Sunday, November 2, 2008
However, we continue to see instances of this very thing taking place.
Fox News reported Saturday that at Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science in Hayward California, a Kindergarten teacher distributed and encouraged her students to sign pledge card published by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network.
Signing the card indicates that the student is "taking a stand for a safe and harassment-free school for all students, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression."
It would be difficult to see how a student could take such a "stand" without there having been some discussion of what sexual orientation or gender identity/expression meant.
Effectively, the issue is that if this lifestyle or orientation is viewed as legitimate, then teachings regarding this lifestyle must also be legitimate.
Additionally, and this is important to note, the discussion of homosexuality is often being raised in the schools not directly via sex education classes (where parents often have the right to review the materials being used) but rather under the banner of safe schools.
On October 28th, the ruling became official when it was published in the Connecticut Law Journal. What follows is a mandatory 10-day period when motions for reconsideration can be filed.
It is assumed that on the week of November 10th (the specific date will be determined by a judge in the New Haven Superior Court), Connecticut will begin marrying Gay and Lesbian couples.
That this court decision has received relatively little attention in the press, or apparently among supporters of traditional marriage, is to some degree an indication of how the battle over Proposition 8 in California may have made supporters of traditional marriage a bit myopic. While the battle in California merits significant attention, it is just a single battle. The war over the definition of marriage rages on along many fronts.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
The AP story indicated that Hallmark was doing this in response to consumer demand. American Greeting, Hallmark's biggest competitor, apparently has no plans to market same-sex wedding cards.
One wonders what Hallmark would do if consumers "demanded" that Hallmark not produce same-sex wedding cards.
Click below to read the full AP story.
Gay Marriage Cards
You can email Hallmark by clicking on the link below
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
“A solid majority of young people under the age of 24 believe that same gender partners should have the right to marry. So the Supreme Court is just one more battle in a war we have already won, be it for the next generation.” (emphasis added)
With the outcome of same-sex marriage in California still to be determined this November by Proposition 8, it would seem clear that the claim of victory is not in reference to legal victory, but rather to having won over the opinions of the coming generation.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Earlier this year, those in favor of traditional marriage were able to place on the November 2008 ballot a measure to amend the California Constitution to include the statement, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This measure, if passed, would be titled the "California Marriage Protection Act." This is proposition 8 on the ballot.
However, taking into account the Supreme Court of California decision in May of this year to allow same-sex marriage, the California Secretary of State gave proposition 8 the label "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couple to Marry," and gave as the first line of the description of the initiative as, "Changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."
Those in favor of traditional marriage felt that this wording was biased and challened the wording in court. Their concern is that with this ballot wording, voters would be less likely to vote in favor of defining marriage as between a man and a woman. On August 8, the Superior Court ruled in favor of the Secretary of State. Although the proponents of the proposition plan to appeal, it is quickly becoming unlikely that the wording will be changed.
To see the official ballot label, click here and scroll down to Proposition 8.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
This law prohibited anyone from marrying in Massachusetts if that marriage would not be recognized in their home state. The state house and senate recently passed this bill to repeal the 1913 law. This bill was unusual in at least two respects:
- most legislation passed in Massachusetts does not take effect for 90 days, giving the voters time to call for a referendum on the bill. This process was circumvented in this case (see http://citizenlink.org/content/A000007917.cfm)
- the bill granted medicaid benefits to same-sex couples in Massachusetts. Because Federal law does not give benefits to same-sex couples, the benefits will be paid from from state funds. (See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/us/01brfs-SAMESEXCOUPL_BRF.html?ref=us)
The Times reported that PG&E was working to form a business advisory council to encourage other California businesses to work toward defeating the initiative.
That businesses are entering this initiative battle is a change from the initiative battle in 2000 in which businesses generally did not participate.
The full story can be found at - http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-briefs30-2008jul30,0,5258899.story
In the case titled In re MARRIAGE CASES, the California Supreme Court concludes that 1) marriage is a fundamental right protected by the state constitution (p. 5), and 2) that marriage is so important it should not be denied to any loving couple (p. 120).
Although many have decried the decision of the Court as the work of a liberal activist court, even a casual reading of the decision uncovers the history of legislative action which granted same-sex couples virtually all the rights of married opposite-sex couples. Given the actions of the legislature, the Court could find no compelling state interest in prohibiting same-sex couples to marry. The legislature laid the groundwork for this decision.
For those opposed to Gay Marriage, their work on an amendment to the California State Constitution becomes that much more critical. If this amendment had been in place prior to the California Supreme Court addressing this current case, the Court’s decision would likely have been different.