Court upholds same-sex teaching to children

Post Reply New Topic

(source)

Before I get to my (perhaps surprising) opinion; This story is somewhat misleading in that it omits certain key facts. These parents who are suing the school are suing over the fact they were not informed before hand, and therefor could not pull there kids out of this class for the said classes (which is something the school is now insisting, despite a possible state law to the contrary, they have no right to do). This is important in that it makes clear they are not trying to censor everyone's access to information they don't like, despite the fact this information is paid for with their own tax money.

Now my opinion on this. First, I don't like the judge spouting his personal political opinions as part of his legal opinion. However, in the total (assuming their is no actual state law to the contrary) he very well may be right. Why? For the simple reason that when California had something like this a while ago the courts were right in ruling against parents groups, and that is nothing in the Constitution speaks of the rights of parents to raise their kids as they like. Sorry. It doesn't. That doesn't mean the Founders would like this sort of thing, it just means they didn't contemplate it. But that, is not a legal argument.

I not sure if I buy the "religious discrimination" argument either. A school cannot reasonably be expected to guard against the possibility of every violation of every religious faith. It just isn't possible. In addition, I tend to agree (with the argument made by Justice Scalia) that the setting of a single standard does not automatically equal a violation of the 1st Ammendment as a matter of law. You would need some active discrimination, such as the silencing of opposing (say, religious) viewpoints. This isn't to say the school is doing a good thing by not giving information to parents, it just means it isn't illegal. In addition, if there is a state law that runs counter to this then there could be an addition issue.

Religion has no place in the public school system. If parents have a religious objection to something taught in public schools, they have two options:

1. Remove their children from the public school system entirely and send them to a religious private school;

2. Take the kids to church and have the church teach them why what they learned in public school is against the tenets of their religion.

I would add a qualification. The first amendment, as written, was never intended to bar religious speech or interpose a "separation" between church and state. In fact, it was intended to guarantee religious liberty. So, in fact, to say "Religion has no place in the public schools," would be in practice, for in would require the schools to engage in unconstitutional conduct such as preventing students from praying in their own time or making religious arguments. Now, I understand this happens right now but believe the Founding Fathers would feel this was a severe violation of the Constitution.

However on the other hand I believe that in this particular case, the violation is not a constitution one because it is not active in nature. Rather, a general program is simply being presented which violates the tenants of a member of the class. I cannot say with absolute certainty there isn't a case for violation of the religious test. Current federal law requires requires "reasonable" measures to be taken. We will see how this proceeds. My feeling is it district court will be upheld.

A second qualification is that, regardless of what some on left may say, the issues surrounding same-sex rights, are not just religious in nature. Any attempt by the state to squelch debate entirely would be a violation of the first amendment of the United States.

I was thinking more in terms of the school curriculum than anything else. Apologies for not being more clear. Students want to engage in their own religious expression, that's fine. But the school itself needs to be neutral on the subject.

I realize that the current interpretation of the constitution in the US is that "Freedom of religion" means "freedom *from* religion", and I don't think that was the intent. However, I live in Canada, where we have no such constitutional declaration. We merely have some vague understanding that the church does not run the state, and the state does not run the church. So we can have things such as a nativity scene on the front lawn of City Hall during Christmas (and a giant Menorah during Hanukkah, and so on), and nobody cares.

So while the US has a 200-foot-high wall of reinforced concrete separating Church and State, we have a chain-link fence. But up here, the Religious Right is part of the political "lunatic fringe" along with the greens, the libertarians, the communists, and the Marijuana Party.



Interesting. I have yet to hear an argument against gay rights or gay marriage that was not religious in nature. We legalized gay marriage up here in Canada a couple of years ago. And all the arguments against it were religious ones.

It is unconstitutional for the school system to act against a particular student's religion. Read the f'cking bill of rights!

Xon, we actually seem to agree on some things in this area and disagree too. That's OK, of course.

The basis for the terms "separation of church and state" is not anything in United States Constitution, Amendment One, but a letter from Thomas Jefferson (who did not attend the Constitutional Convention) to a colleague. The term came into wide use when it was used by Hugo Black in an important church-state case.

There is, of course, major debates, not only in the United States but around the world on judicial interpretation.

The exact language of the First Amendment...



I need to be honest. I do not believe the courts today subscribe to a "freedom from religion" dogma (that word sounds a bit nasty, but I just couldn't think of another word). In fact, they are probably better on religious freedom issues then they used to be (of course, this varies from court to court). The majority of the court subscribes to the "separation of church and state" dogma, with certain pragmatic exemptions (although it is debatable whether you can call them exemptions or not). Exemptions would be things like military chaplains, congressional chaplains, paintings with religious symbolizations in court buildings (older paintings and monuments fair far better then recent ones), ect...

The words "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" were not intended to banish all religious manners from government completely. It was intended to do away with any possibility of a national church. When one studies the debates of the First Amendment, which are readily available, one will discover that the two opposing sides were debating two options which neither side considered to be the "separation" regime that the courts so readily imposed today. They voted on a compromise, which was made the current Amendment. Indeed, the First Amendment did not even prevent the state's from establishing their own official religions, which several did for a short time. I, of course, do not endorse such action, and such an action has been fortunately prevented by further amendment.

For the history of the proposals, debates, and the history of the various constitutional interpretations of all of the articles and amendments of the United States Constitution I personally recommend The Heritage Guide to The United States Constitution, edited by former Attorney General Ed Meese, which I admit is put out by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative group.



I agree. Unlike many conservatives I oppose school prayer, if led by teachers (I also have situational reservations about student led prayer), although I do not think it violates the constitution.

ahayes, you and I disagree on this; but Xenon is Canadian, the Bill of Rights doesn't legally apply to him, and it is presumptuous to assume he is familiar with it (although he very well may be).

I thought he was referring to MY schools system. I guess one cannot expect too much from Canada.

this wasn't right...but are the parents right for such choices?


i mean 50 years ago anything outside of endogamy would cause headlines and make parents freak out. why should we protect people's prejudices today?

If any group is to make these types of choices in terms of culture and education it would be the parents would it not? By most regards the children are their children more so than belonging to any other group.

Why do we disrupt it today? The issue in my mind is not one of protection but rather of disruption, if this were simply appropriately telling children that homosexuals do not become werewolves or something of that nature then there would be no problem in my mind as teachers would simply be giving facts, but this is a purposeful intervention into our culture by a government entity and bereft of the need to do so. It can also be noted that many years ago evolution would send people up the walls in most schools too, the difference between the 2 is obvious though, evolution is a scientific theory in biology and most issues on homosexuality, especially those being addressed at such a young age are cultural/moral issues. I simply think that in terms of most moral/cultural issues that schools should walk on eggshells and avoid most political controversy, this does not appear to be walking on eggshells and it is promoting a stance on an issue that is at the heart of much controversy for many Americans. I do not argue that the view promoted by the state is right or wrong, that is not so much my concern as what I see to be an infringement of parental rights to a good extent.

yeah...because the integration of schools wasn't the government intervening in "culture."


point being there's a lot of credible science, not to mention evidence in nature, that homosexuality is a naturally occuring instance and not just some pervert's choice. and if you read the article, it's talking about religion. religions also have their own creation stories...so evolution shouldn't be taught either...by your standards.

and as i see it, the state should have more right to infringe on parental rights. but then again, i come from new orleans...a place where most parenting sucks and they cut off the schools from actually helping and parenting kids who need it. so i tend to think the whole "leave parenting to the parents" thing is bullspit.

oh yeah....it also doesn't hurt that i have a much better historical context for my viewpoint.

The Brown decision is a separate discussion from what we are dealing with now. Unless you are attempting justify Brown merely as some sort of government fiat rather then a constitutional decision. For the record, I personally feel the Brown Court had a strong constitutional case to make to justify it's actions, but they declined for some reason to make it and we have paid for it ever since.



The article was biased. I personally do not believe that elementary school students need to be given a lesson in sexual politics, or should be careful on issues that are actively being debated nationwide. In other words, no, I don't think a public school should be teaching that two men or two women are as normal as one man and one women. The schools mostly don't teach about traditionally families anyway.

I don't think the schools should simply spout my agenda, nor my opponent's agenda. Yes, I think the school's should teach about the theory of evolution. Why? Because it is the accepted scientific standard. I don't think school's should be showing Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," however (some have, and it's now being mandated in Britain) because that is political propaganda.



What does this mean? Does this mean they shouldn't be able to home-school or send their kid to a private school?

you missed my point in this response. what i was talking about was how AG was saying that the homophobia expressed by the parents is cultural. my point is that up until about 50 years ago, segregation was also cultural...and in some mainstream sects, religiously mandated and justified. the brown decision forced a change in the culture and said the culture was wrong. similarly, i think that the culture of homophobia and sexual repression is wrong.




my point was that homosexuality is scientifically natural and there's no reason why the topic should be avoided in school. do you think parents should be notified if evolution is taught in school? do you think that kids should not be taught scientific fact if the parents cry out against it?

but again...you're going on your own personal agenda instead of what i put on the page. i guess i'll play along.

but before we go any further on this....define elementary school....how old are these kids? or an easier one for me to relate to: what grade are they in?







flip-floppin worse than kerry, man. :p (sorry, had to lighten the mood a little)






that comment...i guess it's something more that is better experienced than described. i'm not against home-schooling or private schools....i went to private school. catholic school, actually. then i left for public school because private school sucked and there was too much politics and ignorant garbage.

the comment was more with regards to lower income families that put their kids in public school but doesn't allow the public school to help the kids. again....it's easier experienced than described.

Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?

Public education is a waste of money the same money invested in the stock market would give these kids alot cash at 18 to party with.

Let me first clarrify something...

Forgive me. I was poor in my use of words. I don't see why it is necessary for the schools to teach family roles at all.



First off, I conditionally support the AG position as a legal matter (presuming their are no state laws to the contrary). However, I think refusing release information about children's course information is a poor policy, as is refusing to allow for exemptions. I also think judge's ruling only according to their morals rather then the law (such as the Massachusetts Supreme Court's ruling on Civil Unions) is terribly unethical in a country such as our own.

You did not equate Brown and this case in a way that you are comparing racism with homophobia, although perhaps you do think they are comparable. I do not think it was Brown that so much changed the culture in the South but the terrible images of Blacks being beaten and attacked by police during peaceful marches. Brown probably actually temporarily intensified opposition to desegregation.



How would you define homophobia? You you define opposition to same-sex marriage as homophobia and civil unions by default? What is "sexual repression?"



Why should it be taught as some sort of specific subject at all? Maybe it needs to be, but why does some agenda need to be attached to it?



Probably not. Although if a district wants to do that I don't see a problem.



I never suggested such a thing. However many things are subject to intense debate in this country. Here are some particulars of this case (yes, I am aware of the slant of the source):



(source link)

Apparently there is something in the Massachusetts code called "The Opt-Out prevision." Included in this previous is discussion regarding "human sexual issues." Honestly, it is possible that this was intended for discussions of sexual conduct rather then sexuality, however I am not aware of the details of the code.



What is my agenda? Do you have an agenda? Don't we all have agendas?



Kindergarten.