As I was writing the previous blog, I began to really think about how issues like the ones raised by Proposal 8 impact schools. I wondered how much these issues are talked about in a school setting, if at all. While searching around for more information, I came across an article that I found very interesting that seems to answer a few of my own questions.
The California Progress Report had an article titled Schrag: Yes on 8 Campaign Tries to Scare and Mislead Voters into Writing Ban on Same Sex Marriage into California Constitution before the proposal passed. The article describes how the campaign in favor of Proposal 8 ran a TV ad that featured a law professor from Pepperdine University. In the ad, the professor cited a federal appellate court decision in Massachusetts (where gay marriage is legal) which affirms a lower court ruling denying parents of a couple of young children the right to be notified when gay marriage is discussed in their classrooms. This really stands out to me for a few reasons.
First, the court rulings in that case are very interesting. For one of the kids in the case, the court said, "(T)here is no evidence of systemic indoctrination. There is no allegation that Joey was asked to affirm gay marriage."In the case of the other kid, the court ruled that the books were read in his classroom "do not endorse gay marriage or homosexuality, or even address these topics explicitly, but merely describe how other children might come from families that look different from one's own." The object of the books, the court said, was tolerance toward different lifestyles and different kinds of relationships. Further, the court ruled that "Public schools are not obliged to shield individual students from ideas which potentially are religiously offensive, particularly when the school imposes no requirement that the student agree with or affirm those ideas, or even participate in discussions about them. …" I think this is so important because it directly relates to what we talk about in class. During the last class session, we were discussing whether or not controversial topics can be discussed in class. Here, the court ruled that literature that includes issues such as same sex parents do not need to be left out of the classroom. What I liked most was the fact that the court used the words "shield individual students". We should not be shielding students from these issues, and instead, we should be talking about them.
Secondly, the article really pointed out how misleading media can be. The TV ad that this article focuses on talks about these two cases as if the schools were telling the students that they need to agree with gay marriage when in fact, the literature and discussion presented to the students was just increasing awareness of the types of families that students could come from. Of course, advertisements from the other side may have been just as misleading, as most media and propaganda for political events can be. But what this showed me is that as a future teacher, I must pay close attention to the media that I am seeing. It is crucial to not believe every ad, and to really look into what information these ads are presenting.
Overall, I thought that it was interesting to see just how much current events such as Proposal 8 relate to my life as a future teacher. To me, the article represents what obstacles I may face as a teacher. The court cases mentioned occurred because students were introduced to diversity and their parents were outraged by it. Balancing providing students with awareness of the world around them with respecting their home life and possible "shielding" from parents will be a constant struggle that as teachers, we must deal with on a daily basis.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
proposal 8 and schools
In class today, we mentioned Proposal 8 and how it may be an important issue when we start discussing GLBT issues in class. I wanted to research the proposal so I was at least a little bit informed when that time came. What I found was surprising.
First, Proposal 8 changed the California Constitution in order to eliminate the right of same sex couples to marry. This means that the only recognizable, and therefore valid, marriage is that of a man and a woman.
The biggest trouble I have with this idea is that I find it hard to determine who can give validity to someone's relationship. The fact that the love felt between a homosexual couple is the same love that a heterosexual couple shares, but it can not be recognized is very unfair. Additionally, if we have a separation of church and state, and religiously marriage is considered the union of a male and female, why should that religious belief be what dictates the lives of people?
Looking at the very foundation of our country, one would think that freedom and equality would be upheld in all aspects of the constitution today. However, banning gay marriage, and in turn deeming the marriage between same sex couples as invalid, is hardly equal.
It seems as if Proposal 8 gives two different sets of rules- one set for heterosexual couples, and then another, very unfortunate set, for heterosexual couples. This is unfair, and unequal.
I am very disappointed to learn that ban-gay-marriage amendments were approved in Arizona and Florida as well. But most shocking to me is that Arkansas voters approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents. I feel as if this is even more important than banning gay marriage. The right to have the union between two people recognized is as right that everyone should have. Take the actual ceremony of marriage out of the picture, gay couples should still have rights as a union, such as health care benefits, etc. They should also be allowed to adopt children. The fact that voters feel as if they have the right to tell a same sex couple that they are not "qualified" to raise a child is absurd and offensive. I started to think about what this means to me as a teacher. Students hear the news, or others talk about the news, and what are the children of same sex parents now going to think? How is one of my future students who may come from this type of family going to feel knowing that America's voters took away these rights from same sex couples?
First, Proposal 8 changed the California Constitution in order to eliminate the right of same sex couples to marry. This means that the only recognizable, and therefore valid, marriage is that of a man and a woman.
The biggest trouble I have with this idea is that I find it hard to determine who can give validity to someone's relationship. The fact that the love felt between a homosexual couple is the same love that a heterosexual couple shares, but it can not be recognized is very unfair. Additionally, if we have a separation of church and state, and religiously marriage is considered the union of a male and female, why should that religious belief be what dictates the lives of people?
Looking at the very foundation of our country, one would think that freedom and equality would be upheld in all aspects of the constitution today. However, banning gay marriage, and in turn deeming the marriage between same sex couples as invalid, is hardly equal.
It seems as if Proposal 8 gives two different sets of rules- one set for heterosexual couples, and then another, very unfortunate set, for heterosexual couples. This is unfair, and unequal.
I am very disappointed to learn that ban-gay-marriage amendments were approved in Arizona and Florida as well. But most shocking to me is that Arkansas voters approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents. I feel as if this is even more important than banning gay marriage. The right to have the union between two people recognized is as right that everyone should have. Take the actual ceremony of marriage out of the picture, gay couples should still have rights as a union, such as health care benefits, etc. They should also be allowed to adopt children. The fact that voters feel as if they have the right to tell a same sex couple that they are not "qualified" to raise a child is absurd and offensive. I started to think about what this means to me as a teacher. Students hear the news, or others talk about the news, and what are the children of same sex parents now going to think? How is one of my future students who may come from this type of family going to feel knowing that America's voters took away these rights from same sex couples?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)