Supreme Court Will Review DOMA, Prop 8 Challenges

Dec 20, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: EDGE

On December 7, marriage equality proponents heard the news they'd been waiting to hear: that the Supreme Court will review whether the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8 violate the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

Comments
1,281 - 1,300 of 1,477 Comments Last updated Feb 6, 2013

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1302
Jan 30, 2013
 
Wondering wrote:
You shouldn't be agreeing with morons. It reduces your credibility, not that you have much to begin with.
God news, Wondering, he doesn't agree with you.

How's that hunt for a legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry going?
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1303
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
No you don't, I've read your posts. You are clearly for gay marriage. You are clearly for introducing gay literature and discussions to 5 year old elementary school kids whose parents object.
I actually do not care at all about gay marriage per se.
I DO care about the equal protection clause, and I believe that bans on gay marriage violate it.
As for educating people - including children - about homosexuality? I have no objection as long as it is done properly and with respect to the age of the children, with appropriate content, etc. Homosexuality is real, it is part of the world, and thus is a fit and proper subject of study and information in a public school.
You sound just like a Creationist that objects to information about evolution. Tough titty. Homeschool your kids if you have such a problem with objective reality.
NONE OF THIS of course, has ANYTHING to do AT ALL with whether gays should be allowed to marry, or not. Period. That is a separate legal issue altogether.
I see NO legitimate state interest in banning gay marriage. You have repetedly failed to provide one, and thus you have lost this debate - many times over already.
Dismissed.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1304
Jan 30, 2013
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
It could be that we have that in common. You see, I'm not a religious person. I can determine the difference between what is right and what is wrong though. Attempting to force gay literature and class discussion on 5 year old kids in a public school setting is wrong.
HOW is it "wrong" and how are you defining "wrong."

Let me guess, you don't agree with it. so it is therefore "wrong."

If they are showing gay porn to 5 year olds, I would certainly have a problem with that. Just explaining the basic fact that some people are homosexual - how is that a problem, at all?

Describe SPECIFICALLY what your issues are with the curriculum. The fact that it is "gay" information is not a valid objection, it is the expression of personal prejudice.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1305
Jan 30, 2013
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
It could be that we have that in common. You see, I'm not a religious person. I can determine the difference between what is right and what is wrong though. Attempting to force gay literature and class discussion on 5 year old kids in a public school setting is wrong.
If you are talking about a sexual discussion, then I agree with you.

If you are talking about the simple existence of gay people and/or the probability that someone in the class, or one or more of their siblings or parents may be gay, then you make no sense.

In the context of 5 year olds, you don't even need to use the word "gay" to teach that lesson. It's simply a point of fact when you talk about families. One of the most common lessons is for the teacher to tell the kids to draw a picture of their family. Should the teacher then ignore the fact that 1 or 2 little kids draw two mommies or two daddies? What about when those pictures are all posted on the classroom wall and other children ask about them?

You can't shield yourself or your kids from reality.

Whether you like it or not, these people exist and are every bit entitled to the full experience of public school, without intentionally hiding inocuous things because you can't handle them.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1306
Jan 30, 2013
 
Strel wrote:
As for educating people - including children - about homosexuality? I have no objection as long as it is done properly and with respect to the age of the children, with appropriate content, etc.
This is where we disagree. As long as most families object to it, it can't be done properly. All respect for these families must be tossed out. There right to religious freedom without government interference is violated. Face it, there is no educational value in teaching little kids that a prince gets turned on by and marries another prince. Or that daddy decides he prefers men and dumps mommy so he can have his 'buddy' as a roommate.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1307
Jan 30, 2013
 
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are talking about the simple existence of gay people and/or the probability that someone in the class, or one or more of their siblings or parents may be gay, then you make no sense.
In the context of 5 year olds, you don't even need to use the word "gay" to teach that lesson. It's simply a point of fact when you talk about families. One of the most common lessons is for the teacher to tell the kids to draw a picture of their family. Should the teacher then ignore the fact that 1 or 2 little kids draw two mommies or two daddies? What about when those pictures are all posted on the classroom wall and other children ask about them?
You can't shield yourself or your kids from reality.
Nothing wrong with that and there is nothing wrong with answering the questions. Lesson plans that highlight homosexuality isn't the same.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1308
Jan 30, 2013
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
This is where we disagree. As long as most families object to it, it can't be done properly. All respect for these families must be tossed out. There right to religious freedom without government interference is violated. Face it, there is no educational value in teaching little kids that a prince gets turned on by and marries another prince. Or that daddy decides he prefers men and dumps mommy so he can have his 'buddy' as a roommate.
Of course, until you can establish a direct correlation between same sex marriage, and school curricula, your argument is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand. We get it. You are bigoted against homosexuals, and you have no relevant arguement.

Once again, you've only proven that you aren't that bright.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1309
Jan 30, 2013
 
Wondering wrote:
This is where we disagree. As long as most families object to it, it can't be done properly. All respect for these families must be tossed out. There right to religious freedom without government interference is violated. Face it, there is no educational value in teaching little kids that a prince gets turned on by and marries another prince. Or that daddy decides he prefers men and dumps mommy so he can have his 'buddy' as a roommate.
The problem you keep ignoring is that THE COURT RULED AGAINST YOUR ARGUMENTS!!!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1310
Jan 30, 2013
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing wrong with that and there is nothing wrong with answering the questions. Lesson plans that highlight homosexuality isn't the same.
Wondering, the courses are designed to promote tolerance by removing ignorance. Just how does it hurt to admit that homosexuals exist, and some students have two dads or two moms? It is dissemination of fact.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1311
Jan 30, 2013
 
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem you keep ignoring is that THE COURT RULED AGAINST YOUR ARGUMENTS!!!
Oh, they are well aware of that. In fact they frequently cite the court decision against them. It's terribly amusing to watch someone this inept.

“Adam and Steve”

Since: Aug 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1312
Jan 30, 2013
 
I wonder if Wondering is actually related to David Parker. He seems to be obsessed with the case.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1313
Jan 30, 2013
 
Edio wrote:
I wonder if Wondering is actually related to David Parker. He seems to be obsessed with the case.
Never met him. Disgusted by how he was treated though.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1314
Jan 30, 2013
 
Edio wrote:
I wonder if Wondering is actually related to David Parker. He seems to be obsessed with the case.
Not so much the case as what happened. I think the more people that voice their opinion on this story then the more people will be aware off what might be going on in the public schools. If people know what's happening and have no objection I'm fine with that. Those that object should be allowed to opt out of those classes. It's simple. The judge that ruled against the opt-out knew what would happen. The classrooms would be empty on those days.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1315
Jan 30, 2013
 
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem you keep ignoring is that THE COURT RULED AGAINST YOUR ARGUMENTS!!!
They aren't perfect, they make mistakes.

“Adam and Steve”

Since: Aug 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1316
Jan 30, 2013
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so much the case as what happened. I think the more people that voice their opinion on this story then the more people will be aware off what might be going on in the public schools. If people know what's happening and have no objection I'm fine with that. Those that object should be allowed to opt out of those classes. It's simple. The judge that ruled against the opt-out knew what would happen. The classrooms would be empty on those days.
According to Massachusetts law ( http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws... ) if the class is to discuss something that "primarily involves human sexual education or human sexuality issues" then the parent(s) have the right to opt out. But you seem to think that books that include mentioning two moms or two dads, among other non-traditional families; or people that happen to have same-gender attraction ("King and King"), are explicitly or primarily sexual in nature, as if they were comparable to high school appropriate reading such as “The Scarlet Letter” or “Portnoy’s Complain.” They aren’t. These children’s books aren’t indoctrination into gayness or “how-to-have-gay-sex.” They present innocent facts and have nothing to do with “human sexuality.” You seem to want to twist them into some sort of immoral brainwashing material.[Gee. I wonder what Jack and Jill did on that hill! I bet they boinked each other.] I’m sure there are some people that wished that homosexuality did not exist, but that is contrary to fact, and public schools have a responsibility to present facts. I know you (you have stated) "couldn't care less" about children who will eventually discover that they are homosexual. That is unfortunate because disparaging a homosexual child, and/or his/her parents, will have a negative effect on the child’s emotional life. This said, and although I disagree, it is the right of the parent(s) under the law to opt their children out of classes that discuss human sexual activity, contraception, STDs, and all that those discussions involve. And you know that those children’s books under discussion, and same-sex marriage, have nothing to do with that.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1317
Jan 30, 2013
 
Wondering wrote:
They aren't perfect, they make mistakes.
So how did the appeal to the judge's ruling go? where 'mistakes' are rectified.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1318
Jan 30, 2013
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
This is where we disagree. As long as most families object to it, it can't be done properly. All respect for these families must be tossed out. There right to religious freedom without government interference is violated. Face it, there is no educational value in teaching little kids that a prince gets turned on by and marries another prince. Or that daddy decides he prefers men and dumps mommy so he can have his 'buddy' as a roommate.
1. "Most" families don't object to it. That was so five years ago.
2. It's very easy to do it properly, but you have to have a can-do attitude, not negative nelly like you.
3. No, those families must learn to show the respect they would like shown to them. But note that you are using the same language used by the racists when schools were integrated. You sound just like that. And you should be ashamed.
4. Anyone with that severe a religious objection has the right to put their kids into a private school or homeschool. No religious freedom is violated. Religious freedom does not mean you get to use your religion against others in a public forum or school. Nobody else is subject to the tenets of your religion, and you should be thankful for that, because likewise you are not subject to any other religion. THINK.
5. No, nobody should be teaching 5 year olds about getting "turned on" and nobody is doing that. However of course there is value in making children aware that there are gay people in the world. Some of those kids are going to turn out gay. That is a fact. You are doing them a great disservice by not preparing them for that possibility.
6. When kids are properly educated from that age, then when they are teenagers and realize they are gay, they don't panic and hide and eventually marry a woman to hide - so you won't have daddy dumping mommy for another man. That's a win-win.
7. We will not base school policy on prejudice. Period.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1319
Jan 30, 2013
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing wrong with that and there is nothing wrong with answering the questions. Lesson plans that highlight homosexuality isn't the same.


I'm really curious as to what exactly you are imagining will go on in the classroom in this context.

It would be perfectly covered by the type of lesson I described, and I'm sure what is planned is something similar.

Fear is almost always based in ignorance. You are demonstrating that beautifully.

Do you think this is something the teacher will dwell on for weeks and have a test on it?

It's something they can't be afraid to mention, and if there is a "lesson" or more accurately a discussion if we're talking about first grade or kindergarten, then it should be in the context of discussing there are different kinds of families. That covers all the bases - the kids with one mommy and no daddy, the kids who are adopted, the kids who have gay parents - everyone is made to feel that it's a non-issue, that all families are different and they're all fine.

If you're afraid of that, there's something wrong with you.(and the burden is on you to put your kids into a religious school.)

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1320
Jan 30, 2013
 
Edio wrote:
<quoted text>
According to Massachusetts law ( http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws... ) if the class is to discuss something that "primarily involves human sexual education or human sexuality issues" then the parent(s) have the right to opt out. But you seem to think that books that include mentioning two moms or two dads, among other non-traditional families; or people that happen to have same-gender attraction ("King and King"), are explicitly or primarily sexual in nature, as if they were comparable to high school appropriate reading such as “The Scarlet Letter” or “Portnoy’s Complain.” They aren’t. These children’s books aren’t indoctrination into gayness or “how-to-have-gay-sex.” They present innocent facts and have nothing to do with “human sexuality.” You seem to want to twist them into some sort of immoral brainwashing material.[Gee. I wonder what Jack and Jill did on that hill! I bet they boinked each other.] I’m sure there are some people that wished that homosexuality did not exist, but that is contrary to fact, and public schools have a responsibility to present facts. I know you (you have stated) "couldn't care less" about children who will eventually discover that they are homosexual. That is unfortunate because disparaging a homosexual child, and/or his/her parents, will have a negative effect on the child’s emotional life. This said, and although I disagree, it is the right of the parent(s) under the law to opt their children out of classes that discuss human sexual activity, contraception, STDs, and all that those discussions involve. And you know that those children’s books under discussion, and same-sex marriage, have nothing to do with that.
I just had a horrible thought: do people like wondering teach their kids about something sexual when they talk about "mommies & daddies?" Because they seem to think any discussion of two adults who love each other involves sex.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1321
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
This is where we disagree. As long as most families object to it, it can't be done properly. All respect for these families must be tossed out. There right to religious freedom without government interference is violated. Face it, there is no educational value in teaching little kids that a prince gets turned on by and marries another prince. Or that daddy decides he prefers men and dumps mommy so he can have his 'buddy' as a roommate.
The argument that it can't be "done properly" because "most people" don't like it is nonsense. First of all, you hardly speak for most people. In fact you are losing the debate in the marketplace of ideas out there.

Don't we like local control of schools in this country? Should it then not be left up to local school boards, accountable to their constituents?

Isn't that what happened? Seems to me the system is working as intended, people like you just got outvoted.

Oh, and no particular family's wishes, mores and preferences have to be respected by school boards. See above.

Face it, you are one of the only ones here that sees no educational value in the information, because you are a bigot with an irrational fear and hatred of homosexuality.

It is valuable because homosexuality is fact of life, and has always been. Now, in this time and place, they can live in unprecedented freedom - which is exactly what this country is supposed to be about.

Maybe you should consider living somewhere less free and more...traditional.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••