completely confusing the issue. Of course Dirkhising’s death was appalling and is still sickening to hear about. Of course it is. But that goes without saying, and society overwhelmingly rejects pedophilia and that kind of violence.
Society (at least in the red states, and among social conservative scum [sorry, there is no other word I can use that would do justice for the contempt and disdain I feel for the morons who make life exceedingly difficult for innocent gays] in blue states like California) has not risen with one voice to condemn gay hatred and in fact, many people delight in such hatred and actively promote (this very article is such an example, though it is obviously not as horrifically hateful as the stuff from Dan Savage or the leadership of the Evangelical church). That’s why Sheppard’s death gets more attention.
This point sums it all up incredibly well. Gays are people just like straights. It’s really just as simple as that and I wish the Bible thumpers would do what Christ would very evidently do and stop persecuting and harassing an already vulnerable part of society for something as trivial as the gender they are sexually attracted to.
the LIBERAL ACLU does not..
and liberals like you say nothing when gay pedophiles hurt and kill children. that why Jesse’s death is unknown outside conservative circles…and shepherd’s death is falsely portrayed and used to advance the gay agenda.
Why haven’t you liberals risen with one voice to condemn the systemic homosexual pedohpilia agenda that NAMBLA represents?
apparently if its gay, its ok!
where is the straight version of NAMBLA?? hmmm? you sick piece of trash.
Although homosexuals account for less than two percent of the population. they constitute about a third of child molesters.6 (6. K. Freund and R.I. Watson, “The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study,” Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (Spring 1992): 3443, cited in “The Problem of Pedophilia,” op. cit. Also, K. Freund and R.I. Watson, “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,” Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 (Fall 1984): 197, cited in NARTH Fact Sheet.
When you bring Jesus into the picture, remember The adulteress was told to go and sin no more! So, Jesus had no problem with the society and the discrimination they showed gays back then. He call all sinners to repent of their sins and sin no more. So, you can be gay, live with your domistic partner, but to be sinless, it must be a platonic relationship.
Do you know what NARTH stands for? National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality. Yeah, I reckon those statistics are flimsy at best.
Most psychologists agree that it’s straight males who generally abuse young boys. Young boys, of course, posses many feminine features and this is attractive to paedophiles. But, in any case, a disproportionately large percentage of gay paedophiles does not mean every gay man and woman should be denied their full and equal rights.
again where is the heterosexual equivalent of NAMBLA?
that would make them gay.
oh and it was cited in NARTH but it was originally from:
6. K. Freund and R.I. Watson, “The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study,” Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (Spring 1992):
and where is marriage a ‘right’ in the constitution, the bible or anywhere else?
there is no ‘right’ to marriage….all this is about is the gay effort to silence christianity. using laws to restrict religous freedom….all in the name of ‘tolerance’ and ‘rights’
Who? Just because responsible parents don’t want their children indoctrinated with the latest liberal agenda and their education to be corrupted into a social engineering experiment, you call that hate? I think you are projecting your own hatred here.
It’s really not about whether someone “confesses” to being “gay”…it’s the act that is being discussed. So whether the perp is “straight” or “gay” is irrelevant. A child was abused, and his innocence robbed, just like those children who were taken to the “gay wedding.”
pdv #251, well said.
I don’t think anyone wants to deny the lawful rights of anyone. What we have here is a vocal minority on a priviledged liberal plank seeking superior rights. There is no historical basis for gay marraige…certainly no religious aspect to it either, but I agree with whoever said “wait for the lawsuits against churches by gays.” Also, nambla is the “north american man-boy love association.” Odd…looks like a same sex thing to me, and it’s proven FACT that the aclu supports that group. It’s ironic that in America, where the majority is supposed to rule, that instead we get judicial fiats in support of far left wing agendas that the country as a whole doesn’t support, but what the gays and liberals are most unhappy about apparently is that the rest of us are no longer willing to be called names and then just go quietly away. A lot of people aren’t in favor of special rights, aren’t in favor of judicial activism, and aren’t willing to be silenced in the name of political correctness anymore, so maybe it is omu who should grow up and recognize that it’s a country by and of the people, not of the special interests.
Really good point right4life, there is no such thing as a straight male seeking out a male child for such acts…those acts make that person gay, and all the verbal tapdancing and parsing by omu doesn’t change it.
Omu’s blatant bigotry towards the Bible while completely ignoring and then later rationalizing sinful behavior is all I need to know about how much he hates Biblical teaching.
Newsflash, God practically nuked Sodom in a rain of brimstone.
* ponders the origins of the word “Sodomy” *
Old and New Testaments both proclaim in the Word of God about the inherent evil and sexual immorality that is homosexuality.
Which then suggests that murder of one or the other is equally abhorrent. Deigning one side as having a special criminality of “hate” defies the logic of equality you suggest that both are “people just like…”.
Murder of a gay man is evil.
Murder of a straight man is evil.
Attempting to make one sound more evil is a form of prejudice of which you claim to be free. That is a paradox.
The more likely logic to your argument is that you are biased towards homosexuals, therefore you view crimes against them as being more special than those committed against heteros.
I would wager that this is not the equality that most homosexuals desire and that you do them an injustice by suggesting it.
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Salt, that sums up the problem. The democrat party is a loose organization of special interests that aren’t interested in equal rights of any sort…to them, equal is the catch word for “better” or “special.” It’s not the party of people that take personal responsibility for their actions, it’s about “society did this to me” or “government should do that for me” yet they themselves do nothing but whine for more, usually at someone elses expense. The 1st grade teacher in question saw a chance at a little political indoctrination and took it, abetted by a heavily liberal (and failing) school system, presided over by a left wing mayor. I remember an old south park episode that explained it nicely…for them, tolerance means we have to accept and support whatever they do, from forcing little kids to witness a sham of a ceremony to “leather” displays (or lack thereof, mostly lack therof in public,) while for us, tolerance means “we put up with you.” We are supposed to stifle our words and actions, even our very thoughts, in order to further their liberal propaganda, and that’s what drives them up the walls. I suspect a lot of gay people could care less about marraige except where the activists are doing it simply because they can’t or shouldn’t…not unlike petulant children asking for the same thing till the parent gives in. This time, the parent isn’t giving in!
I’m starting to believe my evangelical friends who say the endtimes are upon us. Kids don’t belong at their teachers’ weddings anyway but a public school using small children as political props is appalling.
Glad I don’t have any to be warped by the state.
Rome is burning and Nero is playing the violin….
greenfairie – We are in the end times. (I’m LDS) It’s both frightening and amazing to be watching prophesies unfolding right before my eyes.
And the speed that things are now moving tells me there is not much time left. For that I am grateful because it’s going to get really ugly. The Good News is that the good guys win in the end because Jesus Christ has ensured it. I’m still going to fight to the end though, as it is my Christian duty.
Un-freaking-believable. So now the homophobic card is switched to the VICTIM card. Im so vulnerable and weak so now I can do whatever I want, no questions asked. I Dont think so Bozo…what’s the next card you wanna play?
This is coming from a City (SF) that actually shows preferential treatment to Gay over Straight couples from adopting and actual seeks out TRANSGENDER adoptive parents. Yes, dont you have to go through a whole phycological testing to even GET the damn surgery, and then adapt to a new gender…and now you want to throw some little child in the MIX. It is absolutely outragous.
RE: Bible. I have read bible verse after bible verse on here and although I agree with these things, the very heart of the truth is that no one should judge ANYONE else…that is the Creators job…period.
If Omu or anyone else wishes to be gay, I would submit that I have absoultely ZERO personal problem with it. None. ..but Omu et al…Just because YOU chose that lifestyle for yourself does not mean that YOU and the gay community need to judge me or dictate laws for me or anyone else on this board.
I certainly shouldnt have to pay for sex change operations, transgender bathrooms, or keep my mouth shut when kids are taken out of school for this nonsense OR being given preferential treatment to adopt children…I will not have you encroaching in any way shape or form in my life or have you silencing my opinons with slanderous remarks. You dont like it..Tough. If that makes me a homophobe. TOUGH.
I will not let your personal attacks quiet me down by making me fear speaking out against these clearly idiodic ravings.
Welcome to truth.
Next up: Rapture.
OMY would you call Jesus judgemental and hateful? He told us to refrain from any sin but you probably don’t believe in that anyway. Do you think also that God was judgemental when Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed? Also, I would love to hear you explain all this to the Lord on Judgement Day.
This is inappropriate for several reasons. You can bet whatever money you want that this was done to shove an ideology down someone’s throat. If teachers will not teach basic literacy skills but rather their own brand of ‘morality”, they shouldn’t be surprised why people home-school.
What interests me is whether or not this field trip was mandatory. If parents were notified and allowed to opt out, it does not seem like a big deal to me. When I was in elementary school, my teacher got married and invited all of her students. None of us were forced to go. A gay wedding should be no different.
It is social conservatives, not gays, that need to paint everything gay people do as political in order to justify marginalizing them. They’re no better or worse than any of us; arguing that there lifestyle is “bad for society” is ridiculous since I could make the same argument about Christianity giving us George Bush and a host of other evils throughout history.
It’s also really cute to hear anyone who sends their children to public schools complain about “indoctrination.” You think this is the worst of it? A typical day in most government schools is infinitely more damaging. This fieldtrip was a breath of fresh air. Any sort of instruction or presentation in front of children can be labeled “indoctrination” depending on the interested party. If the kids went to a straight wedding, that could also be called indoctrination.
Gays aren’t the problem; public education is. Any child who is “indoctrinated” away from all of their parents’ bigotry after one day with a gay couple is obviously not being raised by very competent or convincing parents. If you’re any good at putting the fear of Jesus into you’re kids, they’ll damn the teacher the minute she mentions she isn’t married.
These sorts of issues are distractions.
Got to love it when liberal f*ckwits channel Jesus to advance their agendas…especially in the same sentence where they denounce those who know God’s Word as “Bible-thumpers.”
Normal people do not invite a classload of six-year-olds to their wedding. These are a couple of mental cases.
As I have been arguing on the Gay Patriot Blog, giving same-sex marital rights to homosexuals in the hopes that it will lead them to personal responsibility and monogamy makes about as much sense as extending mortgages to deadbeats in hopes that it will make them financially responsible.
The problem here isn’t even that its a same-sex marriage, although that’s clearly a bone of contention. If the Teacher wanted to have a wedding outside of instructional time, and decided to invite her students, who then came voluntarily then I might not have as much of a problem with it. But taking the kids out of a Tax Payer Funded school during educational time for it is just plain ludicrous.
You lost everyone there by letting your BDS peek through.
Yeah, because they’re run by liberals, and only a liberal would think it’s cute.
The kids shouldn’t be going to ANY weddings as a school function, but especially not weddings that will raise moral questions that a six year old is not equipped to deal with (and shouldn’t have to.)
Again, your liberalism is showing through. ‘parents’ bigotry’? So it’s bigotry to have a difference of opinion now? If I don’t believe in gay marriage I’m automatically a bigot? Way to keep an open mind.
My kids aren’t taught to fear Jesus, they’re taught to honor, love and respect him for his sacrifice. My kids also don’t damn anyone or they get their mouths smacked.
Also, there’s nothing wrong with an unmarried teacher, duh.
Not only a good reason to home school, a GREAT reason to never go to San Fransissyco or Kalifornia.
Actualy homosexuality in the time of Jesus was punished by death. In no part of the bible does Jesus change that law. He probably would not have supported executing them but he never condoned such “lifestyles”. He certianly would not EVER have married them.
If after this bailout fiasco you still don’t have “BDS”, I don’t know what to tell you.
What’s cute is the selective outrage. A child spends most of his natural youth being prodded and programmed by government bureaucrats at his parents’ behest. They tell him what learning is, what achievement is, what to do, what to think, how to feel about himself, what to make of his nation’s history, they evaluate, indulge, threaten, and brainwash them in every way imaginable and parents don’t complain at all…until there is some mention of gayness. It’s hilarious. And I should know; I was a public school teacher. I’m no liberal. I’m against the education system in its current form. Pro-gay rights indoctrination is the least of its problems. You’re playing right into the liberals’ hands.
I never argued that being against gay marriage constitutes bigotry. I said that a gay wedding need not be any more political than a regular one. I was using the term ‘bigotry’ loosely to mean the total collection of biases and opinions parents may attempt to inculcate into their children. While it is true that some opponents of gay marriage are motivated by bigotry toward gays, I did not mean to portray all anti-gay marriage people in that light.
You’re kids sound pretty cool. My mom smacked me a lot. It worked, I guess, but it also made me really skeptical of authority.
This is state sponsored child abuse. By hiding this “field trip” from the parents, the lesbian teachers and the Mayor of San Fran both knew what they were doing and were more interested in themselves than in the children or the tax paying citizens who just happen to be their parents.
This abuse of power is serious. Although it seems trivial, it reflects an arrogance of government and implies that there is no limit to the state’s ability to do what it wants with children and citizens. This is the very socialistic behavior that created the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao, and it is the very socialistic behavior that is reflected by the Obamanites and the liberals. Eventually, this behavior if unchecked will destroy America.
By the way, if I were a parent of such an abused child, I would check to see if any state laws were violated. If this occurred, then I would press for criminal charges and file a lawsuit. If neither of these were available, then I would initiate civil disobedience by organizing a “sick” out or even a few days in an alternative educational environment run by some parents. In other words, close the school or close the particular classroom that had these teachers until they were fired. Finally, if none of this works, then it is more than obvious that Californians are living in a state dictatorship – the founders of this country resorted to extra-legal means when confronted by such a state.
Omu & its’ ilk do not know nor believe in Jesus.
Christianity & Christian bashing is the last refuge of a bankrupt mind.
When the name of our savior is written by this type of person, look the other way; G-d even turns His face away from their evil.
Renegadeoffunk777, you are missing the points.
It is unprofessional of a teacher not only to involve their child-students in their personal lives but also to spirit them away without the parents’ knowledge or consent. If one were so inclined, it could be called kidnapping.
Secondly, did it never occur to you that the parents- for whatever reason- may not agree with the teacher’s “values”? If a teacher cannot lead a class in prayer, teach creationism, wear scents, eat peanuts or leave early, taking the kids (who cannot object even if they wanted to)to a gay “wedding” should be out of the question.
Thirdly, I don’t know what your view of Christianity is but it is not intolerant. Remember the parable of the prodigal son? Compare that to apostacy and how homosexuals are treated in places like Iran. Far cry, is my point.
My two cents:
The state should not have its hands in marriage, period. It is a religious or cultural ceremony and should purely be such. This way, churches will be able to marry whomever they like (or refuse marriage to whomever they don’t like) and it will not have the force of the law behind it.
That said, I understand for certain government benefits (taxes) and legal issues (family law, estate laws), the government has to recognize a “spouse” or “next of kin.” In that regard the legal language should be “next of kin” or “civil union” or something to that effect for both homosexual and heterosexual couples. The word “marriage” does not belong in legal language. The religious and legal portions should be completely separate. I believe my solution here would effectively end the debate. Homosexual couples will have the same legal status as heterosexual couples and only the churches will be able to call something a “marriage.” I am not sure why anyone would object to this solution since it seems to satisfy the issues on both sides of the debate. If someone can point out a flaw in this solution please let me know.
As far as polygamy, well to me, it’s a pointless law. I have always thought that a law that cannot be enforced does not deserve to be a law. If I am a polygamist, legally married to my first wife, and have my 2nd and 3rd “wives” as live-in mistresses, I understand that is not illegal. That said; why not just recognize these live-in mistresses in some kind of legal sense as above? I have no doubt that actual polygamists in the US today go through some kind of legal gymnastics (with wills and such) to achieve a “legal” polygamous family unit.
Hate crime legislation is stupid, next.
Field trips are for education, not for weddings, not for birthdays, not for barmistvas, not for communions, etc. Gay or straight, anyway you slice it; these kids should not have been going to this wedding for a field trip.
Lastly, folks that talk about “end times” worry me. Folks that are looking forward to and even desire “end times” really worry me. Folks believe these things and have some position of authority in the government make me feel afraid for our country.
its just another means of ruining marriage in this country. which is what the homosexual agenda wants. There is far more than a religious component here. we see what has happened in the netherlands with gay marriage, how it increases out of wedlock births…which of course increases crime. but one of the main reasons for gay marriage is to destroy traditional marriage and the protection it gives children…gotta get those new recruits somewhere..
but I’m not surprised you would push something like this zero. your proposal is just gay marriage by any other name….
we have laws against murder, and murder still happens….should we just scrap that law??
De-Moral-ization is step 1.
Steps 2, 3, and 4 are not pretty.
It is long past time that we fight back.
right4life:
Perhaps I should caveat my post as follows:
How does gay marriage increase out of wedlock births? That doesn’t seem to make sense.
How does traditional marriage “protect” children? Gay / lesbian couples can (and do) adopt with or without gay marriage. Concerning children, I would make the following argument:
Which (in your mind) of the following two couples are better suited to raise a child:
1) A pair of gay “log cabin Republican” males who attend a Christian church regularly (most likely a protestant non-evangelical one, considering). They pay their taxes and neither one of them has so much as a speeding ticket on their record.
2) A heterosexual pair of violent, alcoholic, degenerate criminals.
I would then take the argument a step further and say, if child services seized a child from couple #2 (after it was nearly beaten to death) and gave it to couple #1 for adoption would the child be better or worse off?
In any case, I must assume that you are against any kind of “civil union” or legal recognizing of a same-sex couple on the grounds that it is bad for children. No need to reply, I am going to take a hint from Omu in #226. If another poster would like to try and explain right4life’s position in a more eloquent and intelligent manner please do so, as I am constantly revising my positions on many things. It took me some time to come to this conclusion and I am open to other ideas. Unfortunately, right4life has demonstrated on this and other topics that he is incapable of making any kind of convincing argument. He also has demonstrated his propensity to fulfill Godwin’s Law and start blathering about hellfire, as such, he is a waste of time.
The government should have as much a hand in “marriage” as it has in communion. I fail to see why this isn’t a good solution.
As for laws against murder, they are able to be enforced and they are enforced. It is a completely different thing than laws against polygamy which (as I demonstrated) cannot be enforced because a polygamist can simply avoid legally marrying their 2nd and subsequent spouse. There is no way to legally commit the act of murder.
its obvious you haven’t done any research…no surprise since you believe every fairy tale (evolution) around…every read Stanley Kurts? ever hear of Stanley Kurtz??
link
your arguments about adoption are so much BS. this is more likely what happens with gay ‘adoption’…
link
I manage to make you look like an idiot regularly…although its not very hard
what a stupid piece of trash you are…we managed to enforce these laws for more than the past century, and even had the mormon church change their policy…so you’re basically admitting there is no way to stop sharia law either because people will just do it, as they do in britain.
pathetic. another example of your idiotic ‘logic’ you take the cake for the dumbest poster on this site.
Pirates and global warming come to mind (re. Holland); not to mention authorities breaking into people’s bedrooms (enforcing laws against polygamy).
A severe case of Gerin Oil addiction has clearly made our poor friend, “right4life”, delusional.
If anyone else would like to address my points about the 2 couples, please do so. I’ll be back late tonight or perhaps tomorrow.
The people who are defending this state sponsored abuse can easily look at the statistics associated with homosexuality and lesbianism by searching the internet. There are numerous studies that have been done over the past few decades that provide substantive statistics on the abuses committed by the homosexual population.
I have seen a couple of studies that indicate a homosexual couple is about 5 times more likely to abuse a foster child than a heterosexual couple – but the “no connection” crowd simply doesn’t want to have to deal with that fact or even the common sense of thousands of years of history. There must be some reason that homosexuality was considered horrific over the past few thousand years by virtually every society and every religion.
publiuswarmac9999:
I wonder, are there statistics that show that blacks (or any other minority) are more or less likely to abuse children? Are there any statistics that show that children raised by black parents are more or less likely to commit a crime?
OK, for real, I got things to do. See you all later.
Well said.
As to the poster who mentioned that parents with children in public schools are already submitting them to “indoctrination”, just because a child is in public school doesn’t mean they should be subject to the artificial whims of a teacher/principal/school official, esp. when they have NOTHING to do with reading, writing, and ‘rithmetic.
thanks for confirming what an idiot you are, I knew you wouldn’t disappoint!!
I’m sure you think you’ve ‘refuted’ me!! yes you are truly a legend in your own mind!!
and you’re a devotee of that wacko Dawkins!! too funny!! but I knew you’d be bending over for the gay lobby!!