truenorthnewsandcommentary.com

Showing an abundance of caution, the United States Supreme Court has ruled to protect the proceedings of the Proposition 8 discrimination trial in San Francisco, blocking efforts by the trial judge, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn to allow cameras into a

Federal Judge Vaughn Walker

California federal courtroom for the first time.

Less than four weeks ago, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that it was time to begin a pilot project exploring the benefits of broadcasting federal civil trials.   It is somewhat remarkable that the long-protected privacy of California federal courtrooms would become negotiable just weeks before the start of the Proposition 8 discrimination trial.   The Ninth Circuit’s “pilot project” immediately opened the door for Federal Judge Vaughn Walker to take extraordinary legal steps, on New Year’s Eve no less,  to extend the project to include the discrimination suit against Protect Marriage.  With every day, the prosecution of Protect Marriage seems to be led, not just by formidable constitutional attorneys David Boies and Ted Olson, but by Judge Walker as well.  An outraged National Review Online columnist, Ed Whelan, notes that by waiting until New Year’s Eve to make procedural moves to broadcast the Proposition 8 discrimination trial, Judge Walker essentially precluded the public from having any opportunity to oppose it.  In a letter written directly to the Judge, Whelan publicly challenges the motives behind the move:

Last week Sean Hannity jumped on board.  Michelle Malkin is like a pit bull on the subject.  Both understand what Californians  have known for at least the past year, that the key agenda of extreme gay activists in this country is to introduce gay sexuality into the classrooms of our youngest children.     While there are definitely some, who can disagree on gay marriage, it is hard to find anyone who believes or wants children in our public elementary schools confronted with gay sexuality.   Not even many members of the gay community.  Yet it is real,  and it is happening right now in public schools in California, in Massachusetts, and it could happen at any time in your neighborhood school.

This week True North News and Commentary links with The Kitchen Cabinet.  The Cabinet is our new effort to build a coalition of

Obama "Safe Schools" Leader Kevin Jennings

conservative women across the United States and give women a strong voice in government.  The Kitchen Cabinet is generating a petition opposing President Obama’s pro-gay education leader and his agenda in our pubic schools, Kevin Jennings of the SAFE SCHOOLS Program.    Go to thekitchencabinet.us and sign.  Jennings was appointed to run the SAFE SCHOOLS “anti-bullying”  program for the United States Department of Education under pressure by gay donors who helped fuel President Obama’s presidential campaign.   Jennings is one of the biggest, if not the biggest proponents and activists engaged in driving gay education into the public schools.

See unbelievable evidence of it at The Kitchen Cabinet.

President Obama putting  Jennings in charge of SAFE SCHOOLS curriculum  is like putting Wall Street thief Bernie Madoff in charge of the U.S. Treasury.

Last evening’s victory for traditional marriage in Maine echoes loudly across the country and girds up 54% of Californians who have been mistreated, maligned and described as “haters” for an entire year.

One year ago today,  Californians firmly enshrined traditional marriage in their constitution, putting the California Supreme Court in its place.  Yesterday, the people of Maine, by a similar margin, walked to the polls and sent the same message to their state legislature.

The message?  The U.S. Constitution still begins:  We The People.   The people are the only ones in America with the right to make law.  Not courts,  and not legislators who forget whom they represent.  Every time gay marriage has been put to a vote of the people, and that would be THIRTY-ONE times, 31 times the people have rejected it.  Americans are not haters.  They simply do not want to rewrite the history of the world or change the most fundamental building block of society.

In this battle, there has been no more crucial moment than November 4, 2008, and the war that is referred to as California’s Proposition 8.

For some, reflection upon the Proposition 8 political campaign causes shudders up the spine.   Contention was expected.  Open disagreements on California state policy are fair play.  But prior to last year’s election, to be targeted, blacklisted, harassed on the job, fired, vandalized and boycotted — all because, as a matter of conscience, you defended the right of a child to grow up with both a mother and a father – was unimaginable.

The Social Battle Of The Century

To this day, no one has convinced me — not a constitutional lawyer, not a gay activist, not a civil rights advocate, not an angry mob — that the history of mankind should be rewritten to re-define marriage.  If nothing more than the wants of adults were at issue, few would put up a fight.  The challenge the gay community faces is that traditional families, religious communities and their leaders, educators, cultural leaders and a tiny handful of courageous politicians, will not back away from the real consequences to children that are waiting  if marriage laws are erased or re-defined.

The lion’s share of Americans refuse to budge on this point.  The majority of U.S. states have marched to the polls or taken action to protect marriage with actual amendments to their state constitutions.  Including California.  At least 44 states champion traditional marriage in their state laws.   At the same time, national polls indicate that most Americans do not have objections to civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Frankly, it is common practice in government to provide different licensing for different people and needs.  That’s why we have chauffeur’s licenses, motorcycle licenses, and standard driver’s licenses.   No one suggests that there is any discrimination in distinguishing the responsibilities and the needs of each.  School teachers are “certified” to teach particular age groups and cannot be employed in a high school if they are certified only for K-6 education.    This makes sense.   If we ask individuals to be responsible for the instruction and rearing of the nation’s children, we should have expectations and standards.

Only in parenting do we fight for the privilege to behave more sloppily.  Only in creating commitment between people, intended to be permanent, do we seem to act more casually.

Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage has written a masterful and thorough article laying out the high-level strategic battle over traditional versus same-sex marriage in California and across the country.  The piece first appeared in National Review’s August 10 issue.    The Coalition for Marriage and Family has re-published Gallagher’s article here.   Those who have been following the issue will recognize just how spot-on Gallagher’s analysis is, and everyone who cares about the issue should read the entire article.  Here are some “teaser” paragraphs:

The headline on the story about a new CBS News/New York Times survey was interesting: “Poll: Support for Gay Marriage Dips.” How fast and how far had support for gay marriage had to drop before a mainstream-media headline acknowledged it, even as a “dip”?

Here’s the answer: 9 percentage points.

That’s right: In just a few short months, support for gay marriage in this poll plunged 9 percentage points, from its all-time high of 42 percent to 33 percent. . . .

Last Friday, The Los Angeles Times printed an editorial opposing the Alameda Unified School District’s recent  approval of gay curriculum in its Northern California classrooms, kindergarten through 12th grade. 

To me, this came as quite a shock.   Wasn’t it the Los Angeles Times which joined the gaggle of No on 8 advocates who promised voters that ” the issue of gay marriage in California had nothing to do with the schools?”

If you were a witness to the ugly Proposition 8 campaign last Fall, you know that indeed,  the Los Angeles Times and every gay and lesbian campaigner for No on 8 denied that education would be affected by legalizing gay marriage.  Advocates for  traditional marriage laws like myself, were characterized as “haters” when we tried to alert voters that legalizing gay marriage would allow instruction of gay marriage and sexuality in our elementary schools.   So ardent were the attacks on anyone who would dare to make such a “leap,” that it bears reliving:

Gay education IS being strategically, methodically introduced in California classrooms and school libraries (some exampleshere), and a loss on gay marriage has not deterred gay activists.  As a matter of fact, one could make a case that a storm is quietly brewing.  Along with re-grouping for another run at legalizing gay marriage in 2010, key California  school districts are moving to set the stage for new lawsuits.   They may be eying the impending federal lawsuit by constitutional law experts Ted Olson and David Boies.  Success, when the two high-powered legal hitters go to court on July 2nd,could once again silence the voices of California voters and  challenge the state’s marriage amendment.

The Los Angeles Times, a vehement defender of gay rights in California and particularly during the recent Proposition 8 battle, remarkably, came out today opposing the recent effort to introduce gay curriculum in Northern California elementary schools.

You may remember that the Alameda Unified School District, which has celebrated “Coming Out Week” in many of its public schools for sometime, voted to begin introducing gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender concepts in classrooms from kindergarten on up.   Even supporters of gay  marriage have been ambivalent about such a move.   Now the L.A. Times seems to speak for all of us:

The unsigned editorial in today’s L.A. Times is fascinating on several levels.   Key paragraph:

In attempting to discourage taunting of gay students, the Alameda Unified School District turned what should be a basic lesson on treating others kindly into a primer on sexual identity. Its new anti-bullying curriculum for kindergartners through fifth-graders will begin in the fall and focus solely on gay and lesbian issues — as if harassment based on race, religion or failure to wear cool clothes were nonexistent. Parents who might object cannot opt their children out of it. It’s a heavy-handed approach to take with students at a tender age.

. . .

[The district] went too far in adopting a curriculum that introduces topics involving sexuality at an age when most children are ill-equipped to consider them. The new curriculum familiarizes second-graders with the concept of same-sex couples and teaches fourth-graders the words “gay” and “lesbian.” A year later, it calls on the teacher to write the acronym LGBT on the board and ask students the meaning of each letter (it stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, the four main forms of alternative sexual identity).

The district is using a facts-of-life curriculum to impart a Golden Rule lesson: Treat others as you want to be treated. Mean behavior is not OK. This is best taught by creating a school culture that values and rewards kindness and that doesn’t hesitate to discipline bullying.

During last fall’s Propositi0n 8 election anyone who raised this issue was derided as a liar or a fear-monger (not to mention a “hater”).  It will be interesting to see the reaction the Times editorial gets.  So far, the comments to the on-line version are not encouraging.

No one supports bullying children — about their sexuality or anything else.  All children should be taught — at home and at school — the “Golden Rule”  lesson the Times endorses.  But there is no reason to teach elementary school children anything about human sexuality.  Anyone who argues otherwise has some explaining to do about what the real agenda of such education might be.