California teachers vs. traditional marriage
Last week, I noted the public school propaganda war on traditional marriage — in the form of a first-grader field trip to a wedding of two lesbian teachers opposed to Proposition 8. That’s the ballot measure to protect marriage.
CTA, the far Left teachers’ union in California, has now donated $1 million to defeat the proposition. I noted their first $250,000 installment for the same-sex marriage lobby in August.
It’s all for the children, of course:
California’s largest teacher’s union has given another $1 million to defeat a Nov. 4 ballot initiative that would ban same-sex marriage in the state.
The contribution recorded Tuesday makes the California Teachers Association the largest institutional donor to the No on 8 campaign. CTA also gave $250,000 in August to Equality for All, a coalition of gay advocacy and civil rights groups opposing Proposition 8.
Union spokeswoman Sandra Jackson says CTA’s 800-member policy body voted overwhelmingly to oppose the gay marriage ban. Jackson says the issue concerns educators because “teachers teach the importance of equal rights for all.”
She says CTA leaders made the second contribution this week because the No campaign seems to be struggling.
Reader Beckie is a teacher in Cali and she’s sick to her stomach:
I just wanted to thank you for your website. I went home sick to my stomach today when I realized that CTA had donated 1 million dollars to ‘No on Prop. 8.’ CTA clearly does not see in the long run that they are perhaps cutting their own throats as parents flock to private schools or begin home schooling as parents realize that they do not want radical ideas dictated to their children.
I am a conservative elementary school teacher living in the Bay Area. (Lion’s Den) I bravely had a Bush bumper sticker on my car last election but this election, I felt that anything conservative message on my vehicle might mean my car being vandalized. (by the other teachers) I don’t think I am the only conservative CTA member and I would love to find a forum that our voice can be heard without threat of losing our standing in our school districts.
Again, I appreciate your viewpoint and I’m bookmarking your website right now.
Reason number 99,999,984 to homeschool.
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
- FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog
- California teachers vs. traditional marriage | PoliticsMuch.com
- California teachers vs. traditional marriage | PoliticsMuch.com
- CTA Spending My Hard Earned Dues! « California Crusader - Proposition 8 and Schools
- California teachers vs. traditional marriage « Top Daily Digest Reading
- SansPretense » On Education, Part I: Empowerment through education
- Jedi Mind Trick: No LGBT curriculum here, move along « Retractable Horns & Tail
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Education
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
He can’t…all he can is parrot talking points…he cannot deal with that, or with the VERY negative effect this would have on the freedom of religion, which would basically end with gay marriage.
FamilyMan:
That’s a good argument for a flat tax and to do away with Social Security. It’s not a good argument to treat some Americans as second class because of whom they choose to love or spend their life with.
I do in the other thread, #317, second to last paragraph.
FamilyMan:
I also address polygamy in the other thread, but you can find it yourself.
No on 8 is running an allegedly misleading TV ad. I saw it twice last night.
Surprised me that it took them so long to release an allegedly misleading ad. Usually the allegedly confusing ones come out right away.
A lot of money going in to this prop’s ads. Better production quality.
zeroangel BAD ARGUMENTS ON ALL LEVELS.
TAKE COURSE IN LOGIC.
GEEEESSSS!!!!!!!!
right4life said:
Yes, you did.
But having changed my mind over many major things over the years – as a result of discussion and logical arguments – I want to believe that other people are also open to facts and logic. Sadly, that is often not the case.
FamilyMan:
Typing your comments in caps doesn’t make them any more valid. Of course you’re welcome to try.
Trollman:
Ref #106. I feel exactly the same way about you. Cheers!
Its the validation of homosexuality being forced down our children’s throats where the line has to be drawn.
Children are very malleable and teachers have no business in any way influencing children’s sexual orientation.
Indoctrinate, in other words. The Borg is pleased.
Dude, I have a kind? I don’t think they know; I think they think I’m one of “the other kind”, the kind who agrees with probably 95% of what Michelle writes. And that would be correct. But I acknowledged that there’s something of a slippery slope possibility with gay marriage and I respected other people’s opinions, so somehow that made me a troll, I guess.
zeroangel: I agree with you to an extent, but if people are getting legalized gay marriage whether they like it or not, they’re going to push back all the harder. I’d agree with you if this was some sort of life-or-death issue, or if it was something that seriously made gay people’s lives hell, but it doesn’t and so I think people should come to the conclusion on their own.
Heading off now before the Fellowship of the Ring shows up to fight me or Harry Potter sticks a wand up my nose!
Speakup, you don’t understand. People are born gay, it has nothing to do with a lifestyle choice. This teacher is just showing the children that “if they feel that special way” about someone of the same sex, it’s genetic.
Of course, there’s no scientific evidence to support that, but since when do liberals let science stand in the way of their beliefs?
/sarc off
I wonder how the CTA and the liberals would react if a female teacher took her first graders to a Catholic church for her wedding mass to see her marriage to a man? It’s a field trip, remember? Equal rights for all!
The ACLU would probably knock down the doors to the church and drag the children out, even while they screamed and cried. The ACLU screaming and crying, not the children. They would have to put on a show for the cameras so everyone would think the ACLU was the victim.
Again, I’m shocked at how recklessly and effortlessly the religious right turns anything that is compassionate or sympathetic to harmless (let me repeat: harmless) gay people into a political storm.
Gay people exist. I know close minded, ignorant hill billies don’t like them there homosexuals, but that doesn’t change the fact that they do exist and they harm no one. Denying them the right to marry their partners or to adopt children isn’t going to stop gay couples devoting themselves to one another, nor is going to stop children being raised by them. It only makes their lives needlessly harder, and is an extraordinarily petty and mean-spirited exercise by the aforementioned, entirely un-Christian religious right.
Omu said:
Yes, Omu, why don’t you tell me what it means to be a real Christian.
but you are a christian my friend, and therefore rational. Zero is an atheist, and, like all other members of the so-called reality based community, is not. There is a spiritual component that is behind this. They are given over to a spiritual darkness….and one day they’ll find out just how terrifying the darkness is.
yeah tell that to the high school in CA that tried to expell some lesbian students, and has been sued…or the doctor in CA who refused to inseminate a lesbian, and was sued…or the photographer in AZ who didn’t want to photograph a gay wedding and was sued..or the church in NJ that didn’t want to give their facilities over to a gay wedding…
yeah harmless my a.. they’re a bunch of brown-shirt fascists (ie typical libs) that want to use gay marriage to end freedom of religion in this country.
right4life, you act as if the US Constitution says we have freedom of religion, or as if it doesn’t explicitly state there is a right to same sex marriage.
Obviously, a right to same sex marriage is in the Constitution, or how else could we diabolical, oppressive, cruel Christians be denying them that right?
Fortunately, the activist, right-wing Supreme Court read a right to the free exercise of religion into the Constitution. Thank goodness for that “living, breathing” document.
With BO going into the Whitehouse and the dems controlling congress, I see more and more persecution of Christians and conservatives down the road. After January I fell that things will really worsen up in a hurry. Didn’t someone yesterday say that this could be the time of the antichrist and we should all be prepared for that. Remember the Hope of Christ, He is coming soon.
I’m so ashamed of being a teacher in California. We are forced to pay $1000 per year in dues and this is where it goes. What in God’s name does this have to do with education, if not propaganda? It chaps my ass even more that the union can take money from our retirement accounts to buy even more propaganda if the dues aren’t enough.
/retch
Harmleth, harmleth, harmleth…
St. Louis Blue – what’s your point? We should consider gays harmful threats to society because of a particular heinous crime a single gay man committed? Hmm, I seem to remember Josef Fritzl (who imprisoned his own daughter underground for 20+ years and repeatedly raped her) was straight. Should straight people be denied children?
I apologise for going to your level (you being an obvious homophobic, hateful, bigoted loser) but it’s the quickest way to make my point.
ZA, the “love” argument is not a good one. Many pet owners dearly love their pets and choose to spend their lives with their them. And that’s fine. But expecting validation anyone else, much less from the government, for such choices should be rejected out of hand.
Of the murders they committed one Manson “family” member said, “You have to have real love in your heart to do this for people.”
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.
Actually, FM, you can’t exclude fertile incest couples who are “in love” in that equation. We don’t bar people from marriage simply out of a concern they the might not produce a healthy child.
purplepeep it isn’t in the states interest. We prohibit many form of relationships by law. The state does not allow activity that is detrimental to the states survival. Same sex marriages fit into that category.
I agree, FM. What I was pointing out is that if someone is for same-sex marriage but claims to be against incest-marriage arguing “they might produce unhealthy children”, the argument is not a valid one. In fact, if that were a criteria for marriage – a couple must produce healthy children – they are making an obviously inherent argument against same-sex marriage.
The whole “it doesn’t matter who loves whom” argument can be emotionally effective at first glance to some, but it’s just not an intellectually sustainable rationale.
The bottom line is when “marriage” means everything, then marriage means nothing.
Slippery slope social consequences apply.
Good line. I’ll remember to use it.
Purplepeep:
Pets can’t file taxes, adopt kids, get hospital visitation rights, etc. because they aren’t human.
Your analogy is a poor one.
If we want to talk about the interest of the state we could simply throw out the convoluted tax laws entirely (replace them with a flat tax or VAT) and most of this would simply be a moot issue.
FamilyMan:
How is your weekend going? I assume you’re having a nice day. Take care of yourself.
Omu:
Probably best to do the same thing you did with rightly4got, a person that uses the word “queef” that often can’t be worth your time.
Your point is ???, ZA.
BTW, I’ve never heard of the government refusing to take money from citizens. But if you know people who are having trouble that way, send ‘em HERE.
Purplepeep:
My point is plainly obvious. Comparing love of pets to romantic love of another human being and equating that with the gay marriage debate is specious at best.
zeroangel what compels you to push your same sex marriage agenda.
Not really, ZA, your argument is based soley on whatever you perceive “love” to mean. You ask 10 people to define it and you’ll get 10 different answers. It certainly has no legal meaning, much less bearing.
Above you modified it from “love” to “romantic love”. Again, try to define that, esp. legally. (And you’ll have no problem finding citizens in “romantic love” with animals!)
ZA, you’re making an argumentum ad populum, an appeal to emotion. Now that’s a specious argument, nothing concrete, which by it’s very nature lends itself to contiuning speciousness.
It’s also the exact same argument made by every “romantic love” (or whatever term) interest group – polygamists, incest couples, group-marriage advocates, and even those into “animal love”.
It’s questions of logic that trip up those who advocate same-sex marriage, e.g. “Why just two people?”. Dealing socratically with such questions leads a person to realize the starting premises offered for same-sex marriage just doesn’t hold up.
Purplepeep:
Argumentum ad populum is “appeal to the people” not “appeal to emotion.”
You obviously don’t have a clue what you are talking about and are trying to sound intelligent.
Nice try.
I doubt I’ll be reading this thread anymore as I have beaten this topic to death in this and the other thread. That, and it’s a waste of time talking to people that don’t understand what they are talking about.
Enjoy yourselves!
Translation: You used the wrong name to describe my own logical fallacy that I can’t refute. But since I can’t refute what you just said I’m going to talk down to you and say ‘good try’ and take my toys and go home.
FamilyMan said:
Probably his deep-seated, irrational antagonism towards religion. In an earlier thread, he complained (in all seriousness) that, since he couldn’t sell cars in NJ on Sundays, that he was being forced by the government to observe the Christian religion. Apparently, everyone who takes Sundays off are Christians, and I guess since I take Saturdays off, then I am a Jew…
As I pointed out earlier, he also claims it is literally “cruel” that same sex couples are not able to file joint tax returns. Don’t believe my take or zeroangel’s take, go to the other thread and read it for yourself.
zeroangel knows that same sex marriage is a thumb in the eye of Christians and other religious people. He even admitted this at first, when he recommended his own solution to the marriage debate, so as to avoid the ensuing conflict with religion. Then, later when I pointed out that SSM (same sex marriage) would ultimately lead to an attack on religious freedom, he then claims that it is nonsense.
He also was trying to make the comparison to interracial marriage. When I demonstrated that that wasn’t a valid comparison, he then claimed that yes it was, but he was going to drop it since we’d never agree. So he then goes on to argue about other things we’ll never agree on.
All this shows is that he hasn’t thought this issue through. When proven wrong, he denies it and moves on to something else.
He obviously doesn’t have some special concern for homosexuals, he thinks of them as “handicapped.” Nor is this about freedom. He just wants to take every opportunity to stick to Christianity. He probably thinks that if America was less religious, it would be more free.
The truth is, atheism/hard secularism fails. It is an inherently weak and selfish philosophy. That is why there are no examples of strong, free, non-religious societies in the history of the world. They either become self-centered, leading to despair and lack of children – which forces them to allow Muslim immigrants to come in and take over (like Europe), or they become dominated by power hungry authoritarians (China, USSR).
EXACTLY
alaskangrizzly said:
Exactly. I wish I was that succinct.
Trollman I’m not a religious man. I only oppose same sex marriages because it will destroy our culture. I see the world as a dualistic theology. What people like zeroangel who is an atheist don’t understand is they have arrived at their world view with same dualistic constraints as a religious person has. They fear religion and it restrictions but don’t see the restrictions of atheism.
FamilyMan, just to be clear, I don’t oppose SSM because of religious beliefs. There are a lot of things that the Bible says are wrong, yet I have no desire to make into law. I don’t think (as a practical matter, if nothing else) that gay sex should be outlawed, for example.
It is a similar thing with abortion. Like SSM, there is nothing inherently religious about being against abortion. It is common sense; it is about what makes for a strong society.
In the other thread, I proved to zeroangel that marriage wasn’t (solely, anyway) a religious institution as much as a social institution. That is why there have been legal laws concerning marriage across all cultural and religious boundaries. Of course, earlier in this thread, zeroangel goes right back to saying it is a religious institution. Some people are not willing to be taught.
ZA, if you were to check a bit you would see where you err in going by a lieral translation of a Latin term:
“Appeal to Popularity
(argumentum ad populum)
Definition:
A proposition is held to be true because it is widely held to be true or is held to be true by some (usually superior) sector of the population.
This fallacy is sometimes also called the “Appeal to Emotion” because emotional appeals often sway the population as a whole.”
“Appeal to Emotion (argumentum ad populum)
In a more general fashion, the appeal to emotion relies upon emotively charged language to arouse strong feelings that may lead an audience to accept its conclusion”
Just two examples, but even a minimal Googling will yield up more if you wanna confirm it. Acually the appeal to emotion can involve quite a few “argumentum ad”s.
Ya can trust me the nomenclature used in logic.
I felt no need to attack or insult you, ZA. But you may have self-illustrated the emotionally-based nature of your argument there. It seems you ended up full circle from the starting point, to toss in some more Latin stuff: from non sequitur to non sequitur.
Yeah, that would be another debunked emotional canard, TM. I think Harry Jaffa addressed the “it’s just like blacks/slavery/etc” line well in a 1990 book where he wrote:
“Nature and reason tell us that a Negro is a human being, and is not to be treated like a horse or an ox or a dog, just as they tell us that a Jew is a human being, and is not to be treated as a plague-bearing bacillus. But with the very same voice, nature and reason tell us that a man is not a woman, and that sexual friendship is properly between members of opposite sexes, not the same sex.”
He goes on to note:
“There is no argument by which one can condemn slavery that does not at the same time condemn homosexuality. One must abandon the argument against slavery or the argument for homosexuality”
In a more real-life vein, I could introduce someone advocating same-sex marriage via the race card to some black fellows who, after hearing “the ‘gays’ have the same problem you do” line, might beg to differ. Well, it’s more like the same-sex advocate might be begging – to keep his teeth.
Once again, curiosity is my bane.
Alaskan:
I’ve dealt with purplepeep’s bestiality argument before and in this thread. The distinction between man and beast is plainly obvious. A legal civil union with an animal makes no sense because an animal doesn’t have any rights and is not taxed. I am tired of repeating myself.
Trollman:
You are an ass. I don’t know how many times I have repeated on this website that I attend church with my wife and have no problem if she wants to raise kids in her faith. Deep-seated antagonism toward religion, indeed!
Furthermore, I used the phrase “handicapped” in quotes very purposely. I only meant it in the sense that homosexuals would have a hard time reproducing. You very likely understand that and are just trying to undermine me.
It is you that has a deep-seated antagonism toward atheists.
FamilyMan:
I push for things that are just plain right. Calling me a moron isn’t going to dissuade me.
Purplepeep:
Just because you can find a website or textbook that parrots your incorrect definition does not make it correct.
So was it:
The Art site?
http://www.goodart.org/pop.htm
This guy?
http://www.pnl-nlp.org/download/propaganda/page2.htm
Perhaps you started here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=35528&page=8
Or did you get it straight from the book written by Copi and Cohen (not that it matters but isn’t he a lifelong ACLU member?)
Appeal to emotion and appeal to the people are two different things. You can assert all you want to the contrary and it won’t change that fact.
As far as your violent friends whom I suppose like knocking people’s teeth out, they sound like particularly nasty people. Some of the people I usually associate myself with (black, white, green or otherwise) would probably tend to agree that there are similarities between the debates over anti-miscegenation laws and the same-sex marriage debate. Furthermore, the people I know that don’t agree wouldn’t threaten anyone no matter how much they disagreed.
Honestly, I really have better things to do. Have the last word, fellas.
I am a lesbian, and my California relatives (I’m a Texan) are against Prop 8 as I would be if I were there. However, I soundly disagree with taking kids on a “field trip” to a lesbian wedding. I also soundly disagree with any teachers’ association getting involved in politics and campaign funding. If the individuals in the organization wish to contribute, it should be their perogative.
I have never liked the idea of schools being politicized. Politics and other personal beliefs should be left to the parents to guide.
Trollman, I have to disagree with you. Marriage wasn’t a legally recognized social institution until John Calvin helped to start making it so. I’m assuming everyone here knows who Calvin is. He did so through the church, was in his day was a nationalized organization. Being recognized by the church then meant being recognized by the government.
zeroangel said:
Actually, I am an elephant – a Republican, not a Democrat.
zeroangel said:
That doesn’t refute my point. You have repeatedly shown a strong disdain toward religion, with some of your comments toward the Bible, and so forth. Given that you’ve stated your wife’s church teaches that non-Christians can go to heaven, and your, shall we say, “strong distaste” for the Biblical doctrine that only Christians go to heaven, I think that speaks volumes.
zeroangel said:
From your use of it, I figured you meant they were “handicapped” in the sense that something was dysfunctional in them.
zeroangel said:
No, that is not true. Furthermore, I haven’t called you any nasty names. Hating people isn’t my style or my calling.
zeroangel said:
We’ve butted heads many times over many topics. If my memory serves me correctly, you’ve insisted on getting in the last word every single time. It takes a certain level of maturity and confidence in one’s position to be able to walk away.
AniMEL said:
Marriage existed long before there even was a church. In the ancient, pre-Christian world, there already existed legal laws concerning marriage and divorce. That is because marriage is primarily a social institution. Religions often have something to say about it precisely because it is an integral part of human society.
Cultural hegemony, folks. Cultural hegemony.
Sorry, ZA, but I know whereof I speak when it comes to what is termed “logical fallacies”. I’m a relatively seasoned debater – to toot my own horn a bit here – and this in particular is not debatable. My challenge to you would be to query those whom you respect who are knowledgable in the area if you believe the usage is incorrect ( which is certainly your right).
But the fact is that if check online, which is something we can verify individualy/objectively, you will find that it is so. I believe where you are confused is in pure Latin translation. What you don’t understand is how the phraseology is used within the context of debate.
For example, if you were to go by only the literal term “agoraphobia” (Greek) you would assume it is is limited to the “fear of the marketplace”. However, in real practice the meaning is more comprehensive, e.g. a person is terrified of leaving his/her apartmnt.
As I said, you are most welcome to review any pubilcation, online or off. But by way of a beginner’s tutorial you’ll find this to serve as an example:
“Subjectivist Fallacies:
Appeal to Emotion
(Argumentum ad Populum)
This fallacy is the attempt to persuade someone of a conclusion by an appeal to emotion instead of evidence. A person who commits this fallacy is hoping that his listeners will adopt a belief on the basis of a feeling he has instilled in them–outrage, hostility, fear, pity, guilt, or whatever.
More often, however, the appeal is less direct. It may take the form of rhetorical language that is heavily laden with emotive connotations, as in propaganda and other sorts of incendiary political speech.
The fallacy may also take the form of visual images that have a strong emotional impact.”
Tutorial- The Fallacy of Appeal to Emotion
You’ve offered, at best, what are usually called “Urban Legends” as you tried to make a case for same-sex marriage. Again, it’s pure emotionalism, but nothing solid in real llife. It’s to be rejected out of hand by logical persons just as a biblical argument on the issue is to be rejected out of hand by non-Jews and non-Christians.
Again with the insults, ZA? You honestly believe African-American males welcome being equated with those who chooae involvement in homosexual acts? If so, ZA, I sincerely hope you avoid the real world world as much as possible.
Other than being Queen La-queef-uh, what is your point Ubu? That you’ll slur anyone who disagrees with you?
Go put up your pumpkin .
Yup, AniMEL – I think whatever one’s postion on issues touching on homosexuality, you’ve really hit a common thread thread there!
Teach kids to read, to write and do those dang ‘rithmaticks. What they do as adults with what they have learned at home and school is up to them.
Definitely a two thumbs on your point there!
Although I do not want to see the Constitution, Federal or any of the states, take on the business of defining social institutions, it is apparent to me that gay marriage is not a civil rights issue, but a social engineering issue. I don’t care if gays get married, but it is curious that gay groups absolutely refuse the offer of domestic partnerships, even if they are promised full benefits under the law. There is an agenda here that goes beyond marriage and it is disgusting that its plans start with the children and extends to persecution of religion. If it was a purely civil rights issue i could support it, but anyone who believes in freedom of religion (not the fallacy of freedom from religion) and that children should be taught the three r’s in school and allowed to be just children could not possible see any benefits from gay marriage. It is not about civil rights it is about in your face social engineering.
With a Democrat Pres. and a Democrat Congress, you can forget about freedom of choice in education for the foreseeable future.
–
Ignorance, our most costly commodity – paraphrased from Rush Limbaugh.
And one of 642 reasons my children never went to public schools.