If you ask the typical gay activist if he or she wants to “indoctrinate” children in the wonderfulness of homosexuality, you’ll get a horrified look and an indignant, “that’s just right-wing propaganda!” I’d almost but it, until I come across stories such as this one from the San Francisco Chronicle:
A group of San Francisco first-graders took an unusual field trip to City Hall on Friday to toss rose petals on their just-married lesbian teacher – putting the public school children at the center of a fierce election battle over the fate of same-sex marriage.
The 18 Creative Arts Charter School students took a Muni bus and walked a block at noon to toss rose petals and blow bubbles on their just-married teacher Erin Carder and her wife Kerri McCoy, giggling and squealing as they mobbed their teacher with hugs.
Mayor Gavin Newsom, a friend of a friend, officiated.
“She’s such a dedicated teacher,” said the school’s interim director Liz Jaroslow.
But there was a question of justifying the field trip academically. Jaroflow decided she could.
“It really is what we call a teachable moment,” Jaroflow said, noting the historic significance of same-sex marriage and related civil rights issues. “I think I’m well within the parameters.” [Emphasis added.]
Nope, no indoctrination going on here. Just good old fashioned teaching about the glories of homosexuality. At least one student, whose parental units used her as a kewpie doll to campaign against the ballot proposition to ban gay marriage, voiced her first-grade opinion of the nuptials, and found it very good:
Carder’s students said they were happy to see their new teacher married.
“She’s a really nice teacher. She’s the best,” said 6-year-old Chava Novogrodsky-Godt, wearing a “No on 8” button on her shirt. “I want her to have a good wedding.”
Chava’s mothers said they are getting married in two weeks.
The whole thing just leaves one speechless.
(Via Five Feet of Fury.)
The Reformed Pastor 
October 12, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Pray for California, pray for the Church.
October 14, 2008 at 11:35 am
Every child who attended had a permission form signed by their parent or guardian. The field trip itself was organized by a parent. Two parents did not sign the permission form and their kids stayed behind at the school in one of the other first grade classes. I suppose details like that are best left unmentioned, eh? Especially since they would completely derail your argument about “indoctrination.” Unless you’re arguing that parents should not have the right to decide what, how, and when (or even if) parents should have the final say about what their kids learn about gay marriage, and that such decisions should be left to busybodies and fusspots.
Those kids already have parents, they don’t need you.
October 14, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Their parents’ gave them permission slips to attend a lesbian wedding as a school field trip that the principal characterized as a “teachable moment”? Oh, then that’s OK. It is San Francisco, after all. I guess they need to learn the facts of life in the world’s gayest city young, don’t they?
Why do I get the feeling that you’re one of those people who is adamantly opposed to conservative (and especially Christian) parents having really serious input into their children’s education?
Oh, and one other question–when was the last time a school field trip was taken to a heterosexual wedding in San Francisco?
October 14, 2008 at 5:02 pm
ROFL. The parents actually signed permission slips and you think I’m against parents having really serious input into their children’s education? LOL What a ridiculous statement.
As for my desire to have parents have serious input into their children’s education, when I was teaching High School, I met with parents nearly every evening of the week every year I taught in order to insure they were informed about a) what I was doing in the classroom, and b) how their child was performing. I sent out regular emails and also kept in phone contact with them at every opportunity. The district, by the way, was in one of the most conservative districts in the state. And I was, apparently, so opposed to parents having really serious input into their children’s education that parents would come and see me to discuss their kids at teacher conferences even when I wasn’t teaching their kids anymore! Oh, and I was awarded “Most Influential Educator” teaching awards (nominated by the students) every year I taught. So spare me your stupid bigoted assumptions. I’m gay, therefore I must not want parents involved with their kids public education. That’s the definition of a stereotype, and clearly it’s wrong. You can apologize now.
The parents were given a choice. They gave permission. Period. They’re the parents, not you. (Fortunately for their children!) If they didn’t want their children to go, they didn’t have to give permission, and two did not. Those kids were not punished in any way, but spent time in another 1st grade class, doing whatever those kids did in class. I’m glad the parents gave their permission, and I’m glad that those who didn’t were given the choice not to.
Sounds like you’re the one who doesn’t want parents wishes respected. You’re against the kids going even if the parents gave permission. Now who is the one who is adamantly opposed to parents having serious input into their children’s education? That would be you. Clearly that’s why you neglected to even present the facts about the permission slips.
BTW, as for “indoctrination” I don’t know about these kids, but by the time I was their age, I’d probably been to at least a dozen weddings, all of them straight, and dozens more in the following years. It didn’t make me straight. Going to one gay wedding isn’t going to “indoctrinate” these kids into being gay.
Give it a rest. Don’t you busybodies have something better to fuss over, instead of interfering in other people’s lives? I suggest getting a hobby.
October 14, 2008 at 7:49 pm
People have said that there should not be prayer in school class rooms because those children who don’t agree to the prayer or have to leave the room will be made to feel embarrassed and I agree. I also agree that the children who had to stay behind in another room had the same feelings. Even worse, they had to miss an outing. Shame on the school and shame on you a teacher who thinks that is alright.
October 14, 2008 at 9:14 pm
ROFL. Yeah, right. I’m sure they’ve been traumatized.
Sorry, I guess I just don’t think children are either as stupid or as fragile as you do, Viola.
BTW, given your grave concern, have you actually asked the children who stayed behind if they were embarrassed, or is that simply lame and completely unfounded, ridiculous speculation on the part of someone who has never met them? I’m going to guess it’s the latter and give your opinion all the consideration it deserves: zero.
Or are you actually arguing that my position that parents should continue to have a say over their children’s education is wrong, Viola? LOL So you’re in favor then of the outing to City Hall, because that’s what their parents gave permission for? Or are you just another busybody who believes that she should have the right to dictate to parents she’s never met about how to raise their children, whom she’s also never met?
I think you should take some advice from the imitable Ann Landers and MYOB.
October 15, 2008 at 4:58 pm
I wonder what the implications would be if a public school teacher in say, Alabama or North Carolina took a group of young children to some Christian evangelism event … with their parents’ permission and allowing for opt-outs.
October 16, 2008 at 8:42 am
Having a public school teacher, in his/her capacity as a teacher, taking kids to a religious event would be problematic, I suspect, from a legal standpoint. This wedding was, as should be obvious to anyone who has read the facts, a civil, not a religious ceremony. So, you’re comparing apples to oranges. I am not sure whether it meets the standards set by the Supreme Court. I am sure, however, that there are those on the left, who would support this field trip, whose heads would explode at the prospect you’ve outlined. I am not one of them. I wouldn’t have a problem with it as long as parents signed permission slips, and as long as those who were left behind were engaged in some sort of educative activity, and not just left to play dodgeball. It isn’t my job to parent other people’s children.
If you’re in favor of such a field trip, what, precisely would be wrong with this wedding field trip?
Consistency … folks really should try it sometime. 😉
BTW, I suspect that Viola would not be in favor of such an idea, because the poor tots who were left behind would be scarred for life. LOL
Also, BTW, the HS where I taught, like many others I know of, had a Bible Club, and there was no problem with that. It met on school grounds, they were free to put up fliers and make announcements on the PA, like any other club. And I assume that, like every other club, it had a faculty sponsor.
October 16, 2008 at 9:08 am
Now who is giving himself whiplash jumping to conclusions? This sentence is the first time you have mentioned that you are gay, so how could that have figured into Pastor David’s argument? You suggest a hobby – I suggest you do something about your anger problem before you develop high blood pressure. (You needn’t bother with sarcasm or flaming me, I have a well used flame proof suit)
October 16, 2008 at 11:20 am
Alan,
I see your point. I may not like the decision these parents made, but it was their decision to make. I suspect that’s not a school I would ever want my kids to attend though.
But I asked my hypothetical question because it seems that it’s more permissible in today’s culture (or at least legally) to take public school children to a same-sex union ceremony than to a Christian event. That has problematic cultural implications as far as I am concerned.
October 16, 2008 at 11:27 am
“I suggest you do something about your anger problem before you develop high blood pressure.”
ROFL. And I wonder, “Now who is giving [herself] whiplash jumping to conclusions?”
I love it when people contradict themselves in one single paragraph, especially when they do so with no hint of irony. But given the inconsistencies displayed in other folks’ comments here, I’m not surprised. So I’ll lead you through this comment thread and why your comment is funny. Pastor David, in fact, was the one jumping to conclusions when he wrote, “Why do I get the feeling that you’re one of those people who is adamantly opposed to conservative (and especially Christian) parents having really serious input into their children’s education?” I simply explained why his assumption was incorrect. Which is when you then jumped to the conclusion that I’m angry, while simultaneously attempting to hypocritically criticize me for jumping to conclusions. LOL
I’m not a bit angry at Pastor David. I’ve never met him, nor anyone else commenting here. I don’t bother getting angry at people I don’t know, have never met, and will likely never meet. Heck, I almost never bother getting angry at people I do know.
Now, instead of discussing distractions like Olympic conclusion jumping and anger management issues, how about we stay on topic and discuss the actual point? My point is simple and I’ll repeat it yet again: Parents, not busybodies, should make these sorts of decisions for their children. That simple point is something that I have, in fact, seen many conservatives say over and over. I find it odd that in this case they’re so inconsistent. I wonder why they’re so inconsistent. I have my own hypotheses, but I’d hate to jump to conclusions. 😉 So, care to comment on my actual point, or shall we continue the off-topic game of who can jump to conclusions faster, father, and/or higher? 😉 Grrrrr! LOL
BTW, my doctor tells me I could do with a little more excitement, as my BP is always on the low side of normal. But thanks for your concern for my health, which I have no doubt is sincere, and not at all sarcastic. 😉
October 16, 2008 at 11:32 am
You didn’t simply explain why he was incorrect, you implied that he held his opinion because you are gay. He couldn’t have, because he had no way of knowing.
October 16, 2008 at 11:34 am
I’ll let Pastor David have a go at the rest of the inconsistencies of your argument….
October 16, 2008 at 11:46 am
There is a larger issues involved, IMO.
What kind of charter schools (which operate like private schools but still receive public funding and presumably oversight) can be operated (I like the idea of charter schools btw)? The Creative Arts Charter School has its particular identity and way of doing things. Would a more “conservative” or evangelical kind of charter school also be allowed? I suspect NOT … because it would have a religious viewpoint.
Now, Alan has said he would not have a problem with students attending a parent-supported Christian event, and I have no reason not to take him at his word. He does not believe in viewpoint discrimination. The problem is that viewpoint discrimination is built into our legal-educational-cultural system, where anything BUT traditional religion can get a hearing in the “public square.” I think Neuhaus got it right in his book “The Naked Public Square.”
My apologies if my comments ramble or seem convoluted. A blog is not the best place to get into thoughtful discussions of the larger culture.
October 16, 2008 at 11:46 am
“I see your point. I may not like the decision these parents made, but it was their decision to make. I suspect that’s not a school I would ever want my kids to attend though.”
Good Lord. Mark the day! Two people with differing views on a blog can see each others’ point! 🙂 Will wonders never cease? 🙂 (j/k)
Seriously though, fortunately, the school in question is a charter school, so we can all be assured that there isn’t a child in that school whose parents didn’t want him or her to attend.
“But I asked my hypothetical question because it seems that it’s more permissible in today’s culture (or at least legally) to take public school children to a same-sex union ceremony than to a Christian event. That has problematic cultural implications as far as I am concerned.”
I think it does indeed have cultural implications on many levels. In addition, I would go further to say that I think it should be equally permissible to take children to non-Christian religious events. Perhaps if students had the chance to see what goes on mosque, for example, we would eventually see a little less of the demonization of Muslims that we’ve seen recently, particularly in this election season, which also has problematic cultural implications, as you may agree.
Or, put more simply, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. 😉
Part of education, I believe, is helping kids figure out where to place their beliefs among the beliefs of others this country. Not to assimilate, but to understand. So, unlike those on the right, I don’t think children are so fragile that they’re going to turn gay by seeing what happens at a civil, legal same-sex marriage ceremony. Unlike those on the left, I don’t think that children are so fragile that they’re going to turn into fundamentalist Christians by seeing what goes on at a Church. And, I believe, as I have now pointed out multiple times, the people in the best position to guide them through these experiences, to teach them their families cultural, religious, and ethical heritage (and how that heritage is unique and important among the other different cultures in this country) are their parents; not busybodies.
Now I would say that is a fairly balanced and reasonable view, and one that I would have hoped that conservatives and liberals would share. Alas, sometimes other things get in the way of reasonableness. I think one can disagree with same-sex marriage and still be consistent in allowing parents to make the decisions for their children to attend this wedding in this particular situation. To do otherwise makes one look foolish at best, or worse, hypocritical, which quite frankly doesn’t do much for our Christian witness in the world. Christians are already often seen as hypocrites, we do not need to reinforce that notion by knee jerk condemnations of every situation with the word “gay” in it.
October 16, 2008 at 11:55 am
“The problem is that viewpoint discrimination is built into our legal-educational-cultural system, where anything BUT traditional religion can get a hearing in the “public square.”
I disagree. In the school at which I did my student teaching, there was a class called “Humanities” which, for about half the year, was essentially a comparative religion course, the other half was essentially an art appreciation course, and an intro to philosophy course. That was in a public school. Though that’s a long ways outside my discipline, I have, however, seen and read plenty about other such classes in other schools.
But, there is a difference between learning about religion, and religious practice. Both are allowed, but in different contexts. Learning about religion can occur and does occur right in the classroom, as with the classes I describe above. Religious practice is also completely allowed, as long as it is non-compulsory. The Bible Club I mentioned before I believe had prayer associated with their meetings. The prayer thing that kids do at the Flagpole every year is allowed, Individual prayer is of course allowed at any time during the day. Moments of silence can be observed. And no one is going to stop a kid from bowing his or her head at the lunchroom table before digging into the daily spam on a shingle.
I think what has happened, unfortunately, is that people have bought into a caricature of what is and is not allowed in schools. Not only conservatives have done this (and I think this misperception is fomented for all sorts of unsavory reasons) but even worse, teachers and school administrators are often woefully uneducated about the legal issues involved. So then, every time a kid gets sent home for wearing a Jesus t-shirt to school, the far right is up in arms, screaming about the evil, commie, godless liberal agenda, when in fact it was the singular action of one moron principal.
October 16, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Alan, you have a point (again!) when you say that “people have bought into a caricature of what is and is not allowed in schools.” But how did that happen? Wasn’t it the “busybodies and fusspots” on the Left that caused this situation by repeatedly resorting to litigation? I mean, consider the infamous Maddow case, where a busybody-fusspot atheist father has crusaded in the courts to remove “under God” from the pledge of allegiance … even though his daughter WANTED to say the Pledge with those words!
And let’s not forget the original busybody-fusspot, Madeline Murray O’Hair.
Actually, I’ve changed my mind. Let’s forget her.
Will any conservative busybody-fusspot be taking the Creative Arts Charter School to court for this incident? I doubt it.
October 16, 2008 at 12:42 pm
“Will any conservative busybody-fusspot be taking the Creative Arts Charter School to court for this incident? I doubt it.”
We’ll see. Maybe, maybe not. Unlike you, I wouldn’t put it someone. But they shouldn’t, as it’s the individual parents right to make such decisions.
As for the Maddow case, I’ll see your stupid liberal lawsuit, and raise you an equally stupid conservative lawsuit: The Thomas More Law Center, a far right law group here in the godless liberal People’s Republic of Ann Arbor filed suit against the school district over the inclusion of sexual orientation among the topics of a Diversity Day at one of the high schools. (Again, kids could opt out of participation if they so chose.) So, no, it isn’t just the left that brings such suits. That’s just one example, there are many more like it.
Now I don’t think Maddow’s daughter was so fragile that she couldn’t have simply opted out of saying the Pledge if she chose to, or simply omitted the words “Under God” if she chose. Clearly her father was one of those busybodies and fusspots on the left who thinks kids are far more stupid and fragile than I do, and who believes that he must force his beliefs on everyone else in order to protect his poor, fragile daughter. I also disagree with the Thomas More Law Center that hearing about sexual orientation during a diversity day is somehow going to scar kids for life, or “indoctrinate” them, or turn them gay. If parents are afraid to expose their kids to that, they can always choose *for their own children* to remove them.
(And I’d point out that it isn’t the fusspots and busybodies on the left who are pushing for constitutional amendments to tell other grown adults who they can and cannot marry. Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t get gay married. But that’s getting past the point of the post, and I don’t want to stray off topic.)
October 16, 2008 at 12:47 pm
[…] THEY’RE ACTUALLY AFTER THE CHILDREN: “If you ask the typical gay activist if he or she wants to “indoctrinate” children in […]
October 16, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Alan,
But we tell adults all the time who they can and cannot marry. An adult cannot marry his or her sibling, for instance, and an adult cannot marry more than one other adult at a time. On these issues, we’re all busybodies and fusspots.
October 16, 2008 at 2:29 pm
And if we were talking about either incest or polygamy we could have a discussion about why those situations are qualitatively different and why it is completely consistent to oppose incest and polygamy and not gay marriage. For example, the recent cases of polygamy with the FLDS in Texas give ample reasons that have nothing to do with gay marriage: child abuse, raising girls for the sole purpose of marrying them off, coercion, etc., etc., etc. Protecting children from child abuse, when their parents are not doing it, is not being a busybody nor a fusspot, as I’m sure you’d agree. A busybody or fusspot, as I have been consistently using the words, is one who interferes in the raising of someone else’s child when that interference is not needed. Let’s not just change definitions here to suit your argument, eh? So, apples and oranges.
However, sticking to the actual topic (sorta), I disagree. We do not tell two unrelated adults who they can or cannot marry, though we have in the past. Fusspots and busybodies tried that once before with anti-miscegenation laws. Didn’t work out so well, actually. Unfortunately the exact same failed and flawed reasoning is being used today regarding gay marriage. That is an apples and apples comparison.
Again, I don’t want to get off topic and take up someone else’s blog with a long discussion about gay marriage, particularly since I’m sure we can both predict before such a discussion even starts that neither of us will have changed our opinion by the time it ends.
October 16, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Alan, I was referring to hypothetical cases where no children would be involved. I mean, seriously, if two siblings want to get married, and don’t intend to have children, and if three or more people want to get married (again without children), why would we stop them under your philosophy of allowing adults to marry other adults?
October 16, 2008 at 2:42 pm
But you’re right, we’ve gotten off topic here.
As Bill O’Reilly would say, you have the last word. 😉
October 16, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Again John, I’m not going to argue against incest nor polygamy here, though there are plenty of good reasons that can be brought to bear that have nothing to do with gay marriage. If people want to argue against gay marriage, I think they would strengthen their case by actually arguing against gay marriage, rather than attempting to make slippery slope arguments, which any first year philosophy undergraduate can tell you, are logical fallacies. Being gay does not lead to polygamy, nor does it lead to incest. In fact, if any relationship can be made between polygamy/incest and monogamous marriage it is that polygamy and incest are far more prevalent in heterosexual marriages (the FLDS were all straight, right?) so if we want to prohibit polygamy and incest, perhaps we should ban straight marriage. 🙂
A stupid argument, eh? Of course, yet the opposite is exactly the reasoning people use regarding gay marriage. So, arguing about polygamy and incest as a proxy for arguing about gay marriage is sort of like arguing about Apple vs. Windows as a proxy for deciding that Fords are better than Chevys.
I’m sure there are those who would assume my disinterest in having an argument about polygamy or incest is some sort of implicit acknowledgement that I cannot do so consistently while supporting gay marriage. Not true. Also, people can Google any number of great webpages that lay out the arguments far more carefully and thoroughly than I could do in a blog comment. Instead, I simply don’t want to take the time defending or refuting arguments that I have no interest in. I am married to one and only one man, and my husband is not my brother/father/uncle. So, quite frankly, I simply don’t care about either argument.
In the same way, I wouldn’t waste my time arguing about whether or not the Whatevers vs. the Whoevers are going to win the World Series. Obviously I don’t even care enough about it to even know which teams are playing. That’s pretty much how I feel about incest/polygamy arguments. It has nothing to do with my life. I have only so many brain cells, and I can’t be bothered to spare any for those arguments. 🙂
Thanks for the rest of the conversation, though.
October 23, 2008 at 7:57 pm
[…] Out for Kids For the second time in two weeks, we have a story out of California regarding what sounds an awful lot like the […]