First Graders Taken To San Francisco City Hall For Gay Wedding

[xixxvmcm85]

After reading some of the other links posted on that site, I am thoroughly convinced that California aka “the Left Coast” is truly a bastion of crazy people. Thankfully the Rocky Mountains seem to keep most of them from wandering too far afield…

Hey! Not all of us are crazy!

In all seriousness though, I was shocked when I read those same headlines!.. That was until I read a few different articles from different sources and learned some of the details.

It seems that a group of PARENTS took it on themselves to suggest that the kids be taken on the field trip to city hall (when a load of SSMs were being performed en masse the first day that SSMs were beginning). They were able to convince the principal that the field trip wasn’t about seeing the teacher getting married, but rather to have the kids be a part of “history in the making” so to speak (which in of itself I GUESS to be a some-what virtuous motive).

So far, I haven’t found any information suggesting that parents were coerced into allowing their children to partake in the field trip (and I’m assuming that this “field trip” was no different than say one to the museum where PERMISSION SLIPS had to be filled).

So, as of now, I don’t see any reason to be scandalized.

I do wish, however, that the principal wasn’t so easily swayed and stuck with her initial feeling that “this is highly inappropriate”.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

This is a perfect example of what happens when liberal judges
overturn the people’s will. Unfortunately, this will not be confined
to the east or west coasts if liberal judges are elected in the
SCOTUS. They can overturn what we in Texas have set up as
law, for example, the parental notification laws.

Instead of jumping on the “evil activist judges” bandwagon when the court justices are merely doing their job, I think it would much more conducive to change the protocol of their jobs (i.e. the constitution).

Too much ambiguity leads to what we’re seeing. If you want to make sure that such a thing isn’t forced on your state, help to get the US Constitution amended.

Now before you get too pessimistic saying “oh we’ve tried that before and failed”, understand that opinions change.

Here in CA (I believe it was a few years ago) the electorate tried to amend the state constitution just as they are today (with Prop 8). It failed miserably a few years ago, yet this year support is in the lead!

Otherwise if you don’t have a black-and-white check in the document from which judges produce their rulings, all rulings are going to be cloaked in ambiguity (as they are currently with ludicrous rulings about alleged "abortion rights via the 4th amendment).

 

[JonNC]

Instead of jumping on the “evil activist judges” bandwagon when the court justices are merely doing their job, I think it would much more conducive to change the protocol of their jobs (i.e. the constitution).

Too much ambiguity leads to what we’re seeing. If you want to make sure that such a thing isn’t forced on your state, help to get the US Constitution amended.

I disagree with the notion that the constitution is ambiguous. It is pretty clear what powers the central government has. The document states those powers clearly. What it doesn’t have is everything else. When jurists talk about “evolving societal norms”, or “international norms”, or “a living, evolving document”, that is judicial activism. And that is the problem.

Jon

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I disagree with the notion that the constitution is ambiguous. It is pretty clear what powers the central government has. The document states those powers clearly. What it doesn’t have is everything else. When jurists talk about “evolving societal norms”, or “international norms”, or “a living, evolving document”, that is judicial activism. And that is the problem.

Jon

But that is exactly what the job of the judicial branch is, to interpret laws with respect to the constitution. This is exactly where the ambiguity comes from.

If the constitution is explicit, then obviously rulings will follow suit.

 

[JonNC]

But that is exactly what the job of the judicial branch is, to interpret laws with respect to the constitution. This is exactly where the ambiguity comes from.

If the constitution is explicit, then obviously rulings will follow suit.

Not if jurists have a particular political POV. They are supposed to interpret what is written, not what they want to be written. Originalists generally do a much better job of interpreting what the writers wrote than activists.

Jon

 

[HouseArrest]

That’s just horrifying.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Not if jurists have a particular political POV. They are supposed to interpret what is written, not what they want to be written. Originalists generally do a much better job of interpreting what the writers wrote than activists.

Jon

Yes but things such as Same-Sex Marriage or Abortion were likely unheard of during the time of the constitutional framers so unless we amend the constitution with the changing times, the judges have no choice but to “read inbetween the lines” so to speak (whichever way that may be).

No one can objectively say whether abortion falls under a “right” or “infringement of a right” with what the constitution actually states precisely because the constitution is objectively SILENT on the issue.

ETA: Now I will concede that the court’s decision to even hear a case to begin with is likely slanted by the jurist’s POV. Personally I think there have been many cases where the Supreme Court foolishly accepted to hear a case when they should have just left the decision by the state courts alone.

 

[Laurent_LUG]

This is unbelievable, but apparantly true.

protectmarriage.com/article/first-graders-taken-to-san-francisco-city-hall-for-gay-wedding

This is what awaits all of us if we sit on the sidelines and do nothing.

Do nothing , unless:

ProtectMarriage.com[/URL]]“Taking children out of school for a same-sex wedding is not customary education. This is promoting same-sex marriage and indoctrinating young kids”

A trip without a parents’permission is absolutely not ok !!

I read: indoctrinating ??

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
– Laurent LUG (.@…), october 12, 2008

 

[cyberwolf001]

Of course had this field trip been to some event the Church approved of say the ordination of Catholic Priests it be no big deal right?

Frankly I fail to see the out rage, let them go and see it for themselves.

In RCIA I learned the Catholic Church has nothing against gays, but it’s just Catholics can only marry who Jesus said they could.

So I do not see why there needs to be an amendment on it let each faith marry in accordance to it’s teachings.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Of course had this field trip been to some event the Church approved of say the ordination of Catholic Priests it be no big deal right?

Frankly I fail to see the out rage, let them go and see it for themselves.

In RCIA I learned the Catholic Church has nothing against gays, but it’s just Catholics can only marry who Jesus said they could.

So I do not see why there needs to be an amendment on it let each faith marry in accordance to it’s teachings.

I agree with you (which is why as a Californian voter I’m planning on voting no on Prop 8 unless the proponents can provide me with a compelling reason in light of state interest to vote yes).

I think the scandal however (at least with respect to THIS thread) is about children in a public school attending a wedding as a field trip (no matter the motives) and not about the gay marriage itself.

Personally, I don’t quite see how such an event falls under “actively participating in history”, but so long as children’s parents were given the option to opt out (as is typically done with any field trips) I’ll reserve my disdain.

If I had children in this school, I would at the VERY LEAST insisted on being a chaperon as to see exactly what my children what my children were being a part of, though in all likelihood I would have simply refused to sign the permission slip to begin with.

 

[JonNC]

cyberwolf001;4283607]Of course had this field trip been to some event the Church approved of say the ordination of Catholic Priests it be no big deal right?

People For The American Way would have a group coronary!
But I would oppose this, too, because I don’t see this as a reasonable educational goal for a public school 1st grader class.

Frankly I fail to see the out rage, let them go and see it for themselves.

1st outrage: As a teacher myself, this is in no way a legitimate educational objective for 6 year old public school children.
2nd outrage: As a taxpayer, see outrage #1.
3rd outrage: What is the precedent for taking 6 year olds as a class to any wedding ceremony? Assuming there is none, one might conclude there was another motive (insert your own conclusion here).
4th outrage: They are 6 year olds. Let the parents “let them go and see it for themselves”.

In RCIA I learned the Catholic Church has nothing against gays, but it’s just Catholics can only marry who Jesus said they could.

Same with my Lutheran catechetical training.

Jon

 

[QuietTimes]

I am voting Yes on 8 and I am apalled that the parents condoned and hid under the guise of learning history. That charter school should be reprimanded and shut down.
This is not education this is indoctrination, I cannot accept that this is what is going be happening in all public schools across California.
I see so many parents stand idle as to what is happening. In high schools during April they have a day of silence in honor of showing tolerance for SSA. I just wonder what is next after this.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I am voting Yes on 8 and I am apalled that the parents condoned and hid under the guise of learning history. That charter school should be reprimanded and shut down.
This is not education this is indoctrination, I cannot accept that this is what is going be happening in all public schools across California.
I see so many parents stand idle as to what is happening. In high schools during April they have a day of silence in honor of showing tolerance for SSA. I just wonder what is next after this.

It’s only indoctrination if the parents gave no consent to this. So far there’s no evidence of that having happened (unless of course you’re advocating the state to determine when a parent is allowed to consent to something which obviously would blow up in your face).

 

[QuietTimes]

I am sorry but I don’t agree. I think that education is when children learn for learing sake and this is not it. The parents felt compelled to attend this union because it has been deemed as acceptable. But here is the thing, especially in high school many parents are unaware that this is starting to become part of the curriculum or part of the diverse acceptance of others.
Schools need to ask parents, how is this blowing up in anyones face?

 

[cathopologist]

How is this excursion to a gay wedding beneficial and educational to first graders? What are the teachers and parents who consented to this trip going to tell their children about the “bees and the bees”?

And if they do get to that point, how are they going to explain them the dangers of having anal sex? Explaining heterosexual sex to a child is quite a challenge for most parents, so then what are these parents going to tell their kids that gay couples cannot reproduce?

Worse still, what if your kid asks you, “Daddy/Mommy, isn’t that the place where all my bowels/pee comes out from?”

Luckily, i do not live in America where people have taken the 1st Amendment too far. But this will be my worst case scenario if such a thing were to happen here. I have an inquisitive 2½ year old son myself. Most of all, which responsible parent would allow their child to attend such an abomination of a sacred vow meant for a man and woman? Catholics of America, please do something. Write to your papers, to the TV stations, organize a peace march. Sigh

 

[bpbasilphx]

**The judges decided to overrule the law of the people and basically commit anarchy and just ‘do their own thing’. **

**Activist judges did the same thing in Brown vs Topeka–overruled the “law of the people”.

That’s why at a certain level, they are called “justices”–because they are supposed to do what is JUST.

Some would say that in 2000, activist justices on the Supreme Court did the same thing, giving the election to Bush.**

 

[xixxvmcm85]

**The judges decided to overrule the law of the people and basically commit anarchy and just ‘do their own thing’. **

**Activist judges did the same thing in Brown vs Topeka–overruled the “law of the people”.

That’s why at a certain level, they are called “justices”–because they are supposed to do what is JUST.

Some would say that in 2000, activist justices on the Supreme Court did the same thing, giving the election to Bush.**

This is why I’ve never understood that mantra to “activist judges!”, unless of course ‘activist’ = doing one’s job.

Don’t get me wrong, everyone has the right to disagree with a court’s ruling (hence why there’s usually a dissenting opinion on the court itself) I just think trying to claim that justices are somehow not playing by the rules is downright absurd and does a great harm to those more naive with respect to their trust of the legal system.

As I stated in other posts, if the constitution is utterly silent on an issue, then the courts are left with no other option than to extrapolate as to the most constitutional decision (or if the issue is of minor importance, simply refuse to hear the case to begin with). It’s interesting to note that any decision the courts come to in such cases will result in one group or another on the political spectrum screaming for the justices resignations.

We all know perfectly well that if all the justices were replaced tomorrow with 100% pro-life judges, and Roe V. Wade were to be overturn, the left would be blaming the courts of the same “activism” that the right currently blames them for.

I think true “judicial activism” would be a/some court justices in defiance to an explicit mandate of the constitution rendering a verdict incompatible with such a document (which from my limited knowledge of judicial history hasn’t yet happened).

If we want rights extended to the unborn (no matter how obvious such rights MAY HAVE been to the framers) we should amend the constitution so that it explicitly says so.

Same goes with alleged “marriage rights”.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

How is this excursion to a gay wedding beneficial and educational to first graders? What are the teachers and parents who consented to this trip going to tell their children about the “bees and the bees”?

LOL

And if they do get to that point, how are they going to explain them the dangers of having anal sex? Explaining heterosexual sex to a child is quite a challenge for most parents, so then what are these parents going to tell their kids that gay couples cannot reproduce?

Though I agree that bringing first graders to a wedding as controversial as a Gay wedding (which will obviously raise lots of questions to curious minds), I don’t see there being a need to explain anything sexual. 6 year olds seem perfectly capable of understanding a heterosexual wedding without being taught about “the birds and bees”, so I’m sure a parent (regardless of their opinion about SSM) is able to explain their approval or disapproval of such ceremonies without going into explanation of what is likely to happen after the ceremony between the couple.

I was taught at a very young age that it was inappropriate (as well as sinful) to have a child when not married, whilst not knowing how to impregnante a woman, nor the specifics as to why it’s inappropriate.

Luckily, i do not live in America where people have taken the 1st Amendment too far. But this will be my worst case scenario if such a thing were to happen here. I have an inquisitive 2½ year old son myself. Most of all, which responsible parent would allow their child to attend such an abomination of a sacred vow meant for a man and woman? Catholics of America, please do something. Write to your papers, to the TV stations, organize a peace march. Sigh

I remember skimming the court decision once it was released a few hours after the decision (being a Californian myself) and I don’t remember any appeals to the first amendment. I believe they appealed to the fourteenth, claiming ‘equal protection under the law’ (which I think is a far stretch). Personally I think appeals to the first and fourth would have been sufficient.

Either way, there’s a voter-initiative to be voted on Nov 4 here in California that if passed will amend our state constitution limiting marriage to only one man and one woman, which would obviously reverse the court’s ruling. So far, the initiative has pulled into the lead 47-41%, mostly thanks to TV ads paid for by the LDS Church, the Knights of Columbus, and Focus on the Family.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I am sorry but I don’t agree. I think that education is when children learn for learing sake and this is not it. The parents felt compelled to attend this union because it has been deemed as acceptable. But here is the thing, especially in high school many parents are unaware that this is starting to become part of the curriculum or part of the diverse acceptance of others.

That curriculum however is independent of any SSM law (or lack thereof). Public schools in CA have been leaning towards tolerance of gay relationships even while there was still a law banning SSM. Curricula is determined by school boards (which tend to be, once again, elected officials). So I still don’t see any scandal in this.

If you don’t like the curriculum, vote for a new board, complain to your current board (that is supposed to represent YOU the parent), or take your kids to private school.

Schools need to ask parents, how is this blowing up in anyones face?

Again, I haven’t seen anyone produce any citation that these kids were brought to city hall against the parent’s wills, in fact a few posters here have cited that permission slips were sent out (just like every other “field trip”) and indeed a few parents objected to the excursion. Children of these parents stayed at school that day and continued with their regular schedule.

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

I wonder how the permission slips read? Did they say it was a
“gay” marriage or something to that effect? If so then the parents
who signed for their kids to go have some explaining to do. If I
was a parent there, I would take my child out of the school.