The Yes on 1 campaign, the group that opposes same-sex marriage, sent out a blast email yesterday to prepare their followers for the upcoming debates on Question 1. One of the "pointers and messages to remember when calling in" that opponents of equal marriage are supposed to use is this:
If Question 1 fails, homosexual marriage will not become equal to traditional marriage because traditional marriage will be totally eliminated. Marriage will be genderless. It will exist solely for the benefit of adults.
Let's set aside the notion that married couples in Maine have legal obligations to other people or groups as part of their union because they don't.
My concern is that you are not taking your won marriage seriously enough. Did you know that if LD 1020 becomes law you will no longer be married according to the State of Maine? That the property that you and your spouse currently jointly own would be subject to endless amounts of litigation? You will no longer have joint custody of your children, but the courts will have to determine which of you is now the dominant parent? And what of your own parents? They will also be left in some bizarro world of legal limbo!
"Because traditional marriage will be totally eliminated!!!"
These are just some of the consequences that await you should LD 1020 become law. Ones that should not be dismissed lightly.
Are you a member of the "homosexual political elite?" You may be without knowing it.
Please read how Marc Mutty, Campaign Chair of Yes on 1, describes it in a recent blast email:
As you probably know, our opponents have amassed a war chest from the homosexual political elite from nearly every corner of the country to impose their will on Mainers like us. It exceeds our resources by a large margin. They are poised to spend outrageous amounts of money in these final two weeks to do whatever it takes to eliminate traditional marriage completely.
You may not be aware that you are involved in a campaign to "eliminate traditional marriage completely," and I really have to take issue with that: my wife and I have been happily married for over nine years, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let some elitist completely eliminate it.
The notice regards the use of audio clips by S4MM in an ad that I wrote about last night, Give Me a Break. A statement issued by NPR reads:
NPR did not license use of this story or its content, and would certainly not have licensed or permitted it if we had been asked. NPR is a highly respected news organization and does not allow its content to be used by political or advocacy groups. Such use is harmful to the integrity and independence of NPR. NPR does allow - even encourage -- personal, non-commercial use of our content, so long as it is not modified, and not used in a manner that suggests NPR promotes or endorses a cause, idea, Web site, product or service. The use made by Stand for Marriage Maine violated all of these terms.
In the ad, a small portion of the NPR story from 2004 is played, describing how a teacher in Massachusetts - which the ad fails to note teaches sex education - speaks about sexuality to her 8th grade students. It comes from Massachusetts schools weigh gay topics, which examined how public schools in the Bay State were reacting to that state's court ruling allowing same-sex couples to marry.
Mutty's claims that they inadvertently misled viewers is bullshit, of course, since from the same NPR story one finds:
In Massachusetts, local districts have broad discretion when it comes to sex ed, and schools range from this one in Brookline to many others that teach abstinence only to no sex ed at all.
This is exactly what many have said in rebutting the claim from S4MM that "gay marriage" will be taught in Maine's public schools (whatever that means). It further tars the credibility of S4MM in that they ignored this important information from the same story in which they took the quote that forced NPR to file its order.
It is now incumbent on the Maine's news media to fully examine all the claims made by S4MM and Marc Mutty, and to explain to their readers how far they have stretched the truth - and in some cases lied - to promote their cause.
The latest scary ad from Stand for Marriage Maine (S4MM), "Safe Schools," attempts to persuade Mainers that should the so-called people's veto fail, a gay marriage curriculum "would be pushed on our children." To do this the ad cites examples from Massachusetts and California; the first, a book called Who's in a Family, which I addressed here.
The second event that the ad predicts could happen here is the "Safe Schools Curriculum Addressing Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity" - this is so scary that Marc Mutty, in an email, warns again of what it could reap:
Our commercial cites the "Safe Schools Curriculum Addressing Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity" used in the Alameda Unified School District in Alameda, California. The "Safe Schools" curriculum in California, like in Maine and elsewhere, is one where young children are introduced to homosexual relationships at an early age. (emphasis mine)
I called the Alameda Unified School District and spoke to the Interim Assistant Superintendent, Ruben Zepeda, to ask just what it is they're teaching there.
And, as you might expect, it isn't that scary.
First, the program is called the "Caring Schools Community Curriculum," not "Safe Schools etc." Zepeda explained to me that California has a small number of prescribed guidelines for public school districts to follow, and that Alameda added a LGBT component to theirs, at the request of parents of kids in the system. These parents felt that what was defined by the State did not go far enough, Zepeda said.
The "Caring Schools Community Curriculum" was approved by the School Board, over a small but vocal opposition, I was told. You can read about it yourself here.
Let me walk you through what will be taught in Kindergarten. First, the teacher is to make sure that all students are comfortable:
A welcoming class meeting is an introductory lesson to help students understand what makes children feel welcome. And, to discover what the effect is of unwelcoming behavior, such as hurtful teasing, name calling and exclusion.
I've volunteered in the recent past in our the Kindergarten classes of our two older children - our youngest, who some of you know, will be attending next year. If you've never been in a room with 17 five year-olds that are not used to the discipline required in a classroom, you ought to volunteer (and most schools will welcome it!). You would be amazed at how much time is spent on keeping them from touching each other, other things, themselves - that they matriculate knowing certain words by sight, how to use scissors, and not so much glue, is a testament to their teachers (disclaimer - my wife is one).
Alameda requires this lesson of these same kids:
The Lesson:
1.Gather in a circle and introduce "Welcome" Students come with a partner to the circle. Briefly review the class meeting rules. Remind the students that everyone likes to feel welcome and supported at school, whether they are new to the school or not. Also, remind them that no one likes to be teased or called hurtful words.
2. Discuss what it means to feel welcome at school. Explain that the students will talk about times they've felt welcome and the times when their feelings might have been hurt. Point out that this can be a difficult topic to talk about and that you would like the students to focus on listening and responding in a caring way.
•Ask students for examples
3. Discuss what it means to feel unwelcome at school.
• Ask students for examples
Discuss, asking these questions:
• Have any of you ever been new to a classroom, join a team or go to an event where you didn't know anyone?
• What did DJ do or say that made Shakeeta feel unwelcome or "not at home"?
• Has anyone ever seen an iguana? What does it look like? Eat?
• What finally made Shakeeta feel welcome?
Activity:
• Using the writing prompt, "I can help others feel welcome by..." ask students to respond verbally to this.
• Have students return to their desks to draw a welcoming picture.
• Upon completion, bring students back to the circle to share and comment.
• Display pictures around the room or in the hallway.
Summarize the Discussion
Summarize what the students have said about why welcoming a new student is important to the class and school community. Encourage students to notice both new and continuing students who might be playing alone on the playground, and to approach them with a welcoming voice and gesture.
Reflect and Adjourn the Meeting
Have the students briefly discuss how they did today listening and responding in a caring, welcoming way. Adjourn the meeting and have the students return to their seats.
That's it. That is the "indoctrination" required in Alameda, future home of the most gay kids in America. All because Proposition 8 FAILED in their state.
That's right - same-sex couples in California cannot get married anymore, and yet this "curriculum" was approved by the School Board of the city cited in the advertisement from S4MM.
This remarkable email landed in my mailbox this afternoon, from Marc Mutty, spokesman for Stand for Marriage Maine (S4MM).
Its remarkable for the number of lies and half-truths used to promote the fear that the Yes on 1 side hopes will overturn Maine's law that allows same-sex couples to marry.
It begins:
Today marks just four weeks until Election Day and the future of marriage in Maine - and perhaps in the nation - is determined.
It's clear that the central issue around Question 1 is the impact of homosexual marriage on our children and how they will be exposed to such instruction in our schools. Our opponents know they can't win if Mainers know the truth, so they deny, deflect, and distract from this central question.
We won't let them get away with it.
Of course, An Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom (LD 1020), has nothing to do with what is taught in Maine Schools. As David Connerty-Marin, Communications Director for the Department of Education made clear after the Wirthlin ad was released:
The ad is entirely misleading...Here in Maine, our Learning Results standards and education regulations make no reference to the teaching of marriage in any way. So a change in Maine's laws or definition of marriage places no requirements on local districts regarding whether or how they teach about marriage. Such curriculum decisions are strictly local. Before or after passage of the gay marriage law a district could choose to teach about marriage or not, and to teach about it in any way it deemed appropriate. It simply is not governed by state education law.
Mutty continues:
Today, we give Mainers another reason to support Question 1: a powerful new television commercial providing evidence that homosexual relationships are being taught in public schools under the umbrella of the so-called "Safe Schools" curriculum. If Question 1 fails and gay marriage were to be legalized, this is one area of the curriculum where it would be pushed on our children, just as it has been in other states.
There are few things here: despite what Mutty claims, there is no "curriculum" waiting in the wings to be deployed on schools throughout Maine. First, as Connerty-Marin makes plain, local school boards decide whether marriage is to be taught at all, and how. Second, there is no "curriculun" waiting to be deployed at each school, and even if there was, it would still have to receive approval of the aforementioned school boards.
And third, and this is most troubling, it seems as if Mutty is suggesting that it is better to have schools that are not safe places for all children to attend (be they the children of gay parents, or are gay themselves), than to have programs that teach acceptance, tolerance, and respect.
And Mutty is a priest. (My bad) There's more:
Our commercial cites the "Safe Schools Curriculum Addressing Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity" used in the Alameda Unified School District in Alameda, California. The "Safe Schools" curriculum in California, like in Maine and elsewhere, is one where young children are introduced to homosexual relationships at an early age.
S4MM must not think very highly of the intellectual capacity of those that it is trying to persuade, because everyone knows that Alameda is not a town in Maine, and what the good citizens of that East Bay city choose to use in their schools has no relation at all to ours.
And this really gets to the crux of what the ad campaign from S4MM will be about from now until Election Day, four weeks off. Mutty, and Frank Schubert, the man running S4MM's ad campaign, are going to rely on what they think is the ignorance of Maine voters. They think that Mainers are so stupid that they can easily be manipulated by baldfaced lies used to engender irrational fear.
This will be their campaign in a word: FEAR.
And the only way to combat that fear is to tell everyone that you encounter that there is nothing to fear.
As one of our campaign's closest supporters, I'd like to give you a sneak preview of our new TV ad. I wanted you to be one of the first to see it - even before the mainstream media and general public have a chance to view it, because we need your help to air it on TV.
Tomorrow, this ad will begin running in key areas throughout the state. However, we only have the funds to keep this ad on the air for two weeks. We must raise $200,000 this week to keep our ads on the air - or risk going dark during a critical point in the campaign.
Won't you please make a donation to Stand For Marriage Maine today? We urge you to search your heart and pray for guidance on what sacrificial gift you can spare to preserve marriage in this critically important battle.
We need your generous contribution of $500, $100, or $50 today to sustain our advertising campaign to preserve marriage. The stakes could not be higher. If gay marriage activists are able to pull off a victory in Maine, they will be able to trumpet this as a sign that the mood of the country has changed.
Because of the infusion of funds from outside of Maine, the No on Question 1 effort has been on television for three weeks now. Their ads portray homosexual marriage as normal, natural, fair and equitable. The underlying message of their ads, of course, is that if you oppose gay marriage you are a bigot. So please make a generous contribution of $500, $100, or $50 today to keep our ads running.
May God bless you and your family and be with our friends who are working so hard to preserve traditional marriage as God authored it.
Sincerely,
Marc Mutty
Chairman
Stand For Marriage Maine
I'll remind Marc Mutty that without the $160,000 from National Organization for Marriage (a front group of the Mormon Church), the $100,000 from the Romn Catholic Diocese of Portland, the $50,000 from the Knights of Columbus (another Catholic group), the $31,000 from James Dobson's Focus on the Family, and the $1,000 each from the Diocese of Evansville, Indiana and Santa Fe, New Mexico (source), you would NEVER have put your so-called people's veto on the ballot this November.
You have the gall, Sir, to talk about money from away. I can't wait to read through your financial report for the 3rd quarter, which will be available in October.
I've long been bothered by the argument put forth by many that oppose equal marriage for gays and lesbians, that such marriages would construe "special rights" to groups that, one assumes, doesn't deserve them.
I've been bothered that these priests, ministers, rabbis, imams, and others, can argue that homosexuality is a "choice," and as such, not worthy of the same protections afforded to gender and race.
And religion.
Yes, and religion.
To these people of faith, religion is not a "choice," but a calling from God or some other ethereal being. The actual definition of it - faith, a belief that is not based on proof - doesn't work its way into their deliberations about what others might think - because they have "faith" that they are absolutely correct.
Our own Constitution protects these folks whose belief is not based on proof; Amendment I reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I'll guess that none of us have an argument against this - a person ought to be allowed to practice their faith as they personal deem necessary without fear of outside intervention or persecution.
But with this personal protection comes a societal one: that no faith, no matter how many Americans profess to follow it, will NOT be used to coerce or intimidate others.
Religionists are at a crossroads, as either they claim that their own faith is not one of choice or some inexplicable desire within themselves or is a choice. The will of God has moved them, and the rest of us are not to question that. And yet they seem comfortable asserting that homosexuality is a behavior of choice, not one imbued in a person's very being.
Marc Mutty, Executive Chairman of Stand for Marriage Maine (S4MM), the main group behind the people's veto, has this opinion piece in today's SunJournal. In it, he writes:
The fact is, however, no one has any "right" to marry. Repeatedly asserting there is does not create one. Societies have always regulated who could marry. Brothers and sisters cannot legally marry, for example, nor can anyone marry someone underage or marry multiple people.
The courts have indeed recognized that there are rights that are protected, even if they are not specifically mentioned in the constitution. But the reason is that these important rights are rooted in the history and tradition of our nation; it would be unthinkable not to protect them.
Of course, there were no legal objections to inter-familial marriages when our nation was founded, and men take multiple wives in some parts of our nation to this day. The legal age for getting married has been increasing over the years, but LD 1020 doesn't change existing law - that a 16 year old Mainer can get married with parental consent.
One wonders how Mr. Mutty would bristle if the State of Maine passed a law that said his church could no longer exclude divorcees from those that they will marry. Or if the State passed a law that said that synagogues could no longer refuse to marry a Jew to a Gentile.
Mutty and others would be outraged, and well they should - how dare the State intrude on their protected rights.
And how narrow their view that they can't see that their own chosen faith infringes upon the rights of others.
But Marc Mutty, a leader of the group seeking to repeal the law who is on leave from his work at the diocese, said parishioners should know the donated funds were not taken from the collection plate.
"The money is dedicated revenues that were provided by a donor for causes such as these and money from the collection basket or any of those types of things would never be used," he said.
Mutty said he only had limited details regarding the origins of the donation.
"It's my understanding the money was left to the Portland diocese for defending church dogma or policy, that sort of thing. It wasn't specific to this particular issue. Our application to this issue was our choice, but it fell within the general parameters of the donor's request," he said.
What I find intriguing is that the Church would rather fight something that has no direct impact on its parishioners instead of using the money to teach the dogma they are trying to "defend."
DIRIGO BLUE is available as an