Mike Spence penned the commentary below for the Flash Report (www.FlashReport.org). He is a long-time friend, involved in politics, and an elected school board member in West Covina.
I am copying his commentary here in full, as it is essential this truth get out.
My school district will teach gay marriage and Jack O’Connell knows it!
If Proposition 8 fails, my school district will teach gay marriage and Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell knows it!
Of course, school board members like me, some teachers, and some parents will resist this type of instruction. But like the Borg in the Star Trek Series, the law, education code, judges and pro-gay marriage groups will eventually force their "tolerant" view of gay marriage on all children in public schools.
This is how it will work in California public schools:
Education Code section 51933 makes it clear that schools that teach "comprehensive sex education" have to teach, "respect for marriage and committed relationships". This is something no school district can get around.
It is the choice of school districts whether or not they teach sex education. This is why the Anti- Proposition 8 campaign and Jack O'Connell say there is no requirement to teach about marriage.
What Jack O'Connell knows but doesn't say is that 96% of school districts teach comprehensive sex education. Those numbers are from O'Connell's California Department of Education. 96% must teach respect for marriage.
The only way out is to end sex education programs in all these school districts. That is something that just won't happen. Look at the outcry that takes place when boards try to emphasize more abstinence. The same groups against Proposition 8 strongly support sex education in our schools. As does O'Connell. They along with the education establishment that created sex education will fight anyone that tries to abolish it.
As you can see, Jack O'Connell saying that Proposition 8 doesn't affect children in schools is like saying the Governor's proposed sales tax hike won't affect people, because there is no mandate that they buy products covered by the sales tax.
But it isn't just sex education that's affected. Look at last year's California Association of Teachers of English Conference. One workshop was entitled "Reading and Writing Beyond the Closet: LGBTQ Inclusion in the English Classroom". (For those new to the acronyms it is Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, Trans-gendered, and Questioning). The 2009 conference has a whole strand on the topic.
Teen fiction, elementary school reading books, and history are all fair game. Over ten years ago, the leaders of the West Covina teachers union sued me because I tried to stop a workshop for middle school teachers called "Out of The Closet, Into The Classroom".
Passage of SB 777, which expanded discrimination law to include ANYTHING that might discriminate on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, or a classification in hate crime statutes, also impacts every aspect of educational activities.
This was before the debate about Proposition 8.
In their decision on the marriage case, the State Supreme Court found that by its very nature, limiting marriage to that between a man and a woman is discrimination based on sexual orientation.
How is a teacher, parent, or school board member going to overcome the Supreme Court, State law, and the educational establishment?
That brings us to opt-out provisions in California law. The very fact that Anti-Proposition 8 folks cite the opt-out provision should be a wake-up call that gay marriage will be taught and they know it. Otherwise, why bring up opt-out provisions?
The opt-out provision is very narrow in California and is limited to "sexually explicit content" that describes the functions of reproductive organs. That's it. Some have pointed out that two children from the infamous first grade class field trip to a same-sex marriage didn't go. They didn't go because it was an off-campus trip and permission is needed to leave campus. Had the marriage been done on the school campus, parents would not need to be notified nor allowed to opt-out.
You don't have to believe me. Believe the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR). NCLR has given $300,000 to the No on Prop 8 campaign and its Executive Director is on the No on 8 Steering Committee. Their legal analysis, LGBT Legal Issues for School Attorneys, says:
"State law explicitly provides that 'instruction or materials that discuss gender, sexual orientation, or family life and do not discuss human reproductive organs and their functions' is not subject to the parental notice and opt-out laws. California Education Code § 51932(b)." (Pg.31)
There is no opt-out for gay marriage and the legal and educational establishment dedicated to using existing law to force it on public schools.When you see the advertisements with Jack O'Connell saying that Proposition 8 is not going to lead to gay marriage being taught in schools, he is either a fool or trying to fool you and that is shameful.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Pray for San Francisco
Yes, you read that right. Pray for San Francisco.
Voters in San Francisco will be deciding on Proposition K - a measure tha forbids local authorities from investigating, arresting or prosecuting anyone for selling sex.
That's right - they are voting to decriminalize prostitution.
A news article points out, "The ballot question technically would not legalize prostitution since state law still prohibits it, but the measure would eliminate the power of local law enforcement officials to go after prostitutes."
They still could, as police officers are certified by the State, but they often are subject to career-threatening political pressure as well.
To their credit, at least according to the article, "much of the political establishment" is opposing Prop. K.
This is not an issue of being "sexually liberal" or "liberated." People who have an emotionally healthy upbringing do not sell their bodies. More often, these are the abused and/or the addicts. They need help, not to be told or encouraged that what they are doing is just an expression of their sexuality.
Isn't it sad that what the world says is liberation actually leads to bondage?
When I first read this, my first reaction was, "Typical San Francisco. Let 'em do whateve they want..." It was my wife who brought up that we should post this and encourage everyone to pray for San Francisco.
All those people are made by our Creator in His image. God loves them. Jesus Christ died for them.
Pray for San Francisco.
Here is the article
Voters in San Francisco will be deciding on Proposition K - a measure tha forbids local authorities from investigating, arresting or prosecuting anyone for selling sex.
That's right - they are voting to decriminalize prostitution.
A news article points out, "The ballot question technically would not legalize prostitution since state law still prohibits it, but the measure would eliminate the power of local law enforcement officials to go after prostitutes."
They still could, as police officers are certified by the State, but they often are subject to career-threatening political pressure as well.
To their credit, at least according to the article, "much of the political establishment" is opposing Prop. K.
This is not an issue of being "sexually liberal" or "liberated." People who have an emotionally healthy upbringing do not sell their bodies. More often, these are the abused and/or the addicts. They need help, not to be told or encouraged that what they are doing is just an expression of their sexuality.
Isn't it sad that what the world says is liberation actually leads to bondage?
When I first read this, my first reaction was, "Typical San Francisco. Let 'em do whateve they want..." It was my wife who brought up that we should post this and encourage everyone to pray for San Francisco.
All those people are made by our Creator in His image. God loves them. Jesus Christ died for them.
Pray for San Francisco.
Here is the article
Interesting Facts
Our local paper, the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, in endorsing against Prop. 8, began its editorial, "Who gets to define marriage?" It then goes on to say that the proposition "redefines" marriage by stating "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
But the opening question is a good one. Who gets to define marriage?
Answer: We, the People, do.
And we did.
This is from http://www.marriagewatch.org/:
On March 7, 2000, the people of California voted on Proposition 22, a proposal to enact a state "Defense of Marriage Act" as an initiative statute. The text of Prop 22 reads:
“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Proposition 22 was ratified by an overwhelming majority of California voters, prevailing by a 23-point margin. Statewide, 4,618,673 votes were cast in favor of the proposition, comprising 61.4% of the total vote. Opponents garnered 2,909,370 votes, for 38.6% of the vote.
Final vote counts revealed that Proposition 22 won in 52 of California's 58 counties, including all of the major metropolitan areas except for San Francisco. The six counties which did not approve Prop. 22 were all in the immediate San Francisco Bay area, including: Alameda county, Marin county, San Francisco county, Santa Cruz county, Sonoma county, and Yolo county.
Interesting facts, aren't they?
It's telling to me that those favoring actually redefining marriage as something other than being between a man and a woman have never tried to put their idea before a vote of the people. Instead, they fight it through the courts until they find the right handful of judges. They know that they are attempting to redefine the very basis of our society (and virtually every society for that matter), and that the people do not support them. Their only alternative this relatively small group has (reference the 6 counties out of 52 above) is to force this upon us.
Who gets to define marriage?
We do.
Vote Yes on Proposition 8.
But the opening question is a good one. Who gets to define marriage?
Answer: We, the People, do.
And we did.
This is from http://www.marriagewatch.org/:
On March 7, 2000, the people of California voted on Proposition 22, a proposal to enact a state "Defense of Marriage Act" as an initiative statute. The text of Prop 22 reads:
“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Proposition 22 was ratified by an overwhelming majority of California voters, prevailing by a 23-point margin. Statewide, 4,618,673 votes were cast in favor of the proposition, comprising 61.4% of the total vote. Opponents garnered 2,909,370 votes, for 38.6% of the vote.
Final vote counts revealed that Proposition 22 won in 52 of California's 58 counties, including all of the major metropolitan areas except for San Francisco. The six counties which did not approve Prop. 22 were all in the immediate San Francisco Bay area, including: Alameda county, Marin county, San Francisco county, Santa Cruz county, Sonoma county, and Yolo county.
Interesting facts, aren't they?
It's telling to me that those favoring actually redefining marriage as something other than being between a man and a woman have never tried to put their idea before a vote of the people. Instead, they fight it through the courts until they find the right handful of judges. They know that they are attempting to redefine the very basis of our society (and virtually every society for that matter), and that the people do not support them. Their only alternative this relatively small group has (reference the 6 counties out of 52 above) is to force this upon us.
Who gets to define marriage?
We do.
Vote Yes on Proposition 8.
Senator Tom McClintock on the Propositions
Prop. 1A High Speed Rail Bond. NO: This is the most outrageously expensive boondoggle in California’s long history of outrageously expensive boondoggles. The ultimate cost of this project could end up exceeding $90 billion – or $10,000 per family – all for a train that goes from Los Angeles to San Francisco in two hours longer than it takes to fly. It’s brought to you by the same folks who botched Boston’s “Big Dig.” (I’m one of the official opponents of this measure.)
Prop. 2 Farm Animals. NO: Sorry, but farm animals are food, not friends. Plan on somewhat happier cows and much higher grocery bills if this one passes.
Prop. 3 Hospital Bond. NO: Here’s a rather cynical measure that uses children as a front in order to lavish taxpayer funds on private hospital corporations.
Prop. 4 Parental Notification. YES: Parents must give written consent before their teenage daughters use a tanning booth or get their ears pierced. This measure simply requires them to be notified if their daughter is having an abortion.
Prop.5 Non-violent drug offenses. NO: The fatal flaw in this otherwise decent measure would allow criminals to use their drug offense for leniency for other non-drug-related crimes.
Prop. 6 Police and Law Enforcement Funding. YES: This is a tough call. My favorite provision is prohibiting the release on bail of illegal aliens charged with violent crimes. Its principal purpose is to lock up an increasing portion of the state budget for local law enforcement. Law enforcement should be government’s top priority, but I don’t like auto-pilot spending or using state resources for local programs. I also don’t like its weakening of the hearsay rule. On balance I think it does more good than harm, but it’s a very mixed bag.
Prop.7 Renewable Energy Subsidies. NO: This will send electricity prices through the roof. It requires the most expensive energy generation to comprise 20 percent of our electricity needs. Government should get out of the way and let simple economics determine the mix of energy generation in this state.
Prop. 8 Defense of Marriage Act. YES: Marriage is a unique institution in which a man and a woman summon a child into the world – creating a unique tapestry of responsibilities. Our marriage laws are designed to support those responsibilities and are simply inapplicable to any other kindof relationship. Lincoln asked, “If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? The answer is four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.” And calling a homosexual partnership a marriage doesn’t make it one.
Prop. 9 Parole Reform. YES: This requires the victim to be considered when a suspect’s bail is being set or a criminal’s parole is being determined. About bloody time.
Prop 10 Fuel Subsidies. NO: This $5 billion bond will cost taxpayers $10 billion with interest to subsidize “alternative fuel vehicles” and “renewable energy.” I’m all for alternative fuel vehicles and renewable energy as long as the consumers who want them pay for them. But don’t reach into my pocket to pay for somebody else’s choice.
Prop 11 Redistricting. YES: This should be the all-time no brainer: voters should choose their politicians and not the other way around. This measure takes redistricting out of the hands of the legislature, removing an obvious conflict of interest.
P
rop 12 Veterans Bond Act. YES: This is a self-liquidating bond (meaning taxpayers aren’t on the hook) to assist veterans with home purchases. The state has done this for many years and it has never cost taxpayers a dime. I co-authored this one.
Prop. 2 Farm Animals. NO: Sorry, but farm animals are food, not friends. Plan on somewhat happier cows and much higher grocery bills if this one passes.
Prop. 3 Hospital Bond. NO: Here’s a rather cynical measure that uses children as a front in order to lavish taxpayer funds on private hospital corporations.
Prop. 4 Parental Notification. YES: Parents must give written consent before their teenage daughters use a tanning booth or get their ears pierced. This measure simply requires them to be notified if their daughter is having an abortion.
Prop.5 Non-violent drug offenses. NO: The fatal flaw in this otherwise decent measure would allow criminals to use their drug offense for leniency for other non-drug-related crimes.
Prop. 6 Police and Law Enforcement Funding. YES: This is a tough call. My favorite provision is prohibiting the release on bail of illegal aliens charged with violent crimes. Its principal purpose is to lock up an increasing portion of the state budget for local law enforcement. Law enforcement should be government’s top priority, but I don’t like auto-pilot spending or using state resources for local programs. I also don’t like its weakening of the hearsay rule. On balance I think it does more good than harm, but it’s a very mixed bag.
Prop.7 Renewable Energy Subsidies. NO: This will send electricity prices through the roof. It requires the most expensive energy generation to comprise 20 percent of our electricity needs. Government should get out of the way and let simple economics determine the mix of energy generation in this state.
Prop. 8 Defense of Marriage Act. YES: Marriage is a unique institution in which a man and a woman summon a child into the world – creating a unique tapestry of responsibilities. Our marriage laws are designed to support those responsibilities and are simply inapplicable to any other kindof relationship. Lincoln asked, “If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? The answer is four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.” And calling a homosexual partnership a marriage doesn’t make it one.
Prop. 9 Parole Reform. YES: This requires the victim to be considered when a suspect’s bail is being set or a criminal’s parole is being determined. About bloody time.
Prop 10 Fuel Subsidies. NO: This $5 billion bond will cost taxpayers $10 billion with interest to subsidize “alternative fuel vehicles” and “renewable energy.” I’m all for alternative fuel vehicles and renewable energy as long as the consumers who want them pay for them. But don’t reach into my pocket to pay for somebody else’s choice.
Prop 11 Redistricting. YES: This should be the all-time no brainer: voters should choose their politicians and not the other way around. This measure takes redistricting out of the hands of the legislature, removing an obvious conflict of interest.
P
rop 12 Veterans Bond Act. YES: This is a self-liquidating bond (meaning taxpayers aren’t on the hook) to assist veterans with home purchases. The state has done this for many years and it has never cost taxpayers a dime. I co-authored this one.
CA Teacher Union gives $1 MILLION to No on 8
Yup, that's right - the CTA, the teachers union in California this week gave $1 million to No on
Prop 8. What does that have to do with education, you ask? Good question...
Here is an excerpt from a commentary on this from State Senator Dick Ackerman:
During the prolonged state budget battle that finally ended a few weeks ago, the state's largest teachers union, the California Teachers Association, was spitting fire about supposed spending cuts for education.
CTA spent a lot of money on ads urging voters to pressure lawmakers into giving more money to schools and teachers and focused attention on programs that would be "killed off" unless the union got the funding levels it sought.
Despite CTA's heavy lobbying, the state's fiscal reality – a record $16 billion shortfall – resulted in K-14 schools receiving over $58 billion in 2008-09 budget, a $1.5 billion increase over the prior year despite reduced school enrollment.
CTA, unhappy that Democrats failed to produce an additional $3 billion the union had lobbied for, vowed revenge – not so much on fiscally prudent Republicans who refused to increase the budget deficit, but on Democrats the union thought it had in its pocket.
Based on CTA's screams about how the budget decimated teachers, classrooms, and schools, you'd think the union would be spending every dollar it has trying to make sure all school funding measures – 21 of them – pass Nov. 4.
Surely, with all its shrieking about schools needing more money, CTA is spending the bulk of the dues it collects from school teachers, librarians, and administrators to support these local school funding efforts.
Well, not exactly.
CTA just made a huge contribution, $1 million, to oppose Proposition 8, the state constitutional gay marriage ban. And, that's in addition to an earlier $250,000 contribution to the No on Prop. 8 campaign.
In addition, CTA has spent at least $450,000 opposing Prop. 4, which would require parents be informed before their minors receive an abortion. CTA also has contributed generously to other non-school-related ballot measures, like supporting a bond that provides for children's hospitals (Prop. 3) and opposing anti-crime measures (Props. 6 and 9).
At the same time, CTA has reported spending only $50,000 of the $4 million it has received in support of local school funding ballot measures.
CTA President David Sanchez has called the union's $1 million contribution against Prop. 8 "a pittance," but those school districts facing cutbacks, layoffs, and disintegrating school facilities would see support at that level as priceless, especially since many local measures may fail from lack of funds to promote voter approval.
He goes on to write:
When CTA spokeswoman Sandra Jackson said of Prop. 8, "We don't think this … is in the best interests of California, and it's certainly not in the best interests of public schools," she should have been talking about CTA's involvement in issues that have very little to do with education.
However, CTA's large spending to oppose Prop 8, coupled with reports of 5- and 6-year-old schoolchildren going on a field trip Oct. 11 to witness their female teacher's marriage to another woman, may create more support for the measure than opposition.
And, that's how it should be when the group that has the greatest education advocacy role in Sacramento forgets its mission – to improve conditions for teaching and learning and to promote the well-being of its members.
CTA's choice to take money from teachers and use it to fund a campaign for a social issue unrelated to its mission is shameful. It is time for CTA to stop throwing money around and focus its attention on representing the priorities of its members.
I would add, It's time for those of you who are teachers to stand up for faith within your union.
Prop 8. What does that have to do with education, you ask? Good question...
Here is an excerpt from a commentary on this from State Senator Dick Ackerman:
During the prolonged state budget battle that finally ended a few weeks ago, the state's largest teachers union, the California Teachers Association, was spitting fire about supposed spending cuts for education.
CTA spent a lot of money on ads urging voters to pressure lawmakers into giving more money to schools and teachers and focused attention on programs that would be "killed off" unless the union got the funding levels it sought.
Despite CTA's heavy lobbying, the state's fiscal reality – a record $16 billion shortfall – resulted in K-14 schools receiving over $58 billion in 2008-09 budget, a $1.5 billion increase over the prior year despite reduced school enrollment.
CTA, unhappy that Democrats failed to produce an additional $3 billion the union had lobbied for, vowed revenge – not so much on fiscally prudent Republicans who refused to increase the budget deficit, but on Democrats the union thought it had in its pocket.
Based on CTA's screams about how the budget decimated teachers, classrooms, and schools, you'd think the union would be spending every dollar it has trying to make sure all school funding measures – 21 of them – pass Nov. 4.
Surely, with all its shrieking about schools needing more money, CTA is spending the bulk of the dues it collects from school teachers, librarians, and administrators to support these local school funding efforts.
Well, not exactly.
CTA just made a huge contribution, $1 million, to oppose Proposition 8, the state constitutional gay marriage ban. And, that's in addition to an earlier $250,000 contribution to the No on Prop. 8 campaign.
In addition, CTA has spent at least $450,000 opposing Prop. 4, which would require parents be informed before their minors receive an abortion. CTA also has contributed generously to other non-school-related ballot measures, like supporting a bond that provides for children's hospitals (Prop. 3) and opposing anti-crime measures (Props. 6 and 9).
At the same time, CTA has reported spending only $50,000 of the $4 million it has received in support of local school funding ballot measures.
CTA President David Sanchez has called the union's $1 million contribution against Prop. 8 "a pittance," but those school districts facing cutbacks, layoffs, and disintegrating school facilities would see support at that level as priceless, especially since many local measures may fail from lack of funds to promote voter approval.
He goes on to write:
When CTA spokeswoman Sandra Jackson said of Prop. 8, "We don't think this … is in the best interests of California, and it's certainly not in the best interests of public schools," she should have been talking about CTA's involvement in issues that have very little to do with education.
However, CTA's large spending to oppose Prop 8, coupled with reports of 5- and 6-year-old schoolchildren going on a field trip Oct. 11 to witness their female teacher's marriage to another woman, may create more support for the measure than opposition.
And, that's how it should be when the group that has the greatest education advocacy role in Sacramento forgets its mission – to improve conditions for teaching and learning and to promote the well-being of its members.
CTA's choice to take money from teachers and use it to fund a campaign for a social issue unrelated to its mission is shameful. It is time for CTA to stop throwing money around and focus its attention on representing the priorities of its members.
I would add, It's time for those of you who are teachers to stand up for faith within your union.
The Presidential Election & Prop 8
It doesn’t take a prophetic word from the Lord to say that Obama is going to win California on election day. But how will this affect Prop 8?
I can see very easily how people at work, trying to leave in time to get to a polling place on their way home but not exactly excited about fighting the rush hour traffic, may hear on the news that Obama has won California (and maybe the whole thing as polls close on the East Coast). So why rush home to vote? It’s already been decided….
Regardless of whether you are excited about Obama winning because he’s your guy, or whether you’re for McCain and you think that’s a real bummer, you can’t throw in the towel and not vote.
In other words, Proposition 8 must be your driver this election. Supporting marriage has to be why you are participating voting. Do not let it pass by without your voice being heard.
It is our right as a society to define marriage as what it is and has always been everywhere, between a man and a woman; it is not the right of the courts to do that on their own.
I can see very easily how people at work, trying to leave in time to get to a polling place on their way home but not exactly excited about fighting the rush hour traffic, may hear on the news that Obama has won California (and maybe the whole thing as polls close on the East Coast). So why rush home to vote? It’s already been decided….
Regardless of whether you are excited about Obama winning because he’s your guy, or whether you’re for McCain and you think that’s a real bummer, you can’t throw in the towel and not vote.
In other words, Proposition 8 must be your driver this election. Supporting marriage has to be why you are participating voting. Do not let it pass by without your voice being heard.
It is our right as a society to define marriage as what it is and has always been everywhere, between a man and a woman; it is not the right of the courts to do that on their own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
