Do you live in a "gay state"?

[Treeshepherd]

To graduate HS, you have to write an essay on a great historical homosexual you admire..

Feel free to substantiate that.

As the father of a student in High School right now- in San Francisco- oddly enough my child has never heard of this.

My bad. It was supposed to go into effect in 2012. There was apparently a delay. It should be implemented this year. My daughter is class of 2016.

California Board Of Education Moves To Comply With Gay History Law CBS San Francisco

"California education officials took the first step this week toward complying with a law that requires public schools to include prominent gay people and gay rights’ milestones in the curriculum, "

"It is notable that the law does not include an opt-out option for parents who do not wish to have their children learn about LGBT topics in school."- wiki

As part of the gay curriculum, you'll have to write a report or essay. That's a given. The Fair Education Act forbids pejorative or negative portrayals of gay culture. It follows then that you'll be required to write something that complements the

.

All speculation.

I can only speak from the experience of my child's HS- bigotry towards homosexuals is seen exactly the same as bigotry towards African Americans or Chinese or Jews. The kids simply do not understand attitudes like yours, any more than they can understand the parents who insisted on segregated schools for their kids.

So if you don't elevate 'gay rights' to the level of racial discrimination, you're a bigot? Is that your opinion? What "attitudes like mine" are on par with the attitude that schools should be racially segregated? Is that not hyperbolic? What "attitudes like mine" are the same, as you say, as bigotry toward African Americans, Chinese or Jews? In response to that, I would say that you diminish the struggles of African Americans, Chinese-Americans and Jewish-Americans by elevating what is mostly a lifestyle choice to the same degree of importance.

Personally, I'm a libertarian. I don't care who marries who. I'm not out to deny gays the right to vote. I'm opposed to any anti-gay laws, including DOMA. And I don't believe that gays should be discriminated against, based on their sexual orientation, when applying for government jobs. What I would be opposed to is a future type of affirmative action for gays, with gay quotas at the fire department, or appointing a Supreme Court justice that's openly gay just because we don't have one yet (Justice Kagan not withstanding), or forcing a particular church to administer gay weddings. Or, as we are about to get in California, a mandated curriculum that requires the teaching of a narrow viewpoint and seeks to stifle any alternative views or thoughtful criticism.

 

[Treeshepherd]

So if you don't elevate 'gay rights' to the level of racial discrimination, you're a bigot? Is that your opinion? What "attitudes like mine" are on par with the attitude that schools should be racially segregated? Is that not hyperbolic? What "attitudes like mine" are the same, as you say, as bigotry toward African Americans, Chinese or Jews? In response to that, I would say that you diminish the struggles of African Americans, Chinese-Americans and Jewish-Americans by elevating what is mostly a lifestyle choice to the same degree of importance.

Personally, I'm a libertarian. I don't care who marries who. I'm not out to deny gays the right to vote. I'm opposed to any anti-gay laws, including DOMA. And I don't believe that gays should be discriminated against, based on their sexual orientation, when applying for government jobs. What I would be opposed to is a future type of affirmative action for gays, with gay quotas at the fire department, or appointing a Supreme Court justice that's openly gay just because we don't have one yet (Justice Kagan not withstanding), or forcing a particular church to administer gay weddings. Or, as we are about to get in California, a mandated curriculum that requires the teaching of a narrow viewpoint and seeks to stifle any alternative views or thoughtful criticism.

 

[OKTexas]

It also said that States rights to set marriage policies within their State is unquestionable In fact it's in the summary of the decision about a half dozen times.

You may want to actually read the decision. Because you're missing some rather important parts:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v.
Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area
that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the
States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404.

Windsor V. US

See that 'subject to certain constitutional guarantees part? You know, the part you completely missed. Notice the reference to Loving V. Virginia, where the USSC overturned state marriage laws that violated individual rights? If the States have unquestioning authority to set marriage policy, how then could the court have ever overturned such state laws, as they did in the Loving decision?

Hmmm......something tells me you may have missed something.

Now riddle me this: why is the court citing the fact that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees significant? Answer: because every lower court ruling that overturned gay marriage bans did so on the basis that such bans violated the these constitutional guarantees.

Every. Single. Ruling.

And you ignored it entirely. I doubt the USSC will.

BTW every lower court hasn't overturned bans. Care to try again?

Which might have some relevance if I'd said that every lower court ruling overturned the bans. Instead, I said that every lower court ruling that overturned the bans did so on the basis that such bans violated constitutional guarantees.

Its a nuanced, but significant distinction. Would you care to try again? And remember, the USSC has preserved every single lower court ruling that overturned gay marriage bans. Without exception.

And yet haven't refused cert to the 6th circuit court decision that such bans are constitutional. What does that tell you?

. BTW Loving only dealt with interracial marriage between a man and a woman and is moot in this matter because there is no discrimination in banning same sex marriage, men and women are treated equally.

You miss the point- the Court referenced Loving as an example how State's laws are still subject to Constitutional guarantees.

You claimed that Windsor said that States rights to set marriage policies within their State is unquestionable - but the court very clearly did say that those States rights are not only questionable- it provided an example of one specific case where the court overturned State marriage laws. There are at least two more examples of the Supreme Court overturning State marriage laws.

No one knows how the Supreme Court will rule- but Windsor doesn't say what you want it to say- and doesn't help your cause at all.

What Windsor said is that Federal government cannot deny marriages that States allow.

"What Windsor said is that Federal government cannot deny marriages that States allow."

That is the operative phrase, had NY not recognized the marriage the plaintiff wouldn't have had standing to challenge the IRS ruling.

 

[Syriusly]

So if you don't elevate 'gay rights' to the level of racial discrimination, you're a bigot? .

I never had to 'elevate African American Rights' to Women's Rights or vice versa.

I think my post was very clear

I can only speak from the experience of my child's HS- bigotry towards homosexuals is seen exactly the same as bigotry towards African Americans or Chinese or Jews. The kids simply do not understand attitudes like yours, any more than they can understand the parents who insisted on segregated schools for their kids.

And I feel the same way- bigotry is bigotry.

 

[Syriusly]

Personally, I'm a libertarian. I don't care who marries who. I'm not out to deny gays the right to vote. I'm opposed to any anti-gay laws, including DOMA. And I don't believe that gays should be discriminated against, based on their sexual orientation, when applying for government jobs. What I would be opposed to is a future type of affirmative action for gays, with gay quotas at the fire department, or appointing a Supreme Court justice that's openly gay just because we don't have one yet (Justice Kagan not withstanding), or forcing a particular church to administer gay weddings. Or, as we are about to get in California, a mandated curriculum that requires the teaching of a narrow viewpoint and seeks to stifle any alternative views or thoughtful criticism.

Look most of what you posted here I agree with- sort of.
As far as appointing Justices to the Supreme Court because they represent some particular minority- well that is a political decision and certainly has happened in the past- yet we still have mostly a old Christian white guys club.

No church should- can- or will be forced to marry anyone against its will- no more than any church has ever been forced to marry a black couple.

Now- mandated curriculum- the same could be said about how much of history is presented in California.

Do we portray the Japanese internment camps as a noble defense measure taken during time of war- or do we present them as a portrayal of American rights?

Do we gloss over the history of discrimination against Chinese in California- or do we embrace the history of Chinese in California?

And what about the Civil Rights Movement- do we need to embrace 'alternative views' when it comes to Jim Crow Laws? Thoughtful criticism of desegregation?

Should children be able to write papers in favor of racial segregation or Japanese internment camps or why the Westboro Baptist Church represents American values?

Sure. We shouldn't 'stifle' any students papers.

But have a curriculum that is against bigotry- I am all for that.