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:

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. . . .

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.

I know, that’s a fairly grandiose title for this post;  the gay marriage debate is about many things.  For one thing, gays want acceptance, and that basic human desire looms large in the discussion.  So does the desire of traditional marriage proponents to uphold the ideal of a family that includes both a father and a mother.

All those important elements aside, I think the crux of the public debate in the coming years will be this question:  In the context of marriage, is sexual preference the same as race? In other words, is opposition to gay marriage the same as opposition to interracial marriage?

Understanding the two principal competing answers to that question is crucial to understanding the nature of the national conversation that is under way right now.